Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia: Challenges, Practices and International Perspectives 9781474248198, 9781474248228, 9781474248211

Citation preview

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Also available from Bloomsbury: Citizenship Education, Identity and Nationhood, Dean Garratt Citizenship Education in Japan, Edited by Norio Ikeno England’s Citizenship Education Experiment, Lee Jerome Rethinking Citizenship Education, Tristan McCowan Teaching Citizenship Education, Ralph Leighton Forthcoming: Citizenship Education in Conflict-Affected Areas, Bassel Akar Rethinking Youth Citizenship After the Age of Entitlement, Lucas Walsh and Rosalyn Black

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia Challenges, Practices and International Perspectives Edited by Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC Bloomsbury Publishing Plc 50 Bedford Square, London, WC1B 3DP, UK BLOOMSBURY, BLOOMSBURY ACADEMIC and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2017 Paperback edition first published 2018 © Andrew Peterson, Libby Tudball and Contributors, 2017 Andrew Peterson, Libby Tudball and Contributors have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc does not have any control over, or responsibility for, any third-party websites referred to or in this book. All internet addresses given in this book were correct at the time of going to press. The author and publisher regret any inconvenience caused if addresses have changed or sites have ceased to exist, but can accept no responsibility for any such changes. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: 978-1-4742-4819-8 PB: 978-1-3500-6998-5 ePDF: 978-1-4742-4821-1 ePub: 978-1-4742-4820-4 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Peterson, Andrew, 1976- editor. | Tudball, Libby, editor. Title: Civics and citizenship education in Australia : challenges, practices and international perspectives / edited by Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball. Description: London ; New York : Bloomsbury Academic, 2016. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifi ers: LCCN 2016019104 (print) | LCCN 2016032007 (ebook) | ISBN 9781474248198 (hardback) | ISBN 9781474248211 (ePDF) | ISBN 9781474248204 (ePub) | ISBN 9781474248211 (epdf) | ISBN 9781474248204 (epub) Subjects: LCSH: Civics–Study and teaching–Australia. | Citizenship–Study and teaching–Australia. | BISAC: EDUCATION / General. | EDUCATION / Comparative. | POLITICAL SCIENCE / Civics & Citizenship. Classification: LCC LB1584.5.A8 C58 2016 (print) | LCC LB1584.5.A8 (ebook) | DDC 370.11/5–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016019104 Typeset by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd. To find out more about our authors and books visit www.bloomsbury.com and sign up for our newsletters.

A. P. – To my friends in Australia L. T. – To all my citizenship education colleagues across the world

Contents Notes on Contributors Acknowledgements Introduction Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

ix xiii

1

Part One The Context of Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia 1

2

3

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia, 1989–2015 Murray Print

7

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities in the New Civics and Citizenship Curriculum Libby Tudball

23

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship Deborah Henderson

41

Part Two Perspectives and Aims 4

5

6

7

8

9

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights and Perspectives Through Civics and Citizenship Libby Tudball and Peter Anderson

61

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education Libby Tudball

81

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education Lucas Walsh

101

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools Rosalyn Black

119

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education for Diverse Learners Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

133

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship Andrew Peterson and Brendan Bentley

147

10 Making Connections Between Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability Peter Brett

165

viii

Contents

Part Three Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: Comparative Insights 11 Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Canada Mark Evans

189

12 Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from England Ian Davies

207

13 Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from the United States Carole L. Hahn

225

14 Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Hong Kong Kerry J. Kennedy

245

15 Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Singapore Yeow-Tong Chia and Jia Ying Neoh

263

Conclusion Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

279

Index

282

Notes on Contributors Peter Anderson is member of the Walpiri and Murinpatha nations. He is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Australia, where he coordinates the Indigenous education programmes. He is the inaugural chair of the Australian Indigenous Lecturers in Teacher Education Association, a new national peak advisory body on Indigenous matters in Teacher Education and Curriculum. Brendan Bentley is Lecturer in Education at the University of South Australia, Australia. He has been a classroom teacher, an educational project officer, a school principal and university lecturer for the past thirty years. He is a published author and, since 2010, has been researching, teaching and working in the area of values and civics education, mathematics education and cognitive load theory. Brendan has presented his research findings in both Australia and internationally. He is currently a lecturer and a coordinator of the Professional Experience programme at the University of South Australia, Australia. Rosalyn Black is Senior Lecturer in Education at Deakin University, Australia. Her research interests include young people’s experience of citizenship in socially unequal contexts. Her forthcoming books include Rethinking Youth Citizenship After the Age of Entitlement (Bloomsbury, 2017) and Risk, Resilience, Inclusion and Citizenship: Young people's perspectives on digital life (Palgrave, 2017). Peter Brett is Lecturer in Education at the Cradle Coast Campus of the University of Tasmania, Australia. Peter was involved in a number of ways in the launch of citizenship education in England from 2002 to 2008, including being seconded as a continuing professional development consultant to the government’s Department for Education and Skills (2003–2005). He was the editor and lead writer of How All Teachers Can Support Citizenship and Human Rights Education: A Framework for the Development of Competences (2009). He is coeditor of The Social Educator journal.

x

Notes on Contributors

Yeow-Tong Chia is Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney, Australia. His research interests include history education and citizenship education in Singapore and Australia, Chinese history and Chinese Canadian history in Canadian history education, and education and developmental state formation. He is the author of Education, Culture and the Singapore Developmental State: ‘World-Soul’ Lost and Regained? (2015). Ian Davies is Professor, Deputy Head of Department, Director of the Graduate School of Education and Director of the Centre for Research in Education and Social Justice at the University of York, UK. He is the author of numerous books and articles. He has worked for the Council of Europe as an expert in education for democratic citizenship, is a past fellow of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science and is a visiting professor at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. He teaches and supervises undergraduate, MA and PhD students and initial teacher education trainees. He was a teacher in state schools in England for ten years. Mark Evans is Associate Professor, Teaching Stream in the Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning and former Associate Dean, Teacher Education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Canada. His current teaching and research focuses on educating for the global dimension of citizenship, inclusive curriculum and instructional practices in schooling contexts and international dimensions of teacher education. He is involved in a variety of education reform initiatives and research projects locally and internationally. Carole L. Hahn is the Charles Howard Candler Professor of Educational Studies at Emory University in Atlanta, USA. She teaches social studies education and comparative education. Author of books, chapters and articles on comparative civic education, she was the US national research coordinator for the IEA Civic Education Study. She is a recipient of the National Council for the Social Studies’ (NCSS) Jean Dresden Grambs Career Research Award and the Distinguished Global Scholar Award of the International Assembly of NCSS. Deborah Henderson is Associate Professor in the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Australia, where she teaches and supervises undergraduate, MED and PhD students and pre-service teachers. She

Notes on Contributors

xi

was an adviser to the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) on the development of the Australian Curriculum for Civics and Citizenship and the General Capabilities. She was awarded an Australian Learning and Teaching Council Citation for her contributions to student learning in 2009 and an ALTC Teaching Excellence Award in 2010. Kerry Kennedy is Research Chair Professor of Curriculum Studies at the Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong, and Director of the Centre for Governance and Citizenship. He is the series editor for Schools and Schooling in Asia Series and the Asia Europe Education Dialogue Series. He is coeditor of Governance and Citizenship in Asia Series. His most recent book (coedited with Professor Andreas Brunold) is Regional Contexts and Citizenship Education in Asia and Europe (2016). Jia Ying Neoh is a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Education and Social Work at the University of Sydney, Australia. She was previously a primary school teacher in Singapore and was involved in the implementation of Character and Citizenship Education in her school. Her current research examines how schools are implementing the Australian curriculum to support Civics and Citizenship Education. Andrew Peterson is Professor of Education at Canterbury Christ Church University, UK. His research covers civic, history and global learning, as well as the related fields of values education and the connections between schools and their communities. Until the end of 2015 he was Senior Lecturer in History and Civic Education and an ARC DECRA Research Fellow at the University of South Australia, where he is currently an adjunct professor in the School of Education. Murray Print is Professor and Chair of Education, University of Sydney, Australia. He has been chief investigator on many research projects including Values, Policy and Civics Education in the Asia-Pacific Region; Civics Education Assessment and Benchmarking; a major project on youth electoral participation in democracy; and a Volkswagen Shiftung–funded project on competences for democratic citizenship in Europe. In 2011 he was invited to lead the new civics and citizenship curriculum for the Australian Curriculum, completed in 2015. He was awarded the Centenary Medal for his contributions to civic education and the community by the Australian government in 2003.

xii

Notes on Contributors

Libby Tudball is Associate Professor and Director of Undergraduate Programs in the Faculty of Education at Monash University in Victoria, Australia. She is the national president of the Social and Citizenship Education Association of Australia. Lucas Walsh is Associate Professor and Associate Dean (Academic Staff) in the Faculty of Education at Monash University, Australia. He has been invited to advise local, state and federal governments and published widely on young people, citizenship and education. His latest book is Educating Generation Next: Young People, Teachers and Schooling in Transition (2016).

Acknowledgements We have many people to thank for their help in realizing this book. First, we owe much thanks to the colleagues and friends who have contributed to this collection. Without their expertise, support and insights, the book would not have come to fruition. Second, we also need to thank our colleague Anne Morrison for her excellent editing of the text for a number of the chapters. Third, we would like to thank Kasia Figiel and Maria Giovanna Brauzzi – our colleagues at Bloomsbury – for their support throughout the project. Our eternal gratitude to you all.

Introduction Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

This book provides a critical discussion for an international audience of recent history and current developments in civics and citizenship education in Australia. Ensuring that all young Australians develop the knowledge, skills and capacities to be active and informed citizens in their own communities, the nation and the wider world is now a central focus of Australian education policy and curriculum for schools. We know, however, that both ‘citizenship’ and ‘education for citizenship’ are complex and contested terms, which permit multiple interpretations and different practical approaches to the subject in schools. In addition, civics and citizenship as a subject is being introduced in Australia in a particular context, where there has been much historical and contemporary discussion about what it means to be an Australian citizen. Over the timespan of writing this book, the Australian Curriculum itself has been subject to official review and amendment  – a process which we have recognized and responded to within this book. The nature and frequency of curricular change since the introduction of the Australian Curriculum does, of course, impact on how the subject is conceived and planned for by schools and teachers. Implementing civics and citizenship learning, therefore, will be challenging work for teachers and school leaders, particularly as there is no tradition of civics and citizenship being a separate subject and an essential school programme priority, in spite of the previous national project ‘Discovering Democracy’ providing an impetus for a strong focus on citizenship education for all schools. Yet there is evidence from across the nation that many young people are involved in learning about what good citizens do and how they can participate in meaningful engagement with the community, civil society and politics to develop understanding of democratic practice. In this book, leading scholars from around the world reflect on the issues and possibilities raised by the inclusion of civics and citizenship as a subject in the new – and first –

2

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

national Australian Curriculum. Contributors explore exemplars of diverse practice and research which show that citizenship education should be integral to a whole school culture, and should contribute to values-oriented knowledge development, as well as learners’ personal development as reflective, informed and active citizens. The authors in the book provide analyses of theoretical, curricular and pedagogical questions related to civics and citizenship education including: How can civics and citizenship be defined and conceptualized? What teaching and learning approaches can be developed to actively engage students in understanding what it means to be a participatory citizen? How can young people contribute as citizens now and in their future lives ‘to an evolving and healthy democracy that fosters the wellbeing of Australia as a democratic nation’? (ACARA 2016). As well as engaging with theoretical and historical questions of what citizenship and civics and citizenship means, in their analyses, contributors also highlight and discuss a range of approaches and practices fundamental to civics and citizenship. In doing so, they engage critically with the curriculum: its content, inquiry questions and areas for skill development related to the three themes of government and democracy; laws and citizens; and citizenship, diversity and identity. Throughout the chapters in this volume, contributors also explore ways in which a broader understanding of what citizenship involves can be developed through other aspects of the Australian Curriculum, including the three cross-curriculum priorities – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures; Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia; and Sustainability as well as key General Capabilities sitting across the curriculum, including Personal and Social Capability, Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding. The book is divided into three main parts. In Part One (The Context of Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia) Murray Print, Libby Tudball and Deborah Henderson establish the historical, theoretical and contemporary context of teaching civics and citizenship education in Australia. In doing so they engage and critically explore how Australia has arrived at the new subject within the Australian Curriculum; how the subject connects with the general aim of educating for citizenship within Australian schooling; helpful theoretical frameworks for considering the aims, nature and purpose of civics and citizenship; and various practical, pedagogical approaches employed by schools. In Chapter 1, Murray Print argues that the presence of civics and citizenship education in Australia can be characterized as mercurial, with its fortunes ebbing and flowing in response to political ideology, federal election

Introduction

3

outcomes and bureaucratic whim. Print identifies and analyses four periods within this quarter century, each with an emphasis in the way that civics and citizenship was addressed in Australian education policy and school practice: the Challenge (1989–1996); Discovering Democracy (1997–2003); Interregnum (2004–2009); and the Australian Curriculum Civics and Citizenship (2010 onwards). In Chapter 2, Libby Tudball provides an overview and analysis of key theoretical perspectives on citizenship education and their connections to the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum, before exploring pedagogical possibilities for the development of civics and citizenship through core learning concepts in the curriculum and their connections to various theories and practices in schools. In Chapter 3, Deborah Henderson focuses on the practice of actually making citizens through civics and citizenship teaching and learning in Australian schools, analysing a range of pedagogical prerequisites and approaches. In Part Two (Perspectives and Aims) contributors provide a detailed discussion of key perspectives and themes with which civics and citizenship education is concerned. These perspectives and themes lie at the heart of the aims of civics and citizenship education, and connect to other subjects and processes within schools and communities. Indeed, the need for meaningful interconnections is a central strand within all of the chapters. In Chapter 4, Libby Tudball and Peter Anderson explore Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives on civics and citizenship teaching and learning, portraying a range of voices that make intimate connections between citizenship and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories and cultures. In Chapter 5, Libby Tudball explores the ways in which Asia literacy can be built through civics and citizenship education, identifying how the curriculum provides a framework for school practice and for engaging young Australians in Asia literacy with new imaginaries that expand beyond economic concerns. In Chapter 6, Lucas Walsh concentrates on the needs and challenges of including global citizenship as part of civics and citizenship education in Australia. Focusing on the contested nature of global citizenship, he outlines challenges and possibilities for including global perspectives in civics and citizenship education in Australia. In Chapter 7, Rosalyn Black engages with the nature of active citizenship, as well as various practices involved in making active citizens through education. In particular, the chapter centres on how transnational and global citizenship can be integrated within active citizenship curricula which focus on the local community as a primary site for the development of young people’s citizenship values and capacities. In Chapter 8 Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball focus

4

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

their analysis on ways in which civics and citizenship educators can conceive and approach ways to recognise and appreciate cultural pluralism. In Chapter 9, Andrew Peterson and Brendan Bentley discuss some of the challenges and possibilities of connecting religion and values to civics and citizenship education, exploring some pedagogies that can provide useful approaches for engaging students with religious ideas. In Chapter 10, Peter Brett explores links between civics and citizenship education and education for sustainability, outlining a model that provides a basis for connecting sustainability and civics and citizenship. In Part Three (Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: Comparative Insights), leading international scholars provide comparative analyses of civics and citizenship, bringing international expertise and insights to bear on civics and citizenship education in Australia. In these chapters, Mark Evans (Chapter 11), Ian Davies (Chapter 12), Carole L. Hahn (Chapter 13), Kerry Kennedy (Chapter 14) and Jia Ying Neoh and Yeow-Tong Chia (Chapter 15) explore civics and citizenship within the respective contexts of Canada, England, the United States, Hong Kong and Singapore. In doing so, they discuss characterizations of civics and citizenship education, the development of official and school-based standards and approaches, as well as pertinent issues and challenges, and consider the ways in which these may provide some useful considerations for civics and citizenship educators in Australia. While we would not claim that the contents of the book are exhaustive, we do believe that the arguments and viewpoints expressed by leading experts in the field provide an important contribution to scholarship on civics and citizenship education – for both Australia and beyond.

Part One

The Context of Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

1

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia, 1989–2015 Murray Print

Introduction Civics and citizenship education (CCE) has existed within Australian education systems, curricula and schools for more than a century. It played an important role in the early years of the new nation in helping to build a sense of unity and being ‘Australian’ as the new Commonwealth of Australia forged its identity (Thomas 1994; Print 2008). Yet despite a half-century of sustained presence of civic education in school curricula helping build the political cohesiveness and identity of the federated Commonwealth of Australia, civics was not immune to the curricular innovations and vagaries of the 1960s such as the creation of social studies as an integrated subject in school curricula (CEG 1994; Thomas 1994; Print 1999). Subsequently, deliberate education for civic and democratic citizenship was difficult to identify in Australian schools for the next three decades (CEG 1994; Print 1999, 2008). In a country where voting has been compulsory for national government elections for some ninety years, and where the population became increasingly multicultural in nature, with many migrants originally from non-democratic or quasi-democratic countries, this situation was ironic and disingenuous to Australian democracy. So by the late 1980s growing agitation for action to address this dearth became increasingly apparent (Thomas 1994; Print 1999, 2008). However, the focus of this chapter is the most recent period of civics and citizenship education, namely the past quarter century. In that time the presence of civics and citizenship education in Australian education can be characterized as mercurial, its fortunes ebbed and flowed in response to political ideology, federal election outcomes and bureaucratic whim. It is possible to identify four

8

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

periods within this quarter century, each with an emphasis in the way CCE was addressed in Australian education policy and school practice. 1989–1996: The Challenge 1997–2003: Discovering Democracy 2004–2009: Interregnum 2010–2015: The Australian Curriculum Civics and Citizenship The aim of this chapter is to explore the key issues of each period with a view to explaining the key events that forged that period and their subsequent impact on CCE. I will draw on the available research and the literature in the field as well as personal insights from experience as one who participated in most of the key events during these years.

1989–1996: The Challenge Until the 1990s learning civics education, invariably hidden within a subject called social studies or similar, was characterized by studies of ‘government institutions and political processes liberally laced with adages about being a good citizen … taught in a rote, pedantic, and expository manner, with a heavy dependence on a conservative text book’ (Print 2008: 144). Regardless of the need created by post-war migration, which saw a rapid increase in Australia’s population initially from war-torn Europe and later from Asia, civics education received little emphasis in school curricula across Australia (Thomas 1994). The challenge of this period was how to change this approach. By the late 1980s there was growing political support for exploring two key political issues. First, why were so many young Australians apparently ignorant of their system of government? Second, what were the implications of this situation for Australian democracy, compulsory voting as well as education in Australian schools (Davidson 1997)? The influence of Treasurer Paul Keating was also increasingly significant in the late 1980s in a broader political sense, as characterized by his personal preference for an Australian republic; a preference that provided political support to address these questions. The pressure for change from the 1980s manifested itself in two reviews by the Australian Senate that investigated education for active citizenship in Australian schools – Education for Active Citizenship in Australian Schools and Youth Organisations (Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

9

and Training 1989) and Active Citizenship Revisited (1991). While both were informative and stimulating in their investigation, neither made any significant impact on the policies or practices of the various governments of the day, typifying the mercurial nature of the earlier period. Nevertheless, together with the formulation of an accepted government direction for Australian education, The Hobart Declaration: Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia (Australian Council for Education 1989), which similarly made negligible impact in civics education, the Senate reviews, through the issues and suggestions raised, contributed substantially to the foundations for future change. A few years later, and sensing a change in the Australian people’s attitudes towards a future republic, then Prime Minister Paul Keating formed the Civics Expert Group (CEG) early in 1994 to inquire into the condition of civics and citizenship education in Australian education. The report Whereas the People  …  Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia (1994) confirmed a national chronic deficit of civic knowledge and concern about the levels of commitment to Australian political institutions. Identifying a grossly inadequate education for democratic citizenship in Australian schools, the report recommended an extensive programme to educate young Australians based on civic knowledge and skills. Significantly, the report also signalled the importance of citizenship and the values associated with democratic citizenship. Yet despite this identification the report did not recommend civics and citizenship become a separate subject in the school curriculum and the subsequent blended approach of integrating civics and citizenship within a broader school subject reinforced a quintessential approach to Australian social education. The report was widely accepted by educators and governments, and in 1995–1996 the Keating government commenced translating the report into a practical school approach through the auspices of the Curriculum Corporation. However, after positive preliminary planning had commenced in 1995, the Keating government was defeated in the early 1996 federal election. Meanwhile between 1986 and 1993, also under a federal Labour government, Australia developed an approach to a national curriculum through the creation of a framework of statements and profiles in eight learning areas, including Studies of Society and the Environment, which included some civics and citizenship. This process was part of a national curriculum reform movement, enabled by a federal Labour government and many state Labour governments, based on assumptions and goals driving the broader agenda for educational reform during the 1980s, especially a more centralized, consolidated approach to education as

10

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

seen in Labour’s Unified National System, which created universities from the former colleges of advanced education. The individual states and territories, however, had already begun their own curricular reforms for schools by the time the national agenda began implementation in the 1990s and consequently this attempt at a national curriculum, including interest in civics and citizenship, together with the publication of the Hobart Declaration in 1989, failed to gain traction in most states, especially those that had changed governments during this period. What can be concluded from this phase? After a period of inaction, the challenge was posed and, for various reasons, was met in part with the 1994 report and subsequent government initiative through the development of the Discovering Democracy programme. The two Senate reviews had heightened awareness of the need for increased citizenship education in schools, but by themselves were insufficient to generate action. Without the 1994 report the ‘civic deficit’ identified in those reviews would likely have continued. What did Prime Minister Keating hope to achieve in this period? Certainly he sought the stimulation of the republican cause within Australia, both in the short and longer terms. Before that could be achieved, however, the Labour federal government was defeated at the 1996 general elections and replaced by a Liberal-National coalition with a clear conservative agenda. The following year the new minister for education, a former professor of politics, released Discovering Democracy, the government’s policy on education for democratic citizenship in Australia (Kemp 1997). This sought, in part, to counter the educational directions of the former Labour government, but also to forge a conservative sense of democratic citizenship in Australian schools under a neo-conservative government.

1997–2003: Discovering Democracy The period between 1997 and 2003 could best be described as the halcyon days of what had become known as civics and citizenship education in Australian education. Those days were dominated by the Discovering Democracy programme and characterized by resource availability from governments, federal government support, especially financially, and widespread interest in academic and education circles generally. In the final review of the Discovering Democracy programme the evaluators stated that the programme ‘produced a substantial amount of very useful, effective resources that were generally appreciated by teachers’ (Erebus 2003: 99).

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

11

From its genesis in 1997, Discovering Democracy was widely accepted by the state and territory governments, and the broader education community, with little controversy, as the principal source of education for democracy and CCE. Its primary purpose was to build Australian students’ understanding of, and participation in, their democracy through the provision of curriculum resources and support directly to schools and teachers (Kemp 1997; Print 2000). In this way the Australian government injected some $32m directly into the project, with further resources and funds provided by the states and territories over the period 1997–2003 (MCEETYA 2006). The signature feature of Discovering Democracy was several sets of the centrally devised curriculum resources produced over 1997–2003 and distributed, at no cost, to all of Australia’s 9,600 schools. These materials provided essential knowledge and skills for the content to be taught and importantly articulated a clear set of values underpinning democracy that were ‘encouraged within Discovering Democracy in order to reflect and enhance the cohesive, pluralistic nature of Australian society’ (Print 2008: 101). Substantial teacher professional development was also funded through Discovering Democracy, though managed by the states, in order to familiarize teachers with the programme and the materials as well as to provide basic content knowledge. Much of this state-based application occurred with a focus on supplementing teacher knowledge and pedagogy as well as behaviourrelated attitudes for citizenship. Several small projects were also funded to engage parents, teachers, academics and others involved with civic education for democracy (Print 2000). School and teacher competitions were conducted in part to identify and highlight best practice. In 1999 Discovering Democracy was reviewed, with the conclusion that progress had been adequate, though rapid acceptance and use of Discovering Democracy curriculum materials was not identified in schools and many teachers were even unaware of these resources (Erebus Consulting Group 1999). Nevertheless, funding continued in the same manner and several projects were supported including case studies of exemplary programmes and schools. In 1999, the Adelaide Declaration on educational directions was announced with another clear identification at the policy level of the need for CCE in schools. As with the earlier Hobart Declaration, however, direct translation of policy to practice was difficult to identify. Despite clear policy advocacy and the injection of considerable federal funding together with the apparent cooperation of the states and territories, the Discovering Democracy programme, or even some form of a CCE programme,

12

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

was not mandated for implementation in schools and consequently schools implemented the programme at will. The federal government funding of itself was not sufficient to embed CCE or Discovering Democracy securely in curriculum practice within Australian schools. Despite evidence of many innovative school programmes in CCE across Australia, the Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program (Erebus Consulting Group 2003) found that implementation of the programme was highly variable in schools in terms of expanding student civics and citizenship knowledge, understanding and dispositions, and it recommended the project’s termination. This recommendation coincided with the interests of Brendan Nelson, the recently appointed Minster for Education, who later had another initiative to support in the form of a national approach to developing good practice in values education in schools. Clear evidence of policy-level support for CCE in Australia can be found in the Adelaide Declaration of National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century (MCEETYA 1999). These educational goals, or national statement of educational intent, were endorsed by all ministers of education from the states and territories and the Commonwealth. In the Adelaide Declaration two goals specifically relate to elements of CCE. Goal 1.3 states that when they leave school students should have the capacity to exercise judgement and responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social justice, and the capacity to make sense of their world, to think about how things got to be the way they are, to make rational and informed decisions about their lives and to accept responsibility for their own actions.

Adelaide Declaration Goal 1.4 states that when students leave school they should be active and informed citizens with an understanding and appreciation of Australia’s system of government and civic life. (MCEETYA 1999)

Although these goals clearly support CCE and by implication Discovering Democracy, reinforced by the timing of the Adelaide Declaration coinciding with the first phase of Discovering Democracy, there appears to be little recognized connection between the two. The declaration, for instance, makes no direct mention of CCE or of the Discovering Democracy programme, which, given the goal statements above, appears incongruous. This lack of connection and reinforcement was one of many lost opportunities to consolidate CCE within educational policy and school curricula. What can be concluded from this phase? The period 1996–2003 was a remarkably productive and successful period for CCE through the vehicle of and funding support for Discovering Democracy. The programme heightened

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

13

awareness and understanding of Australian democracy among teachers and students and encouraged greater civic, citizenship and political participation by Australian youth. Discovering Democracy initiated the development and distribution of a large range of curriculum resources for students and teachers, initially in hard copy and later online. This was supported by extensive teacher professional development on the subject matter, materials and teaching of CCE across the states and territories. Further, a government-endorsed report National Key Performance Measures in Civics and Citizenship Education (Print and Hughes 2001) to create a structure to include CCE within the National Assessment Program was transformed into the first national assessment in 2004. Subsequently, the National Assessment Program Civics and Citizenship has collected sample data on student knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviour every three years. As such, all these activities were a valuable investment in supporting Australian democracy and Dr David Kemp as the responsible minister could claim success. The great tragedy of this period, however, was that despite such interest and even political will, the states and their curriculum agencies failed to translate the CCE initiative into a subject within the school curriculum. The most that was achieved was to integrate CCE, supported by Discovering Democracy resources, into existing subjects in the latter primary school years (Years 5 and 6 especially) and the middle secondary school years (Years 9 and 10). These years had a long tradition of including some teaching about government and so this was seen as a natural fit. Nevertheless, CCE had no formal curriculum status with consequently no specifically trained teachers or career path within the studies of society learning area. Who was to teach CCE and who was to take ownership of CCE within schools? The failure to achieve independent subject status meant that CCE was in a perilous condition if circumstances changed. And they did.

2004–2009: Interregnum The period 2004–2009 could be described as a type of interregnum, a waiting period until a new wave of civics and citizenship somehow ensued and when little occurred due largely to the vacuum caused by the disappearance of Discovering Democracy. While many individual schools may have been quite active in promoting aspects of CCE, the level of government practical support and funding for schools, at both state and federal levels, all but disappeared during this period.

14

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Yet what appears to be a drought, a hiatus for CCE, on deeper analysis is not quite the catastrophe that it initially seems. Certainly Discovering Democracy was not used as extensively by teachers as was initially anticipated. Despite the widespread roll-out of free materials, they were underutilized in the first few years of the programme (Erebus 2003; Print 2007). However, three instances of government policy over this period (discussed below) provide evidence of continued support for students learning civics and citizenship by state and federal governments, at least at the level of policy if not practice. ● ●

●

2006 Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship for use in schools 2008 Melbourne Declaration – demonstrating consensus at government level that a major goal of Australian education is to produce active, informed citizens 2008 Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) formed from the initial National Curriculum Board by the Rudd Government with the acceptance of CCE in a ‘national’ curriculum in 2009.

Despite these policy initiatives, the focus of federal government funding in the studies of society field was directed in this period to building values education through the Values Education Program (VEP) in schools in a neo-conservative context. Federally supported CCE was all but lost in this transition. A second major initiative of government in this period that redirected attention away from CCE was the Howard federal government’s approach to securing a national history agenda through what became known as the ‘history wars’. Essentially the government’s initiative was to ensure history was taught as a compulsory subject in schools and in a way that was part of its conservative political agenda. This embodied a particular notion of what it meant to be an Australian citizen and transmissive approaches to teaching and learning.

Values Education Program From the perspective of CCE, this period is dominated by the Australian government support for the Values Education Program 2004–2010 (Print 2015). There was, however, a precursor to the Values Education Program (VEP), namely the Values Education Study (VES). With the unanimous support of the state and territory ministers at the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), the Australian government announced

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

15

in July 2002 the commissioning of a values education study managed by the Curriculum Corporation designed to ●

●

●

enable schools to develop and demonstrate current practice in values education; provide an informed basis for promoting improved values education in Australian schools; make recommendations on a set of principles and a framework for improved values education in Australian schools.

The Values Education Study (2002–2004) took the form of a qualitative investigation comprising three interrelated components, namely a literature review of current national and international values education research; action research with a selected group of sixty-nine schools from across Australia, funded with grants to develop, implement and document locally relevant values education practices; and research to determine parent, student and teacher views on the values the community expected Australian schools to foster. The principal outcome of the VES was the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools (or the National Framework), which was endorsed by the ministers of education through MCEETYA, and published and distributed in pamphlet form to all Australian schools in mid-2005. The document was designed to promote improved values education in Australian schools by ● ● ●

articulating a vision for values in Australian schools providing an agreed set of values for Australian schools to foster describing guiding principles and key elements to inform school practice.

When viewed holistically, the Values Education Program ran from 2004 to 2010, entirely reliant upon federal funding, though it was not clearly identified and depicted in schools or the broader educational community as a unified programme at the time. The third and fourth parts were essentially dependent upon the success of the second, which, in turn, was based upon acceptance of the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools (2005) by Australian schools and teachers. While the ministers of education in the respective states and territories had endorsed the VEP by accepting the Framework, there was no automatic guarantee that schools and teachers would similarly accept and apply the Framework to their practice. Furthermore, remnants of the VEP

16

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

were still found on the Australian government’s Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations website in 2012. Built on the outcomes of the Values Education Study, the VEP consisted of four consecutively funded parts: 1. 2. 3. 4.

2005 National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools 2004–2006 The Values Education Good Practice Schools Project Stage 1 2006–2008 The Values Education Good Practice Schools Project Stage 2 2008–2010 The Values in Action Schools Project

That the Values Education Program existed from 2004 to 2010 was due primarily to the commitment and funding of the federal government. Had such funding been withdrawn, it is highly unlikely that the programme would have continued in any form. The programme stimulated interest in values education within Australian schools at what might be identified as the expense of CCE. Had the funding of the VEP been continued with Discovering Democracy, the values impact at least may have been similar to the VEP with additional benefits to student civic and citizenship knowledge, skills and attitudes resulting from Discovering Democracy.

Statements of learning, 2006 The appointment of Dr Brendan Nelson as the Australian government minister for education, science and training in November 2001 shifted the national education agenda more firmly towards the establishment of greater national consistency between education systems. In order to establish enhanced consistency across the country in curriculum outcomes, the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs agreed in July 2003 to develop statements of learning (SoL) setting out essential knowledge, understanding, skills and capacities for English, mathematics, science and civics and citizenship. Later it was agreed to develop statements of learning for information and communications technology, which had been added to the legislative requirements by the Australian government. The Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship were published in 2006 (MCEETYA, 2006) and despite their ‘acceptance’ little was achieved in terms of practice in schools. This neglect was reinforced later with the development of the Australian Curriculum Civics and Citizenship that all but ignored the earlier statements both in terms of general conception and specific statements of content.

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

17

Melbourne Declaration 2008 By contrast to the neglected SoLs, a future pathway for Australian education at the programmatic level was formulated through a new statement on national goals for schooling in Australia agreed to by all Australian education ministers (state, territory and federal) in December 2008. The Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA 2008) acknowledged the necessity of new capabilities and skills for twenty-first-century citizenship in response to global integration, increased regional engagement and international mobility. Unlike the previous two declarations of educational direction, the Melbourne Declaration was endorsed by the federal action as a basis for policy and programme development. The most outstanding example of this action was the formation of ACARA and the Australian Curriculum and the subsequent development of a civics and citizenship curriculum within that ‘national’ curriculum.

ACARA and the Australian Curriculum Formed as a statutory body under the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Act 2008, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is responsible for the development of the Australian Curriculum as well as conducting national assessment in education. In January 2009 the Commonwealth, state and territory governments committed to the National Education Agreement, in which they agreed to the development and implementation of a ‘national’ curriculum. Specifically Clause 17(h) of the agreement details that the Commonwealth and the states and territories are responsible for the development and maintenance of a ‘national’ curriculum and for participating in the work of the national education authority that manages national curriculum, assessment and data management, analysis and reporting. It was decided to call the new product the Australian Curriculum. As such the development of the Australian Curriculum represents a commitment by all Australian states and territories to work together to develop a world-class curriculum for all young Australians. It has been developed in three phases over a six-year period from 2009: Phase One: English, mathematics, science and history Phase Two: geography, languages and the arts Phase Three: health and physical education, technologies (information and communication technology and design and technology), economics and business, and civics and citizenship

18

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

What can be concluded from this phase 2004–2009? The interregnum period initially appeared to be a hiatus for CCE with the demise of Discovering Democracy and its replacement in terms of federal government funding and support by the Values Education Program. While the impact of the latter could be characterized as somewhat controversial at times the programme was essentially unsustainable once funding was discontinued. Meanwhile CCE continued to exist though not as a funding priority. The principal stimuli to maintaining interest in CCE was the Melbourne Declaration of 2008 and the formation of ACARA and subsequently the development of Australian Curriculum, with some support from the 2006 Statements of Learning. The scene was now set for a more challenging and productive period for CCE in Australia.

2010–2015: The Australian Curriculum Civics and Citizenship and future challenges The key to this period and the immediate future was the decision by ACARA, based on earlier decisions such as the 2006 Statement of Learning, to include CCE as a legitimate field of study within the Australian Curriculum, second, the decision, again based on policy precedence, to include CCE as a separate school subject within the new Australian Curriculum. In one sense this was a somewhat unexpected windfall given the previous interregnum period and the demise of Discovering Democracy and dominance of the Values Education Program. Yet in another sense the ACARA decisions were logical. The 2006 Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship, as well as the Adelaide Declaration (MCEETYA 1999) and the widely accepted Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA 2008), provided guidance to ACARA about including CCE within a national curriculum. In 2011, I was invited to prepare a background discussion paper on what CCE should look like in a national curriculum. This was well received and, as Lead Writer, I worked with an advisory group to prepare a more substantial Shape Paper for public review. This was widely distributed, reviewed and feedback received, including through a national forum, in 2012. The advisory group and writers for primary and secondary schools, then produced the Australian Curriculum Civics and Citizenship (ACCC), which was subsequently distributed, reviewed and feedback received, before finalization by the end of 2013. The influential Shape paper set the scene for what would be included in the final curriculum document. It was clear that civics and citizenship should be

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

19

part of the formal school curriculum in Years 3–10, as well as in wider wholeschool programmes; ‘this could include participation in experiences external to the school but linked to the school curriculum (for example, community activities, parliamentary education programs, civic institution visits and electoral commission programs)’ (ACARA 2012: 15). So by the time of writing the curriculum in 2013 it was evident that while knowledge and understanding of the nation, its government, its legal system and institutions were key components of the formal curriculum, so too were community-based learning experiences. Before the ACCC could be endorsed, however, a politically inspired review conducted in 2104 recommended several changes (Australian Government 2014a). Mostly these recommendations were politely and conveniently ignored by the federal government in its response, though the government did respond to pressure for less subject matter content and other changes including an increased emphasis on the Australian Constitution (Australian Government 2014b). As the Australian government was experiencing severe public backlash to many elements of its broader educational programme at the time, such as proposed fee deregulation for universities, it was now politically expedient for the finally approved Australian Curriculum to diminish the rhetoric of the previously politically inspired review. The main changes adopted for CCE by the Education Council included the integration of the subjects history, geography, civics and citizenship and business into a single entity called Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) for the primary school years, as well as greater emphasis on the origins of the Australian system of government including its constitution. The Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship (ACCC) was finally endorsed by the Education Council, the meeting of all Australian ministers of education, in September 2015 (AEC 2015). The ACCC 2013 version had previously been supported by all state and territory governments throughout its development process and agreed for use in their schools subject to individual state adjustments. Consequently ACARA had released the 2013 Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship v7.2 version for use by education systems and schools from 2014 (ACARA 2014) and this version now sits with the later v8 (ACARA 2015). There are several challenges facing the implementation of the ACCC in all of Australia’s 9,600 primary and secondary schools. The most significant is the timeline and nature of implementation which differs somewhat according to jurisdictions. New South Wales, Australia’s most populous state, is the only jurisdiction not to have started or planned to commence implementation of the ACCC by the end of 2015. Meanwhile to complicate matters, some states have commenced implementing the v7.2 version while others will implement the

20

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

post-review 2015 v8 version. Victoria has developed its own curriculum using the Australian curriculum merely as an informing document. Second, teachers will require extensive professional development to implement the ACCC effectively. Third, limited teaching resources are available for the ACCC with responsibility for provision vested with the jurisdictions, sectors, schools and teachers. Fourth, the next generation of teachers will require teacher education programmes that reflect the ACCC as it is implemented within the Australian jurisdictions. Fifth, how Australian schools will integrate ACCC into growing initiatives in global citizenship is another challenge. Finally, how the ACCC, and CCE more generally, can engage more young Australians to become active, informed citizens is a long-term challenge.

Conclusion The demand for a school programme in CCE has long been evident in Australia and continues today. Major initiatives in CCE at the national level have been primarily instigated by Labour governments (Keating, Rudd and Gillard), though interestingly Discovering Democracy was developed and implemented by a Coalition government following the Keating government’s initiative. The three periods analysed above show various levels of development for CCE, with ebbs and flows, though a sense of continuing progress at least at the level of educational policy. Yet in Australian schools, despite widespread and sustained policy consensus and support, CCE remains in a tenuous position. While multiple policy documents have clearly identified the need for CCE and mechanisms to support CCE in schools have been devised, the reality is that until the ACCC is implemented there will be few instances of CCE as a separate subject in the curriculum of Australian schools. Regardless of the widespread and sustained recognition of CCE through national goal declarations, statements of learning, major curriculum projects and now the ACCC, the translation of policy to school practice in the formal curriculum remains problematic. Where CCE exists in Australian schools it essentially takes one of two forms. First, CCE is integrated within school subjects or areas of learning such as Studies of Society, but in this form it lacks identity and effectiveness in student learning. Lacking independent subject status has been a major limitation to the effectiveness of CCE for students and schools. The second form for CCE is found in school-based or whole-school projects around one or more themes such as civic engagement in local communities or student representative councils.

The Recent History of Teaching Civics and Citizenship Education

21

Nevertheless, Australia remains an international leader in CCE commencing with the 1994 review onwards, at least in terms of educational policy, research and curriculum development. In the development and introduction of the Civics and Citizenship Curriculum, Australia has been a world leader in this field, even though the process was slowed by a politically inspired review of the entire Australian Curriculum and differentiated by states. As of 18 September 2015, the revised Australian Curriculum was endorsed by the Education Council including the revised Civics and Citizenship Curriculum and a hopeful future for this field of learning that is recognised in policy as essential for all young Australians (MCEETYA 2008).

References Australian Council for Education (1989), National Goals for Schooling in Australia, Hobart: Australian Council for Education. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : ACARA. Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2013), Draft Years 3–10 Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, May. Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum __Civics_and_Citizenship_251012.pdf012 (accessed 30 September 2015). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2014), The Australian Curriculum v7.2 Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and -citizenship/curriculum/f-10?layout=1 (accessed 30 September 2015). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015), The Australian Curriculum v8 Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : ACARA. Australian Education Council (2015), Communique.18 September, media release. Australian Government (2014a), Review of the Australian Curriculum: Final Report, Canberra: Australian Government. Australian Government (2014b), Review of the Australian Curriculum: Initial Australian Government Response, Canberra: Department of Education. Civics Expert Group (1994), Whereas the People … Civics and Citizenship Education, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Curriculum Corporation (2003), Values Education Study Final Report, Melbourne: Curriculum Corporation. Davidson, A. (1997), Subject to Citizen: Australian Citizenship in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erebus Consulting Group (1999), Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

22

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Erebus Consulting Group (2003), Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program, 2000–2003, Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Henderson, D. (2010), ‘Civics and Citizenship Education in the National History Curriculum: Conducting the Same Music or Rehearsing an Incomplete Tune?’, The Social Educator, 28 (1): 18–26. Kemp, D. (1997), Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education, Ministerial Statement, Canberra: Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training. Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (1999), National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century, Adelaide: MCEETYA. Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2006), National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship Years 6 & 10 Report, Canberra: MCEETYA. Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Print, M. (1999), ‘Building Democracy for the Twenty-First Century: Rediscovering Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia’. In C. Bahmueller and J. Patrick (eds), Principles and Practices of Education for Democratic Citizenship, 187–208. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse. Print, M. (2000), ‘Discovering Democracy: The Confirmation of Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia’, International Journal of Social Education, 15 (1): 65–79. Print, M. (2007), ‘Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in Democracy’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (3): 325–345. Print, M. (2008), ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship in Australia’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 95–108. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Print, M. (2015), ‘Values Education and the Making of ‘Good’ Citizens in Australia’. In M. Print and C. Tan (eds), Educating ‘Good’ Citizens in a Globalizing World for the Twenty-First Century, 81–96. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Print, M and Hughes, J. (2001), National Key Performance Measures in Civics and Citizenship Education, Report to the National Key Performance Measures Taskforce, Canberra: Ministerial Council for Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCETYA). Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1989), Education for Active Citizenship in Australian Schools and Youth Organisations, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1991), Active Citizenship Revisited, Canberra: Australian Government Printing Service. Thomas, J. (1994), ‘The History of Civics Education in Australia’. In Civics Expert Group, Whereas the People … Civics and Citizenship Education – Report of the Civics Expert Group, 161–171. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

2

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities in the New Civics and Citizenship Curriculum Libby Tudball

Introduction The Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship aims to reinforce students’ appreciation and understanding of what it means to be a citizen. It explores ways in which students can actively shape their lives, value their belonging in a diverse and dynamic society, and positively contribute locally, nationally, regionally and globally. As reflective, active and informed decision-makers, students will be well placed to contribute to an evolving and healthy democracy that fosters the wellbeing of Australia as a democratic nation … with a dynamic, multicultural and multi-faith society. (ACARA 2016a) ‘Civics and Citizenship’ (CC) is now a significant and distinct learning area, designated as a subject within the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Australian Curriculum (AC). After a long period of development and writing of the new subject, and national consultation on the draft curriculum involving stakeholders including teachers, academics, policy makers, jurisdiction and sector representatives, ‘Civics and Citizenship’ was endorsed in September 2015, by all state and territory ministers of education as an essential focus for the education of Australian students. Analyses of the language and concepts included in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008), in the new Civics and Citizenship Curriculum (CCC), as well as other elements of the Australian Curriculum show that schools are asked to develop many dimensions of citizenship education, to ensure learners build

24

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

their capacity to be ‘reflective, active and informed’ citizens (ACARA 2016a). Goal 2 of the Melbourne Declaration states that students should be able to ● ●

●

●

●

●

●

act with moral and ethical integrity appreciate Australia’s social, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, and have an understanding of Australia’s system of government, history and culture understand and acknowledge the value of Indigenous cultures and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from, Reconciliation between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians be committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participate in Australia’s civic life relate to and communicate across cultures, especially the cultures and countries of Asia work for the common good, in particular sustaining and improving natural and social environments be responsible global and local citizens. (p. 8–9)

These are challenging goals that include what Westheimer and Kahne (2004: 1) see as a ‘spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do that are embodied by democratic education programs’. But the larger question is how can teachers interpret and utilize curriculum and policy to develop classroom learning and wider school programmes to achieve these diverse goals? In the Melbourne Declaration it is evident that ‘being an active and informed citizen involves both a cognitive domain (e.g. knowing, understanding and reasoning) and an affective behavioural domain (e.g. engagement, perceptions and behaviours)’ (Schulz et al. 2008: 9). As Fraillon et al. (2014) argue in the National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship, Years 6 & 10 Report, learning in schools as well as national testing concerned with the development of citizenship in Australia relate to both of these domains. It is essential therefore for schools to provide programmes that develop civic knowledge and model democratic practice and out-of-classroom learning activities to encourage student engagement in societal concerns. Fraillon et al. (2014) note that over the past two decades, ‘there has been a broadening of the concepts, processes and practices in civics and citizenship education. In particular there has been an increased emphasis on the role of active citizenship both as explicit content and as a key outcome of civics and citizenship education in Australia and internationally’ (p. 2). This focus on

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

25

action is explicit in the Melbourne Declaration, which requires students to ‘act with moral and ethical integrity … participate in Australia’s civic life … relate to and communicate across cultures [and]  …  work for the common good’ (MCEETYA: 8–9). So it is helpful for educators to draw on theories on active citizenship which view the concept as a means by which young people can ‘voice their will, needs and opinions’ (Aldenmyr, Jepson Wigg and Olson 2012: 256) and ‘participate … in civic action’ (Andrews and Mycock 2007: 19). An emphasis on transformative learning sees active citizenship as encouraging students to ‘critically engage with and seek to affect the course of social events’ (Ross 2012: 7) and ultimately act as ‘agents who shape and change society’ (Onyx, Kenny and Brown 2012: 56). It is this kind of participatory citizenship that can lead to ‘action competence’ (Jensen and Schnack 2006), which active and responsible local and global citizens should be able to achieve in practice. In this chapter I discuss theoretical perspectives on citizenship education and their connections to the Australian CCC. First I explain the scope of the curriculum and how the Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority (ACARA) has facilitated the development of a curriculum that includes subject-based learning, general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities in order to meet the broad national goals for schooling. I then compare the CCC with the concept of ‘Multi-dimensional Citizenship’ (MDC). This framework developed by Cogan and Derricott (1998) has led international thinking about structuring citizenship education. Pedagogical possibilities for the development of CC are discussed through analysis of core learning concepts in the curriculum and their connections to various theories and practices in schools. These include Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004: 2) three visions for citizenship education: to develop the personally responsible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the justice-oriented citizen and the complementary concept of ‘critical citizenship’ (Djaeghere and Tudball 2007). In the following section I begin by defining the concepts of civics and citizenship in the Australian context.

The concepts and scope of civics and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum One of the challenges for teachers in developing approaches to citizenship education is identifying the curriculum focus, the conceptual drivers and key ideas, in order to plan learning programmes. In the new Australian Curriculum, ‘Civics is defined broadly as an identifiable body of knowledge, skills and understandings relating to the organisation and working of society, including Australia’s federal

26

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

system of government, political and social heritage, democratic processes, public administration and judicial system; that includes local, state, national, regional and global perspectives’ (ACARA 2012: 2). Civics encompasses the study of democracy, its origins, development and structures, and prepares students to think critically about how a democratic society functions for the public good. One shift in emphasis in comparison with past iterations of the curriculum is the inclusion of stronger perspectives beyond Australia, particularly engagement with the Asia region and the world. Secondary-level learners are expected to study other systems of government, and in the primary years ‘Students learn about Australian society and other societies in the world, both past and present; and how they function socially, culturally, economically and politically’ (ACARA 2015). Inquiry questions are provided for the Humanities and Social Sciences learning area to build this understanding (see further discussion in Chapter 5). ‘Citizenship’ is not separated from ‘Civics’ in the curriculum, although in the Shape paper that informed the writing of the subject, the difference between the two concepts is made clear. ‘Citizenship’ is defined as the legal relationship between an individual and a state. More broadly, citizenship is the condition of belonging to social, religious, political or community groups, locally, nationally and globally. Being part of a group carries with it a sense of belonging or identity which includes rights and responsibilities, duties and privileges. These are guided by the agreed values and mutual obligations required for active participation in the group. Citizenship is defined as including three components – civil (rights and responsibilities), political (participation and representation) and social (social values, identity and community involvement). (ACARA 2012: 2)

The civics and citizenship knowledge and understanding strands for each year level in the secondary years (7–10) comprise three key focus areas or substrands: • Government and democracy: involves a study of Australian democracy and the key institutions, processes and roles that people play in Australia’s system of government. • Laws and citizens: examines Australia’s legal system, the creation of laws and the rights and legal obligations of Australian citizens, in the nation and internationally. • Citizenship, diversity and identity: includes exploring the shared values of Australian citizenship, Christian traditions, the diversity of Australia as a multicultural and multi-faith society, what shapes identity, and obligations as citizens in a globalised world. (ACARA 2016b)

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

27

The inquiry focus and skills strand includes specific aspects of civics and citizenship; so, for example, students develop questions about society and identify and locate a range of sources of information to investigate Australia’s political and legal systems. This can include students accessing political debates on contemporary issues via the national online Parliamentary Education Office (PEO 2016) site or other media sources. Analysis, synthesis and interpretation strand engages students in applying critical thinking skills and developing and accounting for different points of view. Problem-solving and decision-making strand involves students working collaboratively, negotiating and developing strategies to resolve issues, and plan for action – a clear example of achieving the ‘active citizenship’ agenda. A focus on communication and reflection encourages students to present ideas, viewpoints and arguments based on evidence about civics and citizenship topics and issues, using subject-specific language, and to reflect on their own cultural identity, values and behaviours (ACARA 2016b). While curriculum writers were advised to develop integrated approaches for primary learners and twenty hours of content for Years 7–10 to be manageable for schools, an analysis of the breadth of the national goals and the intended citizenship curriculum shows that enactment of the curriculum will be challenging. Pedagogy needs to be developed beyond classroom-based learning to include areas such as involvement in democratic practice in schools; service learning; and engagement with significant issues in local, regional and global communities. Currently, the CCC does not include a designated subject for the last two years of senior secondary schooling, although various states and territories offer subjects including Australian and global politics or international studies, so for schools to continue older learners’ citizenship education, wider school programmes are required. A further challenge for teachers in developing citizenship learning is that there are strong conceptual links and specific references to local and global citizenship in other elements of the AC, so these connections are important. In addition to the CC and other discipline-based subjects, the AC requires a focus on General Capabilities that are deemed to ‘play a significant role … in equipping young Australians to live and work successfully in the twentyfirst century’ (ACARA 2016c). ACARA (2012) argues that ‘The Australian Curriculum is based on the belief that to meet the changing expectations of society and to contribute to the creation of a more productive, sustainable and just society, young people will need a wide and adaptive set of knowledge, understanding, skills and dispositions.’ These include Literacy, Numeracy, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Capability, Critical and

28

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Creative Thinking, Personal and Social Capability, Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding. Each capability has a designated icon so teachers searching the online AC can see the links across learning areas. There are many connections between the CCC explored in this chapter (see also the focus on intercultural learning in Chapter 5) and the general capabilities. The Cross-Curriculum Priorities (CCPs), which can also be tracked through designated icons, have strong learning connections to civics and citizenship, but require a multidisciplinary approach emphasizing past and contemporary social and political issues. The first CCP focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures (see also Chapter 4) aims to promote a greater awareness and respect for Indigenous cultures and identity. It is important for all young Australian citizens to develop knowledge and understanding of past injustices and present inequality as a means of understanding current issues, to counter racism and encourage reconciliation with Australia’s First Peoples. This is consistent with Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004: 2) justice-oriented citizen, who seeks out and addresses areas of injustice. The second CCP focuses on Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia (see Chapter 5), encouraging students to develop knowledge, skills and understanding to be ‘Asia literate’ citizens, able to connect and communicate with the peoples of Asia, in order to effectively live, work and learn in the diverse Australian community and the region. To achieve this priority, students require intercultural capabilities so they can engage with, contribute to and learn from the Asian region and beyond, and be able to operate in the increasingly mobile and interdependent world. Clearly, teachers planning citizenship education require a thorough understanding of all dimensions of the new Australian Curriculum and team planning in their schools to frame the ways that student learning can be achieved. The third CCP focuses on education for sustainability (see also Chapter 10). This is a core focus of the national goal for all students to be able to sustain and improve natural, social and economic environments. An online search of this priority in the AC shows more than 300 cross-curriculum links, many which are connected to active citizenship. In Year 10 history, for instance, one curriculum elaboration suggests that students should explore the significance of ideas about the environment: for example, ‘Gaia – the interaction of Earth and its biosphere; limits of growth – that unlimited growth is unsustainable; that biological systems need to remain diverse and productive over time; and rights of nature – recognition that humans and their natural environment are closely interrelated’ (ACARA 2016d). This kind of knowledge development is a precursor to students understanding the need for change, before taking the next

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

29

step of being involved in action for change in their own individual lifestyles and in the functioning of their school and community’s ecological footprint.

The theoretical framework for multi-dimensional citizenship education In this section I explore how the new Australian CCC compares with recommendations for the framing of civics and citizenship education from the findings of the Citizenship Education Policy Study (CEPS) project (Cogan and Derricott 1998, 2000). This study involved 264 global policy experts and futurists from nine nations in debates about what competencies citizens would require in the twenty-first century. They concluded that there are multiple dimensions of knowledge and understanding required. Cogan and Derricott (1998, 2000) recommended four interconnected dimensions to achieve this learning (outlined in Figure 2.1), including personal, social, spatial and temporal

DIMENSIONS OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION PERSONAL:

Capacity for and commitment to a civic ethic characterized by responsible habits of mind, heart and action Capacity to live and work together for civic purposes Capacity to see oneself as a member of several overlapping communities − local, regional, national and multinational Capacity to locate present challenges in the context of both past and future in order to focus on long-term solutions to the difficult challenges we face

SOCIAL: SPATIAL: TEMPORAL:

CONTENT OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION CIVIC EDUCATION:

The building of a knowledge base for civic beliefs and skills for civic participation

VALUES EDUCATION:

The acquisition of dispositions and predilections that provide the foundation for civic attitudes and beliefs

ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION:

The process of developing understanding, skills and values consistent with the notion of sustainable development

Figure 2.1 Multi-dimensional citizenship model. Source: Adapted from Cogan and Derricott (1998, 2000).

30

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

learning. In particular, these dimensions address the integration of personal knowledge, attitudes and identity as a citizen, with the civic/community roles of a citizen. The spatial dimension draws attention to the identity and roles of citizens in local, regional and global arenas. The temporal dimension addresses the understanding of past, present and future perspectives. The CEPS study also concluded that citizenship education should include strategies for students to look at problems globally, work co-operatively and take responsibilities in society; understand, accept and tolerate cultural differences; think in a critical and systemic way; resolve conflict in a non-violent manner; change lifestyle and habits to protect the environment; think, reflect, discuss, and act in ways that are rational, reasonable and ethically defensible; be sensitive towards and to defend human rights; and, participate in politics at local, national and international levels. (Cogan and Derricott 2000: 9)

Personal and social learning While the Australian CCC includes many of these dimensions, it is evident that understanding and capacities suggested in the MDC model are strongly connected to other aspects of the Australian Curriculum including history, geography and economics learning areas, as well as the general capabilities and cross-curriculum priorities. This is a further reminder to educators to draw on all aspects of the AC in their planning. The AC Personal and Social Capability curriculum, for example, involves students in a range of practices, including ‘establishing and building positive relationships, making responsible decisions, working effectively in teams, handling challenging situations constructively and developing leadership skills’ (ACARA 2016e), similar to the personal capacities suggested in the MDC model. Another AC General Capability, Ethical Understanding (ACARA 2016f ), connects to learning suggested in the CEPS study, the Australian national goals and CC, stating that students should be involved in building a strong personal and socially oriented ethical outlook that helps them to manage context, conflict and uncertainty, and to develop an awareness of the influence that their values and behaviour have on others. It does this through fostering the development of ‘personal values and attributes such as honesty, resilience, empathy and respect for others’, and the capacity to act with ethical integrity, as outlined in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. (MCEETYA 2008: 9)

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

31

The CEPS study foreshadowed many changes that are now reality in the world. It is encouraging to see the strong connections that the AC now has with many of the recommendations for learning made by these policy experts. In the AC Introduction to Ethical Understanding there are further links to the impetus for local and global citizenship education in the recognition that As cultural, social, environmental and technological changes transform the world, the demands placed on learners and education systems are changing. Technologies bring local and distant communities into classrooms, exposing students to knowledge and global concerns as never before. Complex issues require responses that take account of ethical considerations such as human rights and responsibilities, animal rights, environmental issues and global justice. Building ethical understanding throughout all stages of schooling will assist students to engage with the more complex issues that they are likely to encounter in the future, and to navigate a world of competing values, rights, interests and norms. (ACARA 2016f )

This recognition of the vital importance of having a curriculum that prepares young people for current complexities and uncertain futures is further reinforced in sound advice to teachers on skills and authentic learning that must be developed to achieve this learning: Processes of inquiring into ethical issues include giving reasons, being consistent, finding meanings and causes, and providing proof and evidence. Interrogating such concepts through authentic cases such as global warming, sustainable living and socioeconomic disparity can involve group and independent inquiry, critical and creative thinking, and cooperative teamwork, and can contribute to personal and social learning. (ACARA 2016f)

In the AC Learning Continuum for Ethical Understanding (ACARA 2016f), children as young as five years are encouraged to ‘describe familiar situations that involve ethical concepts’ and ten-year-olds should be able to ‘identify ethical concepts, such as equality, respect and connectedness, and describe some of their attributes’. Younger learners ‘investigate children’s rights and responsibilities at school and in the local community’, and older learners at the end of primary school ‘explore the reasons behind there being a variety of ethical positions on a social issue’ and ‘investigate reasons for clashes of beliefs in issues of personal, social and global importance’ – all strongly connected to dimensions of the MDC model. These few examples also show that teachers planning learning cannot only focus on civics and citizenship as a sole subject. They need to explore all elements of the curriculum to see the interdisciplinary links.

32

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

The MDC model is a useful framework for citizenship education, since it suggests a joined-up and integrated view of learning combining disciplinebased and conceptual learning. The futurists foreshadowed the need to explore regional dimensions, which is important now in the age of global power shifts, particularly in Australia in relation to the changing geopolitics and growing economic power and influence of nations in the Asian region. They also argued for an education focus on sustainable development, which is now a crosscurriculum priority for all young Australians.

Linking theories to civics and citizenship pedagogy The previous discussion demonstrates that civics and citizenship education is now strongly emphasized in policy and in the Australian Curriculum, in multiple ways. While teaching and learning should build civic knowledge and understanding, programmes must move beyond ‘thin’ or ‘minimal’ approaches to education for democracy focused solely on knowledge of how to vote or government processes (McLaughlin 1992; Kerr 1999). Minimal citizenship education tends to be content led and focuses on civic knowledge, with little attention to citizenship participation and processes. It is often confined to promoting the ‘good’ citizen who is law abiding, works hard and possesses a good character, but does not discuss problems or issues found in societal structures creating inequalities among citizens. ‘Maximal’ citizenship education promotes activity-rich, values-based, interpretive approaches that encourage debate and participation in democratic processes (McLaughlin 1992). Young people are citizens now, not citizens in waiting, and the curriculum recognizes that they need active engagement during their schooling. The late Sir Bernard Crick, a pivotal leader in citizenship education in England, argued that ‘participatory skills in real situations are the essence of any genuine education for democracy’ (Crick 2007: 500–1). Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004: 2) visions for citizenship education to develop personally responsible, participatory and justice-oriented citizens can be developed through various sections of the AC. In CC learning, elaborations suggest that students in Year 9 should explore ‘the various ways that individuals can contribute to civic life’ through ‘making submissions to public enquiries, attending public meetings, serving on local government bodies and providing voluntary help’. The Health and Physical Education upper primary school curriculum requires students to ‘explore initiatives sporting and community

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

33

groups use to counter all forms of discrimination and support the wellbeing of their communities’ and encourages learners to ‘help others understand points of view that differ from their own’ and ‘encourage further discussion about individual and cultural similarities and differences in order to tackle racism’ (ACARA 2016h). These examples of curriculum emphases are consistent with participatory citizenship that goes beyond personal responsibility or duty to society, to include an examination of the relationships between the individual’s behaviour in society and redressing structures of social injustice, consistent with the concepts of justice-oriented citizenship and critical citizenship. Dejaeghere and Tudball (2007) argue that critical citizenship learning aims to create an active citizenry, prepared and motivated to address societal problems and to create social change. This approach aims to empower learners by increasing their capacity to understand the underlying causes of problems and injustices and to be proactive agents of change through engagement in the public sphere. In the new CCC, it is expected that learners will have opportunities to build understanding of societal issues at multiple levels: local, national, regional and global. In critical citizenship pedagogy, students and teachers together take part in defining issues, developing investigations and decision-making processes, as they examine the structures of social injustice. In the AC, for example, the inclusion of the CCP focused on developing understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures is an important recognition that studying how the First Australians have been denied rights in the past and continue to experience inequity and discrimination today, and it requires deeper learning in schools. The inclusion of Indigenous knowledge and voices in this learning and schools contacting local Indigenous communities to ask for their involvement in school programmes is an important cultural protocol in bringing previously marginalized perspectives into the schools (Dejaeghere and Tudball 2007). Mouffe (2000) and Merryfield (2001) also argue that a curriculum must address causes of discrimination and inequalities, power asymmetries and hybridity of identity, and help young people to be involved in collective social action for the common good, consistent with the Australian national goals. Ngugi (1986) urges a focus on ‘contrapuntal pedagogy’, or the inclusion of unrepresented voices and experiences in the curriculum to develop wider perspectives. In the CC curriculum, one learning outcome is for students to understand Australian’s rights and responsibilities towards each other and their international obligations, so that they have a sense of personal responsibility and more broadly a sense of global citizenship. In the following section, examples of how to further engage young people in active, participatory ways are explored.

34

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Pedagogies for valuing youth voice and student engagement Developing commitment to ‘a civic ethic characterized by responsible habits of mind, heart, and action’ is a key aspect of multi-dimensional citizenship and the national goal for students to ‘act with moral and ethical integrity’ and ‘appreciate Australia’s social, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity’ (MCEETYA 2008). In the outer Melbourne suburb of Ringwood, teachers in the Maroondah cluster of secondary colleges recognized that in their schools and wider community, there was a growing need to develop student awareness and understanding of cultural diversity and identity – two concepts that are now core in the CCC. The need to implement specific strategies to build positive relationships between members of different cultures increased with the arrival of new refugees from the Asian region, including Myanmar and Sri Lanka. As part of the Values Education Good Practice in Schools two-stage project, the school developed a student-led ‘Youth Voice: Fostering Inclusiveness, Respect and Tolerance’ project (Commonwealth of Australia 2011). This project involved students in a series of classroom and co-curricular activities, where students worked together to decide what they believed were important values for developing a connected and inclusive community. At a community forum, students, their teachers and parents from diverse backgrounds worked together to decide how they could develop intercultural learning. Learning activities stimulated thinking and discussion about identity and belonging and challenged misconceptions about different cultures. Local community members including recently arrived refugees were involved in sharing their stories with small, non-threatening groups. Participants then developed posters to capture and share their learning and decisions about what actions they could take as a community, consistent with both critical citizenship and contrapuntal pedagogy. One group of students later presented a report on their work on a community radio station. Overall, the Youth Voice project illustrated the power and capacity of young people as participatory and active citizens, to change community attitudes and achieve transformative learning. Extensive research on effective citizenship education has found that active participation of students in school governance, student leadership, democratic practices, peer support and community service programmes are critical aspects of developing students’ dispositions and likelihood to be active, participatory citizens (ACARA 2014), particularly where the learning experiences take account of students’ opinions, are connected to real life and lead to positive outcomes and social action (Holdsworth 2010) (see also Chapter 3).

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

35

Jensen and Schnack’s (2006: 471) theory of ‘social action competence’ provides further insights into how active citizenship can be achieved in practice, through the development of ‘intentional behaviors’ and ‘being ready, willing, and able to inspire change’. Since 2007, the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) has helped thousands of young Australians to develop social action competence, through promoting their readiness and ability to get involved with environmental issues through what Rauch (2002: 45) describes as a democratic approach: ‘developing their own criteria for decision-making and behaviour’. In a post on their website, the AYCC (2015) argue that ‘climate change is the single greatest threat facing humanity, and puts young people and future generations at risk’. They express the belief that ‘addressing the climate crisis is our biggest opportunity to create a world that is more sustainable, just and fair’. The AYCC argue that in societies where young people are motivated to act and given the tools to create change through action in their local communities on issues of vital future concern and where there is well-planned participatory citizenship focused on solutions to real problems, change can occur. In 2014, the AYCC organized national ‘Switched on Schools’ summits, run in conjunction with local councils across Australia, involving over 1,000 students in learning about climate change and how they can make a difference in their school and community. Their programme then reached out to 20,000 young people through regional workshops and high school presentations in 400 schools. AYCC methods include awareness raising, problem-solving and community action that is often facilitated through the use of social media and creative approaches that model participatory and justice-oriented citizenship. The AYCC uses methods of citizen action favoured by youth. When a coal port was proposed for development in the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef in 2014, the AYCC sent thousands of ‘Don’t Risk the Reef ’ text messages to bank CEOs. They reached 300,000 people per month on Facebook, and tracking of hits showed that one video targeting Save the Reef strategies was viewed online across 101 nations. During the G20 conference in Australia in 2014, 2,500 signatures were collected in seventy-two hours against the proposed development of a coal port. In another effort, 120,000 young people commenced various forms of action online, such as the AYCC ‘Our Safe Climate Roadmap’ campaign. This culminated in young people taking the message directly to the national Parliament House in Canberra, where they held a youth senate hearing, which saw twenty-two senators – almost a third of the Senate – join the AYCC volunteers to listen to the stories of young people from across the country

36

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

(AYCC 2015). The actions of the AYCC were instrumental in the decision that the coal port would not proceed. Learning to be an informed, active and participatory citizen is a complex work that requires the kinds of well-planned opportunities for young people that the AYCC provides within the community. Tudball and Gordon (2013: 258) argue that This generation of young people will also unavoidably be crucial decisionmakers in terms of stewardship of the earth. To be able to take an active part in sustainable development, students need to understand the concept of global interdependence, and need to value empathy, equity, personal responsibility, social justice and social action in their own lives and in their connections with the world.

It is certain that young learners will continue to face social, technological and environmental change, so well-developed citizenship education learning can play a critical role in helping them to meet these challenges, and to live well and successfully, which is surely among the most critical goals for education.

Future directions in citizenship education In this era of increasing globalization, global interdependence and mobility of people, as well as the multiplying evidence of global emergencies related to concerns such as refugee movements, terrorism, war and natural disasters, it is vital that citizenship education should be connected with global concerns. Questions of human rights, inequity, social justice and the impact of international tragedies now require more integrated, worldwide responses. Students in schools gain insights into these events continually through multiple media forms, so the importance of global citizenship education will continue (see also Chapter 6). But Blewitt (2008: 22) argues that ‘the relationship between human rights and human development, corporate power and environmental justice, global poverty and citizen action, suggest that responsible global citizenship is an inescapable element of what may at first glance seem to be simply matters of personal consumer and moral choice’. These concerns are connected to theoretical frames discussed in this chapter that argue for learning in schools that is authentic and purposeful and prepares students for uncertain futures. This generation of teachers have particular challenges in responding to the fact that today’s students are learning differently and realizing the educational potential for the use of information and communication technologies. The AC

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

37

recognizes the importance of this in the ICT General Capability. Young people can access information fast, using multiple communication devices, and they learn beyond the classroom through interaction among their peers. There are new patterns of transnational connections between young citizens, particularly through activities such as social networking and gaming that are broadening notions of citizen action and activism. These forms of communication are opening up new ways for students to develop regional and global person-toperson connections. As the Australian educationalist Kathryn Moyle (2010: 60) argues, It is time that educators construct learning with technologies in sufficiently complex ways for students to feel they are not only ‘powering up’ in their personal activities with technologies, but for them to also have a similar sense about learning at school. There is an exciting potential in the communication functions of ICTs to assist young people in the participative aspects of citizenship, including campaigning and linking with other students and organisations.

However, further work is required to understand how social media and future forms of ICT can stimulate students understanding of citizenship issues and civic engagement.

Conclusion This chapter has explored the scope of civics and citizenship education and the ways that the Australian Curriculum provides multiple opportunities for the development of local, national and global citizenship that is connected to theories advocating active and critical citizenship. It is clear that teachers need to develop citizenship education curriculum and enactment holistically to ensure that, across the years of schooling, students develop broad, authentic and action-oriented learning that will build their capacity to be active, informed and participatory citizens. As ACARA (2016d) argues, ‘Young people will need a wide and adaptive set of knowledge, understanding and skills to meet the changing expectations of society and to contribute to the creation of a more productive, sustainable and just society.’ At its best, citizenship education is integral to a whole school culture, contributing to values-oriented knowledge, action-based skills and changecentred competencies that empower young people and strengthen social justice (Tudball and Brett 2015). However, achieving this ideal requires strong and continuing commitment from school leaders and expert teachers, as

38

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

well as ongoing teacher professional development to enable the planning and implementation of learning approaches to citizenship education which will firmly embed it in active and participatory ways.

References ACARA (2012), Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian _Curriculum__Civics_and_Citizenship_251012.pdf (accessed 28 September 2015). ACARA (2014), National Assessment program: Civics and Citizenship Years 6 and 10 Report 2013, ACARA. ACARA (2015), The Australian F-10 Curriculum Humanities and Social Science 7–10, V8 Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu. au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/7 -10?layout=1 (accessed 21 October 2015). ACARA (2016a), Humanities and Social Sciences: Rationale. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and -citizenship/rationale (accessed 15 January 2016). ACARA (2016b), Civics and Citizenship Education: Structure. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and -citizenship/structure (accessed 15 January 2016). ACARA (2016c), General Capabilities. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/ethical-understanding /introduction/introduction (accessed 16 January 2016). ACARA (2016d), Sustainability Search. Available online: http://www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/Search?q=sustainability (accessed 16 January 2016). ACARA (2016e), Personal and Social Capability. Available online: http://www. australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/personal-and-social-capability /introduction/introduction (accessed 16 January 2016). ACARA (2016f ), Ethical Understanding: Learning Continuum. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/ethical-understanding /continuum#layout=columns (accessed 16 January 2016). ACARA (2016g), Health and Physical Education Curriculum. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-education/curriculum /f-10?layout=1#level5-6 (accessed 25 January 2016). Aldenmyr, S., Jepson Wigg, U. and Olson, M. (2012), ‘Worries and Possibilities in Active Citizenship: Three Swedish Educational Contexts’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 7 (3): 255–270. Andrews, R. and Mycock, A. (2007), ‘Citizenship Education in the UK: Divergence Within a Multi-national State’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 3 (1): 73–88.

Theoretical Perspectives and Pedagogical Possibilities

39

Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) (2015), Available online: www.aycc.org.au /about_aycc (accessed 20 May 2015). Blewitt, J. (2008), Understanding Sustainable Development, London: Earthscan, 21–24. Cogan, J. J. and Dericott, R. (eds) (1998), Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, London: Kogan Page. Cogan, J. and Derricott, R. (eds) (2000), Citizenship for the Twenty-First Century: An International Perspective on Education, revised edn., London: Kogan Page. Commonwealth of Australia (2011), Values Education Good Practice in Schools: Stage 2. Crick, B. (2007), ‘Citizenship: The Political and the Democratic’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (3): 235–248. DeJaeghere, J. G. and Tudball, L. (2007), ‘Looking Back, Looking Forward: Critical Citizenship as a Way Ahead for Civic and Citizenship Education in Australia’ [Special edition, Judith Torney-Purta (ed.)], International Journal of Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 3 (2): 45. Fraillon, J., Schulz, W., Nixon, J. and Gebhardt, E. (2014), National Assessment Program: Civics and Citizenship Years 6 and 10 Report 2013. Available online: http://research .acer.edu.au/civics/22 (accessed 25 January 2016). Holdsworth, R. (2010), ‘Students Leading in Investigating and Enacting Values in School Communities’. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey and N. Clement (eds), International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing, 849–866. Dordrecht: Springer. Jensen, B. B. and Schnack, K. (2006), ‘The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education’, Environmental Education Research, 12 (3–4): 471–486. Kerr, D. (1999), Citizenship Education: An International Comparison, London: QCA/ NFER. MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Carlton South: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. McLaughlin, T. H. (1992), ‘Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective’, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3): 235–250. Merryfield, M. (2001), ‘Moving the Center of Global Education: From Imperial World Views That Divide the World to Double Consciousness, Contrapuntal Pedagogy, Hybridity, and Cross-cultural Competence’. In W. B. Stanley (ed.), Social Studies Research for the 21st Century, 170–207. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Mouffe, C. (2000), The Democratic Paradox, London, New York: Verso. Moyle, K. (2010), Building Innovation: Learning with Technologies, Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press. Available online: http://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent .cgi?article=1009&context=aer (accessed 25 January 2016). Ngugi W. A. and Thiong’O. (1986), Decolonizing the Mind, London: Heinemann. Onyx, J., Kenny, S. and Brown, K. (2012), ‘Active Citizenship: An Empirical Investigation’, Social Policy and Society, 11 (1): 55–66. PEO (2016), Parliamentary Education Office. Available online: http://www.peo.gov.au /(accessed 22 January 2016).

40

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Rauch, F. (2002), ‘The Potential of Education for Sustainable Development for Reforming Schools’, Environmental Education Research, 8: 43–51. Ross, A. (2012), ‘Editorial: Education for Active Citizenship: Practices, Policies and Promises’, International Journal of Progressive Education, 8 (3): 7–14. Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B. and Kerr, D. (2008), International Civic and Citizenship Education Study: Assessment Framework, Amsterdam: IEA. Tudball, L. and Brett, P. (2015), ‘What Matters and What’s Next for Citizenship Education in Australia?’ The Social Educator, 34 (2): 4–15. Tudball, L., and Gordon, K. (2013), Teaching Humanities and Social Sciences History, Geography, Economics and Citizenship in the Australian Curriculum, 5th edn, 258. Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2): 237–269.

3

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship Deborah Henderson

Introduction Civics and Citizenship education in schools helps citizens to participate in and sustain their democracy. The link between schooling, citizenship and democracy is enshrined in every set of Australian education goals, most recently in Goal 2 of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australia. (ACARA 2012: 3) In a metropolitan high school in Brisbane’s northern suburbs, small groups of Year 10 civics and citizenship (CC) students work together using their laptops and smartphones to search a range of websites as part of their investigation into values and practices that enable a democratic society to be sustained. Guided by the inquiry question ‘what are the features of a democratic society’, students critically analyse the information they have sourced during this designated Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) classroom lesson. Students discuss and debate what aspects of their inquiry’s findings they will synthesize in their respective group reports, collaborate to design a course of action for sharing their findings with the local school community through various new media platforms and reflect on and evaluate the multiple ways in which they can be informed and active citizens. This snapshot of CC teaching and learning in an Australian classroom reminds us of the critical role schools play in the ‘practices of making citizens’ (Isin 2008: 17), as young people require opportunities to develop their personal identity as citizens in the classroom and understanding of their rights and

42

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

responsibilities as citizens, as a prerequisite for active participation in society. Of all the learning areas in the curriculum, civics and citizenship is uniquely placed to provide opportunities for young people to develop their ideals, values, morals and ethics as individuals and as members of society, and to learn how to act in accordance with them in various contexts. This focus on fostering democratic dispositions has been acknowledged in different ways in the international literature for more than two decades (Westheimer and Kahne 2004; Hoskins and Mascherini 2009; Arthur and Cremin 2012). Indeed, in its recommendations for civic education, the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study drew on findings of case studies involving fourteen-year-olds from twenty-four countries (including Australia), to emphasize that ‘civic education should be multidisciplinary, participatory, related to life, and co-constructed by students and educators in a collaborative process’ (Torney-Purta, Schwille and Amadeo 1999: 30). As the introductory extract from the document which informed the writing of civics and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum, the Shape paper (ACARA 2012), makes clear, schooling, citizenship and democracy are linked and the school plays an ‘essential role in the provision of opportunities for preparing active and informed citizens to ensure the continuation of Australia’s parliamentary, liberal democracy’ (ACARA 2012: 5). This chapter examines the ‘practices of making citizens’ (Isin 2008: 17) through civics and citizenship teaching and learning in Australian schools. First, by way of a caveat, the pitfalls of some aspects of past school practice are noted. Second, the chapter discusses some exemplars of teaching and learning in selected primary and secondary schools to illustrate the rich, varied and innovative ways in which civics and citizenship education (CCE) can be implemented. In the final part of the chapter, some future challenges for CCE in Australia are highlighted.

The pitfalls of past school practice Today’s emphasis on civics and citizenship teaching and learning in Australian schools through informed and active engagement is in stark contrast to what I encountered as a young teacher in Queensland. Thirty years ago, it was common practice in some schools for those students deemed academically unsuitable to studying history and/or geography to be ‘streamed’ into citizenship education classes. In the 1970s and early 1980s, the syllabus in many states and territories conceptualized civics in ‘thin’ or ‘minimal’ (McLaughlin 1992) ways, as teaching

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

43

was often content driven via didactic transmission, with little emphasis on encouraging students to discuss and debate ideas as engaged and active citizens. Student participation was framed in terms of ‘learning how to vote’ after leaving school and reaching voting age. Acknowledgement of young people’s existing status or value as citizens in an educational context was limited, and there were few school-based opportunities for students to experience authentic democratic practices (Ben-Porath 2007). Such institutionalized deferment of informed and active citizenship did not equip young people for the future, and this was not uncommon of other schools in Australia or internationally. Based on its analysis of the responses of approximately 90,000 students in twenty-eight countries, the IEA Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta et al. 2001) suggested that schools in general can be less than democratic institutions. Furthermore, early years researchers (studying children from five to eight years) such as Ailwood et al. (2011: 642) contend that from children’s perspectives, ‘schools could be viewed as potentially one of the most undemocratic of institutions; a place where their everyday lives are bound by adult-dominated rules, regulations and powerful institutional practices’. As noted, unless students experience, understand and value democratic practices in terms of their personal identity as citizens in classrooms, they are not prepared for active participation in a democratic society. Indeed, some international studies have reported the links between particular approaches to teaching and learning about civics and the development of civic skills, dispositions and civic behaviours (Delli-Carpini and Keeter 1996; Niemi and Junn 1998; Keating et al. 2009). ‘Maximal’ (McLaughlin 1992) teaching approaches aim at empowering young people to be critical thinkers and informed citizens, capable of participating in active and positive ways in their multiple communities. This approach to implementing education for citizenship in classrooms encompasses skills and attitudes for participation in democratic processes, as well as ‘knowledge necessary for citizenship’ (Osler and Starkey 2006: iii). In fact, civics is the obverse side of the coin to citizenship: for if young people are to be fully engaged as citizens in the democratic process, they must acquire civic knowledge and understanding of the democratic institutions that underpin citizenship. This chapter contends that the practice and processes of making citizens must start in classrooms. The revised and endorsed Australian F-10 Curriculum Humanities and Social Science 7–10, V8 Civics and Citizenship (ACARA: 2015) presents rich opportunities for teaching civics and citizenship education in Australian Schools in ‘maximal’ (McLaughlin 1992) ways. CCE is critical to developing

44

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

young people’s knowledge and understanding about the civil (rights and responsibilities), political (participation and representation) and social (social values, identity and community involvement) components of Australian society. This shaping of CCE in the Australian curriculum is highly significant, for, as Kennedy observed, CCE is that part of the school curriculum ‘most closely related to a nation’s values, the way a nation sees itself as a nation and, perhaps most importantly, the way it wants young people to see it’ (Kennedy 2013: 75). The next part of the chapter illustrates these facets of CCE with reference to current school practice.

CCE in the primary years CCE continues to play an important role in the education of students in the primary years of schooling in Australia. As researchers such as Ailwood et al. (2011) emphasize, it is critically important that young children are recognized as citizens and as democratic participants in their own lives and have opportunities to understand how and why individuals, including themselves, can participate in and contribute to their communities. The following brief examples of CCE teaching and learning from a primary school in Queensland demonstrate how carefully scaffolded learning experiences provide students with these opportunities. With guidance and support from their teacher, students in small groups collaborate to investigate the ways in which past and present individuals from the local Toowoomba region, known as the Darling Downs, shaped and continue to shape their local community. This learning ranges from investigating those factors that mould an individual’s identity and sense of belonging; to identifying structures that support the local community, recognizing points of view, of justice and fair play; and identifying different views on how to respond to a contemporary issue or challenge. One group of students researched the ways in which notable characters from Toowoomba’s past overcame challenges and hardships to contribute to the community. With support from parents and community members, the students developed a website to chart their findings in the form of illustrated biographies. Among those individuals featured on the website were the botanist and explorer Allan Cunningham; Toowoomba’s first mayor, William Henry Groom; the inspirational educator Kathleen Hildred Dickson; and local hero John Alexander French, who was awarded the Victoria Cross in recognition of his bravery in combat at Milne Bay, 1942. This example demonstrates how CC

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

45

learning is connected to discipline-based learning in the history curriculum and maximal notions of citizenship, both of which are also discussed later in the chapter with reference to CCE in the secondary school. In consultation with community elders, another group of students inquired into some of the remaining oral traditions of the Indigenous tribes of the Jagera, Giabal and Jarowair people, who inhabited the Darling Downs prior to European settlement, together with more recent stories. With reference to the latter, students participated in yarning circles (stories conveyed orally) with elders and listened to stories about the 1840s–1890s frontier violence and its brutal aftermath. They also learnt about the enduring legacy of the period from 1897 to 1957, termed the ‘Aboriginal relocation’, when those survivors of frontier violence were placed under the absolute control of the Queensland government. They were forcibly removed from their traditional lands and relocated to reserves and missions set up throughout Queensland designed for their containment and control. Students then interviewed some local Indigenous activists who lobbied against the notion of terra nullius (the belief that pre-colonial Australia was unoccupied) for recognition that their Indigenous ancestors originally owned the land. This example demonstrates how CC learning links to the Australian Curriculum’s Cross-Curriculum priority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) Histories and Cultures by enabling students to gain a deeper understanding and appreciation of Indigenous people’s histories and cultures. Young Australians need to understand the struggles ATSI peoples have faced to gain recognition of their rights as citizens. Another group of students investigated how refugees from the world’s trouble spots such as Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Sudan made their way to Toowoomba in search of safety and opportunity. Students visited the local Multicultural Development Association (MDA) office to inquire into how this local organization works with members of the Toowoomba regional community to assist refugees to settle and gain employment in the district. They recorded and posted on the website the stories of those new members of the community who now regard this city as ‘home’, such as Janviere Dusabinema, who fled Rwanda and spent years in a refugee camp in Kenya before being resettled in Australia and gaining employment as a retail assistant in Toowoomba. Such authentic learning links to two of the Australian Curriculum’s General Capabilities (GCs), namely Intercultural Understanding and Personal and Social Capability. With reference to the former, the ability to learn about and engage with diverse cultures in ways that recognize commonalities and differences and cultivate mutual respect is essential for living in diverse communities. Similarly, the GC of Personal and

46

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Social Capability emphasizes that young people need to develop empathy for others, establish and build positive relationships and work effectively in teams as responsible citizens. The next example from Victoria demonstrates how a primary school participating in the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) provided opportunities for students to develop civic knowledge and understanding and become catalysts for sustainable change in their local community. This schoolbased approach to Education for Sustainable Development (EfS) requires the inclusion of sustainable development issues into teaching and learning (DEH 2005). Since 2008, AuSSI has operated in Victoria as the ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic programme, with the overall objective of embedding sustainability across every facet of school life. A significant element of this programme is developed through Student Action Teams (SATs) where students participate in a range of cooperative learning experiences by forming small groups, and then consult with their school and local community to identify environmental and related social issues and problems to investigate. Through this form of authentic learning, students work cooperatively to investigate ways in which real problems can be addressed by taking informed and responsible action for sustainable change (Henderson and Tudball 2016). Holdsworth (2010) advocates for such democratic and participatory learning through SATs by arguing that when such authentic learning occurs, it results in real learning outcomes as illustrated in the following example. After concluding inquiry-based learning about ways to achieve sustainable recycling, students at St Therese Primary School in Torquay, Victoria, decided to weigh their own classroom rubbish bins once a week and used Excel to graph their findings. Students displayed the results around the school, and the school administration provided awards as incentives for the best performing year levels and classrooms. During the first weigh-in, students worked out that by comparing the weight of the bins on a normal lunch day and on a rubbish-free lunch day, they could potentially save 27.5 kg of rubbish per week and 110 kg of rubbish per month. Tom, a grade four SAT member, reported that ‘when we see the graphs, we want to be the best class with the least rubbish’, and we ‘don’t want to send the most rubbish to landfill’ (ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic 2015). In a four-year period, the school reduced the amount of waste it sent to landfill by over 80 per cent (ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic 2015). Such ‘maximal’ approaches aimed at young people experiencing active and informed citizenship during their schooling (McLaughlin 1992) empower them to be critical thinkers and informed citizens, capable of participating in active and positive ways in their

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

47

various communities. Sustainability education is one of the areas identified in the Australian Curriculum’s Cross-Curriculum Priorities, and this example illustrates how CC learning enables primary school students to act in ways that contribute to more sustainable patterns of living. Moreover, this approach to CCE learning can boost students’ self-esteem and have a proactive influence on their lives (Henderson and Tudball 2016). The next part of the chapter illustrates how ‘maximal’ approaches to CCE can affect young people’s lives in proactive ways with reference to practice in selected secondary schools.

Connecting discipline-based knowledges in the secondary school The US educator James Beane (1997) emphasized the value in connecting students’ pursuit of issues that have personal significance to themselves with those issues which are important to society. CCE’s strong focus on those conceptual understandings and skills connected to both the world and young people’s lives provides opportunities for teachers to draw from and connect those understandings and skills from other subjects in the Humanities and Social Sciences learning area. In a school in South Australia, a Year 9 CCE teacher collaborated with his history and geography colleagues to plan a unit which investigates how ideas about and experiences of Australian identity are influenced by global connectedness and mobility. The six-week unit explored the ways in which a group of Australians volunteer with different non-government organizations (NGOs) in Bangladesh in order to contribute to the well-being of the Bangladeshi people. The first part of the unit examined the effects of history and geography on the lives of the people so that the students have some understanding of the origins and nature of the challenges affecting the people of Bangladesh. Hence, selected historical and geographical concepts and understandings provide a meaningful context for students’ investigation of social and economic disadvantage together with human rights concerns. Students investigated issues such as pollution, poverty, illiteracy, child marriages, adolescent motherhood and violence against women and girls which are compounded by the fact that 40 per cent of children and 30 per cent of women are malnourished (Women and Children First n.d.). Students also discussed the fact that department stores in Australia, such as Target and Big W, stock clothing manufactured in Bangladesh at very low prices. They then decided that the class would invite their local federal member of

48

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

parliament to visit the school to explain the ways in which import licences are granted to large companies that stock clothing manufactured under working conditions that would not be accepted by workers in Australia. In the second part of the unit, two guest speakers, Mark and Rosemary, shared their experiences volunteering in Bangladesh. Mark, a deputy principal in an independent school, discussed why he and his partner volunteer for three weeks every January with the NGO ‘Symbiosis’ to support literacy programmes in some villages. Rosemary shared why she took long service leave from her work as a geologist to participate in strategies aimed at alleviating contaminated groundwater in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region. Rosemary draws from World Health Organization (WHO) research to demonstrate the scale of the problem: high levels of arsenic in groundwater have contributed to the largest mass poisoning in history, affecting an estimated 30–35 million people in Bangladesh, and currently arsenic poisoning is the cause of death for one out of every five people in Bangladesh (WHO n.d.). Following Rosemary’s session, some students take action by joining their peers online in the United States and Canada to ‘Take the Water Challenge’ (The Water Project Inc. n.d.) and commit to drinking only water for two weeks. They agreed to save the equivalent amount they would spend on soft drinks, juice, sports drinks and bottled water and donate it to contribute clean water projects in Bangladesh. Such CCE learning that draws on discipline-based knowledges and focuses on contemporary issues illustrates to students how the social, economic and cultural aspects of people’s lives are connected through the processes of globalization, and can motivate their engagement with issues that are personally meaningful in their lives. In the next part of the chapter this is elaborated further with reference to ‘global citizenship’ education in schools.

Addressing complex contemporary issues: Global citizenship In a school in Sydney, Year 10 CCE students investigate when, where, how and why children have been interred in Australian Immigration Detention Centres (IDCs). After studying a series of drawings by children detained at Woomera IDC in 2003, in small groups students frame a series of questions they would like answered about the young people who drew these pictures. In the next part of their investigation, students work from six learning stations to access print and digital data categorized under the headings: Australia’s

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

49

national interests; Australian law; human rights; international law; Australian political party policies; and values espoused by different individuals, groups and organization in Australia. After working their way through the learning station materials over a number of lessons, students go back to their small groups to discuss the complexities of the issue of detention and the challenge of making a decision as an Australian citizen about this practice. Students then research more recent examples of how the unprecedented movements of people in response to ethnic, religious and political conflict, as well as those fleeing the outcomes of natural disasters, have resulted in millions of transient workers and refugees. In the final part of their unit, students discuss how increasing numbers of refugees, such as those fleeing Syria, present a problem of global significance and challenge traditional notions of citizenship based solely on membership of the nation state. Rethinking citizenship in terms of a citizen’s membership of the world community suggests a more differentiated, multi-dimensional approach. As McLaughlin (1992: 236) reminds us, students of civics and citizenship have ‘a responsibility to actively question and extend their local and immediate horizons in the light of more universal considerations such as justice [and] social disadvantage’. Canadian educators Evans, Broad and Rodrigue (2010: iv) contend that citizenship education needs to be connected with these global concerns. As they put it, the ‘challenges in human rights and social justice, and the impact of international tragedies and emergencies have  …  created tensions and conditions that require more integrated, worldwide responses’. The notion of globalization as a phenomenon which encapsulates the complex ways in which the lives of the world’s people are interlinked has been recognized in the literature for some time. Robertson (1992: 8), for example, referred to globalization as ‘the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole’. Sadly, the growth of terrorism in the past decade reflects more sinister aspects of the threats and opportunities presented by globalization. Fullilove (2015: 2) encapsulates this by observing that ‘the world has become less predictable and safe’. The indefinite threat of terrorist events coupled with the effect of extensive terrorist-related media coverage is especially confronting for young people. Other global environmental, ecological, social, economic, political and strategic challenges that concern young people include climate change; global warming; food security; ageing populations; the transnational movements of people; the trafficking of people, arms and drugs; the treatment of refugees; and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

50

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Researchers such as Kenway and Bullen (2008) observe that young people experience globalization in many facets of their daily lives through employment, new media, advertising and interactions with their peer group. Young people need opportunities to investigate both the nature of these global challenges and the ‘stories of hope’, which demonstrate how individuals and organizations collaborate to address such global issues in proactive ways. As Cogan and Derricott (2000) remind us, as global citizens of the twenty-first century, young people will need to be willing to resolve conflict in a non-violent manner, to change their lifestyle and consumption habits to protect the environment, to be sensitive towards, and to defend, human rights and to participate in politics from local to international levels. Schools are well placed to provide young people with opportunities to develop knowledge, skills and competencies to approach problem-solving in critical and innovative ways in CCE classrooms. As noted above, schools can also encourage young people to take informed action for change in local to global contexts. Educators such as Lynn Davies (2006: 5) now refer to globally oriented citizenship learning as ‘global citizenship’ education. In Australian classrooms, global citizenship education provides students with opportunities to understand the broader regional and international contexts in which the Australian nation is located together with an understanding of citizens’ rights and responsibilities at multiple levels. In November 2015, students from schools across Australia participated in the People’s Climate March (PeoplesClimate 2015) and walked alongside millions of people in hundreds of major cities around the world to demonstrate their wish to end fossil fuels and seek a planned transition to 100 per cent renewable energy to secure safer communities.

Social media and digital citizenship The digital disruption, or ‘digital turn’ (Buchanan 2011: 67), has opened up a range of possibilities for young people to access and use technology in their everyday lives. Information and communication technology (ICT) also provides young people with exciting options for active learning, both in and beyond the classroom, with their peers ranging from local to global contexts. Sarah Lamont (2015: 70), a Year 12 student pursuing a successful Higher School Certificate (HSC), notes that ‘(b)oth my laptop and smartphone have provided this opportunity’. Furthermore, as many young people view their world through the lens of social media, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, these and other forms of

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

51

new media are broadening notions of citizen action and activism. Given this context, it is critical that students learn how to ‘apply democratic principles, practice behaviours and to actively engage in practical citizenship activities within schools, in the community and online’ (ACARA 2012: 5). ICTs can support and enhance student learning in CCE in two broad ways. First, students can develop their ability to manage and operate ICT to meet their individual learning requirements (ACARA n.d.). Second, students can develop and apply ICT knowledge, skills and social and ethical practices to investigate, create and communicate about citizenship in multi-dimensional ways. In their study of new forms of democratic participation, Mellor and Seddon concluded that ‘when combined with civics and citizenship education, the use of Web 2.0 and social media opens up significant education options for lifelong learning, by supporting self-motivated and self-monitoring learners across the breadth of the population’ (2013: 52). This use of social media confirms Selwyn’s (2011) caveat on the appropriate use of ICTs in education: ‘our primary focus should not be on the actual technology devices, tools and applications per se, but the practices and activities that surround them, the meanings that people attach to them, and the social relations and structures that these technologies are linked to’ (Selwyn 2011: 4).

Whole school approaches The CCE Shape paper, which guided the writers of the curriculum, made it clear that CC should be part of the formal school curriculum as well as embedded in wider whole school programmes which could include ‘participation in experiences external to the school but linked to the school curriculum (for example, community activities, parliamentary education programs, civic institution visits and electoral commission programs)’ (ACARA 2012: 15). These kinds of emphases provide evidence of the fact that while knowledge and understanding of the nation and its government and institutions are important, community-based learning is also necessary. This aspect of authentic ‘learning by doing’ and participation in civics and citizenship education presents opportunities for teachers to foster what BenPorath (2013) refers to as citizenship’s relationality: the capacity to enact what is learnt by actively participating in society. Holdsworth et al. (2000) posited four facets of a school’s ethos, culture and environment through which CCE can be embedded to achieve a ‘whole school approach’ to CCE. These elements include school programmes and policies, curriculum, classroom teaching and learning practice, and community partnerships and links.

52

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

With reference to the latter, whole school approaches have been adopted by many schools in Australia to ensure that CCE’s potential is realized by providing models of, and practice in, democratic decision-making for students through a variety of clubs, projects, school council and leadership initiatives. Service learning is also employed to foster civics and citizenship in a school’s ethos, culture and environment for it enables young people to engage in experiential learning within a range of communities. Through this approach, a school facilitates opportunities for students to volunteer their services in a wide range of ‘real world’ activities, the purpose of which is to benefit others and provide opportunities for citizen involvement in the local community (Waterman 1997). Holland (2007) argues that service-learning activities should be linked to academic content and standards, involve young people in ascertaining and meeting real and defined community needs, include ongoing reflection and analysis and promote a sense of caring and community. As part of the servicelearning programme in a Perth comprehensive school, Year 10 students selected from placements that ranged from recording the life histories of local residents in a nursing home to volunteering on the free-lunch van for the homeless and participating in the Clean Up Australia programme. Another example of service learning can be seen in the work of a CCE teacher in Sydney who organized her Year 9 students to volunteer with an NGO which was piloting a literacy and numeracy programme for young refugees, some of whom were homeless, and disengaged from the community and from learning. The students played basketball after school with the refugees and used this form of sport as a means of engaging them in weekly numeracy and literacy groups to foster teamwork, confidence and group engagement. Through this process, students often have their assumptions about the world challenged. Reflection on their authentic community engagement through service to others is a key strategy used to highlight to students the breadth and depth of their learning in CCE. The following part of the chapter provides insights into how the leadership team in a large school in Townsville, North Queensland, drew from the work of Holdsworth et al. (2000) to address student well-being by embedding CCE through a whole school approach. Increased absenteeism coupled with concern about the welfare of students from those parts of the community where unemployment was high prompted the leadership team’s decision to allocate two pupil-free planning days at the beginning of the school year for staff to workshop how student well-being and engagement could be addressed through

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

53

CCE. On the first day, two guest speakers were invited to act as provocateurs and challenge the staff to conceptualize students as full members of the school community who were entitled to learn to be part of the school decision-making processes. Members of staff were asked to reflect on what aspects of school life might be natural sites for civics and citizenship learning in the school and to brainstorm their potential overlapping and interconnected elements. They also considered how the school’s ethos, culture and environment could be mapped across whole school policies and programmes; classroom teaching and learning and curriculum development; learning activities in active citizenship; and community links and partnerships. On day two, teachers were invited to select their area of interest, respond to some professional reading materials and then brainstorm in small groups three specific strategies that could be implemented over two years. Each group was then required to report to the whole staff and include a timeline with identified milestones for implementation. In the final session, staff members were asked to vote on which two of the four areas they wanted the school to prioritize: classroom teaching and learning and curriculum development were selected together with community links and partnerships. Further professional development sessions focused on the ways teachers could model democratic behaviours and ‘good citizenship’ in their teaching. The teachers audited their classroom practice in terms of using cooperative and collaborative approaches, inquiry-based and active learning strategies, as well as critical, creative and higher-order thinking. Some teachers volunteered to adopt a community of inquiry approach in their classrooms to foster their students’ capacities to develop reason and judgement. Linda, a beginning teacher, reflected on her experience: The community of inquiry approach appealed to me as it promotes critical thinking about real issues and problems at hand. I like the way students can learn ‘by doing’ collaboratively with each other. This way they gain an understanding of how other students in the class think. I really want my students to develop respect for differing opinions and for ‘difference’ in general. Some of my students come from such disadvantaged backgrounds and I want to offer them some hope as well.

While this discussion of how one school planned to implement whole school approaches to CCE is not exhaustive, it provides some insights into some potential benefits that have been recognized internationally for more than two decades (QCA 1998).

54

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Future challenges for CCE in Australia In providing selected insights into the current ‘practices of making citizens’ (Isin 2008: 17) from Australian schools, this chapter illustrates the critical role of schooling in nurturing and enabling young people’s learning of the knowledge, skills and dispositions required to exercise informed and active citizenship. However, challenges remain in ensuring that all Australian students have opportunities to experience maximal and multi-dimensional citizenship approaches. This is because in some schools, civics and citizenship education continues to have an ‘image problem’ as a subject that is less valuable and/or intellectually rigorous than the disciplines of history and geography. Consequently there are members of the profession who are reluctant to teach it. In addition, others lack the knowledge and skills to be involved in its implementation. Some school leaders are disinclined to place CCE at the centre of curriculum planning in schools, despite evidence that whole school approaches enhance student wellbeing and academic performance (Wills et al. 2013). Furthermore, teaching CCE can be challenging for two reasons. First, conflicting theoretical perspectives make civic education a highly contested area (Kennedy 2005). Much of the contestation resides in conflicting views of the knowledge base that potentially might inform civic education programmes and different approaches to establishing the epistemological foundations of civic education. Second, CCE needs to be taught with an emphasis on fostering young people’s personal learning as citizens, and their capacity to develop understandings about their own identity and location as members of civil society together with their rights and responsibilities as members of communities from local to global contexts. While teaching about citizenship necessarily involves discussing controversial issues, given that open and informed debate is vital for a healthy democracy, many teachers feel uncomfortable about, or ignore, contested and complex global issues and prefer to teach less challenging topics. Of the schoolbased approaches referred to in this chapter, global citizenship education is perhaps one inexperienced teachers find most challenging, despite its critical importance. In the next stage of implementation of CC, teachers will require access to professional development programmes that meet their needs and enhance their capacity for effective CC teaching. As Kennedy (2005: 12) notes, ‘[t]eachers must be engaged not just in the acquisition and protection of technical knowledge and skills, the traditional focus of professionalism, but also in the profession’s broader social purposes through the education of students in and for a sustainable democracy’. Essentially, the future of CC in Australia rests with school leaders and teachers.

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

55

References Ailwood, J., Brownlee, J., Johansson, E., Cobb-Moore, C., Walker, S. and Boulton-Lewis, G. (2011), ‘Educational Policy for Citizenship in the Early Years in Australia’, Journal of Education Policy, 26 (5): 641–653. Arthur, J. and Cremin, H. (eds) (2012), Debates in Citizenship Education, London: Routledge. Asia Education Foundation (AEF) (n.d.), BRIDGE School Partnerships. Available online: http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/programmes/school-partnerships (accessed 5 July 2015). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (n.d.), Information and Communication Technology (ICT) Capability: Introduction. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/informationandcommunicati ontechnology-capability/introduction/introduction (accessed 28 July 2015). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). Available online: http://www.acara .edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum__Civics_and _Citizenship_251012.pdf (accessed 28 September 2015). Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015), The Australian F-10 Curriculum and Social Science 7–10, V8 Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and -citizenship/curriculum/7-10?layout=1 (accessed 21 October 2015). Beane, J. (1997), Curriculum Integration: Designing the Core of Democratic Education, New York: Teachers College Press. Ben-Porath, S. (2007), ‘Civic Virtue Out of Necessity: Patriotism and Democratic Education’, Theory and Research in Education, 5 (1): 41–59. Ben-Porath, S. (2013), ‘Deferring Virtue: The New Management of Students and the Civic Role of Schools’, Theory and Research in Education, 11 (2): 111–128. Buchanan, R. (2011), ‘Paradox, Promise and Public Pedagogy: Implications of the Federal Government’s Digital Education Revolution’, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (2): 67–78. Cogan, J. and Derricott, R. (eds.) (2000), Citizenship for the Twenty-First Century: An International Perspective on Education, revised edn., London: Kogan Page. Davies, L. (2006), ‘Global Citizenship: Abstraction or Framework for Action?’, Educational Review, 58 (1), 5–25. Delli-Carpini, M. X. and Keeter, S. (1996), What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005), Education for a Sustainable Future: A National Environmental Education Statement for Australian Schools. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files

56

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

/resources/1b93d012-6dfb-4ceb-a37f-209a27dca0e0/files/sustainable-future.pdf (accessed 7 April 2015). Evans, M., Broad, K. and Rodrigue, A. (2010), Educating for Global Citizenship: An ETFO Curriculum Development Inquiry Initiative, Toronto: Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario. Fullilove, M. (2015), The Birthplace of the Fortunate, The Boyer Lectures. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs /boyerlectures/2015-10-18/6689512 (accessed 19 October 2015). Henderson, D. and Tudball, L. (2016), ‘Democratic and Participatory Citizenship: Youth Action for Sustainability in Australia’, Asian Education and Development Studies 5 (1): 1–17. Holdsworth, R. (2010), ‘Students Leading in Investigating and Enacting Values in School Communities’. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey and N. Clement (eds), International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing, 849–866. Dordrecht: Springer. Holdsworth, R., England, G., Carson, S., Stokes, H. and Tyler, D. (2000), Discovering Democracy in Action: Learning from School Practice, Melbourne: Australian Youth Research Center/Commonwealth of Australia. Holland, B. (November 2007), Quality Service and Service Learning: Quality and Impact, Brisbane: Presentation to Department of Education Queensland. Hoskins, B. L. and Mascherini, M. (2009), ‘Measuring Active Citizenship Through the Development of a Composite Indicator’, Social Indicators Research, 90 (3): 459–488. Isin, E. F. (2008), ‘Theorizing Acts of Citizenship’. In E. F. Isin and G. M. Nielsen (eds), Acts of Citizenship, 15–43. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G. and Benton, T. (2009), Embedding Citizenship Education in Secondary Schools in England (2002–08): Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Seventh Annual Report (DCSF Research Report 172), London: DCSF. Kennedy, K. (2005), ‘Rethinking Teachers’ Professional Responsibilities: Towards a Civic Professionalism’, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (1): 3–15. Kennedy, K. (2013), ‘Civics and Citizenship in the Australian Curriculum – Global Perspectives’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 75. Kenway, J. and Bullen, E. (2008), ‘The Global Corporate Curriculum and the Young Cyberflâneur as Global Citizen’. In Dolby, N. and F. Rizvi (eds), Youth Moves: Identities and Education in Global Perspective, 17–32. London: Routledge. Lamont, S. (2015), ‘What Happened to the Digital Revolution?’, Curriculum Perspectives, 35 (2): 70–72. McLaughlin, T. H. (1992), ‘Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective’, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3): 235–250. Mellor, S. and Seddon, T. (2013), Networking Young Citizens: Learning to Be Citizens in and with the Social Web, Research Report, Melbourne: Faculty of Education, Monash University.

Current Practice and Future Challenges in Teaching Civics and Citizenship

57

Niemi, R. and Junn, J. (1998), Civic Education, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2006), ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Review of Research, Policy and Practice 1995–2005’, Research Papers in Education, 21 (4): 433–466. PeoplesClimate (2015), People’s Climate March. Available online: http://www .peoplesclimate.org.au/ (accessed 30 November 2015). QCA (1998), Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools; The Crick Report, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Agency. ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic (2015), Case Study: Victorian Primary School Saves Thousands of Dollars by Managing Sustainability Data. Available online: http://www .resourcesmartschools.vic.gov.au/program-results/st-thereses-primary-school-case -study/#.VY4UO_mqpBc (accessed 12 June 2015). Robertson, R. (1992), Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture, Sage: London. Selwyn, N. (2011), Education and Technology: Key Issues and Debates, London: A&C Black. The Water Project, Inc. (n.d.) The Water Challenge. Available online: http:// thewaterproject.org/thewaterchallenge (accessed 25 July 2015). The World Health Organization (WHO) (n.d.), Water Sanitation Health. Available online: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/arsenic/en/ (accessed 10 July 2015). Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schultz, W. (2001), Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen, Amsterdam: IEA. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. and Amadeo, J. A. (eds) (1999), Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project, Amsterdam: IEA. Waterman, A. S. (1997), Service-Learning: Applications from the Research, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2): 237–269. Wills, J., Watson, D., O’Connell, J., Chitty, C. and Audsley, J. (2013), Citizen Schools: Learning to Rebuild Democracy, London: IPPR. Women and Children First (n.d.). Available online: http://www.womenandchildrenfirst .org.uk/what-we-do/where-we-work/bangladesh?gclid=CNHVj6e -18gCFdcmvQodfAgBkA (accessed 5 August 2015).

Part Two

Perspectives and Aims

4

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights and Perspectives Through Civics and Citizenship Libby Tudball and Peter Anderson

We acknowledge that we live and work on the country of Aboriginal traditional owners, who have been custodians of this land for many centuries on which they have performed age-old ceremonies of celebration and renewal. We acknowledge and respect the work of Aboriginal scholars, whose guidance and views on education priorities and Indigenous ways of knowing and being are included in this chapter.

Introduction There are divisions in Australia that only time and constructive effort will diminish. The process of reconciliation aims to reduce these divisions and to suggest ways in which the relationships between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community can be healed, with respect for humanity on all sides. (Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 1993: 1) The development of a deep understanding of the rich and ancient cultures and histories of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and their battle to achieve citizens’ rights and equity in this nation has been neglected or excluded from the education of many young Australians for too long. Indigenous educator Mark Rose (2015: 69) refers to this knowledge deprivation as ‘silent apartheid’ that ‘transcends generations’, because of discrimination on the basis of race and an education system that ‘overtly suppressed and

62

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

devalued aspects of Indigenous knowledge’. In some schools, students began to learn about the land rights movement for Aboriginal Australians in the 1960s. But for others, even the crucial historical moment, the passing of the 1967 referendum so Aboriginal Australians could be recognized citizens in their own country, has not been a part of their learning. The overwhelming ‘Yes’ vote signalled that non-Aboriginal Australians were more ready to embrace social and political reform, and to recognize First Australians as citizens. Indigenous leader Patrick Dodson (1993) argues that ‘the “granting” of citizenship offered an opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to have a voice and to move from a situation of being totally controlled by external regulations, to one where we could have some control over the decisions which affected our lives’. In his speech as Social Justice Commissioner in 1993, he said that prior to 1967, that principle was pretty thin on the ground … we could generally not obtain a passport, could not travel between imposed state borders (regardless of where the borders for our country lay), we did not have access to society’s basic institutions, … we could not participate in the political life of the country. We were not even counted in the census of the people of this country.

Dodson (1993) sees the whole question of citizenship for Aboriginal people as problematic, since ‘Citizenship as it applies in the contemporary socio-political context implicitly contains reference to the concepts of nationhood, social organization, and the structural relationship between peoples and the Nation State’. He put the proposition that As Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it may be suggested that we have two citizenships; one in relation to our indigenous nations, and one in relation to the Australian nation … [So] … ‘Citizenship within which society?’ and secondly, ‘recognition by which political system?’

These are important questions for all educators, many who are only now commencing their own journey of building knowledge and understanding to be able to implement the Australian Curriculum (AC) and the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers (AITSL 2016), which require a focus on ‘Strategies for teaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’, and ‘Demonstrating broad knowledge of, understanding of and respect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and languages’. Being urged to develop understanding of Indigenous ways of knowing, viewing and relating to the world can open up community dialogue and insights into the

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

63

‘First Australians’ lives and perspectives, but the lack of emphasis on teachers’ learning in the past means it is a challenging task. In this chapter, we discuss how the implementation of the new civics and citizenship subject and other aspects of the Australian Curriculum meet this challenge across the nation. The perspectives of Indigenous Australians are now well represented in the overall intent of the curriculum, in the specific focus on Indigenous histories and cultures in the cross-curriculum priority and in the ethical and intercultural understanding general capabilities section of the curriculum. We explore key questions and concepts in the curriculum and examples of elaborations suggested for developing this learning in schools. But we also address the challenges that still need to be grappled with in schools and in teacher education, to ensure that the enactment of this intended curriculum can lead to transformation in attitudes and greater equity in communities across Australia in culturally respectful and inclusive ways. There are complexities involved in the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives and in developing approaches to this teaching and learning in schools that must be addressed. Age-appropriate learning is important in this process, to ensure that over their years of schooling, young Australians build understanding that includes historic and contemporary perspectives that are informed by Indigenous community views. We argue that understanding ‘Indigeneity’ (UN Working Group for Indigenous Peoples 1983) is an essential part of this learning, as according to the UN definition, this involves recognizing that Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the present territory of a country … when persons of a different culture or ethnic origin arrived from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means, reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition.

The Commonwealth of Australia defines an Indigenous person as a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent who identifies as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander and is accepted as such by the community in which he or she lives. There are three components to the definition: descent, selfidentification and community acceptance (ABS 2016). Daes (1996) argues for additional factors Indigenous legal experts and academics have considered relevant to understanding the concept of ‘Indigenous’. These include the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, which may include aspects of language, social organization, religion and spiritual values, laws and institutions, self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups.

64

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Lowe and Yunkaporta (2013) argue that while Indigenous ‘ways of knowing, being and thinking’ (p. 4) are now flagged as key concepts in the Australian Curriculum, ‘current public education is a long way from engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander epistemologies in this way’ (p. 5). But they contend that meaningful engagement with ‘cultural knowledge pedagogy’ (p. 5) that encompasses Indigenous community members’ views is important in a forward-looking AC. The ongoing challenge for Australian educators is being inclusive of Indigenous worldviews and building relationships with local community members to draw on their knowledge. Where this is not possible, teachers can increasingly access online resources that bring Indigenous voices into classrooms through websites, including, for example, Yarra Healing (2016) and other links where Indigenous people tell their stories and share their wisdom. If schools in Australia are to achieve what Westheimer and Kahne (2004: 2) define as three visions for citizenship education – to develop the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen and the justice-oriented citizen – in relation to recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives, we argue that there needs to be a holistic approach to planning. This requires connecting the subjects’ ‘civics and citizenship’ and ‘history’ with other areas of the AC including the skills and capacities involved in ethical understanding and intercultural capability. We believe that young learners need to inquire into the story behind significant events, for example, Prime Minister Gough Whitlam’s commitment to ‘self-determination’ in the 1970s, ‘whereby the Commonwealth would support decision-making by Indigenous communities themselves, and relinquish the paternalistic control that previous governments had wielded over the lives of indigenous people’ (Whitlam Institute 2016). This was an important forerunner to recognition of Indigenous worldviews; that still remains as ‘unfinished business’ (Rhys 2001) for the nation. Knowing the story and seeing images such as Whitlam pouring sand through the hands of Indigenous Elder Vincent Lingiari as a symbol of recognizing land rights can engage young people and help them develop empathy and a sense of equity and social justice. Learners require opportunities to understand why Whitlam championed the need to ‘legislate to give Aborigines land rights – not just because their case is beyond argument’, as he argued, but also as he added, ‘all of us as Australians are diminished while the Aborigines are denied their rightful place in this nation’ (Whitlam Institute 2016). Citizenship education in the AC now includes a focus on Indigenous legal battles for rights and the longer story of dispossession, de-tribalization and loss that Indigenous Australians

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

65

have endured. The curriculum also includes learning about positive milestones such as the enactment of the Racial Discrimination Act in the last month of the Whitlam government in 1975. This legislation remains one of the most important human rights protections in Australia. In the decades since then, other prime ministers as well as state and territory Departments of Education and education leaders have embarked on varied initiatives to improve understanding of non-Indigenous Australians and to improve equality of opportunity for young Indigenous Australians through programmes in schools. But in his famous ‘Redfern Speech’, the then Prime Minister Paul Keating (1993) said, ‘We have not managed to extend opportunities and care, dignity and hope to the Indigenous people of Australia.’ He argued that ‘This is a fundamental test of our social goals and national will’ and ‘we cannot sweep injustice aside’. In his research in the United States, Banks (2010) has found that personal and broader social benefits accrue for students involved in explicit and purposeful teaching about minority groups and social justice concerns and evidence that they are more likely to be better adjusted socially than in an education that serves only the dominant culture. The embedding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives in education policy and the implementation of a curriculum that aims to redress ignorance about Indigenous peoples, cultures and ways of knowing has the potential to be a critical step forward across the nation. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008: 7) that informed the development of the Australian Curriculum states that ‘As a nation Australia values the central role of education in building a democratic, equitable and just society – a society that is prosperous, cohesive and culturally diverse, and that values Australia’s Indigenous cultures as a key part of the nation’s history, present and future’. The Melbourne Declaration requires a culturally inclusive curriculum that will ‘ensure that schooling contributes to a socially cohesive society that respects and appreciates cultural, social and religious diversity’ (p. 9). The goals urge schools to ‘build on local cultural knowledge and experience of Indigenous students as a foundation for learning, and work in partnership with local communities on all aspects of the schooling process, including to promote high expectations for the learning outcomes of Indigenous students, [so] … to match those of other students’ (p. 7). The Shape of the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2012) paper that informed the development of the Australian Curriculum emphasized the importance of the inclusion of ‘appreciation of the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures’. This led to the development of multiple ways of achieving

66

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

this learning, including through a Cross-Curriculum Priority that now makes a commitment to addressing two distinct needs: that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are able to see themselves, their identities and their cultures reflected in the curriculum of each of the learning areas, and can fully participate in the curriculum and build their selfesteem that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures cross-curriculum priority is designed for all students to engage in reconciliation, respect and recognition of the world’s oldest continuous living cultures. (ACARA 2016a)

We begin this chapter with a brief overview of the national journey towards reconciliation, as this contextual story reveals much about the complexities involved. This is followed by a frank discussion of contemporary realities that demonstrate evidence of the ongoing importance of developing programmes in schools that recognize and improve learning about Indigenous rights and perspectives in Australia. We draw on expert views and research from members of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander scholarly community to inform the future work of all educators, so there is more hope for the achievement of ‘A united Australia that respects this land of ours; values the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage; and provides justice and equity for all’ (Reconciliation Australia 2000).

The national journey towards reconciliation in schools, the community and nation For more than two decades, the Australian Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (CfR) (1991–2000) and then Reconciliation Australia (RA) (2001–ongoing) along with countless other organizations have worked across the nation, planning and urging action in governments, schools and the community to redress past wrongs and to deal with what they call the ‘unfinished business’ of reconciliation. They aimed to achieve ‘negotiated outcomes on matters such as Indigenous rights, self-determination within the life of the nation, and constitutional reform’ (RA 2000). The then co-chair of RA, Shelley Rhys (2001), said, ‘It’s a challenge for all of us, because getting it right is vital to our future together and to our nation’s sense of identity, purpose and pride.’ She commented that many significant events have demonstrated the mood and readiness for reconciliation, including the Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (1997), which recognized the

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

67

suffering endured by thousands of people affected by the forcible removal of children from their families. Rhys (2001) celebrated the ‘one million Australians who walked for reconciliation in cities and towns across the length and breadth of our land [in 2000]. Together they walked across bridges in the largest public demonstration for a cause in Australia’s history’. She hoped for ‘something that translates good words and sentiment into action’. Each of these significant events and milestones is now included in the Australian Curriculum – recognition that students should understand the story of the movement towards reconciliation. Another landmark decision now included in the history and civics and citizenship subjects is the ‘Mabo decision’, named after Eddie Mabo, the Torres Strait Islander man from the island of Mer, who ‘challenged the Australian legal system and fought for recognition of the rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the traditional owners of their land’ (Reconciliation Australia n.d.). The Mabo case ran for ten years. On 3 June 1992, the High Court of Australia decided that terra nullius, or the legal view that the land was unoccupied when colonized by the British, should not have been applied to Australia. This decision recognized that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have rights to the land and acknowledged their unique connection with the land. It also led to the Australian Parliament passing the Native Title Act in 1993, which provided a national system for the recognition and protection of native title and for its coexistence with the national land management system. The complexity of conceptual understanding of Australian and Indigenous government and law required in these important milestones is now included in the secondary CC that includes this knowledge, so students can learn about this milestone in the development of Australia as a more inclusive and fair society. The recommendations from The National Strategy to Promote Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rights (2000) highlighted the need for ‘schools, tertiary education institutions and employers … to require and support the culturally appropriate teaching of the truth of Australia’s history that includes Indigenous perspectives and addresses racism’. The report urged action to ‘ensure the media feature stories that promote reconciliation and challenge racist stereotyping’. It also argued that all governments must ‘ensure their policies and practices observe Australia’s international Indigenous and human rights obligations’. Both political and community leadership have been pivotal in this journey. In the national Parliament in 2008, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2008) apologized to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in what has become known as the ‘Sorry Speech’. He said that ‘the time has now come

68

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

for the nation to turn a new page in Australia’s history by righting the wrongs of the past and so moving forward with confidence to the future’. He apologized for the ‘laws and policies of successive parliaments and governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians’. In 2009, the Rudd government became a signatory to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII 2007), which required the continuation of efforts to put these policies into practice. But also significant at this time was that the government legislated to commence the development of the Australian Curriculum. A focus on all young people understanding and knowing their rights and responsibilities, exploring what it means to be Australian and participating as active, informed and responsible citizens is at the heart of education for citizenship. ACARA (2012: 2) defines citizenship as involving full and active ‘membership of a community across three components – civil (rights and responsibilities), political (participation and representation) and social (social values, identity and community involvement)’. To date in Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have not yet fully achieved these rights in practice. The Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2016b) now states that learners should ‘investigate the status and rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, past and present, including civic movements for change, the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples to Australian society, and contemporary issues’. Ma Rhea, Anderson and Atkinson (2012: 10) argue that providing an education focused on improving the quality of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students’ education is ‘a key determinant in improving the quality of life for Indigenous Australians and for them to achieve their rights. Despite considerable effort over that past 40 years, the gap in educational attainment between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has remained intractable’. They remind educators that ‘ensuring non-Indigenous students develop understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and cultures will support the movement towards reconciliation so that all citizens have mutual respect and a sense of shared ownership of their history’. Ma Rhea, Anderson and Atkinson (2012: 9) promote learning through a ‘rights-based approach together with a raft of Australia’s policy commitments to social and economic justice for all Australians that has created a very positive environment in which to consider school reform and teacher workforce development needs with respect to Indigenous matters’. However, the reality is that considerable challenges exist in an environment where constant instances of ongoing discrimination continue amongst members of the Australian community.

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

69

Evidence in the following section confirms Reconciliation Australia’s (2015) findings that, ‘trust between non-Indigenous people and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples is still low and levels of prejudice are high … but there is much goodwill for reconciliation’.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives: Contemporary realities The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNPFII 2007) reaffirmed that ‘indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind’ and recognized ‘the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples’. Sadly, the ignorance and lack of educational opportunities for many Australians in the past to understand the impact of racism has contributed to the continued flouting of these rights through discriminatory actions. A notable instance of this that turned into a continuing media furore occurred at an Australian Football League (AFL) match in Melbourne in 2013 during the AFL’s Indigenous round – a weekend that traditionally celebrates Aboriginal culture and the extraordinary achievements of Indigenous footballers in the national football code. The incident involved respected and talented Sydney Swans Indigenous footballer Adam Goodes, who in 2014 was honoured for his leadership and advocacy in the fight against racism both on the sporting field and within society as Australian of the Year 2014. Australian journalist Jeremy Stanford (2015) reflected on this story as follows: Sydney was playing Collingwood and the Swans were well ahead. The flight of the ball took Goodes over the boundary line, close to the fence. Goodes heard a voice call him an ape. He was furious. As he turned to see who his abuser was, he was also heartbroken. ‘When I saw it was a young girl – I thought … how can that happen?’ Goodes pointed her out to a security guard and told him what she had said. At the final siren, he was so distraught he took no part in his team’s celebrations, and trudged down to the rooms. The next day, Goodes declared that ‘racism has a face’ and on this night, it was a 13-year-old girl. He added …‘It is not her fault. She is 13, she is still so innocent. I don’t put any blame on her. Unfortunately, it is what she hears, the environment she has grown up in that has made her think it is OK to call people names. I can guarantee you right now she would have no idea how it makes anyone feel by calling them an ape.’ He asked there be no teenage witch-hunt. The girl later phoned and wrote to Goodes … [and said] …‘I’m sorry for calling you racist names and I’ll never do it again. I’m really sorry for what happened. I didn’t know it would be offensive.’

70

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia That is where the story should have ended. Instead, it is being reprised and twisted to cast Goodes as a rich and powerful sports star who bullied a little girl.

Stanford (2015) recounted that Collingwood Football Club President Eddie Maguire ‘apologised to Goodes after the match and expressed his disappointment at the behaviour of the spectator commenting that “now we have to make sure that this girl is educated, that we don’t throw her onto the scrap heap, but also we don’t tolerate abominable behaviour” ’. But only a week later, Maguire himself slipped up and made a racist comment in an off-guard moment suggesting Goodes could be involved in promoting King Kong, the musical. While Maguire expressed public regret and apologized for his gaffe, Stanford (2015) asked, Is the racism still sitting there under the surface ready to bubble up when we’re off our guard? Are we even aware that deep down we’re racists? As a culture, we still haven’t learnt to embrace the Indigenous one. It’s still separate. We’ll give on our terms, appreciate on our terms, but when it’s not on our terms, we turn on it.

Commenting on the Goodes incident in a public ‘Racism Debate’ in 2015, veteran journalist and Indigenous Wiradjuri man Stan Grant said that racism is ‘killing the Australian Dream’. When on 24 January 2016, a YouTube clip of his speech ‘went viral’ (The Guardian 2016) with more than 850,000 hits on social media, journalist Sarah Muller (2016) asked if ‘this was Australia’s Martin Luther King moment?’ We are left wondering is this a method of engaging young people in anti-racist education in the future, since Grant’s eloquent antiracism speech was so well received or will it open the floodgates of further racist attacks? Grant said that in the Australian anthem ‘we recite: “Australians all let us rejoice for we are young and free” …“But my people die young in this country – we die 10 years younger than average Australians – and we are far from free” ’. Grant argues for Australians to acknowledge the two centuries of ‘dispossession, injustice and suffering’ faced by his ancestors. The results of his powerful speech are hard to measure. But while open calls for greater respect for the Indigenous peoples in this nation continue, Indigenous Labor Senator in the Australian Parliament Nova Peris (2016) revealed on social media in February 2016 some of the viciously racist hate mail she has been sent, further evidence of an endemic problem in the Australian community that education must play a part in addressing. In the following section, we discuss the ways in which the Australian Curriculum has been developed to counter racism, promote reconciliation and lead to the development of informed citizenship that is inclusive of Indigenous peoples’ rights and perspectives.

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

71

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives in the Australian Curriculum The Australian Curriculum includes subjects or learning areas including History and Civics and Citizenship, General Capabilities, including Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Capability and the Cross-Curriculum Priority that each has a strong focus on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives. An important starting point for educators is the Overview of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Histories and Cultures Cross-Curriculum Priority (ACARA 2016a), since the conceptual framing was developed with extensive consultation among Indigenous educators, elders and communities. A key desired outcome is that all students ‘will understand that contemporary Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are strong, resilient, rich and diverse’ (ACARA 2016d). The framework comprises ‘the underlying elements of Identity and Living Communities and the key concepts of Country/Place, Culture and People’, which celebrate the unique belief systems that connect people physically and spiritually to country/place. These concepts are important both for Indigenous peoples and for non-Indigenous young people, who all need to develop a sense of connectedness to communities and to place to ensure a sense of well-being. These ideas are also connected to the concepts of citizenship, diversity and identity; core content areas in the Civics and Citizenship (CC) curriculum, where for example, Year 7 students are expected to develop understanding of ‘how values, including freedom, respect, inclusion, civility, responsibility, compassion, equality and a ‘fair go’, can promote cohesion within Australian society’. An elaboration suggested is that students explore, ‘how different Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are maintaining and developing their identities and what this means for Australia as a whole’ (ACARA 2016e). The Overview of the Cross-Curriculum Priority also explains that The development of knowledge about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ law, languages, dialects and literacies is approached through the exploration of Cultures. These relationships are linked to the deep knowledge traditions and holistic world views of Aboriginal communities and/or Torres Strait Islander communities. Students will understand that Identities and Cultures have been, and are, a source of strength and resilience for Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples against the historic and contemporary impacts of colonisation. (ACARA 2016d)

Further Organising Ideas stress the importance of all learners knowing that ‘Australia has two distinct Indigenous groups: Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and within those groups there is significant language

72

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

and cultural diversity’. Students should ‘develop understanding of the holistic belief systems and spiritual and intellectual connections to the land, sea, sky and waterways’, and ‘how ways of life are uniquely expressed through ways of being, knowing, thinking and doing in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities  …  where family and kinship structures are strong and sophisticated’. There should also be recognition of the ‘significant contributions of Aboriginal Peoples and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the present and past that are acknowledged locally, nationally and globally’ (ACARA 2016f ). The challenge will be to develop professional learning for teachers to ensure they have the knowledge and understanding required and teaching and learning resources to engage learners in authentic ways.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives in the Humanities and Social sciences A decision was made by ACARA that the primary school Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) learning area should include integrated approaches to studies of history, geography, civics and citizenship and economics and business framed around key organizing questions such as: Who am I, where do I live and who came before me; why are some places and events special and how do we know? This is to include knowing that their place is also special to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples. In each year of primary school, students’ knowledge and understanding is to grow to encompass deeper understanding of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander beliefs and ways of knowing. In Year 4 students study European exploration and colonization in Australia and life for Indigenous Australians pre- and post-contact. They begin to understand the themes of law and citizenship, and concepts including, roles, rights and responsibilities, perspectives and action. Older primary students explore the more conceptually difficult concepts of Australian democracy and citizenship, including investigating the lack of citizenship rights for Aboriginal peoples and Torres Strait Islander peoples, illustrated by controls on movement and residence, the forcible removal of children from their families leading to the Stolen Generations and poor pay and working conditions. Bringing these events to life should involve, where possible, developing relationships with local Indigenous communities and providing opportunities for young learners’ curiosity to be stimulated by hearing about different ways of seeing the world and by authentic investigations that confront uncomfortable realities but also

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

73

engage students in actions for a better future. Symbolic yet important actions such as flying the Aboriginal flag alongside the Australian flag, commemorating ‘Sorry day’ in a respectful way where the stories of people who suffered loss in their families are told and learning about Aboriginal lifeways through art and song can all build positive views.

Rights and perspectives in Civics and Citizenship and the wider Australian Curriculum A search of the Australian Curriculum shows there are diverse and engaging ways that learners can develop understanding of Indigenous rights and perspectives across the curriculum – a reminder once again for teachers to search these concepts in order to map and plan how broad knowledge and skills can be built. In the following section we provide some snapshots from across the curriculum (ACARA 2016g). In the civics and citizenship subject, students investigate the status and rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, past and present, including civic movements for change, the contribution of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to Australian society, customary law and contemporary issues. In Year 7, students develop a range of questions to investigate Australia’s political and legal systems, including how the law protects all individuals, providing another possibility for the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives. In Year 8 in CC, students explore ‘different perspectives about Australia’s national identity, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, and what it means to be Australian, including a focus on reconciliation in Australia’. In the History curriculum students investigate experiences before, during and after European colonization including the nature of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ contact with other peoples and their progress towards recognition and equality (ACARA 2016g). As we have argued, understanding these events is pivotal in building empathy and understanding of the larger question of building better relationships in the future. In Work studies, the content description asks students to ‘investigate concepts of self-identity from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives and the significance of these in work, life and culture’. The elaboration suggests students could explain Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander belief systems and practices in land, air and water management (such as ‘Caring for Country’) and how these relate to workplaces, through comparing and contrasting differing views

74

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people on various industries, such as mining, and explaining reasons for opposition or support. This connects to the HASS content where students explore ways in which different individuals and/or groups view a present issue and how these views influence their actions. There is scope for active engagement in debates about contemporary issues and inviting Indigenous speakers to share their views. In Media Arts in Years 9 and 10, students analyse a range of media artworks from contemporary and past times to explore differing viewpoints, including media artworks of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. They build skills through examining NITV (National Indigenous TV) news and sports programs to explore how these perspectives create and challenge views in mainstream stories. (ACARA 2016g)

This kind of learning could be powerfully connected to analysis of the kinds of racist attacks on Indigenous citizens discussed earlier in this chapter. Explicit connections to concepts central to civics and citizenship and Indigenous perspectives are found in the Ethical Understanding capability in the AC (ACARA 2016h). It states that students should learn the processes of ‘reflecting on and interrogating core ethical issues and concepts including justice, right and wrong, freedom, truth, identity, empathy, goodness and abuse’ – all important in CC and Indigenous rights. The curriculum states that ‘skills are enhanced when students have opportunities to put ethics into practice in their learning; for example, understanding the importance of applying appropriate ethical practices such as following the Guidelines for Ethical Research in Australian Indigenous Studies published in 2011 by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS)’. When undertaking fieldwork, students are expected to learn about ethical procedures for investigating and working with people and places, including working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Ethical questions about human rights and citizenship, for example, who bears the costs and who gains the benefits, are also core curriculum in this capability. The other strongly linked element of the AC is the Intercultural Understanding, capability where students are to ‘learn to value their own cultures, languages and beliefs, and those of others’, ‘to assist young people to become responsible local and global citizens, equipped through their education for living and working together in an interconnected world’ (ACARA 2016i). This involves students learning ‘to value and view critically their own cultural perspectives and practices and those of others, to negotiate or mediate difference, to communicate

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

75

and empathise with others and to analyse intercultural experiences’. It offers opportunities for them to ‘consider their own beliefs and attitudes in a new light, and so gain insight into themselves and others. Three dispositions – expressing empathy, demonstrating respect and taking responsibility – have been identified as critical to the development of Intercultural Understanding’, core dispositions for active and informed citizenship and encompassing the rights and perspectives of Indigenous Australians.

Teaching and learning practices and culturally responsive pedagogies Through our analysis of the AC we identified that cross-curriculum, integrated approaches drawing on different subjects and capabilities will deepen learner engagement, knowledge and skill development over young people’s schooling and help them to build understanding students of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ rights and perspectives. We encourage inquiry approaches that involve students in exploring issues rather than being directed towards predetermined answers and to use materials from a wide range of sources that specifically include Indigenous voices. There are other considerations about teaching practices that teachers need to take into account. There may be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students in classrooms, whose reactions to the teaching of Indigenous perspectives may range from disbelief, acceptance, pride to anger, depending on the students’ background. Teachers should not assume that these students have a thorough knowledge of all aspects of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and history. It will be helpful for all students and teachers to invite people from local Indigenous communities, to help in the teaching and to build partnerships and reconciliation, and it is essential that teachers themselves have a developed awareness and knowledge.

Conclusion and the way forward The nationally agreed Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008) state that all students should be able to ‘understand and acknowledge the value of Indigenous cultures and possess the knowledge, skills and understanding to contribute to, and benefit from reconciliation between Indigenous and

76

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

non-Indigenous Australians’. They should also be ‘committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participate in Australia’s civic life’. In this chapter we have shown that contemporary realities of ongoing racism and concerns about lack of equity and human rights in Indigenous communities necessitate an ongoing focus in citizenship education that includes social justice and Indigenous rights. Developing respect and understanding of the First Australians is also critical for a harmonious and shared future in the Australian nation. We have shown that the Australian Curriculum provides the framework for the development of knowledge and skills required for transformative citizen action so students develop the dispositions to connect with their communities and get involved as participatory citizens. The current ‘Recognise’ national campaign website (Recognise 2016) encourages recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution through the voices of students in schools and prominent Australians promoting this positive action for the nation. Nova Peris, Indigenous Senator, says that ‘ultimately this is an opportunity for all Australians to celebrate 50,000 years of this nation’s history, not just the last 226’. Gabi Hollows argues, ‘Constitutional recognition goes beyond symbolic significance and will have practical consequences for equality. It’s a way of acknowledging and respecting Indigenous Australians’ distinct cultures, identities and custodianship of the land.’ If this campaign is not successful, it will be a major setback for the cause of Reconciliation. Anderson (2015) argues that in the way ahead there needs to be a three-fold systemic paradigm shift in (1) Initial Teacher Education (ITE) curriculum and practice, (2) the embracing of a ‘Rights Based perspective’ and (3) rescripting of the colonial narrative to include the creation of ‘Indigenist’ (Ma Rhea 2015) perspectives in curriculum. This would encompass inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, lifeways and cultural lens we have discussed in this chapter. But for Australian students to develop this deep knowledge requires teachers with this knowledge and ability to implement the Australian Curriculum emphases on Indigenous perspectives that we have discussed. Anderson (2015), Ma Rhea and Russell (2012) argue that Indigenous studies with an educational focus is needed for teachers to confidently design curriculum and pedagogy, utilize credible resources and include culturally appropriate content. Embracing a Rights-Based perspective is imperative for all educators so they can build understanding of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, Article 26 and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007). These declarations provide teachers and educators with not only a personal but also a professional obligation at an international level to educate Indigenous and non-Indigenous

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

77

students about Indigenous peoples. With an understanding of the International Rights mechanisms, teachers and educators are then in a position to begin to interrogate the colonial mindset and to focus on ‘contrapuntal pedagogy’ (Ngugi 1986, see Chapter 2), or the inclusion of unrepresented voices and experiences in the curriculum, so learners can understand other cultural perspectives on ways of living (Ma Rhea 2015). Ma Rhea, Anderson and Atkinson (2012) particularly encourage celebration of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ cultures in schools, to encourage joy and hope. Reconciliation Australia (2016) argue that it ‘is in our communities, at work, in clubs, in schools, playing sport and attending meetings, where we all interact every day, that reconciliation can occur’. As Indigenous leader Noel Pearson says in relation to the Recognise campaign (Recognise 2016), ‘This is much more than a question of symbolism, this is a question of national wellbeing and national identity. It’s about coming to terms with who we are as a nation and deciding who we want to be in the future’. The implementation of Civics and Citizenship and the wider Australian Curriculum can empower all young people to be ethical, respectful and informed citizens, who understand their own identity, value diversity and work in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in creating a better future.

References ACARA (2012), Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015). Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the _Australian_Curriculum__Civics_and_Citizenship_251012.pdf (accessed 28 September 2015). ACARA (2016a), Cross Curriculum Priorities: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures Overview. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-histories -and-cultures/overview (accessed 30 January 2016). ACARA (2016b), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures in the Learning Areas. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au /crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-histories-and -cultures/in-the-learning-areas (accessed 30 January 2016). ACARA (2016c), Humanities and Social Sciences: Civics and Citizenship Curriculum: 7–10. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and -social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/7-10?layout=1 (accessed 7 February 2016).

78

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

ACARA (2016d), Cross Curriculum Priorities: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures – Key Ideas. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities/aboriginal-and-torres -strait-islander-histories-and-cultures/key-ideas (accessed 7 February 2016). ACARA (2016e), Australian Curriculum Search: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Perspectives. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/Search? q=Aboriginal+and+Torres+Strait+Islander++perspectives (accessed 7 February 2016). ACARA (2016f ), Australian Curriculum: Ethical Understanding. Available online: http:// www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/ethical-understanding /introduction/in-the-learning-areas (accessed 7 February 2016). ACARA (2016g), Intercultural Understanding. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/generalcapabilities/intercultural-understanding /introduction/introduction (accessed 7 February 2016). Anderson, P. A. (2015), Rights Based Education: Teaching and Leadership for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the Walking Together to Make a Difference, A First Nations Education Symposium, Melbourne, Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2016), Commonwealth Definition of Indigenous Australians. Available online: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4240 .0.55.002Chapter11052013 (accessed 30 January 2016). Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (2016), Australian Professional Standards for Teachers. Available online: http://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian -professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list (accessed 7 February 2016). Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation (1993), Australian for Reconciliation Handbook, 1. Daes, E. (1996), Pacific Workshop on the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Paper presented at the Pacific Workshop on the Draft declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Suva, Fiji, September. Dodson, M. (1993), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People and Citizenship, Complex Notions of Civic Identity Conference, University of New South Wales, 20 August 1993. Available online: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches /aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-people-and-citizenship-dodson-1993 (accessed 7 February 2016). Keating, P. (1993), Redfern Speech. Available online: https://antar.org.au/sites/default/ files/paul_keating_speech_transcript.pdf (accessed 30 January 2016). Lowe, K. and Yunkaporta, T. (2013), ‘The Inclusion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Content in the Australian National Curriculum: A Cultural, Cognitive and Socio-Political Evaluation’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1), 1–14. Ma Rhea, Z. (2015), Leading and Managing Indigenous Education in the Postcolonial World, London: Routledge. Ma Rhea, Z. and Russell, L. (2012), ‘The Invisible Hand of Pedagogy in Australian Indigenous Studies and Indigenous Education’, The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, 41: 18–25. doi:10.1017/jie.2012.4.

Recognizing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples’ Rights

79

Ma Rhea, Z., Anderson, P. and Atkinson, B. (2012), Improving Teaching in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education: National Professional Standards for Teachers, Focus Areas 1.4 and 2.4, Final Report to AITSL (9 September 2012). MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Carlton South: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Muller, S. (2016), Stan Grant’s Speech on Racism: ‘Is This Australia’s “Martin Luther King Moment”?’ Available online: http://www.smh.com.au/national/stan-grants -speech-on-racism-is-this-australias-martin-luther-king-moment-20160123-gmcrgt .html#ixzz3zSLfcuvN (accessed 30 January 2016). Ngugi, Wa Thiong’ O. (1986), Decolonizing the Mind. London: Heinemann. Peris, N. (2016), Senator Nova Peris Reveals Shocking Examples of Racist Hate Mail. Available online: http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-people/senator-nova-peris-reveals -shocking-examples-of-racist-hate-mail-she-has-received-20160203-gmlb7l.html (accessed 7 February 2016). Recognise (2016), Final Report. Available online: http://www.recognise.org.au/ (accessed 15 April 2016). Reconciliation Australia (n.d.), 3 June: A Significant Date: The Mabo Decision Fact Sheet. Available online: https://www.reconciliation.org.au/.../NRW2014_3-June-Mabo _FactS.pdf (accessed 7 February 2016). Reconciliation Australia (2000), The National Strategy to Promote Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Rights. Available online: www.austlii.edu.au/au /orgs/car/finalreport/appendices01.htm (accessed 30 January 2016). Reconciliation Australia (2015), Reconciliation Australia’s Latest Australian Reconciliation Barometer. Available online: https://www.reconciliation.org.au /category/news/#reconciliation-barometer-shows-evidence-of-goodwill (accessed 30 January 2016). Reconciliation Australia (2016), Final Report. Available online: www.austlii.edu.au/au /orgs/car/finalreport/appendices01.htm (accessed 6 February 2016). Rhys, S. (2001), Unfinished Business – Reparations and Reconciliation. Available online: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/unfinished-business-reparations-and -reconciliation (accessed 6 February 2016). Rose, M. (2015), ‘The “Silent Apartheid” as the Practitioner’s Blindspot’. In Kay Price (ed.), Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Education: An Introduction for the Teaching Profession, 2nd edn., Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Rudd, K. (2008), Sorry Speech. Available online: www.australia.gov.au/about.../apology -to-australias-indigenous-peoples (accessed 6 February 2016). Stanford, J. (2015), ‘Are We Even Aware We Are Racists?’ ABC net news, 28 July 2015. Available online: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-28/standford-booing-adam -goodes:-are-we-even-aware-we’re-racists/6653108 (accessed 2 February 2016). UN Working Group for Indigenous Peoples (UWGIP) (1983), Definitions of Indigeneity. Available online: https://johansandbergmcguinne.wordpress.com/official -definitions-of-indigeneity/ (accessed 30 January 2016).

80

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (2007), Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. Available online: https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/un -declaration-rights-indigenous-peoples-1 (accessed 30 January 2016). Whitlam Institute (2016), Gough Whitlam’s Achievements. Available online: https://www .whitlam.org/gough_whitlam/achievements/indigenous (accessed 7 February 2016). Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 14 (2): 237–269. Yarra Healing (2016), Yarra Healing. Available online: http://www.yarrahealing.catholic .edu.au/ (accessed 7 February 2016).

5

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education Libby Tudball

Introduction The time has come to make Asia literacy a project that re-imagines Australia in an inclusive way in terms of its mutual engagement with other Asian countries and its own composition as a society. (Iwabuchi 2015: xvi) In Australian Curriculum and policy, ‘Asia literacy’ is now viewed as vital for all young Australians. In critical debates it is seen to be an evolving concept, requiring ‘new narratives’ that ‘abandon Eurocentric imaginaries’ (Rizvi 2015: 56), in order to develop mutual understanding and cultural relations between the peoples of Asia and Australia. In this ‘Asia Century’, there is now a broadening of what ‘Asia literacy’ should involve, to encompass an understanding of what it means to be an Australian in an increasingly diverse community and how young people can develop as ethical, responsible, interculturally capable citizens, prepared for future life and work in the region (MCEETYA 2008). But Iwabuchi (2015) argues that studying the societies and cultures of Asia has a more significant purpose, in contributing to the ‘de-Westernisation of knowledge formation and the cultivation of a cosmopolitan worldview’ (p. xiv). Literacy can be defined as a social practice, involving knowledge, skills and capabilities for communicative practices in social contexts, with varied uses and meanings in different cultural settings, albeit most often associated with oral and written language and meaning making (Grillo 1989; Barton 1991; Street 2013). Salter (2013: 21) argues that being ‘Asia literate’ encompasses ‘a complex endeavour of studies of Asia that encompasses both Asia and “cultural literacy” ’,

82

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

recognizing that static and singular notions of Asia and Asian culture are inadequate (Broinowski 1992; Rizvi 1997). Singh (1996: 54) also reminds us that the term ‘Asia’ should be treated with caution, because it names ‘a multitudinous variety of cultures, languages, histories, politics and societies’, one of the reasons why teachers have grappled with planning and implementing learning in this field. In this chapter, I discuss how the idea of Asia literacy has evolved historically and through policy development. I explore how the Australian Curriculum provides a framework for school practice and for engaging young Australians in this learning with new imaginaries that expand beyond economic concerns. I argue that success in this work requires implementation of whole school approaches encompassing both integrated and subject-based learning, wider school co-curricular programmes, as well as links to communities and people to people relationships across the region. As the following section illustrates, multiple forms of Asia literacy have been evident over time, but historical events have been pivotal in the shifts in policies and attitudes to Asia and in constructing binaries that have constrained relationships in the past.

Snapshots of the historical context Connections between Australia and Asia and people-to-people relationships across the region date back for more than two centuries to before white invasion in 1788. There is a rich history documented in Aboriginal art, songs and oral stories that many Australians will not know, of Indigenous Australians trading with large groups of Macassan people who came in perahus (boats) to Australia’s northern shores from the islands of southern Sulawesi (now Indonesia). They came to collect trepang or bêche-de-mer (sea cucumbers) in the shallow tropical waters of Australia’s northern coast. Macassans were given ‘licences’ by local Aboriginal clans to dive for this delicacy and engaged local Aboriginal men to work alongside them for many months at a time (Berndt 1965). Museum Victoria archives document the fact that ‘at the end of the season, the Macassan perahus sailed back via the South China Sea, where the trepang was exchanged with Chinese traders, before being sold in the markets of Shanghai and other major centres of China. Trepang is still highly valued today in China’ (Museum Victoria 2011). Trade with the Macassans was stopped by the Commonwealth government in 1906, consistent with racist efforts of politicians at the time who were determined

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

83

to make Australia a white and largely British society (Berndt 1965). But the heritage of these early connections is still evident today in the language and culture of Arnhem Land Yolgnu people in far north Australia. Physical evidence ‘remains in the groves of large tamarind trees planted by Macassans, as well as the stones that mark where large pots stood for boiling the trepang’, providing fascinating insights into this important social, economic and cross-cultural exchange between Aboriginal people and peoples of Asia. Museum Victoria’s exhibition ‘Trepang’ (2011) showcased and celebrated the work, collaboration and a twenty-year friendship between classically trained Chinese artist Zhou Xiaoping and highly respected Indigenous Australian artist John Bulunbulun. This kind of mutual engagement which Iwabuchi (2015) hopes for more of in the times ahead has grown substantially in recent decades, through cross-border connections between Australians and people from diverse nations of Asia, including among local and regional school communities. Developing ‘Asia literacy’ among young Australian learners in schools should include building knowledge, skills and the capacity for transnational communication, and can be positively enhanced through personal interaction and cross-cultural understanding that involves knowing each other’s stories, social practices, commonalities and differences. As Weinmann (2015) argues, it is necessary for Australian citizens to ‘conceptualise Asia and community as simultaneously distant and “here”, local and global, both product and producer of globalisation discourses, representative of social and individual cultural and personal identities that are both grounded and fluid’ (p. 187), just as Macassan traders and Yolngu people were able to do, centuries ago. Weinmann (2015) quotes Ang et al.’s (2000: 17) view that it is mixing or ‘hybridisation that challenges the cultural dichotomies between Asia(ns)/Australia(ns), “us” and “them”, “over there” and “over here” ’. She argues that ‘we are still in the process of overcoming traditional imperialist notions’ (p. 188) that constituted people as mainly or exclusively ‘white, or black, or Western, or Oriental’ Other, in Said’s (1993: 407–8) terms. These binaries and labels are increasingly stereotypical and lacking in meaning in these globalized times and in the culturally diverse Australia of today, where people have multiple identities and backgrounds. However, from the beginning of Australia as a white nation, the Immigration Restriction Act (1901) was firmly based on ‘us’ and ‘them’ as it denied nonwhite people, primarily citizens of Asian countries, access and citizenship in Australia, in a blatant attempt to protect British colonial identity. These exclusionary policies based on suspicion and fear constrained the possibilities for relationships with the region for decades, although trade, cultural, political and

84

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

military links and other connections with various nations of Asia did continue in the 1900s. During the twentieth century, a succession of Australian political leaders and policy makers engaged in debates centred on framing Australia’s place in the world and the region, with an eye on defence, economics and the geopolitical context. Up until recent decades, strategic relationships dominated these debates, at first with Britain and from the Second World War onwards, with the United States. While these traditional links remain in this ‘Asia century’, Australia’s multiple diplomatic, economic and socio-cultural connections with Asia are now seen as pivotal to the nation’s future (Commonwealth of Australia 2012), and provide different lenses from the past, even though they are still in the process of being reimagined. Since the 1960s and the end of both the Cold War and the Vietnam War, views have changed about Australia’s place in the world, its evolving multicultural identity and on developing responses in schooling that move beyond the dominance of its Anglo and Euro-centric past. The then Opposition leader Gough Whitlam’s visit to China in 1971 and his subsequent recognition of the People’s Republic of China in December 1972 when in government heralded the evolution of new attitudes to the region. Prime Minister Whitlam’s decisive actions in bringing Australian troops back from Vietnam in 1973 and ending the White Australia policy in 1975 provided additional turning points in the development of positive relationships with the region. This was a period when reshaping of Australia’s foreign policy foreshadowed the development of more mature cultural, social and economic relationships with Asia. In 1976 the then Prime Minister Fraser demonstrated further evidence of changing attitudes and a more humane foreign policy in facilitating the resettling of Vietnamese refugees in Australia. Subsequent Australian leaders who played a pivotal role in policy shifts and the reframing of Australia’s place in the region included Prime Ministers Hawke (1983–1991) and Keating (1991–1996), who strongly promoted Australia’s engagement with the region and furthering of economic and cultural ties. This brief historical background and insights into some of the pivotal events in the development of Asian/Australian relationships should be studied more broadly by young citizens, since history can help them to make sense of contemporary situations and changing attitudes, and the ways in which the identity of the nation has been constructed. All students in Australian schools require age-appropriate learning about Australia’s evolving relationships in the region as well as ‘Asia at home’, within local communities and the nation, as part of their education as citizens. This is critical for learners to achieve a re-imaging

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

85

of their own identity and of an inclusive Australia. In the subject ‘civics and citizenship’, endorsed by all ministers of education across the nation in 2015, understanding identity and diversity is one of the key themes, so students can explore their own identity; Australia’s heritage and cultural diversity; and its identity as a nation in the world. UNESCO (2015) defines the role of citizenship education ‘as educating children, from early childhood, to become clear-thinking and enlightened citizens who participate in decisions concerning society’. Torney-Purta, Wilkenfeld and Barber (2008) argue that where studies of citizenship are built into school programmes in meaningful ways, young people’s knowledge and understanding of themselves; their rights and responsibilities; and their engagement with local communities, nation states and the wider world can be developed, so they can make sense of the world. For all young Australians, regardless of their background, ethnicity or cultural origins, achieving these varied capacities related to ‘Asia literacy’ require opportunities for them to explore these kinds of questions: What is Asia? How is it defined and constructed? What has it got to do with us? How have we been involved with the nations and peoples of Asia? What are their beliefs and traditions? What issues and concerns do we share? How could we be connected in the future? Currently in Australia, the development of an explicit focus on studies of Asia as a Cross-Curriculum Priority (CCP) means that educators are being challenged to develop opportunities for young citizens in schools to be involved in this learning. In this chapter, how this might be possible and the complexities involved in this work are discussed. It is only in the past forty years, in these post-colonial times, that Australian education policy makers have reconsidered the importance of studies of Asia, the significance and contribution of the peoples of the nations of Asia and the imperative to develop curriculum in this field. Shifts in attitudes to Asia are still being influenced by events and the political leaders of the time, as are views on how schools might consider the place of Asia in curriculum and practice. In 1968, Liberal politician Andrew Peacock commented in the Australian federal Parliament that Australians are appallingly uninformed about Asia and Australia’s role within it … with attitudes based on ignorance and prejudice … Our real aim should therefore be to learn as much as possible about the civilisations of these near countries. (Peacock 1968: 308–9)

Even though from the 1990s, programmes have aimed to help young people embrace multi-culturalism and Australia’s place in the Asia-Pacific region as

86

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

‘Asia literate’ citizens, evidence concludes that this is unfinished business for the nation (Wilkinson and Milgate 2009; AACTF 2012). Halse (2015: 24) now defines Asia literacy as a ‘wicked policy problem’, difficult to solve in practice. The cross-curriculum complexities involved in this work have meant that many schools avoid this priority, perhaps because of crowded curriculum concerns, as well as the breadth of possibilities for studies of Asia, demonstrating the need for continued teacher professional learning in this field. A recent large-scale national survey of Asia literacy in the Australian teaching workforce found that the majority of teachers completed their initial teacher education without ever addressing teaching and learning about Asia (Halse 2013). In the next section, I provide further discussion of the rationale and scope for developing Asia literacy through the lens of a young Australian thinking about her possible future.

A learner’s perspective on the need for Asia literacy More than a decade ago, Australian secondary school student Sophie Palevstra presented views on her likely future at the Asia Education Foundation (AEF) National Forum (Palevestra 2004). She drew on the work of Hedley Beare (2001), who argued in Creating the Future School that young Australians would need very different knowledge and skills as twenty-first-century citizens. Sophie said, The Asia/Pacific area will be a strong focus of my world. There are three billion people in Asia. Half of them are under 25. They are my contemporaries. They will be my partners – my competitors. The really prosperous countries will trade in technical skills, problem-solving skills and in strategic brokerage. They will be knowledge workers – working across national borders – working interculturally – speaking more than one language – probably including an Asian language. That’s the kind of job I want. It will not matter what nationality I have, because my world is smaller, people move about, and most workplaces will be internationalised. My world is likely to be borderless. I will probably be employed in an international firm, and in my home we may speak various languages.

Sophie’s beliefs about her future signalled that she would need what is now being defined as ‘Asia literacy’ (AEF 2016a) or ‘Asia capability’ (AEF 2016b): key knowledge, skills, dispositions and capabilities to communicate and operate successfully as a citizen in an increasingly globalized world, with a particular focus on engaging with the peoples of Asia. Her views are centred on an economic rationale for developing Asia literacy, but Sophie also recognized

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

87

the impact of globalization and the demographic and geopolitical shifts in the Asian region that have implications for citizenship and identity. Connection to one nation state can have less relevance for citizens who are globally mobile, other than for the acquisition of formal legal status and a passport to the world. For Australians and people across the world, a sense of nationality, identity and belonging is shifting through transnational mobility and their membership of multiple communities. These trends impact the question of what it means to be Australian in an increasingly diverse community. Although the majority of the population is Australian born, more than 75 per cent of Australians identified with an ancestry other than Australian in the 2011 census, 43 per cent have at least one parent who was born overseas and 30 per cent were born in another country: 1.4 per cent from China, 1.4 per cent from India and 6 per cent from Asian nations (Racism No Way 2016). Sophie spoke from her own context, as an urban, middle-class, educated, globally mobile and aware young person, which is not the world of all Australians. But her scenario of the capabilities required in this ‘Asia century’ (Commonwealth of Australia 2012) is now part of key education policy and curriculum imperatives in Australia discussed in this chapter, which are increasingly recognized by educators to be critical for young people today and in the future.

National policy linking Asia literacy and citizenship education A series of government-led reports were developed in the 1970s and 1980s focused on building an Asia-literate workforce through increasing students’ capacity in languages and studies of Asia. Dawkins (Minister of Employment, Education, and the Arts 1987–1991) argued that ‘geographic realities and economic imperatives direct Australia towards the dynamism and vitality of Asian economies’ and ‘drive Australia towards enmeshment in the region’ (Dawkins 1991: 3). But he stressed ‘other cogent reasons for Australians to learn about Australia … the enduring cultural traditions … the host of living languages, and world’s prominent philosophies and religions. Asian countries boast some of the world’s richest literatures, remarkable artists, musicians and scientists’ (Dawkins 1991: 4). Dawkins led plans for the establishment of an Asia Education Foundation (founded in 1992) to promote studies of Asia in schools and development of Australia-wide teacher professional learning, resource development and

88

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

programmes to promote engagement with learning about Asia. The AEF’s activity has included input from leaders in the government, independent and Catholic school sectors, who ensured that the rationale and key arguments for the inclusion of Asia literacy formed part of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008: 4). For the first time, the national goals explicitly state that young Australians should become ‘Asia literate’, engaging and building strong relationships with Asia ‘able to relate to and communicate across cultures, especially the cultures and countries of Asia’ as ‘responsible global and local citizens’ (p. 9). These goals are now embedded in the Australian Curriculum which focuses on developing ‘social, intellectual and creative capital’ as well as the ‘skills to communicate and engage with the peoples of Asia, so they can effectively live, work and learn in the region’ (ACARA 2016a). The Melbourne Declaration recognizes that India, China and other Asian nations’ influence on the world is increasing, emphasizing continuing economic arguments for engagement with Asia. But the policy also signals a broader agenda for young people to be able to ‘act with moral and ethical integrity, appreciate Australia’s social, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, and have an understanding of Australia’s system of government, history and culture’. The AEF strategically kept up pressure to ensure these goals would be reflected in the evolving curriculum. They mobilized action through the formation of lobby groups including an Education Leaders and a Business Alliance advocating for Asia literacy, whose work informed the publication of the National Statement on Asia Literacy in Australian Schools 2011–2012 (AEF 2011). The inclusion of the Cross-Curriculum Priority in the Australian Curriculum focused on ‘Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia’ (ACARA 2016a) is testament to this work. In urging this priority, both the recent Labour and the current Liberal Australian governments responded to shifts in regional and global economies, by engaging in a knowledge economy discourse that emphasizes education’s role in national capacity building. But understanding Asia is also valued for its potential to ‘build the social capital of our nation, enriching Australian’s creative and intellectual life and fostering social inclusion in our communities’ (AEF 2012). As the Asia Education Foundation (2012) argued in their Call for a National Action Plan for Asia Literacy in Schools, Asia literacy equips young Australians to be active and informed citizens, able to build harmonious regional and global communities that can work together to resolve global issues that affect us all like sustainability, health, people movement and security. (p 2)

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

89

In the following section, discussion focuses on how Asia literacy, and its links to civics and citizenship, is represented in the Australian Curriculum, and the possibilities for the development of teaching and learning practices in schools.

Asia literacy and civics and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum In the overview of the Cross-Curriculum Priority focused on ‘Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia’ in the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2016a) it is stated that Australia is increasingly looking to Asia strategically, politically and culturally as well as economically …. Asia literacy is going to be a key requirement of our young people, as Australia seeks to strengthen its ties in the Asia region and be an effective contributor to the wellbeing of the region as a whole … By knowing something of Asian societies, cultures, beliefs and environment they will deepen their intercultural understanding, enrich their own lives and increase the likelihood of successful participation in the ‘Asian century’, for themselves and Australia as a whole.

Teachers are provided with online links to all subjects where this learning can be developed and core concepts regarded as fundamental knowledge, understanding and skills (ACARA 2016b). The first concept highlights ‘the diversity within and between the countries of the Asia region; in their cultures, societies, traditions and environments’. The second ‘examines the past and continuing achievements of the peoples of Asia, identifies their contribution to world history and acknowledges the influences that the Asia region has on the world’s aesthetic, and creative pursuits’. The third concept addresses ‘the nature of past and ongoing links between Australia and Asia, and develops the knowledge and understanding which make it possible to engage actively and effectively with peoples of the Asia region’. The challenge for curriculum planners and teachers in implementing both Asia literacy and its links to civics and citizenship is that the curriculum comprises three parts: learning areas/subjects, General Capabilities and the explicit CCP. While the ways that the CCP can be connected to other elements of the curriculum is well signposted, translating the knowledge and skill requirements into planning documents for enactment in schools and classrooms is complex work. The following section discusses the scope and possibilities for the development of Asia literacy in the primary years and in the Civics and Citizenship curriculum.

90

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

The scope for Asia literacy in primary school Humanities and Social Sciences In an attempt to solve concerns about the crowded curriculum for primary educators, ACARA (2016c) provides an online framework of key ideas for younger learners, to encourage more integrated learning and inquiry-based approaches that are already commonly used at this level in the Humanities and Social Science (HASS) subjects. While studies of Asia are not mentioned specifically, it is clear that multiple opportunities are provided for these links to be made in HASS subjects including geography, history and civics and citizenship, as well as other learning areas and General Capabilities. What is not made explicit is the more critical view for learners to see that not all people have the same values, human rights and life opportunities, including children in their own age groups. Skilful teaching will make that comparative link so learners can accept and embrace difference, regardless of race, ethnicity and personal circumstances. The scope for an inclusive approach where all learners’ backgrounds, experiences and cultures can be embraced, as well as Indigenous perspectives and learning focused on Asia literacy, is well developed in this framework. These ideas and concepts for primary learners are reproduced below, to show the broad scope for teachers to develop sequenced learning that commences with students’ own experiences and encourages wider understanding of Australia and the world, including local, national and global citizenship dimensions.

Who we are, who came before us and what are the traditions and values that have shaped societies? Students explore their own identity, Australia’s heritage and cultural diversity and Australia’s identity as a nation in the world. They examine the significance of traditions and shared values within society.

How societies and economies operate and how they are changing over time? Students learn about Australian society and other societies in the world, both past and present; and how they function socially, culturally, economically and politically. Students examine developments that have resulted in or are bringing about change.

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

91

The ways people, places, ideas and events are perceived and connected Students explore different perceptions of people, places, ideas and events. They develop an understanding of the interdependent nature of the world and the interrelationships within and between the natural environment, human communities and economies. They explore how people, ideas and events are connected over time and increasingly interconnected across local, national, regional and global contexts.

How people exercise their responsibilities, participate in society and make informed decisions? Students examine how individuals and groups have participated in and contributed to society in the past and present, the rights and responsibilities of individuals and groups over time and in different contexts. They understand the need to make decisions; the importance of ethical considerations; the processes for decision-making; and the implications of decisions made for individuals, society, the economy and the environment.

Asia literacy and links to civics and citizenship The Australian Curriculum for civics and citizenship includes an explicit agenda to develop local, regional and globally aware young citizens, who are informed and critical about their world, consistent with some of the key aims of Asia literacy. This endorses Holdsworth’s (2010) view that young people must not be seen as noncitizens or citizens in waiting until they achieve legal status as citizens in adulthood, but as citizens now, who can be active members of multiple communities, with the capacity to participate and engage. A broader definition of citizenship included in the Shape paper (ACARA 2012: 2) that informed the development of civics and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum is inclusive of young people: Citizenship is, broadly, the state of being a citizen of social, religious, political or community groups, locally, nationally and globally, which carries with it both rights and responsibilities, duties and privileges, guided by social values and encouraging active participation. In the application to schools, citizenship provides opportunities for students to engage in activities as a member of a group to address problems and issues for themselves which are relevant to their lives now and in the future.

92

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

This definition sees citizenship as not only operating at the level of the nation state but among communities, and includes moral and values dimensions, in line with McLaughlin’s (1992) maximal view of citizenship, where students have a ‘responsibility to actively question and extend their local and immediate horizons in the light of more universal considerations such as justice [and] social disadvantage’ (p. 236). The Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship includes two strands: ‘knowledge and understanding’, and civics and citizenship skills. Teachers are provided with ‘elaborations’ that suggest examples of how the content can be learned. In Year 3, for example, where learners explore how decisions are made democratically, why rules are made and how they can participate in communities, which are key elements of civic understanding, students can ‘explore cultural norms informing rule making, and consider how personal and family cultural identity may effect decisions’, drawing in their own or others’ experiences in Asian communities. In Year 4, students explore cultural diversity and in particular how belonging to different groups can shape one’s identity, including developing the skill of considering information from more than one source or posing questions about their community that could include an Asian lens. In Year 5, students consider the question, how do laws affect the lives of citizens? The elaborations suggest that students could explore how laws protect human rights, for example, race and discrimination law that could draw on examples from the Asian context. Another focus is on how and why people participate in groups to achieve shared goals, which could involve using social media to share and discuss ideas about how people can work together as local, regional and global citizens. The AEF Building Bridges programme provides opportunities for students in Australian classrooms and in hundreds of schools across the Asian region in countries including China, Indonesia, Korea and Thailand to form online connections to discuss issues of mutual concern using technologies such as Skype, to ensure real-time interaction among students. In the final year of primary school, in Year 6, students examine Australian citizenship and reflect on the rights and responsibilities that being a citizen entail. Here they have opportunities to inquire into the experiences of refugees or Asian people who have migrated to Australia. The content strand also requires students to explore the obligations that people may have as global citizens, so they could investigate international treaties and human rights charters that Australia is signatory to. In secondary-level civics and citizenship, students are engaged in more conceptually complex content, such as in Year 7, they investigate how

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

93

Australia is a diverse society and what factors contribute to cohesion. This provides strong opportunities to draw on their own family experiences and for conversations with local community members to help ‘appreciate multiple perspectives and use strategies [that are suggested in the elaborations] to mediate differences’. In Year 8, students tackle the challenging question: What different perspectives are there about national identity? As Rizvi (2015:56) argues, it is time for new narratives about this question that recognize diversity in Australia. The elaboration notes that students could be involved in examining personal stories to explore how individuals relate to national identity and how it impacts their sense of belonging in the Australian community. The focus in Year 9 has extensive possibilities for enriching connections between civics and citizenship and Asia literacy through the core question: How do citizens participate in an interconnected world? One elaboration recommends exploring the concept of ‘the common good’, using examples of how religious groups participate to foster interfaith understanding or social justice. In an Interfaith Building Bridges Through Dialogue programme in Melbourne, students share personal experiences of their lives which have shaped them, as foundations to negotiate, respect and engage with each other’s differences and commonalities. Another suggested approach to learning is interviewing Australian citizens who have lived and worked in Asian countries about their perspectives on their role in the global community. Through the data gathered, the students should be well positioned to achieve another elaboration: debating the concepts of ‘global identity’ and ‘global citizenship’ and their implications for Australian citizens. In Year 10, the final year of the formal curriculum for civics and citizenship, the student’s understanding of Australia’s system of government develops, through comparison with another system of government in the Asian region. Students also examine Australia’s roles and responsibilities at a global level, for example, provision of foreign aid, peacekeeping, participation in international organizations and the United Nations. They can investigate Australia’s participation in the Asian region, for example, election monitoring, aid and health programmes and disaster management. Finally, students are challenged to discuss the implications of living in an interconnected world and what this could mean for active and informed citizenship. Given that this is the last year for the many students who do not pursue humanities studies in their final years of secondary schooling, to explore such important questions for young citizens, it is to be hoped that schools do focus on these issues.

94

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

However, there are many ways that schools can continue the development of Asia literacy beyond the classroom through whole school programmes in assemblies, invitations to guest speakers, community forums, debates and student exchanges that can enrich people-to-people relationships. This is necessary given the evidence of limited studies of Asia in senior years (Wilkinson and Milgate 2009; AEF 2012). There are multiple opportunities for deeper Asia literacy learning in senior politics, international studies, history and geography, but again, the evidence is that these HASS subjects are experiencing declining numbers. Next, discussion focuses on how schools can ensure inclusion of the General Capabilities in student learning connected to studies of Asia.

The General Capabilities in the Australian Curriculum The Australian Curriculum emphasizes the critical importance of building students’ ‘intercultural understanding as they learn to value their own cultures, languages, religion and beliefs, and those of others’, as part of what are named as ‘General Capabilities’ (ACARA 2012). Dooly (2006: 19) argues that the concept of ‘intercultural competence can be understood as the necessary skills and attitudes to suspend one’s own beliefs about cultures (both own and other) while learning about general processes of societal and individual interaction in familiar and unfamiliar cultures’. This learning has clear connections to citizenship education, Asia literacy and the requirement that students ‘come to understand how personal, group and national identities are shaped, and the variable and changing nature of culture’ (ACARA 2014). The capability involves students in ‘learning about and engaging with diverse cultures in ways that recognise commonalities and differences, to create connections with others and cultivate mutual respect’ – all important elements of what could be regarded as good citizenship. A further General Capability required is ‘Ethical Understanding’ that civics and citizenship encourages students to ‘consider and apply ethical principles in collaborating, sharing and acting with social responsibility’. This includes ‘identifying values and rights (based on agreed principles) promoted by groups such as peers, local community groups, corporations and governments’. Again, the possibilities for the inclusion of content examples related to Asia are strong. The curriculum encourages an ‘exploration of ethical issues, the notion of the common good and the place of national values and human rights’. By exploring such issues, students are expected to become aware of their own roles

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

95

and responsibilities as present and future citizens, so this learning can include dialogue among young people from diverse communities and draw on examples of issues connected to Asia. The brief discussion of extracts from the Australian Curriculum included here provides only a few examples of the strong embedding of the Asia literacy agenda. There are multiple opportunities for further learning in history, geography, English, science, the arts and other areas. The success of the development of Asia literacy does, however, depend on how well schools plan for this learning in practice; how effectively teachers engage and motivate student interest; and what they do in their classrooms, wider school programmes and links to the community. Kennedy (2013) argued that the IEA civic study showed that citizenship education needs to be based on active and authentic learning and student engagement. He argued that ‘this is not mere advocacy for progressivist pedagogy. The IEA study demonstrated empirically that the latter kind of participation [active and authentic learning] has a direct, positive, and significant relationship to civic knowledge’ (p. 64).

Conclusion As Kemmis (1990: 32) argued, ‘Curricula reveal how nations and states interpret themselves and how they want to be interpreted. Equally, debates about curriculum reveal the fundamental concerns, uncertainties and tensions which preoccupy nations and states as they struggle to adapt to changing circumstances.’ The discussion in this chapter of the background debates and journey towards the inclusion on Asia literacy in the Australian Curriculum illuminates the power that policy makers and politicians have in this process. It is clear that elements of the Australian Curriculum, including civics and citizenship, and the Asia Cross-Curriculum Priority do provide a framework to build teaching programmes to help learners develop knowledge and skills relevant to their lives now and in the future, in their own local communities, the region and the world. There are opportunities for young people to build a new narrative, to think critically about their identity as Australians, in their own local spaces and in the nation. It is an inclusive curriculum that recognizes the importance of valuing difference, but also acknowledges the national goals for schooling statement: ‘major changes in the world that  …  are placing new demands on Australian education: global integration and international mobility have increased rapidly in the past decade … This heightens the need to nurture

96

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

an appreciation of and respect for social, cultural and religious diversity, and a sense of global citizenship’ (MCEETYA 2008: 4). In the future, teachers’ work in building Asia literacy and citizenship education and how they engage learners will be influenced by new technologies, including the use of digital devices, online social media and new and rapid forms of communication. But, while young people will live and work in very different technological, social and occupational spaces from previous generations, the importance of developing mutual understanding through people–to-people relationships remains vital. As Byram, Nichols and Stevens (2001: 5) argue, this is ‘to relativise one’s own values, beliefs and behaviours, not to assume they are the only possible and naturally correct ones, and to be able to see how they might look from the perspective of an outsider who has a different set of values, beliefs and behaviours’ – a view of intercultural competence that was absent in many Australians’ view of the world for long periods in the past. Citizenship education has the potential to enhance social cohesion and the public good, but particularly where teaching and learning approaches stimulate students’ curiosity and engagement in issues they see as important to their future. In this Asia century, students will continue to be a part of global interconnectedness, and the multiple and shifting identities people experience in more globally mobile lives. In the next decade some of our most important resources will be those that emerge from the interaction among cultures. There is a need to work to ensure that through effective citizenship education, ethnocentrism is negated, and students’ connection with contemporary issues is built, so they can be active and informed citizens and be able to participate positively in multiple challenges in their world.

References AACTF (Australia in the Asian Century Task Force) (2012), Australia in the Asian Century: White Paper. Available online: www.asiaeducation.edu.au/verve/ _resources/australia-in-theasian-century-white-paper.pdf (accessed July 2014). ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : ACARA. ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2016a), Cross Curriculum Priorities. Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/cross _curriculum_priorities.html (accessed 9 January 2016). ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2016b), Australian Curriculum. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au / (accessed 9 January 2016).

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

97

ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority) (2016c), Humanities and Social Sciences (key ideas). Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/key-ideas (accessed 9 January 2016). Ang, I., Chalmers, S., Law I., and Thomas, M. (2000), Alter Asians: Asian Australian Identities in Art, Media and Popular Culture, Annandale: Pluto Press. Asia Education Foundation (AEF) (2011), National Statement on Asia Literacy in Australian Schools 2011–2012, Melbourne: AEF. Asia Education Foundation (AEF) (2012), Call for a National Action Plan for Asia Literacy in Schools, Melbourne: AEF. Asia Education Foundation (AEF) (2016a), Definition of Asia Literacy. Available online: http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/professional-learning/equipping-yourself-to -teach-about-asia/why-asia-literacy (accessed 9 January 2016). Asia Education Foundation (AEF) (2016b), Leading Asia Capability. Available online: http://www.asiaeducation.edu.au/professional-learning/asia-capable -teacher-pathway/asia-capable-teacher/leading-asia-capability (accessed 9 January 2016). Barton, D. (1991), ‘The Social Nature of Writing’. In D. Barton and R. Ivanic (eds), Writing in the Community, 15. London: Sage. Beare, H. (2001), Creating a Future School, Falmer: Routledge. Berndt, R. M. (1965), ‘Law and Order in Aboriginal Australia’. In R.M. Berndt and C.H. Berndt (eds), Aboriginal Man in Australia, 396. Sydney : Angus and Roberston. Broinowski, A. (1992), The Yellow Lady: Australian Impressions of Asia, Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Byram, M., Nichols, A., and Stevens, D. (eds) (2001), Developing Intercultural Competence in Practice, Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd. Commonwealth of Australia (2012), Australia in the Asian Century Implementation Task Force, Canberra: Australia in the Asian Century Implementation Task Force. Available online: http://asiancentury.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/white-paper /foreword.pdf (accessed 12 March 2012). Dawkins, J. (1991), Asian Studies in Australian schools, in ETHOS, 1991, Journal of the Victorian Association of Social Studies Teachers. Dooly. M. (2006), ‘Integrating Intercultural competence and Citizenship education into Teacher Training: A pilot Project’. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2 (1): 19 Grillo, R. (1989), Dominant Languages, Cambridge: CUP. Halse, C. (2013), ‘Asia Literacy in Schooling’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (3): 63. Halse, C. (2015), ‘A Wicked Policy Problem’. In C. Halse (ed.), Asia Literate Schooling in the Asian Century, iv–xvii. London and New York: Routledge. Holdsworth, R. (2010), ‘Students Leading in Investigating and Enacting Values in School Communities’. In T. Lovat, R. Toomey and N. Clement (eds), International Research Handbook on Values Education and Student Wellbeing, 849–866. Dordrecht: Springer.

98

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Iwabuchi, K. (2015), ‘Foreword’. In C. Halse (ed.), Asia Literate Schooling in the Asian Century, iv–xvii. Routledge: London and New York. Kemmis, S. (1990), ‘Curriculum in Australia: Contemporary Issues’. In J. D’Cruz and P. Langford (eds), Issues In Australian Education. Melbourne: Longman, 97. Kennedy, K (2013), ‘Civics and Citizenship in the Australian Curriculum – Global Perspectives’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (13): 2013, 32. Marshall, T. H. (1950), Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Carlton South: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. McLaughlin. T. H. (1992), ‘Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective’, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3): 236. Museum Victoria (2011), Trepang: China & the Story of Macassan-Aboriginal Trade. Available online: http://museumvictoria.com.au/discoverycentre/discovery-centre -news/2011-archive/trepang/ (accessed 3 January 2016). Palevestra, S. (2004), Speech at the Asia Education Foundation (AEF) National Forum (2004) (unpublished manuscript). Peacock, A (1968), Australian house of Representatives Debates, 26th Parliament, Second session, vol. 12, 20 March, 308–309. Racism No Way (2016), Population Statistics. Available online: http://www .racismnoway.com.au/about-racism/population/index-Diversit.html (accessed 3 January 2016). Rizvi, F. (1997), ‘Beyond the East–West Divide: Education and the Dynamics of Australia-Asia Relations’, Australian Educational Researcher, 24 (1): 13–26. Rizvi, F. (2015), ‘Learning Asia’. In C. Halse (ed.), Asia Literate Schooling in the Asian Century, iv–xvii. London and New York: Routledge. Said, E. (1993), Culture and Imperialism, London: Vintage. Salter, P. (2013), ‘The Problem in Policy: Representations of Asia Literacy in Australian Education for the Asian Century’. In Asian Studies Review, 48 (1): 277–291. Singh, M. G. (1996), ‘Australia-Asia Relations and Education’, Curriculum Perspectives, 16 (3): 53–55. Street, V. (2013), Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education, New York: Routledge. Torney-Purta, J. Wilkenfeld, B. and Barber, C. (2008), ‘How Adolescents in TwentySeven Countries Understand, Support, and Practice Human Rights’, Journal of Social Issues, 64 (4): 857–880. UNESCO (2015), Citizenship Education for the C21st: What Is Meant by Citizenship Education. Available online: http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_b /interact/mod07task03/appendix.htm (accessed 2 January 2016).

Building Asia Literacy Through Civics and Citizenship Education

99

Weinmann, M. (2015), ‘Asia Engagement Beyond Binaries and Boundaries: Towards a Re-theorisation of Asia, Community and Curriculum’. In C. Halse (ed.), Asia Literate Schooling in the Asian Century, iv–xvii. London and New York: Routledge. Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘Educating the “Good” Citizen: Political Choices and Pedagogical Goals’. In Political Science and Politics. 2. 241–247.

6

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education Lucas Walsh

Introduction The ideal and possibility of global citizenship is deeply ingrained in Western history. The idea that a person could be a global citizen in a world without strangers dates back to ancient Greece. In contemporary society multiple, complex and varied processes of globalization have led many to write of the need for young people to be prepared not just as citizens of local and national communities but as global citizens (Osler and Starkey 2003; Tasneem 2005; Walsh and Black 2011). Today, contemporary notions of global citizenship feature implicitly and explicitly in key Australian aspirational education policy documents such as the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008) and the Australian Curriculum (ACARA 2012), which promote the advancement of global citizenship as an aim of schooling. Within and beyond Australia, there is a rich and wider tradition of global citizenship education (GCE) (Peters, Britton and Blee 2008; Tudball and Stirling 2011; Learning and Teaching Scotland 2011). This chapter examines three dimensions of GCE by investigating key, themes and tensions arising from the concepts and practices of globalization and citizenship, and the practical implementation of GCE. As we shall see, these notions of globalization and citizenship are contested. Seen by some global citizenship educators as involving forms of cosmopolitan citizenship, this chapter suggests a reimagining of local and national citizenship to account for globalization and will explore the need for, and challenges of, including global citizenship as part of civics and citizenship education in Australia.

102

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Globalization In order to understand what constitutes the ‘global’ in global citizen, it is instructive to first look at how the literature seeks to conceptualize and understand processes constituting the global; namely, globalization. While globalization was analysed by sociologists throughout the twentieth century, it was during the 1990s that some of the key debates about globalization emerged – debates that remain salient to this day. ‘Globalization’ is a term that is used to describe a whole variety of processes and properties that are not always consistent in relation to each other. With a heightened awareness of globalization during the 1990s, the term was often used to explain the implications of growing worldwide economic integration (Cunningham 1998: 7). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) defined globalization as ‘the rapid integration of economies worldwide through trade, financial flows, technology spillovers, information networks and cross-cultural currents’ (IMF 1997). Globalization was also associated with international movements of people (e.g. as immigrants, guest workers, refugees, tourists, students and so forth), and the resultant multicultural constitution of contemporary societies. The extraordinary diffusion of information and communication technologies opened up new possibilities for international communications flows (Cunningham 1998: 8). The seminal definition provided by sociologist Malcolm Waters is that globalization ‘is a social process in which the constraints of geography on social and cultural arrangements recede and in which people become increasingly aware that they are receding’ (1995: 3). It is about ‘the compression of time and space’ (Harvey, cited in Holton 1998: 8), people’s interconnectedness and the ways in which local lives are framed by transnational processes. In creating ‘new economic, social and cultural arenas beyond national borders’ (Tawil 2014: 2), these processes ‘gradually led to the erosion of the appearance of congruity between economy, polity and culture within the nation-state’ (Cunningham and Jacka 1996: 14). Advocates of globalization envisaged the development of polities and citizens that could transcend nationalism and nation states. The development of supranational governmental structures such as the European Union, for example, delivered higher living standards for many people (until recently, as we have seen in Greece and other parts of Europe). Critics, on the other hand, suggested the dangers of a weakening of national sovereignty and a shift in economic power away from national governments and towards multinational corporations,

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

103

global money markets and supranational organizations (Cunningham 1998: 8). Today, these tensions continue and recent events, such as the Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2008, have highlighted some of the negative local consequences of global financial markets (Walsh 2016). As suggested above, globalization’s economic, political and cultural dimensions are inextricably linked but sometimes contradictory. For example, alongside the emergence of fundamentalisms are cosmopolitan values (Waters 1995), which we will discuss in more detail below. Certain tensions reflect differing views of globalization as being made up of differentiating as well as homogenizing processes. Some have argued that a new global culture has emerged based on the view that the world is pluralistic and choice driven but without a single or dominant culture. Globalization, Hall suggests, pluralizes the world by recognizing the values of cultural niches and local traditions (Hall, cited in Morley and Chen 1996). These cultural dimensions of globalization are not without their own tensions. Appadurai, for example, argues that ‘if a global cultural system is emerging, it is filled with ironies and resistances, sometimes camouflaged as passivity and a bottomless appetite in the Asian world for things Western’ (Appadurai 1996: 29). Critical of the Western liberal idea of diversity, Bhabha (1994) suggests that it masks an illusion of pluralistic harmony, positing a framework in which diversity is tolerated only so long as it does not challenge dominant cultural norms and the social order. To be attentive to difference, by contrast, is to understand difference as dynamic, and a product of history, culture, power and ideology. Differences occur within and between groups, and should not be seen as absolute, binaristic or irreducible, but as socially and culturally relational (Rizvi and Walsh 1998: 10). On the other hand, it has been argued that globalization promotes greater cultural homogeneity, the ‘Americanisation’ and spread of ‘Coca-Cola culture’ (Ferguson 1992; Tomlinson 1999, 2005). Other cultural theorists suggest that the contemporary world ‘is, generally, both more diverse and more homogeneous than modernity’ (Green 1997: 185). Cultural globalization has been characterized as a glocalization consisting of a mixture of both global and local, the universal and the particular (Robertson, in Green 1997). Globalization has also been characterized by a chaotic mix of both ‘homogenization and heterogenization, both the universalism of the “MacWorld” and the particularism of the “Jihad world” ’ (Green 1997: 156; see also Barber 1995). Over twenty years ago, Barber (1992) warned of two looming political futures – ‘both bleak, neither democratic’. One involved the ‘retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed … in which culture is pitted against culture, people against

104

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

people, tribe against tribe – a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths.’ The other involved an onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food – with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald’s, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment. (Barber 1992: para. 1)

This could very well have been written last week. Hannerz (1990) suggests that homogeneity and heterogeneity of culture are at once possible: a one-world culture characterized by diversity rather than uniformity, with structures of meaning and expression complexly interrelated. Cultures are mainly related to interactions and social relationships and ‘only indirectly and without logical necessity to particular areas in physical space’ (Hannerz 1990: 239). As such, culture is a collective of meanings carried by networks which are not defined by national borders, but are global.

The plurality of citizenship The conventional (liberal) conception of citizenship in the Anglosphere ‘names a particular relationship between an individual and the state, and between the members of one national community and another’ (Barney 2007: 39). According to this view, citizenship is defined by the rights and corresponding obligations possessed by individuals within (and sometimes against) the state. The citizen is thus defined by his or her relation to the state. This conception is challenged by the globalization of the world economy, innovations in information, communications and transport technology, ethnic and nationalistic pressures and the threat of global environmental degradation (Lash and Urry 1994; Held et al. 1999). The conventional notion of the citizen as ‘bounded’ to places, institutions and legalistic frameworks has been the basis for articulating a notion of citizenship that engages the flows, effects and challenges of globalization – but not without criticism. Social justice, it is argued, cannot emerge from the kind of individualist approach to citizenship articulated by liberalism. In his work Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant suggested that world-citizenship is a necessary precondition for lasting world peace. An important part of Kant’s (1795) view of citizenship is ‘the right of a stranger not to be treated as an enemy when he arrives in the land

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

105

of another’. His approach to peace through rationally based duties not to harm the stranger paved the way for a particular kind of cosmopolitanism that seeks to move beyond ‘bounded’ and individualistic notions of the citizen associated with modern liberalism. Contemporary political theory provides a number of approaches to citizenship that seek to move beyond a conventional understanding of the citizen as a legal subject linked to rights, to more normative conceptualizations of the citizen. These encompass broader social, cultural and other dimensions. Citizenship, according to one of these approaches, is understood as a ‘form of identification, a type of political identity; something to be constructed, not empirically given’ (Mouffe 1992: 231). These approaches reflect a wider change in how citizenship is understood and conceptualized. Emergent concepts include post-national citizenship, supranational citizenship, intercultural citizenship and multidimensional citizenship (Lee and Leung 2006: 69), as well as notions of practical (ACARA 2012) and everyday citizenship. Moving away from an either/or conceptualization of citizenship as a status or practice, citizenship is understood to be rooted in current social, political and economic contexts and the power dynamics within them. Citizenship is something that is in flux (Isin 2009: 370). Ideas of ecological citizenship, transnational notions of citizenship and cosmopolitan citizenship also reflect attempts to construct an idea of citizenship that include, but also move beyond, the classic link of citizenship to rights, nationality and the state. With globalization, new locations of citizenship have emerged beyond the borders of the national state (Sassen 2002; Tawil 2013). For example, Sobhi Tawil from UNESCO links ‘post-national conceptions of citizenship’ partly ‘to transnational civil societies and political communities, as well as to emerging forms of global activism’ (2014: para. 3). But, despite recent orientations away from citizenship as a status, ‘it is important to stress that the State remains the most important location for citizenship’ (Tawil 2013: 2) – in its formal legal expression as well as normative projection (Sassen 2002). Here, the link between moral cosmopolitanism and citizenship is made by Tawil (2014) when he writes: If citizenship education remains the preserve of sovereign states, it has been argued that a number of ‘global trends’ present a set of common challenges for all societies and countries around the world. The intensification of globalization is leading to greater collective acknowledgement that individuals and local communities are affected by global processes, and, in turn, that they may also affect them. (Tawil 2014: para. 9)

He concludes that ‘ “Cosmopolitan citizenship,” rather than “global citizenship,” may therefore be a more accurate and appropriate way of capturing the

106

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

transformation of citizenship in the context of globalization’ (Tawil 2014: para. 9, emphasis in original). Cosmopolitanism has different political, economic, philosophical and moral strands of thought. The widely recognizable type of moral cosmopolitanism adopted by Tawil is based on an acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the principle of universality. Indeed, the principle of universality is fundamental to humanist, humanitarian, and human rights perspectives where, in addition to being members of local communities and citizens of nation-states, individuals are also seen as members of a global community of human beings … the principle of universality is central to cosmopolitanism, the latter also implies an acknowledgement of difference, a commitment to pluralism, and to the principles of respect for diversity. (Tawil 2013: 3)

This follows Appiah’s (2008) approach, in that to insist on universality is only to say that every human being has certain minimum entitlements – many of them expressed in the vocabulary of human rights; and that it is also the obligation of every human being to do his or her fair share in making sure that everybody gets what they are entitled to. (Appiah 2008: 95)

Appiah urges for a conversation across cultures, based on an acknowledgement of shared beliefs and obligations: There are two strands that intertwine in the notion of cosmopolitanism. One is the idea that we have obligations to others, obligations that stretch beyond those to whom we are related by the ties of kith and kind, or even the formal ties of a shared citizenship. The other is that we take seriously the value not just of human life, but of particular human lives, which means taking an interest in the practices and beliefs that lend them significance. (Appiah 2006: xv)

This notion of global citizenship has a moral dimension that is concerned with taking responsibility for transnational issues such as social justice. Emphasizing the ‘thick relations’ of community, he argues that we need to move beyond a sterile sense of duty to develop a dialogue based on a concern for the ‘stranger’. This notion of the cosmopolitan citizen encompasses the idea that the global citizen must actively engage the Other in dialogue and be prepared to be changed by encounters with difference. Appiah (2006: 57) writes, ‘Cosmopolitans suppose that all cultures have enough overlap in their vocabulary of values to begin a conversation. But they don’t suppose, like some universalists, that we could all come to agreement if only we had the same vocabulary.’

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

107

Exploring the meanings of world cultures from the construct of cosmopolitans and locals, Hannerz (1990) shows how cosmopolitan views are received differently in different places and are demonstrated by being interpreted and incorporated according to local values. He proposes a notion of cosmopolitan that is defined as ease, mobility and engagement; he further distinguishes other forms of travellers as tourists, exiles, expatriates and trans-nationals. For Hannerz, there is a spectrum of engagement with the Other, from that of ‘spectator’ to ‘tentative’ and then ‘adept’, as we move from ‘tourist’, through ‘exiles’ and ‘expatriates’ to ‘cosmopolitans’. These are all defined (sometimes ambiguously) in relation to the local. This is because, for Hannerz (1990: 250), ‘there can be no cosmopolitan without locals’. Banks suggests that citizenship education should  …  help students to develop an identity and attachment to the global community and a human connection to people around the world. Global identities, attachments, and commitments constitute cosmopolitanism  …  Cosmopolitans view themselves as citizens of the world who will make decisions and take actions in the global interests that will benefit humankind. (2008: 134)

This captures the moral foundation of GCE, which we shall explore in more detail below. But first, it is useful to briefly situate this discussion in the Australian context.

Education policy responses to globalization Early in the 1990s, education policy in Australia began to recognize the tensions and challenges of globalization described above. The Beazley Statement (1992), for example, argued that the higher education sector’s enthusiasm for international education in the late 1980s was ‘too narrowly commercial with insufficient recognition of student needs and of the benefits of international education’, particularly as Australia sought to develop a more open and internationally competitive and globalized economy (Beazley, cited in Rizvi and Walsh 1998: 7). The emergent discourse of internationalization evident in the Beazley Statement reflected recognition of an increasing interdependence among nations, acknowledging the need for education systems that facilitate partnerships and exchange of ideas, skills, staff and students, within a diverse and sophisticated global environment. Education policy sought to move ‘away from a concentration on exporting student places to recognition of the wider activities integrally involved

108

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

in international education and the wider, sometimes indirect, benefits which flow from seeking to internationalise our education systems’ (Beazley 1992: ii). In schooling, the need to engage the global was tentatively recognized in the Hobart Declaration on Schooling (1989), which aimed ‘to develop knowledge, skills and values which enable students to participate as active and informed citizens in our democratic Australian society within an international context’ (MCEETYA 1998: 11; see also Australian Education Council 1989). The notion of global citizenship was later more explicitly cited in the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008: 4). A number of other frameworks directly outlining resources and approaches to global education in Australia have been promoted by recent governments, such as The Global Perspectives: A Framework for Global Education in Australian Schools (Education Services Australia 2011). Most recently, there is an explicit connection to global citizenship in the Australian Curriculum subject, geography, where students learn to ‘question why the world is the way it is, reflect on their relationships with and responsibilities for that world, and propose actions designed to shape a socially just and sustainable future’ (ACARA 2014). There is a further focus in the Australian Curriculum with the inclusion of Intercultural Understanding as a General Capability (ACARA 2014). Another important General Capability is developing Ethical Understanding, which involves students learning to develop strong personal and socially oriented ethical outlooks. This capability has a global dimension as students navigate the complex issues arising from social, cultural, technological and environmental changes shaping the world (ACARA 2013). The curriculum highlights the expectation that students are able to identify the obligations people have as global citizens, ‘such as an awareness of human rights issues, concern for the environment and sustainability, and being active and informed about global issues’, including, for example, immigration (ACARA 2015). This shift adopts some of the language and sensibilities of GCE. Internationally, GCE has been around for some time. Coinciding with the literature on globalization described above, there has been growth over the last few decades in the development of world studies, international and comparative education, global education and global citizenship education: The concept of the global village has led to the development of global education and education for interdependence. The conceptual development from world studies to international education, and further to global education suggests … the awareness that we are actually living in one global world, and what happens in one part of the globe may have substantial impacts elsewhere. (Lee and Leung 2006: 68)

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

109

Lee and Leung continue saying, ‘To keep abreast with the rapid pace of globalization, there have been concerns that efforts in education should focus on developing an international perspective among the youth, increasing their awareness of global development, and urging them to assume their responsibilities as citizens of their local, national, and global communities’ (2006: 70). According to UNESCO (2014), GCE is ‘a framing paradigm which encapsulates how education can develop the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes learners need for securing a world which is more just, peaceful, tolerant, inclusive, secure and sustainable’ at local and global levels (UNESCO 2014: 9). It seeks to develop in young people ‘a perspective beyond the national boundary, to understand the impact of individual citizenship behaviours upon the other parts of the world’ (Lee and Leung 2006: 70). This involves teaching the students ‘local, national and global identity simultaneously’ (Marshall 2005: 83). Consistent with the cosmopolitan values described above, social justice is framed as a central global concern underpinned by certain values. ‘Ideally’, Marshall proposes, ‘all teachers of global education should perceive the world in relation to values of global social justice – they should have obtained the gaze, embodied its principles and, most importantly, “act” accordingly’ (2005: 84). Students, writes Tawil (2014), are introduced to ‘issues of global concern, and elements of an emerging global civic culture’ with GCE integrated into existing formal or non-formal education programmes, building on and adapting them into local civics and citizenship education programmes by framing what is learned within the context of globalization. The evidence suggests that successful GCE involves the development of ‘empowering and democratic pedagogic relationships between teacher and student advocated by the global educators [with] strong links with theories of participatory and child-centred learning’ (Marshall 2005: 82–3). Researching global educators in the NGO sector in England, it was found that certain pedagogic ideals, structures and skills are highly valued, including: • • • • • • • •

The inclusion of global education policy at all levels Senior management supportive of a global education agenda The appointment of an international or global education ‘co-ordinator’ The fostering of a ‘global’ school ethos in all parts of school life The integration of interactive, pupil-centred teaching methodology For all teachers to have experience of ‘the global’ For global education to happen ‘naturally’ in schools For all teachers to convey passion for the learning of global education. (Marshall 2005)

110

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Despite uneven policy gestures over the course of the last twenty years, there continues to be an appetite for GCE in Australia by educators and policy makers. The Global Education Project (2012), for example, developed resources and strategies for teachers seeking to foster a global perspective in students across the curriculum. As suggested above, the current Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship explicitly seeks to foster global citizenship. As Print suggests, it encourages the building of a sense of civic identity, particularly one that is broader than national in nature such as European citizenship and global citizenship but including a national identity as well; the importance of valuing and supporting the common good, human rights, equity [incl. multiculturalism]; as well as building trust in political institutions and participation as an active citizen. (Print 2014: 87)

Practical challenges to implementing GCE In the final section of this chapter, I would like to outline some practical challenges to the practice of GCE, starting with context. Context, as Isin (2009) suggests, is important. GCE needs to account for both the status of citizenship and its practical realization in localized contexts. The experience of young refugees arriving in Australia, for example, is characterized by forms of global citizenship, such as international mobility; however, the context of their arrival is important, and may have profound significance in contrast to people who were born in Australia or who migrated for other reasons. Place is important. As Farrugia has found, Places [in which young people live] are sites at which multiple and sometimes contradictory identities are constructed and negotiated, and this has become all the more significant under conditions of globalization, in which (some) children and young people may be exposed to many diverse cultural influences or may have experienced substantial mobility and migration themselves. (Farrugia 2015: 619)

Their experiences and values, and the vocabularies they use to describe them, will consequently occasionally differ from their peers. The cosmopolitan outlook seeks to reconcile these differences. ‘Cosmopolitans’, writes Banks, ‘identify with peoples from diverse cultures throughout the world  …  Students can become cosmopolitan citizens while maintaining attachments and roots to their family and community cultures’ (2008: 134). Despite these attachments, students should, according to Banks,

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

111

realize Appiah’s axiom that ‘no local loyalty can ever justify forgetting that each human being has responsibilities to every other’ (Appiah 2006: xvi). The importance of the local, combined with the plurality of conceptions of citizenship outlined above, suggests a need for civics and citizenship educators to extend, deepen and sometimes rethink citizenship in both conceptual and practical terms. Wood (2013) alongside Horton and Kraftl (2006; 2009) provide powerful cases for broadening the definitions of what counts as ‘citizenship’. Following Wood (2013), there are some ways of bringing the affective domain of young people’s everyday citizenship practices to inform how young people enact their citizenship. First, connecting students to individual and private experiences of interactions with people from different classes and backgrounds, through everyday conversation and acts in those ‘hidden spaces’ where ‘small, personal acts of sociability and friendship’ take place (Wood 2013: 56; see also Dyck 2005). These acts and friendships can demonstrate a commitment by people to inclusivity. Second, emotive experiences can provide an impetus to be involved in affecting society and being a part of local and global polities. Engaging these ‘emotional geographies of citizenship’ can be done by teachers through focusing on the everyday, and necessarily being flexible about what counts as active citizenship. Another deeper challenge lies in a potential clash of values. While Banks (2008: 129) advocates for citizenship education as a means for students to ‘acquire the cosmopolitan perspectives and values needed to work for equality and social justice around the world’, he later contends that As citizens of the global community, students must develop a deep understanding of the need to take action and make decisions to help solve the world’s difficult problems. They need to participate in ways that will enhance democracy and promote equality and social justice in their cultural communities, nations, and regions, and in the world. (Banks 2008: 134–5)

Underpinning GCE is a belief in global democracy (Lee and Leung 2006: 69). Interestingly, where some challenge ‘liberal assimilationist conceptions of citizenship and citizenship education’ (Banks 2008: 129), there are at least two implicit assumptions underpinning GCE that could be viewed as problematic: first, that democracy is for everyone; and second, that democracy itself is not laden with values, often liberal ones. Indeed, the cosmopolitan project advocated by Banks, Appiah and others is, as suggested above, essentially a moral one. It therefore involves negotiating diversity but with a particular moral and normatively based compass that may inadvertently impact on engagement with the Other who may not share the same moral view. In addition, as recent events

112

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

in the Middle East (and among some citizens in the West) have shown, the desire for democracy is by no means universally held. In Australia, two recent polls have found an entrenched ambivalence among some young people about democracy. A survey in 2013, for example, found that only 59 per cent of Australians agreed that ‘democracy is preferable to any other kind of government’ and this reduced to only 48 per cent in the 18–29-year-old age group (Oliver 2013). In 2014 this figure decreased to 42 per cent of 18–29-year-olds, compared with 65 per cent of those aged thirty and above. A third of 18–29-year-olds said that ‘in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable’, and nearly one in five said, ‘it doesn’t matter what kind of government we have’ (Oliver 2014). There are many possible interpretations for why these views are held. Questions arise, such as ‘what kind/s of democracy are young people referring to?’, and ‘are they responding to the recent adversarial tone of Australian politics?’ This kind of evidence and questioning could inform and perhaps be unpacked through civics and citizenship education. A challenge for teachers is to engage big issues like these in the classroom. Educators in Hong Kong and Shanghai, for example, have found topics related to global citizenship difficult to teach (Lee and Leung 2006: 78). They can be complex, sometimes seemingly abstract and difficult to tie in with the local curriculum. There are examples of good practice (e.g. see Tudball and Stirling 2011). Regardless, over the last two decades there has been recognition of a need for teachers to have greater professional development in GCE (Pike and Selby 1988; Steiner 1996; Marshall 2005). International teacher exchanges have been shown to be valuable in this regard (UNESCO 2014). Hands-on experience and practical opportunities to learn are valuable for both teachers and students. As suggested above, GCE is ideally embedded in formal curriculum (Lee and Leung 2006: 70). It can be school-wide, cross-curricular, integrated within certain subjects and a separate stand-alone subject (UNESCO 2014). But teachers are often constrained by the domains and restraints imposed by local and national curriculum frameworks. In Australia, the Australian Curriculum has opened up new possibilities and educators have further explored innovative ways of integrating GCE across different areas of learning (Tudball and Stirling 2011). GCE can also be taught beyond the classroom in non-formal learning settings that actively and practically link what takes place in the classroom with wider issues of concern to young people in the community (Zyngier 2012); for example, through youth-led initiatives (UNESCO 2014, 2015: 48–9), such as the one explored by Rosalyn Black in Chapter 7 of this book. But as she notes, these too come with related practical constraints and challenges.

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

113

Conclusion This chapter has sought to unpack some conceptual and practical challenges in the teaching of GCE within civics and citizenship education. Echoing the wider literature on globalization since the 1990s, tensions run through the concepts of global, citizen and educational components of GCE. Nevertheless, GCE ‘enriches the concepts and content of all subjects and fields of education by widening their dimensions’. Through the process and ‘investigation of the relationship between micro- and macro-level issues’, ‘learners and educators examine the roots and causes of events and developments at the local level, consider the connections with the global level, and identify possible solutions’ (UNESCO 2014: 15). But these can be challenging to teach. Reflecting the plural conceptions of citizenship outlined above, Tawil notes that the notion of ‘global citizenship’ itself remains very broad, if not contested, and consequently difficult to operationalize in education. First of all, it is unclear whether the very notion of ‘global citizenship’ is a metaphor, a contradiction of terms, or an oxymoron. (Tawil 2013: 1; see also Davies 2006)

Drawing inspiration from Appiah (2008), Tawil (2013: 2) suggests that ‘Globalization, and the growing acknowledgement that individuals around the world are increasingly, directly and indirectly, interconnected and interdependent beyond the local communities and Nation-States to which they belong, is making cosmopolitanism not only a reality, but a necessity.’ GCE depends on an acceptance of human rights and openness (Skirbekk, Potancokova and Stonawski 2013). But there is one final challenge worth mentioning. This openness to ‘welcoming the stranger’ – a feature of ‘ordinary cosmopolitanism’ – is not without certain limitations. In their study, Skrbis and Woodward (2007: 745) found that people opted for the more easily accepted aspects of cosmopolitanism ‘rather than the more difficult aspects of openness such as showing hospitality to strangers, or accepting human interest ahead of perceived national interests’. They conclude that ‘ “cosmopolitanism” may not necessarily be best imagined as an emergent world system that is borderless, utopian, and an expression of universal values, but rather a set of increasingly available cultural outlooks that individuals selectively deploy to deal with new social conditions’ (Skrbis and Woodward 2007: 745). But the commitment to global issues and social justice espoused by global citizenship educators requires challenging responses, which need to push civics and citizenship education

114

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

beyond the ‘window shopping’ identified by Skrbis and Woodward, in which students and educators address the challenging and sometimes overwhelming issues confronting humanity. Starkey (2012: 33) writes that with the ‘expectation that schools address and help young people to understand global issues including climate change, resource depletion and the world financial system’, as well as being inclusive spaces in which people of diverse values and ethnicities must live and learn together, ‘cosmopolitan citizenship education with a utopian vision has the potential to challenge existing structures whether of the school or of wider society. It is a programme that cannot guarantee control of its outcomes.’ Civics and citizenship educators would hopefully regard this as an educational challenge rather than a constraint.

References ACARA (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum __Civics_and_Citizenship_251012.pdf (accessed 14 July 2015). ACARA (2013), General Capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Overview (accessed 4 February 2015). ACARA (2014), Intercultural Understanding – General Capabilities, Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Intercultural-understanding (accessed 29 June 2015). ACARA (2015), Civics and Citizenship [ACHCK039], Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au /humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/f-10?layout=1#cd code=ACHCK039&level=6 (accessed 11 September 2015). Appadurai, A. (1996), Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Appiah, K. A. (2006), Cosmopolitanism: Ethnics in a World of Strangers, New York: Norton. Appiah, K. A. (2008), ‘Education for Global Citizenship’. In D. Coulter, G. Fenstermacher, and J. R. Wiens (eds), Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 83–99. Massachusetts: Blackwell. Australian Education Council (1989), Common and Agreed National Goals for Schooling in Australia (The Hobart Declaration), Melbourne: Australian Education Council.

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

115

Banks, J. (2008), ‘Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age’, Educational Researcher, 37 (3): 129–139. Barber, B. (1992), ‘Jihad vs. McWorld’, The Atlantic, March. Available online: http:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882 /(accessed 29 July 2015). Barber, B. (1995), Jihad vs. McWorld: How Globalism and Tribalism Are Reshaping the World, New York: Ballantine Books. Barney, D. (2007), ‘Radical Citizenship in the Republic of Technology: A Sketch’. In L. Dahlberg and E. Siapera (eds), Radical Democracy and the Internet. Interrogating Theory and Practice, 37–54. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Beazley, K. (1992), International Education in Australia Through the 1990s, Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Bhabha, H. K. (1994), The Location of Culture, London: Routledge. Cunningham, S. (1998), ‘Technology and Delivery: Assessing the Impact of New Media on “Borderless” Education’, The Australian Universities’ Review, 41 (1): 10–13. Cunningham, S. and Jacka, E. (1996), Australian Television and International Mediascapes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davies, L. (2006), ‘Global Citizenship: Abstraction or Framework for Action?’, Educational Review, 58 (1): 5–25. Dyck, I. (2005), ‘Feminist Geography, the “Everyday”, and Local-Global Relations: Hidden Spaces of Place-Making’, The Canadian Geographer, 49 (3): 233–243. Education Services Australia (2011), Global Perspectives: A Framework for Global Education in Australian Schools, Carlton: Education Services Australia. Farrugia, D. (2015), ‘Space and Place in Studies of Childhood and Youth’. In J. Wyn and H. Cahill (eds), Handbook of Children and Youth Studies, 609–624. Singapore: Springer Science+Business Media. Ferguson, M. (1992), ‘The Myth About Globalization’, European Journal of Communication, 7 (69): 69–93. Global Education Project (2012), Website. Available online: http://www.globaleducation .edu.au/ (accessed 11 September 2015). Green, A. (1997), Globalization and the Nation State, Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hannerz, U. (1990), ‘Cosmopolitans and Locals in World Culture’, Theory, Culture & Society, 7: 237–251. Held, D., A. McGrew, D. Goldblatt and Perraton, J. (1999), Global Transformations, Cambridge: Polity Press. Holton, R. J. (1998), Globalization and the Nation-State, London: Macmillan Press. Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2006), ‘What Else? Some More Ways of Thinking and Doing “Children’s Geographies” ’, Children’s Geographies, 4: 69–95. Horton, J. and Kraftl, P. (2009), ‘What (Else) Matters? Policy Contexts, Emotional Geographies’, Environment and Planning A, 41: 2984–3002. IMF (1997), World Economic Outlook, 1998, Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. Available online: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/weomay/01overv.htm (accessed 17 July 2015).

116

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Isin, E. F. (2009), ‘Citizenship in Flux: The Figure of the Activist Citizen’, Subjectivity, 29 (1): 367–388. Kant, I. (1795), Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch. Available online: http://www .constitution.org/kant/perpeace.htm (accessed 17 July 2015). Lash, S. and Urry, J. (1994), Economies of Signs and Space, London: Sage. Learning and Teaching Scotland (2011), Developing Global Citizens Within Curriculum for Excellence, Scotland: Learning and Teaching Scotland. Lee, W. O. and Leung, S. W. (2006), ‘Global Citizenship Education in Hong Kong and Shanghai Secondary Schools: Ideals, Realities and Expectations’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 2 (2): 68–84. Marshall, H. (2005), ‘Developing the Global Gaze in Citizenship Education: Exploring the Perspectives of Global Education NGO Workers in England’, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (2): 76–92. MCEETYA (1998), Australia’s Common and Agreed Goals for Schooling in the Twenty First Century: A Review of the 1989 Common and Agreed Goals for Schooling in Australia (The ‘Hobart Declaration’), Discussion Paper, Carlton South, Victoria: MCEETYA Secretariat. Available online: http://www.curriculum.edu.au/verve/ _resources/natgoals_file.pdf (accessed 17 July 2015). MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Canberra: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, Australian Government. Morley, D. and Chen, K. (1996), Stuart Hall, London: Routledge. Mouffe, C. (1992), ‘Democratic Citizenship and the Political Community’. In C. Mouffe (ed.), Dimensions of Radical Democracy: Pluralism, Citizenship, Community, 225–239, London: Verso. Oliver, A. (2013), Australia and the World: Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, Sydney : Lowy Institute for International Policy. Available online: http://www.lowyinstitute .org/files/lowypoll2013_web_corrected_p5.pdf (accessed 5 July 2015). Oliver, A. (2014), Lowy Institute Poll 2014: Australia and the World, Sydney : Lowy Institute for International Policy. Available online: http://apo.org.au/node/39890 (accessed 2 March 2015). Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2003), ‘Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical Debates and Young People’s Experiences’, Educational Review, 55 (3): 243–254. Peters, M. A., A. Britton and Blee, H. (2008), Global Citizenship Education: Philosophy, Theory and Pedagogy, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Pike, G. and Selby, D. (1988), Global Teacher, Global Learner, London: Hodder and Stoughton. Print, M. (2014), ‘Can Resilience Be Built Through a Citizenship Education Curriculum?’, Journal of Social Science Education, 13 (3): 83–89. Rizvi, F. and Walsh, L. (1998), ‘Difference, Globalization and the Internationalisation of Curriculum’, The Australian Universities’ Review, 41 (2): 7–11.

The Needs and Challenges for Global Citizenship Education

117

Sassen, S. (2002), ‘Towards Post-national and Denationalized Citizenship’. In E. Isin and B. Turner (eds), Handbook of Citizenship Education, 277–291. London: SAGE. Skirbekk, V., M. Potancokova and Stonawski, M. (2013), Measurement of Global Citizenship Education, Study commissioned by UNESCO for the Technical Consultation on GCE in Seoul, Republic of Korea. Skrbis, A. and Woodward, I. (2007), ‘The Ambivalence of Ordinary Cosmopolitanism: Investigating the Limits of Cosmopolitan Openness’, Sociological Review, 44 (4): 730–747. Starkey, H. (2012), ‘Human Rights, Cosmopolitanism and Utopias: Implications for Citizenship Education’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 42 (1): 21–35. Steiner, M. (ed.) (1996), Developing the Global Teacher: Theory and Practice in Initial Teacher Education, Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Tasneem, I. (2005), ‘Global Citizenship Education: Mainstreaming the Curriculum?,’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 35 (2): 177–194. Tawil, S. (2013), Education for ‘Global Citizenship’: A Framework for Discussion, UNESCO Education Research and Foresight Working Papers Series, No. 7. Tawil, S. (2014), ‘Education for “Global Citizenship”: Beyond the “Fuzzword” ’, NORRAG NEWSBite. Posted online 3 February 2014 at: https://norrag.wordpress .com/2014/02/03/education-for-global-citizenship-beyond-the-fuzzword/. Tomlinson, J. (1999), Globalization and Culture, Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers. Tomlinson, J. (2005), ‘Cultural Globalization and Cultural Imperialism’. In A. Mohammadi (ed.), International Communication and Globalization, 170–190. London: SAGE. Tudball, L. and Stirling, L. (2011), Bright Sparks: Leading Lights. Snapshots of Global Education in Australia, Melbourne: World Vision Australia. UNESCO (2014), Global Citizenship Education – Preparing Learners for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century, Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO (2015), Global Citizenship Education: Topics and Learning Objectives, Paris: UNESCO. Walsh, L. (2016), Educating Generation Next: Young People, Teachers and Schooling in Transition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Walsh, L. and Black, R. (2011), In Their Own Hands: Can Young People Change Australia?, Melbourne: ACER Press. Waters, M. (1995), Globalization, London: Routledge. Wood, B. E. (2013), ‘Young People’s Emotional Geographies of Citizenship Participation: Spatial and Relational Insights’, Emotion, Space and Society, 9: 50–58. Zyngier, D. (2012), ‘Transformative Student Engagement – An Empowering Pedagogy: An Australian Experience in the Classroom’. In B. J. McMahon and J. P. Portelli (eds), Student Engagement in Urban Schools: Beyond Neoliberal Discourses, 111–131. Charlotte, North Carolina: IAP.

7

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools Rosalyn Black

Introduction Active citizenship is an idea with a long history. While it remains subject to different definitions and interpretations, it is also an idea that has now been adopted across the political spectrum and across numerous jurisdictions, including Australia (Marinetto 2003). In fact, the proposition that citizens should play an active role in the political process and voluntarily contribute to the good of civil society and the community has become one of the ‘governing concepts’ of numerous nations (Appadurai 2007: 29). This proposition extends to young people who are increasingly expected not merely to ‘be’ citizens but to enact their citizenship in practical ways. The centrality of school education in fostering young people’s active citizenship has been widely promoted by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the European Union as well as by numerous jurisdictions (Birzea, Losito and Veldhuis 2005). Over the past two decades, compulsory citizenship education has been introduced into the school curriculum of almost all European countries (Eurydice 2005) as well as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Singapore, South Africa, the United States and Canada (Nelson and Kerr 2006). Although the nature of these citizenship education curricula differs, there is a common policy view that young people should be educated for active citizenship. The scholarly literature describes this active citizenship as a means by which young people can ‘voic[e] their will, needs and opinions’ (Aldenmyr, Wigg and Olson 2012: 256), ‘participate … in civic action’ (Andrews and Mycock 2007:

120

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

19), ‘critically engage with and seek to affect the course of social events’ (Ross 2012: 7) and, ultimately, act as ‘agents who shape and change society’ (Onyx, Kenny and Brown 2012: 56). Similar statements also emerge from the policy literature. When the Council of Europe launched its formal citizenship education curriculum in 1997, for example, it defined that curriculum as a means of ‘making young people … better equipped to participate actively in democratic life by assuming and exercising their rights and responsibilities in society’ (in Birzea et al. 2004: 18). The Council’s 2009 Strategic Framework for European Cooperation in Education and Training 2020 describes the curriculum as a way of fostering young people’s ‘commitment to active democratic participation in society’ (Eurydice 2012: 3). More recently, the Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education emphasized the role of education in enabling young people ‘to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law’ (Council of Europe 2010: 5–6). A similar policy vision was reflected in the report which launched England’s national civics and citizenship education curriculum: We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country both nationally and locally: for people to think of themselves as active citizens, willing, able and equipped to have an influence in public life and with the critical capacities to weigh evidence before speaking and acting; to build on and to extend radically to young people the best in existing traditions of community involvement and public service, and to make them individually confident in finding new forms of involvement and action among themselves. (Crick 1998: 8)

Similar ideas are also reflected in Australian education policy. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, which articulates nationally consistent directions and aspirations for Australian schooling agreed by all Australian education ministers, emphasizes the role of schools in preparing young people to be ‘responsible global and local citizens’ who are ‘committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participate in Australia’s civic life’, who ‘work for the common good, in particular sustaining and improving natural and social environments’, and who ‘make rational and informed decisions about their own lives and accept responsibility for their own actions’ (MCEETYA 2008: 9). These ideas are also reflected in the new Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum, which places a clear emphasis on ‘the role of active citizenship, both

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

121

as explicit content and as a key outcome of Civics and Citizenship education’ (ACARA 2012: 3). Its core Years 3–10 curriculum, for example, includes a strand called Civics and Citizenship Skills, which aims to develop the citizenship skills of questioning and research, encouraging young people to become ‘active and informed citizens’ who are willing and able to ‘question, understand and contribute to the world in which they live’ (ACARA n.d.).

Making the local active citizen If there is one guiding idea that underpins all of these policy statements and curricular interventions, it is the idea that active citizens ‘are not born; they are made’ (Cruikshank 1999: 3). Young people’s citizenship is increasingly being reconceptualized as an ‘active practice’ (Nelson and Kerr 2006), but the project of citizenship education also entails its own practices – what Isin has called the ‘practices of making citizens’ (2008: 17). The role of the school in these practices is acknowledged by the Shape paper for the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum: Children in schools are citizens but they need opportunities to build their understanding and experience to become active adult citizens. The school plays an essential role in the provision of opportunities for preparing active, informed citizens to ensure the continuation of Australia’s parliamentary, liberal democracy. (ACARA 2012: 5)

Statements such as this raise the large question of how, and for what purposes or outcomes, active young citizens might be ‘made’ in the context of their own local community. Contemporary discourses of citizenship increasingly emphasize transnational and global citizenship (Desforges, Jones and Woods 2005), but active citizenship curricula often focus on the local community as a primary site for the development of young people’s citizenship values and capacities (Eurydice 2005; Hart 2009; Birdwell, Scott and Horley 2013) and for their enactment for the good of that community (Walsh and Black 2011; Keating and Benton 2013). They frequently describe the role of schools in fostering young citizens who ‘actively engage in practical citizenship activities within schools, in the community and online’ (ACARA 2012: 3, my emphasis) and who ‘positively contribute locally, nationally, regionally and globally’ (ACARA n.d., my emphasis). In the following discussion, I draw from my study of two Australian schools to consider how young people may be ‘made’ as active citizens through their

122

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

schooling and what this may mean for young people living and learning in communities that are subject to socio-economic inequality. Each of the two case study schools is a small- to medium-sized government school that draws its enrolments from peri-urban or rural fringe communities located on the edges of a capital city and characterized by the multiple and interconnected inequalities that flow, in the Australian context, from such factors as educational attainment; occupation; family income; geographical location; and Aboriginal, migrant or refugee status. These communities are also characterized by high intergenerational unemployment and high levels of youth unemployment in particular. Where young people are employed, this is often in casual roles within fluid or insecure workforces. While there are many other ways in which young people may experience inequality, my focus on socio-economic inequality is motivated by a number of factors. These include the strong ideological association that still exists between ideas of equality, democracy and citizenship, as well as the increasingly precarious status of this association in socio-economically unequal countries such as Australia. They also include the growing scholarly concern with the ways in which contemporary citizenship discourses and policies are cementing experiences of ‘unequal citizenship’ (Hoxsey 2011: 930) for many young people. Each school has implemented an active citizenship curriculum for its middle years’ students: the Student Leader curriculum at what I have called Eastview College, and the Making A Difference, or MAD, curriculum at what I have called Valley High School. Each curriculum is modelled on the ruMAD? (are you Making A Difference?) framework developed by the Australian academic David Zyngier (2011). ruMAD? has been described as a pedagogical means of enabling ‘rich task learning for young people, outside the classroom and in the community’ (Bell et al. 2004: 1), but its primary proposition is that it is a curricular means of ‘empower[ing] young people with a belief that what they do will make a difference’ (Zyngier 2009: 55) and enabling them to ‘act as changemakers in their community’ (The Tasmanian Centre for Global Learning 2011). Following the ruMAD? model, the MAD and Student Leader curricula lead students through a structured learning process that encourages them to design and implement an active citizenship project, usually within the local community; to gather evidence of the project’s impact; and to reflect on its outcomes, often as part of a community or school event. These active citizenship projects vary greatly with students’ interests and concerns, but the following examples convey a sense of their purposes and scope: an initiative to push for better public transport in the area; a campaign for improved local youth recreation facilities;

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

123

projects to improve school facilities and gardens; local reforestation projects and initiatives to improve local environmental facilities such as the rail trail; the creation of a community website; the creation of a medicinal garden at a local wildlife sanctuary; a project to raise funds for the Salvation Army and its work with young homeless people; and projects to raise community awareness of issues facing local young people such as drink-driving and hooning, bullying and drug use. Students have also worked as sports coaches at local primary schools or as volunteers at local child-care centres and animal shelters. At each school, individual interviews were conducted with the school principal and the teacher or coordinator primarily responsible for the implementation of the relevant curriculum in order to determine the authorizing context for its introduction as well as the relationship between school and system priorities. Focus group interviews were held with a total of six other teachers delivering each curriculum in order to illustrate their motivations and experiences as well as their perceptions of their students’ experience within that curriculum. Finally, focus group interviews were held with students who had participated in the curriculum.

Enabling citizenship in the community Both of these curricular interventions have been introduced in response to persistent student disengagement and poor achievement in the middle years. Both represent attempts to utilize the local community as a site for engaging, active and applied student learning, a site in which, according to Valley High School’s Middle Years curriculum statement, students could learn ‘real life stuff ’ and get out of the classroom. Both also represent attempts to utilize the community as a site for young people’s active citizenship, as the principal explains: One key element that came through was community. Community and making a difference. One, knowing your community; and two, then starting to do something about it; that as young adults you have to be part of the community and impact.

As I have previously noted (Black 2011), the school has an important role to play in its geographic community, but, conversely, the community can be an equally important curricular resource for the school. At both schools, the local community is seen as an important source of services, resources and

124

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

relationships for its young people. It is also seen as a key site for the development of active citizenship skills, attitudes and attributes in those young people, including their sense of community belonging and connectedness. At Eastview College, where young people are regarded as being particularly vulnerable to the effects of socio-economic inequality, the principal goes a step further, describing the students’ active local citizenship as a palliative or prophylactic measure, one that may fend off what is seen as a dangerous future: What we’re trying to do is actually link kids with the community more, because you’ve got some kids who’ve got their own little niches and can fester and learn bad habits, and the idea of them actually being part of the whole community and getting something out of it and then growing with it obviously has a potential to be a huge change in their lives.

The consensus of the educators at each school is that these strategies are succeeding. Particularly at Valley High School, where the MAD curriculum caters to the entire Year 9 cohort, educators describe improved levels of student attendance and engagement. They also describe greater levels of student community engagement, as the Valley High School principal explains: They knew their community, they had actually done something, be it raise money, influence something even to the point where they’ve talked to the local shire about incorporating a basketball court – doesn’t matter, that changed a plan and they achieved a significant outcome.

A similar view emerges from the students themselves. My interviews with them suggest that the MAD and Student Leader curricula have not only enabled them to enact their citizenship in the community but encouraged them to see themselves as active citizens in ways that have enabling effects. At both schools, students consistently describe a strong belief that they have ‘made a difference’ within their community or even ‘changed someone’s life’, a belief that brings them a deep personal satisfaction. They also describe their sense of connectedness to the community, their sense of influence within that community and their mandate to act for change in the community as well as to encourage others to act in this way, as one Valley High School student explains: The idea was making the whole community branch out, make things a little bit better for something else, and they’ll make things better for something else. So that was the idea of the ripple effect, and we’re trying to do that into our own projects, to see if we can make something better and see if other people carry out our own ideas.

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

125

Another important aspect of these active citizenship curricula and their outcomes for young people was revealed in the focus group discussions with students. Citizenship is a relational state, one that depends on complex relationships, experiences of membership and forms of recognition (Osler and Starkey 2006; Arnot and Swartz 2012). When it comes to young people, this includes their recognition as ‘competent beings who exercise agency in their own lives and in their communities’ (Hoffmann-Ekstein et al. 2008: 1). At both schools, students report that their teachers now recognize them as active citizens capable of contributing to the wider democratic project. In the words of one Eastview College student, ‘[our teachers] trust us to have this power, after school, in the community and in the world’.

Leaving the community The suggestion from the data is that these active citizenship curricula have encouraged students’ identification and engagement with the local community, and their sense of themselves as actors in that community, but there are other aspects of such curricula that require attention as well. It has become a central tenet of contemporary policy and public citizenship discourses that citizens are socially, economically and, frequently, geographically mobile (Brooks and Waters 2010; Walsh and Black 2014). In the United Kingdom, the premise that education can ensure such mobility, especially for disadvantaged young people, is central to much recent education policy (Bathmaker, Ingram and Waller 2013; Brown, Reay and Vincent 2013). The same could be said about Australian education policy, as Sellar has observed (2013). This discourse of mobility is also articulated by educators at both case study schools. Even while the community is depicted as a site for young people’s active citizenship, it is also portrayed as a place from which these same young people need to be ‘rescued or redeemed’ (Black 2012: 192). There is a keen concern among the educators at both schools that their students are vulnerable to the precarity of employment that characterizes their communities as multinational companies move their workforce to places where wages are lower and local businesses become more dependent on global market forces. There is also a concern that their students’ socio-economic and socio-geographic circumstances will bar them from the perceived opportunities of a globalized era. At Eastview College, in particular, there is a concern that students may be subject to even grimmer forms of social exclusion and constraint, as the principal observes:

126

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

[The students] don’t have to be rocket scientists. They can be whatever they want, so long as it’s a job they enjoy … So long as they’re not out on the streets doing some of the things that some of their parents might have done, which you don’t want to know … I’m always thinking about where the kids will end up. Like all schools, we’ll have kids that fall through the gaps, and schools are full of kids that end up in jail.

Kenway and McLeod (2004) have described the way in which some teachers construct their students’ choice to remain in their low socio-economic communities as a bad choice, one which confirms their inability to take their place as national or global citizens. A similar construction is implicit in both of the curricula and their intended outcomes for participating students. This is summed up by one teacher at Eastview College: In terms of goal setting, it’s been really important, and aspirations. Like they’ve kind of learnt to think outside, you know, and to be bigger than they are, that they’re not just going to be stuck in [Eastview] for the rest of their lives. We do talk a lot about starting small and ending up, you know, huge, and that’s something that they’re always coming back to.

This discourse of expansion and transcendence, of ‘being bigger’ than the local community context, emerges as a frequent theme within my interviews at each school. At Valley High School, teachers describe the MAD curriculum as one that has had the effect of ‘broadening [the students’] horizon’, of enabling them to ‘think bigger’, see ‘a bigger picture’ and be ‘member[s] of a bigger place’. At Eastview College, a similar depiction emerges from the students’ accounts of their experience within the Student Leader curriculum, as this comment suggests: It makes us believe that we’re like bigger than we actually are … I don’t know, just because we’re students at just a regular high school it doesn’t mean that we like can’t do something bigger in the world to make a difference.

For some students, this discourse of expansion also discourages their identification with their current geographic location. For the students at Valley High School, in particular, the experience of active citizenship in the local community is linked with a rejection of that community insofar as it represents disadvantage. Despite their teachers’ assumption and intention that the MAD curriculum will enable them to connect with people who are like them, these young people as a collective consistently distance themselves from ‘less fortunate people who don’t have the resources to get things done’, ‘underprivileged people that just can’t do something for themselves’, ‘the poor or whatever’. In this, they

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

127

echo the young people observed by France, who reject the notion of becoming engaged in their low socio-economic community on the grounds that it ‘would only increase their own experiences of being poor’ (1998: 106).

Being recognized by the community If the young people at Eastview College and Valley High School are ambivalent in their recognition of their local communities, those communities are also ambivalent in their recognition of them. The evidence from numerous studies is that young people want to participate in their local communities and that they are particularly keen to engage in active practices of citizenship ‘close to the everyday settings that are important to them’ (Torney-Purta 2002: 208). As Harris and Wyn (2009: 338) have observed, young people’s citizenship practices are often located within the ‘everyday spaces’ of their communities. At the same time, young people’s motivation to act as citizens within their community may depend on their sense of belonging to that community and the degree of recognition that they experience within it (Kiwan 2007). Young people in low socio-economic communities may lack this sense of belonging and recognition, finding themselves instead to be subjects of distrust or wariness (Hart 2009; Harris 2010). The experience of the young people at these two schools largely reinforces these observations. Especially at Valley High School, students describe an entrenched community distrust of young people, one that exposes them to suspicion and accusation, as one student explains: ‘a lot of people have the perception that teenagers are just making trouble and all of this’. These young people also express the hope that their local acts of citizenship will reduce this distrust and increase their recognition by their community: [MAD] gives us a better reputation in the community. If we do all these kind things around the community, they’ll maybe do something for us if we do something for them.

Such observations reinforce the provisional or conditional experience of citizenship for many young people. Both the MAD and Student Leader curricula encourage participating students to understand themselves as active citizens who can make a needed difference within their own communities. When they seek to enact that citizenship, however, they become subject to the ‘multiple and varied experiences of being a citizen’ (Wood 2013: 51, original emphasis) – experiences that may leave them in an ambiguous position in relation to those communities.

128

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Conclusions The findings I have discussed in this chapter remind us of the transformative potential of school education and its role in enabling young people’s active citizenship. At the same time, they also reinforce a number of previous studies which suggest that many young people living in low socio-economic communities occupy ‘spaces of uncertainty’ (Wood 2012: 338). For the young people I have described, the ‘micro-territories’ of the local community (Harris and Wyn 2009: 341) are the sites of complex and contradictory experiences of citizenship. Through the MAD and Student Leader curricula, the community is constructed as a source of supportive and protective relationships that can assist young people in their transition to the full economic and social citizenship, as promoted in education policy; but that same community is also constructed as a place that is too constricted and constrained, a place that their schooling should enable them to leave. Community is constructed as a place in which young people can express and enact their citizenship in transformative ways, both for others and for themselves, but it is also the site of enduring experiences that position youths as subjects of uncertainty and distrust. Harris has argued that ‘even well-intentioned efforts to enhance and defend young people’s entitlement to legitimately inhabit the category of citizen ought to be interrogated as part of the circuitry of citizenship technology’ (2012: 143–4). This chapter suggests a continued need to interrogate the ways in which citizenship education seeks to make young people active local citizens, particularly when the young people concerned are living and learning in communities complicated by socio-economic inequality. It also suggests a need to interrogate the outcomes of that educational project, to better understand the ‘actual condition’ of young people’s citizenship (Biesta and Lawy 2006: 74) or their ‘lived citizenship’ (Lister et al. 2003: 235) in the everyday spaces of their local communities.

References ACARA (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). ACARA (n.d.), Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and -citizenship/rationale (accessed 11 March 2015).

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

129

Aldenmyr, S. I., Wigg, U. J. and Olson, M. (2012), ‘Worries and Possibilities in Active Citizenship: Three Swedish Educational Contexts’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 7 (3): 255–270. Andrews, R. and Mycock, A. (2007), ‘Citizenship Education in the UK: Divergence Within a Multi-National State’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 3 (1): 73–88. Appadurai, A. (2007), ‘Hope and Democracy’, Public Culture, 1: 29–34. Arnot, M. and Swartz, S. (2012), ‘Youth Citizenship and the Politics of Belonging: Introducing Contexts, Voices, Imaginaries’, Comparative Education, 48 (1): 1–10. Bathmaker, A.-M., Ingram, N. and Waller, R. (2013), ‘Higher Education, Social Class and the Mobilisation of Capitals: Recognising and Playing the Game’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34 (5–6): 723–743. Bell, C., Shrimpton, B., Hurworth, R. and St Leger, P. (2004), Making a Difference in Schools and the Community: Evaluation of the ruMAD? (Are You Making a Difference?) Program in Victorian Schools, Melbourne: Education Foundation. Biesta, G. J. J. and Lawy, R. (2006), ‘From Teaching Citizenship to Learning Democracy: Overcoming Individualism in Research, Policy and Practice’, Cambridge Journal of Education, 36 (1): 63–79. Birdwell, J., Scott, R. and Horley, E. (2013), ‘Active Citizenship, Education and Service Learning’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 8 (2): 185–199. Birzea, C., Kerr, D., Mikkelsen, R., Pol, M., Froumin, I., Losito, B. and Sardoc, M. (2004), All-European Study on Education for Democratic Citizenship Policies, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Birzea, C., Losito, B. and Veldhuis, R. (2005), ‘Editorial’, Journal of Social Science Education, 4 (3): 1–4. Black, R. (2011), ‘Civic Participation for Community Capacity Building’. In D. Bottrell and S. Goodwin (eds), Schools, Communities and Social Inclusion, 173–183. Melbourne: Palgrave Macmillan. Black, R. (2012), ‘Educating the Reflexive Citizen: Making a Difference or Entrenching Difference?’ PhD Thesis, The University of Melbourne. Brooks, R. and Waters, J. (2010), ‘Social Networks and Educational Mobility: The Experiences of UK Students’, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 8 (1): 143–157. Brown, P., Reay, D. and Vincent, C. (2013), ‘Education and Social Mobility’, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34 (5–6): 637–643. Council of Europe (2010), ‘Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education’, Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Crick, B. (1998), Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools: Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Cruikshank, B. (1999), The Will to Power: Democratic Citizens and Other Subject, New York: Cornell University Press. Desforges, L., Jones, R. and Woods, M. (2005), ‘New Geographies of Citizenship’, Citizenship Studies, 9 (5): 439–451.

130

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Eurydice (2005), Citizenship Education at School in Europe, Brussels: Eurydice. Eurydice (2012), Citizenship Education in Europe, Brussels: Eurydice. France, A. (1998), ‘ “Why Should We Care?” Young People, Citizenship and Questions of Social Responsibility’, Journal of Youth Studies, 1 (1): 97–111. Harris, A. (2010), ‘Young People, Everyday Civic Life and the Limits of Social Cohesion’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31 (5): 573–589. Harris, A. (2012), ‘Citizenship Stories’. In N. Lesko and S. Talburt (eds), Keywords in Youth Studies: Tracing Affects, Movements, Knowledges, 143–152. New York: Routledge. Harris, A. and Wyn, J. (2009), ‘Young People’s Politics and the Micro-Territories of the Local’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 44 (2): 327–344. Hart, S. (2009), ‘The “Problem” with Youth: Young People, Citizenship and the Community’, Citizenship Studies, 13 (6): 641–657. Hoffmann-Ekstein, J., Michaux, A., Bessell, S., Mason, J., Watson, E. and Fox, M. (2008), Children’s Agency in Communities: A Review of Literature and the Policy and Practice Context, Paddington: The Benevolent Society. Hoxsey, D. (2011), ‘Debating the Ghost of Marshall: A Critique of Citizenship’, Citizenship Studies, 15 (6–7): 915–932. Isin, E. F. (2008), ‘Theorizing Acts of Citizenship’. In E. F. Isin and G. M. Nielsen (eds), Acts of Citizenship, 15–43. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, A. and Benton, T. (2013), ‘Creating Cohesive Citizens in England? Exploring the Role of Diversity, Deprivation and Democratic Climate at School’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 8 (2): 165–184. Kenway, J. and McLeod, J. (2004), ‘Bourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology and “Spaces of Points of View”: Whose Reflexivity, Which Perspective?’ British Journal of Sociology of Education, 25 (4): 525–544. Kiwan, D. (2007), ‘Uneasy Relationships? Conceptions of “Citizenship,” “Democracy” and “Diversity” in the English Citizenship Education Policymaking Process’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2 (3): 223–235. Lister, R., Smith, N., Middleton, S. and Cox, L. (2003), ‘Young People Talk About Citizenship: Empirical Perspectives on Theoretical and Political Debates’, Citizenship Studies, 7 (2): 235–253. Marinetto, M. (2003), ‘Who Wants to Be an Active Citizen? The Politics and Practice of Community Involvement’, Sociology, 37 (1): 103–120. MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Carlton South: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. Nelson, J. and Kerr, D. (2006), Active Citizenship in INCA Countries: Definitions, Policies, Practices and Outcomes (Final Report), London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Onyx, J., Kenny, S. and Brown, K. (2012), ‘Active Citizenship: An Empirical Investigation’, Social Policy and Society, 11: 55–66.

Active Citizenship and the ‘Making’ of Active Citizens in Australian Schools

131

Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2006), ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship: A Review of Research, Policy and Practice 1995–2005’, Research Papers in Education, 21 (4): 433–466. Ross, A. (2012), ‘Editorial: Education for Active Citizenship: Practices, Policies and Promises’, International Journal of Progressive Education, 8 (3): 7–14. Sellar, S. (2013), ‘Equity, Markets and the Politics of Aspiration in Australian Higher Education’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34 (2): 245–258. The Tasmanian Centre for Global Learning (2011), ‘ruMAD?’ Available online: http:// www.afairerworld.org/_Current_projects/rumad.html (accessed 1 July 2015). Torney-Purta, J. (2002), ‘The School’s Role in Developing Civic Engagement: A Study of Adolescents in Twenty-Eight Countries’, Applied Developmental Science, 6 (4): 203–212. Walsh, L. and Black, R. (2011), In Their Own Hands: Can Young People Change Australia? Melbourne: ACER Press. Walsh, L. and Black, R. (2014), ‘The Ambiguous Mobilities of Young Australians’. In P. Kelly and A. Kamp (eds), A Critical Youth Studies for the 21st Century, 70–86. Amsterdam: Brill. Wood, B. E. (2012), ‘Crafted Within Liminal Spaces: Young People’s Everyday Politics’, Political Geography, 31: 337–346. Wood, B. E. (2013), ‘Young people’s Emotional Geographies of Citizenship Participation: Spatial and Relational Insights’, Emotion, Space and Society, 9: 50–58. Zyngier, D. (2009), ‘Education Through Elegant Subversion’, Professional Voice, 6 (3): 51–56. Zyngier, D. (2011), ‘Education, Critical-Service Learning, and Social Justice: The Australian Experience of Doing Thick Democracy in the Classroom’. In B.J. Porfilio and H. Hickman (eds), Critical Service-Learning as a Revolutionary Pedagogy: A Project of Student Agency in Action, 133–152. New York: Information Age Publishing.

8

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education for Diverse Learners Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

Introduction Education for citizenship in any jurisdiction necessarily intersects with notions of diversity and inclusivity. The Melbourne Declaration (MCEETYA 2008) establishes the need to create and sustain inclusive learning environments, free from discrimination, as a core goal of education and schooling in Australia. Within the Melbourne Declaration, the value and importance of diversity within Australian classrooms and wider society is located alongside the role of education and schooling in contributing to a ‘socially cohesive society’ (MCEETYA 2008: 7). As the Melbourne Declaration also makes clear, multiple modalities of diversity exist, including those related to culture, ethnicity, race, religion, gender and sexuality. Each of these affect, and in turn are affected by, how citizenship is conceived, embodied and enacted by a range of actors – governments, community organizations and representatives, religions and religious leaders, as well as individual citizens. Identities are multiple, and are often characterized by their complexity and dynamism, so it is significant that the new civics and citizenship subject in Australian Curriculum includes an explicit focus on young peoples’ understanding of diversity and identity. It is important that we are clear from the outset on our focus. It is not possible within the space and confines of this chapter to fully discuss all the various forms of diversity pointed to above. As such, our intention here is to focus on diversity as it relates to culture, race and ethnicity as a prism through which to engage with issues and possibilities for developing inclusive forms of civics and citizenship education. Given that – in reality – no form of diversity is completely independent from others, at various points in the chapter we make reference to other characteristics of diversity.

134

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Australia today is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. Data from the 2011 census evidence that nearly 550,000 people identified as being of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013a); 26 per cent of Australia’s population was born overseas, with a further 20 per cent having at least one overseas-born parent (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013b). From the colonial era onwards, during the period of the Gold Rushes in the 1850s, throughout the late nineteenth century and after the end of the Second World War, successive waves of immigrants have included people from all over the world. The racist immigration policies against non-white people that existed from 1901 ended with the removal of the White Australia policy in the early 1970s. This ended the favouritism shown to migrants from Western countries, and foreshadowed migratory patterns which have increased the plurality of cultures within Australia significantly. In 2011, the top ten birthplaces for longer standing migrants include four Asian and four European countries. India was the leading birthplace of new migrants in 2007–2013 (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2013b). Successive Australian governments have remained committed to a policy of multiculturalism, viewing cultural diversity as being ‘at the heart of [Australian] national identity’ and ‘intrinsic to [Australia] history and character’ (Australian Government 2011). A nation-wide report in 2014 found that 85 per cent of Australians support multiculturalism (Markus 2014). This said, like other plural democracies, many tensions and issues remain. While as a nation, Australia is in a period of historical transition, with more than 60,000 years of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander heritage now being valued and recognized politically and as an education priority for schools and teacher education, reconciliation has not yet been fully achieved. In 2008, the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples, known as the ‘Sorry speech’, and the Stolen Generations national inquiry’s Bringing Them Home report (1997) symbolize greater recognition of Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, but significant tensions remain. Despite much political rhetoric and the passing of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples Recognition Act in 2013, a referendum to recognize Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within the Constitution has not taken place, and does not seem likely in the lifetime of this Parliament (the Act has a two-year sunset clause). In addition, Australia remains the only former British colony not to have a treaty with its Indigenous peoples (Auguste 2010). For many, a treaty – or treaties – between the Australian government and

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

135

Aboriginal peoples will help to secure sovereignty and self-determination. In 2014, Warren Mundine, chair of the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s Indigenous Advisory Council, called for treaties between the government and each of the nations or language groups that still exist and existed prior to European settlement on the basis that they would create ‘rights for Aboriginal people that have been denied to us in the past and those rights would include recognition of customary law, the right to land, the right to make decisions over Aboriginal people and the right to raise our own economy’ (Mundine 2014). A further example of cultural tensions in contemporary Australia is evidenced through recent policy and public discourse on radicalization and violent extremism. Such discourse has characterized Islam and Muslims as problematic, with education often cited as an important mechanism for monitoring and combatting radicalization. Often the language used is sensationalized. The deputy director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Anthony Bergin (2015; emphasis added), for example, has claimed that there are ‘growing numbers of schools grappling with the radicalisation of students’, and a ‘startling speed at which ever younger wannabe jihadis are radicalising’. The mainstream media has employed headlines such as ‘jihadi watch’ (Crawford 2015) and ‘schoolyard terror blitz’ (Meers 2015) to describe the role of schools in combatting radicalization. Notions of citizenship have been central, with, for example, the then Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott (2015) writing an opinion piece in the Daily Telegraph calling for a ‘national conversation’ on what it means to be an Australian. Abbott situated the need for a conversation against ‘a grave concern’ that Australia ‘is being challenged by people who reject our values and who are prepared to resort to violence against us’. Such statements come in a context in which Australian Muslims ‘overwhelmingly agree that it is possible to be a good Muslim and a good Australian’, and in which ‘studies consistently show … that Australian citizenship and identifying as an Australian are no protection from stereotypes and prejudice’ (Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding 2015: 14). Indeed, research evidence suggests a strong sense ‘that Muslim communities were regarded as “suspect” resulting from the association between Islam and terrorism’, and that ‘participants spoke about a sense of being “under constant suspicion” … and labelled as a security threat’ (Murphy, Cherney and Barkworth 2015: 11; see also Moran 2011; Taylor 2015). Such contestations raise particular and significant questions for civics and citizenship education, including: how cultural plurality might be recognized,

136

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

celebrated and debated in tandem with the teaching of shared values, and how different – at times conflicting – cultural perspectives can be part of meaningful dialogue. In this chapter, we are interested in the ways in which civics and citizenship education in Australian schools does, and can, respond to these questions. Our analysis is formed of three main parts. In the first section, we set out some conceptual frameworks that are helpful in conceiving cultural plurality in contemporary democratic nations. In the second, we consider the curricular requirements that inform Australian schools’ teaching about and for cultural diversity. In the third section, we outline some pedagogical possibilities for building inclusive classrooms and schools.

Conceptual frameworks A great deal of research literature has developed arguing for the importance of conceptions of citizenship and education for citizenship that recognize diverse and multiple identities. Typically, such appeals start with the acknowledgement that many contemporary communities are characterized by diversity brought about by global processes, the implications of which are often felt and experienced at a local level. As Osler (2008: 21) has commented: Our everyday citizenship is most commonly experienced at the local level. Individuals will have multiple and changing identities and multiple and changing allegiances to local, national and transnational communities. Educators cannot assume that their students will identify first and foremost with the national community or that they will necessarily see this as their primary focus of allegiance. The various communities with which young people identify are likely to reflect a range of values, beliefs, both religious and secular.

In his seminal liberal account of multicultural citizenship, Kymlicka (1995) discerns two forms of ethno-cultural groups. National minorities are those groups which have a shared and common sense of history, community, languages, territory and/or culture. Typically, national minorities in the sense that Kymlicka intends are Indigenous peoples, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australia and First Nations peoples in Canada. An important recognition here is that national minorities have often become such through various forms of colonization and oppression, meaning that the claims of national minorities typically focus on recognition and political rights, such as self-government or self-determination, land rights and representation rights, for example, which need to be guaranteed through formal constitutions or

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

137

treaties. Ethnic groups in polyethnic states refer to cultural groups which exist within nation states predominantly as a result of immigration. For such groups, the key concern is to manage integration into the wider norms and values of the nation state, while maintaining core aspects of their particular culture/s. Core rights here include freedom from racial or religious discrimination and freedom of cultural expression. One need not accept Kymlicka’s full account in order to benefit from his insights, particularly in a country such as Australia, in which both forms of diversity are evident. In particular, differentiating between the two forms of cultural diversity highlights that while there may be some shared concerns, national minorities and ethnic groups in polyethnic states have different histories and contemporary contexts, and that as such particular policies and responses need to account for these differences if they are to be appropriately responsive. A number of other conceptions of citizenship have been utilized to characterize approaches to diversity and multiple identities within discourse on education for citizenship. Of these, multiculturalism has received by far the most attention, both within the academic literature and within public policy and debate. As a concept, multiculturalism has been subject to sustained critique in some nations for being inherently limited in its nature. Part of the reason for this is that ‘different models of multiculturalism can be followed’ and as such in fact ‘there are many multiculturalisms’ (Osler 2008: 16). A simple definition would view multiculturalism as the awareness and acceptance of different cultural identities within society such that ‘immigrant and minority groups can retain important aspects of their languages and cultures while exercising full citizenship rights’ (Banks et al. 2008: 132). Because of this, it is generally recognized that in such multicultural societies, singular forms of identity are no longer viable as identities are fluid and often characterized by their hybridity. As Ladson-Billings (2004: 112) suggests, The dynamic of modern … nation-states makes identities as either an individual or a member of a group untenable. Rather than seeing the choice as either/or, the citizen of the nation-state operates in the realism of both/and … People move back and forth across many identities, and the way society responds to these identities either binds people to or alienates them from the civic culture.

For some commentators, the concept of ‘interculturalism’ represents an important alternative to multiculturalism for the extent to which it seeks not only an awareness of other cultures but also a more critical approach to dialogical engagement (Wood et al. 2006). In their analysis of the relationship

138

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

between multiculturalism and interculturalism, Meer and Modood (2011: 177) identify fours ways in which the former has been contrasted to the latter in public discourse: (i) that whereas multiculturalism involves different cultural groups living together in a respectful way, interculturalism encourages and requires greater dialogue and interaction between different cultural groups; (ii) that owing to this greater dialogue and interaction, interculturalism involves an explicit aim for some sense of ‘synthesis’ between groups; (iii) that more so than multiculturalism, interculturalism involves a fundamental commitment to shared values as citizens; and (iv) that while multiculturalism may be viewed as ‘illiberal and relativistic’, interculturalism challenges perspectives and is therefore better able to address ‘illiberal cultural practices’. These four differences are potentially helpful to those interested in civics and citizenship education in Australia, particularly in a context of a national policy commitment to multiculturalism and a goal within educational curricular (discussed in more detail in the next section) to developing intercultural understanding and dialogue. Not least, how as educators we can move beyond superficial and purely celebratory constructions of cultural diversity (critiqued as the ‘saris, samosas and steel-band’ approach) towards critical engagement with different, and at times conflicting, perspectives. To this end, sitting alongside – and often interrelated with – discussions of multi- and inter-culturalism, a growing corpus of work in the field of education identifies ‘cosmopolitanism’ as a meaningful and useful concept for understanding contemporary citizenship in diverse local and global communities (see, for example, Osler and Starkey 2003; Rivzi 2009; Merry and de Ruyter 2011). A core tenet of cosmopolitanism is that globalization means that civic identities focusing solely on the nation state are increasingly being transcended as a result of increased movement (whether physically, technologically or mentally) across boundaries and borders. For supporters of cosmopolitanism, there is a need for people to view themselves as citizens of the world either as well as or instead of citizens of the nation state. A central idea within cosmopolitanism is the standpoint that ‘common humanity … translates ethically into an idea of shared or common moral duties toward others by virtue of this humanity’ (Lu 2000: 245). This requires citizens living in one particular nation state to consider and account for the needs of others in the world. For Nussbaum, there is therefore a need to ‘work to make all human beings part of our community of dialogue and concern’ (1996: 9). According to two of the leading educational proponents of a cosmopolitan approach, a defining characteristic of the educated cosmopolitan citizen is to

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

139

‘work to achieve peace, human rights and democracy within the local community and at a global level, by  …  accepting personal responsibility and recognising the importance of civic commitment’ (Osler and Starkey 2003: 246; emphasis added). This once again highlights the important interrelationship between the local and the global. According to Osler (2008: 22), [E]ducation for cosmopolitan citizenship  …  requires us to re-imagine the nation … as cosmopolitan and to recognise local communities and the national community as cosmopolitan. It implies a sense of solidarity with strangers in distant places but it also requires solidarity, a sense of shared humanity and dialogue with those in the local community and the national community whose perspectives may be very different from our own.

The ways in which civics and citizenship educators conceive and approach education for cosmopolitan citizenship will need to respond to the particular contexts (national, local, neighbourhood etc.) within which they work – a point to which we return later in this chapter.

Curricular frameworks It was stated in the introduction that a core goal of education and schooling in Australia is to provide inclusive schools and curricula which recognize diversity alongside social cohesion. Clearly, educating for inclusivity and diversity is central and pressing concern within the Australian Curriculum, but it is important that we consider how this is framed, as well as how the requirements of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum intersect with other elements of the Australian Curriculum. Our intention in this section is to outline and discuss the framing and the intersections, raising questions for schools and teachers to which we respond in the third section of this chapter. In what follows we pay particular attention to ethnic diversity within plural Australia, given that another chapter in this volume focuses on Australia’s Indigenous peoples. The commitment to recognizing and appreciating cultural diversity is a common theme throughout the various stages of development of the Australian Curriculum itself and, more specifically, the curriculum for Civics and Citizenship. The Shape Paper for Civics and Citizenship (ACARA 2012) placed understanding diversity as central to the subject area alongside developing a commitment to shared values and social cohesion. In the endorsed online version of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, ‘citizenship, diversity and identity’ is a core organizing theme for the subject (ACARA 2015a). Within this there is

140

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

a commitment to balancing recognition and appreciation of plural interests with the desire to create social cohesion. For example, in Year 7 one of the three overarching inquiry questions prompts students to investigate ‘How is Australia a diverse society and what factors contribute to a cohesive society?’ (ACARA 2015). In focusing on the need for cohesion, the curriculum locates values as central. To this end, again at Year 7, students are to be taught ‘how values, including freedom, respect, inclusion, civility, responsibility, compassion, equality and a “fair go”, can promote cohesion within Australian society’ (ACARA 2015a). Developing intercultural awareness is also central, with students learning how different religious and cultural groups ‘express their particular identities; and how this influences their perceptions of others and vice versa’ (ACARA 2015a). In subsequent years, students are expected to continue to learn about cultural plurality and social cohesion with increased complexity. In Year 8, for example, the curriculum includes learning about ‘different perspectives about Australia’s national identity, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives, and what it means to be Australian’ (ACARA 2015a). The focus on understanding and appreciating different cultures within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum connects intimately to key aspects of a number of the General Capabilities which sit across the Australian Curriculum. In particular, there is much to be gained from connections between Civics and Citizenship and the General Capability Intercultural Understanding, which has as its core aim that students ‘learn to value their own cultures, languages and beliefs, and those of others’ (ACARA 2015b). Also included within Intercultural Understanding is the need for students to ‘negotiate or mediate’ difference. This highlights for civics and citizenship educators the need to bring different perspectives into relation with each other – including about controversial and sensitive issues – in dialogical ways. In turn, this requires the development of discursive and empathetic skills in order that students are able to engage with different perspectives in an open-minded way. Clearly, the scope of the curriculum set out here envisages students engaging in forms of direct and indirect dialogue with people and ideas from different cultures, requiring that students develop a reflexive attitude to their own beliefs and attitudes. Through dialogue with others, students are more likely to come to see the views of others – as well as their own and those within their own communities – as revisable and multifarious (Kumar 2008). It is in this sense that students are able to develop reflexivity (Rizvi 2008). The potential benefits of a dialogical approach within education are encapsulated by the Swedish National Agency for Education (2000: 8), which contends that ‘dialogue allows differing views and values to confront

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

141

one another and develop. Dialogue allows individuals to make their own ethical judgements by listening, reflecting, finding arguments and appraising, while it also constitutes an important point of developing an understanding of one’s own views and those of others’.

Frameworks for educating about and for diversity: Connecting curriculum to whole school approaches As Banks et al. (2008: 74) remind us, Diversity in  …  schools is both an opportunity and a challenge. The nation is enriched by the ethnic, cultural, and language diversity among its citizens and within its schools. However, whenever diverse groups interact, intergroup tension, stereotypes, and institutionalized discrimination develop. Schools must find a way to respect the diversity of their students as well as help to create a unified, superordinate nation-state to which all citizens have allegiance.

How, then, can Australian schools and teachers respond in meaningful ways to the challenges of teaching students to understand and appreciate diverse interests while also cultivating a commitment to social cohesion? Answers to this question are not straightforward, and often will depend on particular, localized contexts. Likely to be key is the extent to which approaches to intercultural understanding and appreciation are embedded within and across school systems, processes and curricular. That is, where attending to cultural diversity is limited and piecemeal, it is likely to remain nothing more than superficial in its engagement and outcomes. In this final section, we draw on two possible frameworks which are helpful in providing a possible tool for civics and citizenship educators to audit, reflect on and guide their approaches to teaching about and for cultural diversity. Both frameworks evidence a commitment to holistic approaches which combine curriculum content, values and whole school vision and responsibility. The first framework for thinking through how schools and teachers might respond is provided by American education scholar James Banks (2008b), who identifies five dimensions of multicultural education. The dimensions are as follows: (i) Content integration: The ways in which teachers make use of different examples, events and individuals drawn from a range of cultural groups and identities;

142

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

(ii) The knowledge construction process: The co-construction of knowledge between teachers and students, including an examination of ways in which central texts and assumptions reflect dominant, partial and perspectival forms of knowledge; (iii) Prejudice reduction: The method of teaching and supporting students to develop democratic attitudes and dispositions in order that they act to reduce, challenge and combat prejudice; (iv) An equity pedagogy: The explicit and implicit processes through which curriculum, teaching and learning are brought together in ways that reflect the needs of diverse cultural groups – including relating to the lifeworlds of students; (v) An empowering school culture and social structure: The establishment of school structures and processes – including mission and ethos – based on equity for all students, including democratic structures and respectful relationships. Banks’ claim, with which we would concur, is that all of the dimensions are required, none sufficient alone, to ensure that education is truly multicultural. Moreover, an essential understanding of the framework is that multicultural education must attend to both cognitive and affective domains and must do so through enacting particular values and practices within and across the school. A second framework, and one determined in the Australian context, is provided by Mansouri et al. (2009). In Building Bridges: Creating a Culture of Diversity, Mansouri et al. set out a framework for a whole school approach in relation to culturally diverse education and schooling. The framework asks schools, school leaders and teachers to engage with thinking through cultural diversity in relation to the following foci: - School structures and parent involvement: including, school mission and values, developing a cultural diversity charter, and developing and building on relationships with parents; - Curriculum and pedagogy: including, participatory, inclusive and responsive pedagogies which enable students to engage with curriculum in dialogical and reflexive ways; - Teacher support and professional development: including, development opportunities within communities that enable teachers to ‘explore students’ own experiences with issues of cultural diversity’ (Mansouri et al. 2009: 15); - Community partnership and external factors: including, relationships with government policies, the specific context and capacities of the school, and connections with community partners.

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

143

As we have suggested, both of these frameworks speak of the need for holistic and comprehensive approaches to cultural diversity, through which inclusivity and intercultural engagement are part of the lived experience of schools and students. Mansouri et al. (2009: 12) remind us that ‘schools are successful in managing cultural diversity when they incorporate cultural and linguistic diversity into the curriculum in a sophisticated and holistic way, rather than creating special subjects that are less academically oriented, or are superficial curriculum additions’. There is a need, then, for civics and citizenship educators to conceive the requirements of the subject curriculum alongside a wider, holistic whole school approach. Central to this is identifying and building on useful cross-subject connections. A potential illustration is provided within the Australian Curriculum for Health and Physical Education, the requirements for which at Years 7 and 8 involve students in learning about contributing to ‘healthy and active communities’ (ACARA 2015c). This includes students ‘investigating how respecting diversity and challenging racism, sexism, disability discrimination and homophobia influence individual and community wellbeing’; ‘examining values and beliefs about cultural and social issues such as gender, race, violence, sexuality and ability’; and ‘developing strategies to challenge narrow views of gender, race, violence, sexuality, gender diversity, and ability to contribute to inclusive communities’ (ACARA 2015c). Thought through well, and drawing on the sorts of approaches advocated by Banks and by Mansouri et al., cross-curricular links such as these provide possibilities for interesting and highly relevant connections between cohesion, well-being, values and citizenship. Furthermore, both frameworks either implicitly or explicitly note the importance of teachers’ professional development in relation to educating for diversity and diverse learners, a recognition which seems crucial given recent empirical research in New South Wales that found that more than half of the teachers surveyed had not received pre-service teacher education in teaching about and for cultural diversity (Watkins, Lean and Noble 2016). From a US context, Banks et al. (2008: 68) suggest that ‘continuing education about diversity is especially important for teachers because of the increasing cultural and ethnic gap that exists between the nation’s teachers and students’. This requires teachers once again to consider a range of educational processes – including organization, mission and ethos of the school; the content of the curriculum; and its relationships with families and the community – as well as exploring their own perceptions and understandings of race, ethnicity and culture.

144

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Conclusion Developing inclusive pedagogies, curriculum and schools for diverse learners is clearly central to civics and citizenship education in Australia. The challenge for schools is to attend to and enact inclusive approaches within contested and complex contexts. In this chapter, we have sought to identify some conceptual positions that provide a lens through which to critically consider and engage with core questions relating to education for and about cultural diversity. In addition, we have outlined key curricular requirements for schools and teachers, locating the content of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship in relation to the General Capability Intercultural Understanding. Drawing on frameworks offered by Banks et al. (2008) and by Mansouri et al. (2009), we have suggested that, properly understood and approached, education for and about cultural diversity requires holistic approaches through which sustained and comprehensive teaching can result. It is precisely these holistic approaches that provide a useful basis for civics and citizenship educators in conceiving and constructing their own approaches, sensitive to their own particular contexts.

References Abbott, T. (2015), ‘Terrorism Has No Home in Australia’. The Daily Telegraph. May 28. Available online: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/terrorism-has -no-home-in-australia/story-fni0cwl5-1227370330794 (accessed 4 October). Auguste, I. (2010), ‘Rethinking the Nation: Apology, Treaty and Reconciliation in Australia’, National Identities, 12 (4): 425–436. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013a), 2011 Census Counts – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. Available online: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats /[email protected]/Lookup/2075.0main+features32011 (accessed 20 January 2016). Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013b), Reflecting a Nation: Stories from the 2011 Census, 2012–2013. Available online: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] /Lookup/2071.0main+features902012-2013 (accessed 20 January 2016). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2012), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship October 2012. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015a), Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities -and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/7-10?layout=1 (accessed 20 January 2016).

Developing Inclusive Civics and Citizenship Education

145

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015b), Intercultural Understanding: Key Ideas. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au /generalcapabilities/intercultural-understanding/introduction/key-ideas (accessed 20 January 2016). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015c), Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/health-and-physical-education/curriculum /f-10?layout=1#level7-8 (accessed 24 January 2016). Australian Government (2011), The People of Australia: Australia’s Multicultural Policy, Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Banks, J. (2008a), ‘Diversity, Group Identity, and Citizenship Education in a Global Age’, Educational Researcher, 37 (3): 129–139. Banks, J. (2008b), An Introduction to Multicultural Education, Boston, MA: Pearson. Banks, J., Cookson, P., Gay, G., Hawley, W., Jordon Irvine, J., Nieto, S., Ward Schofield, J. and Stephan, W. (2008), ‘Education and Diversity’. In W. Parker (ed.), Social Studies Today: Research and Practice, 67–76. New York, NY: Routledge. Bergin, A. (2015), ‘Good Teaching Is at the Core of Counter-Radicalisation’, The Drum. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. June 3. Available online: http://www.abc.net. au/news/2015-06-03/bergin-teachers-must-be-trained-in-counter -radicalisation/6517408 (accessed 4 October 2016). Centre for Muslim and Non-Muslim Understanding (2015), Australian Muslims: A Demographic, Social and Economic Profile of Muslims in Australia 2015. Available online: http://www.unisa.edu.au/Global/EASS/MnM/Publications/Australian _Muslims_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 4 October 2015). Crawford, C. (2015), ‘Students, Teachers to Learn How to Spot Potential Jihadis Under Official Plan’, Sunday Herald Sun. Online edition. May 26. http://www.heraldsun .com.au/news/victoria/students-teachers-to-learn-how-to-spot-potential-jihadis -under-officials-plans/story-fnpp4dl6-1227366800928 (accessed 4 October 2015). Kumar, A. (2008), ‘Development Education and Dialogic Learning in the 21st Century’, International Journal of Development Education and Global Learning, 1 (1): 37–48. Kymlicka, W. (1995), Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (2004), ‘Culture Versus Citizenship: The Challenge of Racialised Citizenship in the United States’. In J. A. Banks (ed.), Diversity and Citizenship Education: Globalised Perspectives, 99–126. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lu, C. (2000), ‘The One and Many Faces of Cosmopolitanism’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 8 (2): 244–267. Mansouri, F., Jenkins, L., Leach, M. and Walsh, L. (2009), Building Bridges: Creating a Culture of Diversity, Melbourne, VIC: Melbourne University Publishing. Markus, A. (2014), Mapping Social Cohesion: The Scanlon Foundation Surveys, 2014. Available online: http://scanlonfoundation.org.au/wp-content /uploads/2014/10/2014-Mapping-Social-Cohesion-Report.pdf (accessed 20 January 2016).

146

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Meer, N. and Modood, T. (2011), ‘How Does Interculturalism Contrast with Multiculturalism?’ Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33 (2): 175–196. Meers, D. (2015), ‘Schoolyard Terror Blitz’, The Daily Telegraph, 21 September, p. 1. Merry, M. and de Ruyter, D. (2011), ‘The Relevance of Cosmopolitanism for Moral Education’, Journal of Moral Education, 40 (11): 1–18. Ministerial Council for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Canberra, ACT: MCEETYA. Moran, A. (2011), ‘Multiculturalism as Nation-Building in Australia: Inclusive National Identity and the Embrace of Diversity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34 (12): 2153–2172. Mundine, W. (2014), Special Broadcasting Service. 27 January. Available online: http:// www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/01/27/mundine-calls-indigenous-treaties (accessed 20 January 2016). Murphy, K., Cherney, A. and Barkworth, J. (2015), Avoiding Community Backlash in the Fight Against Terrorism: Research Report, Brisbane, QLD: Griffith University. Nussbaum, M. (1996), ‘Cosmopolitanism and Patriotism’. In J. Cohen (ed.), For Love of Country, 3–17. Boston: Beacon Press. Osler, A. (2008), ‘Citizenship Education and the Ajegbo Report: Re-imagining a Cosmopolitan Nation’, London Review of Education, 6 (1): 11–25. Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2003), ‘Learning for Cosmopolitan Citizenship: Theoretical Debates and Young People’s Experiences’, Educational Review, 55 (3): 243–254. Rizvi, F. (2008), ‘Epistemic Virtues and Cosmopolitan Learning’, The Australian Educational Researcher, 35 (1): 17–35. Rivzi, F. (2009), ‘Towards Cosmopolitan Learning’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 30 (3): 253–268. Taylor, L. (2015), ‘Malcolm Turnbull Bins Team Australia and Dials down the Rhetoric’, The Guardian. Online edition. Available online: http://www.theguardian.com /australia-news/commentisfree/2015/oct/09/malcolm-turnbull-bins-team-australia -and-dials-down-the-rhetoric (accessed 12 October 2015). Watkins, M., Lean, G. and Noble, G. (2016), ‘Multicultural Education: The State of Play from an Australian Perspective’, Race, Ethnicity and Education, 19 (1): 46–66. Wood, P., Landry, C. and Bloomfield, J. (2006), Cultural Diversity in Britain: A Toolkit for Cross-Cultural Co-operation, New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

9

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship Andrew Peterson and Brendan Bentley

Introduction Notions of citizenship, values and religion are inherently connected. Different understandings of citizenship are, at least in part, constituted by particular sets of values. In turn, such values are central to the relationship between the citizen and the state as well as the relationships between citizens themselves. Clearly, values are central to citizenship, while the precise nature of these values is contested and depends a great deal on given political contexts. Even more contested is the role of religion in providing shape and meaning to values and citizenship. For some, conceptions of values and citizenship in the Australian Curriculum (and indeed in Australian public schools) should be free of religion, while for others religion has a legitimate and important role in contributing to ideas and debates about how values – and even the characteristics of Australian national identity – are conceived. Such debates are not specific to Australia. Indeed, over the last decade, a range of research literature across a number of nations has sought to ‘reconcile the civil and the sacred’ within education (Arthur, Gearon and Sears 2010: 6; see also Fraser 1999; Arthur 2008; Gearon 2008; Cooling 2010; Fancourt 2015). In this chapter, we explore the relationship between values, religion and civics and citizenship education in Australia by focusing on ideas and debates around ‘Australian values’. While these ideas and debates are wide-ranging, here we focus on the content of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, seeking to explore what this content requires of schools and teachers, and some of the tensions to which such a focus may lead. Though not neglecting the importance and complexity of religious education in both

148

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

independent and Catholic schools, the relationship between values, religion and citizenship raises particular issues for public schooling and education in Australia, and this is our focus here. As such, we are interested in two questions: First, how are ‘values’ and ‘religion’ framed within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum? And, second, what potential issues or tensions are raised by this framing for schools and teachers looking to implement civics and citizenship? Underpinning our analysis is a belief that a core concern for civics and citizenship educators is how we best prepare young people to participate in their communities and to flourish as human beings. Our contention is that such preparation can benefit from an engagement with religious beliefs as part of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum. In making this suggestion we are interested in forms of general religious education (rather than confessional approaches to religious instruction) that seek to support students in learning about and from religions. Following this introduction, the chapter comprises two main sections. In the first section, we analyse the current curriculum for Civics and Citizenship for its content requirements in relation to values and religion. In doing so, we make reference to related aspects of the curriculum, notably the General Capabilities of Ethical Understanding, Intercultural Understanding , and Personal and Social Capability. In the second section, our attention shifts from curriculum to pedagogy. In this we explore pedagogies of religious education, arguing that these have important connections to, and opportunities for, pedagogies of civics and citizenship. In the conclusion we summarize our arguments and identify some key areas for future debate and research concerning the relationship between values and religion within civics and citizenship education in Australia. Before we commence with the substantive parts of this chapter, it is worth noting briefly some assumptions that we are making regarding religion in the Australian context, about which there is insufficient space to enter into in more detail. The first assumption is that religion continues to play an important role in Australian civic life – a role which is contested and nuanced – but which exists nevertheless. Not least, prayers are read at the start of each sitting day in the Federal Parliament. Further, religious figures engage and contribute to public debates on matters of public concern, while religious affiliations promote and shape civic engagement possibilities for many who reside in Australia. An additional indication of the role of religion is the increase in student enrolment in faith-based schools (ABS 2013; Bita 2015). Similarly, for us to posit (which we do) the idea that matters of religion and faith are important with regard to

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

149

civic life in Australia does not mean that religion and faith matter to everyone, nor that everyone will hold similar positions regarding the role of religion in public matters. Clearly, for some (the Secular Party of Australia, for example), the acceptability of religion and faith in public policy may be rejected altogether, while others may not have faith commitments themselves but still see a role for religion and faith in contributing to public debates. Central to this standpoint is the recognition that religion and faith interact with civic life in many different ways, for different people, at different times and to different levels. Of particular relevance here is Bouma’s clarification in his contextual analysis of Australian society and culture that it is essential to correct a misapprehension that dominated the late twentiethcentury discussion of religion and secularity: secular societies are not irreligious, antireligious or lacking in spirituality … Rather, in secular societies religion and spirituality have seeped out of the monopolistic control of formal organisations like churches. This has resulted in increased diversity of both organised religion and private spiritualties. (2006: 5)

It is also important to recognize that we write this chapter in a particular context. A range of factors are currently contributing to heightened debates concerning the place of religion in Australian education and schooling. Three seem particularly relevant. First, there remains a great deal of contestation about specific aspects of religion within Australian education and schooling. This includes the allocation of federal funds to religious schools, the continued federal funding of school pastors and the teaching of special religious instruction (see, for example, Maddox 2014; Byrne 2014). Second, key figures of the current Liberal-led Coalition federal government have made moves to raise the profile of particular aspects of religious tradition and ideas in educational debates. Launching the review of the Australian Curriculum in 2014, education minister at the time, Christopher Pyne, suggested that the curriculum needed to do more to recognize the significance of Judeo-Christian values to Australia’s way of life (Hurst 2015). Citing a number of submissions to the review which considered there to be a lack of recognition of Judeo-Christian values, including within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, the review itself recommended that the Australian Curriculum be revised to better recognize Australia’s ‘Judeo-Christian heritage’ (Australian Government 2014: 246). Third, recent political and social reactions to ‘terror’ and ‘radicalisation’ – frequently involving notions of what it means to be an Australian citizen – have crossed over into educational arenas, with schools increasingly being cited, particularly within the popular media, as

150

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

key sites in identifying and preventing the radicalization of young Australians (Bergin 2015; Cook 2015; Nicholson 2015).

Values and religion within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum In this section, we explore the content of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, making explicit the intended learning outcomes which relate to values and religion. Our focus is on the current Australian Curriculum, though it is important to recognize that debates concerning Australian citizenship, values and religion are not new. At a political and policy level, such debates played a central role in the ‘history wars’ in the 1990s and 2000s, which – while there is not sufficient space to explore in detail here – revolved around fundamental understandings of Australian identity (for detailed analyses of the history wars in Australia, see Clark 2004; Macintyre and Clark 2004; Taylor 2012). In addition, there has been a good deal of research, policy and curricular work over the last twenty years focusing on civic and citizenship education (i.e. the Discovering Democracy programme) and values (i.e. the Values Education Study). However, we would suggest that what is new in the current discourse – particularly at the curricular level – is the intersection between values, citizenship and religion. Recourse to the Discovering Democracy Units (http://www1.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/units/ units.htm), the final report of the Values Education Study (ESA 2010) (as well as the National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools), evidences that connections to religion were largely implicit where they were made at all. Where any references to religion were made, these were typically framed around general notions of recognizing and respecting diversity rather than engaging with different religious understanding and interpretations. Our tentative suggestion here is that the increased profile of religion within education, and also within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, is not insignificant. Bringing the religious into relation with notions of values and citizenship carries with it a number of challenges for teachers, particularly in the context of the increased diversification of Australian society over the last forty years. To begin to understand these challenges, it is important that we reflect on the curricular requirements acting upon teachers, as well as the pedagogical possibilities that teachers may use. We return to the latter in the next section. Here, our focus is on curriculum content. We offer an analysis of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, as well as related dimensions, to explore the precise requirements concerning values

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

151

and religion at the present time in Australia. In doing so, we make two recognitions. First is that Civics and Citizenship curriculum content which explicitly focuses on religions occurs at the secondary level, in Years 7 and 8 when students are between the ages of eleven and fourteen (in most states and territories Years 7 and 8 fall within secondary education. Since 2015, it is only in South Australia that Year 7 remains in primary school). While there may be useful initiatives at primary and senior secondary levels, our focus is on the secondary years. Second, we recognize that, like any curriculum document, the Civics and Citizenship curriculum is a temporary entity and will change (and may even be replaced) over time. This is inevitable. Nevertheless, in referencing specific parts of the curriculum and in focusing on the contested relationship between religions and values within education for citizenship, we believe that important requirements and issues can be identified that will remain for teachers beyond the life term of the existing curriculum.

Values Values are clearly central to the new Civics and Citizenship curriculum. The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship paper (ACARA 2012a:  4), which sets out the rationale and principles of the curriculum, references back to the commitment of the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians to ‘national values of democracy, equity and justice, and to participate in Australia’s civic life’. To further these values, the first of the eight informing principles makes reference to the centrality of liberal democratic values, while the second explicates these as follows: The values on which Australia’s democracy is based include freedom of the individual, government by the people through a representative parliament, free and fair elections, the rule of law, equality of all before the law, social justice and equality, respect for diversity and difference, freedom of speech and religion, lawful dissent, respect for human rights, support for the common good, and acceptance of the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. (ACARA 2012a: 5)

Within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum itself, the rationale for the subject suggests that it will help students develop inclusive attitudes and beliefs and liberal democratic values and challenge stereotypes based on difference. This is in the context of Australia as a multicultural, secular, and multi-faith society, governed through a well-established representative parliamentary process and based on liberal democratic laws, values, principles and practices. (ACARA 2013a: 6)

152

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Furthermore, at Year 7 students are to learn ‘how values, including freedom, respect, inclusion, civility, responsibility, compassion, equality and a “fair go”, can promote cohesion within Australian society’ (ACARA 2015). The values contained within civics and citizenship, however, are included as civic or democratic values, that is, values which provide the possibility for civic cohesion. In explicating these values, it is worth drawing a comparison with the Values for Australian Schooling introduced into schools in 2005 as a response to the perception that Australian schools had become ‘too politically correct and values-neutral’ (Crabb and Guerrera 2004). A Values for Australian Schooling poster containing nine values was produced, with federal funding for schools ‘made conditional on the implementation of a number of federal initiatives, including the requirement that all schools must hang the values poster in the school foyer’ (Reid and Gill 2010: 7). The values themselves were prefaced with the statements that ‘these shared values … are part of Australia’s common way of life, which includes equality, freedom and the rule of law’ and that ‘they reflect our commitment to a multicultural and environmentally sustainable society where all are entitled to justice’. The nine values contained in the poster were: ‘care and compassion’, ‘doing your best’, ‘fair go’, ‘freedom’, ‘honesty and trustworthiness’, ‘integrity’, ‘respect’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘understanding, tolerance and inclusion’ (DEST 2005: 4). A further stated aim of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum is to ensure that students adopt an appropriately critical stance when examining the ‘values and principles that underpin Australia’s liberal democracy’ (ACARA 2015). What is meant by developing a critical stance and the potential limits of such criticality remain unclear. In part, the response to this question may lie in the connections between civics and citizenship and the wider General Capability Ethical Understanding, through which it is intended that students develop the capability to behave ethically as they identify and investigate the nature of ethical concepts, values, character traits and principles, and understand how reasoning can assist ethical judgment. Ethical behaviour involves students in building a strong personal and socially oriented ethical outlook that helps them to manage context, conflict and uncertainty, and to develop an awareness of the influence that their values and behaviour have on others. (ACARA 2012c: 18)

As it is presented here, the focus of Ethical Understanding is predominantly rational, with students developing a range of largely cognitive skills, such as ‘identifying’, ‘investigating’, ‘reasoning’, forming ‘judgments’ and ‘developing awareness’. While one could contend that ‘what is not ruled in, is not ruled out’, it

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

153

is noteworthy that religious notions of spirituality, belief and faith do not appear in the curriculum’s construction of ethical understanding. This is also true of the Social and Personal Capability, which, while aiming to develop students’ learning about ‘their own emotions, values, strengths and capacities’ (ACARA 2013b: 6), makes no reference to religion, faith or spirituality. Yet the values within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum do have an important relationship with religions and religious perspectives, in particular those values that combine both the personal and political such as integrity, care, honesty, trustworthiness and compassion. Such values can be interpreted in a number of ways, including from both secular and religious positions. An important question, therefore, is why religious interpretations should be involved at all when we teach children about values of citizenship, particularly in Australian public (government) schools, which were established on the basis of being ‘free, secular and compulsory’. That is, wouldn’t ‘secular’ values be sufficient when teaching values, leaving the religious to private groups (such as families, faith-based organizations, places of worship)? Of course, how we understand the term ‘secular’ is crucial to answering this question effectively. One reading would understand secular as comprising the removal or absence of religious ideas and faith from the matter at hand (in our case, values of citizenship). Another reading, which we prefer, would understand secularity as appreciating the role of religious views in public life while not privileging one particular religion over another. On this second reading, religious perspectives have a legitimate place in discussions of the values of citizenship for two main reasons. First, for many students within Australian schools religion will already play an important part in how students currently understand, interpret and enact these values. Some students will already possess religious beliefs that shape how they engage as young citizens within their various communities, as well as how they conceive the values of citizenship. If teachers do not engage with such perspectives as part of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, they may risk limiting these perspectives to the private realm. To neglect religion in this way would seem problematic, as it would fail to recognize an important part of the funds of knowledge which students bring with them to the classroom. Furthermore, it would also fail to bring students’ religious views, interests and questions into dialogue with other perspectives – including those of non-believers. Second, even for students who are not religious, there is likely to be some merit in engaging with religious ideas. One need not be a practicing Christian to appreciate the value of the parable of the Good Samaritan in discussing notions

154

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

of care and compassion. Of even more pertinence is the potential benefit for students of engaging with a variety of ideas – including those shaped by religious commitment. For example, evidence from the extensive Religion in Education: A Contribution to Dialogue or a Factor of Conflict in Transforming Societies of European Countries (REDco) project suggests not only that ‘students wish for peaceful coexistence across difference and believe this to be possible’ but also that students view this as dependent on ‘knowledge about each other’s religions and worldviews’ (Jackson 2009: 35). The study also found that ‘students who learn about religious diversity in school are more willing to have conversations about religion/beliefs with students of other backgrounds than those who do not’ (Jackson 2009: 35; emphasis in original). What potential is there for the Civics and Citizenship curriculum to bring values and religion into relation with each other?

Religion and values – A role for citizenship skills? Religion and faith find a good deal of presence in the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, and certainly (given the absence of a general religious education subject) much more than is typically found in comparable curricula in other jurisdictions (e.g. England, Ontario and Singapore). The curriculum Shape paper (ACARA 2012a: 5) frames this in terms of Australia as a ‘multicultural, secular society with a multi-faith population’ with young people learning about and being provided with ‘opportunities to understand and participate in Australia’s multicultural and multi-faith society’. In addition, the Shape paper identifies the following as one of the key elements of civics and citizenship knowledge and understanding: Australia as a secular, pluralist, multicultural society and the contribution of major religions and beliefs and the voluntary, community, interest and religious groups, associations and clubs to civic life and to the development of Australian civic identity. (ACARA 2012a: 8)

If we reflect on the various stages of curriculum development, there is evidence that the framing of religion and faith within civics and citizenship was far from straightforward. Indeed, the development of the civics and citizenship evidences a good deal of consternation regarding the place of religion. The consultation on the first draft curriculum for Civics and Citizenship found one of the common suggestions to be the inclusion of more references to the fact that Australia is ‘a “secular” society’ (ACARA 2012a: 4). The final draft curriculum for Civics and Citizenship included the requirement that students learn, at Year 7

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

155

(twelve to thirteen years of age), that ‘Australia is a secular nation and has been described as a multicultural and multi-faith society’ (ACARA 2013b; emphasis added). In the final version of the curriculum this statement was altered. The curriculum requires that students are taught that Australia is a secular nation and a multifaith society, and are taught about the Judeo-Christian traditions of Australian society as well as the religions practiced in contemporary Australia. This requirement comes at Years 7 and 8, when students are between the ages of eleven and fourteen (in most states and territories Years 7 and 8 fall within secondary education. From 2015, it will only be in South Australia that Year 7 remains in primary school). For example, in Year 7 students are expected to learn ‘how Australia is a secular nation and a multi-faith society’, while at Year 8 this extends to ‘Judeo-Christian traditions of Australian society and religions practised in contemporary Australia’ (ACARA 2015). In addition, in exploring the connections between values with religious perspectives, there are likely to be important synergies with regard to values and religion between civics and citizenship and the General Capability Intercultural Understanding. As it is expressed within the Australian Curriculum, Intercultural Understanding requires that students learn to engage with, understand and value ‘their own cultures, languages, religion and beliefs, and those of others’ through ‘learning about and engaging with diverse cultures in ways that recognise commonalities and differences, create connections with others and cultivate mutual respect’ (ACARA 2012b: 19). These requirements have useful associations with the skills central to civics and citizenship, in particular that students learn to ‘identify, gather and sort information and ideas from a range of sources’, to ‘critically analyse information and ideas from a range of sources in relation to Civics and Citizenship topics and issues’ and ‘to appreciate multiple perspectives and use strategies to mediate differences’ (ACARA 2015). If teachers are to engage students with a range of perspectives on values within civics and citizenship, including the religious, these skills will need to be central, and it is through the combination of knowledge and skills that teachers are able to work towards classrooms which seek to promote intellectual rigor and provide a context of genuine enquiry and where respect for religious traditions is matched by an honest and open appreciation of the theological, philosophical and exegetical complexities embedded in religious beliefs, texts, traditions and cultures. (Noone 2011)

Of course, the content of the curriculum does not necessary translate directly into what is taught at school. Teachers have a key role in shaping the

156

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

curriculum enacted within their classrooms. It is simply too early to know whether and how schools are approaching these aspects of the civics and citizenship, something which is further problematized by the fact that official guidance for the curricular time allocated to civics and citizenship suggests it should equate to around twenty hours per year. As noted in the introduction, the recent review of the Australian Curriculum was committed to the belief that ‘the current version of the curriculum fails to deal’ with the place and contribution of religions ‘in a comprehensive or detailed fashion’ (Australian Government 2014: 196), and as a result recommended that greater attention be paid to matters of faith and spirituality. It did so, though, in rather narrow terms, advising that greater focus be paid to the significance of the ‘Judeo-Christian’ tradition and ‘Western civilization’ in shaping Australian values. The use of these terms has caused a great deal of consternation in an Australian context in which the rights and standing of Indigenous Australians remain under-recognized and in which migration patterns since the late 1900s (particularly from Asia) have increased the heterogeneous nature of Australian society. There is reason to be doubtful about the extent to which these terms can be considered inclusive in contemporary Australia, particularly when the term ‘Judeo-Christianity’ is itself highly contested (Patton 2014). It is concerning, for example, that one of the leaders of the review of the Australian Curriculum, Kevin Donnelly (2015, emphasis added), has written in support of general religious education in Australian public schools, but in doing so cites ‘Judeo-Christianity as one of the world’s major religions’. In this section, we have analysed the existing Civics and Citizenship curriculum, drawing links to other curriculum dimensions, in order to tease out the ways in which values and religion may interrelate. Our suggestion has been that such opportunities exist, are important and are dependent on the integration, first, of civics and citizenship knowledge and skills and, second, of civics and citizenship with the General Capabilities of Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding.

Values, religion and civics and citizenship: Pedagogies of religious and citizenship education In the previous section, our focus was primarily on the curriculum as it currently stands. The questions we are interested in, however, do not simply concern curriculum but also raise particular issues for pedagogy. When we

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

157

consider pedagogy, we are faced with an immediate problem. As Carole Hahn (2015) and Mark Evans (2008) have reminded us, in contrast to research on curriculum content and student learning outcomes, there is a paucity of research internationally which focuses on, and seeks to evaluate, the actual pedagogies employed by teachers of civics and citizenship-related subjects. Where evidence does exist, it points to the benefits of open and discursive classrooms which support students to enquire and to develop critical understandings based on engaging with a range of perspectives. We also currently know little about the sorts of pedagogies which schools employ to engage students in forms of religious education (rather than instruction) in Australian schools (Byrne 2014). Our intention here, therefore, is to draw on work in other jurisdictions (mainly in Europe) to explore some pedagogical approaches that might usefully inform how religious ideas might be brought into relation with values within civics and citizenship – particularly in the sense of learning from religions – and do so in ways that incorporate open, discursive and enquiry-based learning central to civics and citizenship. In doing so, we do not seek to privilege one pedagogy over another, but rather seek to open up different pedagogies in ways that may be useful for civics and citizenship educators. In his book Pedagogies of Religious Education, Michael Grimmitt (2000a,b) sets out the beliefs and strategies included in a number of models of pedagogical approaches that aim to engage students with religious ideas. Three of these models seem to be of particular value to civics and citizenship educators who are required to bring the religious into relation with values as part of the new curriculum, particularly for the extent to which they combine learning about religion with learning from religion – and do so from a position which places value on students’ own lifeworlds. The first model of interest is what Grimmitt (2000a: 34) terms the human development model. In this model, the study of religions seeks to develop an empathetic understanding of those for whom religious beliefs are important, with students studying the experiences of members of a variety of major faiths. In the human development model, students engage with religious beliefs for the main purpose of exploring and clarifying their own beliefs and actions (whether religious or otherwise). In this way, learning from religion occurs through learning about religions as students evaluate their own positions in the light of their engagement with the perspectives of others. It is through such engagement that students are opened up to different ideas about humanity and through which they can consider and reflect upon important areas of their own personal and social development.

158

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

The second model that may provide some useful thought for civics and citizenship educators is what Grimmitt (2000a: 44) has termed a constructivist model of teaching religious education. A key concern for constructivist models is to ensure the requisite classroom environment in order that students are encouraged to be open in their exchange of viewpoints, and where they feel safe to explore those of others which may be in conflict with their own. Grimmitt (2000b: 217; emphasis in original) himself places dialogue as central to constructivist models, as it is through dialogue that religious content is always brought into a dynamic relationship with critical and reflective thought  …  is always related to the constructions that pupils are using  …  the sequence of learning is always from encouraging egocentric interpretations of experience within situated thought, through alternative contextualised interpretations (as represented by interventions from pupils or the teacher), to evaluative judgements about the interests which each interpretation serves and expresses.

By engaging students in exploring different perspectives (the religious and the non-religious) in this critical and contextualized way there is potential for civics and citizenship educators to work in ways that are not concerned solely (or even mainly) with the internal and structural cohesiveness of religions, but which concentrate on the ways religions are expressed and presented within the public sphere – including values in public life. This would involve students constructing their own meanings and understandings on the basis of given stimuli that provoke different interpretations: for example, the different perspectives of the suitability of the Lord’s Prayer at the beginning of Parliament or the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s comments concerning the predetermined selection of Syrian refugees based upon religion. Such interpretations can then be challenged and revised in the light of engagement with further stimuli, including teacher questioning, discussions with peers and the representation of competing positions through various narrative-based media. A third and, for our purposes, final model of interest to our discussion here is what Grimmitt (2000a: 38) calls an ethnographic, interpretive, multifaith model. This model owes a great deal to the work of Robert Jackson. Similar to the previous models discussed, a core focus of this model is its commitment to students’ juxtaposing their own positions with the religious commitments of others in a critical yet empathetic way. Teaching students to interpret religious ideas as a key part of their learning about multiple faiths forms a central part of the model and involves students developing an

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

159

understanding of the grammar – the language and wider symbolic patterns – of religions and the interpretive skills necessary to gain that understanding … [and] the development of critical skills  …  [to]  …  open up issues of representation and interpretation as well as questions of truth and meaning and … a reflexive element, in which young people [a]re given the opportunity to relate learning to their own views and understandings, to formulate critical comments and to review the methods of study they had been using. (Jackson 2009: 24)

Jackson’s interpretive approach focuses on four core principles, each of which is valuable within civics and citizenship classrooms. The four, interconnected, principles are as follows: Representation: A core aim of the interpretive approach is to enquire into the actual and existing practices of religious believers and how these relate to, often contested, understandings of particular faiths. Through such enquiry, students are able to explore and represent the real meanings of religions, eschewing ‘representations which essentialise or stereotype them’ (Jackson 2009: 24); Interpretation: This is understood within the model as requiring that students bring their own concepts and presuppositions with them to enquiry, comparing their own conceptual understandings with those of others. In this sense, students’ existing preconceptions are in dialogue with those of others; Reflexivity: Closely connected to interpretation and edification, reflexivity requires students to (i) reflect on their own ways of living (edification); (ii) make ‘a constructive critique of the material studied at a distance’; and (iii) review the methods of their enquiry (Jackson 2009: 24); and, Edification: Underpinning the three concepts so far is the need for students to engage in reflection concerning how engagement with the ideas and beliefs of others stands in relation to their own conceptions and understandings. It is through these principles that students are able to explore the interrelationship between individuals and their wider religious communities. What all of these models have in common is the commitment to dialogue, reflectiveness, an open mind and awareness of the potential fallibility of one’s own perspectives, a commitment to revise one’s own understandings in the light of the results of one’s enquiry with others and the development of an empathetic approach to engaging with others. Each of these bears important relations to

160

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

aims of civics and citizenship education, as well as to the pedagogies found to be valuable and effective by the Values in Education Project (ESA 2010). Our contention here is that an awareness of the models may be of use to civics and citizenship educators grappling with the relationship between values and religion in the curriculum.

Conclusion The prominent place of learning about religions within the Civics and Citizenship curriculum places a responsibility on educators to engage with religions as part of their work in classrooms and schools. Our argument here has been that learning about religion can be connected to learning from religion, and that such learning can support students in reflecting on different perspectives – including those of their communities and themselves. As the philosopher Alain de Botton (2012: 14) has suggested, ‘secular society had been unfairly impoverished by the loss of an array of practices and themes’ when and where it has sought to render the religious as a private, rather than public, matter. Given wider concerns prevalent in contemporary Australia about the relationship between citizenship, public values and religion, the Civics and Citizenship curriculum is importantly placed to engage students in learning about a variety of faiths, including their different interpretations. In closing, we must be cognisant of the practical constraints that may limit the extent to which the religious may be recognized in learning about values within civics and citizenship. In an overcrowded curriculum and with a range of competing pressures on schools, the amount of time dedicated by schools to civics and citizenship may not fully support the level of engagement required for students to meaningfully and effectively engage with the religious. Indeed, while forms of religious instruction remain in Australian public schools, a recent analysis of the study in Australia found that forms of general religious education in public schools are not prevalent across Australian states and territories (Byrne 2014: 169). A recent taskforce in South Australia reported that ‘many Government schools do not teach students about religious diversity’ (TRDSA 2010: 12). Taught well, and by utilizing effective pedagogical approaches, the Civics and Citizenship curriculum is well placed to address this significant gap in students’ learning experiences. In doing so, moreover, civics and citizenship provides potential for students to further their learning not just about others but also about themselves.

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

161

References ABS (2013), Schools, Australia, 2013, Belconnen, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Available online: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4221.0main+feat ures42013 (accessed 25 September 2015). ACARA (2012a), The Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. ACARA (2012b), Intercultural Understanding, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Intercultural-understanding (accessed 14 August 2014). ACARA (2012c), Ethical Understanding, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au /GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Ethical-understanding (accessed 14 August 2014). ACARA (2013a), Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu .au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/civics-and-citizenship -across-foundation-to-year-10 (accessed 14 August 2014). ACARA (2013b), Personal and Social Capability, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/GeneralCapabilities/Pdf/Personal-and-social -capability (accessed 25 September 2015). ACARA (2015), Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au /humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/f-10?layout=1 (accessed 10 August 2015). Arthur, J. (2008), ‘Christianity, Citizenship and Democracy’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 305–134. London: SAGE. Arthur, J., Gearon, L. and Sears, A. (2010), Education, Politics and Religion: Reconciling the Civil and the Sacred in Education, London: Routledge. Australian Government (2014), Review of the Australian Curriculum: Final Report, Canberra: Australian Government Department of Education. Bergin, A. (2015), ‘Good Teaching Is at the Core of Counter-Radicalisation’, The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation), 3 June. Available online: http:// www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/bergin-teachers-must-be-trained-in-counterradicalisation/6517408 (accessed 29 August 2015). Bita, N. (2015), ‘Parents Turn to Muslim Schools to Enforce Values’, The Australian, 25 May. Available online: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/community -under-siege/parents-turn-to-muslim-schools-to-enforce-values/story-fnubfp6c -1227367627130?sv=acefeca4e5d528adb4ede00dfa514b2a (accessed 25 September 2015).

162

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Bouma, G. (2006), Australian Soul: Religion and Spirituality in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Byrne, C. (2014), Religion in Secular Education: What, in Heaven’s Name, Are We Teaching Our Children?, Leiden: Brill. Clark, A. (2004), ‘Whose History: Teaching Australia’s Contested Past’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36 (5): 533–541. Cook, H. (2015), ‘Victorian Schools Struggling with the Radicalisation of Students and Parents, Australian Principals Federation Warns’, The Age, 10 February. Available online: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/victorian-schools-struggling-with-the -radicalisation-of-students-and-parents-australian-principals-federation-warns -20150210-13b20k.html (accessed 29 August 2015). Cooling, T. (2010), Doing God in Education, London: Theos. Crabb, A. and Guerrara, O. (2004), ‘PM Queries Values of State Schools’, The Age, January 20. Available online: http://www.theage.com.au /articles/2004/01/19/1074360697635.html (accessed 14 October 2015). De Botton, A. (2012), Religion for Atheists: A Non-believer’s Guide to the Uses of Religion, New York: Pantheon Books. DEST (2005), National Framework for Values Education in Australian Schools, Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training, Commonwealth of Australia. Donnelly, K. (2015), ‘Religion in the State School Curriculum’, Eureka Street, 25 (17). Available online: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=45411 (accessed 31 August 2015). Education Services Australia (2010), Giving Voice to the Impacts of Values Education: The Final Report of the Values Education Project. http://www.curriculum.edu.au /verve/_resources/VASP_FINAL_REPORT_2010.pdf (accessed 14 October 2015). Evans, M. (2008), ‘Citizenship Education, Pedagogy, and School Contexts’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. L. Hahn (eds), SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 519–532. London: SAGE. Fancourt, N. P. M. (2015), ‘Re-defining “Learning About Religion” and “Learning From Religion”: A Study of Policy Change’, British Journal of Religious Education, 37 (2): 122–137. Fraser, J. W. (1999), Between Church and State: Religion and Public Education in a Multicultural Australia, New York: St. Martin’s Press. Gearon, L. (2008), ‘Religion, Politics and Pedagogy: Historical Contexts’, British Journal of Religious Education, 30 (2): 93–102. Grimmitt, M. (2000a), ‘Contemporary Pedagogies of Religious Education: What Are They?’. In M. Grimmitt (ed.), Pedagogies of Religious Education: Case Studies in the Research and Development of Good Pedagogic Practice in RE, 24–52. Great Wakering: McCrimmons. Grimmitt, M. (2000b), ‘Constructivist Pedagogies of Religious Education Project: Re-thinking Knowledge, Teaching and Learning in Religious Education’. In M. Grimmitt (ed.), Pedagogies of Religious Education: Case Studies in the Research and Development of Good Pedagogic Practice in RE, 207–227. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.

Connecting Values and Religion with Civics and Citizenship

163

Hahn, C. (2015), ‘Citizenship Education Pedagogy: A Comparative Perspective’, Keynote presentation to 11th International CitizED Conference, 4 June. Singapore. Hurst, D. (2015), ‘History Wars: Pyne Needs Evidence to Build a Case to Change the Curriculum’, The Guardian, Tuesday 10 October. Available online: http://www .theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/14/history-wars-pyne-needs-evidence -to-build-a-case-to-change-the-curriculum (accessed 29 August 2015). Jackson, R. (2009), ‘The Interpretive Approach to Religious Education and the Development of a Community of Practice’. Available online: http://wrap.warwick .ac.uk/2928/1/WRAP_Jackson_Jackson_CoP_2009_chapter1-2158.pdf (accessed 30 August 2015) Macintyre, S. and Clark, A. (2004), The History Wars, new edn., Carlton: Melbourne University Press. Maddox, M. (2014), Taking God to School: The End of Australia’s Egalitarian Education? Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Nicholson, B. (2015), ‘Take Fight Against Radicalisation into Schools’, The Australian, June 30. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/community-under-siege/take -fight-against-radicalisation-into-schools/story-fnubfp6c-1227420875786 (accessed 29 August 2015). Noone, R. (2011), Teach, Don’t Preach: How to Do Religion in Schools, ABC Online. http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2011/05/23/3224387.htm (accessed 31 August 2015). Patton, C. (2014), ‘Curriculum Review: Where Did “Judeo-Christian” Come From?’, The Conversation. Available online: http://theconversation.com/curriculum-review -where-did-judeo-christian-come-from-21969 (accessed 31 August 2015). Reid, A. and Gill, J. (2010) ‘In Whose Interest? Australian Schooling and the Changing Contexts of Citizenship’. In A. Reid, J. Gill and A. Sears (eds), Globalization, the Nation-State and the Citizen, 19–34. London: Routledge. Taylor, T. (2012), ‘Under Siege from Right and Left: A Tale of the Australian School History Wars’. In T. Taylor and R. Guyver (eds), History Wars and the Classroom: Global Perspectives, 25–50. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. TRDSA (2010), Strengthening Religious Diversity and Harmony in South Australia, South Australia: Taskforce on Religious Diversity. http://lga.sa.gov.au/webdata/ resources/files/Report_of_Taskforce_on_Religious_Diversity.pdf (accessed 29 August 2015).

10

Making Connections Between Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability Peter Brett

Introduction International research in civics and citizenship education underlines that ongoing work is required to achieve outcomes for students that address some of the critical civic and geopolitical realities facing young people in the world today and in the future (e.g. Grossman, Lee and Kennedy 2008; Kerr et al. 2010; DeJaeghere 2013). At the Rio Earth Summit in 2012, the world’s governments affirmed their commitment to an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable planetary future. However, in relation to such phenomena as species loss, deforestation, climate change, rising carbon emissions, ice-sheet melt and water quality and shortages, there is still insufficient global action and attention to these critical issues (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2014; World Wildlife Fund 2014). There is a widespread recognition that education and curriculum policies have a key role to play in engaging mindsets, shifting dispositions and enhancing young peoples’ abilities both to acknowledge contemporary problems and to develop and apply their knowledge and skills in remediating unsustainable practices in the future (Wals 2011; Sterling 2014). Yet the mainstreaming of what can too often be seen as marginal areas of education remains an imperative. A holistic, focused and joined-up approach to teaching and learning in the area of sustainability is recommended in the research literature; indeed it is seen as vital and urgent (Sterling 2014). Civics and citizenship (CC) education and education for sustainability (EfS) have the potential to be natural partners in their promotion of global awareness, a more socially just future and informed citizen action; and there are strong reasons why there is a need for this partnership. Australia is the highest emitter of carbon dioxide per capita in the world (OECD 2013). The

166

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Climate Council’s (2014) synthesis of research showed that Australia’s largest population centres are at increased risk from extreme weather events such as flooding and bushfires which will have long-term impacts on people, property, communities and environments. Environmental questions have been especially high on Australian political agendas in the past decade: renewable energy targets, urban transportation investment, governmental protections for World Heritage Areas, the policy implications of climate change and especially the pros and cons of a carbon tax have all prompted heated political argument. There is thus a compelling logic to a coming together of EfS and CC to develop a deeper understanding of issues such as alternative energy sources, declining biodiversity, international strategies to limit global warming and sustainable consumption (UNECE Expert Group 2013). There are also ideational moves for a more interdisciplinary direction as prevailing orientations of EfS attempt to replace a narrow ‘green’ focus on ecology and the protection of nature with more of a focus on social justice and ‘the pedagogies of humans as agents for change’ (Elliott and Davis 2009: 67). The practical challenge for teachers is how to make these connections where ‘horizontal’, cross-curricular and whole school initiatives struggle to find space in a ‘vertical’ world of traditional disciplinary curriculum dominance (Bernstein 1996: 171). There are some obvious links. For example, the Australian primary curriculum for CC offers a number of possible elaborations, exploring EfS themes such as: ‘developing a position on a civics and citizenship topic and providing reasons for the position’ (Year 3); ‘identifying possible solutions to an [environmental] problem  …  and locating people or organisations within the local community that could help to resolve the issue’ (Year 4); ‘establishing criteria to justify an inquiry into an important citizenship issue associated with the environment, such as waste disposal or river pollution’ (Year 5); and ‘investigating the moral or ethical disposition people may have as a global citizen, such as how they relate to the environment’ (Year 6) (ACARA 2013a). There are rich overlaps of subject content. This chapter explores the possibilities for a more integrative paradigm in Australia for teaching EfS in a conjoint and integrated way with CC. It provides a brief review of the relevant policy context and an acknowledgement of implementation challenges, before going on to outline a shared conceptualization of EfS and CC and to exemplify some case studies of school and communitybased CC and sustainability practices. The chapter then develops a model for a form of sustainable citizenship education committed to promoting an active concern for the common good. The eight dimensions of this model are

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

167

outlined and discussed. The chapter argues that a closer alignment of CC and EfS can contribute towards the building of a ‘culture of critical commitment’ to sustainability, shared by teachers and students (Gray-Donald and Sterling 2007).

Curriculum and policy context Australia has been part of international endeavours in EfS since the field’s inception, with a range of policies, programmes and resources being put in place over the years (see Whitehouse 2014 for examples). The Department of the Environment and Heritage released Education for a Sustainable Future: A National Environmental Education Statement for Schools (DEH 2005) during the first year of the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development. This document’s intent was to provide a nationally agreed description of the nature and purpose of EfS. The five components of EfS identified within this statement were: Envisioning a Better Future, Critical Thinking and Reflection, Participation, Partnerships for Change and Systems Thinking (Australian Research Institute for Education for Sustainability 2009: 3). ACARA’s subsequent (2012) commitment to the Cross-Curriculum Priority of Sustainability in the Australian Curriculum brought these ideas together: Education for sustainability develops the knowledge, skills, values and world views necessary for people to act in ways that contribute to more sustainable patterns of living  …  Sustainability education is futures-oriented, focusing on protecting environments and creating a more ecologically and socially just world through informed action. Actions that support more sustainable patterns of living require consideration of environmental, social, cultural and economic systems and their interdependence. (ACARA 2012, para. 3)

Of the five components which were outlined, only ‘Systems Thinking’ may require stronger emphasis with CC educators, and yet might usefully be embraced in the context of helping students to understand the nature of economic, political and legal systems of national and international governance. Socio-ecological systems thinking is a central component of the Sustainability cross-curricular priority. There are nine organizing ideas (OIs) in this curricular space formed around three categories: Systems, World Views and Futures. Within Systems are the following ideas: the biosphere is a dynamic system providing conditions that sustain life on Earth (OI 1); all life forms, including human life, are connected through ecosystems on which they depend for their well-being and survival

168

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

(OI 2); and sustainable patterns of living rely on the interdependence of healthy social, economic and ecological systems (OI 3) (ACARA 2012). Thus, ‘Systems Thinking’ recognizes the need for coordinated and layered thinking, and responses that are ‘appropriate to the volatile, densely interconnected and dangerously vulnerable world that we have created’ (Sterling 2008: 64). Maximal forms of CC education (McLaughlin 1992) also tend to promote critical, futures-oriented and values-based approaches which encourage debate and participation in democratic processes, often in partnership with community organizations and NGOs (Print 2009), so there is a significant element of alignment with emerging definitions of EfS. There are also synergies with the critical citizenship dimensions promoted in Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004) study of three forms of citizenship (responsible, participatory and justiceoriented) that they argued should be enacted in the curriculum. Civics and citizenship is a separate subject in the Humanities and Social Sciences Australian Curriculum from Year 3 to Year 10, signposting these kinds of approaches and possibilities (ACARA 2013a), but as this chapter explains, there are links to CC in other areas of the curriculum. A shared policy goal uniting CC and EfS is the education of the kind of environmental citizens envisioned in the 2008 Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians – young people who ‘work for the common good, in particular sustaining and improving natural and social environments’. The Melbourne Declaration also underlined that ‘young Australians should become active and informed citizens who are committed to national values of democracy, equity and justice, and participate in Australia’s civic life as well as be responsible global and local citizens’ (MCEETYA 2008: 9). Thus policy-settings strongly support the centrality of both CC and EfS in Australian students’ education.

Practice and implementation challenges Although there are positive stories of Australian schools implementing sustainability initiatives (ARTD Consultants 2010), the enactment of EfS remains patchy across school systems (Nayler 2011). The Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance (AESA), in partnership with the Australian government, recently completed a large, multistate research project titled The State of Education for Sustainability in Australia (AESA 2014). About 70 per cent of the responses to the survey were from primary and secondary teachers; the rest were

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

169

from principals and executive and support staff in schools. Ninety-two per cent of the individuals surveyed thought that sustainability education was important, of value to students, and should be integrated into curriculum. However, 80 per cent of the respondents were either unaware of EfS or did not understand what it was. Perhaps not surprisingly, 91 per cent of the same respondents reported they were yet to integrate sustainability into their teaching practices. Moreover, pre-service primary teachers in Australia, although generally keen to use environmental teaching in their future careers, feel underprepared and lacking in confidence to do so (Kennelly, Taylor and Serow 2012). There have been calls for the ‘mainstreaming’ of EfS in Australian pre-service teacher education programmes (e.g. Steele 2010), a clear implication that the area has often been confined to elective backwaters or requires greater attention. Past CC initiatives in Australia have also struggled at the level of policy implementation. After the end of the Discovering Democracy project (1997– 2003) and the Values Education Good Practice Schools Projects (2005–2006 and 2006–2008), the development of CC education lost momentum. The Discovering Democracy materials were used in no more than half of schools nationally (Erebus 2003). There were convincing arguments articulated that more imaginative, active and participatory approaches were needed to enable CC to fulfil its transformative potential (e.g. Hunter and Jimenez 1999; Dejaeghere and Tudball 2007; Reid and Gill 2009). The national assessment programme’s threeyear surveys of Year 6 and 10 Australian students’ civic knowledge have shown poor and flatlining results over several years (ACARA 2011). Teaching CC education effectively is professionally challenging and teachers have an urgent need for high-quality and targeted professional learning to enable them to make sense of what is, to many, a new disciplinary area. There is thus evidence that schools, teachers and teacher education have yet to recognize the urgency of EfS and CC imperatives, or indeed the relevant enabling language of the Australian Curriculum, including the geography learning area which directs educators to develop students ‘as responsible, informed and active citizens who can contribute to the development of an environmentally and economically sustainable, and socially just world’ (ACARA 2013b: para. 1).

A shared conceptualization of EfS and CC Areas of common ground between EfS and CC extend beyond a coincidence of content matter, although the linkages to politics and economics do not necessarily

170

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

loom at the forefront of teachers’ minds as they identify the key dimensions of EfS (Dyment, Hill and Emery 2014). Both areas often encompass aspects of political literacy and the pursuance of social change, and both incorporate skills and pedagogies which are exploratory and experiential. Student voice should also be integral within both areas. In conceptualizing citizenship education, educators have found it helpful to reference the three Cs of Culture, Community and Curriculum (Huddleston and Kerr 2006: 10). The three Cs are equally applicable when it comes to EfS. Lead schools within effective Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) projects usually demonstrate a well-developed and systematic whole school culture of sustainability (ARTD Consultants 2010; AuSSI 2010). They encourage deep student analysis of how, for example, schools use water, generate energy, think systemically about transport to school and apply biodiversity principles in their school grounds. Moreover, in relation to purchasing and waste disposal they tend to extend institutional responses well beyond superficial recycling and litterpicking initiatives to student action across diverse issues. In terms of culture, for leading-edge schools, EfS and CC can be integral components of – and indeed drivers for – school planning and school improvement (ARTD Consultants 2010; Kadji-Beltran, Zachariou and Stevenson 2013). At a community level, schools can be hubs for learning about sustainability and play an integral part within local active citizenship projects and intergenerational partnerships. And given that superficial cross-curricular treatment rarely makes for high-quality learning, both EfS and CC benefit from being the focus of discrete and developed curriculum units. In defining what good CC and EfS both is and is not, variants of Figure 10.1 may prove helpful. The three circles of the diagram include interrelated and interdependent aspects of knowledge, skills and active participation. If one of the three dimensions is missing within an educational programme, it is unlikely to achieve the desired learning in EfS or CC. For example, if a project focuses solely upon skills and actions – through volunteering or a service-learning type environmental project  – it may be light on knowledge, content, political literacy and systems context. Alternatively, classroom-based approaches emphasizing only knowledge and structures and which draw largely upon text-book information and activities only occupy one of the diagrammatic circles. Programmes need to be constructed in pedagogically valid ways involving inquiry, collaboration and critical thinking, and include an active ‘make a difference’ dimension (Westheimer and Kahne 2004). There is also here an acknowledgement of interlocking values, dispositions and substantive concepts around the outside of the diagram, providing the

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

171

Eco-literate Dispos ition es and s Valu

e tic us

Sustainability and CCE knowledge

Inquiry skills, critical thinking and advocacy

ties ibili ons esp dR an ts

Demo crac ya nd So cia l

J

Ri gh

Community involvement and taking informed action

Iden

rsity tities an d Cultural Dive

Figure 10.1 Combining Civics and Citizenship Education and Education for Sustainability Knowledge, Conceptual Understanding, Skills, Values and Action. Source: Brett (2015).

context and driving purpose of learning in CC and EfS. As students experience and shape integrated EfS and CC projects, educators need to be alert to raising questions relating to the rights and responsibilities of citizens in environmental contexts or to the challenges of democratic participation. Teachers may seek to provide opportunities for students to reflect upon the ways in which competing views, freedoms or identities throw light upon the sustainability issue in question. Asking questions about fairness, social justice, global equity or conflict resolution in relation to a specific sustainability challenge can bring a conceptual lens to core aspects of learning.

Examples of civics and citizenship and sustainability in action There are some inspirational projects to draw lessons from generated by young people themselves, often involving organization and action through the internet.

172

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

A good example of this is the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC), which has a network of 110,000 members. The AYCC believes that climate change is the single greatest threat facing humanity, and puts young people and future generations at risk. We also believe that addressing the climate crisis is our biggest opportunity to create a world that is more sustainable, just and fair … This will require thousands of people committed to changing hearts and minds and willing to take deep action. (AYCC 2015)

In 2014, the AYCC organized national ‘Switched on Schools’ summits, run in conjunction with local councils across Australia, that involved over 1,000 students learning about climate change and how they can make a difference in their school and community. Their programme then reached out to 20,000 young people through five regional workshops and high school presentations in 400 schools. Past successful campaigns include ‘Don’t Risk the Reef ’ (which focused on plans to build the world’s biggest coal port in Queensland), ‘Renewable Generation’, ‘Walk for Solar’ and ‘Safe Climate Roadmap’. Current campaigns include ‘Dump Your Bank’, bringing customer pressure to bear around banks funding fossil-fuel projects, and ‘Re-power Port Augusta’ (where two coal-fired power stations are closing and there are debates about replacement energy sources). All of these campaigns have succeeded in creating sufficient political mass to force political concessions or rethinking. The AYCC is a non-partisan, young-people-led organization engaging practically in projects central to EfS and CC agendas around democratic citizen action. AYCC working methods mirror those of effective citizenship teaching and learning, and include awareness raising, critically questioning existing systems and actions, problem-solving and community action which often makes imaginative use of social media (for more on AYCC campaigns, see Henderson and Tudball, forthcoming). There are also numerous examples of effective combined EfS and Citizenship Education practices in early childhood settings across Australia (Davis 2010). The pivotal place of children’s rights and agency in educators’ early childhood EfS practice has been highlighted in the research literature (e.g. Kinsella 2007; Edwards and Cutter-MacKenzie 2011; Mackey 2012). All of these studies use their findings to advocate for young children’s rights to participate in taking action for the environment. For example, Davis (2005) outlined the active citizenship work of a Brisbane kindergarten which responded to the dumping of a supermarket shopping trolley in their play space with open letters to both the supermarket and the perpetrators. The subsequent newspaper photo story outlined the children’s ethical and aesthetic concerns about dumping shopping trolleys and the paper’s editorial column praised the children for their social

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

173

responsibility. The same kindergarten went on to undertake an assessment of its ecological footprint in partnership with a nearby university school of engineering which assessed consumption of electricity, water, food, waste, transport and paper (McNichol, Davis and O’Brien 2011). The information unearthed was then incorporated into the centre’s education programme. And a range of school-based projects have shown that it is genuinely possible to think global and act local. More than 2,000 schools and 570,000 students across Australia have participated in the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative. Participating schools have reported reductions in waste collection of up to 80 per cent, reductions in water consumption of up to 60 per cent and savings on energy consumption of 20 per cent with commensurate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (ARTD 2010). For example, Chatham Primary School, located in an eastern suburb of Melbourne, has become a community leader in sustainability. It has installed solar panels, put in water tanks to irrigate the oval, instituted rubbish-free lunches and planted a series of gardens to create biodiversity. The local council has helped to finance sustainability projects and has invited the school to various sustainability events. Every student assumes an environmental leadership role in Grade 6. Their regular assembly presentations educate other students about sustainability issues, and introduce conversations around sustainability into the school. Every grade in the school has a sustainability task – for example, one class is responsible for rinsing and emptying compost bins once a week, while another collects water flow from buckets underneath the school’s taps to water the garden (ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic 2015). An evaluation of the AuSSI programme in Victoria across 500 participating schools found that 67 per cent of survey respondents had been prompted by the success of practical sustainability schemes to further embed sustainability in their redesign of curriculum documents, and thereby provide more opportunities for students to learn about sustainability (Rickinson, Hall and Reid 2014).

A model for linking EfS and CC The literature for EfS and CC only intermittently intersects (for exceptions, see Berkowitz, Ford and Brewer 2005; Henderson and Tudball, forthcoming; Warwick 2012) but they have plenty in common. Both fields contest definitions, lament their low status and have concluded that education about and in fail to meet the satisfying richness of education for sustainability and democratic citizenship. What might a more integrative framework look like?

174

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Critical Literacy Dimension

Ecological Dimension

Creative Thinking Dimension

Temporal Dimension

Spatial Dimension

Sustainable Citizenship Education Active concern for the common good

Ethical Behaviour Dimension

Active Citizenship Dimension

Political Dimension

Figure 10.2 Conceptual links between EfS and CC. Source: Adapted and developed from Warwick (2012: 136).

Figure 10.2 identifies ecological, temporal, spatial and political dimensions shared by EfS and CC. It also denotes critical literacy, creative thinking, ethical behaviour and active citizenship as transdisciplinary and shared pedagogic dimensions. Information and communication technology would constitute a component threaded through each of these eight components. It is suggested that teachers planning an integrated unit of study involving EfS and CC may find the diagram helpful as a shaping or auditing tool in thinking about the kinds of knowledge, skills and joined-up learning promoted by an envisaged conjoint sequence of learning.

Ecological dimension In the Australian Curriculum, the ‘World Views’ Organising Ideas of the Sustainability cross-curricular priority recognize the dependence of living things on healthy ecosystems and underline the value of ecological diversity (OI 4). And the ‘Futures’ OIs are notably closely aligned with elements of the

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

175

CC curriculum, since they posit that the ecological systems on which humans depend can be renewed through positive human actions. They spell out that – the sustainability of ecological, social and economic systems is achieved through informed individual and community action that values local and global equity and fairness across generations (OI 6); – actions for a more sustainable future reflect values of care, respect and responsibility (OI 7); – designing action for sustainability requires an evaluation of past practices, the assessment of scientific and technological developments, and balanced judgements based on projected future economic, social and environmental impacts (OI 8); and – sustainable futures result from actions designed to preserve and/or restore the quality and uniqueness of environments (OI9). This is very much a message of hope in that when students are confronted by sustainability problems and dilemmas, they can start to take practical steps to restore ecosystem health at whatever scale they are able to act.

Temporal dimension With regard to sustainability issues such as climate change, ‘the temporal dimension raises the profile of the time lag that is present in many lifestyle and political decisions today’ (Warwick 2012: 137). The effects of climate change being experienced today are a result of greenhouse gas emissions and human behaviour that have contributed to environmental degradation from thirty to fifty years ago. Similarly, the emissions released today will have an impact up to 2040 and beyond (Hutchins 2009). There are opportunities in Australia to consider the long-view value perspectives and viewpoints around the environmental concerns of the nation’s first Aboriginal peoples. For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s beliefs about and approaches to land management, water conservation and protection of ‘Country’ can contribute to a healthier sustainable environment for all Australians (Lynch, Fell and McIntyre-Tamwoy, 2010). And intergenerational equity – a central concern of those working in the field of EfS – is a concept that proposes that each successive generation should live sustainably, so that future generations might experience a comparable quality of life to that of past generations.

176

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Spatial dimension In both CC and EfS, the emphasis on place, space and the environment offers significant opportunities to learn about conflicting interpretations and concerns; to extend knowledge about political and social groupings and the activities of voluntary bodies and pressure groups; and to evaluate the consequences for people, places and environments of decision-making. Recent research in this area highlights the effectiveness of curriculum approaches which expand and deepen children’s understanding of sustainability through embodied action prompted by affective connections generated by and in local places and contexts (Power and Green 2014; Somerville and Green 2012). In this way, national and global sustainability issues can be made sense of and contextualized. The idea of sustainable citizenship can disrupt localized spatial mindsets as the imperatives of the ‘global village’ encourage at least a proportion of more enlightened citizens to exercise responsibilities in relation to distant people and places.

Political dimension CC offers EfS an opportunity to embrace its political and controversial dimensions (Hicks 2007). UNESCO’s (2010) four dimensions of sustainable development strongly represented democracy and peace, equality and human rights, political decision-making and people living together within its framework. Examining controversial issues around sustainability can encourage: an understanding of the interests, beliefs and viewpoints of others; the valuing of a respect for truth and evidence in forming and holding opinions; and the appreciation of fairness as a basis for making decisions. In this way, teachers can promote the development of civic dispositions which underpin civil public and democratic discourse. If students are to be capable of acting on their choices and influencing environmental decision-making, then their experience of CC must develop their knowledge of political-legal processes and their skills in political advocacy. This can involve students participating in real-life debates and communicating with newspapers, community audiences and authorities across different layers of government. Current examples in Tasmania of areas for exploration might include investigations into the future of the forestry industry; the protection of native, old-growth trees; the granting of heritage status to land in the Western Tiers (locking up or protecting?); the future environmental status of the Tarkine area in the north west of the state; the rights of four-wheel drivers and surfers set

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

177

against Indigenous sites and ancient middens in the sand dunes of the West Coast; the pros and cons of the construction of Wind Farms on King Island (or indeed other parts of Australia); and whether or not a ‘supertrawler’ should be allowed to operate in waters around the state. These are all issues where it is legitimate for young people to have a voice and an informed opinion. Open minds and a disposition of tolerance for views other than one’s own do not come into existence through a process of serendipitous osmosis – they are qualities which have to be educated for and practised.

Critical literacy dimension Both sustainability literacies and political literacy deserve their place in the pantheon of ways in which it is important to induct young people into reading the world around them (e.g. Davies 2008; Nolet 2009). The key qualities that citizenship educators are looking to nurture in young people parallel many of the qualities that high-quality EfS is looking to promote – independent and critical thinking; the capacity to appreciate more than one point of view and a range of different interpretations; and the communication of substantiated arguments, in other words, critical engagement in substantial ways with contemporary environmental and political issues that matter. Thus equipped, young people can respond with emotional intelligence to the panoply of images, events and ideas with which they are bombarded in a relentless digital information media cycle. In designing learning activities which achieve this objective, it is important for educators to seek to extend outwards from individual prosocial environmental activities to wider social and political dimensions of sustainability. In other words, haptic school vegetable gardens, wormeries, litter initiatives, improved composting and waste paper regimes and an annual beach clean-up campaign – however purposeful and experiential – can sometimes only take deep, critical understanding so far (Dyment and Reid 2005). There can be a danger that approaches which model individualistic responses tend not to challenge dominant, systems-embedded practices.

Creative thinking dimension Both EfS and CC share a concern with helping young people to imagine a different, better, more socially just global future. Kelsey (2014) writes insightfully

178

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

about ‘hacking into’ dominant narratives of impending environmental gloom and disaster in order to embrace ‘more holistic, integral, emotive, perceptive [and] creative ways forward’ (2014: 8). And the ‘Critical and Creative Thinking’ General Capability of the Australian Curriculum explicitly acknowledges that ‘responding to the challenges of the twenty first century – with its complex environmental … pressures – requires young people to be creative, innovative, enterprising, and adaptable with the motivation, confidence and skills to use critical and creative thinking purposefully’ (ACARA 2013c: 66). Creativity can, of course, take many forms, but opportunities for fresh thinking and imaginative solutions are likely to incorporate plenty of student dialogue and an opening up of traditional teacher-centric classroom approaches to co-created outcomes and possibilities (Cam 2006; Andreotti and Warwick 2007). Some of the most powerful articulations of young people’s environmental or political hopes and visions can come through mobilizing the persuasive capacities of the visual and performing arts or cutting-edge uses of technology, including, for example, social media (Mellor and Seddon 2013).

Ethical behaviour dimension A key component of EfS relates to developing an ethic of personal responsibility, care and stewardship towards all aspects of the environment (Fien 2003). There is an interrelatedness of citizenship and consumption – young people are exhorted to act responsibly and practise ethical consumerism in countering the ethos of a throwaway society. However, Davis and Francis (2014: 423) found ‘a socialisation to greenness, which is not translated into everyday practice’ – plenty of young people who can ‘talk the green talk’, but rather fewer who ‘walk the green walk’ (Preston 2012). An in-depth understanding of the connectedness of chains of consumption was not clearly in evidence – although young people are not alone in seeking to hold on to ‘the reassuring belief that neoliberal capitalism and ecological sustainability are compatible and interdependent’ (Huckle 2014: 231, see also Schindel Dimick 2015). In the Australian Curriculum, ‘Ethical Understanding’ involves students in building a strong personal and socially oriented ethical outlook that helps them to manage context, conflict and uncertainty, and to develop an awareness of the influence that their values and behaviour have on others (ACARA 2013c). Since consumerism and popular culture are key forces shaping students’ identities, both CC and EfS can deal critically, yet constructively, with the politics

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

179

of ethical consumerism and youth identity, by considering such policies as ecolabelling and fair trade, and such practices as buy-nothing day and free-cycling. The Australian Curriculum seeks to nudge young people towards internalizing an ecological identity committed to a more environmentally informed global future, or at least to address some questions which concentrate the mind around daily choices which promote sustainability. Do I believe ‘buy local’ campaigns and farmers’ markets promote sustainability? What do I see as the benefits from Australian towns working on an ambition to become plastic bag-free? What view do I take of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power? Should I try to influence the big two supermarkets to introduce more sustainable practices through my family’s weekly grocery purchases? Further curricular validation in the ‘Ethical Understanding’ General Capability is the view that ‘Complex issues require responses that take account of ethical considerations such as  …  environmental issues and global justice’ (ACARA 2012: 75). This area obviously offers fertile territory for CC educators to draw upon a wide range of sustainability contexts which allow young people to explore and apply their values.

Active citizenship dimension Real-world problem-solving and community involvement are core to the purposes and goals of both EfS and CCE. Educational opportunities are opened up when community expertise (which might reside in parents, community organizations, NGOs, local government or businesses) offers the capacity to catalyse and accelerate processes of change. NGOs and programmes such as Landcare, Waterwatch, the CSIRO’s Sustainable Futures programme, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s Reef Guardians and the Australian Conservation Foundation Earth Kids programme can involve young people in rich, developed school grounds-based projects, the restoration of wetlands, treeplanting, marine or freshwater river research, the rehabilitation of local habitats or support for endangered animals. Young people require certain skills, information and knowledge and competences to fully realize their capacities as active citizens. Competencies for effective and responsible participation in political, social and cultural life include: self-awareness, social and emotional literacy, a capacity to work collaboratively with others, a critical understanding of all media forms, technological selfconfidence and problem-solving and communication skills. Civic engagement

180

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

projects which address specific problems related to sustainability can offer powerful contexts to develop precisely these key learning capabilities (InterAgency Working Group on Children’s Participation 2008). An important millennial study of Citizenship Education Policy involved 264 policy experts from nine nations in discussions around what competencies citizens would require in the twenty-first century. One of the capacities foregrounded was young people’s ability to ‘change lifestyle and habits to protect the environment; think, reflect, discuss, and act in ways that are rational, reasonable and ethically defensible; be sensitive towards and to defend human rights; and, participate in politics at local, national and international levels’ (Cogan and Derricott 2000: 9)

Conclusion Active and informed democratic citizenship is one of the defining features of a sustainable society. The most effective CC projects engage with authentic, live, local, national or global contemporary issues (Dejaeghere and Tudball 2007; Keating, Kerr and Lopes 2009). This approach to CC aims to empower learners by increasing their capacity to understand the underlying causes of problems and to be agents of change through engagement in the public sphere. Such agency both promotes and requires political literacy. Sustainability issues provide an excellent setting for this kind of citizenship inquiry, advocacy and action, where there are a range of opportunities for young people to learn and to exercise their democratic views via lobbying, consciousness-raising through changing minds, promoting themes which lie at the heart of the Earth Charter or campaigning in support of what they believe (Comber, Nixon and Reid 2007; Earth Charter Initiative 2012). It has been suggested that the citizen who understands the importance of sustainability displays ‘pro-sustainability behaviour, in public and private, driven by a belief in fairness of the distribution of environmental goods, in participation, and in the co-creation of sustainability policy’ (Dobson 2011: 10). This involves schools and teachers committed to building the kinds of civic values and skills that can prepare young people to be leaders in the transition to a sustainable future. The conceptual frameworks proposed in this chapter seek to build the disciplinary and pedagogical bridges for CC and EfS to work together. Putting the environment at the centre of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum can have the effect of drawing teachers and students into engaging explorations of place, space and environmental contestation and prompt reflection around the values and eco-dispositions which they might wish to bring to bear upon a particular issue or problem.

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

181

References ACARA (2011), 2010 National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship (NAP – CC) Public Report, Sydney : ACARA. ACARA (2012), ‘Cross-Curriculum Priorities – Sustainability’. In The Australian Curriculum Version 7.5, Sydney : ACARA. ACARA (2013a), Draft Years 3–10 Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship, Sydney : ACARA. ACARA (2013b), ‘Geography – Foundation to Year 10 – Aims’. In The Australian Curriculum Version 7.5, Sydney : ACARA. ACARA (2013c), General Capabilities in the Australian Curriculum, Sydney : ACARA. Andreotti, V. and Warwick, P. (2007), Engaging Students with Controversial Issues Through a Dialogue Based Approach. Available online: http://www.citized.info/?r _menu=res&strand=3 (accessed 6 August 2015). ARTD Consultants (2010), Evaluation of Operational Effectiveness of the Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI), Sydney : Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Australian Education for Sustainability Alliance (2014), The State of Education for Sustainability in Australia, Melbourne: Australian Conservation Foundation. Australian Research Institute for Education for Sustainability (2009), Education for Sustainability: The Role of Education in Engaging and Equipping People for Change. Sydney : ARIES. Australian Sustainable Schools Initiative (AuSSI) (2010), Fact Sheet. Available online: http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/education/aussi/publications /factsheet-aussi (accessed 18 February 2016). Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) (2015), About AYCC. Available online: http://www.aycc.org.au/about_aycc (accessed 18 February 2016). Berkowitz, A. J., Ford, M. A. and Brewer, C. A. (2005), ‘A Framework for Integrating Ecological Literacy, Civics Literacy, and Environmental Citizenship in Environmental Education’. In E. A. Johnson and M. J. Mapping (eds), Environmental Education and Advocacy: Changing Perspectives of Ecology and Education, 227–266. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bernstein, B. (1996), Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique, London: Taylor and Francis. Brett, P. (2015), ‘Combining Civics and Citizenship Education and Education for Sustainability Knowledge, Conceptual understanding, Skills, Values, and Action’ diagram. Cam, P. (2006), Twenty Thinking Tools: Collaborative Inquiry for the Classroom, Camberwell: ACER. Climate Council (2014), The Angry Summer. Available online: http://www .climatecouncil.org.au/angry-summer (accessed 14 June 2014).

182

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Cogan, J. and Derricott, R. (eds) (2000), Citizenship for the Twenty-First Century: An International Perspective on Education, revised edn., London: Kogan Page. Comber, B., Nixon, H. and Reid, J.-A. (2007), Literacies in Place: Teaching Environmental Communications, Sydney : Primary English Teachers Association. Davies, I. (2008), ‘Political Literacy’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds). The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 377–387, London: SAGE. Davis, J. (2005), ‘Educating for Sustainability in the Early Years: Creating Cultural Change in a Child Care Setting’, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 21: 47–55. Davis J. (ed.) (2010), Young Children and the Environment: Early Education for Sustainability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Davis, T. and Francis, J. (2014), ‘The Young Consumer-Citizen: Nationhood and Environmentalism in Children’s Identity Narratives’, Marketing Theory, 14 (4): 417–429. DEH (2005), Education for a Sustainable Future: A National Environmental Education Statement for Schools, Carlton: Curriculum Corporation. DeJaeghere, J. (2013), ‘Critical Civics and Citizenship Education: What Kind of “Active Citizen”?’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 83–86. DeJaeghere, J. G. and Tudball, L. (2007), ‘Looking Back, Looking Forward: Critical Citizenship as a Way Ahead for Civic and Citizenship Education in Australia’, International Journal of Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 3 (2): 40–57. Dobson, A. (2011), Sustainability Citizenship, Dorset: Greenhouse. Dyment, J. E. and Reid, A. (2005), ‘Breaking New Ground? Reflections on Greening School Grounds as Sites of Ecological, Pedagogical and Social Transformation’, Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 10 (1): 286–301. Dyment, J., Hill, A. and Emery, S. (2014), ‘Sustainability as a Cross-Curricular Priority in the Australian Curriculum: A Tasmanian Investigation’, Environmental Education Research, 21 (8): 1105–126. Earth Charter Initiative (2012), The Earth Charter. Available online: http://www .earthcharterinaction.org/content/pages/Read-the-Charter.html (accessed 18 February 2016) Edwards, S. and Cutter-MacKenzie, A. (2011), ‘Environmentalising Early Childhood Education Curriculum through Pedagogies of Play’, Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36 (1): 51–59. Elliott, S. and Davis, J. (2009), ‘Exploring the Resistance: An Australian Perspective on Educating for Sustainability in Early Childhood’. International Journal of Early Childhood, 47 (2), 65–77. Erebus Consulting Group (2003), Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program, Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Fien, J. (2003), ‘Learning to Care: Education and Compassion’, Australian Journal of Environmental Education, 19: 1–14.

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

183

Gray-Donald, J. and Sterling, S. (eds) (2007), ‘Sustainability and Education: Towards a Culture of Critical Commitment’, International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, 2 (3–4): 241–248. Grossman., D, Lee, W. O. and Kennedy, K. (eds) (2008), Citizenship Curriculum in the Asia Pacific, Hong Kong and Dordrecht: Centre for Comparative Education Research and Springer. Henderson, D. and Tudball, L. (2016), ‘Democratic and Participatory Citizenship: Youth Action for Sustainability In Australia’, Asian Education and Development Studies, 5 (1): 5–19. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-06-2015-0028. Hicks, D. (2007), ‘Education for Sustainability: How Should We Deal with Climate Change?’. In H. Claire and C. Holden (eds), The Challenge of Teaching Controversial Issues, 67–82. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books. Huckle, J. (2014), ‘Education for Sustainable Citizenship: An Emerging Focus for Education for Sustainability’. In J. Huckle and S. Sterling (eds), Education for Sustainability, 228–243, London: Routledge. Huddleston, T. and Kerr, D. (2006), Making Sense of Citizenship: A Continuing Professional Development Handbook, London: Citizenship Foundation. Hunter, J. and Jimenez, S. (1999), ‘Civics and Citizenship Education: What Pedagogy? What Possibilities?’, Curriculum Perspectives, 19 (3): 20–30. Hutchins, C. (2009), Climate Change: Our Warming World, Bristol: Alistair Sawday Publishing. Inter-Agency Working Group on Children’s Participation (2008), Children as Active Citizens – A Policy and Programme Guide: Commitments and Obligations for Children’s Civil Rights and Civic Engagement in East Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok: IAWGCP. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2014), Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kadji-Beltran, C., Zachariou, A. and Stevenson, R. (2013), ‘Leading Sustainable Schools: Exploring the Role of Primary School Principals’, Environmental Education Research, 19 (3): 303–323. Keating, A., Kerr, D. and Lopes, J. (2009), Embedding Citizenship Education in Secondary Schools in England (2002–08), Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Seventh Annual Report, Slough: National Foundation for Educational Research. Kelsey, E. (ed.) (2014), Beyond Doom and Gloom. An Exploration Through Letters, Rachel Carson Centre Perspectives 2014/6, Munich: Ludwig-MaximiliansUniversität. Kennelly, J., Taylor, N. and Serow, P. (2012), ‘Early Career Primary Teachers and Education for Sustainability’, International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education, 21 (2), 139–153. Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W. and Bethan, B. (2010), CCS 2009 European Report, Civic Knowledge, Attitudes and Engagement Among Lower Secondary School Students in Twenty-Four European Countries, Amsterdam: IEA.

184

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Kinsella, R. (2007), Greening Services: Practical Sustainability, Watson, ACT: Early Childhood Australia. Lynch, A., Fell, D. G. and McIntyre-Tamwoy, S. (2010), Incorporating Indigenous Values with “Western” Conservation Values in Sustainable Biodiversity Management [online]”. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 17 (4): 244–255. Mackey, G. (2012), ‘ To Know, to Decide, to Act: The Young Child’s Right to Participate in Action for the Environment’, Environmental Education Research, 78 (4): 473–484. McLaughlin, T. (1992), ‘Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective’, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3), 235–250. MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, Carlton South, Vic.: Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. McNichol, H., Davis, J. and O’Brien, K. (2011), ‘An Ecological Footprint for an Early Learning Centre: Identifying Opportunities for Early Childhood Sustainability Education Through Interdisciplinary Research’, Environmental Education Research, 17 (5): 689–704. Mellor, S. and Seddon, T. (2013), Networking Young Citizens: Learning to Be Citizens in and with the Social Web, Research report, Melbourne: Faculty of Education, Monash University. Nayler, J. (2011), Enacting Australian Curriculum: Planning Issues and Strategies for P-12 Multiple Year Level Classrooms, Brisbane: Queensland Studies Authority. Available online: http://www.qsa.qld.edu.au/downloads/p%5F10/ac%5Fp10%5Fmulti%5Fplan ning%5Fissues.pdf (accessed 14 June 2015). Nolet, V. (2009), ‘Preparing Sustainability-Literate Teachers’, Teachers College Record, 111 (2): 409–422. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and development OECD (2013), InterCountry Input-Output (ICIO) Data base (May 2013). Power, K. and Green, M. (2014), ‘Reframing Primary Curriculum Through Concepts of Place’, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42 (2): 105–118. Preston, L. (2012), ‘Changing Green Subjectivities in Outdoor and Environmental Education: A Qualitative Study’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 33 (2): 235–249. Print, M. (2009), ‘Civic Engagement and Political Education of Young People’, Minority Studies, 1 (3): 63–83. Reid, A. and Gill, J. (2009), ‘An Arm of the State? Linking Citizenship Education and Schooling Practice’, Citizenship and Teacher Education, 5 (1): 3–17. ResourceSmart AuSSI Vic (2015), Available online: http://www.resourcesmartschools .vic.gov.au/program-results/st-thereses-primary-school-case-study/#.VY4UO _mqpBc (accessed 12 September 2015). Rickinson, M., Hall, M. and Reid, A. (2014), ResourceSmart Schools Research Project Final Report [Report commissioned by Sustainability Victoria], Melbourne: Monash University.

Civics and Citizenship and Education for Sustainability

185

Schindel Dimick, A. (2015), ‘Supporting Youth to Develop Environmental Citizenship Within/Against a Neoliberal Context’, Environmental Education Research, 21 (3): 390–402. Somerville, M and Green, M. (2012), ‘Place and Sustainability Literacy in Schools and Teacher Education’, paper presented at the Joint AARE APERA International Conference, Sydney. Steele F. (2010), Mainstreaming Education for Sustainability in Pre-service Teacher Education in Australia: Enablers and Constraints. Canberra: ARIES, for the Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Sterling, S. (2008), ‘Sustainable Education – Towards a Deep Learning Response to Unsustainability’, Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 6: 63–68. Sterling, S. (2014), ‘Separate Tracks or Real Synergy? Achieving a Closer Relationship Between Education and Sustainable Development, Post-2015’, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 8 (2): 89–112. UNECE Expert Group (2013), Empowering Educators for a Sustainable Future, Geneva: UNECE/UN. Available online: http://anea.org.mx/docs/DRAFT _PUBLICATION_26-02-%202013.pdf (accessed 20 August 2015). UNESCO (2010), Teaching and Learning for a Sustainable Future: Multimedia Teacher Education Programme, Paris: UNESCO. Available online: http://sustainability.edu. au/material/teaching-materials/unesco-teaching-and-learning-sustainable-future/ (accessed 20 August 2015). Wals, A. (2011), ‘Learning Our Way to Sustainability’, Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, 5 (2): 177–186. Warwick, P. (2012), ‘Climate Change and Sustainable Citizenship Education’. In J. Arthur and H. Cremin (eds) Debates in Citizenship Education, 132–146, London: Routledge. Westheimer J. and Kahne, J. E. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2): 237–269. Whitehouse, H. (2014), ‘Challenges and Opportunities for Teaching Sustainability Within the Context of the Australian Curriculum’, Primary & Middle Years Educator, 12 (2): 25–30. World Wildlife Fund (2014), Living Planet Report 2014: Summary, Gland, Switzerland: WWF.

Part Three

Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: Comparative Insights

11

Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Canada Mark Evans

Introduction Educating for citizenship in Canada, like Australia, has had an ongoing presence in public education and understandings of citizenship education have continued to evolve, as a result of historical circumstances and ever-changing contextual pressures. In this chapter, evolving characterizations and recent developments in citizenship education in schools in Canada are briefly explored, with attention to conceptual considerations, curriculum policy initiatives and school-based teaching and learning practices. Particular consideration is given to the province of Ontario, as education remains a provincial or territorial responsibility in Canada. Lastly, persisting challenges are considered. It is hoped that understandings gained from Canadian experience may be helpful in considering and prompting questions about recent developments in civics and citizenship education in Australia, discussed in earlier chapters. In the face of these evolving characterizations and recent developments, it should be kept in mind, as Biesta (2011: 14) reminds us, that democratic learning in schools ‘represents a small proportion of the environment in and from which young people learn. They learn as much, and most possibly even more, from their participation in the family or leisure activities, from interaction with their peers, from the media, from advertisers and from their role as consumers,’ as well as being influenced ‘by the wider cultural, social, political and economic order that impacts upon their lives’.

190

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Evolving characterizations of educating for citizenship Educating for citizenship has, over time and in various ways, been recognized as an important dimension of Australian (Print 2008; Tudball and Henderson 2014) and Canadian (Osborne 2001; Hughes and Sears 2008; Bickmore 2014) education. At least four key themes – one, a sense of identity and membership in some wider community(ies); two, a sense of rights and entitlements in civil, political, socio-economic and cultural domains; three, a corresponding set of duties or responsibilities; and four, the development of certain attributes and capacities to undertake one’s civic role – have underpinned its evolution in both countries, albeit in different forms of expression and with varying shades of meaning. Educating for citizenship in Canada’s early history, like Australia (Print 1999), encouraged nation-building; social and political initiation; and assimilation. McLeod (1989: 11) commented that ‘the idea of educating people for their political as well as social roles was embedded in education in Canada even before Confederation (1867)’ as a requisite to social and civil well-being and in the early decades of the twentieth century, public education in Canada was increasingly viewed as a logical location to ‘initiate’ young people for their citizenship role. ‘Being Canadian’ was usually aligned with a sense of nationalism and the goal of social cohesion, albeit with a ‘pro-British assimilationist bent’ (Clark and Case 1997: 20). Educating for citizenship during the early decades of the twentieth century was addressed largely through Social Studies and History curricula. Knowledge of parliamentary structures and procedures, duties and responsibilities of ‘good’ citizenship, values of loyalty, national identity and pride and learning about its colonial history were some of the broad curriculum intentions. Teaching practices related to citizenship education focused primarily on ‘knowing about’ the mechanisms of government and one’s responsibilities to others and to Canada. While there are many examples of interesting and innovative teaching practices, ‘didactic thought, recitation, memorization, and largely passive learning remained the rule and by overwhelming agreement, the norm’ (McLeod 1989: 11). Implementation was patchy and not everyone accepted the dominant citizenship narrative of schools at the time. Various groups (e.g. Québecers, trade unions, First Nations’ peoples) voiced concerns and disagreement. Whereas educating for citizenship ‘received scant attention by education systems’ in the ‘decades following WWII in Australia’ (Print 2008: 96) until the 1990s, understandings and practices of citizenship education in schools in

A View from Canada

191

Canada during the second half of the twentieth century gradually continued to broaden and deepen. Issues arising at the time (e.g. United States’ escalating influence over the Canadian economy, the Quiet Revolution in Québec, First Nations land claims, rising immigration, Canada’s growing international involvement, the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982 and the Multicultural Act, 1988) prompted a reconsideration of citizenship education’s purposes and practices. Hodgetts’ report, What Culture? What Heritage? A Study of Civic Education in Canada (1968), in particular, sparked considerable interest and debate about citizenship education’s limitations in schools. The report exposed subject content and instructional shortcomings and an absence of learning resources that included controversial content. The report also offered a way forward, suggesting themes such as social cohesion, cultural diversity and pluralism, human rights, civic conflict and controversy, forms of civic engagement and an emerging global orientation be given heightened attention in school curriculum. These understandings of citizenship education steadily became more evident and encouraged in provincial educational policy reform initiatives during the 1970s and 1980s, constituting what Osborne (1996: 52) referred to as ‘the beginning of a trend’, ‘a new conception of citizenship education’. For example, a new Canadian Studies curriculum was developed which laid the groundwork to explore Canada’s culturally diverse nature, French/ English relations, Canadian/American relations and Canada’s emerging role in the global community. During the late 1980s and 1990s, prompted by the deepening forces of globalization and increasing recognition of a lack of civic and democratic understanding among youth, citizenship education was gaining attention worldwide. Educational systems were carefully considering kinds of education needed to respond to these changing circumstances and how schooling might strengthen civic understanding and civic literacy among youth. Provincial and territorial ministries of education in Canada introduced policies and processes to review curricula and develop learning resources to safeguard against racial, ethnic, cultural, gender and socio-economic bias during the latter part of the twentieth century (Joshee 2004). Gradually growing attention to the need for democratic citizenship learning in schools was evident in different initiatives(e.g. Committee for Effective Canadian Citizenship 1994, Components of Citizenship Education: Initiating Action, Celebration Canada 1998). Demands for higherquality teaching and more effective schools led to increased attention to and support for a broader range of participatory and experiential teaching and learning practices (e.g. inquiry, critical thinking, cooperative learning). A study

192

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

undertaken by the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada (2001) to examine Citizenship Education curricula across Canada signalled a common trend in curriculum policy, a shift from traditional conceptions of citizenship education to goals that foregrounded more multicultural, global and transformative understandings and practices that encouraged ‘thinking about’ and ‘engaging in’ citizenship. Implementation, however, remained slow and uneven and, according to Osborne (2001), was confronted by an increasing emphasis on ‘employability skills’ and preparing students to be ‘productive workers’ for an emerging global economy, creating an uncertain tension between democratic civic purposes and economic ones, as public education priorities. In contrast, Australia experienced a surge of activity in citizenship education from the mid-1990s through a variety of education curriculum and policy reform initiatives to support citizenship education (e.g. Senate Committees 1988, 1989, Civics Experts Group 1994, Discovering Democracy 1997), resulting from national and state collaboration (Print 2008; Tudball and Henderson 2014). The ‘strongest commitment in terms of policy and funding for resources and professional learning’ for citizenship education, according to Tudball and Henderson (2014: 9), ‘occurred between 1997 and 2004’ when the Howard Conservative government developed the national Discovering Democracy project’. Its primary purpose was to ‘build Australian students’ understanding of their democracy through the provisions of curriculum resources and support for schools and teachers’ (Print 2008: 4). Conceptually, learning intentions evident in the content of the Discovering Democracy project revealed similar themes to those emerging in provincial curricula across Canada at the time, albeit in different forms of expression and with varying shades of meaning and contextual nuance. While the Discovering Democracy project experienced mixed achievements (e.g. high level of commitment from the various education systems, the development of high-quality curriculum resources, support teachers’ professional learning), it faced a number of challenges (Erebus 2003) in implementation.

Recent developments in Canada Since the turn of the century, attention to citizenship education in Canada continues to be on the increase. A wide range of research, educational policy reform and curriculum and pedagogical developments have been evident across Canada, although somewhat sporadic and divergent in focus at times. Below is a brief overview of some developments and issues in citizenship education

A View from Canada

193

thinking, curriculum policy, teaching and learning practices and persisting challenges in Canada in recent years, with a few observations offered in relation to recent developments in civics and citizenship education in Australia.

Conceptual considerations Predictably, a variety of conceptual frameworks and distinctive dimensions of citizenship education have received increasing attention in scholarly literature in recent decades. In Canada, more comprehensive frameworks have ranged from Sears’ (1996) comparison of themes of sovereignty, governance and citizen expectations from ‘elitist’ and ‘activist’ perspectives to Strong-Boag’s (1996) overview of missing ‘pluralist’ and ‘inclusive’ elements of citizenship education in Canada (e.g. feminists, First Nations peoples, working-class groups) to Osborne’s (2001) proposed ‘twelve C’s’ framework for educating for democratic citizenship (e.g. a focus on the cosmopolitan nature of the world as a whole, thinking critically and creatively and becoming informed and involved members of their communities, locally, nationally and globally). More recently, Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004), Westheimer’s (2008) tripartite framework, identifying three ‘kinds’ of citizens (the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen and the social-justice-oriented citizen) based primarily on studies undertaken in schools in United States, has received particular consideration in its applicability to the Canadian context (Westheimer 2008, 2010). Westheimer’s views have been particularly instructive, drawing attention to different orientations being experienced in schools ‘as a helpful guide to the variety of assumptions that fall under the idea of citizenship education’ in relation to curriculum goals and teaching and learning practices (2008: 9). Attention to more distinctive dimensions of citizenship education in Canada is also evident. Bickmore’s (2014) recent analysis of citizenship education in Canada highlights, for example, increased attention to more specific conceptual dimensions. Building on earlier work focusing on question of citizenship and diversity in Canada (e.g. Kymlicka 1995, 2007; Hébert 2002; Joshee 2004), Bickmore (2014: 262) highlights recent work underway that examines the goals and challenges of addressing ‘intersecting questions of national and ethnocultural identities, and the accommodation of difference within the Canadian community’. Particular attention is given to developments and issues in relation to diverse Indigenous peoples (First Nations, Inuit, Métis) (Tupper and Cappello 2008; St. Dennis 2011), Québec’s distinct society (Niens and Chasteney 2008) and student thinking in relation to ethnocultural diversity (Niyozov and Pluim

194

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

2009; Peck et al. 2010). Another area highlighted is the increasing attention to a global dimension of citizenship and some of the inherent challenges, including ideological tensions between the national and the global (Shultz 2007; Richardson and Abbott 2009; Broom 2010) and how certain learning goals are being – or not being – represented in curriculum and instructional practice (Evans et al. 2009; Cook 2008). In addition, Canadian scholars are focusing on Canada’s colonial past and the need for more criticality when considering citizenship themes and issues, asking difficult questions about what and whose knowledge counts (Abdi 2014; Dei 2014). Distinctive dimensions of citizenship education (e.g. diversity, equity and inclusion, regional and global interconnections) have also been evident in discussions leading up to, and in the language of, the new Civics and Citizenship curriculum in Australia. A number of questions and concerns were raised in response to the proposed directions for civics and citizenship described in the Civics and Citizenship Draft Shape Paper. Curriculum Perspectives, 33(1), guest edited by Kerry Kennedy (2013), sought out feedback from international scholars. Encouraging comments were provided in relation to the heightened attention to existing forces and contexts (economic, social, ethnic, political) within and outside Australian society, including Australia’s diversity and moves towards strengthening inclusion (e.g. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) and regional and global connections, particularly Australia’s engagement with Asia. Concerns were also noted in terms of the complexities involved in addressing these themes (Davies 2013; Kennedy 2013; Lee 2013). As in Australia, recent scholarly literature in Canada reveals an increasing level of complexity, variation and contextual nuance across broad conceptual frameworks and distinctive dimensions of citizenship education. While these shifts offer useful conceptual guidance, they present unique challenges that complicate conceptual clarity, and alert us to some of the inherent tensions and ambiguities associated with this dimension of education in theory and practice.

Curriculum policy and reform Responsibility for formal education in Canada remains distributed across its ten provinces and three territories, and all provinces and territories infuse understandings of citizenship as part of the formal curriculum for elementary and secondary school students. As such, similarities exist across the different provincial and territorial curriculum platforms, yet there is also variance.

A View from Canada

195

Curriculum responsibility for citizenship education remains located most often in the Social Studies, History and Social Science curricula, yet threads of citizenship education are becoming more noticeable across a broader range of school subjects and in cross-curricular policy documents in various educational jurisdictions. Recent developments in Australia, unlike Canada, suggest variable levels of federal/state/territorial collaboration in the introduction of Australia’s first national curriculum (Print 2008; Tudball and Henderson 2014) with some states and territories adopting the new curriculum in its entirety and others, particularly Victoria, developing their own version, using the national documents as a framework. There is little history of working together on national educational matters in Canada and policy reform remains predominantly embedded under provincial/territorial jurisdiction. Policy changes in Canada in recent years related to citizenship education have been incremental and often introduced without much financial support. Today, themes such as democratic governance structures and processes; diversity and multiple perspectives; equity and inclusion; active and responsible participation; regional and global interconnections; and the development of student understandings and civic literacy skills to engage in questions and issues of civic importance are evident in most provincial curricula, largely through a liberal/civic republican lens with varied emphases in terms of learning goals and instructional practices (Bickmore 2006, 2014; Hughes and Sears 2008). Bickmore (2014: 261) writes, ‘Canadian social sciences and citizenship curriculum policy documents present an increasingly nuanced, inclusive picture of Canadian society and citizenship, rather than a simple master narrative of nationalistic political history, although they still generally embed mainstream liberal individualist assumptions.’ In Ontario, for example, citizenship education is evident throughout elementary and secondary curricula and is identified as a graduation requirement (http://www. edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/secondary/subjects.html: 0). Generally, citizenship education is viewed as ‘the’ dimension of education in which students are given ‘opportunities to learn about what it means to be a responsible, active citizen in the community of the classroom and the diverse communities to which they belong within and outside the school. It is important for students to understand that they belong to many communities and that, ultimately, they are all citizens of the global community’. More specifically, the Citizenship Education Framework (2013a, The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 9 and 10, Canadian and World Studies: 10, 147–158; 2015, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 and 10, Canadian and World Studies: 13; 2013b, The Ontario Curriculum, Social Studies, Grades 1 to 6, History

196

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

and Geography, Grades 7 and 8: 10), shown below (Figure 11.1), was recently introduced in Ontario to provide general curriculum guidance, with the knowledge and skills outlined in grade and subject-focused curriculum expectations to ‘bring citizenship education to life, not only in Social Studies, History, and Geography, but in many other subjects as well’ (p. 10). The outer circle of the Framework identifies four main themes of citizenship education – active participation (work for the common good in local, national and global communities), identity (a sense of personal identity as a member of various communities), attributes (character traits, values and habits of mind) and structures (power and systems within societies). The second circle outlines a range of core learning goals (knowledge, skills and attitudes) connected

Citizenship Education Framework

• Develop and understanding of the importance of rules and laws

democracy • rules and law • institutions • power and authority • systems

• Develop and understanding of how political, eonomic and social institutions affect their lives

it sw tem sys nd er a (Pow

St

• Develop and understanding of power dynamics

ru

• Develop an understanding of the dynamic and complex relationships within and between systems

ct

ur

indusiveness • equity • • Explore issues related to empathy and respect • personal and societal rights and responsibilities • rights and responsibilities freedom • social cohesion • fairness and justice • citizenship • • Demonstrate self-respect, collaboration and as well as respect and cooperation empathy for others • Develop attitudes that foster civic engagement • Work in a collaborative and critically thoughtful manner

es

so cie tie s)

Figure 11.1 Citizenship Education Framework worksheet.

b tri alue Atraits, v

rt cte ara (Ch

of mi nd )

decision making and voting • influence • confict resoulution and • Build positive relationships peace building • advocacy • with diverse individuals stewardship • leadership • and groups volunteering

• Investigate moral and ethical dimensions of developments, events and issues interconnectedness • beliefs and values • self-efficacy • culture perspective • community

es

• Demonstrate collaborative, innovative problem-solving

• Consider and respect other’s perspectives

ut

( Work f or th e

• Investigate controversial issues

• Develop a sense of their civic self-image

s, ha bit s

• Adopt leadership roles in their community

• Participate in their community

hi n

Id en

ities) mun com ous ari

Act ive Pa rti ci

per son al i de nt ity • Voice informed opinions • Identiy and develop their as a on matters relevant to sense of connectedness to local, their community national and global communities

m

com mo ng oo di nl oc al

,

(A sen se o f

y r of v tit embe

n d tio onal an a p nati

s) unitie omm al c b o gl

A View from Canada

197

to each of the four core themes and associated with ‘responsible’ citizenship. It is expected that teachers encourage the development of these attitudes, understandings and practices as they work to achieve the expectations in the subjects that make up the Canadian and World Studies curriculum (and those in other subjects as well). The innermost circle identifies different terms and topics to be infused into the Canadian and World Studies curriculum as well as those in other curriculum documents. Inquiry is described as the primary learning process for the development of understandings and skills to ‘think critically, solve problems, make informed judgements, and communicate ideas’ (Ministry of Education 2013: 7). A compulsory grade 10 Civics course (fourteen to fifteen years of age), introduced in 2000 (and revised in 2005 and 2013), is a requirement for graduation and emphasizes civic awareness; civic engagement and action; and political inquiry and skill development. Aspects of citizenship education have become more apparent in other subject-based curricula (e.g. Arts, English, Science) and through a variety of cross-curricular policy documents (e.g. Finding Common Ground: Character Development in Ontario Schools, K-12; Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy) in both implicit and explicit ways. These types of curriculum policy developments are noticeable across Canada. They reflect a repositioning of citizenship education in subject-based curricula and cross-curricular documents, a shift in thinking towards those themes and concerns more noticeable in recent theoretical discussions and research. Curricular themes related to being of ‘good character’ and ‘responsible’ and ‘informed about how government works’ and ‘active’ continue to appear to receive particular emphasis. Indeed, character education has emerged as one of the fastest growing areas of education in provincial curricula (Winton 2010). At the same time, concerns have been raised that policy guidance in Canada is often strong in rhetoric but vague in terms of what goals are to be given what priority and/or what depth of coverage is expected, prompting uncertainty about what types of opportunities for learning will be provided. ‘Far less common’, according to Westheimer (2008: 9), ‘are school programs that teach students to think about root causes of injustice or challenge existing social, economic, and political norms as a way to strengthen democracy’. Studies indeed reveal that certain curriculum goals are being privileged – and neglected – through teachers’ communicated or exhibited practices, leaving citizenship learning experiences for students uneven and fragmented. Similarly, responses to the broad learning intentions expressed in the Civics and Citizenship Draft Shape Paper, and outlined in the new Civics and Citizenship curriculum in Australia,

198

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

have been mixed. While there is support for the broad range of learning goals to be informed, active and participatory citizens (from the local to the global) and the progression in citizenship learning from children to adult (Lee 2013), a certain lack of clarity around core concepts and complex learning goals related in particular to different levels of governance (e.g. institutional side of civics and politics, engagement in civil society and increasing attention to the regional and international affairs) is also noted (Davies 2013; Lee 2013; Sears 2013). Concerns have also been raised that the curriculum is too narrow in its intent, overemphasizing knowledge and understanding, with less attention to those learning goals often associated with more transformative orientations (Davies 2013; Lee 2013; Sears 2013). Dejaeghere (2013: 85) points out that where active citizenship is discussed, this often occurs ‘without linking it to specific purposes in society’ allowing ‘for multiple interpretations to be taught in the curriculum, some of which are not necessarily oriented to the larger purpose and values of justice and equality in a liberal democracy’. Policy clarity and intent appear to pose challenges in both countries. These challenges are further complicated by varying governance approaches and levels of intergovernmental collaboration, having implications for coherence and implementation in both contexts.

Attention to teaching and learning practices and resources Official curricula in Canada tend to direct teachers to use a variety of constructivist and interactive learning strategies (e.g. dialogue, mind mapping, independent and collaborative inquiry, personal reflection) that encourage students to become informed, to think critically and reflectively about various aspects of citizenship, to examine a range of current civic themes and issues and to build capacities for active involvement. Specific practices like case analysis, public issue inquiry projects, model town councils, peace-building programmes, public information exhibits, community participation activities, online international linkages and youth forums are examples of classroom and school-wide practices being considered and encouraged (Sears 2004; Evans 2008). Guidance for assessment and evaluation is normally provided for teachers in curriculum policy documents in the form of achievement charts, recommended practices and, in some cases, exemplars of student work. Assessment practices tend to be both formative and summative and in Ontario, for example, focus on four broad areas: knowledge/ understanding, skills and processes, communication and application. A variety of learning resources (e.g. textbooks, online, experiential) have been developed that align with citizenship education’s widening intent in recent years and a few

A View from Canada

199

organizations have undertaken different research and development initiatives to provide professional learning support and instructional guidance for schoolbased practice. While there are many examples of interesting and innovative classroom, school-wide and community-based practices and resources in use in schools across Canada, teachers have significant discretion in terms of how citizenship is taught and assessed and different studies have noted considerable variability and some persisting concerns and questions, including, for example: (1) a certain lack of congruency between goals of citizenship education expressed in curriculum policies and teaching and learning practices experienced in classrooms and schools. There is a continuing emphasis on more traditional, teacher-directed, teaching and learning practices (Evans 2006b; Mundy and Manion 2008). Some studies also note a certain avoidance of beliefs, values and notions of social justice, participation in civic life, conflict and approaches to teaching controversial issues that privilege social cohesion (Bickmore 2006; MacDonald 2013; MacDonald et al. 2015); (2) questions about whose content counts and whose interests are being served. Osborne (2009: 9) examined citizenship education content in francophone, Catholic Québec throughout the twentieth century, finding that more attention was given ‘to such staples of Québec history as Québec’s concern for nationhood, and its struggle to survive as a national entity in the midst of an Anglophone North America and an unsympathetic Canada’. Some Canadian scholars more recently have drawn attention to Canada’s colonial past and the need for more criticality in the selection of content that considers ‘new and difficult questions concerning the erasures, negations, and omissions of histories, representations, cultures and practices’ (Dei 2014: 10); (3) limited attention to, or consideration of, school-based citizenship learning opportunities arising implicitly from school-based policies and guidelines (e.g. patterns of discipline, conflict management within the school, school councils, community service) that shape in different ways ‘the citizenship roles that make up students’ lived citizenship curriculum’ (Bickmore 2014: 270); and (4) inadequate professional learning support for teachers. As citizenship education becomes more sophisticated and teachers find themselves overloaded, concerns are being raised about the provision of suitable

200

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

professional learning support in initial teacher education and in-service professional learning programmes that effectively address the complexities of teaching and learning in democratic classrooms and schools (Bickmore 2005; Evans 2006a). ‘Many teachers, particularly elementary teachers’, as Hughes and Sears (2008: 132) have noted, ‘have very limited backgrounds in citizenship education and moving from standards to actual lesson and lesson plans proves difficult’. Support for professional learning opportunities for citizenship education in Canada, like some of those experienced during the implementation of Discovering Democracy program in Australia, has been limited. Consequently, citizenship learning experiences for students remain largely uneven and fragmented (Llewellyn et al. 2007) and this is especially true for ‘those from less privileged backgrounds who have few opportunities to practice democratically relevant citizenship learning in school’ including those who may have faced barriers to formal education (Bickmore 2014: 258). This situation is further exacerbated by lack of funding, competing educational priorities and citizenship education’s low status.

Concluding reflections Educating for citizenship in schools in Canada continues to evolve, reflective of historical influences and ever-changing contextual pressures. Varying reasons and crises have been used to secure and promote its inclusion on Canada’s provincial education and territorial agendas. Curriculum responsibility for citizenship education continues to be located primarily in the Social Studies, History and Social Science curricula, although its presence is being gradually recognized in a wider range of subject areas and cross-curricular policy documents. Broad learning intentions across provincial and territorial jurisdictions reveal a good deal of similarity, yet also regional nuances. Unlike Australia, which experiences a strong national orientation, Canada continues to pursue a more regional approach, raising questions about the relative merits and shortcomings of more centralized and decentralized approaches to the design and implementation of its educational programmes. Recent characterizations of citizenship education in Canada reveal increasing complexity and diversity, in terms of conceptual understanding and distinctive dimensions. Incremental policy reforms introduced across Canada over the past two decades reflect the inclusion of those learning expectations associated

A View from Canada

201

with citizenship education’s broadening conceptual complexity and diversity. Predictably, a certain lack of clarity and ambiguity are evident across theoretical perspectives and policy frameworks, presenting certain challenges for policy makers and educators trying to determine, for example, what goals are to be given what priority, what depth of coverage is expected and how these intentions may be suitably translated into meaningful practices that support student learning in schooling contexts. Policy clarity and intent appear to pose challenges in both countries. While this situation can be unhelpful, it highlights a need for carefully designed and communicated policy and pedagogical practices that clearly capture citizenship education’s fulsome intent, on the one hand, yet is flexible enough to be responsive to its changing and contested character, on the other hand. There are many examples of inquiry and participatory-oriented classroom, school-wide and community-based teaching and learning practices and resources in use in Canadian schools, yet considerable variability remains. Uneven learning experiences and questions about whose knowledge counts and whose interests are being served continue. Different studies reveal that pedagogical practices associated with certain critical goals of citizenship education (e.g. equity and social justice themes, controversial issues, participatory activities) are complicated and often under-addressed or avoided. Too often, teaching and learning experiences associated with citizenship education tend to remain transmission oriented and passive, and are not sufficient. Ongoing attention to student learning, to the development of participatory and critical approaches to teaching and learning that are congruous with the shifting intentions of citizenship education, to learner diversity and to ongoing professional learning support is needed, if these intentions are to be more broadly experienced and sustained. Researchers continue to undertake useful and interesting work to better understand and assess citizenship education’s positioning in school curricula, the complex processes by which young people learn about citizenship and the role that public education might play in ‘readying’ young people for the challenges of citizenship. As we look to the future, points for further consideration will include, for example: how to ensure more coherent and equitable citizenship learning experiences for all learners in schools; developing pedagogical practices that more suitably respond to citizenship education’s increasingly complex learning goals and diverse populations; exploring global dimensions of citizenship and considering implications for local, provincial, national and regional understandings of citizenship; investigating notions of youth engagement and

202

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

participation; and attending to effective implementation and suitable teacher education, some of which will be similar to those in the Australian context. Lastly, implementation continues to remain an issue for citizenship education in Canada, complicated by a variety of factors (e.g. political shifts, lack of time, a crowded curriculum and competing priorities, hierarchical school cultures). More effective implementation processes and support mechanisms that attend to the broad principles of educational change and a variety of interconnected factors (e.g. classroom and school environment, teaching and learning practices, learner diversity and voice, school leadership, community connections) need ongoing attention. In particular, professional learning support for teachers (initial and continuing) and a steadfast focus on student learning are paramount, if the quality of citizenship education learning experiences is to be improved and sustained. Effective professional learning support and improved learning experiences for students, like some of those experienced in Australia through the Discovering Democracy project, for example, can disappear quickly without ongoing consideration and provision. As such, a variety of unresolved challenges continue, suggesting that citizenship education in Canada today remains very much a work in progress. As both countries grapple with citizenship education’s current circumstances and future directions, it is hoped that understandings gained from recent experiences with citizenship education in schools in Canada, outlined in this chapter, will be helpful in considering and prompting questions about recent developments in civics and citizenship education in Australia and for anticipating and engaging with the challenges that lie ahead, in the light of differing cultural, social and political contexts, and Biesta’s (2011) reminder of the broad environment in and from which young people learn.

References Abdi, A. (2014), ‘Reflecting on Global Dimensions of Contemporary Education’. In D. Montemurro, M. Gambhir, M. Evans and K. Broad (eds), Inquiry into Practice: Learning and Teaching Global Matters in Local Classrooms, 19–21. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Abdi, A. and Shultz, L. (eds) (2008), Educating for Human Rights and Global Citizenship, Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Bickmore, K. (2005), ‘Teacher Development for Conflict Participation: Facilitating Learning for “Difficult Citizenship” Education’, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (2): 2–16.

A View from Canada

203

Bickmore, K. (2006), ‘Democratic Social Cohesion? Assimilation? Representations of Social Conflict in Canadian Public School Curricula’, Canadian Journal of Education, 29 (2): 359–386. Bickmore, K. (2014), ‘Citizenship Education in Canada: “Democratic” Engagement with Differences, Conflicts and Equity Issues?’ Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 9 (3): 257–278. Biesta, G. (2011), Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong Learning, and the Politics of Citizenship, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Broom, C. (2010), ‘Curriculum in the Age of Globalization’, Canadian Social Studies, 43 (1). Available online: www.quasar.ualberta.ca/css (accessed 16 April 2016). Celebration Canada (D. Ramsay, chair) (1998), Components of Citizenship Education: Initiating Action (Submission to the Western Canadian Protocol for Social Studies). Calgary : Spectra Education. Clark, P. and Case, R. (1997), ‘Four Purposes of Citizenship Education’. In P. Clark and R. Case (eds), The Canadian Anthology of Social Studies, 17–27. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University Press. Committee for Effective Canadian Citizenship (Canada) (CECC) (1994), Educating Canada’s 21st Century Citizens: Crisis and Challenge (Report, Advisory Group for the Canadian Association of the Social Studies), Ottawa: CECC. Cook, S. (2008), ‘Give Peace a Chance: The Diminution of Peace in Global Education in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada’, Canadian Journal of Education, 31 (4): 889–914. Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (2001), Education for Peace, Human Rights, Democracy, International Understanding and Tolerance. Published in collaboration with the Canadian Commission for UNESCO. Davies, I. (2013), ‘The Civics and Citizenship Draft Shape Paper from an English Perspective’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 76–78. Dei, G. (2014), ‘Global Dimensions of Contemporary Education’. In D. Montemurro, M. Gambhir, M. Evans and K. Broad (eds), Inquiry into Practice: Learning and Teaching Global Matters in Local Classrooms, 9–11, Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. DeJaeghere, J. (2013), ‘Critical Civics and Citizenship Education: What Kind of “Active Citizen”?’ Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 83–86. ‘Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education Program and Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC).’ Available at: http://www1.curriculum.edu.au /ddunits/units/units.htm (accessed 16 August 2016). Erebus Consulting Group (2003), Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program, 2000–2003, Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Evans, M. (2006a), ‘Characterizations of Citizenship Education Pedagogy in Canada and England: Implications for Teacher Education’, International Journal of Citizenship, Teaching and Learning, 2 (4): 40–54. Evans, M. (2006b), ‘Educating for Citizenship: What Teachers Say and What Teachers Do’, Canadian Journal of Education, 29 (2): 410–435.

204

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Evans, M. (2008), ‘Citizenship Education, Pedagogy, and School Contexts’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), International Handbook of Citizenship and Democracy, 519–532. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Evans, M., Ingram, L., MacDonald, A. and Weber, N. (2009), ‘Mapping the Global Dimension of Citizenship Education in Canada: The Complex Interplay Between Theory, Practice, and Context’, Citizenship, Teaching and Learning, 5 (2): 16–34. Hébert, Y. (2002), Citizenship in Transformation in Canada, Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Hodgetts, A. B. (1968), What Culture? What Heritage? A Study of Civic Education in Canada, Toronto: OISE Press. Hughes, A. and Sears, A. (2008), ‘The Struggle for Citizenship Education in Canada: The Centre Cannot Hold’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), International Handbook of Citizenship and Democracy, 124–139. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Joshee, R. (2004), ‘Citizenship and Multicultural Education in Canada: From Assimilation to Social Cohesion’. In J. Banks (ed.), Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives, 127–158. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kennedy, K. J. (2013), ‘Civics and Citizenship in the Australian Curriculum: Global Perspectives’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 75. Kymlicka, W. (1995), ‘Multicultural Citizenship’. In G. Shafir (ed.), The Citizenship Debates, 167–188. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kymlicka, W. (2007), ‘Ethnocultural Diversity in a Liberal State: Making Sense of the Canadian Model(s)’. In K. Banting, T. Courchene and L. Seidle (eds), Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, 39–86. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy. Lee, W. O. (2013), ‘The Shaping and Reshaping of Citizenship Education in Australia’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 79–82. Llewellyn, K., Cook, S., Westheimer, J., Giron, L. A. and Suurtamm, K. (2007), The State and Potential of Civic Learning in Canada. Charting the Course for Youth Civic and Political Participation (Canadian Policy Research Networks Report). MacDonald, A. (2013), Considerations of Identity in Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Teaching Controversial Issues Under Conditions of Globalization: A Critical Democratic Perspective from Canada. Unpublished Dissertation, OISE/University of Toronto. MacDonald, A., Evans, M., Ingram, L. A. and Weber, N. (2015), ‘A Question of How: A Report on Teachers’ Instructional Practices When Educating for Global Citizenship in Canada’. In J. Harshman, T. Augustine and M. M. Merryfield (eds), Research in Global Citizenship Education, 83–118. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. McLeod, K. A. (1989), Exploring Citizenship Education: Education for Citizenship in Canada and Citizenship Education, Toronto: Canadian Education Association. Mundy, K. and Manion, C. (2008), ‘Global Education in Canadian Elementary Schools: An Exploratory Study’, Canadian Journal of Education, 31 (4): 941–974. Niens, U. and Chasteney, M. (2008), ‘Educating for Peace? Citizenship Education in Quebec and Northern Ireland’, Comparative Education Review, 52 (4): 519–540.

A View from Canada

205

Niyozov, S. and Pluim, G. (2009), Teachers’ Perspectives on the Education of Muslim Students: A Missing Voice in Muslim Education Research’, Curriculum Inquiry, 39 (5): 637–677. Ontario Ministry of Education (2008), Finding Common Ground: Character Development in Ontario Schools, K-12, 16–24. Ontario Ministry of Education (2013a), Civics, Canadian and World Studies, The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 and 10, 147–158. Ontario Ministry of Education (2013b), The Ontario Curriculum Grades 9 and 10: Canadian and World Studies, 10, 147–158. Ontario Ministry of Education (2013c), The Ontario Curriculum: Social Studies, Grades 1 to 6, History and Geography, Grades 7 and 8, 10. Ontario Ministry of Education (2015), he Ontario Curriculum Grades 11 and 12: Canadian and World Studies, 13. Osborne, K. (1996), ‘Education Is the Best National Insurance: Citizenship Education in Canadian Schools Past and Present’, Canadian and International Education, 25 (2): 33–58. Osborne, K. (2001), ‘Democracy, Democratic Citizenship, and Education’. In J. P. Portelli and R. P. Solomon (eds), The Erosion of Democracy in Education. Calgary : Detselig Enterprises. Osborne, K. (2009), ‘History and Citizenship Education: A New Approach in Québec’, Manitoba Social Science Teacher, 26 (2): 5–17. Peck, C., Thompson, L., Chareka, O., Joshee, R. and Sears, A. (2010), ‘From Getting Along to Democratic Engagement: Moving Toward Deep Diversity in Citizenship Education’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 6 (1): 61–75. Print, M. (1999), ‘Building Democracy for the Twenty-First Century: Rediscovering Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia’. In C. Bahmueller and J. Patrick (eds), Principles and Practices of Education for Democratic Citizenship, 187–208. Bloomington, IN: Eric Clearinghouse. Print, M. (2008), ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship in Australia’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), International Handbook of Citizenship and Democracy, 94–108. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Richardson, G. and Abbott, L. (2009), ‘Between the National and the Global: Exploring Tensions in Canadian Citizenship Education’, Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism, 9 (3): 377–394. Sears, A. (1996), ‘Something Different to Everyone: Conceptions of Citizenship and Citizenship Education’, Canadian and International Education, 25 (2): 1–15. Sears, A. (2004), ‘In Search of Good Citizens: Citizenship Education and Social Studies in Canada’. In A. Sears and I. Wright (eds), Challenges and Prospects in Canadian Social Studies, 90–106. Vancouver: Pacific Education Press. Sears, A. (2013), ‘Australia’s New Civics and Citizenship Draft Shape Paper: A Significant Step Backward’, Curriculum Perspectives, 33 (1): 87–89. Shultz, L. (2007), ‘Educating for Global Citizenship: Conflicting Agendas and Understandings’, The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 53 (3): 248–258.

206

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Strong-Boag, V. (1996), ‘Claiming a Place in the Nation: Citizenship Education and the Challenge of Feminists, Natives, and Workers in Post Confederation Canada’, Canadian and International Education, 25 (2): 128–145. St. Dennis, V. (2011), ‘Silencing Aboriginal Curricular Content and Perspectives Through Multiculturalism: “There Are Other Children Here” ’, Review of Education, Pedagogy & Cultural Studies, 33 (4): 306–317. Tudball, L. and Henderson, D. J. (2014), ‘Contested Notions of Civics and Citizenship Education as National Education in the Australian Curriculum’, Curriculum and Teaching, 29 (2): 5–24. Tupper, J. and Cappello, M. (2008), ‘Teaching the Treaties as (Un)usual Narratives: Disrupting the Curricular Commonsense’, Curriculum Inquiry, 35 (1): 559–578. Westheimer, J. (2008), ‘What Kind of Citizen: Democratic Dialogues in Education’, Education Canada, 48 (3): 6–10. Westheimer, J. (2010), ‘No Child Left Thinking: Democracy at Risk in Canada’s Schools’, Education Canada, 50 (2): 5–8. Westheimer, J. and Kahne, J. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2): 237–269. Winton, S. (2010), ‘Character Development and Critical Democratic Education in Ontario, Canada’, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 9 (2): 220–237.

12

Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from England Ian Davies

Introduction In 1985 Alan Reid wrote an article entitled An outsider’s view of political education in England: Past, present and future. This was (as might be expected) a highly valuable overview that was constructively and insightfully argued. I am attempting to follow Reid’s example by using my experience of citizenship education, principally in England but also in many other parts of the world, by expressing support and some concern for the future of civics and citizenship education in Australia. I will be principally discussing England and at times referring to a limited range of Australian Curriculum documents. Whereas Reid had spent a year in the United Kingdom prior to writing his article, I have never visited Australia, and have been only a spectator of Australian Curriculum developments since the 1970s, including Discovering Democracy and other citizenship education initiatives. It is possible – perhaps probable  – that at least some of the remarks I make in the following are simple misunderstandings and not congruent with the guidelines or the latest issues established for the development of the Australian Curriculum. But my comments are meant respectfully and positively and I attempt to discuss the four key areas of policy, curriculum, teaching in schools and teacher education, before making some conclusions and recommendations. In doing so, and where appropriate, I will look to draw some comparisons between England and Australia.

208

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Policy interventions England’s commitment to citizenship education has been sporadic, and the official approach has been characterized by long periods of neglect. This, of course, does not mean that political issues have not affected schools or that political learning has not taken place. Rather it means that a professional approach to a vitally important part of education has been ignored (Heater 2004). In England we are currently experiencing a lack of official interest in citizenship education. It remains as a subject in the National Curriculum (reaffirmed in 2014), but the attention devoted to it is now very considerably less than it once was. It seems to me that the context and process for the introduction of citizenship education by policy makers is similar in England and Australia. I welcome the way in which the context for this work has been sketched. For example, in Australia, Global integration and international mobility have increased rapidly in the past decade. As a consequence, new and exciting opportunities for Australians are emerging. This heightens the need to nurture an appreciation of, and respect for, social, cultural and religious diversity, and a sense of global citizenship. (ACARA 2012)

Further, the aims for the Civics and Citizenship curriculum, which seem laudable, connect clearly to the overall aims of education and schooling: All Australian governments have committed to the goals of the Melbourne Declaration, which are that Australian schooling promotes equity and excellence, and that all young Australians become successful learners, confident and creative individuals, and active and informed citizens. (ACARA 2012; emphasis added)

There were, in the late 1990s, similarly positive statements made about citizenship education in England with commitment to ‘change the political culture’ (QCA 1998: 7) through the teaching of democracy. The process for policy development also seems similar to the situation in England. In the last two decades, Australia has moved towards the adoption of a national curriculum, under the auspices of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). In his outline of events that culminated in the national curriculum, ACARA chair Professor Barry McGaw (n.d.) shows that curriculum policy development has not been entered into lightly. Historically, it has been based on a series of ministerial policy resolutions, including the Hobart Declaration (1989), the Adelaide Declaration (1999) and the Melbourne Declaration (2008).

A View from England

209

The overarching process is inclusive of a range of stakeholders with opportunities for comment on curriculum shaping and curriculum writing. The nature of consultations seems to me to appropriately encourage comment about various matters including the direction and rationale and aims; the organization and structure of the curriculum; the appropriateness of knowledge, understanding and skills; and how general capabilities complement CrossCurriculum Priorities. In England, and with reference specifically to education for citizenship, an expert group was established to produce what became known as the Crick Report (QCA 1998), which was immediately accepted by the Secretary of State for Education David Blunkett (a former student of Crick’s) and Tony Blair’s New Labour government. In Australia there seems to be a similar role for public figures, with the curriculum consultation process receiving responses from a range of academics, interest groups and teaching associations. However, there are clear warning signs from England. The introduction of citizenship education in the curriculum took concerted political effort and, in the late 1990s, Crick was very well positioned to lead this effort. However, once the government changed in 2010 from the previous Labour government to a Conservative–Liberal coalition government, the focus on citizenship education faded quickly. Crick had tried hard to take citizenship into an educational consensus but failed. He deliberately appointed to his committee people who occupied different places on the political spectrum and was ready to take advantage of an earlier Conservative government’s formulation of the National Curriculum, which meant that the introduction (or withdrawal) of a subject would require an Act of Parliament. However, shortly before the 2010 general election, the person who would become the new secretary of state for education, Michael Gove, was insisting that a change in the political culture would occur (and this would not be the ‘change in political culture’ that was previously envisaged): We will tackle head on the defeatism, the political correctness and the entrenched culture of dumbing down that is at the heart of our educational establishment  …  Out of touch bureaucrats have imposed faddy ideologies on our schools which ignore the evidence of what really works in education. Teachers have been deprived of professional freedom. (Gove 2009)

Such assertions were driven by some laudable intentions. Gove is a politician who appears determined to promote social justice. Being adopted as a child and helped to achieve a great deal professionally has perhaps led him to be very

210

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

vocal in favour of those who are less fortunate. In 2015, in his role as minister of justice, he declared that the legal system must be made to work fairly and not to disregard the rights of the underprivileged. In his earlier role as the secretary of state for education (2010–2014) he was similarly determined, as is shown in the following quotation: More children from one public school – Westminster – make it to the top universities than the entire population of poor boys and girls on free school meals. This waste of talent, this squandering of human potential, this grotesque failure to give all our fellow citizens an equal chance is a reproach to our conscience. It can’t be allowed to continue. (Gove 2010)

There are two significant problems, however, with his approach. First, the strength of his determination was such that he became a political liability in education, being effectively sacked in 2014 and replaced with someone who was felt to be better able to communicate. Gove’s (2014) characterization of education professionals as ‘the Blob’, an alien aggressive threat as portrayed in a 1950s science fiction film, is just one example of the ways in which dialogue was conducted. This approach was not designed to win hearts and minds but to achieve particular concrete objectives. Second, the means by which actions were taken involved the removal of much of the regulatory system. The powers that remained were largely with his own central government office and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). The educational role and power of local government in England, which has traditionally been a key organizer and locus of educational authority, was significantly reduced. University departments of education were not deemed reliable. Schools were to be empowered to do what they could to achieve something better. More will be said below about the current position of the school system, the National Curriculum and teacher education. For the moment, I simply note that the research and inspection evidence that had been presented about citizenship education (as well as all the statements by government that highlighted the need to respect such evidence) were disregarded (for examples of the research and inspection evidence available regarding citizenship education in England, see Keating et al. 2009, 2010; Ofsted 2010, Whiteley 2012). After 2010 curriculum policy would be whatever central government ministers deemed necessary; and it would be enforced by a combination of the national inspection agency and the market in which schools would now compete against each other.

A View from England

211

Curricular structures In very general terms we need to consider the meaning and purpose of curriculum. Smith (2000) has suggested that there are four key perspectives about what should be taught and learned: liberal (the best that has been thought and done); scientific/managerial (ensuring that there are clear links with what a person needs to know and be able to do including in terms of one’s place in the economy); developmental (focusing on the needs of the individual child as he or she grows up); and social meliorism (a determination to ensure that what is taught and learned has at least the potential to make the world a better place). There is almost always commitment by policy makers to all four of these approaches but there is usually an emphasis on one more than others. There is also usually a particular interpretation of what these things mean. I suggest below that in England, since 2010, there has been a much stronger commitment than hitherto in the determination to achieve a particular vision of what is best for society and therefore education. In other words, in the current political climate, social meliorism is emphasized. The reliance on ideology has been greatly strengthened and the way that is played out is to reduce regulation, increase the power of schools and promote opportunities for flexibility and competition, while stressing traditional academic knowledge and traditional values or character. The way in which a similar blending of neo-liberal and socially conservative educational policies has developed in Australia is hard for me to read from the documentation that is publically available, though – similarly to England – there is clearly a prioritizing by politicians of schools’ performance in high-stakes educational education assessments, both national (i.e. the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy, or NAPLAN) and international (i.e. the Programme for International Assessment, or PISA). There are, however, many commentators who suggest that something similar is occurring in both Australia and England in the commitment to the strengthening of centralized power and the purpose of schools at least partly through changes to the curriculum (see, for example, Rizvi and Lingard 2010), although the specific policy solution in relation to a national curriculum is strikingly different. Whereas Australia is embracing a national curriculum, England is retreating from it. With the Education Reform Act of 1988, the National Curriculum became of fundamental importance in England. It seemed in 2010 that this would remain. However, Gove declared the urgent need to reform the National Curriculum so as to address the problems he felt had been allowed to develop:

212

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

We have sunk in international league tables and the National Curriculum is substandard. Meanwhile the pace of economic and technological change is accelerating and our children are being left behind. The previous curriculum failed to prepare us for the future. We must change course. Our review will examine the best school systems in the world and give us a world-class curriculum that will help teachers, parents and children know what children should learn at what age. (Gove 2011)

The National Curriculum was duly reformed and more will be written below about the detail of that outcome in relation to citizenship education. But it is also necessary to make clear that by 2014 the context for the curriculum had changed very dramatically. Structural reform had led to a much stronger emphasis on academies. These schools – which were allowed greater freedoms than others – had been introduced by Labour governments in order to allow for urgent and immediate action to be taken where an existing school was deemed to have failed. Since 2010, that policy had been developed so that, in effect, all schools have been very strongly encouraged to become academies and, at the time of writing (April 2016), just more than half of all maintained (those schools which remain under the control of local education authorities) have gained that status, and the government has recently announced plans to make all state schools become academies. These schools do not have to employ qualified teachers, are not governed by local authorities and, most importantly for the purposes of this part of this chapter, do not have to follow the National Curriculum. Greater freedoms are offered to the recently introduced Free Schools which also do not have to follow the National Curriculum. In this context it is possible to suggest that discussions about the precise nature of the National Curriculum are somewhat irrelevant. Schools may follow the National Curriculum but may choose not to. Another reason for the need to reflect carefully on this context is that the current government has developed initiatives beyond the National Curriculum that are relevant to citizenship education. For example, character education is now officially supported. That initiative is explained as follows: Schools may apply to be recognized as a leader in character education. Programmes should develop • perseverance, resilience and grit • confidence and optimism • motivation, drive and ambition • neighbourliness and community spirit

A View from England

213

• tolerance and respect • honesty, integrity and dignity • conscientiousness, curiosity and focus. (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/dfe-character-awards -application-window-now-open, May 2015)

There is some debate about the meaning of such an initiative with Kristjansson (2013), for example, arguing that although there are some problems with character education it is not reasonable to suggest that it is unclear, redundant, old-fashioned, religious, paternalistic, anti-democratic, conservative, individualistic, relative and situation dependent. It may be the case that in Australia’s commitment to both civics and citizenship there is also a determination to ensure that social, political and moral issues are covered. As well as promoting collective identification and critique, there is perhaps in both countries also an emphasis on individual responsibility and a requirement for engagement to do the ‘right’ thing, an emphasis which features strongly in the recent review of the Australian Curriculum (Australian Government 2014). This rather dynamic approach leads to interesting outcomes. In England, at the same time as a form of moral education is being promoted, attention is also focused on traditionally high-status academic material. Gove has suggested that We urgently need to ensure our children study rigorous disciplines instead of pseudo-subjects. Otherwise we will be left behind. Children are growing up ignorant of one of the most inspiring stories I know – the history of our United Kingdom. (Gove 2010)

History is more respected than citizenship education. This particular emphasis on the history of the state is very interesting given the UK’s particular approach to devolution and diversity. Crick declared (somewhat controversially) his commitment to an idea put forward by Hannah Arendt that ‘A citizen is by definition a citizen among citizens of a country among countries’ (Crick 2000: 137). This debate is extremely complex. The distinctions between unitary nations, a centralized political state and a version of cultural pluralism that sees national identity as artificially constructed or as serving the interests of only some and not all lead to uncertainties and sharp disagreements (Kymlicka 1995; Giddens 1998; Kim 2011). Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown (2009) suggested that over three centuries  …  a common ground of Britishness, of British identity, can be found in the stories of the various communities and nationalities … We

214

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

have shown that, too, that a strong sense of shared patriotism can be built that relies not on race or on ancient and unchanging institutions, but rather on a foundation of values that can be shared by all of us, regardless of race, region or religion. (2009: 27)

That sort of intervention by a serving politician is viewed differently depending on one’s academic, social and political perspective. I suggest that this is of particular interest to the Australian context given the existence of a federal state (Macintyre with Clark 2004) and very complex and, at times, tragic circumstances in relation to debates and practices of inclusion and ethnic diversity. The possibility of the comments in the Australian National Curriculum documentations being rather superficial about Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and the Australian state is perhaps an indication of a challenge being postponed (see, for example, Chapter 4 in this volume). The Review of the Australian Curriculum (Australian Government 2014) and the specific comments on civics and citizenship by Professor Twomey seem to settle this controversial issue decisively in a particular direction – one which prioritizes Australia’s relationship with the West. The argument for greater focus on Western civilization and Australia’s Judeo-Christian heritage in the History curriculum, as well as the perceived need for a greater emphasis on constitutional issues, gives the same sort of perspective across civics and character education that is being experienced in England. Twomey – a constitutional lawyer – has declared that more is needed on constitutional matters; the general review has declared that we need more on a particular approach to culture. The congruence in this respect between civics and citizenship in Australia and citizenship and character education in England is very interesting. The detail of the versions of citizenship education in the National Curriculum in England reveals these trends. Until 2014, the citizenship education National Curriculum focused on the following: Key concepts (rights and responsibilities; democracy and justice; identity and diversity) Key processes (critical thinking and enquiry; advocacy and representation; participation and taking informed and responsible action) Range and content. (Department for Children Schools and Families and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007) This meant that, up to 2014, there was a strong conceptual core (inspired by political literacy and incorporating influences that emphasize communities

A View from England

215

and identities at local, national and global levels) which was contemporary, public, participative and reflective. The blend of substantive and procedural concepts was particularly interesting. Indeed it is recognized in the Review of the Australian Curriculum (2014: 43) that ‘the key feature of countries which perform best in international benchmarking tests is the conceptualisation capacity of students’. Further, students in England were being encouraged to understand what citizenship meant but were also being encouraged to be citizens and to learn through that engagement. The current (2014) version of England’s Citizenship curriculum also allows for important things to be understood and there is a determination that action will be taken. However, it is very different from the previous version. Students should ●

●

● ●

acquire a sound knowledge and understanding of how the United Kingdom is governed, its political system and how citizens participate actively in its democratic systems of government develop a sound knowledge and understanding of the role of law and the justice system in our society and how laws are shaped and enforced develop an interest in, and commitment to, participation in volunteering [be] equipped with the skills to think critically and debate political questions, to enable them to manage their money on a day-to-day basis, and plan for future financial needs. (Department for Education 2013)

The first two bullet points essentially cover civics; perhaps in the Australian context they would be seen as constitutional and judicial matters. The criticism by Professor Twomey (Australian Government 2014: 195) of the way in which the draft Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum ‘jump[ed] from topic to topic without any thematic link between them’ seems to apply also to the 2014 version of the English National Curriculum for citizenship. The third bullet point is mainly concerned with volunteering, which may bring many benefits to a variety of people, but the absence of any mention of learning is interesting. The final point (usefully expanded following criticism of an earlier draft so that wider societal issues would be included) focuses on personal money management. This is perhaps understandable at a time of austerity and in the light of the greater individual responsibility that is now part of a wider policy for schools and elsewhere in society, when debt levels are high and increasing participation in higher education comes only with payment of recently increased fees. But it is very different from the version that existed up to 2014 and the educational rationale

216

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

is not clear. What is strikingly apparent is the commitment to knowing how the political and legal systems work, the emphasis on the need to contribute to society as welfare is reduced and the priority given to managing one’s finances responsibly. In my view, those with academic and professional experience of education will consider such an obviously ideological approach that is aligned with current political priorities as inappropriate for the development of citizenship education.

Teaching in schools Citizenship education has experienced many significant political and pedagogical challenges. Unusually, as a result of the National Foundation for Educational Research’s (NFER) citizenship education longitudinal study (CELS), as well as national inspection agency (Ofsted) reports and other smaller-scale work by individual academics, we have a good understanding of what works in England. The general picture has been one of success. There is some evidence from Australia about previous initiatives in civics and related areas, but I have refrained from drawing on it here as the issue principally being discussed in this chapter is the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum, for which, of course, no evidence of practical success yet exists. I have deliberately omitted discussions about Discovering Democracy and other matters – including my own review (Davies and Issitt 2005) of the comparisons between Australian, Canadian and English textbooks – as being somewhat beyond the remit of this chapter or my own capacities. I can, however, comment on what happened in England. The NFER concluded that the best practices were achieved if work was organized in particular ways: The format, timing and duration of the citizenship learning experience are crucial variables: the CELS analysis has indicated that the cohort was more likely to have high(er) levels of ‘received citizenship’ (and by extension, better citizenship outcomes) if they have attended a school where CE is • delivered in a discrete slot in the timetable of over 45 minutes per week • developed by the teachers who are delivering the citizenship curriculum rather than the school’s PSHE coordinator • formally examined (e.g. as part of the GCSE in Citizenship) • delivered regularly throughout the cohort’s educational experience. (Keating et al. 2010: p. vii)

Success emerges when key people in schools understand citizenship and support it. It means that a variety of practical mechanisms, including

A View from England

217

examination-based work, whole school initiatives such as school councils and the atmosphere within which teaching and learning takes place, are all important. This last point has, for many years, been emphasized. Hahn (1998), as well as work undertaken under the auspices of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), referred to the importance of ethos, as well as the value of creating space for open, critical, constructive discussion. Such approaches have been promoted through teaching resources that are research based. Huddleston and Kerr’s (2006) outline of how to implement citizenship education in schools and elsewhere is an excellent resource for all teachers. It is a world away from the simplistic and unhelpful guides to character education that are proliferating. At times these new resources about character are aligned with military ethos, of which the following is an example endorsed by the UK Department for Education: A, B, C, D building blocks of character’ model: A: altruism B: bounce back C: comfort zone busting D: destination Commando Joe’s provides trained instructors and challenging schoolfocused activities. (Department for Education and Morgan, 2014)

Clay and Thomas’ (2014) review of the research evidence about this particular initiative which is cited on the government’s web pages, may not be very helpful as it ‘was not designed as, nor intended to be, a rigorous evaluation of the Military Ethos AP [Alternative Provision] projects or the programme as a whole’ (2014: 2). There is much debate about the strengths and weaknesses of teaching citizenship education as an identified and specific timetabled curriculum subject as well as by infusion through a longer-established subject. The research evidence suggests that the former is much to be preferred. Whitty, Rowe and Aggleton (1994) raised the possibilities that infusion would make it difficult for students to know what they were expected to learn. My own work in relation to history (Arthur et al. 2001), science (Davies 2004) and drama education (Ikeno et al. 2015) suggests that there is great potential, but also some significant challenges to be overcome, if one is to effectively address citizenship learning goals. This is not to suggest that there are no links between citizenship and other subjects or to argue that schools do not promote citizenship throughout all their work. Rather, if a school subject is to have a chance of being successful, then its characterization should be coherent and well defined. While it is the case that all

218

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

students should be encouraged to understand and act as citizens, it is unlikely that all teachers will have the necessary expertise to allow that to happen. While it would be obviously ridiculous to ask someone with my particular subject expertise to teach science, for example, it should logically be accepted that another subject specialist cannot be expected to cope with all the demands of citizenship education. There are many whole school initiatives that can be of great value in teaching and learning citizenship. Mock elections, school councils and individual special events can help raise the profile of key issues, encourage young people to see the significance of events for their own lives and help them to develop the skills to take part. In various publications (e.g. Davies 2011) I have sketched some of the ways in which things might be organized to achieve the potential that exists for citizenship education. It is also possible – and I would argue, desirable – to go beyond the school gates so that there are educational links made with partners in the local, national and global communities. Many schools are already doing excellent work but there are often challenging issues to overcome (Davies et al. 2014). There may be very good opportunities to consider using social media (Davies and Sant 2014) and to explore the means by which people take part in the public sphere (Davies, Evans and Peterson 2014). Perhaps this area of activity can be best summed up as a dimension of social life, with its own norms and decision rules  …  a set of activities, which can be (and historically has been) carried out by private individuals, private charities and even private firms as well as public agencies. It is symbiotically linked to the notion of public interest, in principle distinct from private interests; central to it are the values of citizenship, equity and service  …  It is  …  a space for forms of human flourishing which cannot be bought in the market place or found in the tight-knit community of the clan or family. (Marquand 2004: 27)

It may be possible to promote engagement through education and to see education as taking place within different groups. Of course, there is a need to maintain the distinction between activism and education: the former on occasion may close down opportunities for debate and understanding, while the latter always seeks to promote such opportunities. But there is much to be learned from developing explicit interactions between classroom-based insights and so-called ‘real’ situations. And both classroom-based and community-based learning can be assessed appropriately as well as taught.

A View from England

219

Teacher education The Review of the Australian Curriculum (2014) frequently mentions the importance of teachers and their professional development. I will not explore in any detail Australian arrangements for teacher education but rather comment on the revolution that has developed since 2010 in the English context. I have mentioned above that, for the majority of maintained schools, there is no longer a requirement for a school to employ qualified teachers. It may be the case that schools will continue to employ professionals but this remains to be seen in the context of an increase in student numbers that is already beginning to appear in primary schools and will soon be seen in secondary schools. More teachers will be needed at a time when it is challenging to recruit. During the 1990s the Conservative government attempted to transform initial teacher education, insisting that schools would be in the lead and that university Departments of Education would not contribute as much as previously. Those reforms had a significant impact on the nature of teacher education. Training (rather than education) became the key label for beginning teachers and the time spent in schools during a pre-service teacher preparation course had, by the mid-1990s, increased to two thirds of a thirty-six-week graduate course. A good deal of work went into the development of a radically different model in which the old theory–practice divide between universities and schools disappeared to be replaced by higher education’s offer of wider-angled insights into teaching and learning and school-based, more precisely focused, considerations of what could be done within an individual institution. By 2009/10 the annual Ofsted report on teacher training concluded the following: There was more outstanding initial teacher education delivered by higher education-led partnerships than by school-centred initial teacher training partnerships and employment-based routes  …  It shows that the overall effectiveness of the very large majority of training programmes based in a higher education institution is good or better, with just under a half outstanding (30 out of 64) … For school-centred provision, the proportion that is outstanding is much lower than that found in higher education institutions. (Ofsted 2010: 59–60)

Almost immediately following the presentation of this report the government moved in effect to transfer teacher training to schools. In Gove’s view, membership of the ‘Blob’ (see above) was deemed to be particularly high in university Departments of Education. It is anticipated that in the next five years

220

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

the role of higher education will, in most training partnerships, be limited to the assessment of some written assignments. In its commitment to training ‘the next outstanding generation of teachers’, the government decided in 2011 to commit to School Direct and School-Centred Initial Teacher Training which reaffirms the government’s commitment to recruiting the very best graduates into teaching, securing better value from the public investment in ITT, and reforming training so that more ITT is led by schools. (Department for Education 2011: 3)

These changes present challenges to teacher education as a whole, but also specifically for citizenship teacher education. Unlike many other subjects (including maths, English, science, history and geography), those pre-service teachers specializing in citizenship education no longer receive a bursary from the government to support their studies. In addition, and not to neglect the excellent practice in many schools, the lack of universal recognition and effective teaching of citizenship in English schools raises questions about their overall effectiveness to educate the citizenship teachers of the future. While the locating of teacher education into schools that has happened in England in recent years has not occurred in Australia to the same extent, it is worth posing the question as to how (and perhaps even if) pre-service teachers in the Humanities and Social Sciences will experience civics and citizenship while on their practical experience placements in schools, given that the subject is new to the curriculum.

Conclusions and recommendations The prospect of an Australian national curriculum that entitles all learners to professionally framed, research-based knowledge is very exciting. The fact that civics and citizenship is to be included is, for me, something that is hugely encouraging and impressive. The experience of England shows both that policy and practice for citizenship education can be successfully developed, and unfortunately that education in a very short period of time can become the subject of ideological, evidence-free assertions that align principally with current political priorities. We have the evidence to be able to claim that until 2014 we had a conceptually based curriculum that was becoming increasingly embedded and secured. We also now know – especially since the general election result of 2015 in which a Conservative-led coalition was replaced by a Conservative government – that the prospect generally for education and more specifically

A View from England

221

for citizenship education seems clear. Schools will compete against each other. Fewer teachers will be qualified. Citizenship education will be replaced by character education. The challenge for those who think that there are benefits to a professional, research-based education system is to think creatively and act responsibly. Current situations need to be researched and practical resources need to be developed. As that work continues I look forward very positively to what I hope will be a successful development in Australia.

References ACARA (2012), Curriculum Development Process (Version 6), Sydney : Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. Arthur, J., Davies, I., Haydn, T., Kerr, D. and Wrenn, A. (2001), Citizenship Through Secondary History, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Australian Government (2014), Review of the Australian Curriculum: Final Report, Department of Education and Training. Available online: https://docs.education .gov.au/system/files/doc/other/review_of_the_national_curriculum_final_report.pdf (accessed 12 July 2015). Brown, G. (2009), ‘Introduction’. In M. d’Ancona (ed.), Being British: The Search for the Values That Bind the Nation, 25–34. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing. Clay, D. and Thomas, D. (2014), Review of Military Ethos Alternative Provision Projects. Research Brief, London: Department for Education. Available online: https://www .gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/383311/DFE -RB392_Military_ethos_alternative_provision_projects_review.pdf (accessed 9 March 2014). Crick, B. (2000), Essays on Citizenship, London: Continuum. Davies, I. (2004), ‘Science and Citizenship Education’, International Journal of Science Education, 26 (14): 1751–1763. Davies, I. (2011), 100+ Ideas for Teaching Citizenship, London: Continuum. Davies, I. and J. Issitt (2005), ‘Reflections on Citizenship Education Textbooks in England, Canada and Australia’, Comparative Education, 41 (4): 389–410. Davies, I and Sant, E. (2014), ‘Perceptions of Students and Teachers in England About How Social Media Are Used (and How They Could Be Used) in Schools and Elsewhere’. In B. D. Loader, A. Vromen and M. Xenos (eds), The Networked Young Citizen: Social Media, Political Participation and Civic Engagement, 131–157. New York: Routledge. Davies, I., Evans, M. and Peterson, A. (2014), ‘Civic Activism, Engagement and Education: Issues and Trends’, Journal of Social Science Education, 13 (4): 2–10.

222

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Davies, I., Sundaram, V., Hampden-Thompson, G., Tsouroufli, M., Bramley, G., Breslin, T. and Thorpe, T. (2014), Creating Citizenship Communities: Education, Young People and the Role of Schools, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Department for Children Schools and Families and Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2007), The National Curriculum Statutory Requirements for Key Stages 3 and 4, London: DCSF/QCA. Department for Education (2011), Training the Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers: Implementation Plan. Available online: https://www.gov.uk /government/publications/training-our-next-generation-of-outstanding-teachers -implementation-plan (accessed 12 July 2015). Department for Education (2013), The National Curriculum in England, London: Department for Education. Department for Education and N. Morgan (2014), Measures to Help Schools Instil Character in Pupils Announced, Press release, 8 December 2014. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/measures-to-help-schools-instil-character -in-pupils-announced (accessed 12 July 2015). Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press. Gove, M. (2009), ‘Failing Schools Need New Leadership’, speech to the Conservative Party Annual Conference, 7 October 2009. Gove, M. (2010), ‘All Pupils Will Learn Our Island Story’, speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 5 October 2010. Gove, M. (2011) National Curriculum Review Launched. Available online: https://www .gov.uk/government/news/national-curriculum-review-launched (accessed 14 October 2015). Gove, M. (2014) ‘I Refuse to Surrender to the Marxist Teachers Hell-bent on Destroying Our Schools’, Daily Mail. 24th March. Available online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ debate/article-2298146/I-refuse-surrender-Marxist-teachers-hell-bent-destroying -schools-Education-Secretary-berates-new-enemies-promise-opposing-plans.html (accessed 14 October). Hahn, C. (1998), Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education, Albany : State University of New York. Heater, D. (2004), A History of Education for Citizenship, London: RoutledgeFalmer. Huddleston, T. and Kerr, D. (2006), Making Sense of Citizenship: A Continuing Professional Development Handbook, London: DfES, Association for Citizenship Teaching and Citizenship Foundation. Ikeno, N., Watanabe, J., Fukazawa, H., Olive, S. E., Shawyer, C., Elliott, V. and Davies, I. (2015), ‘Drama and Citizenship: Is There a Connection?’ Citizenship Teaching & Learning, 10 (3): 237–250. Keating, A., Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Featherstone, G. and Benton, T. (2009), Embedding Citizenship Education in Secondary Schools in England (2002–08): Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Seventh Annual Report (DCSF Research Brief 172), London: DCSF.

A View from England

223

Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Munday, E. and Lopes, J. (2010), Citizenship Education in England 2001–2010: Young People’s Practices and Prospects for the Future: The Eighth and Final Report from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS), London: Department for Education. Kim, N. K. (2011), ‘Deliberative Multiculturalism in New Labour’s Britain’, Citizenship Studies, 15 (1): 125–144. Kristjánsson, K. (2013), ‘Ten Myths About Character, Virtue and Virtue Education – Plus Three Well-Founded Misgivings’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 61 (3): 269–287. Kymlicka, W. (1995), Multicultural Citizenship, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Macintyre, S. with Clark, A. (2004), The History Wars, Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Marquand, D. (2004), Decline of the Public: The Hollowing Out of Citizenship, Cambridge: Polity Press. McGaw, B. (n.d.), ‘Statement from ACARA Chair Professor Barry McGaw’. Available online: http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Statement_from_ACARA_Chair _Professor_Barry_McGaw.pdf (accessed 12 July 2015). Ofsted (2010), Citizenship Established? Citizenship in Schools 2006/9, London: HMSO. QCA (1998), Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (The Crick Report), London: DfEE/QCA. Rizvi, F. and Lingard, B. (2010), Globalizing Education Policy, London: Routledge. Smith, M. K. (2000), ‘Curriculum Theory and Practice’, The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm (accessed 12 July 2015). Whiteley, P. (2012), ‘Does Citizenship Education Work?’ Parliamentary Affairs, 1–23. Whitty, G., Rowe, G. and Aggleton, P. (1994), ‘Subjects and Themes in the Secondary School Curriculum’, Research Papers in Education, 9 (2): 159–181.

13

Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from the United States Carole L. Hahn

Introduction Australia’s new national curriculum is the product of an impressive consultation process. In developing the Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians (MCEETYA 2008), which informed the development of the Australian Curriculum, professional educators and policy makers reflected on two questions: What kind of society do we want? And how can our schools and classrooms help prepare youth to effectively participate in that society? In addressing those questions, Australians recognized the importance of preparing youth for their roles as citizens in an increasingly diverse multicultural democracy within a wider global framework. Australians are not alone in addressing this task. Educators in many nations face similar challenges, which they approach slightly differently, reflecting their particular socio-cultural, historic, economic and political contexts. In this chapter, I discuss how Australia and the United States approach similar challenges differently, reflecting their differing contexts. On the one hand, Australia and the United States share many similarities. Historically, both countries were once colonies of Great Britain and their settlers were ‘subjects’ of the Crown, rather than ‘citizens’. Both countries have legacies of racism and discrimination towards their Indigenous populations and other people of colour. Today, both nations are stable democracies with strong economies. On the other hand, there is also much that differs in these two societies, which has important implications for civic education – or ‘civics and citizenship’ education, as this curricular area is known in Australia (Kennedy

226

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

et al. 2008). In this chapter, I describe the context for civic education in the United States, pointing out both similarities and differences with the Australian experience. I then compare the ways in which the US and Australian policy makers and educators address particular issues identified in the new Australian Curriculum.

US educational policy context The United States, like Australia, has a federal system, which assigns the authority over education to the states (and territories in Australia). The tenth amendment to the US Constitution states that powers not specifically delegated to the national government (such as education) are ‘reserved’ to the states or to the people. Consequently, as mass schooling expanded in the nineteenth century, the principle of ‘local control’ of schools became deeply rooted. Voters elected local school superintendents and members of local school boards, as well as state superintendents of instruction and state boards of education who determined educational policy. Today, some states and school districts provide for appointed superintendents, but the principle of state and local control of education remains strong. As a consequence, the US secretary of education and the federal department of education have little direct power or authority over education in general and the curriculum in particular. Any move towards a national curriculum faces strong resistance. In the 1980s President Reagan’s Secretary of Education William Bennett famously said that his primary leverage was using his office as a ‘bully pulpit’, bringing attention to issues he championed. Following the publication of the report A Nation at Risk, Secretary Bennett criticized the quality of American education and called for higher standards and a more rigorous curriculum. In addition, he specifically targeted ‘social studies’ and advocated teaching the separate disciplines of history, geography and civics, rather than what he considered an amorphous integrated subject. However, neither he nor subsequent federal administrations had the power to make the changes they sought. Even in the 1990s, when Congress authorized funds to develop ‘national standards’ in history, geography and civics, they had no authority to require implementation of the standards. Indeed, the documents that emerged from a consultative process of development and review (similar to Australia’s recent approach) were titled ‘voluntary’ national standards. Their advocates encouraged states to adopt and/or adapt them. As so often happens, however, the ‘state control of education’

A View from the United States

227

sentiment was powerful and most states decided to develop or revise their own curriculum standards, which varied in the extent to which they reflected the national efforts. Despite the constraints of US Constitutional limits, in recent years the federal government has become more influential in education than it was in the past by offering incentives for states to voluntarily adopt particular policies. Since the 1960s states have been able to apply for federal funds to provide school meals and other extra resources to serve low-income youth (through Title I funding). Then, in 2001, under President George Bush, the federal government started applying negative sanctions. If states and school districts did not implement elements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, they would lose federal dollars, such as Title I funding, which school districts relied on to meet their expenses. Importantly, states had to agree to annually test students in mathematics and English/language arts. If some subgroups of students (including low-income students, students of varied ethnicities, students who are not English proficient and students with disabilities) were not making ‘adequate yearly progress’ after three years of testing, the state would take drastic actions, such as closing ‘failing’ schools. President Obama’s policy titled Race to the Top and the 2015 Every Student Succeeds legislation subsequently made some adjustments to the requirements but, importantly, retained the policies of annual testing in math and English. One of the consequences of these testing requirements is that in many school districts teachers are encouraged to ‘teach to the test’, which is usually a multiple-choice test. As a result, many teachers emphasize memorization and drill (Levinson 2012; Pinkney 2015). Many educators and policy makers became increasingly concerned with this situation and argued that US students lacked exposure to rigorous content and were not developing deep understanding (National Council for the Social Studies 2013: 83). For that reason a consortium of states worked together to develop ‘Common Core State Standards’, initially in mathematics and literacy, which included standards for developing literacy in social studies. To support that effort, the Obama administration required states to adopt the Common Core State Standards to receive Race to the Top money. This led to a backlash among some conservatives who objected to what they called federal interference in states’ rights. Currently, the Common Core has been adopted in many states, is controversial in other states and is a topic of debate in the 2016 presidential election campaign. While Australia has taken the dramatic step of developing a national curriculum despite its federal decisionmaking structure for education, the United States remains far from adopting

228

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

such a policy. Yet, similar to the experience in the United States, some state and territory Departments of Education are deciding not to adopt the national curriculum endorsed by all ministers of education. Instead, some are choosing to selectively draw on some elements of the curriculum and add their own emphases.

The civic purpose of schooling Traditionally, the United States has accorded civic education a high priority. At the time of the nation’s founding, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the importance of educating citizens for democracy, and as public schooling expanded throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, states asserted in their constitutions that the purpose of public schools was to prepare citizens (Tolo 1999; Reuben 2005; Gould 2011). That purpose was further reinforced as many immigrants needed to be assimilated into the society in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. John Dewey (1916) wrote that schools were microcosms of society and were the ideal sites for diverse citizens to learn to make democratic decisions about how to live together. Reformers of the 1920s proposed teaching courses in ‘community civics’ at the end of elementary school and ‘problems of democracy’ at the end of high school to explicitly prepare students for citizenship (Reuben 2005). The teaching of history was also justified for its civic purpose (Hertzberg 1981) and schools offered extracurricular activities for citizenship preparation. ‘The civic mission of schools’ stood as a central pillar of American education. However, from the 1960s onwards, priorities gradually shifted. Especially since the 1980s politicians have been fretting about global competition and bemoaning what they perceive to be the poor quality of American education. The public discourse has emphasized ‘accountability’ and ‘standards’ and attention has focused on STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) subjects. In response to these shifts, some national organizations called for renewed attention to the civic mission of schools (CIRCLE and Carnegie 2003; Gould 2011). In some states, such as California, there have been important campaigns for that purpose. Most recently, the National Council for the Social Studies (2013a, 2013b), the professional association of social studies educators, developed the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards, known as the C3 Framework, which emphasizes inquiry and civic action.

A View from the United States

229

Civic education’s curricular structures Unlike Australian schools, US schools have typically taught citizenship through a discrete subject, as well as a cross-curricular theme and a whole school responsibility. When the country was primarily an agricultural society with only a minority of the population attending secondary school, states often required students to take ‘Civics’ in the eighth grade (for students approximately twelve to thirteen years old), before many people ended their formal education. Later, as secondary school completion became the norm, high schools offered courses in ‘Problems of Democracy’ (POD) and government, as well as history for civic purposes. Today, the POD course has almost disappeared. Most states, however, still offer civics in either the eighth or ninth grade (for students approximately twelve to fourteen years old) and a government course typically in the eleventh or twelfth grade (when students are approximately sixteen to eighteen years old) (Hahn 1999, 2002). Indeed, analyses of students’ high school transcripts indicate that 79 per cent of high school graduates take a course in civics or government and 94 per cent take a course in US history, which is primarily political history (National Center for Education Statistics 2007). Traditionally states required elementary (Grades 1–8 or 1–6) and middle (Grades 6–8) schools to teach an integrated (history, geography, civics, anthropology and sociology) subject called ‘social studies’. For decades, most states’ social studies curricula followed the ‘expanding environments’ approach, beginning with studies of the family and community in primary school, followed by studies of the state, nation, region and world. Although some states have made changes to that sequence, vestiges of that structure remain. Importantly for civic education, most states’ curricula aim to develop some civic content, skills and dispositions in social studies lessons throughout K-12 (kindergarten through twelfth grade) education. However, with the current emphasis on raising test scores in math and English/language arts, many schools have cut the time and attention they give to social studies (McMurtes 2008; Heafner and Fitchett 2012); nevertheless, social studies remains a core subject in the curriculum. Moreover, in many middle schools, social studies is still taught daily and in most states, high school students are required to take two or three years of social studies subjects for graduation, usually including US history and civics or government.1 Further, high school schedules are such that students tend to take a course daily, for example, they might have US history at 9 am daily for one year and the following year, government at 2 pm daily for half a year.

230

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Curricular issues The new Australian Curriculum identifies three cross-curricular priorities that reflect the particular socio-cultural context of Australia: indigenous perspectives, Asian perspectives and sustainability. In comparison, whereas these topics may be addressed in some schools in the United States, they do not have the high visibility that they do in Australia. For example with respect to Indigenous perspectives, most states expect elementary school students to learn about the diverse cultures of the Americas prior to European contact and high school students to learn about the nineteenth-century near annihilation of Native American peoples and cultures. In some classrooms, students are encouraged to recognize the multiple perspectives of Indigenous peoples and colonizers at the time of contact. However, little attention is given to the lives and perspectives of Indigenous peoples after the 1850s.2 Multicultural perspectives are evident with respect to other groups in the United States. Since the 1980s, curricular guidelines, textbooks and lessons convey a more multicultural perspective than they did in the past. For example, civics and US history textbooks include a limited number of African Americans and women in US history, but almost no Latinas or Asian Americans (Avery and Simmons 2000/2001; Woyshner and Schocker 2015). Further, the history books continue to place women’s and African American history on the margins, rather than at the centre, of the American story. Civics and government courses tend to focus on the structure and function of government and do not highlight varied people’s perspectives on issues. With respect to Asian perspectives, the new Australian Curriculum acknowledges that because the country is part of the Asia-Pacific region and an increasing percentage of the population has roots in Asia, all students need to be Asia literate. In the United States, despite President Obama’s administration speaking of the need to ‘pivot towards Asia’ in foreign policy, such a shift has not occurred in the school curriculum. In states where primary-grade students are taught about families and communities, the teacher might include lessons on some families and communities in Asia; however that region is not prioritized over other regions. Similarly, in many school districts students study about Asia as one region among many in sixth or seventh grade, and in high school world history, students study some Asian history. Nevertheless, Western history continues to predominate in most states’ curricula for world history, as well as US history. High school civics and government courses are not likely to mention Asian perspectives at all. The two

A View from the United States

231

courses that tend to give the most attention to Asian perspectives are geography and economics, which fewer students take than US history, civics/government and world history (see footnote 1). In states where high school students take a one-semester or one-year geography course, Asia is usually one of the regions that students study. Economics courses, which are most often taught as onesemester courses in high school, often give attention to trade between the United States and China, as well as Japan, although international trade is only one topic among many in the course. Overall, global perspectives in social studies education have been advocated more than implemented in the various states’ curricula and national recommendations. Indeed, under the accountability, standards and testing regimes, curriculum and instruction emphasizes US history over global perspectives more than ever, as evidenced by the new C3 Framework with accompanying exemplars (National Council for the Social Studies 2013a, 2013b). It is interesting that sustainability is a priority in the Australian Curriculum. Environmental sustainability is also a priority among some segments of the US public and some science and social studies educators who advocate including it in the curriculum. Other segments of the US population prioritize concerns with government regulation of the economy over sustainability. Consequently, some teachers perceive this topic, along with climate change, as a controversial issue. That leads some teachers to have students explore the topic, while others decide to avoid it. Overall, sustainability is not a major topic in social studies curricula today (National Council for the Social Studies 2013, 2014). Another issue that arose in the debates about the Australian Curriculum that is approached differently in the United States is religion in the curriculum. The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits the government from establishing a religion, as well as interfering with individuals’ rights to practice their religion freely. The Supreme Court has interpreted the ‘establishment clause’ to mean that public schools shall not teach or practice any particular religion; thus, prayers and Bible readings are prohibited on school grounds. However, the Court has encouraged educators to teach about diverse religions and the role of religion in society. But in an effort to avoid offending some parents, many teachers self-censor and avoid religious topics except when referring to a few historic events and when teaching about landmark Supreme Court cases that established the wall between church and state. In the 1990s, when conservatives and liberals fought ‘the culture wars’ over the proposed national history standards, debates focused more on teaching about the nation’s founders, multiculturalism and whether to emphasize a positive narrative, than

232

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

about how much attention to give to a Judeo-Christian heritage, as surfaced in debates in Australia and England. Interestingly, recent researchers have been exploring how some US teachers’ religious orientations affect how they think about teaching varied social studies topics (James 2012). Given references to religion in the new Civics and Citizenship curriculum, this is an area that warrants future research.

Teaching in schools Whereas it is difficult to generalize about the intended curricula of fifty states and more than 15,000 school districts, it is virtually impossible to generalize about the implemented curricula and instructional practices in the diverse schools across the United States. Nevertheless, some insights can be gleaned from varied research studies. For example, on the 2010 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in Civics, which uses nationally representative samples, 82 per cent of eighth-grade students (approximately twelve to thirteen years old) and 67 per cent of twelfth-grade students (approximately seventeen to eighteen years old) reported studying the US Constitution over the previous year in school (National Center for Education Statistics 2011). Additionally, 78 per cent of eighth graders and 66 per cent of twelfth graders reported studying Congress. Earlier, in developing the US case study for the Civic Education Study of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) researchers gathered information that is relevant here (Hahn 1999, 2002). When the researchers interviewed focus groups of teachers and students in different parts of the country and conducted content analyses of eighth- and ninthgrade civics books, they found that students who took a civics course studied the levels and branches of government. Regardless of their location, students followed an almost identical sequence of topics: Congress, The Presidency, The Supreme Court, state and local government. Focus group students in different states also reported studying identical topics in US history following the same chronological sequence from founding of the nation, through its development, to the present. The students further reported studying a common narrative that emphasized expanding rights through the struggles of social movements and individuals; that narrative was also evident in the textbook analysis. Students in varied states recalled learning about Native Americans, women, slavery and the Civil Rights movement, whereas students in the Northwest also mentioned

A View from the United States

233

studying about Asian Americans in US history and students in Texas reported studying about Latinos (Hahn 1999, 2002). Although curriculum reformers in both the United States and Australia have focused on what students are taught, how students are taught may be more important to civic outcomes. The Campaign for the Civic Mission of Schools identified six ‘proven practices’ in civic education based on research conducted in the United States (Gould 2011). The practices are: (1) classroom instruction, or explicit formal instruction in government, history, law and democracy that is not merely fact based, but deals with public issues and is engaging; (2) discussion of current events and controversial issues; (3) service learning, when related to study of related issues and reflection on the experience; (4) extracurricular activities, such as civic-oriented programmes, various clubs and sports; (5) student participation in student governance, particularly when students’ decisions have an impact on students’ lives and the issues that concern them; and (6) simulations of democratic practice, when students take roles in fictional situations and tackle realistic issues, such as in a model Congress. I turn next to some of the research underlying these ‘proven practices’. First, with respect to providing explicit, deliberate civic instruction, researchers found that ninth-grade students who had social studies every day performed better on the IEA civic knowledge test than students who received less frequent instruction (Baldi et al. 2001). Similarly high school students who had a course specifically in civics or government had higher levels of civic knowledge than students without such a course (Niemi and Junn 1998; Gimpel, Lay and Schuknecht 2003; Hart et al. 2007). Although taking a civics/government course is important, it appears to be insufficient for civic engagement. The way in which the course is taught and the quality of instruction are key (Feldman et al. 2007). Second, many researchers have identified the importance of classroom discussion,3 particularly when it is conducted in an ‘open classroom climate’ with students perceiving that the teacher presents multiple sides to issues and is interested in hearing students’ diverse views, and they feel comfortable expressing their views. Repeatedly, researchers have found that student perceptions of controversial issues discussions in an open climate in their social studies classes are associated with students’ political interest, political efficacy, political trust, civic knowledge and expectation of voting as adults (for a review of early studies see Hahn 1998; also Torney-Purta et al. 2001). The most recent studies along these lines are those by Hess (2009) and Hess and McAvoy (2015). The latter identified ‘best practice discussion’ classes, which used discussion more than 20 per cent of class time, in which there

234

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

was much student-to-student talk and students reported they experienced an open-classroom climate for discussion. In the best practice discussion classes, teachers required students to prepare in advance, with students carrying much responsibility to be prepared and to consider multiple views, and the teachers carefully selected issues and materials to ensure students would hear strong arguments for differing views. Further, the best practice discussion teachers taught students how to discuss, to listen to varied views and to support their views with appropriate evidence. The students in these classes said they became confident in their ability to discuss and had increased political knowledge as a result of participating in the class. Further, they displayed an increased interest in the political world and reported following news and discussing political issues more than they had previously. Importantly, students in these discussion-rich classes said they were more interested in listening to opinions different from their own than were students in classes who used discussion less often and less well. Hess and McAvoy’s (2015) finding that students in best practice discussion classes increased in their respect for different views is important, particularly in the current political environment in the United States. Much of the country is politically ‘polarized’ with deep divisions between conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, with few politicians or citizens in the middle on policy issues. Hess and McAvoy (2015) argue that teaching students how to deliberate with others with differing views is essential for the future health of US democracy. The third proven practice is service learning. Faith groups and community organizations, as well as schools, encourage youth to participate in programmes to serve their community. Indeed, in some cities and states such ‘community service’ or ‘service learning’ is required for high school graduation. One study found that two-thirds of high school seniors and close to 75 per cent of firstyear university students reported doing such service the previous year (Youniss 2012). Although there is wide variation in these programmes, when they are of high quality, tied to the school curriculum and provide students opportunities to explore underlying issues (such as homelessness, not just serving food at a soup kitchen) and to reflect on their experience, such service is associated with participants’ later voting and volunteering (Hart et al. 2007). The fourth and fifth proven practices are extracurricular activities and student participation in student governance, particularly when students’ decisions have an impact on their lives and the issues that concern them. Traditionally, US schools have placed a high priority on extracurricular activities and student governance for citizenship preparation. Middle and high school students vote for representatives to student councils, and many elementary schools have

A View from the United States

235

student councils and/or elected class officers. Middle and high schools have typically sponsored an array of clubs and sports teams for the specific purpose of developing leadership skills and providing experiences in democratic decisionmaking and governance. Additionally, some national organizations sponsor extracurricular programmes that are explicitly civic, such as the Mock Trial programme (where students take the roles of attorneys, judges and juries), ‘We the People’ competitions (where students compete in a simulated Senate hearing, where they answer questions about political history and government procedures) and Close Up (which enables students to visit Washington DC to see government ‘close up’). Other clubs and teams are less overtly civic in nature, but they do provide important experiences for students to develop skills and dispositions for participatory citizenship. In the first phase of the IEA Civic Education Study, US students reported that they learned democracy and interacted with people who were different from themselves through their experiences in extracurricular activities, particularly sports (Hahn 1999, 2002). Numerous researchers have found that participation in such activities is associated with civic knowledge and with civic involvement years later (Damico, Damico and Conway 1998; Baldi et al. 2001; Kirlin 2003; Chapin 2005; Hart et al. 2007; Thomas and McFarland 2010). Unfortunately, however, in recent years many school districts have cut extracurricular activities to save money and focus on academic subjects that are mandated for high stakes tests. Such cuts fall particularly hard on schools serving large numbers of students from low-income families. Further, when schools have instituted ‘payto-play’ policies for sports programmes, poor students are being excluded from this valuable civic experience, which was previously available to all students in public schools (Putnam 2015). Simulations are the sixth proven practice recommended by the Campaign for the Civic Mission of the Schools. In social studies classes, students apply knowledge and develop skills and dispositions by participating in simulations of historic events like the Constitutional Convention or debates about contemporary events as if they are members of the United Nations General Assembly or the US Congress. In recent years, Parker and his colleagues at the University of Washington have conducted research on simulations as the central feature of a high school government course (Parker, Mosberg, Bransford, Vye, Wilkerson and Abbott 2011). The design research team followed three principles in developing the experimental government course: (1) Problem-based simulations are ‘the spine of the course’, or as Parker says, ‘the main dish, not the dessert’. (2) The simulations require students to use powerful concepts, such as ‘federalism’ and

236

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

‘equality before the law’, repeatedly with different content; the team calls this ‘looping’. (3) Engagement first is where the simulations occur at the beginning of units, so that students are motivated to seek additional information from lectures, readings and their research. Over several years of piloting the course in different locations across the country, the researchers concluded students who participated in the course did as well as or better than comparison groups on a standardized exam; additionally, they did better than comparison group students on a test designed to measure their ability to apply concepts from the course to new topics in the news, leading the researchers to conclude the students achieved deep understanding and the ability to apply knowledge in the real world beyond school (Parker et al. 2011). In addition, Lo (2015) studied how students changed their civic identities as they participated in the simulations over the course of a year. She found that students began to see themselves as individuals who knew politics and could express their opinions about political and social issues; they said they felt they were being prepared for real political participation. It is important to emphasize that although these six proven practices have had positive results in varied US schools over time, we do not know if they would have similar effects in other national contexts. Rather, they suggest hypotheses to test in schools such as those implementing the new Australian Curriculum to see if similar findings would be obtained in a different context. In concluding this section on civic education in schools in the United States, it is important to raise the biggest challenge facing US civic educators: inequality. Numerous researchers have found that overall low-income, African American, Hispanic and immigrant youth tend not to perform well on civic knowledge tests (Baldi et al. 2001; National Center for Education Statistics 2011, 2015). Importantly, students from these subgroups often attend schools with other low-income youth of colour where they receive inadequate civic education. Kahne and Middaugh (2008a,b) studied more than 2,500 California high school students to determine the extent to which the youth received ‘high quality civic education’, as operationalized by the six proven practices discussed above. They found that students who were more academically successful, White students and students with higher-income parents received more classroom-based civic learning opportunities. Low-income, Latino and African American students were less likely to report that they discussed current events, engaged in discussion, experienced an open classroom climate or worked on a service-learning project than their peers in White, affluent communities. Other researchers have similarly found that Black and Latino students and students from low-income families are

A View from the United States

237

the least likely to receive high-quality civic education (Rubin 2007a,b; Levinson 2012; Pinkney 2015). This is the main challenge in US civic education today. Australian researchers need to be vigilant in monitoring the implementation of the new Australian Curriculum to ensure that similar disparities do not occur.

Teacher education As with the previous themes, it is impossible to generalize about teacher education in the decentralized system of the United States. Each state has its own requirements for teacher certification or licensure; however, there is considerable similarity across states. Until recently most states required elementary and middle school teachers to have some coursework in history and the social sciences as well as a course in social studies teaching methods. High school social studies teachers were required to have had majors in history or one of the social sciences and to have had a social studies methods course. Some states certified social studies teachers, while others certified teachers in particular subjects, such as civics/government, history, geography or economics. In recent years, many states now permit ‘alternative routes’ to certification, whereby many new teachers, such as those who participate in the Teach for America programme, no longer complete a state-approved university-based teacher education programme. Charter schools usually are not required to hire traditionally prepared or certified teachers. Whether because of these alternatives or because of the environment of standards, accountability and testing, fewer people are entering teacher education programmes at many universities today than they did in the past. Already, students in schools with high concentrations of lowincome students were the most likely to have teachers who were not adequately prepared in the content they would teach (Darling-Hammond 2010). We do not yet know if that trend will be further exacerbated in the years ahead, but if it is, it could further contribute to the civic education opportunity gap, hurting the most vulnerable youth and doing serious damage to democratic ideals. Additionally, the Council of Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP) recently has promoted an accreditation platform aligned with new (INTASC) standards, which in turn are aligned with the Education Teaching Performance Assessment (edTPA). These standards and assessments tied to student performance intend to operationalize teacher knowledge and abilities, distinguishing among candidates with inadequate, novice and advanced competencies. It is too soon to determine the effects of these reform efforts

238

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

intended to improve the quality of teacher education in general. Recent research in social studies teacher education tends to focus on single sites and is not specific to civic education, but it may provide some insights to teacher education researchers in other countries (Crocco and Livingston forthcoming).

Conclusion In viewing the civics and citizenship–related elements of the new Australian Curriculum through the lens of my experiences in the United States, I am impressed by this major achievement, yet I also have a few concerns. I close by addressing five components of the curriculum: deliberate instruction, discussion and decision-making, global perspectives, diversity and the lack of a senior secondary provision. First, I am impressed that curriculum developers and policy makers have obtained widespread commitment to providing deliberate civic instruction every year that students are in school from Year 3 through 10. That is a major achievement for schools and a society without a tradition of deliberate and consistent civic education. Implementing this ambitious programme will require a major effort in teacher preparation. New teachers will need to be prepared to teach the subject civics and citizenship and experienced teachers will need professional development to enable them to deliver this new-forthem subject. Based on experiences in the United States, I would hypothesize that an investment in preparing teachers to provide deliberate civic instruction will ultimately lead to more civically knowledgeable citizens. However, in the light of US research, I would also expect that such deliberate instruction may be a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to develop participatory attitudes and dispositions in students. To foster civic engagement, it will be necessary to pay attention to how civic education is delivered, as well as what is taught. For that reason, the curriculum’s attention to deliberation, discussion and decisionmaking is important. Second, the civics and citizenship portion of the curriculum does a marvellous job of having students investigate and deliberate about issues every year they are in school. The ‘problem-solving and decision-making’ component recognizes that individuals learn democracy by doing democracy and that deliberation and decision-making with diverse citizens is at the heart of democracy. However, learning to deliberate across differences of background and belief does not happen naturally. Moreover, teaching students how to discuss and make decisions

A View from the United States

239

about public issues is not easy. The important decision-making aspect of the curriculum will require concerted professional development. Beginning and experienced teachers alike will need instruction and personal coaching in how to implement issues-centred instruction, particularly if they did not experience this in their own education. Additionally, schools will need administrators who understand that young people need experiences exploring controversial issues in the safe environment of school if they are to be effective, participating citizens of a democracy. Such leaders will need to assure their teachers that the time and attention they give to developing democratic problem-solving and decisionmaking skills and dispositions are valued. My third concern relates to the sequencing of global topics. The authors of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum carefully sequenced the knowledge and skills that they believe young people should acquire from Year 3 through year 10. Importantly, the content sections are developmentally appropriate and cohesive, moving from a focus on locally accessible institutions and processes of governance to more distant and abstract concepts, institutions and processes at the national level. That is consistent with the ‘expanding environments’ logic that has dominated the US curriculum for over sixty years but which I think is inadequate for the twenty-first century. Given the pervasive effects of globalization, I question the wisdom of waiting until Year 10 to include global topics and issues. By then, students are likely to view the world’s peoples and cultures as either ‘us’ or ‘them’. Developmental psychologists over many years noted that young children are interested in and open to learning about people outside their nation’s borders, but by age thirteen or fourteen, they tend to be less open to viewing foreign people in a positive way (Buergenthal and Torney 1976; Torney-Purta 1982); today scholars emphasize that early experiences serve as a powerful filter for new information, and once mental schema are established, it is difficult for individuals to restructure their beliefs. Thus, by the time students are introduced to explicit global and international content in the proposed curriculum in Year 10, it may be difficult for them to recognize that ‘we’ are part of a global society, sharing a common destiny. For young people to grow up with the knowledge, skills and dispositions they will need to solve problems with citizens across national borders, they will need to begin developing that worldview from the earliest years of school and a global perspective should be pervasive across the curriculum. In that vein, one study exploring the notion of ‘cosmopolitan’ citizenship education in schools in Hong Kong and the United States found that when a school’s mission statement, curriculum and pedagogy supported global perspectives, students developed a positive sense of national identity alongside

240

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

their identification as a global citizen (Alviar-Martin 2008). When implementing the new Australian Curriculum, school staffs could decide to complement the specified content with a more global perspective than is required from Year 3 onwards. They could plan issues for student investigation that connect the global with the local. However, the educators will need to be made aware of such a need and see models of globally rich lessons that fit the progression of topics specified in the curriculum. My fourth set of commendations and concerns focuses on diversity in the curriculum. On the one hand, I am impressed that diversity receives specific attention each year in the sections ‘Citizenship, Diversity, and Identity’. I notice that these sections specifically recognize Indigenous cultures and religious diversity in Australian society, clearly reflecting the socio-cultural context of the intended curriculum. Additionally, references to multiple perspectives imply but do not make explicit diversity of beliefs. Schools and teachers, however, are left to decide how to teach about diversity in other forms, such as by socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, language, national origin and sexuality. It will be important to do so to adequately prepare youth for living in a multicultural democracy and a diverse global society. The Center for Multicultural Education at the University of Washington has published a useful booklet, Democracy and Diversity (Banks et al. 2005), to help school staffs reflect on how they can best prepare youth for democratic citizenship building on the rich diversity of societies like Australia and the United States. My fifth concern focuses on the Senior Secondary Curriculum. I am disappointed that civics and citizenship is not one of the humanities subjects listed for senior students. As I previously noted, US scholars emphasize that civic education needs to begin early following the principle of primacy (Torney-Purta 1982) and it needs to be continuous and cumulative; it also needs to build on the recency principle (Torney-Purta 1982; Niemi and Junn 1998), providing students with civic education instruction and experiences close to the time when they will be voting and may become active in their communities. Indeed, some of the most effective civic education programmes in the United States are experientially based enabling high school juniors and seniors (ages sixteen to eighteen) to engage with real political issues and campaigns (Feldman et al. 2007; National Council for the Social Studies 2013a, 2013b). I hope that Australian schools will go beyond offering the three specified humanities subjects to offer a Senior Secondary course in civics and citizenship that has an action component. Clearly, both the United States and Australia face major challenges in the years ahead. The new Australian Curriculum is an important step forward. However,

A View from the United States

241

focusing on the intended curriculum is only a beginning. As the US experience indicates, it will be essential to monitor the implemented and received curriculum to ensure that all students benefit from the highest-quality civic education possible. It will be important to ascertain that students from all segments of society are receiving high-quality civic pedagogy along with a well-designed curriculum.

Notes 1

2

3

In analysing the transcripts of high school graduates in 2005, researchers found that the following percentages of students took particular social studies courses: US history, 94 per cent; Civics/Government, 79 per cent; World History, 77 per cent; Economics, 47 per cent; World Geography, 31 per cent; Psychology/Sociology, 38 per cent (National Center for Education Statistics 2007: 9). A rare exception is a lesson on American Indian perspectives of contemporary environmental issues in a teacher resource book accompanying the C3 Framework (National Council for the Social Studies 2014: 131–39). Although 79 per cent of eighth graders in 2014 reported ‘discussing material’ studied in class at least once a week and 49 per cent reported ‘discussing current events’ (National Center for Education Statistics 2015), these percentages probably overestimate how much true discussion occurs. Many researchers have found that students have low expectations and count any opportunity to talk as ‘discussion’ (Hess and McAvoy 2015), but the researchers who study discussion as reported in this section look for more in-depth student-to-student deliberation, where ideas are explored and evidence is offered.

References Alviar-Martin, T. (2008), Cosmopolitan Citizenship: A Comparative Case Study in Two International Schools, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emory University. Avery, P. and Simmons, A. (2000/2001), ‘Civic Life as Conveyed in US Civics and History Textbooks’, International Journal of Social Education, 15 (2): 105–130. Baldi, S., Perie, M., Skidmore, D., Greenberg, E. and Hahn, C. (2001), What Democracy Means to Ninth-Graders: US Results from the International IEA Civic Education Study, Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education. Banks, J., Banks, C., Cortes, C., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M., Moodley, K., MurphyShigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C. and Parker, W. (2005), Democracy and Diversity:

242

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Principles and Concepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age, Seattle, WA: University of Washington. Buergenthal, T. and Torney, J. (1976), International Human Rights and International Education (chapter six), 102–123. Washington, DC: US National Commission for UNESCO Department of State. Chapin, J. (2005), ‘Voting and Community Volunteer Participation of 1988 Eighth Grade Social Studies Students 12 Years Later’, Theory & Research in Social Education, 33 (2): 200–217. CIRCLE and Carnegie Corporation of New York (2003), The Civic Mission of Schools. Available online: www.civicyouth.org (accessed 16 April 2016). Crocco, M. and Livingston, E. (forthcoming), ‘Becoming an “Expert” Social Studies Teacher: Teacher Cognition, Teacher Education, and Professional Development’. In M. Manfra and C. Bolick (eds), Handbook of Social Studies Research, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Press. Damico, A., Damico, S. and Conway, M. (1998), ‘The Democratic Education of Women: High School and Beyond’, Women and Politics, 19 (1): 1–31. Darling-Hammond, L. (2010), The Flat World and Education: How America’s Commitment to Equity Will Determine Our Future, New York: Teachers College Press. Dewey, J. (1916/ 1985), Democracy and Education, Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Press. Feldman, L., Pasek, J., Romer, D. and Jamieson, K. H. (2007), ‘Identifying Best Practices in Civic Education: Lessons from the Student Voices Program’, American Journal of Education, 114 (1): 75–100. Gimpel, J. G, Lay, J. C. and Schuknecht, J. E. (2003), Cultivating Democracy: Civic Environments and Political Socialization in America, Washington, DC. Gould, J. (ed.) (2011), Guardian of Democracy: The Civic Mission of Schools, www. civicyouth.org (accessed 16 April 2016). Hahn, C. L. (1998), Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hahn, C. L. (1999), ‘Challenges to Civic Education in the United States’. In J. TorneyPurta, J. Schwille, J. A.n Amadeo (eds), Civic Education Across Countries: TwentyFour National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project, 583–608. Amsterdam: Eburon Press. Hahn, C L. (2002), ‘Education for Citizenship and Democracy: One Nation’s Story’. In W. Parker (ed.), Education for Democracy: Contexts, Curricula, Assessments, 63–92. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Hart, D., Donnelly, T. M., Youniss, J. and Atkins, R. (2007), ‘High School Community Service as a Predictor of Adult Voting and Volunteering’, American Educational Research Journal, 44 (1): 197–219. Heafner, T. and Fitchett, P. (2012), ‘National Trends in Elementary Instruction: Exploring the Role of Social Studies Curriculum’, The Social Studies, 103: 67–72.

A View from the United States

243

Hertzberg, H. (1981), Social Studies Reform: 1880–1980, Boulder, CO: Social Science Education Consortium. Hess, D. (2009), Controversy in the Classroom: The Democratic Power of Discussion, New York: Routledge. Hess, D. and McAvoy, P. (2015), The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education, New York: Routledge. James, J. (2012), ‘ “Democracy Is the Devil’s Snare”: Theological Certainty in Teacher Education’, Theory and Research in Social Education, 38 (4): 618–639. Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E. (2008a), ‘High Quality Civic Education: What Is It and Who Gets It?’, Social Education, 72 (1): 34–39. Kahne, J. and Middaugh, E. (2008b), Democracy for Some: The Civic Opportunity Gap in High School, Working Paper 59, Washington DC: CIRCLE, www .civicyouth.org (accessed 16 April 2016). Kennedy, K. J., Hahn, C. and Lee, W. O. (2008), ‘Constructing Citizenship: Comparing the Views of Students in Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States’, Comparative Education Review, 52 (1): 53–91. Kirlin, M. (2003), The Role of Adolescent Extra-Curricular Activities in Adult Political Participation, CIRCLE Working Paper 02. Available online: www.civicyouth.org (accessed 30 September 2015). Levinson, M. (2012), No Citizen Left Behind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lo, J. (2015, April), Adolescents Developing Identities as Citizens: Sociocultural Perspectives on Simulations and Role-Play in a Civic Classroom, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. MCEETYA (2008, December), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, www.mceetya.edu.au/mceetya/melbourne_declaration.25979.html (accessed 16 April 2016). McMurrer, J. (2008), Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects, Center on Education Policy. Available online: www.cep-dc.org (accessed 16 April 2016). National Center for Education Statistics (2007), America’s High School Graduates: Results from the 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study, Washington DC: National Center for Education Statistics. www.nces.ed.gov (accessed 16 April 2016). National Center for Education Statistics (2011), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics. Available at: www.nces.ed.gov (accessed 16 April 2016). National Center for Education Statistics (2015), National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics. Available at: www.nces.ed.gov (accessed 16 April 2016). National Council for the Social Studies (2013a), Social Studies for the Next Generation: Purposes, Practices, and Implications of the College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards, Bulletin 113, Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies.

244

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

National Council for the Social Studies (2013b), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards. Silver Spring, MD: National Council for the Social Studies. Niemi, R. and Junn, J. (1998), Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Parker, W., Mosberg, S., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Wilkerson, J. and Abbott, R. (2011), ‘Rethinking Advanced High School Coursework: Tackling the Depth/Breadth Tension in the AP US Government and Politics Course’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43 (4): 533–559. Pinkney, A. (2015), ‘No Excuse’ Citizens: A Case Study of Citizenship in an Urban Charter School Network, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Emory University. Putnam, R. D. (2015), Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, New York: Simon & Shuster. Reuben, J. A. (2005), ‘Patriotic Purposes: Public Schools and the Education of Citizens’. In S. Fuhrman and M. Lazerson (eds), The Public Schools, 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rubin, B. (2007a), ‘Laboratories of Democracy: A Situated Perspective on Learning Social Studies in Detracked Schools’, Theory and Research in Social Education, 35 (1): 62–95. Rubin, B. (2007b), ‘ “There’s Still Not Justice”: Youth Civic Identity Development Amid Distinct School and Community Contexts’, Teachers’ College Record, 100 (2): 440–481. Thomas, R. J. and McFarland, D. A. (2010), Joining Young, Voting Young: The Effects of Youth Voluntary Associations on Early Adult Voting, CIRCLE Working Paper 73, www.civicyouth.org (accessed 16 April 2016). Tolo, K. W. (1999), The Civic Education of American Youth: From State Policies to School District Practices, Austin, TX: Lyndon Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas. Torney-Purta, J. (1982), ‘Socialization and Human Rights Research: Implications for Teachers’. In M. Branson and J. T. Purta (eds), International Human Rights, Society, and the Schools, 35–47. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schulz, W. (2001), Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen, Amsterdam: The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Woyshner, C. and Schocker, J. (2015), ‘Cultural Parallax and Content Analysis: Images of Black Women in High School History Books’, Theory and Research in Social Education, 43 (4): 441–468. Youniss, J. (2012), ‘How to Enrich Civic Education and Sustain Democracy’. In D. Campbell, M. Levinson and E. Hess (eds), Making Civics Count: Citizenship Education for a New Generation, 115–133. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

14

Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Hong Kong Kerry J. Kennedy

Introduction Civic education has a chequered history in Hong Kong reflecting its colonial and post-colonial contexts, its perceived importance in the political socialization of young citizens and its role in reflecting the values of those in power at particular points in time. More than seventeen years after the city’s return to China, there is no agreement in society on the form civic education should take, although there is agreement on the importance of the moral dimension in any form of civic education. Yet there the agreement ends. Whether civic education ought to take on a national flavour, seen locally to represent a pro-China stance, or a liberal flavour, as advocated by pro-democracy supporters, remains a contested issue. At the same time there are fringe groups associated with a nativist perspective that focuses on localism and even independence from China, although these groups have yet to develop a public position on the form civic education should take. It is in this potent mix of community views that schools currently struggle to meet expectations. These are not so much the expectations of society at large, since there is no community consensus, but rather the expectations of their individual school communities. In what follows, some attention will be paid to delineating further this broad context since this is a perquisite for understanding the current state of civic education in Hong Kong. This will be followed by key policy interventions related to civic education, curriculum structures, classroom teaching and teacher education. While the focus of this chapter is the Hong Kong context, a final section will draw some comparisons with the Australian context.

246

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

The Hong Kong context: ‘One country, two systems’ and a fragmented civic education Hong Kong emerged from its colonial period on 1 July 1997 not as a free and independent nation like so many Asian countries, but rather as a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. While the British preference was to have maintained some role in Hong Kong, the Chinese had made it clear that this was not up for debate: China would resume sovereignty over Hong Kong either because Britain would cede it or the Chinese would take it (Cottrell 1993). The outcome was the agreement on Chinese sovereignty (basically because the British had no choice) under the principle of ‘one country, two systems’. This agreement was articulated in the Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong, the principles of which were drafted into the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China. Yet the tensions that characterized the initial Sino-British discussions on the issue of Hong Kong’s sovereignty have continued despite the assertion of Chinese sovereignty in Article 1 of the Basic Law. The debate has been over the balance of ‘one country’ and ‘two systems’ as the key principle of governance in post-colonial Hong Kong. Does the ‘country’ or the ‘local system’ demand a citizen’s loyalty and how much ‘autonomy’ does Hong Kong have within the Chinese political system? In the years since 1997 these issues have provided flash points in Hong Kong’s post-colonial development. Issues related to the ‘one country, two systems’ concept have not always been well understood. In the original discussions between the British and the Chinese, ‘system’ meant the Chinese socialist system and Hong Kong’s capitalist system. As time went on, calls for the democratic development of Hong Kong increased and concepts such as ‘a high degree of autonomy’, promised in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and ‘system’ were conflated, becoming part of a new discourse on political development. This meant that Beijing and Hong Kong’s pro-democratic groups increasingly talked at cross purposes, leading to significant clashes on key issues. Attempts to implement national security legislation, National Education Curriculum and the development of a distinctly Chinese form of electoral democracy led many in Hong Kong to resist what was seen as encroachment on Hong Kong’s ‘autonomy’. This resistance took the form of public protests to

A View from Hong Kong

247

assert the desire of many in Hong Kong for political freedom under the ‘one country, two systems’ concept. These forms of resistance in post-colonial Hong Kong, against what was seen by many as Beijing’s unwarranted assertion concerning its sovereignty over the former British colony, were by no means new. They were a reflection of much broader tensions between pro-Beijing and pro-democracy groups – a tension that was obvious almost as soon as the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984. China’s intentions regarding Hong Kong were very clear as Li (2015: 80–1) has recently shown by highlighting Deng Xiaoping’s view of the need for ‘patriots’ in Hong Kong and his specific references to the inappropriateness of adopting Western political institutions in the city. The Chinese view was hardened by the attempts of the British colonial administration to introduce elements of democracy into Hong Kong’s political institutions prior to 1997. For the Chinese, democracy was simply not on the agenda but for many in Hong Kong democracy became the key issue in Hong Kong’s post-colonial development. This tension has not diminished and continues to be very evident in Hong Kong and is still capable of inflaming public debate. There have been two very recent incidents where Chinese government spokesmen have directly engaged in a confrontational style of pro-China media politics. Thus when Zhang Xiaoming, director of the Central People’s Government, Liaison Office in Hong Kong, recently asserted that the doctrine of the separation of powers did not apply to Hong Kong and was not reflected in the Basic Law, a furore was created (Zhang 2015). The chief justice publicly contradicted Zhang and the media had a field day with the idea that seemed to suggest that the chief executive was above the other three branches of government because he was directly appointed by Beijing. Not to be stopped, within a few days, a former Beijing official, Chen Zuoer, asserted that Hong Kong had not been sufficiently ‘de-colonized’ leading to the ‘revival of de-sinofication’ (Cheung 2015). This was a reference in particular to the group referred to previously – a nativist group with a pro-independence stance. This group is not necessarily part of the pro-democracy camp where the broad nature of Chinese sovereignty has rarely been questioned. This nativist threat is different from that posed by pro-democracy supporters but it is unlikely that Beijing distinguishes between different sources of what they see as opposition. Chinese sovereignty is not negotiable; this is the tough lesson for many Hong Kong democrats. This ongoing tension is not just obvious at the level of political debate; it also finds

248

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

itself reflected in successive attempts to shape civic and citizenship education for Hong Kong’s young people.

Policy interventions: Colonial and post-colonial Li (2015) argued that key policy interventions in the development of Hong Kong’s civic and citizenship education could be classified as linked to either ‘democratic civic education’ or ‘national and moral education’, and she traced these interventions from 1985 to 2013. This is a very useful way to portray the tensions between pro-China and pro-democracy conceptions of civic education. Building on Li (2015), a further analysis of these interventions, as shown in Table 14.1, can illuminate yet another dimension of these interventions – that is their ‘strength’ in supporting a particular conception of civic education. Adding this extra dimension contributes to a new narrative about the interventions of colonial and post-colonial administrations as they sought to shape civic education in Hong Kong. That narrative is based on the idea that policies might be regarded as either ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ depending on a government’s commitment or capacity to deliver on outcomes (Kennedy, Chan and Fok 2011). The pattern of commitments can clearly be seen in Table 14.1.

Table 14.1 ‘Hard’ and ‘soft’ policy interventions for differing conceptions of Hong Kong’s civic education Democratic Civic Education

Moral and National Education

‘Soft’*

‘Soft’

1985

‘Hard’ Guidelines on Civic Education in School

1996

2012

Guidelines on Civic Education in Schools

Civic Education Guidelines from Civil Society

2001

‘Hard’ ‘Learning to Learn’: The Way Forward in Curriculum Development

2012

The Moral and National Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1– Secondary 6)

Source: Based on Li (2015: 87–8). *The terms ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ are used in a broader policy literature related to different strategies that support policy implementation (Kennedy, Chan and Fok 2011).

A View from Hong Kong

249

The 1985 Guidelines were released just after the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. It was a limited attempt on the part of the colonial administration to signal a more robust approach to preparing future citizens for a new role in post-colonial Hong Kong. Yet the consensus is that it was a very ‘soft’ approach reflecting, as much as anything, the administration’s distaste for democratic development (Bray and Lee 1993; Leung 1995) and its concern for stability during the remaining period of colonial control. However, the 1996 Guidelines are a different story. Released just one year before Hong Kong’s return to China, it is generally agreed that they represent a liberal democratic version of civic education that was far in advance of what was recommended in 1985 (Ng, ChaiYip and Leung 1999). The reasons for the changing emphasis are not difficult to understand. As the British colonial administration came to an end, there were concerted attempts by Chris Patten, the last British governor of Hong Kong, to ‘democratise’ institutions such as the Legislative Council, paving the way for a more democratic Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty. While these reforms were rejected out of hand by Beijing, the 1996 Guidelines were not. This may have been because not only was there support in these Guidelines for democratic processes and institutions but they also addressed issues of ‘patriotism and nationalism’ (Lee 2005). It might well be claimed that these were ‘too little, too late’ but they have never been withdrawn and remain as a symbol of what a democratic civic education in Hong Kong might look like. But they also contain a hint of what was to emerge as a key issue for the future – the nature of national education in Hong Kong under Chinese sovereignty. As shown in Table 14.1, the new Hong Kong administration initially took what can be called a ‘soft’ approach to civic education. As part of the process of very significant educational reform, the development of ‘national identity’ was identified as a key system-wide objective, and civic and moral education was adopted as a Cross-Curriculum Priority (Kennedy 2005). This was not seen as controversial and has been referred to as a ‘depoliticized’ version of civic education (Leung and Yuen 2012) and is seen to be comparable to the 1985 Guidelines even though the focus is quite different with a strong emphasis on moral education and Chinese values but a clearly apolitical civic education. Such a ‘soft’ approach is understandable in the sense that a new administration would not want to be seen to be pushing too far, yet the direction is unmistakeable. It is not apparent why Leung and Yuen (2012) classify this as a ‘depoliticized’ approach to civic education since its alignment to traditional moral values and the focus on national identity made it clear that post-handover civic education had taken a major step in a new political

250

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

direction from colonial times. In this sense it is a clearly ‘politicized’ approach yet ‘soft’ in its promotion and implementation. This approach, however, did not last. In 2010, the chief executive announced in his annual Policy Address that a new subject was to be introduced to primary and secondary schools: moral and national education. Community response was far from muted, but the Education Bureau that had been charged with the task of developing the new subject went through a series of consultative exercises so that by early 2012 the Moral and National Education Curriculum Guide (Primary 1 to Secondary 6) had been through several versions, and it appeared that broad community support was gathering behind it. Yet by mid-year that support was disintegrating and by late July a protest movement had developed with the specific purpose of opposing the implementation of the Curriculum Guide. The reasons for this were complex and have been documented elsewhere (Kennedy and Kuang 2014). The result was the withdrawal of the Guide for system-wide implementation but it was available to those schools that wished to use it. Thus this ‘hard’ approach for national education in Hong Kong had failed. It left schools to develop their own programmes just when the city was to face a period of contested politics, pushback from China on sovereignty issues and disputes within the community about perceived pressure on resources due to migration and tourism policies that encouraged a steady flow Mainland Chinese into Hong Kong. Yet in terms of civic education there was a vacuum, at least in terms of a common approach across schools, leaving schools to determine the form such education should take in these somewhat turbulent times. That vacuum was filled by an entirely new development. It is not unusual in any society for government to be the source of policy directions in civic education, and all except one document in Table 14.1 conform to this expectation. The exception is Civic Education Guidelines from Civil Society that emerged from NGOs in civil society responding to the failed national education initiatives and seeking to support schools in developing new directions for civic education (Chong,Yuen and Leung 2015). The perspective adopted supported liberal democratic values including critical thinking, human rights education and participative democratic institutions. It is in this sense that this document has been classified as a ‘hard’ approach to democratic civic education because it is very explicit about its message and its values. Yet because it was a document produced outside of the education system its uptake in schools is uncertain (Leung, personal communication) and its influence may therefore be limited.

A View from Hong Kong

251

In a highly centralized education system such as Hong Kong’s, civic education remains a school-based phenomenon and schools have access to multiple resources, including all of those referred to in Table 14.1. In a recent study, Wong (2015) has shown that many teachers do not see that the different perspectives embodied in democratic civic education and national education are necessarily mutually exclusive and foresee the possibility of developing ‘critical patriots’ as an outcome of civic education. Interestingly, however, these teachers see the main influence on school-based civic education to be parents and the school community rather than the government. This suggests that civic education will remain fragmented in Hong Kong schools, reflecting very local values that in all likelihood will echo either democratic or national education or a combination of both. For the moment, Hong Kong students will not be subject to a common civic education largely because there is not a consensus in the community. Li (2015) has attributed this situation to Hong Kong’s hybrid political regime that is semi-democratic at best and subject, in a number of important ways, to China’s authoritarian regime. In such a context the fragmentation of civic education in Hong Kong reflects this political reality.

Curriculum structures There are four key dimensions when considering curriculum structure  – optional or compulsory/subject or integrated (Kennedy 2008). Civic education in Hong Kong has never had the status of a school subject – it has always been a cross-curriculum theme and it maintains that status currently. In the education reforms initiated in 2001, civic and moral education was classified as one of the five ‘essential learning experiences’ for students (Kennedy 2005), so in this sense it can be regarded as compulsory, although it is not specifically mandated in the same way as core subjects tend to be. This form of curriculum structure, where civic education is integrated either into existing subjects or as a cross-curriculum theme, was identified as the dominant curriculum structure for 52 per cent of the countries included in Fairbrother and Kennedy’s (2011) study, with the remainder using an independent school subject. This form of curriculum structure is more likely to lead to variety in curriculum provision rather than uniformity, and this is certainly the situation in Hong Kong. Aspects of civic and moral education might feature in school assemblies, extracurricular activities – such as service learning in the community or

252

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

excursions to Mainland China – or in mainstream subjects such as Chinese History (a junior and senior secondary subject), Life and Society (a junior secondary subject) or Liberal Studies (a compulsory core subject in senior secondary education). Exactly where Hong Kong students encounter civic concepts and ideas will depend on the school they attend, their curriculum choices within their school and how teachers structure learning activities both inside and outside the classroom. Of course, schools are not the only source of civic information for students who are also influenced by their families, their peers, the media and civil society. Yet this diversity adds to the fragmented nature of civic education in Hong Kong, as mentioned in the previous section, and this fragmentation is not helped by a curriculum structure that encourages even greater variety of provision. Given this apparent fragmentation, it is of interest to note that in successive large-scale international assessments involving civic and citizenship education, Hong Kong students have performed well. This outcome is not surprising given Fairbrother and Kennedy’s (2011) study which showed the curriculum structure – either an independent school subject or an integrated crosscurriculum theme – mattered little in terms of student learning outcomes. In their study, the students who experienced the integrated approach did at least as well, and often a little better, than their peers studying civics as an independent subject. This suggests that, while different curriculum structures have benefits for the organization of knowledge, these organizational forms do not necessarily flow directly into student learning. The curriculum and its organization, therefore, is one factor, but learning is another. It cannot be assumed that curriculum forms automatically result in student learning. This is an important understanding for those primarily interested in civic learning and how it might be facilitated.

Teaching in schools If curriculum structures are not directly related to student learning, classroom processes may well play that role since they are part of students’ everyday experiences. In this section, two views of Hong Kong classrooms will be explored – the way teachers describe their classroom practices and the way students appear to experience them. Data will be drawn from respective IEA studies of civics and citizenship education (Torney-Purta et al. 2001; Lee et al. 2011).

A View from Hong Kong

253

Hong Kong teachers’ perceptions of their teaching practices In 1999, when a sample of Hong Kong civics teachers was asked to identify the teaching strategies they use in their classrooms, the most strongly endorsed strategies were ‘recitation’ and ‘worksheets’. ‘Group work’ and ‘controversial issues’ were endorsed less strongly, but were used ‘sometimes’. ‘Projects’, ‘role-play’, ‘lectures’ and ‘textbooks’ were also used, although not very often. Oral participation was the dominant mode of classroom assessment in civic education, at least for 73 per cent of Hong Kong students. Fewer students experienced written compositions (25 per cent), multiple choice tests (15 per cent) and oral assessments (12 per cent) (Torney-Purta et al. 2001: 164, 213). One way to interpret these results is to picture Hong Kong civics classrooms at the turn of the century as reliant on direct instructional methods but with some experimentation with more child-centred approaches. Assessment practices appear to be somewhat liberal probably because there was no major examination in civic education. Oral communication was the dominant form of assessment across most of the participating countries in the IEA Civic Education Study, and it was suggested that ‘the strength or oral participation bolsters the view of civic education as a pragmatic and highly communicative field of instruction’ (Torney-Purta et al. 2001: 164). A decade later another sample of Hong Kong teachers was asked about their teaching practice, but unfortunately not the same questions as previously. Nevertheless, interesting pattern of responses can be identified. There was no strongly endorsed teaching practice, suggesting there was no common teaching approach to civic education across schools. ‘Project work’, ‘role play’, ‘student research’ and ‘students working on individual topics’ were moderately endorsed, suggesting they would be seen in some Hong Kong classrooms. ‘Textbook work’, ‘lectures’ and ‘working on drill sheets’ were the less strongly endorsed, suggesting these may not be seen quite so often in classrooms. Interestingly, ‘teacher asking questions’ was the most negatively endorsed practice, indicating that there may not be many classrooms where there is active dialogue between teachers and students. Teachers were also asked how confident they were in using different teaching strategies. They were most confident using ‘lectures’ and quite confident using ‘group work’, ‘problem solving’ and ‘discussion’. They were less confident about ‘role play’, ‘research’ and ‘laboratory activities’ and least confident about using ICT. In terms of assessment, ‘examinations’, ‘achievement tests’ and ‘projects’ were the dominant modes, with much less emphasis on ‘student self-assessment’, ‘peer assessment’ and ‘oral tests’ (Lee 2011: 152, 155).

254

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

In addition to these perceptions of teachers, it is also possible to access the views of students.

Students’ perceptions of civics classrooms Over 60 per cent of students felt that their teachers often encouraged them to express their opinions in class, and a further 30 per cent felt they were sometimes encouraged to do so. This was the most strongly endorsed item of the seven that were asked about classroom climate. Yet there was less certainty about expressing opinions that were different from others, with around 30 per cent of students indicating this happened often, just over 45 per cent thought it happened sometimes, while 25 per cent of students thought this rarely or never happened. There were similar reservations about whether students felt they could disagree with their teachers, with 38 per cent of students indicating this rarely or never happened while just over 18 per cent felt it happened often. It seems that students felt that they did not have many opportunities to suggest topics or events for discussion, with just over 55 per cent indicating that this either never happened or happened rarely. Just over 9 per cent of students thought this often happened in their schools. Finally, over 40 per cent of students thought teachers often presented several sides of an issue when explaining it to them; and almost all felt teachers did this sometimes. Just over 4 per cent of students felt their teachers did not present both sides of an issue. An interesting feature of students’ responses to these questions on classroom climate was that girls tended to endorse all items more positively than did boys, and this was also a feature of students’ responses from other countries. It is not clear what this may mean, but it alerts us that this data is about perceptions rather than direct observations (Lee 2011: 27). Putting these teacher and student perceptions together, what can be said about civics classrooms in Hong Kong? Considering the two surveys, it seems Hong Kong teachers are more confident about using direct instructional methods but they also report using role play, discussion and research as teaching methods as well. It does not seem that classrooms are overly prescriptive and students report that they are able to express their own ideas about topics and events and a very few of them even feel they are able to challenge the views of teachers. Students probably do not initiate teaching topics very often, and, in schools were there are assessments in civics, the modes seem fairly traditional. These, of course, are all perceptions of what classrooms are like, but there is very little direct observational data available to confirm these perceptions. The best

A View from Hong Kong

255

way to understand these perceptions is to see them as indicators of classroom cultures that are somewhat eclectic, choosing whatever methods suit particular content and reflecting the lack of a single dominant pedagogical approach in Hong Kong’s civics classrooms.

Teacher education Teacher education in Hong Kong is provided by four higher education institutions. Programmes and numbers are tightly supervised by the University Grants Committee on the advice of the Education Bureau. Ironically, in one of the most free-market-oriented cities in the world, numbers for teacher education programmes across the four institutions are determined by manpower [sic] planning parameters that often take a decade-long planning perspective. Thus, unlike more deregulated systems such as those in Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States, it is demand and supply as determined by cycles growth and decline in the population at large that determine the size and nature of Hong Kong’s teacher education programmes. In terms of teacher education, civic education is somewhat disadvantaged because it is not a school subject. Thus there are no specific student numbers allocated for the preparation of civic education teachers. In some institutions, students can take a minor in citizenship education but this is not common across institutions. Basically, pre-service teachers emerge from their teacher education with little or no preparation for the teaching of civics. In the primary sector there is no requirement for teachers to be prepared broadly across the whole curriculum as might be found in Australia or the United Kingdom. Rather, primary school teachers tend to be specialists first – English, Chinese, mathematics, general studies – and they will pick up a ‘second’ subject through taking either a double major or a minor. In any event, teaching allocation in schools may or may not take into consideration subject expertise when it comes to areas like civic and moral education, which is assumed to be a whole school responsibility rather than belonging to a single subject. For the secondary sector, specialism goes even further on a subject basis with broad social science subjects such as Chinese History, Geography, Life in Society, Economics and Public Affairs, Integrated Humanities, Social Studies and Civic Education picking up many civic-related themes. Teachers of these subjects are likely to have been prepared in broad Social Science/Humanities disciplines such as History, Geography, Political Science and Sociology. Many health-related themes related to sex education

256

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

and anti-drug education, also considered a part of a very broad civic and moral education, would be taken up by health and physical education teachers. One exception to the lack of teachers specifically trained for civic education in Hong Kong schools has been the provision of specified places by the government for Liberal Studies teachers. This is a new core subject for a revamped senior secondary education that reduced the years of schooling from seven (the old British ‘A’ levels) to six years. Liberal studies is an integrated social science subject that contains many components considered to be civic in nature (e.g. Hong Kong studies, China studies, environmental and health-related issues, as well as a strand on personal development). Each of the four teacher education institutions was given numbers to prepare liberal studies teachers, although currently the demand has dried up and so have the numbers. While these teachers were specifically prepared for Liberal Studies, there is little doubt that they would make good resources within schools for many of the areas in the junior secondary curriculum that deal with civic-related issues. It may be some time, however, before more places are made available again to prepare such teachers. As the government agency responsible for education policy in Hong Kong, the Education Bureau supports schools to promote and teach what is now known as civic, moral and national education. It does so by providing curriculum guides, learning resources and professional development programmes. In 2014/2015, eighteen such programmes were provided, with twenty-three programmes provided in 2013/2014 (Education Bureau 2015). The content of these programmes has been summarized in Table 14.2 and shows not only in-service teacher education for civic, moral and national education but also how the Cross-Curriculum Priority is conceived from the point of view of the Hong Kong government. It is clear from Table 14.2 that schools are provided with central support for civic and moral education. While teachers may not have been specifically prepared for their role in this area of the curriculum, they do receive in-service support. Yet the other point that emerges from Table 14.2 is that it provides a good indication of how the education system views this subject. The topics outlined in Table 14.2 deal with social, moral, health and environmental issues. Only one topic across the two years deals with an explicitly political topic – basic law education. As others have commented, this means that the focus of civic education in Hong Kong is very much on a moralized curriculum rather than a political curriculum. This not to say that political issues are not dealt with elsewhere in school subjects such as life education and economic and public affairs. Yet it is important to be aware of the moral nature of Hong Kong’s civic education as a distinctive characteristic of its educational provision.

A View from Hong Kong

257

Table 14.2 Teacher professional development programmes for civic, moral and national education, 2013–2015 2013/2014

2014/2015

No of Courses Values Education Health Education Sex Education Promoting Moral Education Environmental Education Anti-Drug Education History Education

8 2 5 3 2 2 1

No of Courses Gender equality Family Education Sex Education Anti-Drug Education Health Education Promoting Moral Education Environmental Education Life Education Values Education Basic Law Education

1 1 5 2 1 2 2 2 1 1

Source: Education Bureau (2015).

Hong Kong and Australia – Are there useful comparisons? Li (2015) highlighted the importance of regime type as an influence on civic education. Hong Kong is characterized as a ‘hybrid’ regime or a ‘flawed democracy’ because its political institutions are not fully democratic. Australia, on the other hand, is recognized as a mature democracy in the liberal democratic tradition. This helps to explain why there is a lack of consensus in Hong Kong about civic education compared to Australia, where there are mature political institutions that facilitate open discussion and debate. Thus the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) can develop overarching goals for all Australian education systems – the Melbourne Declaration – and this creates an Australian consensus that highlights the importance of citizenship education. This is then taken up by the national curriculum agency, ACARA, in a curriculum development process that involves consultation and further discussion. These institutional structures are taken somewhat for granted in Australia, but in an emerging democracy such as Hong Kong, civic education remains a political issue rather than an educational one. Australia has the means to reach consensus; Hong Kong does not. This political framing of civic education in Hong Kong can be seen somewhat faintly in Australia showing that consensus-building in mature democracies is not without disagreement. When the Keating government was defeated in 1996, there went with it a view of civic education based on the idea that Australians

258

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

needed to be prepared for the transition from a monarchy to a Republic. The incoming government was of a different view, wanting to stress the continuity of British political institutions in Australia. Out of this transition came Discovering Democracy – a view of civics not entirely conservative in nature but certainly not portraying Keating’s Republican vision. There were debates and discussions about these changes, but they were contained within a political system where the government of the day was seen to have legitimacy because it was democratically elected. Hong Kong governments are not democratically elected and therefore lack this kind of legitimacy. Thus there is no mechanism in Hong Kong for resolving contentious political issues, so all sides seek to press the benefits of their own positions. This has resulted in a fractured approach to civic education. In Hong Kong, the civics curriculum is not regarded as a compulsory core school subject, but many schools treat it as a subject, a cross-curriculum theme as part of the Moral and National Education curriculum, or as learning that is part of other informal school programmes. However, in Australia, civics and citizenship education is now a subject within the Humanities and Social Sciences learning area and many schools further develop citizenship understanding through wider school programmes and student participation. The substance of the civics curriculum, however, differs considerably in the two jurisdictions. Hong Kong’s official civics curriculum reflected in the education reforms of the last decade is more oriented towards moral education and the development of ‘good citizens’ oriented towards a Confucian cultural ethic, while Australia’s is oriented more towards the development of civic dispositions and the creation of ‘active citizens’. Of course, there are groups in Hong Kong who actively pursue the Australian democratic model for civic education and thus the tensions that have been described above between pro-democracy and pro-China groups. Overall, Hong Kong’s Civics curriculum is characterized by contestation, while Australia’s is characterized by consensus. In spite of some varied interpretation of the Australian Curriculum among states and territories, all Australian students are likely to experience a broadly similar curriculum, while Hong Kong students’ experiences will depend on school-based decisions about the orientation of the Civics curriculum. This leads to the issue of values driving the curriculum. These will be aligned with liberal democracy in Australia, but will reflect different political orientations in Hong Kong. The general assumption underlying civic education in any country is that there is agreement in society about the way young people should be socialized as future citizens: the assumption is generally met in Australia, but not in Hong Kong. Multiple and unresolved views in Hong Kong society mean fragmented approaches to civics education in schools. Resolving

A View from Hong Kong

259

such a major social problem may take some time, but it needs to be remembered that Australia has had over a century of democratic development to bring it to where it is today. Hong Kong, therefore, has a long pathway ahead.

Conclusion Hong Kong’s civic education is still in a process of emerging, while Australia’s seems to be at a stage where there is a general acceptance. Hong Kong’s ‘moralizing’ curriculum, referred to earlier, does actually represent some community consensus. No one has argued against the need for preparing young people for ‘life’ or the need for strong moral standards as part of this preparation. Yet there the agreement ends. Unlike Australia, there is no agreement on the priorities to be given to ‘democratic’ education, and the issues of ‘national and patriotic’ education are very much on Hong Kong’s public agenda. Yet, as long as tensions remain within society and political positions remain polarized, there seems little hope of a consensual civic education with full community support in Hong Kong. Curriculum is often about negotiation and compromise and these are evident in the processes adopted for national curriculum development in Australia. But these terms are not well-known processes among Hong Kong’s political groups. Until there is a more deliberative approach to resolving political issues, Hong Kong’s young people will continue to be subject to a fragmented civic education determined by the values of their school community. Hong Kong most certainly belongs to ‘one country’, but it is the ‘two systems’, however interpreted, that wreak havoc on a common approach to civic values and consequently civic education. Australian political traditions cannot be transplanted in Hong Kong. Each context is unique and Hong Kong must find its own way in a complex political environment that will remain a challenge in the decades ahead.

References Bray, M. and Lee, W. O. (1993), ‘Education, Democracy and Colonial Transition: The Case of Hong Kong’, International Review of Education, 39 (6): 541–560. Cheung, T. (2015), ‘Hong Kong’s Failure to “Implement De-Colonialisation” Has Caused Serious Problems, Says Former Beijing Handover Official’, South China Morning Post, 20 September 2015. Available online: http://www.scmp.com/news /hong-kong/politics/article/1859841/hong-kong-suffering-internal-strife-and -failure-implement-de (accessed 21 September 2015).

260

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Chong, E. K. M., Yuen, T. W. W. and Leung, Y. W. (2015), ‘Reconstructing Hong Kong’s Civic Education in the Post-National Era: Rethinking About Conceptual, Theoretical and Pedagogical Matters’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 10 (3): 251–269. Cottrell, R. (1993), The End of Hong Kong: The Secret Diplomacy of Imperial Retreat, London: John Murray Publishers. Education Bureau (22 July 2015), Teacher Professional Development Programmes. Available online: http://www.edb.gov.hk/en/curriculum-development/4-key-tasks /moral-civic/pdp.html (accessed 25 September 2015). Fairbrother, G. and Kennedy, K. (2011), ‘Civic Education Curriculum Reform in Hong Kong: What Should Be the Direction Under Chinese Sovereignty?’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 41 (4): 425–443. Kennedy, K. (2005), Changing Schools for Changing Times: New Directions for the School Curriculum in Hong Kong, Hong Kong: Chinese University Press. Kennedy, K. (2008), ‘The Citizenship Curriculum: Ideology, Content and Organization’. In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 483–492. London: SAGE Publications. Kennedy, K., Chan, J. C. S. and Fok, P. K. (2011), ‘Holding Policy Makers to Account: Exploring “Soft” and “Hard” Policy and the Implications for Curriculum Reform’, London Review of Education, 9 (1): 41–54. Kennedy, K. and Kuang, X. (2014), ‘National Identity and Patriotism in Hong Kong’s Educational Reform – Student Attributes and Contested Curriculum Structures’. In C. Marsh and J. C. K. Lee (eds), Asia’s High Performing Education Systems: The Case of Hong Kong, 102–114. New York: Routledge. Lee, W. O. (2005), ‘Aspirations for Democracy in the Absence of Democracy: Civic Education in Hong Kong Before and After 1997’. In S. Wilde (ed.), Political and Citizenship Education: International Perspectives, 61–86, Oxford: Symposium Books. Lee, W. O., Kennedy, K., Fairbrother, G. P., Bond, T., Law, W. W., Cheung, C. K. and Hui, E. (2011), ‘International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2009: Hong Kong Report’, Education Bureau. Available online: www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en /curriculum…/iccs_report_20110119.pdf (accessed 24 September 2015). Leung, S. W. (1995), ‘Depoliticization and Trivialization of Civic Education on Secondary Schools: Institutional Constraints on Promoting Civic Education in Transitional Hong Kong’. In P. K. Sui and P. T. K. Tam (eds), Quality Education: Insights from Different Perspectives, 283–312. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Educational Research Association. Leung, Y. W. and Yuen, W. W. T. (2012), ‘Competition Between Politicized and Depoliticized Versions of Civic Education Curricula: The Case of Hong Kong’, Citizenship, Social and Economics Education, 11 (1): 45–56. Li, H. (2015), ‘The Relationship Between Regime “Type” and Civic Education: The Cases of Three Chinese Societies’, Unpublished PhD thesis, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Ng, S. W., Chai-Yip, T. W. L. and Leung, Y. W. (1999), ‘A Study of the Development of Civic Education in Hong Kong: The Social and Political Perspectives’. In Proceedings

A View from Hong Kong

261

of International Conference on Teacher Education 1999: Teaching Effectiveness and Teacher Development in the New Century [CD-ROM], Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Education. Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. and Schulz, W. (2001), Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen, Amsterdam: IEA. Wong, K. L. (2015), ‘Hong Kong Primary Teachers’ Perceptions of Moral, Civic, and National Education in Preparing Students to Become “Good Citizens”: A Mixed Methods Study’. Unpublished PhD thesis, Hong Kong Institute of Education. Zhang, X. (2015), ‘A Correct Understanding of the Characteristics of the Political System of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region’, South China Morning Post, 16 September 2015. Available online: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong /politics/article/1858484/zhang-xiaomings-controversial-speech-hong-kong -governance (accessed 21 September 2015).

15

Comparative Insights on Civics and Citizenship Education and the Curriculum: A View from Singapore Yeow-Tong Chia and Jia Ying Neoh

Introduction Since the advent of mass public schooling in the nineteenth century, education for citizenship has been a key aim of schooling, although the precise focus and form has been variable in different parts of the world. In recent decades, with increasing global policy interest in this field of learning, the role of schools in equipping younger generations with the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for participation in modern democracies as informed, responsible, committed and effective citizens has been highlighted (Franzosa 1988; Niemi and Junn 1988; Print, Ellickson-Brown and Baginda 1999; Print and Milners 2009). Historically, the aims and motivations for citizenship education have oscillated between nation-building, or national identity formation, and education for democratic participation (Chia 2015). In many nations, including Singapore and Australia, the aims of education for citizenship remain contested. In Singapore, education has often been regarded as a vehicle for nationbuilding, with responsibility for socializing the next generation (Tan and Gopinathan 2000; Sim and Print 2005; Chia 2015;). In the case of Singapore, Andy Green (1997) identified economic development and citizenship formation as important in providing skilled human resources and developing social cohesion for national survival (Gopinathan and Sharpe 2004; Sim and Print 2005, 2009; Chia 2015). Citizenship in Singapore has thus been viewed as ‘nationalistic and communitarian’, modelling the ‘civic republican tradition’, emphasizing the consideration of responsibilities, duties and individual interests, together with

264

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

the common good and the public sphere (Sim and Print 2009). Consequently, education in Singapore aims to prepare students to be ‘good and useful’ citizens. Other values commonly associated with citizenship education, such as social justice and democratic civic engagement, have been noticeably absent in Singapore (Chia 2015; Han 2007: 388). Building civic knowledge and political socialization has been central to civic education in Australia, with the aim of sustaining a healthy democracy (McAllister 1996; Print 2007; Print and Milners 2009). Howard and Patten (2006) identify key initiatives in Australia, and in particular the Discovering Democracy programme, with a liberal democratic ideology, purportedly championing social and cultural citizenship rights. However, in their criticism of the Discovering Democracy programme, Reid and Gill (2009: 12) argue that it ‘lacked almost any attention to diversity and what it means to be a citizen in a multicultural society’. As developed nations, both Singapore and Australia face the challenge of balancing economic advancements with issues of social cohesion and justice, especially in recent years when curriculum reforms in both countries have been, at least in part, ‘a matter of national economic competitiveness’ (Briant and Doherty 2012: 53; Chia 2015). The choice of knowledge, skills and attitudes to be taught within the curriculum is a subject of social and political debate (Briant and Doherty 2012). It has been suggested that Australia needs to resist the embroilment ‘in the broader politics of neo-liberalism’ (Howard and Patten 2006: 455), which defines civil society as one in which ‘individual freedom of choice and self-reliance should reign supreme’ (p. 460). It is noteworthy that the Melbourne Declaration, which defines the Agreed National Goals for Young Australians, attempts to provide a balance between economic progress and social cohesion, recognizing students as ‘central to the nation’s social and economic prosperity’ and aiming to equip them with the competencies to ‘live fulfilling, productive and responsible lives’ (MCEETYA 2008: 7). Similarly, Singapore’s survival ideology calls for a balance between economic growth and social cohesion, because a compromise of either one is regarded by the government as a threat to the nation’s survival (Ministry of Education 2014; Chia 2015). Since the start of the twenty-first century, both Singapore and Australia have recognized the important role that schools play in preparing younger generations for new challenges brought on by the shift of world economies to China and India, emerging technology and globalization (MCEETYA 2008; Ministry of Education 2011). With recognition of the different political ideologies in both countries, this chapter discusses how education, and in particular character and citizenship

A View from Singapore

265

education in Singapore and civics and citizenship education in Australia, aims to prepare students for their role as responsible and active citizens within the context of a highly uncertain and challenging future in the twenty-first century.

Historical and political context of Singapore To understand approaches to education for citizenship in Singapore, some key elements of its historical and political context need to be elucidated. Singapore’s unexpected separation from Malaysia on 9 August 1965 left Singapore as an independent and sovereign state overnight. At independence, Singapore was highly vulnerable – socially, politically and economically due to a highly divided and plural society made up of people of different ethnicity, religions and languages. The new nation was impacted by the communist insurgency, its small size, location between larger neighbours and the lack of natural resources (Huxley 2000; Gopinathan and Sharpe 2004; Chia 2015;). However, Singapore was determined to succeed and develop as a multi-racial nation that would achieve unity regardless of race, language religion or culture (Chia 2015). The Singaporean government’s priority was ensuring survival, which became the national ideology (Mauzy and Milne 2002). The survival ideology was followed by a reoccurring series of crises (Mauzy and Milne 2002; Sim and Print 2005; Chia 2015) which were overcome by, paradoxically, the two reasons for Singapore’s expulsion from Malaysia – equality in treatment for all races (leading to social cohesion) and the push for economic advancement (leading to economic success). On this basis of national survival, Singapore’s education system acts as an ‘integrative mechanism’ and ‘engine of economic growth’ (Green 1997; Gopinathan and Sharpe 2004: 122). A key motivation for Singapore’s economic and educational success since 1965 has been the Singapore government’s perception of the island state’s vulnerability. Lee Kuan Yew, the founding Prime Minister of Singapore, summed it up aptly in a speech where he commented that ‘a consciousness of innate vulnerability has promoted a culture of competitiveness through which Singapore has excelled’ (K. Y. Lee 1996: 14). In his book Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability, the late Professor Michael Leifer stated that ‘[t]he government of Singapore … has never taken the island-state’s sovereign status for granted; a supposition which has been registered in a practice of foreign policy predicated on countering an innate vulnerability’ (Leifer 2000: 1). Ever since 1965, Singapore’s political leaders have stressed these vulnerabilities in public discourse, which explains

266

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

the way the Singapore government conducts its foreign and domestic affairs. Because of this deep sense of vulnerability, the state regards ‘instability … with great concern and misgiving’ (Singh 2004: 117–18). With the need to work around Singapore’s vulnerabilities and ensure the success and prosperity of the small nation state, the civic republican tradition helps to shape the educational aims and experiences that prepare younger Singaporeans for the challenges of the twenty-first century. In particular, the subject Character and Citizenship Education introduced in 2012 aims to prepare students for their roles as ‘good and useful citizens’ (SDCD 2014). The following sections discuss how different societal traditions influence the goals of education for citizenship in Singapore and Australia, and, consequently, the kind of educational experiences provided to prepare the younger generations for future challenges.

Conceptualizing the aims and intended outcomes of civics and citizenship education Before comparing the curriculum in Singapore and Australia, the general aims of civics and citizenship education are explored. Citizenship Education curricula across different nations have generally consisted of three main foci – ‘values and attitudes’, ‘skills and competencies’, ‘knowledge and understanding’ (Heater 1990). Ross (2008) adds an additional category of ‘creativity and enterprise’ to further classify Heater’s ‘skills and competencies’ component. When this classification is applied to civics and citizenship education, it directs the work of schools by guiding their selection and organization of strategies to help students acquire the necessary knowledge, skills and attitudes for civic participation in the societies where they live. According to Dewey (1938), education systems must link education to experience for learners to achieve physical, intellectual and moral growth. The value of experience is determined by the principles of continuing growth and social interaction involving contact and communication within self (internal conditions) and objectives (external conditions), so that students can learn in authentic ways. Drawing on the idea of philosophy of experience highlights for us that civics and citizenship curriculum writers and educators have two main tasks – first, to identify intended curricula aims and outcomes (task 1), and second, to provide meaningful experiences that can achieve the intended aims and outcomes (task 2). Here, we focus on these two tasks to compare civics and

A View from Singapore

267

citizenship education in Singapore and Australia. The main concerns arising from this comparison will be highlighted and used as ‘themes’ to guide the rest of the discussion in this chapter.

Task 1: Identifying the intended aims and outcomes in civics and citizenship education Civics and citizenship education in modern democracies aims to prepare students for participation in an effective democratic society (Heater 1990; McAllister 1996; Kennedy 1997; Westheimer and Kahne 2004; Crick 2007; Ross 2008; Print and Milners 2009). Heater (1990: x) argues that this involves developing students’ ● ● ●

●

●

Citizenship identities, as national and world citizens Understanding of civil and human rights Social citizenship to advance collective cultural, economic and security interests Citizenship virtues such as loyalty, responsibility and the ability to act in morally acceptable ways Political understanding and competencies for participation in politics.

According to Heater (1990), these intended directions of growth are crucial for the sustenance of democracy through upholding justice and working towards a common good. In addition to Heater’s (1990) views, a cosmopolitan approach to education is also viewed as essential, with students developing understanding of issues and concerns beyond national boundaries. Democratic citizenship also requires an awareness of the balance between citizenship rights and obligations so that students have the knowledge, skills and attitudes to participate meaningfully in local and global affairs. Of use in analysing the aims and intended outcomes of civics and citizenship education is the multidimensional citizenship model (MDC) advanced by Cogan and Dericott (1998). The MDC also takes into account contemporary global challenges such as environmental deterioration and increased technological advancements while also emphasizing the cultivation of values and active citizen participation where persistent global challenges can be addressed. These knowledge, skills and attitudes are conceptualized and classified neatly in four key dimensions – personal, social, spatial and temporal (Cogan and Dericott 1998).

268

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

The personal dimension involves the development of personal capacities for a civic ethic characterized by individually and socially responsible habits of mind (requiring necessary knowledge), heart (requiring necessary attitudes) and action (requiring necessary skills). Central to the personal dimension is the development of critical thinking, cross-cultural understanding and sensitivity, problem-solving and conflict resolution skills, the commitment to environment protection, the preservation of human rights and engagement in political processes. Building on these competencies, the social, spatial and temporal dimensions require students to actively apply these capacities in a variety of civic settings and overlapping communities and to view issues from the perspectives of broad timeframes – the past, present and the future.

Task 2: Selection of learning experiences in civics and citizenship education According to Dewey’s philosophy of education, educationally worthwhile experiences should include children’s learning acquired in and out of classrooms. Schools are understood as providing the means for students to achieve the aims and intended outcomes with the recognition that the reality of a curriculum is determined – at least in part – by the quality of students’ experience (Dewey 1938; Eisner 2002). The MDC model offers two particular recommendations for the provision of school experiences that can promote growth in the intended directions in the area of civics and citizenship, and which we believe to be of significance to our analysis here. First, a deliberation-based curriculum is viewed as central to student learning (Cogan and Dericott 1998). This includes the use of discussions, negotiations and making choices about a problem together to serve Engle and Ochoa’s (1988) notion of the complementarity of socialization (the transmission of cultural values and traditions to the next generation) and counter-socialization (a reflective process where students learn to ask challenging questions and probe for thoughtful and responsible answers). Second, the social nature of deliberationbased curriculum, supported by Dewey’s philosophy of experience, mandates that entire school structures also contribute to the aims of civics and citizenship education. The needs and capacities of students must be considered when planning for experiences as they are likely to affect the quality of their experiences (Dewey 1938). Through solving problems collaboratively with others, students’ experiences are enriched by a reconstruction of thinking through analysis and synthesis of options, developing growth in the intended directions of civics and citizenship education.

A View from Singapore

269

Comparing civics and citizenship education in Singapore and Australia Acknowledging the value of MDC in creating experiences that promote students’ learning in civics and citizenship, in this section, key aspects of the MDC model will be used as a lens to explore character and citizenship education in Singapore and civics and citizenship education in Australia. To better understand the goals of the respective curriculums, it is important to first recognize that the character of civics and citizenship education is dependent on the world view in which it is embedded (Howard and Patten 2006). The form that it takes depends on the type (or types) of citizen that it seeks to produce (see, for example, Westheimer and Kahne 2004). It was suggested above that the form of governance in Singapore aligns most closely to a civic republican model of citizenship, while Australia’s most closely aligns with a liberal democratic approach. The Singaporean conception of a ‘good and useful’ citizen fits Westheimer and Kahne’s (2004: 240) description of a ‘personally responsible citizen’ who ‘acts responsibly in his/her community’, ‘works and pays taxes’, ‘obeys laws’,‘ recycles, gives blood’ and ‘volunteers to lend a hand in times of crisis’. As such, the Singaporean Character and Citizenship curriculum focuses on the cultivation of core values and the building of related competencies (SDCD 2014). A good and useful citizen is anchored in core values (responsibility, respect, resilience, integrity, care and harmony – R3ICH values), possesses social and emotional competencies so that they ‘recognise and manage emotions, develop care and concern for others, make responsible decisions, establish positive relationships and handle challenging situations effectively’ (p.  7), and is equipped with citizenship competencies such as civic literacy, global awareness and cross-cultural skills to ‘enable students to function effectively as concerned citizens who stay rooted to Singapore’ (p. 8). Comparing the stated goals of Singapore’s Character and Citizenship curriculum with key elements of the MDC model, the development of cultural sensitivity and a repertoire of responsible, cooperative and conflict resolution skills can be seen as key foci of the curriculum. However, the development of critical thinking and the building of capacities to defend human rights and engage in public life can be said to be visibly lacking. We would suggest that the conception of citizenship most clearly identifiable within the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum is that of a ‘participatory citizen’ who ‘actively participates and take leadership positions within established systems and community structures’ (Westheimer and Kahne 2004: 4).

270

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Australia’s Civics and Citizenship curriculum emphasizes developing students’ knowledge and understanding of the federal system of government and core liberal democratic values (such as freedom, equality and rule of law) alongside the development of skills of inquiry. Key also are liberal values and dispositions (such as empathy, collaboration and intercultural understanding) which are seen as central to enabling students to be active and informed citizens (ACARA 2015b). Clearly, the Civics and Citizenship curriculum in Australia encourages students to question, understand, actively shape and contribute to the world in which they live in. In contrast to Singapore’s Character and Citizenship curriculum, the development of critical thinking and preparation for engagement in public life are key goals of the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum. While the former focuses on the cultivation of good character and the education of ‘useful citizens’ (MoE 2012a: 1; see also Tan and Tan 2014), the latter focuses on the development of civic and political competencies that can lead to leadership and active participation in civic life. The designation of character and citizenship education in Singapore and civics and citizenship education in Australia is clearly significant. It must be noted that the study of governance is available in the Social Studies1 syllabus in Singapore Secondary Schools to ‘enable students to be aware of the complexities of decision-making in a society and world that faces rapid change’ (SEAB 2015: 9). However, the concepts involved revolve around ‘national interests’ and ‘meeting the changing needs of society and nation’. The development of a deeper understanding of concepts like civil and human rights to support democracies is, again, negligible. The MDC model recommends a multidisciplinary, cross-curricular approach to the development of civics and citizenship competencies, placing discourse as a priority in schools (Cogan and Dericott 1998) with entire school structures contributing to the development of deliberative citizens (Cogan and Dericott 2012; Tudball and Brett 2014). The Ministry of Education (Singapore) attempts to achieve this recommendation through what is known as the ‘total curriculum approach’ (W. O. Lee 2015). In this way, ‘all teachers, not only a handful, will bear the responsibility of building civic values school-wide’ (p. 103). Capacities in the personal dimension such as the development of critical thinking, understanding and sensitivity to cultural differences, and the building of a repertoire of responsible and cooperative problem solving skills are identified in Ministry of Education’s (Singapore) vision of ‘Thinking Schools, Learning Nation’ and the twenty-first century competencies (21CC) framework which underpins holistic education in Singapore (Ministry of Education 2014) and which aims to

A View from Singapore

271

prevent character and citizenship education from becoming a ‘dry, stand-alone subject’ (Ministry of Education 2011). In addition, in Singapore, arrangements are made within the whole curriculum to include learning experiences for the application of citizenship related knowledge, skills and attitudes (SDCD 2014: 9). Physical, Art and Music Education (PAM) are identified to enhance students’ creative and expressive capacities and shape their personal, cultural and social identities (Ministry of Education 2010). All schools are consequently supported with infrastructures such as Programme for Active Learning (PAL) rooms, performing art studios and outdoor running tracks. Similarly, the Australian Curriculum attempts to integrate civics and citizenship elements throughout all aspects of schooling. Civics and citizenship education is located in the Humanities and Social Sciences learning area, but also has clear and pertinent connections to each of the three Cross-Curriculum Priorities, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander History and Cultures’, ‘Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia’ and ‘Sustainability’. These priorities are ‘core citizenship education territory’ (Tudball and Brett 2014: 41). Similarly, the seven General capabilities – Literacy, Numeracy, Information and Communication Technology Capability, Critical and Creative Thinking, Personal and Social Capability, Ethical Understanding and Intercultural Understanding – are clearly relevant to civics and citizenship learning (ACARA 2015c). Taken together, the development of all seven capabilities helps students to achieve key national goals to ‘manage their own wellbeing, relate well to others, make informed decisions about their lives, become citizens who behave with ethical integrity, relate to and communicate across cultures, work for the common good and act with responsibility at local, regional and global levels’ (MCEETYA 2008). The intended curriculum in Singapore and Australia, then, evidences support for multidisciplinary, cross-curricular approaches to civics and citizenship education. However, contested views that have surfaced since the release of the curriculum documents highlight several issues. First, there are perhaps important differences between how explicit the ‘values’ are which underpin the respective curriculums. The Ministry of Education (Singapore) makes the core values and competencies that underpin holistic education explicit in the 21CC framework. These core values and competencies are primarily related to civics and citizenship education as they work together to achieve the student (citizenship) outcomes (W. O. Lee 2015). The 21CC framework is useful in making the total curriculum approach more comprehensible by stating the roles that different subjects play to achieve student outcomes and ensuring that all subjects support the development a consistent set of values.

272

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

In Australia, core values are set out in the Melbourne Declaration. However, the recent review of the curriculum has been critical of the extent to which these have been explicitly and effectively translated into the Australian Curriculum (DET 2014). The review asserted ‘the need for values and principles’ to be part of the learning in civics and citizenship education (DET 2014: 194) while also pointing to a ‘lack of an explicit values foundation’ (DET 2014: 2). Such comments are, of course, politically motivated, but they do serve to highlight the contested nature of values (see, for example, Reid and Gill 2009, 2010) in the Australian context. The National Framework of Values for Australian Schooling – introduced to guide values education in schools in 2003 – recommended a set of nine values, including the values of ‘freedom’ and ‘equity’ (fair go) mentioned in the Australian Civics and Citizenship curriculum. Other values included ‘care and compassion’, ‘doing your best’, ‘honesty and trustworthiness’, ‘integrity’, ‘respect’, ‘responsibility’ and ‘understanding, tolerance and inclusion’ (DEEWR 2005). These values are similar to the R3ICH values in Singapore and, therefore, support the development of civics and citizenship competencies. Yet, these values have not been explicitly mentioned in the Australian Curriculum and have been dropped as an emphasis by subsequent governments. It is the questions of ‘what values’ and ‘whose values’, as well as a need for greater emphasis on the teaching of values, which have led to comments about the lack of explicit values underpinning the curriculum (DET 2014). There are also some concerns about the implementation of the general capabilities and Cross-Curriculum Priorities in the Australian Curriculum, and these are similar to those raised in relation to Singapore’s intended implementation through the total curriculum approach. Both curriculums propose that all subjects should support the development of civics and citizenship values and competencies. Since the Review of the Australian Curriculum, ACARA has renewed its commitment to the Cross-Curriculum Priorities and general capabilities and the curriculum has been endorsed by all state and territory ministers of education. Despite attempts to advocate a multidisciplinary, cross-curricular structure in Singapore, a more detailed study of the curriculum organization shows contradictions. In comparison to Australia, teaching for critical thinking finds limited expression in the Character and Citizenship curriculum in Singapore. Instead, skills related to citizenship competencies are mapped to the ‘Civic Literacy, Global Awareness and Cross-cultural Skills’ domain in the 21CC model that underpins education in Singapore to enable students to ‘function effectively as active citizens’ and ‘stay rooted to Singapore’ (SDCD 2014: 1), rather than

A View from Singapore

273

being explicitly articulated in the Character and Citizenship syllabuses. Values are to be learnt through ‘instruction’, ‘skills practice’, ‘role modelling’ and ‘positive reinforcement’ (SDCD 2014: 9). Active citizenship described in the syllabus encourages conformity and the continuity of the society through a lack of dissent, strengthening of social cohesiveness, and the preservation of prevailing practices and values (Sim and Print 2005). There is little scope for accommodating the critique of political economy and society (Koh 2002). This approach is problematic as it goes against the primary role of education to enhance the capacity of students to critically engage with events and experiences (Haigh, Murcia and Norris 2014) and citizenship learning without contestation is ‘not true citizenship at all’ (Crick 2007: 242). Interestingly, however, the Social Studies curriculum offered in Primary and Secondary does have some strong citizenship elements and seeks to develop civic competencies (CPDD 2012; SEAB 2015) in ways not stated within the Character and Citizenship syllabus. Social studies, primarily delivered through inquiry, ‘provides the focal point for thinking’ where ‘pupils investigate, extract, analyse and synthesize information’ (CPDD 2012: 6). If applied to the learning of values in the Character and Citizenship syllabus, the connection with Social Studies opens up opportunities for contestation of core values deemed crucial for building Singapore’s social cohesiveness. It is debatable whether the exclusion of Social Studies from the Character and Citizenship syllabus stems from a deliberate effort to distinguish critical thinking from civics and citizenship issues, or a delegation of different subjects to support the development of different competencies, with the latter potentially working against the total curriculum approach. A result of this complexity may be that teachers teaching subjects that promote critical and creative thinking in areas other than civics and citizenship may not feel responsible for citizenship outcomes. Furthermore, while the development of critical thinking in Social Studies uses guiding questions such as ‘How did different people contribute to Singapore’s growth?’ and ‘How have our leaders contributed to Singapore’s progress?’ and as such provides opportunities for students to think about the past and future in relation to contemporary issues by facilitating inquiry into the topics, research has suggested that teaching tends to ‘reinforce the interpretation of the text rather than foster critical and creative thought’ (Han 2007: 391). Focusing on the extent to which civics and citizenship learning is provided throughout the whole curriculum brings into focus the amount of time apportioned to such learning. In Singapore, civics and citizenship learning occurs during Character and Citizenship lessons, Form Teacher Guidance

274

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Periods as well as wider school-based activities, such as assembly periods. Sixty hours in the lower primary levels and seventy-five hours for upper primary and secondary levels per year are allocated in the curriculum time to teach character and citizenship education. The Ministry of Education (Singapore) also makes use of non-examinable subjects and the informal curriculum to develop related competencies, thereby increasing the total time allocated for CCE in Singapore. In comparison, official guidance in Australia recommends that twenty hours per year group (Years 3–8) are allocated to teach the key elements of the Civics and Citizenship curriculum. However, educators are aware that there are strong elements of CCE in other areas of the curriculum including history, ethical understanding, and personal and social capability. Clearly, there also must be proper recognition that civics and citizenship learning can, and should, occur throughout a range of school processes and activities, including student participation and links to community.

Conclusion In this chapter, we have compared civics and citizenship education in Singapore and Australia. We have suggested that the Singapore curriculum aims at a total curriculum approach which is multidisciplinary and cross-curricular in nature, with character and citizenship education included as a curricular subject while also being integrated throughout the school curriculum (W. O. Lee 2015). Likewise, the Australian Curriculum includes active and responsible citizenship as part of its overall aims, with civics and citizenship education included as a stand-alone subject and the expectation that key themes relating to citizenship are addressed through the general capabilities and CrossCurricular Priorities. A key tension we would like to close with concerns who within schools understands and accepts preparation for citizenship as part of their role. Research in Singapore has raised the prospect that unless all teachers view education for citizenship as a core part of their work, the result could be a burdening of ‘teachers assigned to teach citizenship … with the responsibility for the civic morals of the school while other teachers may be indifferent about the moral state of the students as they might feel it is not within the scope of their job’ (W. O. Lee 2015: 103). The key to avoiding this situation is the development of cohesive and holistic approaches to civics and citizenship education within schools. As Tudball and Brett (2014: 38) note, ‘achieving this ideal will require strong and continuing commitment from both government authorities and

A View from Singapore

275

school leaders, and expert teachers to plan and implement the joined-up learning approaches to citizenship education which can help to firmly embed it with the whole school culture, the curriculum and communities’. Such practices will be central to the success of civic and citizenship education in Singapore and Australia.

Notes 1

Social Studies in Singapore Primary Schools seek to develop civic competencies of pupils. It is divided into three clusters of studies – ‘Discovering Self and Immediate Environment’, ‘Understanding Singapore in the Past and Present’ and ‘Appreciating the World and Region We Live in’ (CPDD 2012). Similarly, the Upper Secondary Social Studies syllabus is organized around two core ideas – ‘Being Rooted’ and ‘Living Global’. Hence, Social Studies involves studies of Singapore history, geography and the development and appreciation of the national identity.

References Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015a), The Australian Curriculum: Cross-Curriculum Priorities. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/crosscurriculumpriorities (accessed 20 October 2015). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015b), Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship. Available online: http://www .australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-andcitizenship/rationale (accessed 20 October 2015). Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (2015c), Australian Curriculum: General Capabilities. Available online: http://www.australiancurriculum. edu.au/generalcapabilities/overview/general-capabilities-in-the-australian -curriculum (accessed 20 October 2015). Briant, E. and Doherty, C. (2012), ‘Teacher Educators Mediating Curricular Reform: Anticipating the Australian Curriculum’, Teaching Education, 23 (1): 51–69. Chia, Y. T. (2015), Education, Culture and the Singapore Developmental State: WorldSoul’ Lost and Regained? Basingtoke: Palgrave MacMillan. Cogan, J. J. and Dericott, R. (eds) (1998), Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, London: Kogan Page. Cogan, J. and Derricott, R.(2012), Citizenship For the 21st Century: An International Perspective On Education, London: Routledge. CPDD (2012), Primary Social Studies Syllabus, Singapore: Ministry of Education.

276

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Crick, B. (2007), ‘Citizenship: The Political and the Democratic’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 55 (3): 235–248. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (2005), National Framework for Values Education in Australian schools, Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Department of Education and Training (2014), Review of the Australian Curriculum, Final Report, Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Dewey, J. (1938), Experience and Education, West Lafayette: Kappa Delta Pi. Eisner, E. W. (2002), The Education Imagination: On the Design and Evaluation of School Programs, 3rd edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Engle, S. and Ochoa, A. (1988), Education for Democratic Citizenship: Decision Making in the Social Studies, 3rd edn., New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Franzosa, S. D. (ed.) (1988), Civic Education: Its Limits and Conditions, Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken Publications, Inc. Gopinathan, S. and Sharpe, L. (2004), ‘New Bearings for Citizenship Education in Singapore’. In W. O. Lee, D. L. Grossman, K. Kennedy and G. P. Fairbrother (eds), Citizenship Education in Asia and the Pacific: Concepts and Issues, 119–133. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre. Green, A. (1977), Education, Globalization and the Nation State. Basingstoke: Macmillan. Haigh, Y., Murcia, K. and Norris, L. (2014), ‘Citizenship, Civic Education and Politics, the Education Policy Context for Young Australian Citizens’, Journal of Education Policy, 29 (5): 598–616. Han, C. (2007). ‘History Education and “Asian” Values for an “Asian” Democracy: The Case of Singapore’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 37 (3): 383–398. Heater, D. (1990), Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education, London: Longman. Howard, C. and Patten, S. (2006), ‘Valuing Civics: Political Commitment and the New Citizenship Education in Australia’, Canadian Journal of Education, 29 (2), 454–475. Huxley, T. (2000), Defending the Lion City: The Armed Forces of Singapore, Sydney : Allen & Unwin. Kennedy, K. (ed.) (1997), Citizenship Education and the Modern State, London: Falmer Press. Kennedy, K. J. (2003), ‘Preparing Young Australians for an Uncertain Future: New Thinking About Citizenship Education’, Teaching Education, 14 (1): 53–67. Koh, A. (2002), ‘Towards a Critical Pedagogy: Creating “thinking schools” in Singapore’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 34 (3): 255–264. Lee, K. Y. (1996), Survival Through Remaining Relevant. Speeches 96: A Bimonthly Selection of Ministerial Speeches (Jan–Feb), 14. Lee, W. O. (2015), ‘Future-oriented Citizenship: A Possible Citizenship Model Starting from the Case of Singapore’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 10 (1): 95–108.

A View from Singapore

277

Leifer, M. (2000), Singapore’s Foreign Policy: Coping with Vulnerability, New York: Routledge. Mauzy, D. K. and Milne, R. S. (2002), Singapore Politics Under the People’s Action Party, London and New York: Routledge. McAllister, I. (1996), ‘Civic Education and Political Knowledge in Australia’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 33 (1): 7–23. MCEETYA (2008), Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians Ministry of Education, Student Development Curriculum Division. (2010), Press Release: MOE to enhance Learning of 21st Century Competencies and Strengthen Art, Music and Physical Education. Ministry of Education, S. (2011), Opening address by Mr Heng Swee Keat, Minister of Education, at the MOE Work Plan Seminar 2011. Available online: http://www .moe.gov.sg/media/speeches/2011/09/22/work-plan-seminar-2011.php (accessed 30 October 2015). Ministry of Education, S. (2012), 2014 Syllabus, Character and Citizenship Education, Primary. Singapore: Ministry of Education, Student Development Curriculum Division. Ministry of Education, S. (2014), 21st Century Competencies. Available online: http:// www.moe.gov.sg/education/21cc/ (accessed 30 October 2015). Niemi, R. G. and Junn, J. (1988), Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn, New Haven: Yale University press. Print, M. (2007), ‘Learning Political Engagement in Schools’. In Saha, L. J. Print, M. and Edwards, K. (eds), Youth and Political Participation, 95–112. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Print, M., Ellickson-Brown, K. and Baginda, A. R. (eds) (1999), Civic Education for Civil Society, London: Asean Academic Press Ltd. Print, M. and Milners, H. (2009), Civic Education and Youth Political Participation, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Reid, A. and Gill, J. (2009), ‘AN Arm of the State? Linking Citizenship Education and Schooling Practice’, Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 5 (1): 3–17. Reid, A. and Gill, J. (2010), ‘In Whose Interest? Australian Schooling and the Changing Contexts of Citizenship’. In A. Reid, J. Gill and A. Sears (eds), Globalization, the Nation-State and the Citizen,19–34. London: Routledge. Ross, A. (2008), ‘Organizing a Curriculum for Active Citizenship Education’, In J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds), The SAGE Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy, 492–505. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. SDCD (2014), 2014 Syllabus,Character and Citizenship Education, Primary Singapore. SEAB (2015), Combined Humanities – GCE Ordinary Level (Syllabus 2204). Available online: https://www.seab.gov.sg/content/syllabus/olevel/2015Syllabus/2204_2015.pdf (accessed 30 October 2015). Sim, J. B. Y. and Print, M. (2005), ‘Citizenship Education and Social Studies in Singapore: A National Agenda’, International Journal of Citizenship and Teacher Education, 1 (1): 58–73.

278

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

Sim, J. B. Y. and Print, M. (2009), ‘Citizenship Education in Singapore: Controlling or Empowering Teacher Understanding and Practice?’ Oxford Review of Education, 35 (6): 705–723. Singh, B. (2004), ‘A Small State’s Quest for Security: Operationalising Deterrence in Singapore’s Strategic Thinking’. In K. C. Ban, A. Pakir and C. K. Tong (eds), Imagining Singapore. 117–118. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press. Tan, J. and Gopinathan, S. (2000), Education Reform in Singapore: Towards Greater Creativity and Innovation? NIRA Review. Available online: https://nira.or.jp/past /publ/review/2000summer/tan.pdf (accessed 30 October 2015). Tan, C. and Tan, C. S. (2014), ‘Fostering Social Cohesion and Cultural Sustainability: Character and Citizenship Education in Singapore’, Diaspora, Indigenous and Minority Education, 8 (4): 191–206. Tudball, L. and Brett, P. (2014), ‘What Matters and What’s Next for Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia?’, Ethos, 22 (4): 35–43. Westheimer, J. and Khane, J. (2004), ‘What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy’, American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2): 237–269.

Conclusion Andrew Peterson and Libby Tudball

The contributions in this edited volume have – quite rightly – been wide and varied. When we commissioned the chapters we did not set out an editorial line other than to ask colleagues with a high-standing interest, reputation and unwavering commitment to civics and citizenship education to engage in discussion of important perspectives in this field. As we have moved along the process of compiling the book, notwithstanding differences in colleagues’ viewpoints and foci of analysis, certain central, important and essential themes emerged in what colleagues were writing. In this conclusion, we elucidate four specific themes in order to draw together the book’s central messages, as well as to encourage further reflection and discussion both in Australia and elsewhere. First, while now a subject in its own right within the Australian Curriculum, civics and citizenship is best viewed as more than a subject. In recognizing the wider goal of educating about, through and for citizenship, schools and teachers are necessarily involved in connecting civics and citizenship learning to a range of other curricular content and approaches. In the context of the Australian Curriculum, this includes the cross-curriculum priorities, the general capabilities and the curricula for other subjects. In addition, effective and meaningful civics and citizenship education requires relationships between the taught curriculum and a range of other processes, including school ethos and values, student representation and involvement in democratic practices and extracurricular activities, as well as community links. In short, holistic and comprehensive approaches are crucial to develop the kind of active and informed citizenship envisaged for young Australians. Second, while notions of citizenship and education for citizenship remain conceptually contested, there is some ground for clear and important agreement within national and international literature about key areas of foci within civics and citizenship education. These include the teaching of core knowledge

280

Civics and Citizenship Education in Australia

(political and legal structures, cultural diversity and human rights, for example), the development of specific skills (critical thinking and participatory action, for example) and the cultivating of particular values (respect for difference, global-mindedness and intellectual humility). Across nations, and within Australia, this agreement can also be seen in relation to the development of democratic, inclusive, inquiry-based and dialogical pedagogies which are generally accepted to be central to students’ developing and experiencing citizenship. Third, and related to the pedagogical point just made, approaches to civics and citizenship education are likely to be more valuable where and when they engage with the whole person, that is, where civics and citizenship is viewed as inherently related to and taking account of students’ personal, social and moral development. Approaching civics and citizenship in this holistic way involves a commitment to consider where young people currently are, what they currently know and what their interests are at present, in order to engage them in civics and citizenship learning that is authentic and meaningful to them in their own lives now. Crucially, this also means that students’ multiple identities – as they are relevant to their own conceptions and enactments of citizenship and to those of others – are recognized and appreciated in constructing (and, indeed, coconstructing) civics and citizenship curricular. Fourth, we recognize that while starting from where students presently are (and indeed where they have been) is essential, civics and citizenship education is fundamentally concerned with what young people can become. In this sense, civics and citizenship is futures oriented – interested in students as citizens now and as active, participatory citizens in the future, with the capabilities to critically respond to local, national, regional and global concerns. This is not an insignificant recognition, and necessitates that approaches to civics and citizenship – at both official and school curricular levels – include thinking and planning for how citizenship may be enacted in the future. For reasons of clarity and brevity, these four themes appear to us to be the most striking coming out of the analysis within this book. There are likely to be others, and each reader will invariably identify their own themes, either in agreement or disagreement with the analysis offered in the book’s pages. Our most important hope is that readers of this book will have their interest and imagination sparked and in doing so feel compelled to engage with the key themes with which this book has been concerned. At stake is the education of democratic citizens (now and in the future), a role, aim and purpose which remains at the core of education and schooling in modern, democratic nation

Conclusion

281

states. The introduction of civics and citizenship education as a new subject within the Australian Curriculum represents a significant policy initiative aimed at this end. Our hope is that this book makes a useful contribution to discussions on the new curriculum as well as to the international research literature on civics and citizenship education.

Index action research 15 active citizenship 3, 8–9, 24–8, 35, 43, 53–4, 111, Chap 7, 170, 172, 174, 179, 198, 273 activism 37, 51, 105, 218 Adelaide Declaration 11, 12, 18, 208 advocacy 11, 69, 171, 176, 180, 196, 214 Asia 8, 24, 26, 28, 32, 34, Chap. 5, 103, 134, 156, 246 Asia and Australia’s Engagement with Asia 2, 28, 85, 89, 95, 194, 230–1, 271 Asia century 81, 84, 87 Asia literacy 3, 28, Chap. 5 Australian Curriculum 1–3, 8, 14–32, 42, 44–7, 62–5, 67–70, 71, 73, 76–7, 88–95, 108, 110, 112, 133, 139, 140, 143–4, 147, 149–51, 155–6, 167–9, 174, 178–9, 207–8, 213–15, 219, 225–6, 230–1, 236–40, 258, 271–4, 279–81 Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority 14, 17–19, 25, 27, 72, 208 biodiversity 166, 170, 173 Building Bridges 92, 93, 142 Canada 48, 119, 136, Chap. 11 Civics Expert Group 9 civil society 1, 54, 105, 119, 198, 250, 252, 264 climate change 35, 49, 114, 165, 166, 172, 175, 231 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on 165 collaboration 83, 170, 192, 195, 196, 198, 270 community 1, 3, 11, 15, 19, 26, 28–36, 41, 44–6, 51–3, 62–70, 81, 83, 87, 91–5, 104, 106–7, 110, 111, 119, 121–8, 133, 136, 138, 139, 142, 143, 154, 166, 170–3, 175–6, 179, 190–6, 199, 201, 212, 218, 228, 234, 245, 250, 251, 259, 269, 274

community of inquiry/enquiry 53 compassion 71, 140, 152–4, 272 conflict 30, 49, 152, 199 conflict resolution 30, 50, 171, 268, 269 conservation 175, 179 controversial issues 54, 176, 196, 199, 201, 214, 231, 233, 239, 253 Convention on the Rights of the Child. See United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child cosmopolitanism 81, 101, 103, 105–8, 110–14, 138–9, 193, 239, 267. See also diversity; interculturalism; multiculturalism creativity 178, 266 critical citizenship 25, 33, 34, 37, 168 critical thinking 27, 53, 167, 170, 171, 177, 191, 214, 250, 268–73, 280 Cross-Curriculum Priorities 2, 25, 28, 30, 45, 47, 63, 66, 71, 75, 85–9, 95, 167, 209, 249, 251, 256, 258, 271, 272, 279 democracy 1, 2, 7, 8, 23, 24, 26, 32, 41, 42, 54, 72, 76, 111, 112, 120–2, 139, 151–2, 168, 171, 176, 196, 197, 198, 208, 214, 225, 228, 233–5, 238–40, 244–8, 257, 267 dialogic 137, 140, 142, 280 digital citizenship 50 disciplinary learning 25, 27, 32, 45, 47, 48, 54, 166, 180, 213, 226. See also interdisciplinary learning Discovering Democracy 1, 3, 8, 10–16, 18, 20, 150, 169, 192, 200, 202, 207, 216, 258, 264 diversity 2, 24, 26, 34, 65, 71, 72, 77, 85, 88–90, 92, 93, 96, 103–6, 111, 120, Chap, 8, 149–51, 154, 160, 171, 191, 193–5, 200–2, 208, 213, 214, 238, 240, 252, 264, 280. See also cosmopolitanism; interculturalism; multiculturalism

Index education for sustainability / sustainable development 46, 167. See also Sustainability empathy 30, 36, 46, 64, 73–5, 196, 270 energy 50, 166, 170, 172, 173, 179 England 32, 109, 120, 154, Chap. 12 environment 28–31, 35–6, 49, 50–3, 69, 89, 91, 104, 107, 108, 152, 158, Chap. 10, 231, 256, 267 Ethical Understanding 2, 28, 30, 31, 64, 71, 74, 94, 108, 148, 152, 156, 178, 179, 274 Facebook 35, 50 fair trade 179 food security 49 freedom 71, 74, 137, 140, 151, 152, 171, 191, 196, 247, 264, 270, 272 futures 31, 36, 103, 167, 168, 174, 175, 179, 280 General Capabilities 2, 25, 27, 28, 30, 45, 63, 71, 89, 90, 94, 140, 148, 156, 209, 271, 272, 274, 279 global citizenship / global citizenship education 3, 20, 27, 31, 33, 36, 37, 48, 50, 54, 90, 93, 96, Chap 6, 121, 208 Global Education Project Australia 110 Global Financial Crisis 103 globalisation 83 government, learning about 2, 8, 12, 13, 19, 24, 26, 32, 51, 67, 88, 93, 94, 102, 142, 151, 176, 190, 197, 215, 229, 230–7, 270 Hobart Declaration 9, 10, 11, 108, 208 Hong Kong 112, 239, Chap. 14 human rights / human rights education 30, 31, 36, 47, 49, 50, 65, 67, 74, 76, 90, 92, 94, 106, 108, 110, 113, 120, 139, 151, 176, 180, 191, 250, 267–70, 280 Humanities and Social Sciences 19, 23, 26, 43, 47, 72, 90, 168, 220, 258, 271 identity/identities 2, 7, 26–30, 33, 34, 41, 44, 54, 68, 71, 84–5, 87, 90, 92–5, 105, 107, 109, 110, 133, 137, 139, 179, 190, 196, 213, 214, 239, 240, 249, 263, 275 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Chap 4, 140

283

Australian 47, 66, 73, 90, 134, 140, 147, 150, 154 immigration 8, 110, 156, 250. See also migration Indigenous Australians 24, 82, 156, Chap 4 inequality 28, 122, 124, 128, 236 information and communication technologies 16, 17, 27, 36, 50, 102, 174, 271 interconnectedness 74, 91, 93, 96, 102, 113, 122, 168, 196 Intercultural Understanding 2, 28, 45, 63, 64, 71, 74, 75, 108, 140, 144, 148, 155–6 interculturalism/intercultural education 34, 75, 81, 86, 89, 94, 96, 105, 138–40, 143, 270, 271. See also cosmopolitanism; diversity; multiculturalism interdependence 36, 107, 108, 167, 168 interdisciplinary learning 31, 166 interfaith understanding 93, 149, Chap 9 internet 171 justice 24, 31, 36, 44, 49, 66, 74, 76, 92, 120, 151, 152, 196, 198, 214, 215, 264, 267 justice-oriented citizen 25, 28, 32, 33, 35, 64, 168, 193 laws and citizens 2, 26, 63, 72 maximal citizenship 32, 43, 45, 46, 47, 54, 92, 168 media 27, 35, 36, 37, 41, 49, 50, 51, 67, 69, 135, 149, 158, 177, 179, 189, 247, 252 Media Arts 74 Melbourne Declaration 14, 17–18, 23–5, 30, 41, 65, 88, 101, 108, 120, 133, 151, 168, 208, 225, 257, 264, 272 migration, 48, 83, 108, 134, 137, 191. See also immigration multiculturalism/multicultural education 7, 23, 26, 45, 84, 102, 110, 134, 136–42, 151–5, 191–2, 225, 230–1, 240, 264. See also cosmopolitanism; diversity; interculturalism multi-dimensional citizenship 25, 29, 34, 49, 51, 54 multidisciplinary learning 28, 42, 270–4

284

Index

nationalism 102, 190, 249 nation-state 102, 106, 113, 137, 141 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 119 participation, civic/political 11, 13, 26, 29, 32, 34, 42–4, 51, 68, 91, 93, 95, 110, 120, 168, 170–1, 179, 195–9, 214–15, 233–5, 263, 266–7, 270, 274 peace 104, 105, 109, 139, 154, 176, 196, 198 pedagogy / pedagogies 2–4, 11, Chap. 2, 64, 95, 109, 122, 136, 142, 144, 148, 150, 166, 170, 174, 180, 192, 201, 216, 239, 241, 255, 280 culturally responsive 75–7 of religious education 156–60 Personal and Social Capability 2, 28, 30–1, 45, 148, 274 pluralism 4, 106, 191, 213 political literacy 170, 177, 180, 214 pollution 47, 166 poverty 36, 47 power 32, 33, 43, 95, 102–5, 196, 211, 226, 247 Programme for International Student Assessment 221 refugee 34, 36, 45, 49, 52, 84, 92, 102, 110, 122, 158 responsibilities 26, 30–3, 42, 44, 50, 54, 68, 72, 85, 91–5, 108, 111, 120, 151, 171, 176, 190, 196, 214, 263 service learning 27, 34, 52, 170, 233–4, 236, 251 shared values 26, 90, 136, 138–9, 152. See also values / values education Singapore 119, 154, Chap. 15 social action competence 35 social justice 12, 36–7, 49, 62, 64–5, 76, 93, 104, 106, 109, 111, 113, 151, 166, 171, 193, 199, 201, 209, 264 social media 35, 37, 50–1, 70, 92, 96, 172, 178, 218

student voice 170 Sustainability 2, 46, 47, 88, 108, Chap. 10, 230–1, 271. See also education for sustainability / sustainable development technology 50, 102, 104, 128, 178, 228, 264, 271. See also information and communication technology trade 82 , 86 , 102 , 231 . See also fair trade transformative learning 25, 34 Twitter 50 United Nations 93 Decade of Education of Sustainable Development 167 Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 69 Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 119 General Assembly 235 Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues 80 United States 48, 65, 84, 119, 191, 193, Chap. 13 values/values education 2–4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 24, 26, 31–4, 41–4, 49, 63, 65, 68, 71, 76, 90–6, 103, 106, 108, 110–13, 120–1, 135, 140–4, Chap. 9, 171–5, 178–80, 190, 196, 198–9, 211, 214, 218, 249, 250, 257–9, 264, 266–73, 279–80. See also shared values Values Education Program 14–18, 169 waste 46, 166, 170, 173, 177 water 48, 73, 82, 165, 170, 173, 175, 177, 179 wellbeing 33, 54, 77, 143, 271 World Health Organization 48 Youtube 50, 70