Teacher Education and the Development of Democratic Citizenship in Europe 9780367141493, 9780429030550

Citation preview

Teacher Education and the Development of Democratic Citizenship in Europe

This book uses international collaboration between nine European countries to explore how teacher education systems across Europe perceive and act upon devolving democracy and democratic citizenship. Understanding these countries’ cultural approaches to individual and national priorities in education is essential in perceiving similarities and differences in the meaning of ‘democracy’. The book offers debate on the prospects for teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship in Europe based on historical, political, economic and cultural contexts and the Council of Europe’s (CoE) competences for democratic citizenship. With critical analysis and evaluation around the common theme of teacher education and its role in developing democratic citizenship, the book provides awareness and understanding of how teacher education responds to the CoE’s conceptual model of competences for democratic culture; 20 competences categorized as Values, Attitudes, Skills, and Knowledge and Critical Understanding are defined so they can be taught to enable learners to practice them in their daily lives as democratic citizens. This book will be of key interest to academics, researchers and post-graduate students in the fields of teacher education, educational policy and politics and citizenship education. Andrea Raiker is an independent consultant and researcher in higher education in the UK and internationally. Matti Rautiainen is senior lecturer in pedagogy of history and social sciences at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä. His research interests are educating for democracy and teacher education. Blerim Saqipi is an assistant professor at the University of Prishtina teaching courses on education policy, teacher development and research methods. His research interest is focused on understanding development of teacher professionalism as it relates to social and educational context.

Teacher Education and the Development of Democratic Citizenship in Europe

Edited by Andrea Raiker, Matti Rautiainen and Blerim Saqipi

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 selection and editorial matter, Andrea Raiker, Matti Rautiainen and Blerim Saqipi; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Andrea Raiker, Matti Rautiainen and Blerim Saqipi to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice : Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Raiker, Andrea, editor. | Rautiainen, Matti, editor. | Saqipi, Blerim, editor. Title: Teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship in Europe / Andrea Raiker, Matti Rautiainen and Blerim Saqipi. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2019037217 (print) | LCCN 2019037218 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367141493 (hardback) | ISBN 9780429030550 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Teachers—Training of—Europe. | Democracy and education—Europe. | Citizenship—Study and teaching—Europe. Classification: LCC LB1723 .T397 2020 (print) | LCC LB1723 (ebook) | DDC 370.71/1—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019037217 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2019037218 ISBN: 978-0-367-14149-3 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-429-03055-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

List of illustrations List of contributors 1 Teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship in Europe

vii viii

1

A N D RE A R AI K E R AND MATTI RAUTI AI NE N

2 Competences for democratic culture – towards new priorities in European educational systems?

17

C L AU D I A L E N Z

3 Teacher education and the development of democratic education in England

34

NEIL HOPKINS

4 Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions: educating citizens in neoliberal Estonia

46

M A RI -L I I S JA KO B SO N, E VE E I SE NSCHMI D T AND L EIF KA L EV

5 Democratic citizenship and teacher education in Finland

62

M ATTI R AU T I AI NE N, PE RTTU MÄNNI STÖ AND A LE K S I F O R N ACI ARI

6 Education for democratic citizenship in Ireland

74

CATH AL BU T LE R

7 From the concept of citizenship to the transversal skills for global citizenship in schools F E D E RI CA Z ANE TTI AND E LE NA PACE TTI

92

vi

Contents

8 The evolving concept of democracy in the Kosovo education system: reflections on the role of teacher education

112

B LE RI M SAQ I P I

9 Itinerant curriculum theory in the making: towards alternative ways to do alternative forms of teacher education

125

J OÃO M . PA RA SK E VA AND MARI A ALFRE D O M OR EIR A

10 “Democracy for me is saying what I want”: the teaching profession on free speech, democratic mission and the notion of political correctness in a Swedish context

144

SI LV I A E D LI NG AND JO HAN LI LJE STRAND

11 Changing society, changing teacher education

158

M ATTI R AUTI A I NE N AND AND RE A RAI K E R

Index

167

Illustrations

Figures 2.1 CDC “butterfly” 4.1 Age cohorts of all teachers and civics teachers in Estonian primary and secondary schools in 2017/18 5.1 Model of TE training in the course Education for Democracy and Human Rights

21 51 67

Tables 3.1 Radical collegiality 4.1 Normative orientations in citizenship education 5.1 Three school realities 5.2 Experiments made during the in-service training course Education for Democracy and Human Rights in TE by teacher educators in their own units located in the frame of CoE’s competences for democratic culture 6.1 Units and topics in Politics and Society 8.1 Student teachers understanding and practicing democracy 9.1 Phase activities of the pedagogical inquiry project 9.2 Analysis of the pedagogical intervention of the student teacher 10.1 An overview of how democracy is linked to various purposes, aims and teacher responsibilities 11.1 Phenomena in the phenomenon-based teacher education curriculum at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä

40 49 68

69 84 118 132 136 150 162

Contributors

Dr Cathal Butler is senior lecturer in special educational needs at the University of Bedfordshire, England. Professor Silvia Edling is professor in curriculum studies at the University of Gävle, Sweden. Professor Eve Eisenschmidt is professor of education policy and management at Tallinn University, Estonia. Aleksi Fornaciari is university teacher in education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Dr Neil Hopkins is senior lecturer in education at the University of Bedfordshire, England. Dr Mari-Liis Jakobson is associate professor of political sociology at Tallinn University, Estonia. Professor Leif Kalev is professor of state and citizenship theory at Tallinn University, Estonia. Professor Claudia Lenz is professor of social science at the Norwegian School for Theology, Religion and Society and research professor at the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies, Norway. Dr Johan Liljestrand is associate professor in education at the University of Gävle, Sweden. Perttu Männistö is doctoral student in education at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Dr Maria Alfredo Moreira is assistant professor at the University of Minho, Portugal. Dr Elena Pacetti is associate professor in didactic and special pedagogy at the Department of Education Studies, University of Bologna, Italy. Professor João M. Paraskeva is professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, USA.

Contributors

ix

Dr Andrea Raiker is an independent consultant and researcher in higher education nationally and internationally. Dr Matti Rautiainen is senior lecturer in pedagogy of history and social studies at the University of Jyväskylä, Finland. Dr Blerim Saqipi is assistant professor of education at the University of Prishtina’s Faculty of Education, Kosovo. Dr Federica Zanetti is associate professor at the University of Bologna, Italy.

Chapter 1

Teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship in Europe Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

Introduction The English novelist and writer George Orwell, who was concerned about the quality of the English language in relation to politics, maintained in his essay Politics and the English Language (1946) that the word ‘democracy’ had a variety of interpretations and that it was impossible to extract its essence from them to create a single meaning. His perception still has relevance today. It raises the fundamental question investigated by this book: if democracy, and hence democratic citizenship, cannot be defined, how can it be taught? There is no doubt that throughout Europe, countries consider themselves to be democratic, but what does this mean, ideologically and practically? And how do these countries pass on their conceptions of democracy through education so that their young people can act as democratic citizens? The rationale for this book is based on the editors’ perceptions, upon working with academics on international European projects, that democratic citizenship is under threat. Research in the United Kingdom over the last two decades (Kimberlee, 2002; Sloam, 2016) has demonstrated that 18- to 24-yearolds are the age group least likely to vote in elections. This finding is European wide (Fieldhouse et al., 2007). If young people continue to be disinterested in taking part in the democratic process today – the same young people who will provide the leaders of tomorrow – the outcome may be disenfranchisement, which could affect citizens’ well-being and future national and international progress. The European Union (EU) stresses education for democracy as a basis for the well-being of Europe (e.g. EU, 2013). Indeed, a fundamental principle underlying the Council of Europe’s (CoE, 2017) approach to education is that it should not only prepare young people for employment, but also to be active citizens in democratic societies. However, European democratic ideals are currently seen as being under attack from the growth of populism. Populism can be defined as disenchantment with and scepticism of experts and elites, particularly those related to and/or engaged in politics. It attempts to reclaim democracy from the elites and pluralists they perceive to be deliberately undermining

2

Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

the ability of people to engage effectively with democratic practice. At the heart of the populism movements are issues arising from uncertainties caused by the 2008 recession and terrorism and from instabilities in other countries resulting in migration, causing anxiety in the receiving countries over the impact on jobs, social housing and the welfare state. Populism can arise in right wing politics, as can be seen in Finland and the United Kingdom (UK), or in left wing politics, for example, as in Italy. It can be argued that the problems emanating from these issues could best be solved by Europe coming together in increased cooperation, but as the UK’s 2016 referendum on whether or not to leave the EU has demonstrated, citizens are seeing membership of overarching communities such as the EU as disenfranchising for individuals and disempowering for nations. The Council of Europe’s (CoE, 2017) approach is to consider not what a definition of democracy might be, but how understanding the relationship between citizens and their culture will result in the development of democratic citizenship. As well as acknowledging that young people should be educated for employment, the CoE maintains that they should also be prepared to be active citizens in democratic societies. In other words, education should support young people in developing their democratic citizenship. As part of disseminating its vision, the CoE has launched a new Reference Framework Competences for democratic culture (RFCDC, 2017). This systematic approach aims to equip educators throughout Europe with a conceptual model of 20 competences, categorised as Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical Understanding, to help teach pupils how to live peacefully and progressively together as democratic citizens in social diversity. This raises several questions. Why might the CoE have decided to approach educating for democracy not through defining democracy, but through considering democratic culture? Is there, as Orwell maintained, no agreed-upon definition of democracy so that elements cannot be embedded in curricula for teacher education and therefore cannot be disseminated in schools? If this is the case, to what extent can democratic citizenship as a cultural conception as visualised by the CoE be reduced to a set of taught competences that have cross-cultural relevance and application? In this book academics across Europe analyse and evaluate teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship in their countries with reference to the CoE’s competences. As an introduction, we present an initial discussion on Orwell’s observation through consideration of the meanings of education, democracy, citizenship and education for democratic citizenship.

Education and democracy Since the 1789 French revolution, democracy has been at the heart of the history of Europe. Ideologies of socialism and liberalism developed in the 1800s to form an emerging tradition, but represented very different views of democracy,

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

3

although they both strongly supported freedom and equality. One fundamental difference between liberalists and socialists was the perception of the nature of man. According to Darwin’s theory of evolution, survival of the fittest is the leading force in evolution. Thus, competition between and inside species is an elementary element of all organic life as well as life for human beings. Darwinists, such as Herbert Spencer, held that the lives of humans in their societies were struggles for existence resulting in ‘survival of the fittest’. However, Spencer was a liberalist who wrote ‘Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, providing he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man’ (Spencer, 1954:95). Intellectuals such as Pjotr Kropotkin, one of the leading thinkers in the socialist movement in Europe representing anarchism, were against the ‘survival of the fittest’ ideology. Kropotkin wrote in his famous book Mutual Aid – A Factor of Evolution (1902) that mutualism is the leading force in the history of man, not competition. Like Marx, Kropotkin wrote the history of man from the viewpoint of how a small minority destroyed the idea of mutualism over time. He and other social ideologists thought man should be regarded as a friend towards other men, not a rival. Thus, according to Kropotkin, societies should be based on this principle, not on belief in competition. In the 20th century, these theories caused reality to be viewed in different forms, and most of them were mixtures of traditions of liberalism and socialism, depending on the emphasis placed on perceptions of competition and mutualism within a particular society result in differing conceptions of what education should be and how learning is taught. For example, Finland is a typical country where socialism as well as liberalism have had important roles in determining its social and political history and the education of its people. The Social Democrats have established one the largest parties since the first Finnish parliamentary elections in 1906. The party had a strong impact on the introduction of comprehensive school education in the 1960s and 1970s that lasted nine years for all pupils at a time when education became the core of welfare state construction. The Social Democrat party also demanded equality as a fundamental principle for the development of education. In addition, the Social Democrats demanded a particular democratic culture in schools, which raised tensions between them and the central and conservative parties, who were apprehensive of left wing revolutionary objectives. The result was consensus, which is a typical feature in Finnish society as well as in politics. Not only did schools not became seedbeds for democracy, but interaction with businesses for the future employment of students became minimal. As a result of consensus, activities in schools focused on learning objectives in school subjects and became more or less isolated from society. The same happened to Finnish teacher education. However, during the present century there has been change. Many stakeholders, for example the Finnish National Agency for Education, are now promoting participatory and democratic agency in schools, and schools are also opening themselves and their students to business life. One outcome of the latter has been that

4

Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

entrepreneurial education has gained greater prominence in both schools and in teacher education. The democratic state of a society defines and frames the education for democracy; however, education not only reacts to the wishes of politicians, but also to those of proactive agents in society. Teachers are experts in pedagogy, and their professional identity and thinking are based on concepts of learning, being human and functioning as members of society. Different pedagogical approaches usually dominate in particular schools, and they can be viewed as being radically different in comparison with each other. For example, Freinet schools, based on the work of Célestin Freinet (1896–1966), are committed to observing and acting upon democratic principles. Freinet emphasised the importance of democracy as a way of living in school in cooperation with other societal stakeholders. Differences between schools based on alternative pedagogies are visible; teachers in various school can be seen to be not following similar processes or approaches. In their classrooms, teachers have pedagogical freedom, more or less, and they can implement their own pedagogical thinking in their work. Teacher education is traditionally offering basic concepts and knowledge based on contemporary scientific knowledge and paradigms especially in psychology, but also presenting alternative pedagogies and experiments implemented in history. All pedagogical practices have connections to conceptions of what it is to be human and its relation to society. Because different commitments lead to different results, we ask how well relationships between democracy and education resonate with teacher education in various countries in Europe and how these have an impact on the development of democratic citizenship. To provide insight, we consider the origins of democracy and citizenship, their development over centuries and the growing need for education to develop democratic citizenship.

Democracy and citizenship The originators of democracy and citizenship were the ancient Greek city-states and in particular Athens. Athenians conceived of and practiced responsibilities where the people, demos, decided the destiny of their city-state through their rule, kratia. This involved certain entitlements, such as the equal right of individuals to freedom of speech and to vote at assemblies and in courts where justice was administered. The underlying concept was to ensure that the people had equal opportunity to express and gain support for their opinions (Sinclair, 1988). Democracy, the rule of the people, was embodied in the Ekklesia, the monthly assembly where the people could participate directly in current political and legal debate and vote on decisions determined by the majority by a show of hands, hence the emergence of the term ‘direct democracy’. The people also voted for those who became members of the Vouli, the presiding executive. Apart from a handful of leaders, judges and officials who were brought in because of their

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

5

particular and necessary skills, members of the Vouli were chosen by a drawing of lots. The Athenians established the fundamental doctrine underpinning democratic practice that all citizens have the right and the duty to undertake the responsibilities of authority through voting (Beck, 2013). However, both principles, embodied in the Ekklesia and the Vouli, were grounded on a fundamental right which was not based on the ‘people’, that is, all living in the Athenian city-state. The right to engage in direct democracy necessitated being born in the city-state and being an adult male who had completed military training. This training began when adolescents were 18 and ended when they were 20. So women, people younger than 20 years old, slaves and foreigners resident in Athens were not entitled to join the Ekklesia and therefore could not participate, vote or be chosen to become members of the Vouli. Athenian democracy was predicated on men who were deemed to be capable of communicating and acting for the common good. In the 5th century BC, 18 youths being inducted into military training swore the following: I will obey whoever is in authority, and submit to the established laws and all others that the people shall harmoniously enact. If anyone tries to overthrow the constitution or disobeys it, I will not permit him, but will come to its defence single-handed or with the support of all. (Taylor, 1918:499) So not only were the responsibilities of being male and a member of the Ekklesia and potentially of the Vouli to do with voicing and voting on concepts and ideas of the common good: they were based on having experienced commitment to act individually and communally in the defence of their homes, laws and direct democratic practice of the Athenian city-state. The European countries whose academics are contributing to this book are all democracies, but not simply direct democracies; they have experienced, as has Greece, historic socio-economic and political pasts that have resulted in the unique development of their current form of democratic practice. As John Dewey points out (2008), the conception of democracy has to be renewed regularly as societies change. In the 5th century, the Athenian city-state had a population in the region of 40,000 of which approximately 20 per cent were citizens (Morris, 2005) – that is, could be members of the Ekklesia. Although the term ‘citizen’ can still be applied to a person who lives in a particular town or city, it is generally given to a person who is a member of a certain country and who has rights because s/he was born there or has acquired rights through meeting the country’s legal requirements. Nowadays societies are not city-states with populations numbered in tens of thousands as in ancient Greece; they are nations with populations that consist of millions. The development of representative democracies was a necessary pragmatic solution to enable citizens in defined areas within a country to continue their contribution to ruling their nation by delegating their authoritative responsibilities to their elected members

6

Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

of government. As Runciman (2018) observes, since their inauguration regular elections have become fundamental to democratic politics. He argues that the purpose of democratic policy and practice is to ensure long-term social benefits, in other words for the common good from which individuals also benefit, by providing citizens with voice through voting. So, although the organisation and administration of democratic policy and practice has changed, the initial concept of its purpose has not. A significant difference in many European countries from Athenian democracy lies in the change of those deemed eligible to vote, although this took centuries to happen. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK) the end of the First World War in 1918 and the women’s suffrage movement promoted an extension of voting rights from 58 per cent to virtually all men over 21, with or without property, and to women from none to those aged over 30 who met a property criterion. It was not until the 1969 Equal Franchise Act (Parliament UK, 1928) that women achieved the same voting rights as men. Foreigners in the UK can now become citizens and have voting rights equal to those born there, although the legal process can be lengthy and arduous. Since the 1969 Representation of the People Act (Parliament UK, 1969), young people aged 18 and over became entitled to vote; before the act the age was 21. But citizens’ entitlement to vote in the UK and throughout Europe still does not depend on their experiences gained through military training. They do not have to combine their thoughts and beliefs on democratic policy and practice with swearing an oath to commit themselves to act individually and communally in the defence of their homes, laws and direct democratic practice. In European countries, citizens acquire their ability and commitment to vote through schooling and lived experience in and outside their culture. This can mean that they do not vote at all. Also their lived experience as adults where work, family, health, relationships, leisure and so on dominate their individual lives does not allow time for most citizens to study political and social issues in depth so that they have justifiable views with which to engage their elected representatives. However, organisations such as trade unions, professional associations, environmentalists and particularly businesses and financial groups can and do. Dahl, as early as the 1950s, conceived such democratic practice as being pluralist (Baldwin and Huggard, 2015) and deduced that in pluralist democracies, as only a small number of citizens were involved in this process, most citizens were in fact bystanders. To pluralists, encouraging the majority of citizens to be passive in politics is appropriate because they maintain that most citizens do not have the knowledge and intelligence to engage effectively and efficiently in a representative democracy. Relating pluralist democracy to democratic elitism is not difficult. There are particular groups in society who, because of their perceived nature and conduct, dominate representative democracies. The UK class system provides an example. Until 2016, when Theresa May was voted by her Conservative Party to replace David Cameron following his resignation after the referendum on

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

7

exiting the EU, at least half of the Cabinet (the real power executive of government consisting of 20 senior ministers) had attended private schools; only 7 per cent of the British population attended such schools (Sutton Trust, 2018). In David Cameron’s 2015 Cabinet, 50 per cent of members had attended either Oxford or Cambridge universities, institutions that are considered to be elitist. As Pareto (1984) argued, democracy is an idealist conception and not a practical possibility; some countries that proclaimed themselves to be democracies were actually oligarchies. So democracy in a European country can be viewed as direct if they hold referenda; representative due to voting for parliaments; pluralist because of the lobbying of members of parliament by influential, committed and knowledgeable groups; and elitist because of the heritage of a government grounded in aristocracy and wealth. As European countries contributing to this book will demonstrate, the concept of democracy is clearly complex and multifaceted. The defining of democracy, and consequently democratic citizenship, appears to be impossible. It is understandable why the present-day usage of the term ‘democracy’ has been simplified, referring to the political system – which may be left, centre or right wing – and focusing on a wide-ranging electorate, free elections and a free press (Moyn, 2006). However, this is considering only the practical aspects of democratic practice and not the conception, the philosophy, that underpins it. As stated prior, John Dewey argued that the concept of democracy had to be renewed regularly as societies change; he also maintained that education was the mediator (Dewey, 2008) and that schools were micro societies whose communicative actions were underpinned by democratic ideals (Dewey, 1966). He stated that education was not ‘schooling’, in other words, a prescribed curriculum delivered by institutionally trained teachers. Education should reflect life, not simply be a preparation for it, because democracy is a form of living and being, not merely an organised and administered process. Dewey’s conception of democracy was not specifically defined, but grounded in a philosophic perspective on the nature of human existence that can be described as existential: Faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action . . . so that they can fully take part in democratic life . . . to respond with common sense to the free play of facts and ideas which are secured by effective guarantees of free inquiry, free assembly and free communication. (Dewey, 1966:3) This resonates with Runciman’s (2018) conception of democracy, outlined prior, as the establishment of long-term institutions to deliver social benefits while providing individuals a voice. However, he then proceeds to argue that governments pay ‘lip-service’ to peoples’ voice and gradually undermine democratic practices using modern technology, particularly through social media, and fake news. This generates confusion and conspiracy theories. The people allow

8

Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

their governments to do this because they take democracy in their countries for granted. In general their lives are comfortable, so they become passive; in other words, they become bystanders. This reflects aspects of pluralist democracy that were outlined earlier. The philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah (2013) is more positive, stressing the need, both in schools and at home, for young people to acquire knowledge and the ability to think critically so that they can comprehend the value of democratic citizenship. His conception of democracy focuses on peoples’ engagement with shared national identity, which creates individual honour or shame, depending on commitment to actions that generate the respect of others. Appiah emphasises the need for people to vote because that means those who rule can be changed. However, in order for voters to do so in a justifiable manner, there has to be reliable sources of information which can then be reflected upon, analysed and evaluated to direct their actions as democratic citizens. Like Runciman, Appiah stresses the need for communication, in his context by journalists, that respects truth. Otherwise voters cannot choose through realism and reason; they have to choose through emotions and prejudice. Unlike Runciman, he does not relate this to the growth of populism and its aim to sever democracy from elitism.

Education and democratic citizenship So whilst Dewey supports the intelligence of individuals and uses the words ‘common sense’ and ‘free’ as fundamentals of democratic life, Runciman and Appiah, who are current theorists, include the necessity for those who disseminate information to be truthful, and information is largely disseminated through language. This is where the importance of education becomes evident. A significant agreement among Dewey, Runciman and Appiah is the way education impacts on the maintenance of democracy as summarised by Dewey: The aim of education is to unite individual citizens and their society through an approach based on democratic values and practices. The purpose of education is the achievement of progress through giving voice to all sectors of the community. (Dewey, 1939:3) Giving voice means using language. Appiah, following Socrates, underlines the importance of debate, i.e. the controlled, focused and understood use of language, in leading to shared comprehension of the views and experiences of others. But as has been argued, education can divide as well as unite, and this can impact on how people vote and for whom they vote. So, because of the difficulties in defining democracy and articulating its national and international application by governments through institutions and laws to produce proficient democratic citizens, it is understandable why the CoE promotes democratic culture through education. The overwhelming majority of citizens attend, or

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

9

have attended, schools. Through the teaching of essential values, attitudes and practices, learners are supported and encouraged to assimilate them into their individual moral and ethical perspectives and manifest them in their social communications and actions. The etymological root of the term ‘education’ is the Latin verb educare, which means to nurture and encourage growth, in other words, learning development. The act of nurturing, moulding or training comes from the term educatum, which leads to the English term of ‘educator’. So school teachers and university lecturers develop the potential of children and students. However, there is another aspect to teaching and learning as well as the systematic instruction provided in formal educational institutions. Raiker and Rautiainen’s (2017) research, based on the principles and culture underpinning democracy in England and Finland, demonstrates that learning objectives and teaching practices in the two countries reflect their differing historical, political and socio-economic factors. This supports the CoE’s emphasis on associating democracy with culture. Their findings also showed similarity in their cultures, for example, that politicians and educators in both countries were focused on preparing their young people to have the knowledge, skills and understanding to be active citizens in their communities, be they local, national or international. However, all are being orientated by the current international political climate that is tending towards neoliberalism. The aim of neoliberalism in education is not, as Dewey (1939) maintained, to unite individual citizens and their societies through an approach based on democratic values and practices, with progress achieved through the process of giving voice to all communities. The phrase ‘knowledge as a commodity’ (Boden and Epstein, 2009:224), i.e. a product, defines neoliberalism as a global ideology aiming to combine liberal politics with economic growth and profit. Neoliberalist nations regard education as a product and aim to control its consummation in increasingly competitive educational institutions. This determination of teacher and school education as knowledge production to be consumed by citizens as a ‘value-for-money’ commodity, controlled through the bio-power of the neoliberalist state (Foucault, 1984), does not resonate with Dewey’s conceptions of the democratising power of education or of faith in the capacity of human beings for intelligent judgment and action (Dewey, 1939). This has revealed itself in decreasing control of educator professionalism as governments are becoming more concerned about economic growth and, in some cases, survival. If the trend continues, there are implications for teacher education and classroom practice in nation states. It could be argued that educators, whose own democracy in the seminar room and classroom has been undermined, will become increasingly ineffectual in creating democratically minded citizens. The impact of this could be that national education systems will create future citizens who have no concept of democratic citizenship. An underlying concept of this book is that it is the responsibility of nations that praise themselves as being democratic to establish

10 Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

environments where citizens’ abilities to engage effectively with democracy and its processes can be developed. Schools are key environments for this. In their recent publication, Educating for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture (2017), Raiker and Rautiainen demonstrated that the philosophical and ideological principles arising from an individual country’s culture were fundamental to developing democratic practices through appropriate pedagogies. Furthermore, the process of developing effective processes and practices in democratic education was more complex than their national policy documents suggested. Each author contributing to Educating for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture clearly demonstrated the importance of teachers in what and how they taught democracy. So it can be argued that the role of teacher educators, what and how they teach, is crucial in developing teachers who understand the conceptions of democracy and citizenship and the function of education in this process of developing young people who are active citizens. An outcome of Raiker and Rautiainen’s work was the question: are teacher educators adequately prepared to deliver courses in democratic citizenship with appropriate pedagogies to their students?

Teacher education and the development of democratic citizenship According to Arthur, Davies and Hahn, ‘Democracy, citizenship and citizenship education are complex, dynamic and controversial’ (2008:1). Teacher Education and the Development of Democratic Citizenship in Europe will contribute to this debate by investigating in a range of European countries the effectiveness of teacher education, and the role of teacher educators as stipulated in past and current educational policies and practice, in developing their students’ knowledge and understanding of democratic citizenship. Our discussion in this introduction has shown that the CoE’s approach to educating for democracy, not through defining democracy, but through considering democratic culture, is justifiable. As Orwell intimated, producing an agreed-upon definition of democracy which has to be expressed simply and concisely so that elements can be taught, understood and applied in school and university curricula throughout Europe, and indeed the world, is fraught with difficulty. This book seeks to ascertain the extent to which the CoE’s competences are already embedded into educational policy and practices in Europe and whether greater engagement will require more than their further addition to curricula. For example, should policymakers and educators have, or gain access to, greater knowledge and understanding of the interplay between the historical, economic, political and social factors that have resulted in their country’s current educational system, policies and practices? Can it be argued that teacher education curricula should include philosophical content as the CoE’s descriptions of Values and Attitudes appear to be predicated on ethical positions gained through reflection on the Knowledge and critical understanding gained through the application of

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

11

Skills? Identifying the moral and ethical key elements that enable young people to take part effectively in a cross-cultural conception of values, attitudes and practices leading to individual, social and environmental benefit may underpin the 20 competences, not simply be an aspect of them. The outcome of these discussions, and others in the book, will enable policymakers and teacher educators throughout Europe to support learners, both in university departments of education and in schools, in acquiring the individual perspectives and social skills necessary for responsible and rational contribution to political debate and communal action locally, nationally and globally. The degree to which these are already integrated into the development of democratic citizenship, in both school and teacher education, will be revealed in the chapters of this book and will be analysed and evaluated in relation to the CoE’s competences in the concluding chapter. To provide insight into the Council of Europe’s Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) in Chapter 2 Claudia Lenz introduces the educational philosophy and conceptualisation on which it is based. Professor Lenz has had active role in the process of CoE’s work concerning 20 competences, and now she is leading the teaching and learning group in Education Policy Advisors Network (EPAN), which is promoting the implementation of CoE’s competences in each member state of CoE. The chapter considers the development of its fundamentals since the turn of the century, their integration into the CoE’s work in education and the influence of the specific context of Islamist terror and the CoE’s responses to that around 2015. Furthermore, as the author states, ‘the chapter presents different strains of the implementation of the Reference Framework in the CoE member states in a “top down” and “bottom up” perspective’. Chapter 3 presents an interesting and complex situation in England with regards to teacher education and democratic citizenship in relation to other European contexts. These challenges can be encapsulated in the current issue of re-establishing a national identity within a highly diverse society in the midst of Brexit and heightened concerns over security. The Department for Education introduced the concept of ‘Fundamental British Values’ into state schools and colleges in November 2014. These values consisted of: democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. This chapter explores how and if ‘Fundamental British Values’ with the Council of Europe’s conceptual model of 20 competences for citizenship and democracy. This author adopts a systematic literature approach, analysing recent government policy alongside key interventions from academics within the field to draw out the conceptual aspects of citizenship, democracy and teacher education. Civic and citizenship education in Estonia with a focus on the civic aspects of teacher education are considered in Chapter 4. Since regaining independence in 1990s the post-Soviet Estonia has been known for its neoliberal policies. In education the influence of neoliberalism has been more subtle and

12 Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

mixed with other aspects of their culture. There are long humanist and pedagogical traditions in Estonia, but due to the limited democracy and nation state processes and procedures, the civic aspect has not been particularly emphasised. The theoretical framework of the chapter is derived from the model of competences for democratic culture of the Council of Europe but will complement or at times juxtapose with the more instrumental Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge of the neoliberal citizen, including self-efficacy as legal actors, citizen-consumers, entrepreneurs and so on. This will be related to the role that teachers and teacher educators play in educating for democratic citizenship through considering their civic dispositions, curricula and pedagogy. Finland, the country whose teacher education and development of citizenship are explored in Chapter 5, is considered to be among the most democratic countries according to many international surveys. Nevertheless, the level of student participation in Finnish school practices is below average compared to other European Union countries. In this context, teacher education is seen to be one of the key factors in the process of developing democracy, necessitating that democracy and participation should be made more visible and better incorporated into its curricula. To support the professional development of teacher educators, the Finns’ Ministry of Education and Culture funded projects whereby networks of teacher educators promoted democracy in their departments via different experiments (interventions). In this chapter an overview of these interventions is given followed by an analysis of the nature of democracy embedded in these interventions. Research data gathered from educational policy documents, documented experiments and interviews is analysed in relation to the Council of Europe’s competences of Knowledge and critical understanding (CoE, 2016). Specific research questions to be investigated are: does teacher education in Finland promote students’ critical understanding of critical citizenship, and does teacher education (TE) practice reflect the aims of policy? Critical citizenship in this context contains competences listed in the CoE’s Competences for Democratic Culture. The complex interplay of factors that influence how democracy and citizenship are understood and taught in teacher education and in schools in the Republic of Ireland is explored in Chapter 6. A key area of focus is the historical circumstances leading to the birth of the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, which ensures that discussions around citizenship and around democracy on the island of Ireland are tied into culture (particularly language), history and religion, resulting in continuing tension and conflict. The role of the Catholic religion in the foundation of the state, and its influence on education policy, on teacher training and on schools, is discussed in detail, as is its influence and impact on political beliefs and perspectives on democratic citizenship. The citizenship syllabus within the Irish national curriculum is explored, at primary level within the subject ‘social, personal and health education’ and at secondary level within the subject ‘civic, social and political education’. There is a focus on content, teaching and training within these curriculum areas

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

13

with a particular focus on Irish and European democratic citizenship, given the importance that EU membership has had for the Republic of Ireland as a modern European nation. Finally, in the post-Celtic tiger era, the effect of neoliberalism on Irish education policy is evaluated, together with the extent to which current education policy supports the democratic rights of all children in the Republic of Ireland. Chapter 7 investigates Italian citizenship, which is based on a system of rules and behaviours that makes civil coexistence possible in a specific social and political reality. But it also means a sense of roots and a knowledge of one’s own land, of his/her culture and history, has to be developed: this makes possible a responsible participation in the development of one’s community and territory in a perspective of sustainability and attention to the future of the entire world. In Italy the need to educate new generations for global and planetary citizenship, as recommended by the Council of Europe (2016) and the European Parliament to all member states, has been accepted in various national school regulations. The chapter aims to analyse the challenges faced by Italian educational institutions in forming citizens who can recognise their national identity and at the same time are able to meet and interpret far more extensive forms of citizenship, not only transnational, but also global: a citizenship, therefore, that includes not only territorial and spatial dimensions, but also relates to the dimensions of temporality, to the new virtual worlds, to techno-scientific contexts. The results of a survey, aimed at secondary school teachers, on knowledge related to migration, global citizenship and co-development, on training needs and teaching related to participatory and collaborative methodologies, are analysed. The findings suggest that, in this context of international crisis, it is even more urgent to increase social and civic competences to promote the eradication of poverty and the expansion of justice and social equity and human rights. Migration and co-development represent a social issue to be transformed into an educational object, with the contribution of knowledge and scholastic disciplines. Developing capacities of teachers for teaching democratic citizenship has been one of the core aims of teacher education reform efforts in the last two decades in Kosovo. Chapter 8 focuses on a country that declared its independence in 2008 following a period of decades of hardship. Kosovo emerged from the dissolution of the former communist Yugoslavia, and its path to independence was associated with numerous challenges involving tragic conflict. Within the efforts to reform its education system, Kosovo embarked on curriculum reform which advanced the concept of outcomes-based education. The new curriculum (endorsed in 2011) adopted the competence-based approach, emphasising the following competences: effective communicator, creative thinker, successful learner, productive contributor, healthy individual and responsible citizen. The ‘responsible citizenship’ competence links with the idea of developing democratic citizenship and resonates with the Council of Europe’s Competences for Democratic Culture (2016). Teacher education

14 Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen

reform in the last two decades has followed the approach to raising qualification requirements for all teachers with the latest trend of introducing Master’s level qualification requirements. This chapter will examine two important areas in this regard: how is the teacher education curricula addressing the needs for developing a democratic citizenship competence; and what is teacher understanding of developing democratic citizenship in terms of practice at school level? The chapter provides an historic overview of the development of the concept of democracy in Kosovar society. There is a parallel analysis of how education developed and the role it played in the transformation of Kosovo into a democratic and independent state. The data for this study includes the analysis of policy documents such as legislation and curricula documents, teacher education curricula and data collected from surveying two cohorts of students in the teacher education programme at the University of Prishtina in Kosovo. The chapter concludes by addressing questions on the role of education and the school context in enhancing Kosovo’s democratic culture during its transition to being a post-conflict society. Chapter 9 dissects the concept and practices of citizenship education in initial teacher education in Europe with a focus on Portugal and positioning using critical, post-critical and decolonial perspectives. The authors endeavour to identify how to create alternatives in teacher education to challenge curriculum epistemicides in teacher and school education. An example of a teacher education project developed in the context of the practicum is provided. The pedagogical intervention in the project focused on the development of citizenship education and intercultural competence in foreign language learning at the primary level. It is an example that shows how transformative citizenship and intercultural education can be implemented in initial teacher education in a way that challenges subtractive curriculum forms in school education whilst advancing the struggle for social and cognitive justice. Free speech has been a cornerstone in Western society and is deeply associated with democracy as a form of government based on ‘the people’. Chapter 10 starts with the idea of the professional teacher which influences teacher education programmes in Sweden and places the idea of the professional teacher in relation to ideas about free speech, teachers’ democratic assignment to combat violence and far right movements mobilising people. It provides an understanding of how teacher educators within teacher education institutions in Sweden are expected to teach about teacher professionalism. What is particularly highlighted are the tensions between this idea of teacher professionalism in relation to free speech, radical rights movements’ stress upon political correctness and the teachers’ mission to socialise young people to become democratic citizens capable of opposing various forms of violence. The authors argue that freedom of speech should be related to basic values regarding how the teacher intends to educate student for democratic citizenship. By relating

Teacher education and democratic citizenship

15

their discussion to the Council of Europe’s conceptual model of 20 competences (2016) the authors also attempt to contextualise student teachers notions of freedom of speech to these competences and value dimensions. The key findings from this and preceding chapters are concluded in the final chapter, Chapter 11, leading to an analysis and evaluation of the insights gained on the questions posed in Chapter 1, and an assessment of the relevance and impact of these insights for practice leading to enhancing teacher education for the development of democratic citizenship, leading to future research.

References Appiah, K. A. (2013) ‘The Democratic Spirit’ Daedalus, 142 (2), pp. 209–221. Arthur, J., Davies, I. and Hahn, C. (eds.) (2008) The Sage Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Democracy. London: Sage. Baldwin, D. and Huggard, M. (2015) ‘Robert A. Dahl: An Unended Quest’ Journal of Political Power, 8 (2), pp. 159–166. Beck, H. (2013) A Companion to Ancient Greek Government. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Boden, R. and Epstein, D. (2009) ‘Accounting for Ethos or Programmes for Conduct? The Brave New World of Research Ethics Committees’ The Sociological Review, 57 (4), pp. 727–749. Council of Europe (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 (Accessed 29 April 2019). Council of Europe (2017) Reference Framework Competences for democratic culture (Vol 1.–3.). Available at: https://rm.coe.int/prems-008318-gbr-2508-reference-framework-of-competencesvol-1-8573-co/16807bc66c (Vol. 1) (Accessed 5 July 2019). https://rm.coe.int/prems008418-gbr-2508-reference-framework-of-competences-vol-2-8573-co/16807bc66d (Vol. 2) (Accessed 5 July 2019). https://rm.coe.int/prems-008518-gbr-2508-referenceframework-of-competences-vol-3-8575-co/16807bc66e (Vol. 3) (Accessed 5 July 2019). Dewey, J. (1939) ‘Creative Democracy: The Task before Us’ in John Dewey and the Promise of America, Progressive Education Booklet, No. 14. Columbus, OH: American Education Press. Republished in John Dewey, the Later Works, 1925–1953, p. 14. Dewey, J. (1966) Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press. Dewey, J. (ed., J. A. Boydston) (2008) The Middle Works of John Dewey, Volume 9, 1899–1924. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. European Union (2013) Citizens 2013. Available at: http://europa.eu/citizens-2013/en/about/ (Accessed 5 July 2019). Fieldhouse E., Tranmer M. and Russell, A. (2007) ‘Something about Young People or Something about Elections? Electoral Participation of Young People in Europe: Evidence from a Multilevel Analysis of the European Social Survey’ The European Journal of Political Research, 46 (6), pp. 797–822. Foucault, M. (1984) ‘Right of Death and Power Over Life’ in Rabinow, P. (ed.) The Foucault Reader. London: Penguin, pp. 258–272. Kimberlee, R. (2002) ‘Why Don’t Young People Vote at General Elections?’ Journal of Youth Studies, 5 (1), pp. 85–97. Kropotkin, P. (1902/2009) Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution. London: Freedom Press.

16 Andrea Raiker and Matti Rautiainen Morris, I. (2005) The Growth of Greek Cities in the First Millennium BC. Available at: www. princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/morris/120509.pdf (Accessed 14 November 2018). Moyn, S. (ed.) (2006) Democracy: Past and Future. New York: Columbia University Press. Orwell, G. (1946) Politics and the English Language. London: Penguin. Parliament UK (1928) Equal Franchise Act. Available at: www.parliament.uk/.../birminghamand-the-equal-franchise/1928-equal-franchise-act (Accessed 5 July 2019). Parliament UK (1969) Representation of the People Act. Available at: www.parliament.uk/.../ 1969-rotp-act/1969-rotp-collections-/1969-sixth-reform-act (Accessed 5 July 2019). Pareto, V. (ed., C. H. Powers) (1984) The Transformation of Democracy. R. Girola (trans.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books. Raiker, A. and Rautiainen, M. (eds.) (2017) Education for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture. London: Routledge. Runciman, D. (2018) How Democracy Ends. London: Profile Books Ltd. Sinclair, R. K. (1988) Democracy and Participation in Athens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sloam, J. (2016) ‘Diversity and Voice: The Political Participation of Young People in the European Union’ British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18 (3), pp. 521–537. Spencer, H. (1954) Social Statistics. New York: Schalkenbach. Sutton Trust (2018) Cabinet Analysis . Available at: https://suttontrust.com (Accessed 15 November 2018). Taylor, J. W. (1918) ‘The Athenian Ephebic Oath’ Classical Journal, 130, pp. 495–501. Available at: https://archive.org/details/jstor-3287904/page/n5 (Accessed 13 November 2018).

Chapter 2

Competences for democratic culture – towards new priorities in European educational systems? Claudia Lenz

Introduction In 2017, the Council of Europe (CoE) launched a new Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC). The framework offers a systematic approach to designing the teaching, learning and assessment of competences needed for active participation in complex and diverse democratic societies (CoE, 2017, Vol. 1:11). The centrepiece of the Framework is a model of 20 competences learners need to acquire in order to be able to actively and effectively participate in all aspects of democratic processes in a society. In addition to the competence model, the Framework is composed of a set of descriptors for each of the competences in the model and six guiding documents related to the main fields and aspects of implementation. RFCDC is the flagship project of educational policy within the CoE. Supported by the member states from the outset, the development of RFCDC has been accompanied by high aspirations and ambitions. After decades of international educational policy being dominated by labour market orientation, competitiveness and the prioritization of measurable “hard skills”, the framework has been developed in order to support policy makers and all other stake holders in European educational systems to systematically focus on preparing learners to be active citizens. The ultimate goal of the Framework is to ventilate democratic citizenship on the educational policy agenda and give it highest priority within educational systems. This chapter will provide an outline the background and context of RFCDC, and its content and components, as well as the ongoing initiatives of its implementation in educational practice. A broad vision of democracy – a comprehensive educational vision

Human rights, rule of law and democracy are the three ground pillars of the work of the CoE. The Council’s work in the field of human rights is most

18

Claudia Lenz

known because of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to which citizens of the CoE member states can appeal when their basic rights are violated by their states. But there is another side to the Council’s work to strengthen human rights: a functioning human rights system, holding states accountable with regard to protecting and upholding the rights of their citizens, needs to be complemented by a horizontal dimension. A widely shared awareness of human rights principles and engagement in human rights issues among citizens and an active civil society will reduce the danger of human rights violations occurring. This is the background for a long-standing focus on human rights education (HRE) in non-formal and formal education. The same rationale applies for the CoE’s work in the field of democracy. Rule of law and stable democratic institutions are the necessary backbones of a functioning democracy; however: These will not function unless they build on democratic culture: a set of attitudes and behaviours that emphasize dialogue and cooperation, solving conflicts by peaceful means, and active participation in public space. (Bergan, 2014) A democracy is more than institutions and procedures; learning to be an active citizen requires more than acquiring political knowledge or knowledge about political issues, which is associated with civic education. The approach of the CoE is expressed in the term Education for democratic citizenship, indicating the crucial role of education in the many faceted process of becoming an active citizen. This approach is informed by humanistic philosophy in the tradition of Bildung aiming to educate the whole person (CoE, 2017, Vol. 1:15) and by the legacies of pedagogues like John Dewey, emphasizing the importance of experiencebased learning and positioning learners as agents of their own learning process, and Lev Vygotsky, emphasizing that learning always is social learning, embedded in and enabled by social relations and cooperation. In this view, the authority of the educator does not depend on being the “holder of absolute truth and definite knowledge” but on her capacity to be a responsible facilitator of activating, engaging and empowering learning processes. This educational view, stressing the importance of experienced-based, active learning, also points to the importance of democratic learning environments and processes. Consequently, the programme Education for Democratic Citizenship/Human Rights Education (EDC/HRE) of the CoE, which was established in the 1990s, focused on how schools can become arenas for learning about, through and for democratic citizenship. Under the slogan “learning living democracy” the materials and resources produced covered a range of issues, such as democratic school governance (Bäckmann and Trafford, 2007), professional development of teachers (Brett et al., 2009) and school-university partnerships (Hartley and Huddleston, 2010).

Competences for democratic culture

19

In 2010, the adoption of the Charter for Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education by the CoE member states marked a significant step into the direction of a stronger political commitment towards the Council’s comprehensive and systematic approach. The charter defines education for democratic citizenship as training, awareness raising, information, practices and activities which aim, by equipping learners with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour, to empower them 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. (CoE, 2010:7) The formulation “equipping learners with knowledge, skills and understanding and developing their attitudes and behaviour” indicates the next logical step in the CoE’s work. As the goal is defined broadly as enabling learners to become active citizens in democratic societies, the next questions are: what exactly is it that learners need to be equipped with, and how can the achievement of these capacities be observed and understood in order to be able support each learner’s development and improve educational practice at classroom, school and educational system level? Another strand of CoE activities in the field of education which has informed the development of RFCDC is the long-lasting work in the field of intercultural education and intercultural dialogue. Through anti-racist campaigns like “all different – all equal”, the extensive work on plurilingualism (best known through the Reference Framework for Modern Languages), the focus deconstructing ideas of “the Other” in history teaching (CoE, 2001, 2011) and, last but not least, the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue (2008), the CoE has championed the deconstruction of prejudice and resentment and the building of a mutual understanding and peaceful culture coexisting across cultural affiliations. Through the work on RFCDC, the work in the field of education for democratic citizenship and in the field of intercultural dialogue have been integrated in a vision of “living together as equals in culturally diverse societies”. In culturally diverse societies, democratic processes and institutions require intercultural dialogue. A fundamental principle of democracy is that those affected by political decisions are able to express their views when decisions are being made, and that decision-makers pay attention to their views. Intercultural dialogue is, firstly, the most important means through which citizens can express their views to other citizens with different cultural affiliations. Secondly, it is the means through which decision-makers

20

Claudia Lenz

can understand the views of all citizens, taking into account their various self-ascribed cultural affiliations. In culturally diverse societies, intercultural dialogue is thus crucial for ensuring that all citizens are equally able to participate in public discussion and decision making. Democracy and intercultural dialogue are complementary in culturally diverse societies. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 1:24) From “soft” matters to flagship status

At this point we come back to the aforementioned observation that educational systems for the last decades have been dominated by a paradigm of labour market orientation, occupied with “producing” measurable results in terms of knowledge and skills with an immediate use in the labour market. In contrast to this narrow and marked oriented vision of education, the CoE based its work on a more comprehensive and coherent vision of an education of the whole person. The Council, in Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6, provides a vision of education that includes four major purposes: • • • •

Preparation for the labour market Preparation for life as active citizens in democratic societies Personal development The development and maintenance of a broad, advanced knowledge base

All four purposes are necessary to enable individuals to live independent lives and to take part as active citizens in all spheres of modern, rapidly changing societies. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 1:14). One could say that the Framework, in its goal to strengthen the dimension of education for active citizenship, was part of an overall development towards an increasing awareness of the relevance of education to build stable and sustainable democracies. This is also indicated by parallel initiatives in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD (Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA] global competence and 21st century skills) and the United Nations (UN Sustainable development goal 4.7, with a focus on global citizenship). However, a major break-through for the RFCDC project came in 2015, when Europe was hit by several Islamist terror attacks. As a reaction to this, the CoE adopted the action plan “The fight against violent extremism and radicalization leading to terrorism”. One of the major messages of the action plan was that democracy needs to be strengthened, not weakened, when it is under attack. Instead of surveillance and securitization, the action plan advocates strengthening the democratic resilience of the citizens – through education among other things. Action is needed to prevent violent radicalisation and increase the capacity of our societies to reject all forms of extremism. Formal and informal

Competences for democratic culture

21

education, youth activities and training of key actors (including in the media, political fields and social sectors) have a crucial role in this respect. (CoE, 2015) Under the heading “Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse and Democratic Societies: Setting Out Competences Required for Democratic Culture and Intercultural Dialogue” the action plan announces that the work on the competence framework will be prioritized, intensified and accelerated. From 2015 onwards, RFCDC had the status of a flagship project within the educational work of the CoE. This gave the subsequent development work a different pace and led to an intensified involvement of different experts, stake holders and practitioners in the development work.

The elements of RFCDC The competence model/butterfly

The core element of the Framework is a competence model, composed of 20 components in four different areas: Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical Understanding. This model was developed in several steps, starting with a review of more than 100 existing competence models in the fields of citizenship education and intercultural educations. Based on a set of criteria, 80 relevant

Values

Attitudes

 Valuing human dignity and human rights  Valuing cultural diversity  Valuing democracy, justice, fairness, equality and the rule of law

 Openness to cultural otherness and other beliefs, world views and practices  Respect  Civic-mindedness  Responsibility  Self-efficacy  Tolerance of ambiguity

Competence Skills      

Autonomous learning skills Analytical and critical thinking skills Skills of listening and observing Empathy Flexibility and adaptability Linguistic, communicative and plurilingual skills  Cooperation skills  Conflict-resolution skills

Figure 2.1 CDC “butterfly”

Knowledge and critical understanding  of the self  of language and communication  of the world: politics, law, human rights, culture, cultures, religions, history, media, economies, environment, sustainability

22

Claudia Lenz

competences were identified. Through further conceptual work, including the consultation of international experts in the fields, the final set of 20 competences for democratic culture (CDC) was developed. It is important to highlight the competence concept on which the entire model is based: The term “competences” (in the plural) is used in the Framework to refer to the specific psychological resources (the specific values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and understanding) that are mobilised and deployed in the production of competent behaviour. Hence, . . . “competence” as a holistic term consists of the selection, activation and organisation of “competences” and the application of these competences in a co-ordinated, adaptive and dynamic manner to concrete situations. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 1:32–33) If a person shall act competently in situations involving known or unknown challenges, the interplay between skills, knowledge, attitudes and values is necessary. This is the reason the notion of competence clusters is highlighted in the Framework. To give an example: a person can have extensive knowledge about democratic institutions and have good analytical and critical thinking skills; however, when faced with concrete situations of democratic decision making, civic mindedness might be necessary in order to motivate this person to actually use her knowledge and analytical thinking, and cooperation skills are necessary in order to actively participate in the actual decision making process. The aforementioned understanding of democratic processes to be dynamic and processual implies that learners need to experience and actively take part in a variety of situations involving the entire range of the 20 competences in order to activate various competence clusters. Volume 3 of the RFCDC provides numerous examples of relevant teaching approaches as well as curricular and extra-curricular learning activities. The descriptors

As mentioned before, the goal of RFCDC is to allow for a more systematic and holistic focus on competences for democratic culture in educational practice. The competence descriptors are of particular relevance in this regard. The set of 135 key descriptors and the full bank of 447 validated descriptors are a diagnostic tool for the development of learners to be understood and described. The descriptors are formulated as statements of observable behaviour (nobody can look into the head of another person to determine how competent s/he is). Moreover, they are divided into three levels of proficiency (basic, intermediate and advanced) and therefore are designed to support the understanding of learning progress. In this way, the descriptors support learners and educators in reflecting and deciding on the possible next steps in a learning process.

Competences for democratic culture

23

Thus, the two main functions of the competence descriptors are: 1

2

to support the assessment of the current level of proficiency with regard to each of the competences, for an individual or for a group, with a view to identifying areas of further development and learning needs or identifying achieved proficiency after a period of learning; to serve as a reference and a toolbox for educators in designing, implementing and evaluating educational interventions, in formal and nonformal settings. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 2:12)

Here are some examples for descriptors related to different competence components: Openness to cultural otherness • • •

Shows interest in learning about people’s beliefs, values, traditions and world views (basic) Expresses curiosity about other beliefs and interpretations and other cultural orientations and affiliations (intermediate) Seeks and welcomes opportunities for encountering people with different values, customs and behaviours (advanced)

Skills of listening and observing • • •

Listens attentively to other people (basic) Watches speakers’ gestures and general body language to help himself/ herself to figure out the meaning of what they are saying Pays attention to what other people imply but do not say

Rather than using the descriptors to determine a learner’s achievement related to lessons/teaching units or shorter educational interventions, they are a suitable tool for the observation of a learner’s capacities in a variety of contexts and over time – in order to determine a learner’s overall level of proficiency (although the performance in different contexts might vary). As the descriptors can help one understand the context dependent nature of competence performance, they are a useful tool for adjusting educational/teaching interventions.

The guiding documents – what is needed to foster competences for democratic culture? The CoE’s intention with RFCDC is not to provide a testing tool to be used in educational systems to measure learner achievements in the field of democratic competence. This would miss the holistic design of the Framework, stressing the systemic and institutional preconditions for competence development.

24

Claudia Lenz

As described in the previous paragraphs, the most suitable environments for the development of competences for democratic culture are those which are informed by and reflect democratic values: this includes, among others, the teaching and learning methodologies applied, the open climate and possibilities for participation in debate and democratic decision making processes and democratic school governance. In order to highlight and spell out these contextual and processual factors, the RFCDC is composed of six different guiding documents: • • • • • •

Curriculum development Pedagogy Whole school approach Assessment Teacher education Prevention of radicalization and violent extremism

The inclusion of the last guiding document might seem surprising. The explanation can be found in the aforementioned political context in which RFCDC has been produced. The document provides a review-based account for research on the root causes for processes leading to violent extremism and on research showing that the development of capacities such as independent and critical thinking, empathy and self-efficacy are key factors in building resilience to hateful political ideologies and violent orientations. This provides a bridge to the content of the other guiding documents. Together, these documents are supposed to support a broad variety of stake holders in different educational systems in applying and implementing the Framework: in curriculum reforms, school development and the professional development of teachers. Curriculum development – different educational systems, different approaches

As the 47 member states have very different educational systems, “curriculum” can mean different things in these systems. In some countries with a centralised system, a national curriculum defines both the content of teaching and methods of teaching, while in other systems, competence-oriented curricula leave much room for local planning of teaching. While civic or citizenship education in some countries is placed in a particular subject (most often social science), other countries define it as a cross-cutting and interdisciplinary issue. RFCDC is not restricted to a particular educational system or type of curriculum. The CDC model can influence curricula at different levels of decision-making: at the system level, at the institutional level, at the subject or classroom level and even at the level of the individual learner. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:13)

Competences for democratic culture

25

The CDC model can be used as a whole or in part as a means of enriching a curriculum by revising and developing it. RFCDC provides concrete perspectives on how to include and strengthen a focus on democracy, human rights and intercultural understanding in any subject and across subjects. The competences for democratic culture can be considered as key competences that need to be developed across all curriculum subjects and areas of study. In this sense, all teachers of all subjects are responsible for teaching, learning and assessing CDC. On the other hand, CDC can be the focus of a single subject, such as citizenship education or social sciences or social studies. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:19) A concrete “starter” exercise for teachers and school leaders who wish to engage with RFCDC could look like this: the national curriculum for a school subject, the annual plan for subject teaching at a school or the monthly teaching plan for a particular class are held against the 20 components of the “butterfly” – which elements are covered? How could the choice of topics, teaching material and methodologies support learners to develop civic mindedness, analytical and critical thinking skills, cooperation skills or knowledge and critical understanding of the self? Curriculum development and the planning and evaluation of teaching are closely intertwined. The RFCDC also provides a guiding document on pedagogy, which supports educators to reflect on how the choice of educational approaches and teaching methodologies can create the conditions for learners to develop and express competences for democratic culture. Pedagogy

Competences for democratic culture can hardly be “taught” by the means of mere knowledge transmission. The dynamic and context-bound nature competences point to the importance of learning processes and environments. Cooperation skills can hardly flourish when students are only given individualized assignments. Responsibility and civic mindedness can best be learned in environments allowing engagement, interaction and the making of real contributions. The Framework does not prescribe any educational approaches or teaching methodologies, but it follows the idea of learning about, through and for democracy, arguing that certain approaches are especially suitable to develop CDC. The guiding document on pedagogy highlights different approaches/ methodologies: •

Student centred, active learning

Aside from helping develop knowledge and skills, teaching methodologies also reflect attitudes towards learners. Student centred and active learning approaches

26

Claudia Lenz

place learners in a position of being actors of their own learning process, instead of passive recipients of knowledge. Learning-by-doing approaches and experiential learning engage students in a process in which intellectual, emotional and social capacities are developed. In this way, the methodology can be related to several components of CDC, like self-efficiency and responsibility. •

Student cooperation and collaborative learning

The process of collaborating enables the development of openness and the motivation to accept change, an empowering process for teachers. Single teachers or small teams of teachers can start changing their practice by learning and experimenting through a process of collaboration and experience-sharing in an environment. By applying collaborative learning principles, relations in a classroom are deeply changed and a wide range of CDC can be developed. •

Democratic processes in the classroom

A very effective way of developing CDC is by experiencing democratic processes first hand. The planning and negotiating of aims, content, learning materials, assessment and programme evaluation by all participants involved in the learning process creates the conditions for transforming the roles of teachers and learners and transcending what those roles are in traditional classrooms. In this way learning for and through democracy occurs, with educators demonstrating democratic behaviours and therefore contributing to the development of the CDC of learners. The first-hand experience of democratic processes will also empower learners and stimulate them to use these competences in the classroom, in the school and in society. •

Team teaching and integrated curricular approaches

Besides what each teacher can do in the context of a specific subject, cooperation between teachers of several subjects can lead to valuable and effective additional outcomes for the development of CDC. This cooperation can be between several teachers working with the same class, who coordinate their intervention to enhance CDC, but it can also be between teachers working with different classes, which are supported to engage in a partnership and cooperate in learning activities resulting in the development of CDC. •

Project based learning

Project work, or learning through projects, is a pedagogical approach particularly appropriate for the development of CDC because it contributes to acquiring a combination of attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding, as well as to the developing values. It can be used within a specific subject area

Competences for democratic culture

27

but is also very appropriate for a cross-curricular approach and for addressing cross-cutting issues. •

Service learning

Service learning implies providing a community service in the context of a structured set of steps, in which the teacher plays an important role as organiser and facilitator while keeping a strong learner-centred approach and empowering learners to make decisions and act on their own will in cooperation with peers. Service learning is an effective way to develop the full range of CDC because it gives learners opportunities to connect the knowledge and critical understanding and skills acquired in a classroom setting with meaningful action targeting a real world issue. The whole school approach

Not only the teaching approaches and methodologies through which students become agents of their own learning processes, but also the context in which the learning takes place, form an integral part of “learning and living democracy” at school. The development of competences for democratic culture can be supported by democratic learning environments. As stated in the guiding document: Whole-school approaches which integrate democratic values and human rights principles into teaching and learning, governance and the overall atmosphere of the school contribute significantly to young learners’ experience of, development of and practice of democratic competences. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:90) A number of aspects in school governance and culture which can significantly contribute to the development of CDC are outlined in the document: •

Democratic school governance

The EDC/HRE charter states that “the governance of educational institutions, including schools, should reflect and promote human rights values and foster the empowerment and active participation of learners, educational staff and stakeholders, including parents” (section 5.e). The governance of the educational institution should provide opportunities and procedures for participation and decision making. Flat hierarchies and a culture of cooperation allow mutual respect and trust to grow. If allowed to feel ownership of decisions and developments at schools, teachers and learners will be motivated to take responsibility. Civic mindedness does not flourish in a void, but in a climate that encourages and positively sanctions initiative and engagement for a common good.

28

Claudia Lenz

The organisational culture of a school can help people in the school community play a role in the way the school is governed and managed – through its approach to leadership, vision, system of governance and decision making processes and general working atmosphere. Student councils and other forms of student participation are important aspects of democratic school governance. A democratic approach to school governance helps create a culture of openness and trust in the school and improve relations between its members. •

Democratic and inclusive school culture

An inclusive school ethos which is safe and welcoming, where relations between staff, and between staff and students, are positive and everyone feels they have a part to play and their human rights are respected, will better facilitate development of competences for democratic culture. To this end school administration, teachers, parents, students and other stake holders may join their efforts to make school environment more democratic, including its approach to management and decision making, school policies, rules and procedures, student participation and general school environment. While competitive environments make all but the best feel week and insufficient, it is questionable whether or not inclusive and collaborative environments allow each individual to experience the contribution s/he can make and to develop self-efficacy. •

Cooperation with the community

A school’s relations with the wider community – including parents, authorities, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), universities, businesses, media, health workers and other schools – can help foster a culture of democracy in the school. Schools that partner with NGOs, for instance, can benefit from such actions as increased training opportunities, visiting experts and project support. Close links with the community can also help schools address relevant community issues. CDC and assessment

From the outset of the CDC project, one of the basic principles was “that all of the competences that were included in the model should be teachable, learnable and assessable (through either self-assessment or assessment by others)” (CoE, 2016:31). This has to do with the supposed “fuzziness” and “soft” status of everything related to value-based and value-oriented education. Within the existing paradigm of testing, measuring and national or international rankings, everything which is not assessable seems to be of lower priority. One could, however, ask: should democratic competences, especially the dimension of values and attitudes, at all be tested and graded? Would not this be highly unethical and resonate with authoritarian indoctrination?

Competences for democratic culture

29

The answer lies, at least to some extent, in the fact that assessment is more than measuring and testing for the purpose of grading, promotion or selection. Assessment related to CDC should be part of holistic educational processes, supporting learners to understand and own their own learning process and supporting educators to adjust and improve their teaching and educational strategies. In order for educational institutions and practices to continuously and systematically strengthen the capacity of learners to take responsibility, show empathy and cooperate with others, there is a need for tools that help educators understand and communicate what is achieved. Educators need criteria, tools and a language with which to communicate to learners where their strengths and weaknesses lie. In this sense, assessment is not only an issue of measurement and testing, but of understanding and supporting development of learners. Moreover, assessment does not only shed light on the learner, but can also help to evaluate teachers’ practices in order to provide feedback on how their teaching might be adjusted in order to achieve greater effectiveness [and] to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular intervention or programme of teaching and learning. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:53) The guiding document on assessment starts from the notion of empowerment: all assessment of competences for democratic culture should respect the dignity and integrity of the learner, contribute to his or her self-esteem and support positive development. Assessment of CDC should, by no means, become an instrument of humiliation or exclusion or in other ways do harm to learners. Based on this “red line”, a number of criteria for any good assessment are outlined, some of which are particularly important for assessment of CDC: • • • • • •

Validity Reliability Equity Transparency Practicality Respectfulness

Regarding the last principle, the guiding document states: Assessment procedures should always respect the dignity and the rights of the learner who is being assessed. Learners’ rights are defined by the European Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child and they include, inter alia, the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and freedom from discrimination. Assessment methods or procedures (and any other education practices) that violate one or more of these rights of learners should not be used. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:56–57)

30

Claudia Lenz

The Framework does not recommend particular assessment approaches or methods, but discusses broad spectrum, based on the aforementioned criteria. It also provides some examples how different types of formative and summative assessment can be combined within an educational process in order to understand the development of competence clusters in varying situations and over time. In this way, the Framework gives educational policy makers and educators tools at hand, which can help make assessment an integral part of democratic educational systems and institutional practices. Teacher education

As outlined in the previous paragraphs, the Framework is built on an understanding that all aspects of educational institutions and practices are relevant for the development of competences for democratic culture. This means that CDC is not only a responsibility of specialized teachers, but of all teachers, regardless of the subject they teach. The guiding document on teacher education states: In their everyday work, teachers strive to provide quality education in their respective subject areas; however, they are also challenged to apply and implement the values underpinning the education system (for example human rights, democracy, cultural diversity, justice and the rule of law). In order to meet these challenges in an effective way, it is important that the knowledge, skills and competences that do not fall within the narrow subject area should not remain neglected. Applying the CDC approach means that these challenges are not left solely to the specific subject study orientation (such as civic education, history, ethics). On the contrary, the CDC approach must be applied as a transversal dimension of educating and training future and practicing teachers in general. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:76) Given that competences for democratic culture are not only an issue of the content which is taught, but also a question of experiences gained through learning processes within relations between teachers and learners, it is evident that teachers need to be trained and qualified beyond their subject area. Teacher education needs to provide teachers with the knowledge and tools to integrate CDC in their own teaching practice But, more fundamentally, teachers need to develop a democratic professional ethos: The role of teacher education institutions is not only to train teachers to be able to make effective use of the CDC Framework in schools and other educational institutions (the “technical” side), but also to equip them with a set of competences necessary for living together as democratic citizens in

Competences for democratic culture

31

diverse societies (the “substantial” side). Teachers who themselves act successfully in the everyday life of democratic and culturally diverse societies will best fulfil their role in the classroom. (CoE, 2017, Vol. 3:77)

What is done to implement RFCDC? The CoE’s policy in the field of education has a non-binding character. Member states, even if they supported RFCDC and influenced the different choices made during the different stages of its development, are not obliged to implement the Framework. Moreover, the CoE has neither control nor sanctioning mechanisms to secure that the Framework; where it is used and implemented is done so in line with the philosophy and ethos behind it. But the Council can use its influence on the educational ministries in the member states in order to exercise some “soft pressure”, meaning the constant reminder that something should be done with RFCDC and to create some arenas for information and exchange creating a channel of influence toward the ministries. The tool chosen for this “channel” is the European Network of Policy Advisors (EPAN), composed by representatives of ministries of education in all CoE member states (or institutions delegated by the ministries to fulfill this role). Launched in 2018, the EPAN network is composed of three working groups: one on curriculum development, one on teaching and learning and one on assessment. The groups meet three to four times a year in order to exchange experiences and discuss various issues related to the implementation of RFCDC at all levels of the educational system. The work of EPAN since 2019 has shown that different countries approach RFCDC from very different starting points. Some countries, like the Nordic countries, regard the Framework as being in line with but not necessarily better than existing approaches and practices. These countries may see RFCDC as a useful tool to build on and complement existing structures. In several CoE member states where curriculum reforms imply a transformation to competence-based curricula, the Framework can serve as an inspiration or even blueprint for curriculum design. Countries like Andorra, Ukraine and Moldova have included RFCDC entirely in national curricula. Often largescale teacher training programmes are accompanying the reform in order to equip teachers with the competences needed to educate in line with RFCDC. This, for example, is the case in Serbia. In other countries, a RFCDC component has been integrated in already existing educational programmes. Here, NGOs can be included in the implementation of the Framework, building a bridge between formal and non-formal education. An example for this practice is Greece. Besides the training for teachers, a focus on schools as arenas of education for democratic citizenship is crucial for the implementation of RFCDC. The CoE has for a long time promoted a whole school approach in EDC/HRE;

32

Claudia Lenz

in 2018 the campaign Free to speak – save to learn. Democratic schools for all was launched. In 2019 the campaign was transformed into a project aiming to build a long-lasting and pan-European network for schools working continuously and systematically with democracy and inclusion. One of the explicit goals of the project is the promotion of RFCDC. Another interesting initiative related to the implementation of the Framework is related to the pan-European Networking European Citizenship Education (NECE), a broad network of individuals and organizations working in the field of civic/citizenship education, founded and mainly funded by the German Federal Agency for Civic Education. In 2018, a NECE focus group was established, composed of representatives from formal and non-formal education institutions and networks. Coordinated by the Austrian civic education agency polis, the members of this focus group will explore the uses of RFCDC and its element in various educational contexts in Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Belarus. The potential of this initiative lies in the use of RFCDC to strengthen the cooperation between and intersection of formal and non-formal education.

Instead of a conclusion: which way goes RFCDC – top down, bottom up or the interplay of both? This chapter has provided an introduction into the background, history and content of the Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture. The complex and comprehensive character of the Framework, as well as the mandate and working mode of the CoE, make it impossible to predict if the Framework will have a strong impact on educational policy and practice in Europe and, if so, which competences and where. There are risks and pitfalls related to the Framework, especially connected to the possible (mis)uses as testing instruments or even means of indoctrination. But the experiences shared by teachers and teacher trainers who took part in the development of the Framework and the implementation activities since its launch send an encouraging message: the butterfly and the descriptors accompanying it can give educators a more coherent and systematic approach towards educational systems, institutions and practices which are based on carefully listening to, identifying the strengths and capabilities in and, finally, empowering learners. For this end, probably an interplay of top-down and bottom-up initiatives by a broad range of stake holders is needed.

References Bäckmann, E. and Trafford, B. (2007) Democratic Governance of Schools. Council of Europe Publishers. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/Dis playDCTMContent?documentId=09000016804952d0 (Accessed 25 February 2019). Bergan, S. (2014) About the Project Competences for Democratic Culture and Intercultural Dialogue. Available at: www.coe.int/en/web/education/about-the-project-competences-fordemocratic-culture-and-intercultural-dialogue (Accessed 10 July 2019).

Competences for democratic culture

33

Brett, P., Mompoint-Gaillard, P. and Salema, M. H. (2009) How All Teachers Can Support Citizenship and Human Rights Education: A Framework for the Development of Competences. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishers. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPub licCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016802f726a (Accessed 25 February 2019). CoE. (2001) Recommendation Rec (2001)15 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on History Teaching in Twenty-First-Century Europe. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/View Doc.jsp?id=234237&Site=COE&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=F DC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864 (Accessed 28 September 2019). CoE. (2008) White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue “Living Together as Equals in Dignity”. Strasbourg: Committee of Ministers, Council of Europe. Available at: www.coe.int/t/dg4/ intercultural/source/white%20paper_final_revised_en.pdf (Accessed 4 April 2019). CoE. (2010) Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommon SearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=09000016803034e3 (Accessed 25 February 2019). CoE. (2011) Recommendation CM/Rec (2011)6 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on Intercultural Dialogue and the Image of the Other in History Teaching. Available at: https:// search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805cc8e1 (Accessed 28 September 2019). CoE. (2015) The Fight against Violent Extremism and Radicalisation Leading to Terrorism-Action Plan. 125th Session of the Committee of Ministers, Brussels, 19 May. Available at: https:// search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID=09000016805c3576 (Accessed 25 February 2019). CoE. (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 (Accessed 7 April 2019). CoE. (2017) Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture (Vol. 1.–3.). Available at: https://rm.coe.int/prems-008318-gbr-2508-reference-framework-of-competences-vol1-8573-co/16807bc66c (Vol. 1) (Accessed 25 February 2019). https://rm.coe.int/prems008418-gbr-2508-reference-framework-of-competences-vol-2-8573-co/16807bc66d (Vol. 2) (Accessed 25 February 2019). https://rm.coe.int/prems-008518-gbr-2508-ref erence-framework-of-competences-vol-3-8575-co/16807bc66e (Vol. 3) (Accessed 25 February 2019). Hartley, M. and Huddleston, T. (2010) School: Community – University Partnerships for a Sustainable Democracy: Education for Democratic Citizenship in Europe and the United States of America Council of Europe. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishers. Available at: https:// rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentI d=09000016802f7271 (Accessed 25 February 2019).

Chapter 3

Teacher education and the development of democratic education in England Neil Hopkins

Introduction Schools, colleges and teacher education: a complex set of systems

The educational landscape, in terms of teacher education and the organisation of schools and colleges, has become increasingly complicated over the past two decades. Schools in the compulsory state sector have been encouraged to opt out of local authority control and become ‘academies’, schools that obtain their budgets directly from the Department for Education (DfE) and have considerable latitude over what they can teach. Parallel to this development, the government (in 2010) introduced legislation to allow the creation of ‘free schools’, educational institutions established on the initiative of parents, teachers, businesses or organisations in the local community (subject to approval by the Secretary of State for Education). These two categories of school (academies and free schools) complicate a picture that already consisted of independent (private) schools, local authority controlled schools, state schools that have support from religious foundations, sixth-form colleges and further education colleges. It should be noted that academies and free schools are not required to teach the National Curriculum or hire fully qualified teachers; they have to provide ‘balanced and broadly based curriculum’ based on the Education Act (2002). The scene is barely less congested when the training of teachers is considered. Conventionally, this has been the responsibility of universities through their faculties of education. For students who already have a degree, they enrol (typically) on a one-year Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) that involves a combination of seminars and lectures on educational theory, policy and pedagogy at the university alongside a series of placements in local schools (chosen to match the student’s area(s) of interest and subject expertise). It is possible to obtain a PGCE in either primary or secondary education in England (although primary teachers train, mainly, as generalists whilst secondary teachers specialise in their first degree subject). Students are also able to train as primary teachers at undergraduate level by doing a 3-year BA (Hons) in

Teacher education in England

35

Primary Education whilst teachers in further education have traditionally followed an ‘in-service’ programme where they complete a PGCE (for graduates) or Certificate in Education (for non-graduates) over two years whilst teaching in college. For primary and secondary teachers, completion of the course leads to Qualified Teachers Status (QTS) or, in the case of further education colleges, Qualified Teacher Learning and Skills (QTLS). However, as stated prior, this process has become more varied in recent years. There have been concerns raised in certain quarters that university-based teacher education relies on lecturers who are not based, day to day, within schools and colleges, the assumption being that university lecturers are potentially removed from the everyday education process. With this in mind, there has been a trend towards moving some teacher education into the schools themselves through ‘school-centred initial teacher training’ (usually referred to as SCITT). SCITTs are usually a coalition of local schools who are sometimes linked to a university but often not. Either way, they have the power to train teachers and award QTS if students are successful on completion of the programme. There have been further developments of school-based teacher education in the form of School Direct, a programme where schools recruit and train teachers with the intention of offering them a post (if successful) at the end of the course – School Direct trainees also receive a salary whilst in training. The other notable development is Teach First, an initiative aimed at recruiting graduate ‘high flyers’ and immersing them in a school environment (with supportive mentoring) after some initial training. Citizenship and democratic education in a post-9/11 world

The formalising of citizenship education within the English education system occurred when Tony Blair’s government commissioned Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in School (QCA, 1998) (often referred to in shorthand as the ‘Crick Report’). Crick raised concerns over the perceived disengagement of young people with the political process in England and how the incorporation of citizenship and democracy in the National Curriculum could have a transformative role. A central tenet of Crick was the concept of ‘political literacy’, which, in the words of the report, involved: Pupils learning about .  .  . how to make themselves effective in public life through knowledge, skills and values – what can be called ‘political literacy’, seeking for a term that is wider than political knowledge alone. (QCA, 1998) Citizenship became a standalone subject within the National Curriculum in 2002 for Key Stages 3 and 4 (11- to 16-year-olds), although it has been a subject of ongoing debate how much of Crick’s original plan and set of recommendations were included within the programme of study for citizenship

36

Neil Hopkins

(see Hopkins, 2013). Citizenship, as a subject, has struggled to maintain its presence in what is an overcrowded curriculum with priorities aimed towards English, mathematics and science – this trend has been exacerbated with the increased emphasis towards raising England’s performance in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). If citizenship, as a discrete curriculum area, has found it difficult to find air to breathe, current affairs and recent world events have led to certain aspects of citizenship entering the educational area under the guise of national security. The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the suicide bombings on the London tube and bus network and a host of other incidents since have led the UK government to use education as a means of counteracting both international and ‘home-grown’ terrorism and the civil disturbances that often occur in the aftermath of such events. The Prevent strategy was devised by the UK government in 2003 but was only made public a few years later as the terrorist threat was seen as real and ongoing. Currently, Prevent makes it a statutory duty for teachers in schools, colleges and universities to counteract terrorism by reporting any students they fear have been radicalised to the relevant authorities (DfE, 2015). The introduction of the Prevent duty into schools and colleges has not been without controversy, however. Many in the teaching profession have raised concerns over the relative lack of training they have received to identify radicalism in the classroom and whether the responsibilities given to them by the Prevent duty make them part of an ever-increasing security and surveillance network (Guardian, 2016). The Prevent duty becomes particularly problematic when teachers are expected to make judgements with regards to students exhibiting behaviour or attitudes outside of ‘democratic norms’ with often little training or discussion themselves on what constitutes democratic citizenship. This lack of sufficient training potentially leaves teachers vulnerable to charges of bias and prejudice, especially within some Muslim communities where Prevent has been seen as a ‘war on Islam’ (Qurashi, 2018). In 2014, the government introduced ‘fundamental British values’ (FBVs) as another aspect of the Prevent duty (DfE, 2014a). The values themselves are not dissimilar to the Council of Europe’s (CoE) competences for democratic culture (CoE, 2016:12) and are composed of: ‘democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs’ (DfE, 2014a:5). Schools and colleges are required to support and incorporate FBVs into the curriculum and tutorial programmes to reinforce a sense of what it means to be British in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society. As with the Prevent duty generally, FBVs have also aroused some concerns amongst educationalists (Elton-Chalcraft et al., 2017). Much of the debate has been around the linking of the term ‘British’ to what are seemingly generic values and beliefs that most (if not all) societies that view themselves as ‘liberal’ and ‘democratic’ would subscribe to. The worry, for some, is that labelling these

Teacher education in England

37

values as ‘British’ gives them nationalist overtones and potentially airbrushes aspects of British history (especially the imperial period) when Britain was suppressing many of these values in the territories it had control over. The recent referendum on European Union (EU) membership and negotiations around Brexit have also made this a hard subject to broach inside the classroom, especially as negotiations around Britain’s terms for leaving the EU became confused and protracted.

What do we mean by a ‘democratic education’? ‘Democratic education’ as a concept

It is difficult to discuss democratic education without the figure of John Dewey entering into the conversation. His Democracy and Education (1916) is a pivotal moment in both the philosophy of education and the notion of democratic education generally. Dewey’s oft-quoted statement, ‘A democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience’ (Dewey, 2007:68), has become a keystone in the debate on democracy’s relationship with education. However, as has been seen in late-modern history and politics, democracy is itself a slippery and ambiguous term – it has a privileged status in discourse to such an extent that regimes which are highly diverse and often incompatible still claim to be ‘democratic’. Dewey’s own conception of democracy entails a good degree of tension between the facilitation of individual expression and adherence to the collective. In this sense, Dewey encapsulates (for an audience of educationalists) the political and philosophical arguments over democracy’s relationship with the individual and society – such tensions are also epitomised in the CoE’s taxonomy of attitudes in a democratic culture where ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘civic-mindedness’ play off one another (CoE, 2016:12–13). If democracy is equated with some form of equality (and it typically is), then we also have the additional complication, in relation to compulsory education at least, of how far democracy and equality can apply in organisations where children are mandated to attend and that have hierarchies and power differentials built into them. If coercion and hierarchy are, to some extent, seen as necessary for compulsory education to take place (although the power dynamic between teacher and student in adult education is potentially different due to the non-compulsory nature of the relationship), how do equality and democracy function in this situation, if at all? Is there a limit to the amount or level of democracy allowable in a school or college before the organisation begins to change from its original remit or collapses under the weight of conflicting expectations? There are various ways to envisage what democratic education might mean in the contemporary classroom or workshop. Many of these have what might be termed ‘procedural’ or ‘pedagogical’ functions. By procedural, what is meant are processes that induct children and young people into the mechanisms and

38

Neil Hopkins

protocols of a modern democracy (the conventions of liberal democracy as understood in Western Europe and North America are used as a blueprint here, although they are by no means the only way to envisage contemporary democracy). Within such circumstances, students would stand for election, hold debates on key issues that concern them and act as representatives in school and college forums (with greater or lesser participation from teachers and others depending on the circumstances). By pedagogical, what is meant is the methods and strategies used by teachers and students to develop the art of conversation and discussion that allows an exchange of views and opinions whose ultimate aim is wider understanding. In terms of practical examples, the work of Neil Mercer (2007) and Robin Alexander (2008:92–153) on use of dialogical approaches to teaching and learning offer concrete classroom examples of Dewey’s ‘conjoint communicated experience’ in action. Democratic education and student voice in the English education system

In a previous book, Educating for Democracy in England and Finland (2017:78), Mirja Tarnanen and Neil Hopkins noted the relatively strong notion of ‘pupil voice’ in English state schools vis-à-vis those in Finland. This acknowledges that there is a welcome counter-balance to the criticism often levelled at state education in England based upon the perceived focus on regular high-stakes testing, educational measurements and key performance indicators. The government, especially the DfE, has been seen as playing a major part in focusing on international test comparators (especially PISA) and quantifiable data and benchmarks in schools (see, for instance, DfE, 2010:8). It is therefore refreshing to note instances where the DoE is advocating the importance of children’s voices in education: The Government is committed to the promotion and protection of children’s rights, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. It believes that children and young people should have opportunities to express their opinion in matters that affect their lives. Some of the benefits of involving children and young people in decision making are: •

•

It encourages pupils to become active participants in a democratic society – by holding youth parliaments and school councils which develop skills such as co-operation and communication and encourage them to take responsibility. It contributes to achievement and attainment – young people involved in participative work benefit in a range of different ways. Increased confidence, self-respect, competence and an improved sense of responsibility have all been reported by young people who contribute in school. Schools also report increased motivation and engagement with learning [emphasis in the original]. (DfE, 2014b:2)

Teacher education in England

39

These points from the DfE mirror several of the CoE’s competences – the first bullet point can be linked to the CoE’s ‘skills of listening and observing’ and ‘conflict-resolution skills’ (CoE, 2016:14) whilst the second bullet point is closely aligned to ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘responsibility’ (CoE, 2016:13). Aspects of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) were incorporated into the Children’s Act (2004) which established the role of children’s commissioner for England. The children’s commissioner must, in particular, ‘have regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in considering for the purposes of the primary function what constitute the rights and interests of children’ (National Archives, 2004: Chapter 31, Part 1(2A)). How does this legal armature and government advocacy of good practice translate into democratic education within English schools themselves? When these challenges are considered there is a danger of tokenism in relation to children and young people’s voices – that they have space in which to express their views and opinions on education but little agency in terms of decision making or the ability to implement change. Schools and colleges are under acute pressure from the government, the school inspectorate and other stakeholders to fulfill their statutory and professional commitments and often run into the conundrum of trying to balance the inevitable messiness of educational democracy with the ongoing demands for measurable progress. Educational researchers in the field have offered examples of where democratic education (in the form of pupil voice) has worked. Jean Flutter (2007) has offered situations (usually classroom based or in more informal settings) in which students are able to articulate their ideas and concerns over the school curriculum as partners with teachers and others. If students are given the appropriate space or forum in which to think and express their views on the curriculum, then their agency (as stakeholders within the school and the curriculum) is potentially increased and mirrors Alexander’s and Mercer’s views on dialogical education. Flutter offers the proviso, however, that children need to be inducted into a culture of respect and attentiveness to other people’s views before such experiments in democratic education can take place – teachers also need to be reassured that the process does not become a focus on the performance of the teacher and her or his professionalism (Flutter, 2007). From another perspective, Jacques Ranciere has challenged the very notion of expertise regarding children, education and discussion. In The Ignorant Schoolmaster, Ranciere argues that, in traditional education, ‘understanding is never more than translating, that is, giving the equivalent of a text, but in no way its reason’ (Ranciere, 1991:9). The issue of control in education (particularly the control of knowledge and its transmission) is made deeply problematic for, as Ranciere admits, ‘there is no one on earth who hasn’t learned something by himself [sic] and without a master explicator’ (Ranciere, 1991:16). Ranciere’s challenging of the educational hierarchy is important, especially when democratic education is the subject under analysis. Where some would have reservations with Ranciere is over the notion of learning something by oneself – even if a student is conducting research or finding information in solitude, they are

40

Neil Hopkins

using the skills and knowledge that has been built up working in collaboration with others. In Democracy and Education, Dewey argued: A curriculum which acknowledges the social responsibilities of education must present situations where problems are relevant to the problems of living together, and where observation and information are calculated to develop social insight and interest. (Dewey, 2007:144–145) In a previous paper (Hopkins, 2014), the author outlined how stakeholder theory could inform democratic practices within schools and colleges. The idea of pupils as stakeholders in education has gained increasing influence over the past decade (as can be seen by the advocacy of pupil voice by the DfE prior). The idea itself is not new even if the term ‘stakeholder’ is a relatively modern one. Michael Fielding’s notion of ‘radical collegiality’ is based on processes at St. George-in-the-East Secondary Modern School in Stepney, East London, in 1953. Fielding conceptualises radical collegiality in Table 3.1: Table 3.1 Radical collegiality Radical collegiality Emergent curriculum

Dialogic engagement

• • • •

• Animating dynamic of mutual learning between students and staff • Weekly reviews • Continuity of relationships • Form meetings, pupil panels, pupil committees, joint panel and whole school council

School study The community as a resource Electives Residential camps

Source: Taken from Fielding 2007: 550

A similar example of this is currently being adopted at Biddenham School in Bedford where a citizenship centre and school parliament will be built based on Mercer’s research into dialogical education. What is interesting is how school decision-making processes and procedures work in a dynamic relationship with the curriculum itself. In terms of ideal theory, it would be even more beneficial to obtain the views and opinions of parents, members of the community and other bodies to inform what goes into a given school’s curriculum as something akin to stakeholder participatory budgeting (Hopkins, 2014). However, within the very real constraints of budgets, targets and standards, many schools already manage to elicit the views and opinions of key stakeholders to inform the ways in which a particular school or college is managed. The CoE’s key competency of ‘tolerance of ambiguity’ neatly encapsulates the dynamics that are involved when different interpretations are sought in educational decision making:

Teacher education in England

41

Tolerance of ambiguity is an attitude towards situations which are uncertain and subject to multiple conflicting interpretations. It involves evaluating these kinds of situations positively and dealing with them constructively. (CoE, 2016:13)

Teacher education and democratic education Fundamental British values, introduced into the English education system as an effort to counteract radicalisation, are incorporated into a wider document referred to as the ‘Teachers’ Standards’ (DfE, 2011). These Standards are set in two parts: ‘Teaching’ and ‘Personal and professional conduct’ alongside a ‘Preamble’ which ‘summarises the values and behaviour that all teachers must demonstrate throughout their careers’ (DfE, 2011:7). Part One (‘Teaching’) is broken down into key categories which are: • • • • • • • •

Set high expectations which inspire, motivate and challenge pupils Promote good progress and outcomes by pupils Demonstrate good subject and curriculum knowledge Plan and teach well structured lessons Adapt teaching to respond to the strengths and needs of all pupils Make accurate and productive use of assessment Manage behaviour effectively to ensure a good and safe learning environment Fulfil wider professional responsibilities (DfE, 2011:10–13)

Part Two of the Standards (‘Professional and personal conduct’) discusses the need for respect, safeguarding children’s well-being and building relationship as well as ‘not undermining fundamental British values’ (DfE, 2011:14). All trainee teachers working in primary or secondary school contexts have to work towards and abide by these Standards. By implication, the organisations who have a responsibility for training teachers, outlined in the first section of this chapter, also have a duty to promote and maintain these Standards as part of the training. Any teacher education course in England is ultimately overseen by the government inspectorate, Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OfSTED), to ensure compliance with the Standards. However, the integration of fundamental British values into a teacher education programme will vary depending on the institution running the course, so there will, inevitably, be variability regarding how these terms are understood conceptually and how they are incorporated into the teacher education curriculum at primary, secondary and post-compulsory levels. This leaves question marks over how much training some teachers have in addressing issues regarding democracy and democratic citizenship when they enter practice. So is it possible to model or foster aspects of democratic education in English teacher education in the current climate? There have been concerns with the

42

Neil Hopkins

evolution of teacher education into a set of skills or competences. In the words of Alis Oancea and Janet Orchard: In a strictly managerial sense, teaching might be described in terms of being an operative function, even though such an account may be anathema to some. Teaching in managerialist terms is one part of an institutional mission and its associated implementation plans, subject to . . . pre-defined measures of success. (Oancea and Orchard, 2012:576). Effective teacher educators and teacher education programmes see beyond the technicist, managerialist requirements of training teachers and allow space for trainees to explore and experiment in their practice with regards to such things as dialogical learning or facilitating pupil voice. There has been a sad trend in teacher education recently towards minimising the history and philosophy of education as disciplines. These disciplines give the trainee teacher a foundation or ballast in terms of how the state education system has evolved and what a good education or a good teacher consists of from a moral or ethical perspective. Whilst forms of democratic education do not necessarily require an induction of the teacher into the philosophy of education, exposure to it when in training is more likely to open up avenues that encourage such inquiry. The relatively short duration of teacher education courses in England also makes experiment difficult for trainee teachers and teacher educators. In England, trainees on a PGCE programme are required to spend over 100 days of their course within the school placement. Whilst this is laudable in some senses (it enables trainees to become acclimatised to particular school settings), it also restricts the time teacher educators have with their trainees – in the author’s university, for instance, trainees have an intensive two-week spell at the university in early September and are then in schools for four days per week (their ‘university’ day being the Friday). A frequent complaint of teacher educators is that there is simply no time within the programme to discuss ethics, professional identity or citizenship education even if they wanted to. This compares unfavourably with some other countries where teacher training is either a Master’s programme or two-year induction. In these circumstances, trainees are given the time to analyse and reflect upon the relationship between theory and practice regarding their own pedagogies. The time restrictions within the PGCE curriculum also create problems for trainee teachers trying to ensure that fundamental British values are adequately incorporated into the curriculum. It is difficult to envisage a wide-spread adoption of democratic practices in England whilst the focus of teacher education is on compliance with the Teachers’ Standards. The training options are diverse and potentially confusing, and the programmes themselves are short and constricted. This is not to criticise the very good work often done by teacher educators and trainees on

Teacher education in England

43

pupil voice and dialogical learning (to name but two aspects of democratic education) during the training. However, if discussion of democratic education is to be taken seriously as an important aspect of teacher education, there needs to be a more systematic approach than is currently the case. Ideally, this is something that should involve a variety of stakeholders at the local and the national level to exemplify democratic education in action (Hopkins, 2014).

Conclusion This chapter has taken the issue of teacher education and democratic education from the current English perspective. It has been noted that the existing system for training teachers for primary and secondary phases is highly complex involving a mixture of university and school-based provision. This situation has been created by the government to give a semblance of choice to potential trainees regarding routes into teaching and also to encourage more school-based practice. However, this state of affairs has been criticised for being confusing and offering a fragmented picture for teacher education across the country. The typical one-year PGCE programme is a well-established formula but is under strain in terms of accommodating compliance to the Teachers’ Standards alongside the more theoretical, research-based and analytical aspects of pedagogy traditionally seen on teacher education courses in England. This should be compared with other countries discussed in this book in terms of the necessary period of time needed to train as a teacher. The core of this book is centred around the Council of Europe’s competences for democratic culture. It was acknowledged earlier that the separate components of fundamental British values as introduced into the English education system align closely with the CoE’s values for democratic culture (see CoE, 2016:11). What has proved more controversial is the labelling of these values as distinctly ‘British’ and the requirement of teachers not to ‘undermine’ such values within the Teachers’ Standards. When added to the current Prevent duty for teachers to counteract radicalisation, it could be argued that trainee teachers and teacher educators have been put in a difficult position regarding teaching what it means to be ‘British’. This chapter has looked at examples of what might constitute democratic education, offering examples from student voice, dialogical learning and stakeholder theory. These examples are by no means exclusive but offer some possibilities towards encouraging a democratic culture within education as envisaged by John Dewey (see Heilbronn et al., 2018) and the Council of Europe. It is even possible to see ways in which policy and pedagogy could overlap to overcome some of the difficulties outlined here. If teacher educators and trainee teachers in England were given the time to develop aspects of democratic education, they would be addressing the core of fundamental British values and the Prevent duty because, as stated prior, democracy, citizenship and identity are inherent in them. Dewey thought that education was more than simply the

44

Neil Hopkins

inculcation of the ‘3Rs’ – democracy is a way of living respectfully with others, acknowledging that learning is a shared endeavour and that schools are the laboratories and greenhouses for a democratic culture. The approach of Brexit makes these values more important than ever.

References Alexander, R. (2008) Essays on Pedagogy. London: Routledge. Council of Europe [CoE] (2016) Competencies for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Strasbourg: CoE. Department for Education (2010) The Importance of Teaching. Available at: https://assets. publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/175429/CM-7980.pdf (Accessed 24 September 2018). Dewey, J. (2007 [1916]) Democracy and Education. Teddingon: Echo Library. DfE (2011) Teachers’ Standards [online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov. uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665520/Teachers__Stan dards.pdf (Accessed 1 October 2018). DfE (2014a) Promoting Fundamental British Values as Part of SMSC in Schools. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380595/ SMSC_Guidance_Maintained_Schools.pdf (Accessed 20 September 2018). DfE (2014b) Listening to and Involving Children and Young People. Available at: https:// assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/437241/Listening_to_and_involving_children_and_young_people.pdf (Accessed 24 September 2018). DfE (2015) The Prevent Duty: Departmental Advice for Schools and Childcare Providers. London: DfE. Elton-Chalcraft, S., Lander, V., Revell, L., Warner, D. and Whitworth, L. (2017) ‘To Promote, or Not to Promote Fundamental British Values? Teachers’ Standards, Diversity and Teacher Education’ British Educational Research Journal, 43 (1), pp. 29–48. Fielding, M. (2007) ‘On the Necessity of Radical State Education: Democracy and the Common School’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 41 (4), pp. 539–557. Flutter, J. (2007) ‘Teacher Development and Pupil Voice’ The Curriculum Journal, 18 (3), pp. 343–354. Guardian, The (2016) Legal Duty to Refer Students under Prevent Strategy Divides Teachers [online from 12 July 2016]. Available at: www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/12/ legal-duty-to-refer-students-under-prevent-strategy-divides-teachers (Accessed 20 September 2018). Heilbronn, R., Doddington, C. and Higham, R. (eds.) (2018) Dewey and Education in the 21st Century: Fighting Back. Bingley: Emerald Publishing. Hopkins, N. (2013) Citizenship and Democracy in Further and Adult Education. Dordrecht: Springer. Hopkins, N. (2014) ‘The Democratic Curriculum: Concept and Practice’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48 (3), pp. 416–427. Mercer, N. (2007) Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. London: Routledge. National Archives (2002) Education Act [online]. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2002/32/section/78 (Accessed 20 September 2018).

Teacher education in England

45

National Archives (2004) Children’s Act [online]. Available at: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/ 2004/31 (Accessed 24 September 2018). Oancea, A. and Orchard, J. (2012) ‘The Future of Teacher Education’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46 (4), pp. 574–588. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. London: QCA. Qurashi, F. (2018) ‘The Prevent Strategy and the UK “War on Terror”: Embedding Infrastructures of Surveillance in Muslim Communities’ Palgrave Communications, 4 (17), pp. 1–13. Raiker, A. and Rautiainen, M. (eds.) (2017) Educating for Democracy in England and Finland: Principles and Culture. London: Routledge. Ranciere, J. (1991) The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. K. Ross (trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Chapter 4

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions Educating citizens in neoliberal Estonia Mari-Liis Jakobson , Eve Eisenschmidt and Leif Kalev

Introduction Since Estonia regained its independence in 1991, it has made a rapid and sustainable transition to democracy and market economy. Coping with two simultaneous transitions has been experienced in many countries in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), which were part of the third wave of democratisation (Huntington, 1993). This in itself has set particular challenges and, at times, created situations where the transition to market economy tended to dominate over the inherently more complex and gradual transition to democracy (Lauristin et al., 1997). These parallel transitions as well as the ‘heritage’ of the Soviet era have affected many domains in the region, including democratic citizenship and citizenship education. In 1994, Attila Agh, a Hungarian philosopher, even contemplated whether the Western understanding of citizenship is at all a suitable form of agency in the CEE context. And while citizenship education in CEE has been a subject of numerous international cooperation projects and nongovernmental organization (NGO) initiatives (Naval et al., 2002), some disparities still remain. This chapter explores the role that changing teacher education is playing in Estonia in shaping democratic citizenship. Whilst the centrality of citizenship education in fostering democratic citizenship has been emphasised by many authors (e.g. Heater, 2004; Reid et al., 2013; Westheimer, 2015), the role of teacher education in achieving these results has stimulated less reflection. In the following analysis, the four features of the Estonian context of teacher education will be considered, namely the historical context, the policy framework, civic and citizenship education (CCE) curriculum content and teacher education curricula. The chapter begins with an introduction of the central concepts, namely democratic citizenship and civic and citizenship education, and outlines an analytical framework for reflecting upon the more empirical aspects. Next, the development of Estonian teacher education and citizenship education is briefly described, marking also the key traditions and important fraction points

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

47

based on a literature review. The historical overview helps us understand the broader context and follows the understanding of historical institutionalists (e.g. Thelen, 1999), who emphasise the importance of path dependence in development and critical junctures that can spark change. This is followed by an introduction of the policy framework that defines the context for teacher education for democratic citizenship. The primary focus will be on the regulative environment, but also to outline the key thematic foci in teacher education development in policy documents. Subsequently, the curriculum content of CCE in Estonian comprehensive schools is analysed. Curriculum content serves as a valuable material in understanding what kind of democratic citizenship ideals dominate in Estonian comprehensive education and what subject content teachers-in-training need to prepare for. This leads to consideration of the content of teacher education curricula, and the teaching methodology in the two public universities that offer teacher training in Estonia, to understand how teacher education supports socialisation for democratic citizenship. The concluding section will elaborate on the effects of democratic transition and neoliberalism on civic education in general and civics teacher education in particular.

Democratic citizenship and education for citizenship Analytically, citizenship can be viewed as a multi-layered institution: it features a particular status that grants an individual rights and obligations; it embodies an identity that links an individual to the state and/or the broader community of citizens; and it is also a mode of participation, i.e. making one’s position on political issues heard or acting as an agent of political change (e.g. Jakobson, 2014). When democratic citizenship is discussed, the aim is to put forth the normative aspect of citizenship: the status, identity and participation dimensions follow a particular set of grounding values that are also central to democracy. Of course, there is no consensus over what makes a good citizen. Political theorists distinguish between three normative approaches to democracy. The liberal understanding of citizenship sets the emphasis on citizens’ rights and the ability to use these rights in order to further one’s goals both in the private and, if need be, in the public sphere (Schuck, 2002). This is well reflected in Marshall’s (1992) understanding that modern citizenship entails (at least) three types of rights: civil (i.e. human rights, protection of private property), political (e.g. right to vote, voice political opinions to defend one’s rights) and social (i.e. right to education or basic social welfare, which ground the ability to effectively use one’s political rights). A liberal citizen is envisioned as moderate, pluralist and emphatic towards others (Heater, 1999). People are not obliged to exercise the rights but as moral persons tend to do so (Macedo, 1990). The Council of Europe’s (2010) Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education is closely related to this way of thinking. The republican understanding envisions a citizen as a primarily political being, who has not only rights, but also obligations to politically participate

48

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

and further the common good in the public domain (Dagger, 2002). Hence, republican citizens ought to be active and, in particular, know how to use their political rights, and be knowledgeable about politics, constitutional institutions and so on, in a way that would enable them to effectively participate in political processes. Constitutional patriotism is also an important identity feature of the republican normative (Heater, 1999). The communitarian understanding of citizenship also emphasises the importance of active participation and citizen’s duties over rights. However, communitarians do not value the role of the state as highly; rather, they emphasise the citizen’s shared identity with other members of their community. Often (albeit not always), a shared cultural or ethnic identity can play an important role as a value basis (Bauböck, 1998). In addition to contesting with one another (e.g. Sandel, 1998), the democratic normatives are often also contending against other normatives – for instance, the neoliberal normative that draws its grounding values from the market economy. Instead of the positive liberty grounded in social rights valued by the liberal theory of democracy, neoliberalism is built around the notion of negative liberty. Instead of political participation emphasised by the republican normative, neoliberalism foresees citizens as consumers or providers of services, who occasionally also participate as feedback givers into the service development process (Newman and Clarke, 2009). Instead of perceiving fellow citizens as members of a community of fate supporting one another, the neoliberal normative casts individuals primarily as efficient market actors making rational deals with one another (Davies, 2014). In the course of the development of neoliberalism (Hay, 2007) we can distinguish between at least two different normatives for steering. One (Thatcherite, liberal-conservative) is purely market oriented, indoctrinating neoclassical economic theory and developing self-sufficiency and the capacities to act as an entrepreneur. The other (Blairite, third way) has a broader view on entrepreneurialism and interprets it as multifaceted creativity, self-realisation and cooperation while maintaining an activating orientation. This in turn is counterbalanced by the mechanical performance definition in practical delivery. In the Estonian context, neoliberalism is perceived as affecting many walks of life (e.g. Vetik, 2011; Bohle and Greskovits, 2012; Kalev and Tammiste, 2018), and in part, it has been associated with the simultaneous transitions to democracy and market economy. Education for citizenship can be understood in various levels of precision: either as civics, a focussed subject, or as broader citizenship education based on various subjects providing social and political competences (Reid et al., 2013) or even more broadly, following Dewey’s (2013) understanding of all education as uniting individual citizens and their society through an approach based on democratic values and practices. The key aspects of citizen education are knowledge, skills and attitudes (Heater, 2004). Knowledge is related to facts, interpretation and personal role. Attitudes

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

49

Table 4.1 Normative orientations in citizenship education National communitarian

Civic republican

Knowledge National cultural and historical knowledge

Basics of the political and institutional system

Attitudes

Skills

Liberal democratic

Neoliberal

Legal system Legal, social and with a focus entrepreneurial on civil, capacities political and social rights Self-efficacy, National Constitutional Personal competitiveness, patriotism, patriotism, development cooperation, cultural civic in a civilised flexibility and social mindedness, manner, harmony responsibility human dignity and rights, openness Not emphasised Political meaning How to use Market agency, social (language, making and the rights, entrepreneurialism manners) participation possibly skills also critical analysis

are related to self-understanding, respect for others and values. Skills are related to intellect and judgement, communication and action. Table 4.1 summarises the three key aspects of each of the four citizenship normatives. The Council of Europe’s (CoE) 20 competences for democratic culture (CoE, 2016) are overwhelmingly in line with the liberal democratic normative on citizenship – that is, valuing human dignity and human rights, democracy and justice. There are some links to the republican normative, for instance, civic mindedness and responsibility, and to the neoliberal one, for example, selfefficacy. The national communitarian citizenship normative is largely absent. This is quite understandable as the CoE as a broad and relatively diverse international organisation has to pay more attention to openness, pluralism, tolerance and other bridge-building aspects. National and/or social cohesion, the balance of rights and responsibilities and other practical aspects related to governance and politics tend to be more relevant in the context of nation states. This may also be linked to the fact that democratic culture and democratic governance are different albeit largely interrelated phenomena.

Historical perspective of CCE education While the history of Estonian statehood and democracy has been rather short and disrupted – Estonia was independent in 1918–1940 and regained its independence in 1991, after nearly five decades of Soviet occupation – the role of education and teachers as civic actors has been pivotal for much longer. The following gives an overview of key historical turning points affecting

50

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

Estonian CCE and also outlines its periods of development since restoring independence. National awakening and independence

The first academic gymnasia were established in the 1630s. By the end of the 19th century, 96.7 per cent of Estonia’s population was already literate (Ruus et al., 2008). Local schoolmasters also played a vital role in the national awakening movement in the 19th century, organising local cultural associations and libraries and being active correspondents to the newspapers. One key initiator here was the Cimze Seminar for schoolmasters, where many of the key figures of the Estonian national awakening movement received their education and where strong emphasis was put on child-centred pedagogy as well as cultural activities, especially the choir singing tradition (Smidchens, 2014). The emphasis on national culture and the humanist tradition was also important during the first independence period of Estonia (Ruus et al., 2008). Soviet period

Major disruption occurred in the field of education under the Soviet occupation, when the emphasis on national culture was substituted by indoctrination over class struggle and the central role of the communist party. The Soviet curricula were characterised by undisguised ideology in all subjects and had a clear preference for encyclopaedic knowledge over problem solving and decisionmaking. This also reflected in teacher education curricula, which, in addition to disciplinary knowledge, included indoctrinating classes such as the history of the Communist Party or the scientific bases of Marxism and Leninism as a core part of teacher preparation. Also, some “primitive experiments” were made to “bring academic education closer to work in the fields and factories” (ibid.), such as engaging students in menial work on nationalised farms. This period in teacher education history may still be relevant, as almost half of Estonian teachers (and a similar proportion of civic education teachers) received their initial training during the Soviet era. During the school year of 2017/18, a total of 14,905 teachers were working in the Estonian general education system, and a total of 710 were specialised in teaching civic education courses. As visible from Figure 4.1, the age structure among the civics teachers is very similar to that of the total teaching staff and tends to verge towards the older cohorts. This implies that about half of the teachers received their initial training during the Soviet period. Transition to autonomy

Transition to the sovereign educational system began at the end of the 1980s. In citizenship education, this marks a shift away from Soviet style civics. Initially

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

51

35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% < 30

30-39

40-49 All teachers

50-59

≤ 60

Civics teachers

Figure 4.1 Age cohorts of all teachers and civics teachers in Estonian primary and secondary schools in 2017/18

ideologised subjects became substituted by a history of philosophy, partly also due to teachers not being equipped with the competences needed for the Western style CCE (Toots et al., 2017). In 1991, after having regained independence, a new Education Act was adopted which greatly decentralised the school system and gave more autonomy to the schools, whilst the discussions continued over how to create a national curriculum for general education (Ruus et al., 2008). This also meant that there were neither national curricula nor coursebooks for citizenship education, and the reform of teacher education curricula began in a more intensive and focussed manner only in the mid-1990s (Toots et al., 2017). Stabilisation

Initial signs of stabilisation occurred around 1996, when the national curriculum for comprehensive schools was formulated, which also stated school levels where citizenship education ought to be taught as a separate subject and determined the key topics. However, the curriculum left the teaching methods, concrete learning outcomes and even the number of courses open, which meant the schools and teachers had considerable autonomy in deciding the actual content of citizenship education, and in many places, history of philosophy was still taught instead. During this period, specialised training for citizenship education began to emerge, and the University of Tartu began offering some electives covering civics in its history teacher programme in 1994 (ibid.). However, the number of courses related to CCE remained very limited in both curricula.

52

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

Expansion and consolidation

The structure of the national comprehensive school curriculum became more consolidated with the new national curriculum for comprehensive schools adopted in 2002. This curriculum already envisioned that citizenship competences and active citizenship ought to be one of the learning outcomes supported by the whole curriculum. While civics were also a part of the 1996 national curriculum, the exact duration and teaching year were designated only in the new curriculum: one class per week between Forms 4–6, two classes per week in Forms 7–9 and two courses (70 hours in total) in high school. The new curriculum allowed to carry out lessons not only in class, but also as study visits and so on (ibid.) Gradually, this began to have an effect on teacher education as well. Teacher education for citizenship also became more consolidated: Tallinn University launched its curriculum for history and civics teachers in 1999, and the University of Tartu in 2005 (between 2000 and 2005 they offered a oneyear teachers’ course). While initially the programmes did not include much content about CCE, the share of this knowledge began to increase. Towards citizenship education as a general competence

By the second half of the decade, curriculum development for comprehensive schools had acknowledged a new problem; due to extensive developments and incorporation of new subjects (CCE being one of them), the curriculum had become overloaded, and the students and teachers as well as the parents were dissatisfied with the situation. This resulted in more focus on integration between different subjects and a reduced amount of classes devoted to civics, especially in Forms 7–9. Both the 2011 and 2014 curricula reforms outlined general competences and cross-curricula themes that should be promoted through all subjects. These also began to reflect in teacher education; new didactical approaches were introduced to develop general competences. The curriculum also stressed that citizenship education had to be maximally associated with everyday life, mostly aiming to achieve social literacy. It also encouraged teachers to use problem-based learning methods, which also helped shift citizenship education towards analysing actual problems in society and promoting proactiveness of the students. A specific aspect in the Estonian case has been the dual educational system inherited from the Soviet time consisting of the two pillars of Estonianlanguage and Russian-language schools. This dualism has persisted after restoring independence but over time has become less relevant as the curricula have been harmonised, teacher education unified and the Russian pillar schools have moved to 60 per cent Estonian and 40 per cent Russian-language tuition. Also, many Russophone parents have enrolled their children in the

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

53

Estonian-language pillar either as a personal choice or due to the lack of Russian pillar schools in the less populated regions (Selliov, 2016). This enables us to discuss CCE and teacher education as cohesive in this chapter.

Policy environment of CCE teacher education The central policy strategy regulating the field of education is the Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020. The strategy is primarily focussed on the new, student-centred approach to learning and promoting a support system for lifelong learning (also among teachers) to meet the needs of the society and the labour market, but CCE is not a prioritised issue in it. Comprehensive school teachers (from primary to upper secondary) have to hold at least a Master’s level (or equivalent) qualification. The Higher Education Standard (HES, Estonian Government, 2008) implies that universities are relatively autonomous in developing their curricula, provided that these meet the university’s internal quality standards and those of the international reviewing board. More concrete aims and components for teacher education are described in the Framework for Teacher Training (FTT; Estonian Government, 2002). Ratified in 2000, the FTT states that teacher education should aim to bear various, clearly humanistic values: The goal of teacher education is .  .  . teachers are able to 1) adhere to general ethical principles and respect the student’s dignity; 2) orientate in the educational needs of the society and are able to respond to a changing educational situation; 3) take into account the individual development of every person and use teaching methods that support it; 4) implement the school’s development plan and curriculum; 5) participate in the promotion of educational life both at the educational institution and outside; 6) update their professional competences. (FTT, §2) Moreover, the general education component of teacher education curricula ought to aim to: 1) deepen an understanding of dynamics among individuals, in the society and in the surrounding environment; 2) deepen the understanding of the plurality of views and the need to be tolerant and democratic; 3) develop communication and self-expression skills, knowledge of Estonian language and foreign languages, and the ability to use information and communication technologies. (ibid, §6(2)) In line with the lifelong learning strategy, the professional competence profile for teachers was adopted in 2013 (Estonian Qualifications Authority, 2013).

54

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

The competence profile includes competences related to the planning of learning and teaching activities; development of the learning environment; supporting learning and development, reflection and professional self-development; counselling parents and students; and developmental, creative and research activities. For more experienced teachers, the same competences are required on a higher level, and some additional competences are expected, such as supervising and teaching teachers and leading the group work of teachers. In addition, important qualities for a teacher, such as self-management, cooperativeness, initiative, responsibility, self-confidence, creativity, tolerance, empathy, integrity and positive attitude, are also addressed in professional standards. The competence profile is the same for all teachers, no matter what subject they teach. It is used to design initial teacher education as well as support the planning of professional development of in-service teachers, which is a decentralised activity, based on self-evaluation and the responsibility of schools that have hired the teacher. The only regulation that gives the focus for the specialisation of citizenship teacher education is the national curriculum. The curriculum is divided into eight subject fields, including social subjects, which consists of history, social studies and human studies (§15(3)), and some elective subjects, such as national defence and economics and entrepreneurship (§15(4)). According to the Eurydice report Citizenship Education at School in Europe (2017), three main approaches are used for integrating citizenship education into general education curricula: it can be a separate subject, it can be integrated into broader compulsory subjects or learning areas such as the social sciences or language studies or it may be a cross-curricular objective to be delivered by all teachers. Most education systems use either the integrated or the cross-curricular approach, and many use both. Estonia falls into the latter category: the integrated approach is evident in the content of the social studies classes, which to an extent also includes economics and entrepreneurship, world politics and sociology, while societal competences are also a horizontal topic in the whole basic and secondary school curricula. This implies that, in a way, teachers of all subjects also develop civic and social competences of the students. Thus, looking at teacher education for CCE teachers, it is relevant to not only look at the curricula for teachers with a specialisation in citizenship education, but how CCE competences are developed in all initial teacher education curricula.

CCE curriculum As mentioned prior, two national curricula – for basic schools (Forms 1–9) and for upper secondary schools (Forms 10–12) – have been designed in Estonia since 1996. From the standpoint of teaching democratic citizenship, the curriculum can be analysed on two levels. Since CCE is taught in Estonia as a cross-curricular topic, the general values, competences and cross-curricular

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

55

themes that are binding for all teachers regardless of their specialisation can be analysed. In addition, the values inscribed into the current curriculum of social subjects will be considered. The fundamental values of the national curriculum address those of democratic citizenship in many respects: in addition to valuing democracy itself, the curriculum also cites liberty, rule of law, patriotism and respect for one’s mother tongue and culture, but also cultural diversity and tolerance, and so on, which resonates with all three major normative approaches to citizenship (Estonian Government, 2011, §2). Among the eight key competences, social competences are perhaps most closely associated with democratic citizenship. These include: The ability to become self-actualised, to function as an aware and conscientious citizen and to support the democratic development of society; to know and follow values and standards in society and the rules of various environments; to engage in cooperation with other people; to accept interpersonal differences and take them into account in interacting with people. (ibid., §4(3), section 2) In addition, value competence, communication competence and entrepreneurial competence cited in the general curriculum also have some relevance for citizenship education in the broader sense (§4(3)). The national curriculum includes eight cross-curricular topics: lifelong learning and career planning, environment and sustainable development, civic initiative and entrepreneurship, cultural identity, information environment, technology and innovation, health and safety and values and morals. Civic initiative and entrepreneurship are described as follows: The aim is for the pupil to become an active and responsible member of the community and society who understands the principles and mechanisms of the functioning of society and the importance of civic initiative, feels like a member of society and draws on the country’s cultural traditions and development directions in his or her activities. (ibid, §14(3), section 3) As this demonstrates, the cross-curricular focus is primarily on the neoliberal understanding of a citizen with hints of communitarianism: as self-actualised, cooperative and entrepreneurial, aware of the societal traditions. The liberal emphasis on citizen rights and liberties and being knowledgeable about them is virtually missing. The civic initiative and entrepreneurship competences note that the citizen has to ‘be active’, which is in line with the civic republican emphasis on active citizenship, but there are no other values to support it. In addition to general competences, CCE as an independent subject is also compulsory in the national curriculum starting from the sixth school year until

56

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

the final 12th grade with one to two lessons per week. At the basic school CCE aims to provide students with the competence of social literacy: knowledge, values and attitudes about society for making responsible decisions. At the secondary level, the aim is to create opportunities for developing students’ identities as citizens, as well as strengthening coherence in society and advocating active citizenship among students. CCE aims to support democracy, citizenship and human rights, as well as a sense of belonging to the European community. From the pedagogical perspective, students get practical experience through involvement in student initiatives such as student projects, membership of student councils, participating in extra-curricular activities such as school newspapers, arranging events, volunteering at associations and so on. At the secondary school level, more analytical self-reflection methods are added. In addition to values and competences the social studies subjects curriculum defines various learning outcomes for civics. Some of these are general descriptive knowledge, for instance, understanding that Estonia is a democratic republic, being able to name the main duties of its government, parliament, president or local governments; knowing what are one’s human rights or civil rights, Estonian folk traditions or the key vocabulary related to market economy. Based on a more detailed analysis, it appears that the knowledge competences span all four normative approaches to citizenship as described in Table 4.1. In terms of attitudes, the civic republican value dimension is virtually absent, while the other three are visible. For instance, the students are expected to be able to follow generally accepted norms in Estonian society and respect national customs and traditions of different cultures, which relates primarily to the communitarian ideals. The liberal normative is reflected in valuing freedom, preserving human dignity and respecting differences. The neoliberal values primarily reflect in self-sustaining life choices, such as accepting behaviours that promote a healthy lifestyle or value self-discipline. Concerning skills, the neoliberal approach tends to dominate over others and focusses mostly on general self-management skills (Blairite neoliberalism) or one’s labour market roles (Thatcherite neoliberalism).

CCE in teacher education methodology and curriculum The difference between CCE as a separate subject and CCE as a cross-curricular theme is also reflected by the logic of teacher education. In addition to the fiveyear integrated curriculum of primary school teachers, one can also opt from among several specialised Master’s level curricula (e.g. teacher of several subjects, teacher of natural sciences in secondary school, teacher of history and civics, etc.). In recent years (in 2013 at the University of Tartu and in 2015 at Tallinn University), teacher education underwent major reforms. One of the main aims of the implemented changes was to improve the connection between theoretical studies and the practical work of teachers, but also to line the

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

57

curriculum better with a teacher’s competence profile (Leijen and Pedaste, 2018:40). The Estonian Lifelong Learning Strategy 2020, which emphasises the importance of learning to learn, adopts a more student-centred approach to teaching and encourages creating a supportive classroom environment. These issues are also in focus of the numerous courses devoted to educational psychology, for example, Learning and Development, Students with Special Needs, Student Development and Support System and so on. The teaching methodology of teacher education programmes has also shifted more towards treating teachers-in-training as individuals with a professional identity who aim to work in a more student-centred manner than before. For instance, the University of Tartu has incorporated a new subject, Teacher’s Identity and Leadership, into its programme in order to prepare student teachers for taking on the professional role of teachers as leaders in and outside of school. During the course, various ethical and moral dilemmas are discussed, and the legislation concerning the educational system is analysed. However, from the perspective of democratic citizenship, all the curricula are rather limited. The primary school teachers’ programmes, several subject teachers’ programmes and history teachers’ programmes do include a subject on social studies didactics, which gives an overview to the students about the requirements in the curriculum. However, there are no broader social sciences subjects in the curricula, which would help the teachers-in-training gain an understanding of how the society or the democratic governance system functions. The only specialised subject concerning social studies in the history and civics teachers programme is a subject called Economy in the Contemporary Society, which obviously is not intended to support democratic citizenship, at least not in its classical forms. Additionally, the primary school teachers-intraining can opt for a minor subject at Tallinn University, which is not part of their curriculum, and as such, could also study some civics. An exception here is a new course Educational Policy and School Leadership introduced at Tallinn University. The general aim of the course is to create opportunities for analysing the presence of interculturalism and three components of democracy – participation, democratic politics and democratic society –, in national educational policies and school curricula. Students will analyse their own values and opportunities as leaders for shaping and implementing educational policy at different levels of the educational system to reinforce three components of tolerance: interpersonal relations, tolerance towards different social and cultural groups and an inclusive society. The course is designed so that learning about the changes and developments in education go in parallel with the changes in governance of education, including the effects on the labour market and trends in citizenship development, as well as on social inclusion and tolerance. The main outcome is, on one hand, a broader understanding of how educational policy is developed, and on the other, an understanding of the responsibilities and opportunities of each individual to contribute to policy making (Eisenschmidt et al., 2019).

58

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

Discussion and conclusions In Estonia, the transition to the Western style of citizenship education has been relatively slow both in the comprehensive school system as well as in teacher education, primarily as a heritage of the Soviet period. The transition, especially in teacher education, was somewhat aided but also hindered by the long humanist tradition. The humanistic values have contributed to an ethical character building but also served as a substitute for democratic civicness. Comparative surveys indicate clear marks of the democratic transition – for instance, Estonia has considerably improved its position in the international rankings of the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) International Civics and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) over the past two decades (Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Schulz et al., 2018). However, the data is mixed concerning different competence dimensions. For instance, while Estonian 14-year-olds are among the top scorers in terms of civic knowledge, they remain below average in terms of civic engagement (ibid.), despite the active reforms of comprehensive school curricula and more numerous informal learning opportunities which have emerged in the past few decades. Low civic engagement measures and a political culture of alienation is not characteristic to Estonian youth exclusively, but reflects also in more general civic dispositions (World Values Survey, 2014; European Social Survey, 2016). However, the transition to democratic citizenship education has also witnessed some setbacks. The initial enthusiasm in the development of national level curricula shortly resulted in curriculum overload, both in comprehensive school curricula as well as in teacher training. In combination with the new requirements for developing various competences relating to the role of the teacher (as a classroom leader, councillor, translator in a multicultural setting, IT and design specialist designing contemporary teaching and learning materials, etc.) as well as the overall emphasis on natural and technical sciences, CCE has been left in an inferior position and only minimally covered in the curriculum. While the aspects related to technology and communicative skills can empower democratic citizenship, this is not possible without sufficient knowledge about the content of democracy and citizenship. Moreover, the policy priority of educating students toward becoming selfefficient and entrepreneurial individuals and sustainable actors in the labour market has also steered the national curriculum toward becoming neoliberal citizens. Thus, interestingly, unlike in many other fields, education in comprehensive schools (and also in teacher education) has taken the two simultaneous transitions up in a somewhat different order. Without teachers by their side who understand the broader processes in the society and democratic governance, closing the gap with other Western countries in terms of democratic citizenship attitudes and skills is going to be a challenge.

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

59

The Estonian experience provides a good basis for a more conceptual and policy-related reflection on the Council of Europe’s 20 competences for democratic culture. The Estonian national curricula are well in line with these competences, but this does not necessarily ensure a full development of democratic citizenship competences. This stands not only for Estonia, but possibly also for many other Central and Eastern European countries that have undergone the dual transition to democracy and market economy. In the future, it would be reasonable to further reflect both on the possible contributions of the currently less or partially represented aspects, especially the republican and national communitarian normatives as well as the didactic or broader pedagogical aspects of both comprehensive and teacher education for democratic citizenship.

References Agh, A. (1994) ‘Citizenship and Civil Society in Central Europe’ in Steenbergen, B. V. (ed.) The Condition of Citizenship. London: Sage Publications, pp. 198–226. Bauböck, R. (1998) ‘The Crossing and Blurring of Boundaries in International Migration: Challenges for Social and Political Theory’ in Bauböck, R. and Rundell, J. (eds.) Blurred Boundaries: Migration, Ethnicity, Citizenship. Vienna: Ashgate, pp. 17–52. Bohle, D. and Greskovits, B. (2012) Capitalist Diversity on Europe’s Periphery. Cornell: University Press. Council of Europe (2010) Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16803034e5 [Accessed 1 June 2019]. Council of Europe (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 [Accessed 1 June 2019]. Dagger, R. (2002) ‘Republican Citizenship’ in Isin, E. F. and Turner, B. S. (eds.) Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 145–158. Davies, W. (2014) The Limits of Neoliberalism. London: Sage Publications. Dewey, J. (2013) The School and Society: The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Eisenschmidt, E., Lauri, T. and Sillavee, R. (2019) ‘Educational Policy and Leadership to Improve Democratic Citizenship Education’ in Veugelers, W. (ed.) Education for Democratic Intercultural Citizenship. Rotterdam: Brill-Sense Publisher (in press). Estonian Government (2002) Õpetajate koolituse raamnõuded (Framework for Teacher Training). Decree by the Government of Estonia. Available at: www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/1180820 15010 (Accessed 1 June 2019). Estonian Government (2008) Kõrgharidusstandard (Higher Education Standard). Decree by the Government of Estonia. Available at: www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13255227 (Accessed 1 June 2019). Estonian Government (2011) Põhikooli riiklik õppekava (National Curriculum for Basic Schools). Available at: www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/114012011001 (Accessed 1 June 2019). Estonian Qualifications Authority (2013) Occupational Qualification Standards. Available at: www.kutsekoda.ee/en/occupational-qualification-standards/ (Accessed 1 June 2019).

60

Mari-Liis Jakobson, Eve Eisenschmidt, et al.

European Social Survey (2016) ESS Wave 8. Available at: http://nesstar.ess.nsd.uib.no/web view/ (Accessed 1 June 2019). Eurydice (2017) Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Available at: https://publications. europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/6b50c5b0-d651-11e7-a506-01aa75 ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-56573425 (Accessed 1 June 2019). Hay, C. (2007) Why We Hate Politics? Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press. Heater, D. (1999) What Is Citizenship? Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press. Heater, D. (2004) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education. 3rd edn. New York: Manchester University Press. Huntington, S. P. (1993) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. Jakobson, M-L. (2014) Citizenship in Transformation: Political Agency in the Context of Migrant Transnationalism. Tallinn University Dissertations in Social Sciences, 79. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336147964_Citizenship_in_Transformation_ Political_Agency_in_the_Context_of_Migrant_Transnationalism (Accessed 1 October 2019). Kalev, L. and Tammiste, G. (2018) ‘Kuidas ületada uusliberalism valitsemises?’ Vikerkaar, 3, pp. 1–13. Lauristin, M., Vihalemm, P. and Tallo, I. (eds.) (1997) Return to the Western World: Cultural and Political Perspectives on the Estonian Post-Communist Transition. Tartu: Tartu University Press. Leijen, Ä. and Pedaste, M. (2018) ‘Pedagogical Beliefs, Instructional Practices and Opportunities for Professional Development of Teachers in Estonia’ in Niemi, H., Toom, A., Kallioniemi, A. and Lavonen, J. (eds.) The Teacher’s Role in the Changing Globalizing World. Rotterdam: Brill Sense, pp. 33–46. Macedo, S. (1990) Liberal Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marshall, T. H. (1992) ‘Citizenship and Social Class’ in Marshall, T. H. and Bottomore, T. (eds.) Citizenship and Social Class. London: Pluto Press, pp. 1–51. Naval, C., Print, M. and Veldhuis, R. (2002) ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship in the New Europe: Context and Reform’ European Journal of Education, 37 (2), pp. 107–128. Newman, J. and Clarke, J. (2009) Publics, Politics and Power: Remaking the Public in Public Services. London: Sage Publications. Reid, A., Gill, J. and Sears, A. (eds.) (2013) Globalization, the Nation-State and the Citizen: Dilemmas and Directions for Civics and Citizenship Education. London: Routledge. Ruus, V. R., Henno, I., Eisenschmidt, E., Loogma, K., Noorväli, H., Reiska, P. and Rekkor, S. (2008) ‘Reforms, Developments and Trends in Estonian Education during Recent Decades’ in Mikk, J., Veisson, M. and Luik, P. (eds.) Reforms and Innovations in Estonian Education. Frankfurt: Peter Lang Publishers House, pp. 11–26. Sandel, M. J. (1998) Liberalism and the Limits of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schuck, P. H. (2002) ‘Liberal Citizenship’ in Isin, E. F. and Turner, B. S. (eds.) Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London: Sage Publications, pp. 131–144. Selliov, R. (2016) Eesti keelest erineva emakeelega põhikooli lõpetajate eesti keele oskus. Tartu: Haridus- ja Teadusministeerium. Available at: www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/hmin_b1_ keele_tase.pdf (Accessed 1 June 2019). Smidchens, G. (2014) The Power of Song: Nonviolent National Culture in the Baltic Singing Revolution. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press. Thelen, K. (1999) ‘Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics’ Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (1), pp. 369–404.

Democratic citizenship in scarce conditions

61

Toots, A., Oja, M., Idnurm, T., Lauri, T. and Põder, K. (2017) Noorte kodanikukultuur muutuvas maailmas. Eesti tulemused IEA Rahvusvahelises Kodanikuhariduse Uuringus (ICCS 2016). Tallinn, Tartu: Tallinna Ülikool. 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. Herengracht 487, 1017 BT, Amsterdam: The Netherlands IEA Secretariat. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G. and Friedman, T. (2018) Becoming Citizens in a Changing World: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International Report. Oxford: Springer. Vetik, R. (ed.) (2011) Eesti poliitika ja valitsemine 1991–2011. Tallinn: Tallinn University Press. Westheimer, J. (2015) What Kind of Citizen? Educating Our Children for the Common Good. New York and London: Teachers College Press. World Values Survey (2014) Wave 6, 2010–2014. Available at: www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ WVSOnline.jsp (Accessed 1 June 2019).

Chapter 5

Democratic citizenship and teacher education in Finland Matti Rautiainen , Perttu Männistö and Aleksi Fornaciari

Introduction Finland is considered to be among the most democratic countries in the world according to various international surveys (e.g. Economist Intelligence Unit metrics, Transparency International). However, the level of student participation in Finnish schools is below average compared to other European Union countries (e.g., Schulz et al., 2018), even though national curricula for comprehensive education have been emphasising values of democracy since the 1970s. According to the current national core curriculum for primary education, critical thinking and democratic principles construct the foundation for active citizenship: Educated people strive to act rightfully and show respect for themselves, to other people and the environment. They are able to use information critically. Furthermore, an effort towards self-regulation and accepting responsibility for their own development and well-being are a part of general knowledge and ability. Primary education is built upon respect for life and social justice. Primary education strengthens students’ ability to defend these values (respect for life, social justice) and the aptitude to appreciate the inviolability of human dignity. Primary education also promotes well-being, democracy, equality and equity. (National Core Curriculum for Basic Education, 2014, Chapter 2.2) In Finland the ideals of democracy on a societal level are built upon parliamentarism, which consists of strong belief in central governance and the state apparatuses. Thus, it is no surprise that representation is also part of Finnish schools’ democratic culture; every upper secondary school has to have students’ councils; councils are also part of primary and secondary schools, where they are not mandatory. There has also been a firm belief in Finland that consensus can be achieved between different people regardless of the major ideological differences that can and will exist (e.g. Stenius, 2010; Bauman, 2013). Education can

Democratic citizenship in Finland

63

be perceived as a major factor contributing to agency, where different individuals strive for social consensus and amenable citizenship. In this chapter, we analyse how Finnish teacher education (TE) contributes to the development of education for democracy. We do this by analysing how education for democracy has been developed in TE in Finland and what kind of ideals form the foundation of education for democracy in Finnish TE. The findings are analysed in relation to the Competences for Democratic Culture produced by the Council of Europe (CoE) (CoE, 2016).

History of political ideologies in Finland and their influence on TE Public school education as well as teacher education began in Finland in the 1860s. Czar Alexander II was inspired by liberal thoughts and wanted to carry out some experiments in his empire. Finland was selected as the place for these experiments, and Uno Cygnaeus was chosen to make plans for both comprehensive education and teacher education. The plans were radical considering the context in the 1850s and 1860s because Cygnaeus maintained that school should be planned for both girls and boys and teacher education for men and women. Cygnaeus stressed the importance of arts and crafts in school and thought that schools should support pupils to find their own strengths which then could be developed. Cygnaeus did not, however, promote education for democracy as the ideology was not relevant for the Russian empire. On one hand, though, he did emphasise that all children should have the right to access primary education. These principles then formed the foundation for school development in Finland and gave Cygnaeus his reputation as the father of public education in Finland. (Vilkuna, 2012). Finnish society changed rapidly in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and different movements, such as the labour movement and socialism, also spread to Finland. After independence was gained in December 1917, a violent civil war between the left and right wings was carried out from January to May of 1918. The war had a crucial influence on public education and society because the winners, the right wing, decided to ensure through education that a new revolution would not come to fruition if civic education was removed from schools. After the Second World War communism became part of Finnish politics, and with the support of the Soviet Union its influence in Finnish politics grew rapidly. Subsequently, the term finlandizerung became a well-known concept in international politics. Its definition developed to mean politics where a smaller country follows, one way or another, the will of the more powerful country next to them. In this case, it meant Finland following the will of the Soviet Union. The contemporary educational system was founded in 1970s. The reform, where Finland moved from a parallel to a comprehensive school system, was a radical move towards public education supporting equal opportunities for

64

Matti Rautiainen, Perttu Männistö, et al.

everyone. The parallel school system, created in the 1860s, was deemed oldfashioned and was criticised for creating inequality in the 1960s. Consequently, the central-leftist parties demanded a radical change based on the new ideals of the Finnish welfare state. The reform meant a change into a school system consisting of an obligatory education of nine years in length, which is similar for all pupils in Finland. This also led to a reform in TE. New teacher qualifications required that students must achieve MA degrees, including those studying to be primary school teachers (grades 1–6). New TE departments were formed in all universities, which had previously offered teacher education programmes. In addition, departments became responsible for subject teacher education programmes, which meant in practice studies of 60 ECTS (pedagogical studies for students specialising in a subject) (Valtonen and Rautiainen, 2019). The tensions between the left wing and the central conservative political parties were visible in Finland especially in the 1970s. As the nine-year compulsory education, which was the same for all comprehensive school systems, was one of the most significant achievements by left-wing politicians, the right wing opposed the system because they thought that socialists would try to initiate a revolution through education. In the 1970s, a school democracy experiment in an upper secondary school and a Marxian experiment in Pirkkala primary school stimulated an enormous public debate in Finnish society as well as in their parliament. This led to the Pirkkala experiment being interrupted in 1975 and the school democracy experiment in the upper secondary school being run down in the early 1980s. After these experiments, which for many teachers were traumatic, politics and political activities were removed from school curricula; more realistically what happened was that school education’s political background was hidden from public debate (see, e.g., Kärenlampi, 1999; Leskinen, 2016; Rautiainen, 2017). In public education, the political tensions were visible in pre-school to upper secondary school, but not in TE. In TE, focus was on pedagogy, not on social development of the society. One of the key features of Finnish TE since the 1860s had been its didactical and psychological orientation rather than its social and political orientation. Thus, TE in Finland has never been in the forefront of political battles. Instead, during its history, TE has prepared teachers to act as exemplary citizens, and the ethos of TE has been based on the ideals of conservation rather than on emancipation and social criticism (Rautiainen, 2017). In the 2000s the situation has changed a little. According to the first Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta et al., 2001), the Finnish 8th grade students were at the bottom of participating countries in their responses to questions about their possibilities of participating in school activities such as decisionmaking. In addition, the pupils’ interest towards active citizenship was low. The results were surprising, and politicians reacted by resourcing different projects aimed at developing active citizenship in schools and TE. The results of these projects were followed up by a study in which the contemporary state of education for democracy in TE in Finland was researched (Rautiainen et al., 2014).

Democratic citizenship in Finland

65

Educational reform implemented from the 1970s has had an enormous influence on Finnish society. The ideal was that everybody should have either vocational or academic education as well as possibilities to educate themselves as far as possible. In addition, a social security system was created to make it possible for individuals to study without having to work at the same time. Meanwhile, the new academic status of primary school teachers strengthened their professional identity as well as society’s respect for them. Nowadays primary school teacher education is still one of the most popular academic programmes if one considers the number of applicants. Only 10 percent of all applicants are chosen by university departments, which is exceptional when compared internationally. More so, the pedagogical freedom and autonomy in teachers’ work is something most countries do not have. To summarise, teachers in Finland are highly respected professionals who are usually strongly committed to their work (Raiker and Rautiainen, 2016). However, are they also committed to promoting democracy in the society? Is TE a place where the principles of democracy are learnt to be later implemented in schools by the teachers?

Critical thinking in TE in Finland Nowadays, when taking into consideration the history of Finnish education and all the aspects brought in by modern global society, democratic citizenship and critical thinking are not easy topics to approach. As schools are thought to represent neutral spaces, the position of critical thinking in contemporary teacher education is a controversial one. While the ability to consider different viewpoints that people can take is largely emphasised during education, critical thinking in Finnish TE still can be described as disconnected from the teachers’ everyday school environments. This means that teaching critical thinking in TE is strongly connected with the ability to assess different sources of information and problem solving. However, when teaching critical thinking as a tool for emancipation, the emphasis should be on the questions of power and social phenomena such as politics, economic inequality and ecological challenges and on how a nation’s moral landscape and individuals’ ability for ethical decisionmaking collide (e.g. Brookfield, 2005; Biesta, 2006, 2013; Bauman, 2013). Another point should be made considering the ability of different people to make collective decisions, which implement diverse viewpoints (e.g. Arendt, 2013 [1958]). A school today is one of the few places where people can come together in diversity, resulting in an immense possibility to create and develop the skills and critical thinking needed for democratic citizenship. However, critical thinking cannot be created and developed without teachers who themselves possess the ability to ethically and holistically evaluate the social reality of today. When examining the global world in an ethical and holistic manner, the aim is to transfer from an instrumental view on education, where the focus is on

66

Matti Rautiainen, Perttu Männistö, et al.

the economic growth of the nation, to questioning how society can be made socially egalitarian and ecologically sustainable (Matikainen et al., 2018; Värri, 2018). From this viewpoint aspects considering human rights, economic equality, sustainable development and the well-being of every individual are emphasised.

Education for democracy in TE in Finland The Finnish government commissioned a study to evaluate the role of democracy and human rights education in TE after a national security report, made in co-operation between ministries, assessed that TE has a key role in determining the future of national security. Subsequently the Democracy and Human Rights – Objectives and Contents in Teacher Education study was released in 2014 (Rautiainen et al., 2014). The aim of the study was to analyse how the key contents of democracy and human rights are viewed in Finnish teacher education and to evaluate what kind of abilities future teachers should acquire in teacher education for dealing with questions concerning democracy and human rights. Data for the study consisted of the Finnish TE curricula and written statements and data collected from hearings and through interviews. A total of 105 participants’ responses from university-level institutions, including teacher training schools and their student representatives, were studied. In addition, 44 teachers and students from vocational teacher training institutions were interviewed, and dozens of statements were received from different stakeholders, like non-governmental organisations, ministries, student organisations and the Trade Union of Education in Finland. Data also included policy guidelines, documents produced by public officials and prior studies. According to the findings of the study, democracy and human rights are seen as key values in teacher education. However, there are only a few courses dealing directly with democracy and human rights, and the differences between TE institutions have been growing during the 2000s. While some institutions have developmental teams whose work includes research focused on education for democracy, others have only one or two teachers who consider democracy and human rights education as explicitly part of their work. Most themes were given some attention in various contexts, for example in pedagogic modules consisting of philosophy, sociology and multiculturalism studies and didactic modules related to certain subjects. Even though teaching and learning are in the core of TE, students’ possibilities to participate and influence outside of their respective courses in the TE community is also important. Students should have the possibility to participate in many differing ways. Typically students have representatives in committees in TE, and they have non-formal opportunities to meet and talk with the staff and the heads of the TE departments. To sum up, TE is emphasising education for democracy on the level of norms (laws, curricula, principles of educational policy and values), but democracy as

Democratic citizenship in Finland

67

a way of living is still far away from being rooted in TE. According to the study’s recommendations, democracy and student participation should be made more visible and better incorporated into the education of teachers because student teachers require practical experiences about democracy during their studies.

Direction of development – interventions in TE The Ministry of Education and Culture promoted implementation of the recommendations of the study done in 2014 by funding an in-service training for teacher educators, where teacher educators from TE departments from all around Finland aimed to develop democracy in their departments via different experiments (interventions). The direction of development is considered by providing an overview of these interventions and an analysis of the documented experiments to determine the nature of democracy embedded in them. Data is analysed in relation to the thematic framework of the Council of Europe’s competences for democratic culture (CoE, 2016:11). An in-service teacher training course, Education for Democracy and Human Rights in TE, for teacher educators from academic and vocational TE was implemented in 2016–2017 (see Figure 5.1). The TE units participated in the programme by sending two teacher educators for the training so that it would be easier for them to reflect on the training together. In addition, the experiment was thought to benefit from execution in pairs. In the experiment, the teacher educators were expected to plan and execute an intervention that would deepen the level of democracy and human rights in their home departments. During the programme, the participants met together on three occasions. All three meetings lasted for two days. The programme included lectures, discussions, reflection and different exercises as well as processing the results from the interventions together with pairs from other departments.

Reflecon (last meeng),

Two meengs: Introducon, reflecon, training

Intervenons in all TE units

Network Documentaon (book)

Figure 5.1 Model of TE training in the course Education for Democracy and Human Rights

68

Matti Rautiainen, Perttu Männistö, et al.

Table 5.1 Three school realities according to Suoranta (2003)

Sociopolitical dimension

Pedagogical dimension

Discipline school

Competition school

Co-operative school

Discipline Manners Traditional values Nostalgia Teacher driven Division into subjects

Working-life focus Entrepreneurship Individualism

Solidarity Fairness Hope and optimism Democracy Collaboration Phenomenon based

Constructivism Individual learning

The meetings had three aims. First, to support participants’ work in their own units. Second, to create a teacher educators’ network around education for democracy and human rights. And last, to train teacher educators in the field of education for democracy and human rights. The current curriculum for primary education was implemented in 2016 in Finnish comprehensive schools, and it is based more strongly than ever on the ideals of democracy, human rights and student participation (see Table 5.1). However, the Finnish classrooms are a mixture of three different kind of school realities described in the table. Historically, comprehensives have focused on individuals, whilst having some characteristics from co-operative schools. Folk schools, which existed before the comprehensive school system, also emphasised the ideals of strong discipline. All three school ideologies are still present in the classroom reality of today. This is why the discrepancy between different classrooms can be huge, even though the ideal goal of education in Finland is to give similar education in every school. TE in Finland is highly autonomous within the field of education. However, TE has a strong reciprocal relationship with schools, and whilst TE aims to be critical of the contemporary system, it also educates the teachers of today. Thus, the co-operative school is the common goal that the teachers and teacher educators share and try to promote on different levels of education. All the experiments done during the training course were documented in the book Hyvän lähteillä – Demokratia- ja ihmisoikeuskasvatus opetustyössä (Männistö et al., 2017). Because the experiments were implemented in different units according to the units’ own needs and interests, this caused diversity between individual experiments. The experiments’ data was analysed by using the CoE’s 20 competences for democratic culture, and the individual experiments were titled according to the core idea of the research and its objectives (see Table 5.2). The analysis

According to the survey (Rautiainen et al., 2014) the state of education for democracy and human rights was similar in all the TE units on a cultural and

Democratic citizenship in Finland

69

Table 5.2 Experiments made during the in-service training course Education for Democracy and Human Rights in TE by teacher educators in their own units located in the frame of CoE’s competences for democratic culture Values 1. Day for democracy and human rights. 2. Analysis of the state of TE unit. 3. Voice for teacher educators in their own community. Skills 1. Education for democracy in teaching practices. 2. Analysis of teacher educators’ teaching practices. 3. Simulation as a method for education for democracy and human rights. 4. Drama as a method for education for democracy and human rights. 5. Workshop for student teachers. 6. Cross-curricular co-operation between different school subjects. 7. Philosophy for children – a teaching experiment.

Attitudes 1. Training for teacher educators.

Knowledge and critical understanding 1. Democratic learning environments in the future school. 2. Course of democracy and human rights in teacher’s work. 3. Education for democracy among teacher educators – critical reflection.

an organisational level. However, some of the TE units had individuals and/or groups who were strongly committed to developing education for democracy. Moreover, the TE units were taking the core values of democracy and human rights as granted, while the values were not visible in the everyday reality of education (Matilainen, 2011). Five of the experiments focused on teacher educators, seven on student teachers and two on both groups. The most typical experiment was a teaching intervention done either with students or teacher educators. For example, one of these experiments was a drama session for teacher educators. In the experiment, first the participants recalled a situation from their own life that they had experienced as being unfair. Next, the experience was shared with someone else. After exchanging stories, the participants formed groups, where they told the story they had heard from their pair as their own. After sharing their stories with everyone in the group, the participants created one story based on all stories. Finally, the new story was presented for others as a statue, while one of the group members acted as a storyteller. At the end of the session, participants reflected on the process and their own experiences. During the experiments, the teacher educators focused on skills as well as knowledge and critical understanding, while attitudes and values were mostly left untouched. In particular, co-operational skills were strongly emphasised in the experiments. This is interesting because of one of the challenges, raised in

70

Matti Rautiainen, Perttu Männistö, et al.

discussion frequently, perceived by pairs of participating teacher educators of others’ attitudes towards education for democracy and human rights; namely, on the one hand teacher educators are not against education for democracy or human rights, but on the other hand they do not see them being an important part of their work. As TE in Finland is didactically and psychologically oriented, typically TE units include only one or two positions to be held by teachers in social sciences. This means that skills as well as knowledge and critical understanding are easier for teacher educators to approach because didactic-psychologic theoretical fields and practices are better known among teacher educators than values based on philosophical and political understanding of society. When the aforementioned working methods were analysed within the thematic framework of the CoE’s competences for democratic culture, it was concluded that the methods as well as the course, where the core contents of democracy were lectured and presented for the teacher students (see Table 5.2), represented education for democracy. Nevertheless, the challenge in Finnish TE is how to develop TE in a manner where the all four CoE categories of democracy – Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical Understanding – would be addressed and developed simultaneously. Now TE units include elements related to the phenomenon of democracy from the beginning of courses; however, this approach cannot be considered to be holistic or long lasting. Also critical approaches in projects are mostly connected to cognitive processes concerning knowledge, not for example social inclusion or climate change. One possibility for a more holistic approach would be a phenomenon-based curriculum, as practised by the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä since 2014. The TE curriculum in Jyväskylä is structured using different phenomena such as interaction, co-operation, society, learning, knowledge, scientific thinking and expertise, resulting in the studies revolving around these distinct phenomena: ‘This requires the ability to combine various scientific theories and viewpoints deriving from everyday experiences since the phenomena of education cannot be profoundly understood from a single viewpoint’ (Curriculum Plans, 2017–2020). The phenomenon-based approach offers an excellent starting point for education for democracy as distinct phenomena can be reflected through the ideals of democracy. However, the shift towards phenomenon-based education can be perceived as what Michael Fullan described to be easy in theory, but extremely complex on a social level (Fullan, 1995:65). One of the hindering issues considering education for democracy in Finnish TE has been the lack of expertise among teacher educators. If only one or few educators have a deeper expertise in the field of democracy and education, it means there are only handful of courses where the themes of democracy are under study. However, from the viewpoint of CoE’s Competences for Democratic Culture (CDC), teacher educators can contribute to education for democracy from their own expertise concerning certain competences of democratic culture. According to this idea, education for democracy could pass and be visible in most courses of TE.

Democratic citizenship in Finland

71

Democratic citizenship in TE Depending on the TE unit undertaken, graduated teachers may have very differing skills, attitudes, knowledge and critical understanding considering what education for democracy means in teacher’s work, as well as what democratic citizenships actually means. The in-service training course Education for Democracy and Human Rights in TE was based on the idea that participants’ work in pairs as transformative agents would make the themes of democracy and human rights more visible in their own departments. Most of the participants were already, in one way or another, connected to education for democracy in their own work. In addition, some educators, who were interested of the themes of democracy and human rights, participated in the training period. One of the results of the training course was that a network of educators in the field of education for democracy and human rights was formed. Subsequently, the University of Helsinki has been continuing the work under the project called Human Rights, Democracy, Values and Dialogue in Education. The project has thus far gathered material which has been developed for education for democracy and human rights in Finland so that teacher educators can put it more easily into use. In addition, the notion that TE units could have a common course for education for democracy and human rights has been acknowledged. Its aim is to offer all teacher students a course on education for democracy based on the same criteria. It also offers a frame for developing the concept of democratic citizenship in the sense of CoE’s CDC as well as generating interest in current global issues (e.g. inequality, climate change, automatisation). These new approaches construct stronger bridges between education for democracy and critical thinking. The implementation of the course or parts of it will be done on a local level in years to come. The course, even though being worth only five ECTS, is a step forward in achieving a stronger basis for education for democracy in Finnish TE. However, universities have strong autonomies, and all TE unit educators will decide for themselves how education for democracy and human rights will be implemented in their context as has been so far. While the Finnish educational system is strongly supporting education for democracy in the level of educational policy and curricula, in practice activities supporting these aims are still sparse, and few occur in both schools and TE. The culture of democracy in schools and in TE is based on the ideals of representative democracy. However, stronger democracy requires that the CoE’s competences for democratic culture crosscut all education and everyday life in schools as well as in TE. The curriculum for primary education implemented in Finland since 2016 emphasises pupils’ participation, inquiry-based learning and phenomenonbased learning. However, although the curriculum is still strongly based on subjects, broader phenomenon-based themes are also seen as an elementary part of education. This has caused tensions to rise among teachers, pupils,

72

Matti Rautiainen, Perttu Männistö, et al.

parents, citizens and researchers; it has also polarised the public debate. Some are afraid that Finland’s high position in the examination results from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) will be tarnished, whilst others emphasise that the current educational system is neglecting the wellbeing, participation and school satisfaction of pupils as the individual interests of pupils are not considered, and there are no common discussions concerning different happenings in everyday school reality. As a result, often extreme viewpoints are the most visible part of public debates, whilst the masses are supporting both aims as the core of public education. Democracy is a good example of a theme that concerns both sides of the debate. Even though subject knowledge is important, so is a way of living that is based more on world phenomenality than on an artificial subject division. Education towards democratic citizenship, including critical thinking, requires both.

Conclusion Finland has had two significant educational reforms, the first in the 1860s when folk schools and the Teacher Education College in Jyväskylä were founded. The second, 100 years later in the 1970s, was the introduction of the comprehensive school system. Both reforms changed radically students’ positions in school. It now appears that a third reform is on its way. The new reform aims to transform students’ positions towards more active, participatory and democratic agency in schools. This would mean that students have both voice and real power to influence the reality of the schools within their surrounding society. Even if no schools with excellent subject learning results and strong democratic culture yet exist anywhere in the world, this goal could be possible to achieve in Finland. However, it requires that Finnish TE as well as schools start to promote education for democracy stronger than they do currently by taking more seriously the democratic dimensions of everyday life.

References Arendt, H. (1958/2013) The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bauman, Z. (2013) Liquid Modernity. New York City: John Wiley & Sons. Biesta, G. (2006) Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. London: Routledge. Biesta, G. (2013) Beautiful Risk of Education. London: Routledge. Brookfield, S. D. (2005) The Power of Critical Theory for Adult Learning and Teaching. London: Open Press. Council of Europe (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 (Accessed 15 May 2019). Curriculum Plans (2017–2020) Department of Teacher Education; University of Jyväskylä. Available at: www.jyu.fi/edupsy/fi/laitokset/okl/opiskelu/luokanopettajakoulutus/opetussuun nitelmat-ja-opetusohjalmat (Accessed 15 May 2019). Fullan, M. (1995) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.

Democratic citizenship in Finland

73

Kärenlampi, P. (1999) ‘Taistelu kouludemokratiasta’ in Bibliotheca Historica 37. Helsinki: SKS. Leskinen, J. (2016) Kohtia Sosialismia. Pirkkalan peruskoulun marxilainen opetuskokeilu 1973–75. Helsinki: Siltala. Männistö, P., Rautiainen, M. and Vanhanen-Nuutinen, L. (eds.) (2017) Hyvän lähteillä: demokratia- ja ihmisoikeuskasvatus opetustyössä. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Matikainen, M., Männistö, P. and Fornaciari, A. (2018) ‘Fostering Transformational Teacher Agency in Finnish Teacher Education’ International Journal of Social Pedagogy, 7 (1), p. 4. Matilainen, M. (2011) Ihmisoikeuskasvatus lukiossa – outoa ja itsestään selvää. Helsingin yliopisto. Available at: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/25934 (Accessed 15 May 2019). National Core Curriculum for Basic Education (2014) Helsinki: Finnish National Agency for Education. Raiker, A. and Rautiainen, M. (2016) ‘International Education Comparisons: Understanding UK Education in an International Context’ in Capel, S., Leask, M. and Younie, S. (eds.) Learning to Teach in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 513–527. Rautiainen, M. (2017) ‘Varovaisella taipaleella: demokratiakasvatuksen historia Suomessa’ in Männistö, P., Rautiainen, M. and Vanhanen-Nuutinen, L. (eds.) Hyvän lähteillä: demokratiaja ihmisoikeuskasvatus opetustyössä. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 56–65. Rautiainen, M., Vanhanen-Nuutinen, L. and Virta, A. (2014) Demokratia ja ihmisoikeudet opettajankoulutuksessa. Opetus- ja kulttuuriministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä 2014:18. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G. and Friedman, T. (2018) Becoming Citizens in a Changing World: ICCS 2016 International Report. Cham: Springer. Stenius, H. (2010) ‘Nordic Associational Life in a European and an Inter-Nordic Perspective’ in Alapuro, R. and Stenius, H. (eds.) Nordic Associations in a European Perspective. BadenBaden: Nomos, pp. 29–86. Suoranta, J. (2003) Kasvatus mediakulttuurissa. Mitä kasvattajien tulee tietää. Tampere: Vastapaino. 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. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. Delft Nederland: Eburon Publishers. Valtonen, H. and Rautiainen, M. (2019) A Land of Education? The History of Finnish Education from the 1850s to the Present. Article manuscript (submitted). Värri, V.-M. (2018) Kasvatus ekokriisin aikakaudella. Tampere: Vastapaino. Vilkuna, K. H. J. (2012) ‘Cygnaeus and His Reputation’ in Rasinen, A. and Rissanen, T. (eds.) In the Spirit of Uno Cygnaeus: Pedagogical Questions of Today and Tomorrow. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä, pp. 7–16.

Chapter 6

Education for democratic citizenship in Ireland Cathal Butler

Introduction Citizenship is a complex, abstract topic that is not necessarily clearly defined and understood in the context of the Irish education system (SCoTENS, 2004). It is further complicated by major shifts in the status of the Republic of Ireland in the last 30 years due to population changes, the increased importance and impact of our membership of the European Union (EU) and the shifting role of the Catholic Church in the Irish landscape. Niens and McIlrath (2010) note uncertainty among teachers, for example about what role nationalism plays in citizenship education. They state that ‘Citizenship is intimately linked to liberal ideas of individual rights and entitlements on the one hand, and to communitarian ideas of membership in and attachment to a particular community on the other’ (Niens and McIlrath, 2010:74). This chapter will explore different conceptions of citizenship that have been prominent in the education system of the Republic of Ireland. It will also briefly explore issues in relation to citizenship education in Northern Ireland. The Impact of EU membership on this topic, and the current status of citizenship in the current primary and secondary curriculum, will be explored in particular. Reference will be made throughout to the extent that policy and practice maps onto the Council of Europe’s Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture (Council of Europe, 2018). The focus will be on Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical Understanding to see how well prepared Irish citizens are based on their educational experiences.

Conceptions of citizenship for an independent Ireland As the Irish Free State was establishing itself, both in the 1920s and beforehand, emphasis was placed on unique elements of Irish culture and civilisation to highlight a distinct Irish citizenship (Rami and Lalor, 2006), particularly within education: this was seen as a reclamation of an education system previously dominated by British Protestantism and whose main aim was, according to

Education for citizenship in Ireland

75

Padraig Pearse’s The Murder Machine, repressive (Simmie and Edling, 2016). The Irish Free State aimed to remove British colonial vestiges as swiftly as possible (Simmie and Edling, 2016), moving towards a ‘gaelic civilisation’ (Rami and Lalor, 2006). Coolahan (1981) notes a patriotic (Keogh, 2003) cultural nationalism, underpinned by the revival of the Irish language as well as traditions such as sport and music, that played a key role in how Irish education initially transmitted notions of citizenship, firmly enshrined within a nationalist viewpoint. The centrality of language to national and political identity is not unique to Ireland (Ryan, 2014). The Irish language was made a compulsory subject from 1925 (McManus, 2016), highlighting that it was essential for Irish citizens. Another key element of Irish citizenship is the extent to which it has been inextricably linked with Catholicism (Ryan, 2014), which until 1972 held a special position written into the nation’s constitution (Finlay, 2007). In relation to education, the influence of the Catholic Church is difficult to exaggerate (Rami and Lalor, 2006). The 1937 constitution established the pre-eminent role of the Catholic Church (Ryan, 2014), which manages a majority of primary (Simmie and Edling, 2016) and secondary schools (Kerr et al., 2002). The Catholic Church was seen as operating in a symbiotic manner with the state (Drudy and Lynch, 1993), with the Catholic Church adopting a paternalistic role (Irwin, 2013). Indeed, to this day difficulties have arisen for parents looking to find schools to send their children to that are not under the patronage of the Catholic Church in some form (Jones, 1996). Their influence in the field of education spreads beyond schools and into teacher education as well (Hartford, 2010). It is only fairly recently that initiatives such as Educate Together have been developed to provide educational opportunities that are nondenominational (Rami and Lalor, 2006). The influence of the Catholic Church in Ireland is seen as anomalous; the Catholic Church has amassed a considerable amount of resources in education (Rami and Lalor, 2006), with Eurydice (2012) noting the unusual status of schools in Ireland: a vast majority of schools are designated as privately owned (e.g. under church patronage), but fully state funded. The fact that schools are allowed to protect their ethos and spirit can create problems for employing teachers who do not share a particular faith (Simmie and Edling, 2016). This raises issues in relation to valuing cultural diversity, an important element of the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework for democratic culture. The Catholic Church has influenced what and how citizenship-related material is taught and has objected to such teaching (Kerr et al., 2002): the church took the view that such concepts should be/were taught through religious education (Gleeson and Munnelly, 2003; Keogh, 2003; Bruen, 2014). Indeed, Finlay (2007) claims that before the 1990s, the official position of both the Catholic Church and the government was that civic and religious education were inseparable. This has led to a position where citizenship education can be closely linked to indoctrination (Niens and McIlrath, 2010). This runs contrary to developments in

76

Cathal Butler

teaching citizenship areas in the curriculum from the 1960s onwards in Ireland, which will be discussed later, but may explain the issues that arose.

Contemporary and political discourses around citizenship While traditionalist, nationalist views around citizenship, and in particular the impact of the Catholic Church, have influenced how citizenship is discussed in the Republic of Ireland, a number of other issues can be considered before citizenship and democratic concepts covered in the Irish curriculum are analysed and evaluated. First, there has been some interesting debate about the nature of the Republic of Ireland as a republic. Ryan (2014) highlights the views of former Taoiseach Garatt Fitzgerald (2005) calling into question the extent that the Republic of Ireland is truly a republic – he argues that rather than citizens working together actively (see also Taskforce on Active Citizenship, 2007) for the public good, Irish citizens tend to be preoccupied with local, tribalist issues (Limond, 2010). Ferriter (2012) similarly states that earlier, more nationalist Catholic influences that informed initial Irish ideas around citizenship have proven difficult to change to a more civically oriented view, driven by a more participatory democracy (Ryan, 2014). Indeed, Fahey et al. (2005) highlight issues around the major political parties (Fianna Fail and Fine Gael) in terms of being able to distinguish between their major policies. Garvin (1977), for example, noted how unusual it was for the country to lack a major socialist party. Rather, the key distinction between the two major Irish political parties links back to the sides taken in relation to the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the subsequent Irish Civil War (Gallagher, 1985). There are also issues related to the increasingly multicultural nature of modern Irish society (Waldron and Pike, 2006), due to a reversal of the previous 150+ year trend for people to migrate from rather than to Ireland (Keogh, 2003). There are issues in citizens’ acceptance of ‘nationhood’, particularly as there are now diversity of schools (Faas and Ross, 2012). Indeed, the difficulties in migrant teachers being able to teach in Irish primary schools attests to this (Migrant Teacher Project, Online). Again, this creates issues in relation to valuing cultural diversity (Council of Europe, 2018). The fact that this persists in spite of a marked decline in the dominance of Catholic and nationalist values in the Republic of Ireland (O’Fathaigh and O’Sullivan, 2000), and an increase in what is termed ‘nominal Catholicism’ (Irwin, 2009), is remarkable. Irish public discourse is still seen as being dominated by a ‘White, Heterosexual, Irish, Settled, Catholic’ (WHISC) mentality (Tracy, 2000). Having focused on the impact of religion, it is also worth considering the economic influences: it has been noted, for example, that ‘since the 1960s, ‘mainstream’ Irish education has arguably placed the emphasis on engagement through work and economic citizenship rather than civic engagement through

Education for citizenship in Ireland

77

critique’ (Khoo, 2006:30). This may be severely detrimental to the type of democratic culture the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework of competences espouses. Simmie and Edling (2016), however, claim that teacher educators have tried to contain the influence of education for purely economic purposes, although this is no longer proving effective (Lynch et al., 2012; Murphy, 2006). Secondary education in particular is increasingly driven by a drive for examination success to support entry into competitive university courses (Gleeson and Munnelly, 2003).

Citizenship and Northern Ireland Discussions around citizenship on the island of Ireland inevitably must grapple with the thorny issue of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains a deeply segregated society, divided along political and religious loyalties (Duffy and Evans, 1997): Catholic/nationalist and unionist/protestant. The education system is equally divided (Cairns and Hewstone, 2002). Northern Ireland came into existence following the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, although territorial claims to Northern Ireland sat within the constitution of the Republic of Ireland until the signing of the Good Friday Agreement (Kerr et al., 2002). Northern Ireland originally contained a majority protestant, loyalist population, although with a sizable, and growing, minority Catholic republican population (Kerr et al., 2002). A prolonged period of conflict in the north between republicans and loyalists, euphemistically known as ‘the Troubles’, began in the 1960s, fuelled at least in part by Catholic civil rights protests due to discrimination being experienced (Clemitshaw, 2008). This conflict was formally brought to a close by the Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which, among other things recognised the right of the people of Northern Ireland to see themselves as British, Irish or both as they see fit (Smith, 2003). Membership in the EU was key to supporting this due to the shared rights EU membership entails. Despite the general peace that has prevailed in Northern Ireland post-1998, citizenship remains a tricky issue, especially for educators. The school system remains highly segregated, with the Department of Education, Northern Ireland (2011) noting that only approximately 5 per cent of students attend integrated schools. In attempting to teach citizenship-related issues, teachers are wary of touching sensitive issues relating to the Troubles (Department of Education, Northern Ireland, 1999): a number of curricular initiatives designed to promote social cohesion in Northern Ireland have been attempted, but none seem to have succeeded (Wylie, 2004). Smith (2003) argues that due to a lack of common ground between the two main populations in Northern Ireland, there is the need for a broader citizenship education in Northern Ireland, focusing on human rights as a basis, although teachers would still have to be very aware of what young people may be learning at home (McSharry and Cusack, 2016), which may not support this work. However, McEvoy (2007)

78

Cathal Butler

notes that avoiding discussion of past conflict may end up being counterproductive. Niens and McIlrath (2010) highlight the concerns that teachers have in teaching controversial issues related to the Troubles.

Citizenship and democratic practices in the Irish curriculum Initial coverage of citizenship: civics

Civics was first introduced into the post-primary curriculum in the junior cycle in 1966 (Kerr et al., 2002). This was seen as a time of greater government interest and investment in education to support economic development, specifically linked to moves towards joining the European Economic Community (EEC: Kerr et al., 2002), an organisation to be covered within the civics curriculum (Keating, 2007). This new subject was obligatory (Murphy, 2014): it would be taught for one lesson a week. Murphy (2014) highlights commentary on this subject from the minister of education at the time. He said that the subject would not be formally examined, in line with the supposed ‘spirit’ of the subject. Kerr et al. (2002) explore the syllabus, which focused on citizenship framed within a nationalist perspective, with little or no emphasis on active citizenship. Keating (2007) notes that as the EEC developed, the concept of European citizenship began to be explored within the civics curriculum. Jeffers (2008) has highlighted that different official sources painted contrasting pictures of civics. The formal syllabus focused on knowledge-focused learning about organisations and institutions underpinning democratic practices. Jeffers (2008) characterises this as rather dull. On the other hand, notes on the teaching of civics (e.g. guidance for civics teachers) called for a more active approach to the topic, presumably involving greater student involvement, discussion and debate. This particular interpretation aligns fairly well with the competence skills set out by the Council of Europe’s framework (2018). The civics curriculum has been subject to a range of criticisms. Murphy’s (2014) claim that it was perceived to be a ‘doss’ class is the most striking of these. Civics was a subject taught by non-specialists (Keogh, 2003); anybody could teach civics (Hyland, 1993), with little or no preparation provided for staff (although an annual event for teachers of civics did run from 1969 to 1973, see Murphy, 2014). The lack of formal examination is thought to have contributed to the low status of the subject and a lack of interest in the subject in school principals (Hyland, 1993), resulting in the subjects’ timetable position being taken over by other subjects (Hammond and McCarthy, 1996). All these issues, alongside significant social and economic changes, particularly during the 1990s (Kerr et al., 2002), led to the demise of civics as a subject, which had long been deemed as dying (Harris, 2005). This would allow for a new approach to the concepts of citizenship and democracy, at both primary and secondary level.

Education for citizenship in Ireland

79

Primary school curriculum

The subject area Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) covers areas relevant to the concept of citizenship. Guidelines on this subject area have been available to subject teachers since 2005, and it has been part of the primary curriculum since 1999 (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA], Online, A), although the origins of this topic can be found in the 1970s (Eurydice, 2012). The curriculum for this subject area includes three strands: • • •

Myself Myself and others Myself and the wide world

It is noted that the one aspect of this curriculum area is to enable a child to ‘become an active and responsible citizen in society’ (Department of Education and Science, 1999a:2). These align well with the knowledge and critical understanding competences set out in relation to knowledge of the self by the Council of Europe (2018). This subject aims to introduce children to their rights and responsibilities as members of society, locally and more globally. This is particularly pronounced in the ‘Myself and the wider world’ section of the curriculum. Towards the end of the primary curriculum, teaching around national, European and wider communities is introduced, including an exploration of the political processes (president, constitution, elections). Again, this anticipates elements of knowledge and understanding set out in the European Council’s (2018) Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Cultural aspects such as Irish traditions are also introduced, alongside an acknowledgement and respect for other cultures and traditions. Teacher guidelines for this subject area (Department of Education and Science, 1999b) highlight the active role the child plays in this subject, noting that children should: experience and practise the democratic process where • • • • •

rules are negotiated responsibility is shared the opinions of parents, children and teachers are valued they feel a sense of belonging a sense of commitment to a common purpose is developed and understood. (Department of Education and Science, 1999b:24)

The role of processes like school assemblies and children playing an active role in decision making are included. In line with this, the method of teaching in

80

Cathal Butler

this subject area eschews traditional didactic approaches to teaching, focusing more on active learning approaches (Eurydice, 2012). Again, this can be seen as well aligned with values and skills set out by the Council of Europe (2018). Secondary school curriculum Civic , social and political education in the junior cycle

The subject Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE) has been a core element of the junior cycle in secondary education since 1997 (SCoTENS, 2004), following piloting earlier in the 1990s (Smith, 2003). This reflects a period of time during which the minister of education looked to place citizenship at the top of the curriculum agenda (Kerr et al., 2002). This particular syllabus will no longer be in effect after 2018/19, however, and will from 2019/20 onwards be available as an optional short course within the junior cycle (NCCA, online B). The subject as originally envisioned (NCCA, 1993) is a mandatory part of the junior cycle of secondary school and should be taught for a minimum of one lesson per week, with schools encouraged to support this. The Department of Education (1996), for example, suggests timetabling CSPE teachers to appear and teach within other subjects. Also, it interestingly specifically called for particular timeslots, with the final lesson on Friday to be avoided. As the name of the subject asserts, this subject area is inter-disciplinary in nature (NCCA, 1993), and the potential of the topic to be cross-curricular, and several aspects of it set out in the following, will necessarily interact with the nature and ethos of the school. Indeed, the Department of Education (1996) call for schools to have an awareness of how their own cultures can help to support the aims of CSPE, for example through supporting an active and engaged student council, to allow for whole school involvement in this subject area. The Department of Education (1996) highlighted the importance of school management to support this subject area. The likelihood of schools engaging with this, particularly when there are reported instances of schools enacting exclusionary policies to maintain reputations and league table standing (Murphy, 2006; Cahill, 2015; Irish Times, 2004), is questionable. This again calls into question the extent to which students experience ‘democratic culture’ (Council of Europe, 2018). Indeed, Niens and McIlrath (2010) note that authoritarian approaches to school management are prominent and act as a barrier to democratic practice developing in schools. The course incorporates seven key concepts (Department of Education and Science, 1999c): • • • • •

Democracy Rights and responsibilities Human dignity Interdependence Development,

Education for citizenship in Ireland

• •

81

Law Stewardship

This subject is taught through four units of study: • • • •

The Individual and Citizenship The Community The State Ireland and the World

Again, these can be mapped onto the values, in particular the knowledge and critical understanding competences, in the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework. This format follows on from the primary Personal, Social, Health, and Economic (PSHE) Education curriculum. An aim of CSPE is to produce knowledgeable pupils who can explore, analyse and evaluate, who are skilled and practised in moral and critical appraisal, and capable of making decisions and judgements through a reflective citizenship, based on human rights and social responsibilities. (NCCA, Online C) The child, as a result of learning within this curriculum area, should have self-confidence, independence, and a high level of social literacy. (Rami et al., 2006:3) As with PSHE, the focus is on active learning: Its employment of active and co-operatively structured learning methodologies enables and empowers the pupil to become an active and participative young person. (NCCA, Online C) This is clearly reflected in the assessment tasks for this subject, with 40 per cent of the marks awarded from this subject examination based, and 60 per cent based on the production of action projects. These projects allow students to focus on contemporary issues, both social and political. This is a very deliberate choice: The form of assessment/examination and certification which is most fruitful to this goal one which is primarily focuses on the ongoing development of the civic, social and political student. (NCCA, 1993:23) Again, this can be seen as well aligned with the skills, knowledge and critical understanding set out in the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework of

82

Cathal Butler

competences. In guidance, it is further specified (State Examinations Commission, Online) that the action project should touch on one of the seven key concepts of the course (set out prior). It should also engage with issues relevant to human rights and social responsibility, further developing key skills (Council of Europe, 2018). It must incorporate an active component and include reflection on this action. Within this action project, students are encouraged to engage with communities. The report may be submitted in audio format or as a video report. There has been some interesting discussion over the last 20 years about CSPE. Some aspects (Kinlen et al., 2013) were quite well received, particularly the action project aspect. These action projects often focus on important real world themes, with topics around human rights being quite popular (Wilson, 2008). Eurydice (2012) notes that these action projects can involve in-school activities such as carrying out mock elections, as well as field trip visits, to county council offices for example. This type of activity can certainly support the development of competence attitudes related to civic-mindedness (Council of Europe, 2018). Kinlen et al. (2013) also highlight the positive reception towards the more considered approach to citizenship education. Keating (2009) for example notes that this model marks a shift from traditional models of the past in a way that is termed post-national and cosmopolitan, in that it aims to avoid focusing on nationality and patriotism, focusing instead on more general universal values. This avoids issues with citizenship education acting as a form of nationalist indoctrination (Faulks, 2006). Again, clear links can be made to the values and the attitudes captured by the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework of competences. As Hammond and Looney (2004) note, these universal values are drawn from key UN documents, such as the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention. However, this abstract and ahistorical approach may prove counterproductive; Worden and Smith (2017), for example, describe the consequences of the curriculum in Rwanda avoiding discussion around the genocide that occurred in the 1990s – a failure to cover the topic in the formal curriculum can lead to children learning about it through other means, via family or other politically motivated channels, in a way that clearly can have negative consequences. An ahistoric approach is also not necessarily aligned to the broader aim of this subject area to be active and engaged with contemporary issues; the current debates around the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is clearly a contemporary topic of great political significance due to Britain exiting the EU. CSPE as a subject area has encountered challenges, however. Jeffers (2008) highlights that the specified minimum amount of time devoted to this subject area, one lesson a week, does not provide time for this unit to be fully explored and that the active teaching approach in particular does not benefit from such a short amount of time being devoted to it: rather, the rhetoric of citizenship and its importance is not necessarily matched by the reality of what goes on in the

Education for citizenship in Ireland

83

school, particularly in comparison to other subjects. In addition, the lack of a follow-on curriculum area in the senior cycle (NCCA, 2006) is seen to further devalue this subject area. In other words, while a case can be made that the competences set out in the Council of Europe’s framework can be seen, students are not necessarily getting the support to achieve and fully demonstrate these competences. There has also been criticism of content, with Jeffers (2008) highlighting researchers such as Wylie (1999) focusing on the individualistic and mainly procedural focus of the content. Jeffers (2008) also cites former Taoiseach Garret Fitzgerald as saying that the CSPE curriculum was ‘remarkably timid in relation to its political component’ (Jeffers, 2008:14). Jeffers (2008) further critiques the curriculum as being broadly conservative in how it approaches the topics of rights and the representation of marginalised groups such as the travelling community (Bryan, 2007). This rather brings into question whether valuing cultural diversity (Council of Europe, 2018) is actually achieved within this curriculum. This also does not seem in line with the notion of the student becoming an active, engaged, socially literate citizen. There are also questions about the extent to which it truly involves co-operation between school and community to achieve its aims in relation to active citizenship (Redmond and Butler, 2003). Politics and society in the senior cycle

Keogh (2003) noted that extending the general subject area of CSPE into the senior cycle was being explored. Eurydice (2012) noted that an elective subject area Politics and Society has been developed. The Irish Development Education Association (IDEA) (2016) noted that this would be phased in from September 2016. The NCCA (Online) currently note that the subject will be available to all schools from the beginning of the 2018/19 school year, although some aspects of the course still seem to be under construction. Politics and Society again highlights the concept of active citizenship, informed by the principals of social and political science (NCCA, Online D). The subject area includes four units, with two key topics within each unit (see Table 6.1). Unit 2 is said to involve a strong focus on debate and discussion, with the skills that underpin this needing to be explicitly taught (NCCA, Online D); students will be given competing ideas to critically contrast and evaluate. This would certainly support the development of skills set out by the Council of Europe (2018). There will also be a citizenship project – presumably similar to the types of action projects in CSPE in the junior cycle, although it seems it will only account for 20 per cent of the grade in this instance (NCCA, Online D). Projects will be informed by annual briefs which set out potential topic areas. In this unit (and elsewhere), there is also an expectation that issues will be explored at all levels from local to global (NCCA, Online D). Specifications

84

Cathal Butler

Table 6.1 Units and topics in Politics and Society. Unit

Topics

Unit 1: Power and decision making

Topic 1: Power and decision making in school Topic 2: Power and decision making at national and European level Topic 3: Effectively contributing to communities Topic 4: Rights and responsibilities in communication with others Topic 5: Human rights and responsibilities in Ireland Topic 6: Human rights and responsibilities in Europe and the wider world Topic 7: Globalisation and identity Topic 8: Sustainable development

Unit 2: Active citizenship

Unit 3: Human rights and responsibilities Unit 4: Globalisation and localisation

call for one double class a week for this subject area, or 180 hours in total (NCCA Online D), broken down to 30 hours teaching per unit, 30 hours for revision of strands and 30 hours to support the project. It will be interesting to see if this specification addresses some of the concerns set out in relation to CSPE in the junior cycle. Teacher training for civics, CSPE, politics and society in secondary schools

How well trained are Irish teachers are to support the development of the competences in the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework? Lynch (2000) noted that expertise was a foundational necessity for subject teachers. Starting with the introduction of civics as a subject in the 1960s, there is little or no evidence of teachers being able to access coherent training to ensure they are able to deliver this subject, particularly before the introduction of the subject (Murphy, 2014). Once the subject was introduced, annual seminars and regional courses were conducted (Hyland, 1993). Receiving training after the course has been introduced inevitably means that courses are taught by teachers without appropriate expertise, contradicting Lynch’s view on the need for expertise as a prerequisite for teaching. For the subject area CSPE, the same issues in relation to training remain. The NCCA (2003) called for the introduction of in-service teacher training resources and specific training resources. Most information on teacher training in relation to CSPE seems to focus on in-service rather than pre-service. It has been reported that no specific qualifications for this subject area exist, although Kerr et al. (2002) recommended the development of such a qualification. Similar concerns have been raised about the lack of qualifications and trained staff for the new Politics and Society subject in the senior cycle (Eurydice, 2012;

Education for citizenship in Ireland

85

Irish Human Rights Commission, 2011). Returning to in-service support, an Eurydice (2012) report noted that a specific support team within the Professional Development Service for Teachers organised workshops and spent time in schools between 1998 and 2008, as a form of support for teachers of CSPE. The focus of their in-service seems to have been on the active pedagogical strategies called for by this subject and the development of resources. The Irish Human Rights Commission (2011), however, noted concerns about funding cuts leading to a significant diminution of the services and resources available to teachers of CSPE. The overall impact of in-service for CSPE teachers remains unclear. The research of Niens and McIlrath (2010), for example, noted the strong likelihood of citizenship being a neglected, ‘Cinderella’ subject. It is seen to be a low status subject (NCCA, 2003; Kinlen et al., 2013), often taught by teachers with little to no training or interest in the subject area. Shannon (2002) also notes that attendance for inservice sessions in this topic was an issue. Jeffers (2008) notes a potential link between the status of the subject and teacher turnover. This echoes issues experienced by its predecessor. Niens and McIlrath’s (2010) research also raised questions about continuing professional development (CPD) and formal qualifications available for citizenship teachers, noting that it was often the case that people teaching this subject were not particularly interested or motivated – it is added to their timetable, but did not necessarily reflect their backgrounds and interests. Turnover in the teachers covering this area has also been highlighted (Kinlen et al., 2013). The NCCA (2003) has already identified this as an issue: teacher turnover can mean that whatever training is provided to CSPE teachers does not have a long-term impact, as so many quickly stop teaching this subject and are replaced by new teachers, who in turn will require substantial in-service training. Without properly trained and motivated teachers, it is unlikely that the competences set out by the Council of Europe (2018) could be achieved, based on teaching of CSPE in Ireland.

Citizenship and EU membership As noted, EU membership has helped address some of the tensions arising on the island of Ireland. This impact is noteworthy: As Ireland approaches the twenty-first century, a strong sense of European citizenship increasingly complements a robust Irish identity. Ireland’s links with Europe have deep historical roots. This European tradition, in Irish affairs, is reinforced in modern times through Ireland’s membership of the European Union and its full participation, in partnership with the other Member States in policy-making at European level. Ireland’s development is now linked in an integral way with the development of Europe. This

86

Cathal Butler

poses no threat to our national identity. Rather it offers significant opportunities for growth and development in the broader European context. (Government of Ireland, 1995:215) Stoer and Cortesão (2000) have noted how the EU has underpinned a broader shared identity and citizenship that unites the member states of the EU; this is supported by initiatives focused on engaging citizens (Murray, 2008), although such initiatives have not always proved successful (Keogh, 2003). In a modern context, it is seen that citizens can engage with multiple identities that complement each other (e.g. Cederman, 2001), although any formal movements towards acknowledging an European identity have been tentative at best (Keating, 2009). The European Union has also, as noted, had an impact on the content of citizenship-focused teaching in the Irish curriculum. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2013) notes that schools and curricula can play an important role in supporting political and cultural integration to support the European project. Indeed, the curriculum has at times been criticised as too Eurocentric, without much attention focused on the rest of the world (Keating, 2009). SCoTENS (2004) makes a similar point, calling for EU citizenship, which has gained increased significance in the Irish curriculum (Keating, 2009), not to dominate in relation to citizenship education. It must be noted, however, that the EU in and of itself does not directly provide input into the curricula of individual member states (Taskforce on Active Citizenship, 2007). Jeffers (2008) notes that as laws such as the European Convention on Human Rights become Irish law, this has an impact on Irish curricula: the curriculum must adapt and be updated to ensure these concepts are fully covered. However, as Keating (2009) notes, an active approach, focusing on ‘education through citizenship’ rather than ‘education about citizenship’, which is in line with what is espoused in relation to the current Irish curriculum, helps ensure that issues such as these are addressed.

Conclusion This chapter has attempted to explore the complications that arise for students, teachers, schools and teacher trainers when grappling with how to provide input on complex concepts such as citizenship and democracy. In the Irish context, historical and religious issues impinge on the extent to which honest conversations can occur and the extent to which teachers have the freedom to fully explore challenging topics. While it is clear that the aspirations set out in a range of Irish educational policy documents support the development of the types of democratic competences set out by the Council of Europe’s (2018) framework, the reality on the ground seems to be that teachers are not always

Education for citizenship in Ireland

87

in a position to ensure that students fully develop these Values, Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge and Critical Understanding.

References Bruen, J. (2014) ‘Politics: Interest, Participation and Education: Comparing the Republic of Ireland with Germany’ Irish Educational Studies, 33 (1), pp. 37–55. Bryan, A. (2007) ‘The (Mis)representation of Travellers in the Civic, Social and Political Education Curriculum’ in Downes, P. and Gilligan, A. L. (eds.) Beyond Educational Disadvantage. Dublin: IPA, pp. 247–258. Cahill, K. (2017) ‘Seeing the Wood from the Trees: A Critical Policy Analysis of Intersections between Social Class Inequality and Education in Twenty-First Century Ireland’ International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8 (2), pp. 301–316. Cairns, E. and Hewstone, M. (2002) ‘The Impact of Peacemaking in Northern Ireland on Intergroup Behaviour’ in Salomon, G. and Nevo, B. (eds.) The Nature and Study of Peace Education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 217–228. Cederman, L. (2001) ‘Nationalism and Bounded Integration: What It Would Take to Construct a European Demos?’ European Journal of International Relations, 7 (2), pp. 139–174. Clemitshaw, G. (2008) ‘Citizenship without History? Knowledge, Skills and Values in Citizenship Education’ Ethics and Education, 3 (2), pp. 135–147. Coolahan, J. (1981) Irish Education: History and Structure. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. Council of Europe (2018) Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Department of Education (1996) Civic Social and Political Education Syllabus. Dublin: The Stationary Office. Department of Education and Science (1999a) Social, Personal, and Health Education. Dublin: The Stationary Office. Department of Education and Science (1999b) Social, Personal, and Health Education, Teacher Guidelines. Dublin: The Stationary Office. Department of Education and Science (1999c) Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE) Syllabus. Dublin: The Stationary Office. Department of Education, Northern Ireland (1999) Towards a Culture of Tolerance: Education for Diversity. Belfast: DENI. Department of Education Northern Ireland (2011) Integrated Schools. Available at: www. deni.gov.uk/index/85-schools/10-types_of_school-nischools_pg/16-schoolsintegratedschools_pg.html (Accessed 25 June 2019). Drudy, S. and Lynch, K. (1993) Schools and Society in Ireland. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan. Duffy, M. and Evans, G. (1997) ‘Class, Community Polarisation and Politics’ in Dowds, L., Devine, P. and Breen, R. (eds.) Social Attitudes in Northern Ireland: The Sixth Report. Belfast: Appletree Press, pp. 102–137. Eurydice (2012) Citizenship Education in Europe. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/citizen ship/pdf/citizenship_education_in_europe_en.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Faas, D. and Ross, W. (2012) ‘Identity, Diversity and Citizenship: A Critical Analysis of Textbooks and Curricula in Irish Schools’ International Sociology, 27 (4), pp. 574–591. Fahey, T, Hayes, B. and Sinnott, R. (2005) Conflict and Consensus: A Study of Values and Attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Dublin: Stationery Office.

88

Cathal Butler

Faulks, K. (2006) ‘Rethinking Citizenship Education in England: Some Lessons from Contemporary Social and Political Theory’ Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1 (2), pp. 123–140. Ferriter, D. (2012) ‘State Now Morally as Well as Economically Bankrupt’ The Irish Times, 26 March. Finlay, G. (2007) ‘Comprehensive Liberalism and Civic Education in the Republic of Ireland’ Irish Political Studies, 22 (4), pp. 473–493. Fitzgerald, G. (2005) Ireland in the World: Further Reflections. Dublin: Liberties Press. Gallagher, M. (1985) Political Parties in the Republic of Ireland. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Garvin, T. (1977) ‘Nationalist Elites, Irish Voters and Irish Political Development: A Comparative Perspective’ Economic and Social Review, 8 (3), pp. 161–185. Gleeson, J. and Munnelly, J. (2003) Developments in Citizenship Education in Ireland: Context, Rhetoric and Reality. Paper read at International Conference on Civic Education, New Orleans, November. Hammond, J. and Looney, A. (2004) ‘Revisioning Citizenship Education: The Irish Experience’ in Lawton, D., Cairns, J. and Gardner, R. (eds.) Education for Citizenship. London: Continuum, pp. 175–182. Hammond, J. and McCarthy, S. (1996) The Development and Work of the CSPE Pilot Project 1993–1996. Dublin: NCCA. Harris, C. (2005) ‘Democratic Citizenship Education in Ireland’ The Adult Learner: The Journal of Adult and Community Education in Ireland, 6 (3), pp. 227–243. Hartford, J. (2010) ‘Teacher Education Policy in Ireland and the Challenges of the TwentyFirst Century’ European Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (4), pp. 349–360. Hyland, Á. (1993) Educate Together Schools in the Republic of Ireland: The First Stage 1975–1994. Available at: www.educatetogether.ie/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/EducateTogether-Schools-in-the-Republic-of-Ireland-1975-1994.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Government of Ireland (1995) Charting Our Education Future: White Paper on Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office. IDEA (2016) Development Education: Policy and Practice for the Formal Sector in Ireland. Dublin: IDEA. Irish Human Rights Commission (2011) Human Rights Education in Ireland: An Overview. Dublin: Irish Human Rights Commission. Irish Times (2004) ‘Limerick Schools’, 12 May. Irwin, J. (2009) ‘Interculturalism Ethos and Ideology: Barriers to Freedom and Democracy in Irish Primary Education’ REA: A Journal of Religion, Education, and the Arts, 6 (2). Irwin, J. (2013) ‘Toward Change: Exploring Tensions in Ethical-Religious Pedagogy in Irish Primary Education’ in Byrne, G. and Kieran, P. (eds.) Toward Mutual Ground Pluralism, Religious Education and Diversity in Irish Schools. Dublin: The Columba Press, pp. 177–186. Jeffers, G. (2008) ‘Some Challenges for Citizenship Education in the Republic of Ireland’ in Jeffers, G. and O’Connor, U. (eds.) Education for Citizenship and Diversity in Irish Contexts. Dublin: IPA, pp. 11–23. Jones, M. (1996) ‘The Sunday Tribune’ in Hyland, Á. (ed.) Multi-Denominational Schools in the Republic of Ireland 1975–1995. Available at: www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/ files/multi-denominational_schools_in_the_republic_of_ireland_1975-1995_by_aine_ hyland.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Keating, A. (2007) The Europeanisation of Citizenship Education: Politics and Policymaking in Europe and Ireland. Doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

Education for citizenship in Ireland

89

Keating, A. (2009) ‘Nationalizing the Post-National: Reframing European Citizenship for the Civics Curriculum in Ireland’ Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41 (2), pp. 159–178. Keogh, H. (2003) ‘Learning for Citizenship in Ireland: The Role of Adult Education’ in MedelAnonuevo, C. and Mitchell, G. (eds.) Citizenship, Democracy, and Lifelong Learning. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000132847 (Accessed 25 June 2019). Kerr, D., McCarthy, S. and Smith, A. (2002) ‘Citizenship Education in England, Ireland and Northern Ireland’ European Journal of Education, 37 (2), pp. 179–191. Khoo, S. (2006) ‘Development Education, Citizenship and Civic Engagement at Third Level and Beyond in the Republic of Ireland’ Global Citizenship, 3, pp. 26–39. Kinlen, L., Hansson, U., Keenaghan, C., Canavan, J. and O’Connor, U. (2013) ‘Education for Civic Engagement in Post-Primary Schools in Ireland and Northern Ireland: A Rights Perspective’ The Children and Youth Programme. Available at: www.childandfamilyresearch. ie/media/unescochildandfamilyresearchcentre/documentspdf/cyp_book_5_full_report. pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Limond, D. (2010) ‘An Historic Culture Rapidly, Universally, and Thoroughly Restored? British Influence on Irish Education since 1922’ Comparative Education, 46 (4), pp. 449–462. Lynch, K. (2000) Education for Citizenship: The Need for Major Intervention in Social and Political Education in Ireland. Paper presented to the CSPE Conference, Bunratty, Co. Clare, 29 September. Lynch, K., Grummell, B. and Devine, D. (2012) New Managerialism in Education: Commercialization, Carelessness and Gender. Great Britain: Palgrave Macmillan. McEvoy, L. (2007) ‘Beneath the Rhetoric: Policy Approximation and Citizenship Education in Northern Ireland’ Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 2 (2), pp. 135–157. McManus, C. (2016) ‘Irish Language Education and the National ideal: The Dynamics of Nationalism in Northern Ireland’ Nations and Nationalism, 22 (1), pp. 42–62. McSharry, M. and Cusack, M. (2016) ‘Teachers’ Stories of Engaging Students in Controversial Action Projects on the Island of Ireland’ Journal of Social Science Education, 15 (2), pp. 57–69. Migrant Teacher Project (Online) Migrant Teacher Project. Available at: www.mie.ie/en/ Research/Migrant_Teacher_Project/ (Accessed 25 June 2019). Murphy, D. (2014) Civics Revisited? An Exploration of the Factors Affecting the Implementation of CSPE in Five Post-Primary Schools. MA Dissertation, National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Murphy, T. (2006) ‘The Civic Remit of Educational Practice in the Republic of Ireland: A Review of the Potential of Service Learning’ Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1 (3), pp. 203–210. Murray, M. (2008) ‘Planning through Dialogue for Rural Development: The European Citizens’ Panel Initiative’ Planning Practice and Research, 23 (2), pp. 265–279. NCCA (1993) Civic, Social and Political Education at Post-Primary Level. Dublin: NCCA. NCCA (2003) Civic, Social and Political Education, NCCA Response to NEXUS Report on Survey of Principals and CSPE Teachers. Dublin: NCCA. NCCA (2006) Social and Political Education in Senior Cycle: A Background Paper. Dublin: NCCA. NCCA (OnlineA) Social Personal and Health Education Curriculum. Available at: www.cur riculumonline.ie/Primary/Curriculum-Areas/Social-Personal-and-Health-EducationCurriculum (Accessed 25 June 2019). NCCA (OnlineB) Civic Social and Political Education. Available at: https://curriculumonline. ie/Junior-cycle/Junior-Cycle-Subjects/Civic-Social-and-Political-Education (Accessed 25 June 2019).

90

Cathal Butler

NCCA (OnlineC) CSPE Syllabus. Available at: https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/b4cf7fd446d0-4595-baa9 f6c38923c75f/JCSEC04_CSPE_Syllabus.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). NCCA (OnlineD) Politics and Society: Curriculum Specification. Leaving Certificate: Ordinary and Higher Level. Available at: https://curriculumonline.ie/getmedia/e2a7eb28-ae06-4e5297f8-d5c8fee9613b/13764-NCCA-Politics-and-Society-Specification-v2b.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Niens, U. and McIlrath, L. (2010) ‘Understandings of Citizenship Education in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: Public Discourses among Stakeholders in the Public and Private Sectors’ Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 5 (1), pp. 73–87. O’Fathaigh, M. and O’Sullivan, D. (2000) ‘Five Decades at UCC, 1948–1998: From Roman Catholic Social Reconstruction to Community Partnership and Empowerment’ in Cooke, A. and MacSween, A. (eds.) The Rise and Fall of Adult Education Institutions and Social Movements, the Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on the History of Adult Education. London: Peter Lang. Rami, J. and Lalor, J. (2006) ‘Citizenship and Identity Education in Ireland in the PostCeltic Tiger Era: Impacts and Possibilities’ in Ross, A. (ed.) Citizenship Education: Europe and the World. London: CiCe, pp. 521–530. Rami, J., Lalor, J., Berg, W., Lorencovicova, E., Lorencovic, J., Maiztegui Oñate, C. and Elm, A. (2006) Competencies for Educators in Citizenship Education & the Development of Identity in First & Second Cycle Programmes. Volume 2. London: CiCe. Redmond, D. and Butler, P. (2003) Civic, Social and Political Education, Reports on Survey of Teachers and Principals to NCCA. Dublin: NEXUS Research Co-Operative. Ryan, A. (2014) The Road to Democracy in Irish Primary School education. EdD Thesis, University of Sheffield, Sheffield. SCoTENS (2004) Annual Report. Available at: http://scotens.org/site/wp-content/uploads/ 2004-scotens.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Shannon, M. (2000) Curriculum Implementation: Theory and Practice and the Role of Leadership. M.Ed. Thesis, N.U.I., Maynooth. Simmie, G. and Edling, S. (2016) ‘Ideological Governing Forms in Education and Teacher Education: A Comparative Study between Highly Secular Sweden and Highly NonSecular Republic of Ireland’ Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 1, pp. 1–12. Smith, A. (2003) ‘Citizenship Education in Northern Ireland: Beyond National Identity?’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (1), pp. 15–31. State Examinations Commission (Online) Junior Certificate Examination 2019 Civic, Social and Political Education (CSPE): Report on Action Project (RAP) Course Work Assessment Book (CWAB). Available at: www.examinations.ie/misc-doc/EN-EX-83721957.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Stoer, S. and Cortesão, L. (2000) ‘Multiculturalism and Educational Policy in a Global Context’ in Burbules, N. and Torres, C. (eds.) Globalization and Education: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, pp. 253–274. Taskforce on Active Citizenship (2007) Report of the Task Force on Active Citizenship. Dublin: Taskforce on Active Citizenship. Tracy, M. (2000) Racism and Immigration in Ireland: A Comparative Analysis. Dublin: Department of Sociology, Trinity College. UNESCO (2013) Hangzhou International Congress Culture: A Driver and Enabler of Social Cohesion. Available at: www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CLT/ images/CultureDriverEnablerSocialCohesionENG.pdf (Accessed 25 June 2019). Waldron, F. and Pike, S. (2006) ‘What Does It Mean to Be Irish? Children’s Construction of National Identity’ Irish Educational Studies, 25 (2), pp. 231–251.

Education for citizenship in Ireland

91

Wilson, M. (2008) ‘The Action Project as a Teaching/Learning Tool’ in Jeffers, G. and O’Connor, U. (Eds.) Education for Citizenship and Diversity in Irish Contexts. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration. Worden, E. and Smith, A. (2017) ‘Teaching for Democracy in the Absence of Transitional Justice: The Case of Northern Ireland’ Comparative Education, 53 (3), pp.379–395. Wylie, K. (1999) ‘Education for Citizenship: A Critical Review of Some Programmes in England and Ireland’ Irish Educational Studies, 18 (1), pp. 91–102. Wylie, K. (2004) ‘Citizenship, Identity and Social Inclusion: Lessons from Northern Ireland’ European Journal of Education, 39 (2), pp. 237–248.

Chapter 7

From the concept of citizenship to the transversal skills for global citizenship in schools Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

From civic education to citizenship education The history of civic education in Italy offers the possibility of understanding the transformations and the evolution of the political system and society in our country and the difficulties encountered over the years to define the concept of “good citizen”. Civic education, in the context of various scholastic reforms, seems to have been considered more a programme appendix than a real resource, an additional commitment for teachers who almost interfered in specific tasks concerning family and society. Historically the first romantic civic education, starting from the Casati Law of 1859, was centred on duties towards God, the family and the homeland, in a gradual transition from the assumption of domestic duties to those towards the great family of the nation. Compulsory school had a political function in favour of the cohesion of national and cultural unity in modern states. It was the Coppino Law (15 July 1877 n. 3961) on the obligation of primary education which established the first notions of citizen’s duties. The principles of the pedagogy of common sense, according to which the primary school had to be a training ground for civil life together with attempts at disciplinary autonomy, were based in particular on the explanation of the constitutional statute. The 1905 programmes introduced “moral education and civil education”, a teaching approach based on greater conceptualization with respect to the past and an intellectualism that was held responsible for the deficiencies of civil conscience connected with the advent of totalitarianism. The 1905 programmes remained in force until the Order of the Minister Gentile of 1923, which cancelled the teaching of rights and duties. The process that led to school fascism and years of “civic diseducation” of Italy began. The fascist state became an educator. Programmes, published with the Ministerial Decree on 9 February 1945, and edited by Carleton Wolsey Washburne, show a clear root of activity and a democratic inspiration; civic education becomes experience and lived sociality. The goal of Washburne was to address, in the teaching of moral, civil and physical education, the lack of freedom and autonomy of thought that until that

From citizenship to transversal skills

93

moment had characterized education; essentially to change the civic illiteracy of the population living under a totalitarian regime and to form responsible citizens able to act in a democratic society. In these years a pedagogy of the commitment was elaborated to accompany the reconstruction of the country. Civic education was seen as an opportunity to curb easy ideas of nationalism and ethnic closures, according to a purely American model of easy coexistence of races, religions and nationalities. According to the 1945 programmes, only in school practice could there be real civic education, precisely because it is lived and practiced. These beliefs were not always experienced by the school, even following the instructions of the Constituent Assembly (Santerini, 2001). In fact, the history of civic education in the Republic school has its prologue in the Constituent Assembly (11 December 1947), where it was unanimously voted, “with live and prolonged applause”, an agenda presented by Aldo Moro, in which he asked that the new constitutional charter will find, without delay, an adequate place in the school of every order and level, in order to make the young generation aware of the moral and social achievement that are now the secure heritage of the Italian people. (Corradini, 2009) In reality there was a “delay” of over 10 years, until the same Moro, who became minister of public education, was able to introduce the teaching of civic education in secondary schools, with the Decreto del Presidente della Repubblica (DPR n. 585). That decree, whose title denounced an uncertainty in need of an epistemological and didactic study, presented civic education for secondary schools: 1 2 3 4

in every teaching course, as a living experience of social relations and practical exercise of rights and duties in the organization of school life, finally as a nucleus of political ethical legal arguments, which were to be entrusted to the history teacher in two hours a week, taking advantage of a constant reference to the Constitution of the Republic.

It is said, in fact, that the term education identifies itself with the aim of the school and the civic projects itself towards the social, legal, political life, that is, the principles that govern the community and the forms in which it lives. “History” was renamed “history and civic education”, but the two elements were very different, so the latter, although envisaged within a “strong” curricular container such as history, slowly slipped into marginality, so much so as to almost adopt the character of an optional and irrelevant appendix to pupils’ learning profit (Corradini, 2009).

94

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

In the 1950s and 1960s there were strong changes and transformations from an economic and social point of view, and citizenship education was viewed as having the possibility of providing education to ever wider segments of the population. In those years, the pedagogy of Christian inspiration provided a social education closely connected with moral and civil education, progressively abandoning the vision of state-educator and emphasizing the value of general culture. Civic education was inspired by democratic themes and linked to the respect of the Constitution. This process was accompanied by a pedagogical culture that aimed to promote socialisation, democratic coexistence and participation; in other words, its aim was to teach elements of the Constitution in an interdisciplinary perspective. The new primary school programmes of 1985 (“social studies” replaced moral and civil education in 1955) and those of the secondary school of 1963 and 1979 gave new vigour to the content and methods of teaching civic education, enhancing the aspect of experimentation of group work and opportunities for solidarity within the various contexts in which the school operated, but failed to redeem it from marginality.

Civic education: a bridge between past and future Starting in the 1980s, an opening towards the international dimension became apparent. There were many documents produced at that time in the field of human rights through intercultural education. In Italy, the arrival of immigrants from the south of the world invited schools to open up to new students through the revision of textbooks and curricula. The encounter with other non-European cultures placed the emphasis on which new type of citizenship to propose, considering new cultures and differences as resources. A school must know how to question and propose renewal, offering openness to differences and the need to preserve a unitary system. In society, phenomena of intolerance and racism re-emerged, especially among young people, and the whole society asked for accent to be placed on a new civic-political education that could oppose intolerance, fear and prejudice. In these years there had been also a decrease in the credibility of the political system due to corruption and crisis in the parties and to the violent wave of mafia actions. All this led, especially in southern Italy, to the development of education for legality through initiatives and projects, as highlighted in the Circolare Ministeriale 25 October 1993, n. 302. Following Italy’s accession to the 1992 Treaty on European Union and Italy’s political situation, new measures became necessary to guarantee a national civil conscience. A ministerial working group, led by Luciano Corradini, produced the ministerial directive of 8 February 1996, n. 58, including the annex New Educational Dimensions, Civic Education and Constitutional Culture (Santerini, 2001:35–36). As Corradini says, the matter was taken up by Moratti’s

From citizenship to transversal skills

95

enabling act 53/2003, which speaks of “education to the fundamental principles of civil coexistence”. The consequent national indications relating to the first cycle (Law Decree dated 19 February 2004, n. 59) articulated civil cohabitation into six “educations”: citizenship, road safety, environment, health, food, affectivity and sexuality. The first three were based on the environmental reality and on the laws; the second three were related to the existential aspects experienced by the students. The difficulty of articulating such a complex curriculum in operational terms resulted in this part of the Indications becoming problematic, suspended between transversality and disciplinarity. Despite the commitment of many, the proposal failed (Corradini, 2011). The law n. 169 of 30 October 2008, on the proposal of Minister Mariastella Gelmini, was approved 50 years after the DPR 13.6.1958 n. 585, signed by Aldo Moro. Among the many protests in the world of education for the cost reduction, the principles of the law intended to resume and qualify the original design, launching a teacher training campaign and a national experimentation on the subject “Citizenship and Constitution”. The aim was to give young people, within the knowledge and skills necessary for the development of individuals and the community, civic and social skills to live as active citizens in the scenario of the constitutional text. This text was not be studied to produce lawyers or professional politicians in every school, but to make practicing citizens (Corradini, 2011; Corradini and Mari, 2019). The Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca (MIUR) between 2008 and 2010 issued ministerial circulars and a document of guidelines to initiate necessary organizational methods and methodologies to make effective the teaching of Citizenship and Constitution in schools at all levels. With the Circolare Ministeriale C.M., n. 100, the ministry provided initial information on the implementation of the law n. 169 of 30 October 2008, especially with reference to the articles that immediately affected the dynamics of teaching and learning processes. Regarding the teaching of Citizenship and Constitution, the circular stated that it must be “given within the hours of history of the historical-geographical and social-historical areas of schools of all levels and with similar initiatives in the preschool. It is not a mere review of the traditional “civic education”, but of a substantial curricular innovation” (MIUR C.M. 11.12.2008, n. 100). The guideline document for the experimentation of the teaching of Citizenship and Constitution provided specific paths for each order and level of education; in particular: • •

in Kindergarten specific knowledge must be transmitted on the concept of family, school and group, correct ways of acting with classmates, parents, teachers and other adults; primary school (elementary school) has the responsibility to teach the first notions about the Constitution and coexistence (fundamental

96

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

•

•

human rights, the meaning of social dimensions, the importance of landscape protection, basic notions of driver’s education, the safeguarding of the health, the value of multiculturalism and respect); in the lower secondary school (middle school) there will be in-depth analysis of some topics, in particular the rights and duties of the citizen, the rights and duties of the worker, as well as the study of international human rights law and the study of the European institutions; in the upper secondary school (high school) there will be an in-depth study of the Constitution also through the analysis of current events, the putting into practice of one’s commitment to volunteering, the promotion of respect and protection of the environment, the promoting fair play and the positive values of sport and the principles of road safety. (MIUR Documento di indirizzo, 4.03.2009, n. 4)

The teaching of Citizenship and Constitution lies in the field of experiencing “the self and the other” at the preschool, within the “historical-geographical” area of primary and lower secondary schools and within the historical-geographical and historical-social areas of the upper secondary school. In particular Citizenship and Constitution is entrusted to teachers of law and economics where these disciplines are foreseen. This teaching falls within the total number of hours of the areas and disciplines indicated. The contents of the historical-geographical and social-historical areas must be integrated with a repertoire of specific contents starting from a thorough knowledge of the Constitution through the study of regional statutes, as stated by law. Interest was extended to national, European and international documents (for example, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child) in order to form a mentality open to a multi-perspective and plural vision of reality. The transversal contents cross the themes of legality and social cohesion, of national and European belonging within the framework of an international and interdependent community, of human rights, equal opportunities, pluralism, respect for diversity, intercultural dialogue, ethics of individual and social responsibility, bioethics, protection of artistic and cultural heritage. The issues concerning environmental sensitivity and sustainable development, personal and social well-being, fair play in sport, safety in its various dimensions, solidarity, volunteering and active citizenship are also significant. The competences are declined . . . in the mediation and peaceful management of conflicts; in fair play in sports activities; in respect of oneself and others, of social rules as well as in the care of other people’s things and public goods; in the practice of kindness; in taking responsible attitudes towards the school and social community; in asserting their rights and

From citizenship to transversal skills

97

recognizing those of others as well as in fulfilling their duties; in participating in school democracy initiatives; in the critical evaluation of behaviors detrimental to the dignity of the person, in the understanding and help of comrades in various difficulties, in the acceptance of those who are different from themselves, in questioning prejudices and stereotypes also with reference to gender differences; in behaviors attentive to energy saving, to the protection and enhancement of the artistic, cultural and environmental heritage. (Circolare Ministeriale n. 86 “Attuazione dell’articolo 1 della legge 30 ottobre 2008”, n. 169)

The concept of citizenship, between local and global Although the teaching of Citizenship and Constitution still has a fragile identity and is already being challenged by the current government, the issue of citizenship and democracy takes on particular importance in dealing with complex scenarios that affect the system of educational agencies of territory. These are contexts of constant and accelerated change, crossed by deep crises. One crisis involves the very reasons of education, that is, how to enable young people and their social relations to increasingly face the challenges of individual/community relationships: between the local and global, between building one’s own cultural identity and being “citizens of the world”, thus necessitating individuals acquiring a complex system of multiple identities. Being a citizen means taking on the system of rules and behaviour that makes possible civil coexistence in a specific social and political reality. But it also means developing that sense of roots and that knowledge of one’s own land, of its culture and of its history that make possible a passionate and responsible participation in the development of one’s own community and territory in a perspective of sustainability and attention to the future of whole world. The contemporary world is increasingly seen as a world-society, a complex system of interdependencies, crossed by unstoppable technological development. Many events are undermining the ideas of democracy in civil society. Relations between peoples are in a phase that many intellectuals define as plural globalization, a planetary era that needs, with all the difficulties this entails, to be profoundly understood. The traditional and original aim of the school was to create citizens capable of recognizing themselves in a well-defined “national” identity. Now this is increasingly becoming intertwined with that of introducing a much wider, even planetary, form of citizenship, thus creating a context in which globalization is not only economic, but also political, cultural and religious. Citizenship education therefore requires a double reading, an interpretation that integrates the idea of civic-ness and citizenship with a problematic approach. Civic-ness, understood as civic culture, should involve knowing, understanding and practicing a set of conventional laws, rules that characterize

98

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

a specific civil community, recognisable as citizenship and as being part of the system of cultures, values and traditions produced historically by the community itself. At the base of a strong training project on citizenship education there is a complex system made up of homogeneity and inhomogeneity, of commonalities and differences, of local and global constantly changing. Every possible understanding of the great global themes, of the great tensions of the contemporary world, can only happen by passing through a correct relationship with the cultures of which each place is woven and formed. This is the relationship that cannot be overlooked if the two local and global terms are to be placed on an integrative and not just oppositional base, with a view to forming a citizen capable of acting locally and thinking globally. The traditional objective of educational institutions to form citizens that can be recognized as having national identities is therefore intertwined, today increasingly, with the need to meet and interpret more extensive forms of citizenship. Such forms are not only transnational but potentially planetary, including not only territorial and spatial dimensions, but also dimensions related to temporality, new virtual worlds and techno-scientific contexts. The contemporary scenarios, hit by the tumultuous changes induced by globalization, are in fact implied by an awareness of the interdependence of facts and phenomena, not only on the scale of local systems but also of ecosystems and, above all at a planetary level, biospheric and global eco-socio-systems. One of the strategic axes identified by Morin for educational action on citizenship issues invites stimulation of the resistance of citizenship against the returns and developments of barbarism. This barbarism, to which we must oppose a strategic resistance, is not only that which accompanies us since the origins of human history, it is also that barbarism that arises from the alliance between the ancient barbarism of violence, hatred and domination, and the modern techno-bureaucratic, anonymous and frozen forces of dehumanization and distortion. (Morin et al., 2004:116–117) The global dimension involves a real eruption and modification of the very nature of the local, affecting not only the political, social and cultural aspects but also that of subjectivity in all its forms: intelligence, sensitivity, affections, imaginaries. In fact, globalization processes concern not only the economy, but also politics, culture and religion. They have irreversibly changed the context in which the whole of humanity is situated, for example, great migrations, the explosion of new information and communication technologies, “global threats” such as terrorism and the idea of security closely connected to it, global warming, the financial crisis, the food and energy crisis . . . Every day, the high risks of social exclusion and existential drift of the subjects in the most fragile conditions, especially of a form of fragility connected to the presence/absence of a strong ability to decode these new processes, are

From citizenship to transversal skills

99

being highlighted. For this reason the reflections by the worlds of education and training on what are the skills and knowledge necessary for citizens so they can critically face globalization, but also realize their own existential identity towards less threatening directions than the current ones, cannot be postponed. Identities have been, are and will continue to evolve, change and meld in the future. Consequently, the same meaning of citizenship must be renegotiated by enriching it with new dimensions that include transnational, global and planetary elements. The inescapable task for the school and for any formative agency is to encourage individuals to perceive themselves, without fear, as multiple identities, belonging simultaneously to different worlds, including emerging virtuality, and to courageously perceive other individuals as identities equally multiple. Only this capacity for re-recognition can help the emergence and legitimacy of new ideas and forms of citizenship. A civilization that wants to build a space of peaceful and supportive coexistence, that wants to project itself into a future with new common projects, with new ideas of the world, of society, of community, has the need for citizens and citizens in relation to each other in a dialogical way to be unique and unrepeatable individuals that can, however, express their originality within social relationships and communities.

Methodological suggestions for a global and transversal citizenship Citizenship skills are part of a broad educational project, which represents the assumption of responsibility by the community towards the future. They respond to the need to train citizens capable of managing the challenges of change, of managing and solving “problems” that are so complex they are difficult to ascribe to separate disciplinary areas. A teacher’s professionalism in contemporary school has a cultural dimension, but also a social one, which is expressed in the response to the right to equality and the right to diversity of all citizens. This principle is the foundation of the Council of Europe’s (CoE, 2016) document Competences for Democratic Culture. Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies, based on the interdependence between a culture of democracy and intercultural dialogue in culturally diverse societies: in such societies, intercultural dialogue is vital to ensure the inclusion of all citizens in democratic discussion, debate and deliberation. In general, the curricula relating to citizenship cover a series of vast and complex topics, to be tackled with an interdisciplinary approach, since they tackle fundamental principles of democratic societies, such as cultural heterogeneity and sustainable development, which embrace local and planetary dimensions. It is precisely through this approach that schools do not stop at basic alphabets, they are not bound by convenient simplification, but rather try to develop significant and divergent learning, to produce and reinvent the imagination. The education system can then become an opportunity for

100

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

dialoguing on and living complexity, recognizing the dimension not of the mono, but rather of the multi, of plurality; thus a polycentric and interdependent system that is not fragmented, which is able to fight the uniform hegemony of mass culture, to connect subject knowledge to knowledge of the environment, art and the theatre, the historical and cultural heritage. Promoting the local cultural opportunities as a resource means re- interpreting the right to study as a right to learning, through an inclusive and democratic approach of public education, which also considers the recognition of knowledge and the culture of citizenship. (Zanetti, 2013) The proposed themes are not exhaustive of the multiplicity of contents that characterize the vast field of citizenship education. They should be considered as examples from which to build didactic project linked not to disciplinary contents, but on themes/problems that can be linked to experiences. Dealing with issues such as migration or climate change at school does not mean taking time away from the programme but developing conceptual and methodological tools of many disciplines and their connections. The interdisciplinary study, precisely for the enhancement of the complexity and the facets of the themes; for the interaction between the cognitive, affective and motivational dimensions; and for the intertwining of knowledge, values and attitudes, involves all the potential of social competences and of citizenship. Teaching and learning strategies by themes and by problems responds to this urgency, avoiding to propose already pre-packaged contents and accompanying the class to reflect about problems that have a strict implication with the present. The choice of methodologies and tools is aimed at constructive and participatory learning that promotes active citizenship processes at different stages. Specifically, the proposed approach is based on laboratory-type methodology: •

•

•

a systemic approach, transversal to the disciplines, using methodologies of cooperative group work (cooperative learning, simulations and roleplaying games, brainstorming . . .); that promotes the use of different sources (local and/or global) for a comparison, a constant re-elaboration of conceptual references and a sharing of meanings, through collective discussions, group analysis and comparison, moments of individual activation (circle time, interviews, research, reading and consultation of documents and materials, testimonies . . .); which uses playful and creative strategies, always encouraging a connection between different fields, knowledge, languages (films and documentaries, theatre and dramatizations, music, urban trekking and exploration of the city and the territory, video games, texts . . .) to favour the processes of deconstruction of models, stereotypes and prejudices, stimulating discussion and/or collaborative work, shared/divergent interpretations, constructions of meaning and new imaginations;

From citizenship to transversal skills

•

101

that pays particular attention to the didactic strategies to encourage pupils’ self-learning, motivating them to experiment and to seek, set goals and develop strategies, to place themselves within each social context equipped with conceptual and operational tools not only for life the present but also to imagine and build the future. The engagement that is required to every citizen, every community and authority on Earth today is to begin to conceive and live this planetary community in a positive way: that is, to consider belonging to a global intertwining of interdependencies such as the only adequate condition to guarantee and improve the quality of life of individuals, groups and peoples; to transform planetary interdependence into the ethical task of building a “civilization” of the earth; to inaugurate an anthropological evolution towards coexistence and peace. (Bocchi and Ceruti, 2004:142)

Citizens, citizenship and civic engagement in Italy: perspective from an international research The International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2016 (Schulz et al., 2018) is research conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) since 1971, and it is at its forth data collection.1 It investigates, in a comparative way,2 how young students in the 8th grade are prepared for their role of “future” citizens; and it studies their knowledge; their understanding of concepts like citizenship, civics and democracy; and their opinions and attitudes on these themes. It also reports about how schools and other educational contexts educate to civic and citizenship education. In Italy about 3,500 students and 15–19 teachers and principals for each school took part in the IEA ICCS in 2016: results of this research reveal a very interesting picture of the complexity of democratic citizenship and the challenges that students, teachers and the whole society are fronting in everyday life. For example, in Italy lower secondary school teachers do not have a specific preparation on citizenship education (they are teachers of history and geography): citizenship and constitution are part of a series of different crosscurricular themes. Training on these issues (citizenship, constitution and security) is provided by the National Institute of Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research (INDIRE) through blended learning courses. However, this sector of teacher education is not mandatory, which means that teachers can choose to participate or not. Considering that these themes are common to all teachers, this lack of training seems a contradiction to the national curriculum’s aims. ICCS 2016 investigated teachers of all subjects in lower secondary schools in order to examine their beliefs and competences on this issue. Italian teachers

102

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

consider that it is more important to promote critical and autonomous thinking (62 per cent) and the knowledge of rights and duties of citizens (69 per cent) than to promote respect and safeguarding of environment (48 per cent) and develop competences in conflict resolutions (32 per cent) (Caponera, 2017). During their lectures of citizenship education, Italian teachers declare that they wish to promote, above the international average, discussion on topical issues, study of textbooks and the research and/or analysis of information collected from various web sources and the discussion of topics proposed by the students. On the contrary, activities such as working in small groups, roleplaying games and projects involving the collection of information outside the school are less common than other participating countries (INVALSI, 2017). However, compared with ICCS 2009, Italian students are decreasing their level of civic knowledge (from 531 to 524) while many countries were getting better results. This score is lower than the average European one, but higher than the international one (Caponera, 2017). In the ICCS 2016, students’ views about democracy were analysed with nine specific items requiring them to rate different situations in a society as “good”, “bad” or “neither good nor bad” for democracy. There are big differences between countries; young Italian students have a positive perception of some situations considered negative for democracy, such as political cronyism, media control and restriction of individual liberties. In particular for Italy for each item: •

“Political leaders give government jobs to their family members” 30 per cent of Italian students consider this situation good for democracy (ICCS 17 per cent, European countries 12 per cent) and 29 per cent neither good nor bad (ICCS 39 per cent).

•

“One company or the government owns all newspapers in a country” 14 per cent of Italian students consider this good (European countries 9 per cent), 47 per cent bad for democracy (ICCS average 52 per cent).

•

“People are allowed to publicly criticize the government” 53 per cent of Italian students think this is positive (ICCS 38 per cent).

•

“All adult citizens have the right to elect their political leaders” 82 per cent believe this is good for democracy (80 per cent average ICCS).

•

“People are able to protest if they think a law is unfair” 59 per cent of Italians consider this situation good (ICCS 63 per cent).

•

“The police have the right to hold people suspected of threatening national security in jail without trial”

From citizenship to transversal skills

103

29 per cent of Italian students consider it positive for democracy (30 per cent ICCS, 27 per cent European countries) and 38 per cent negative (33 per cent ICCS). •

“Differences in income between poor and rich people are small” 43 per cent think this situation is good for democracy (ICCS 36 per cent) and 46 per cent neither good nor bad (ICCS 42 per cent).

•

“The government influences decisions by court of justice” 48 per cent of Italian students consider it bad (35 per cent average ICCS).

•

“All ethnic group in the country have the same rights” 64 per cent of Italians believe this is good (ICCS average is 55 per cent). (Schulz et al., 2018; Caponera, 2017)

In Italy there is a positive attitude towards gender equality, but a more negative one about equality of the rights of different ethnic groups. In most countries, students declare they have confidence in the government, in the parliament and in the courts (an increase compared to 2009). However, in Italy there is an opposite trend: young people, particularly students, express a low level of trust in political parties: internationally, on average less than half of students say they trust institutions. About half of the students say they have confidence in people in general, and this percentage is lower than in 2009 in most countries, including Italy (Losito et al., 2018). In addition, 32 per cent of Italian students claim to have participated in the activities of a voluntary association (ICCS average 37 per cent), of which onefifth is to groups of young people for awareness campaigns (22 per cent, ICCS average 24 per cent). Italy presents lower percentages than the international averages for all forms of participation of students in civic activities outside school (Schulz et al., 2018). Compared to ICCS 2009, there were three new areas of investigation considered crucial with respect to new arrangements and global changes: • • •

environmental sustainability; social interaction at school; the use of social media for civic engagement.

Environmental sustainability

In ICCS 2016, questions relating to student perception regarding the problems inherent to global citizenship and sustainable awareness were included. More than 80 per cent of Italian students consider pollution a very serious threat (75 per cent international students). As well, 71 per cent of Italians believe that water scarcity is a very serious problem (65 per cent of students

104

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

internationally). Less than one student in two considers the problems linked to climate change a serious problem (44 per cent against 55 per cent of international students). On the contrary, they are more concerned with issues such as terrorism (72 per cent against 66 per cent of internationals), the risk of epidemics (both around 61 per cent) and poverty (57 per cent of Italians compared to 53 per cent of international students) (Schulz et al., 2018; INVALSI, 2017). Social interaction at school

In lower secondary schools in Italy there are no classroom or institute representatives among the students, while in almost all the other ICCS countries there are and participation in the student elections is very high. More democratic forms of school governance, however, can lead to a greater level of political commitment of the student in adult life. Researchers agree on the importance of formal education in influencing the extent to which adults will be engaged in society (Pancer, 2015) and the concept that “establishing basic democratic structures within schools and providing students with early opportunities for active civic participation has the potential to promote civic knowledge and a disposition toward future civic engagement” (Schulz et al., 2018:xx). According to the opinions of school principals, the level of engagement of Italian students is very low: only for 7 per cent of students are their opinions are taken into consideration in the decision-making processes (ICCS average 28 per cent), and the opportunity they have to participate actively at school decisions is 5 per cent (ICCS average 30 per cent). Italian students declare the presence of a class climate open to discussion to a greater extent than the international average. Their perceptions about the quality of the relationship with their teachers are on average with international values. Concerning bullying, Italian students have lower percentages of negative experiences lived in the first person. Both school managers and Italian teachers declare the presence of situations related to the phenomenon of bullying in very low percentages compared to international average (below 5 per cent against highly variable percentages in other countries) (Schulz et al., 2018; INVALSI, 2017). The use of social media for civic engagement

In contemporary society, the social environment of the Internet is (virtually) a structure for the involvement of citizens. In modern democracies the Internet is increasingly used to keep citizens informed on matters of public interest. The concept of citizenship is redefined by the contributions of these transformations in the way citizens search, find information and discuss (Ceccarini, 2015). Social media can open new horizons, allowing the decentralization of points of view and the overcoming of space and time. However, this transformation is

From citizenship to transversal skills

105

not without threats: homologation, unique thinking, loss of identity and fake news are all dangers that limit democratic processes and nourish nationalisms, and each ICT (Information and Communication Technology) potentially can bring opportunities and risks (Morozov, 2011). In 2015 the Italian government approved a Declaration of Internet Rights, committing itself to make the Internet an indispensable instrument to promote individual and collective participation in democratic processes and substantial equality: therefore, the essential rights of Internet are net neutrality, free access, data privacy, the abolition of the digital divide and education to a conscious use of Internet (Camera dei Deputati, Dichiarazione dei diritti in Internet, 2015). The use of social media for civic engagement is still limited across countries. In Italy, talking with families (61 per cent), reading newspapers (26 per cent) and watching TV (74 per cent) are the information sources preferred for civic engagement: these percentages are higher than other ICCS countries. The involvement of students in political and social issues through the use of social media presents results that are lower than expected: 31 per cent of international students state they seek information on these topics on a weekly basis, with the same frequency of 10 per cent declaring to comment on content or share the contents of others and 9 per cent saying they publish or share their content. For Italian students the same results are observed with 4 points more in the percentage of students who declare to look for political and social information on the Internet. These results are, in general, lower than those recorded for television and slightly higher than those for newspapers. The search for information online and other forms of interactivity on social media are much lower than discussion at home with parents. More than half of international students and 75 per cent of students in Italy claim to have confidence in traditional communication systems (newspapers, televisions, radios). In addition, 45 per cent of ICCS students state to have confidence in social media: in Italy, about half of the students say they trust social media. This result is more worrying if we consider the statements of Italian teachers who say they feel very prepared to teach citizenship education in relation to a variety of subjects (much more than their colleagues in other countries): if 96 per cent of teachers say they feel enough or very prepared in human rights, only 72 per cent of teachers feel sufficiently or very prepared to teach responsible use of the Internet, but they promote the use of Internet among students (INVALSI, 2017; Schulz et al., 2018). ICCS 2016 seems to underline that there is still much work to do in Italy about citizenship and democracy education: school must necessarily promote an education that goes beyond the school curriculum and that aims to train its pupils in the first place as citizens. School can become a place for exercising the rights of participation and discussion, a centre of discursive practices and a comparison between free and equal subjects, but only if teachers are aware, prepared and able to collaborate with other educational agencies. Otherwise

106

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

they cannot even perceive the contradiction of what they do and teach to their students. And their citizenship and sense of democracy is sleeping . . .

Teachers for citizenship How in fact can Italian teachers accept the paradox they are living daily in their classrooms? According to the national curriculum, teachers must educate all their students on citizenship and the Constitution (in an active way), but many students do not have Italian citizenship and rights to vote (as well as their families). In Italy it is very complicated for immigrants to obtain Italian citizenship, even for those born in Italy. While ius sanguinis (citizenship as a result of Italian parents or ancestors emigrated) is guaranteed, ius soli remains an exceptional and residual case; for non-EU foreigners, legal residence on the territory of the Italian state for at least 10 years is required.3 How can we expect to educate students on the rules of democracy and cohabitation if they are and will be discriminated by origin? These students, living and studying in Italy, with Italian classmates and dreams, are not recognisable as being here, as being from here. The non-recognition of citizenship is then an unjustifiable and inexplicable form of discrimination, a bureaucratic mark that mystifies what one believes to be the evidence of the iniquity of a state that does not recognize what it really is. And a missed or late recognition of citizenship can only be perceived as an injustice, an unjustified discrimination: it means being treated differently without reasons (Colombo et al., 2009). The group Teachers for Citizenship4 is a non-partisan and apolitical movement that was set up in 2017 to launch an appeal for a law to support the ius soli and ius culturae. Noting the contradiction in being called to educate future non-citizens in active citizenship, these teachers, educators and a part of civil society have committed themselves to putting the question of citizenship at the centre of educational action, starting from the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Italian Constitution that guarantees all people the same rights. The movement has created some interest and the involvement of some parliamentarians, but at the moment no law has been promulgated. Some initial teacher training courses (primary education) are proposing the movement’s ideas as part of their curricula, especially in the fields of intercultural pedagogy, didactics and history, but not in a systematic way. Teachers for citizenship, however, continue to work to promote concrete and educational actions to raise awareness of these issues. Education for the exercise of responsible citizenship is related to the practice of democracy as an exercise of popular sovereignty in the recognition and respect of human rights and with the objective of peaceful coexistence and improvement of the quality of life of individuals and society: a citizenship understood as belonging to the community, considered in its local, regional,

From citizenship to transversal skills

107

national, European and world dimensions (Baruzzi, 2003). But when in a state there are laws in contradiction, it is not possible to practice a full democracy, only to note that there are students of series a and students of series b, student citizens and student non-citizens. And in this way there are no conditions, as teachers, to work in democracy because the school must be the place that guarantees the right of citizenship to all and sets the conditions for the duties and rights that citizenship entails (Lorenzoni, 2017). There cannot be democracy where there is indifference, passivity and unresponsiveness. The Italian Constitution asks all citizens (and teachers should feel more committed) to be totally responsible, not only when it is convenient for them to be so. And participation is not limited to the right to vote. Without co-responsibility, democracy risks becoming an empty box, an abstract scheme that guarantees neither social justice nor citizens’ equality (Camarlinghi, 2014). Living in a democratic society, therefore, is not a right acquired once and for all but a duty to defend, nurture and reconfirm in the span of a lifetime. Consequently, it is a duty to be taught in every scholastic degree, starting from the example of the teachers themselves. As an educating community, the school produces a diffused relational conviviality, made of affective and emotional languages, and it is also able to promote the sharing of those values that make members of society feel part of a real community. The school supports not only the task of “teaching to learn” but also that of “teaching to be” (MIUR, 2012). It is necessary that educational contexts, schools in primis, are organized in a coherent way with the principles of education to promote democratic citizenship. In the educational context this means developing a culture, a school climate and learning environments in which the participation and active exercise of democracy are not only allowed, but supported and valued, starting from classroom teaching practice. And this is what Teachers for citizenship are working for, in coherence with democratic principles.

Conclusions: education will save us? In our countries, representative democracy is a consolidated achievement, and the distance of citizens from decision-making is great because participation is reduced for many to some important but formal practices: the soothing illusion that our democracies are guaranteed is developed because it is maintained and controlled from above. Democracy, on the other hand, does not fall from above but is founded on local communities; it grows and consolidates with the civic participation and passion of citizens and is learned from an early age in the school community. This is a context that allows education for democracy and the exercise of responsible citizenship, through the development of political and civil ideals and the acquisition of the civic, communicative and organizational skills necessary to participate in political life. By participating one learns to participate: participation develops itself because it fulfils a crucial pedagogical

108

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

or formative function: one participates to discuss, to face certain common problems, to compare each other’s positions. In a democratic society people and groups, associations and communities, participating in the democratic game, express dynamic relationships that strengthen and nourish the democratic climate of a country where the diversity of opinions, dissent and differences are considered a resource and an indispensable ingredient of civic life (Baruzzi, 2003). The last Democracy Index (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2019) shows that Italy’s ranking fell by 12 places (from 21st to 33th position) “as deep disillusionment with political institutions, including parliament and political parties, fed through into increasing support for ‘strongmen’ who bypass political institutions, and into a weakening of the political culture component of the index” (ibid:15). The 2018 election “highlighted popular discontent linked to economic malaise and concerns over immigration” (ibid:14), and now the political agenda is dominated by the hardline stance against immigration. In addition to that, the Index considered the risk of deterioration in civil liberties: the Security Decree, approved by the Italian Parliament at the end of 2018, seems in contrast with the European Law for Human Rights and could end humanitarian protection status for about 100,000 migrants. The CoE (2016) underlines that “a culture of democracy requires, in addition to competent citizens, suitable political and legal structures and procedures to support citizens’ exercise of their competences. This is because institutional structures and procedures, and the opportunities for active engagement which they make available or deny to citizens, can serve as significant enablers or inhibitors of the democratic and intercultural actions that citizens are able to undertake” (CoE, 2016:17). In Italy initial teacher training for primary school is well established, and the CoE’s competences are part of some syllabi, but not in a comprehensive and methodical way. But initial teacher training for secondary school is suspended at moment, and there are many new teachers without a specific preparation in terms of pedagogical skills.5 Concerning policies to implement CoE’s competences, providing guidance and support material6 for citizenship education in schools as well as continuing professional development seem not enough because, due to the high level of autonomy, schools are free to decide how to reach learning outcomes and involve other institutions (European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). Where is democracy going in Italy? And in many other Western countries where civil liberties, pluralism and rights are more and more submitted to the so-called security and economic alerts? How can we call creating and classifying citizens with different rights, opportunities and privileges by the term “democracy”? It is necessary to (re)start from education, to rethink how new generations can be educated in democracy so they can actively participate and engage in their citizenship. As Morin has already said (1999b), democracy needs antagonism, diversity (of interests and ideas) and conflicts of opinions, but at the same it must protect the rights of minorities and the expression of

From citizenship to transversal skills

109

different ideas. What we need is the ability to understand other cultures, people and nations to become open democratic societies. Understanding across different thought structures requires the ability to pass through a meta-thought structure that can understand the causes of incomprehension from one to another, and overcome it. Understanding is both the means and end of human communication. Our planet needs mutual understanding in all directions. Given the importance of education for understanding, on all educational levels and for all ages, the development of understanding demands a planetary reform of mentalities: this is a task for education of the future. (Morin, 1999b:55) And this ability must be practiced while young people grow up and exercise their skills, not only of active listening, dialogue and conflict resolution but also of curiosity, empathy, problem posing and solving, group work and collaboration in all the subjects learned at school or university. With this framework, The classroom should be a place where students learn the rules of debate and fair discussion, awareness of necessities and procedures of understanding the other’s thinking, hearing out and respecting minority and deviant voices. Learning to understand others should be a major element in democratic apprenticeship. (Morin, 1999b:61) It is necessarily a thought reform. Thought reform would require change in teaching (in primary school, secondary school, university) that in turn would require transformation of thought. Clearly, the democratization of the right to think would require a paradigm revolution which would allow complex thought to reorganize knowledge and connect the fields of knowledge that today are confined within the disciplines (Morin, 1999a). In other words, each teacher (of all ages in school) should feel responsible for citizenship education. In an increasingly complex, globalized and individualized society, migratory movements generate tensions between cultures and religions that provoke tensions and fears. In response, democratic institutions risk the weakening and loss of social cohesion, of solidarity, of precise meaning because everything seems to become indifferent and useless. Against anything goes, the substantial indifference to anything, it is necessary that a sense of civic-ness, citizenship and the link between citizens is solid, as should be also the sense of identity and belonging to the same community, to cultures “internally heterogeneous, contested, dynamic and constantly changing” (CoE, 2016:21). It is only with the promotion of this citizenship that processes of inclusion can be supported and thus avoid a drift towards an increasingly more authoritarian and unequal society. Civic education becomes an instrument for the construction and

110

Federica Zanetti and Elena Pacetti

strengthening of national and European identity and the values that underpin Western democracies (Pacetti, 2017). “Education (teaching complexity and critical thinking) is the most important innovation – and challenge – of our times” (Dominici, 2018:8), and it needs adequate policies and reforms.

Notes 1 The first IEA study was in 1971, and civic education was part of six subjects studied; the second study, called CIVED (Civic Education Study), was in 1999; the third one, ICCS (International Civic and Citizenship Education Study), was in 2009, and the fourth one, again ICCS, was in 2016. The next study will be in 2022 (ICCS, 2018). 2 In 2016, 24 countries participated in the research for a total of more than 94,000 students, 37,000 teachers and 3,800 schools (Schulz et al., 2018:xv). 3 For more information about Italian citizenship, see www.esteri.it/mae/en/servizi/italianiall-estero/cittadinanza.html 4 www.facebook.com/Insegnanti-per-la-cittadinanza-725812144286478 5 To teach in secondary school, a master’s degree in the subject you want to teach is sufficient. These curricula are not offering a specific preparation in teaching/learning methodologies, classroom management, school’s law and curriculum and so on. 6 These materials include disciplinary guidance, national curriculum manuals, ministerial regulations or decrees and competency frameworks.

References Baruzzi, B. (2003) ‘Educare alla cittadinanza e alla democrazia’ in Baruzzi, V. and Baldoni, A. (eds.) La democrazia s’impara. Imola: La Mandragora, pp. 51–79. Bocchi, G. and Ceruti, M. (2004) Educazione e globalizzazione. Milano: Raffaello Cortina Editore. Camarlinghi, R. (2014) ‘L’eresia dell’impegno in un Paese in emergenza civiltà’ in Animazione sociale, n.281. Torino: Edizioni Gruppo Abele. Camera dei Deputati, XVII Legislatura, Commissione per i diritti e i doveri relativi ad Internet, Dichiarazione dei diritti in internet, 28 luglio 2015. Available at: www.camera. it/application/xmanager/projects/leg17/commissione_internet/TESTO_ITALIANO_ DEFINITVO_2015.pdf (Accessed 9 July 2018). Caponera, E. (2017) ICCS 2016: I risultati degli studenti italiani. Roma: INVALSI. Available at: www.invalsi.it/invalsi/ri/iea-doc/iccs2016/Presentazione_Elisa_Caponera.pdf (Accessed 20 December 2018). Ceccarini, L. (2015) La cittadinanza online. Bologna: Il Mulino. Colombo, E., Domaneschi, L. and Marchetti, C. (2009) Una nuova generazione di italiani. L’idea di cittadinanza tra i giovani figli di immigrati. Milano: FrancoAngeli. Corradini, L. (ed.) (2009) Cittadinanza e Costituzione. Disciplinarità e trasversalità alla prova della sperimentazione nazionale. Una guida teorico pratica per i docenti. Napoli: Tecnodid Editrice. Corradini, L. (2011) La Costituzione nella scuola: difficoltà e prospettive. Available at: www. lucianocorradini.it/pubblicazioni/la-costituzione-nella-scuola-difficolta-e-prospettive.html (Accessed 16 March 2019). Corradini, L. and Mari, G. (2019) Educazione alla cittadinanza e insegnamento della Costituzione. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Council of Europe (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Democratically Diverse Democratic Societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

From citizenship to transversal skills

111

Dominici, P. (2018) ‘For an Inclusive Innovation: Healing the Fracture between the Human and the Technological’ European Journal of Future Research, 6 (3), pp.  1–10. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40309-017-0126-4 (Accessed 2 January 2019). The Economist Intelligence Unit (2019) Democracy Index 2018: Me Too? Political Participation, Protest and Democracy. Available at: www.eiu.com/public/thankyou_download.aspx? activity=download&campaignid=Democracy2018 (Accessed 15 March 2019). European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2017) Citizenship Education at School in Europe – 2017: Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. ICCS (2018) History. Available at: https://iccs.iea.nl/about-iccs/history.html (Accessed 17 December 2018). INVALSI – Gruppo di ricerca ICCS 2016 (2017) Indagine IEA 2016 ICCS: i risultati degli studenti italiani in Educazione civica e alla cittadinanza. Available at: www.invalsi.it/invalsi/ri/ iea-doc/iccs2016/Rapporto_ICCS_2016_definitivo.pdf (Accessed 18 December 2018). Lorenzoni, F. (2017) A scuola di democrazia: perché tutti i bambini sono cittadini. Available at: www.internazionale.it/video/2017/10/16/ius-soli-scuola-democrazia-bambini (Accessed 15 December 2018). Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Damiani, V. and Schulz, W. (2018) Young People’s Perceptions of Europe in a Time of Change: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 European Report. Amsterdam: Springer Open. MIUR (2012) Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo delle scuole dell’infanzia e del primo ciclo d’istruzione (National Guidelines for the Curriculum of Kindergarten School and the First Cycle of Education). Available at: www.indicazioninazionali.it/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/08/Indicazioni_Annali_Definitivo.pdf (Accessed 15 November 2018). Morin, E. (1999a) La tête bien faite: Repenser la réforme et Réformer la pensée. Paris: Seuil. Morin, E. (1999b) Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future. Paris: UNESCO. Morin, E., Ciurana, E. and Motta, R. D. (2004) Educare per l’era planetaria. Il pensiero complesso come metodo di apprendimento. Roma: Armando. Morozov, E. (2011) The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York, USA: PublicAffairs. Pacetti, E. (2017) ‘Il contesto e il clima organizzativo: l’interdipendenza positiva tra enti e volontari per promuovere l’impegno civico e di cittadinanza’ in Il servizio civile tra valori civici e competenze di cittadinanza. riflessioni da una ricerca. Trento: Erickson, pp. 171–204. Pancer, S. M. (2015) The Psychology of Citizenship and Civic Engagement. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press. Santerini, M. (2001) Educare alla cittadinanza. La pedagogia e le sfide della globalizzazione. Roma: Carocci. Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G. and Friedman, T. (2018) Becoming Citizens in a Changing World: IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International Report. Springer Open. Available at: https://link.springer.com/ book/10.1007per cent2F978-3-319-73963-2. (Accessed 28 December 2018). Zanetti, F. (2013) ‘The Relationship between School and the Local Community: A View to Education, to Citizenship and to Active Citizenship’ in Pumilia-Gnarini, P. M., Favaron, E., Pacetti, E., Bishop, J. and Guerra, L. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Didactic Strategies and Technologies for Education: Incorporating Advancement. 2 Volumes. Hershey, USA: Igi Global, pp. Ixxii–Ixxxi.

Chapter 8

The evolving concept of democracy in the Kosovo education system Reflections on the role of teacher education Blerim Saqipi

Introduction Understanding the concept of democracy though a universal focus needs to be viewed more thoroughly and deeply within specific contexts. Two important dimensions comprise the framework of viewing this concept within teacher education and the school system in Kosovo. One dimension is related to education, which reflects the social and political context of Kosovo, while the other is related to the evolution of teacher professionalism in the country over the last two decades. The concept of democratic citizenship, along with other values, could very often be overlooked in teacher education programmes and in teacher practice due to school systems and traditions prioritising more traditional academic disciplines and skills. In education systems where academic achievement is very low, such as Kosovo’s, it may be expected that democracy and values are overshadowed by other agendas such as developing skills for economic development. Education for democracy is a broader term within which the concept of education for democratic citizenship is often found. Education for citizenship can be understood at various levels of precision: either as civics, a focused subject, or as broader citizenship education based on various subjects providing social and political competences (Reid et al., 2013). Another approach is Dewey’s (1990) conception of education as uniting individual citizens and their society based on democratic values and practices. Garrat (2000) indicated that citizenship ‘has three strands: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy.’ One way of defining citizenship is to define it in terms of the civil, the political and the social (Garrat, 2000). These concepts originate from Marshall (1950) and are still relevant to societies today. The difference may be the conceptualisation and understanding of specific dimensions of citizenship as they have evolved in relation to how societies have developed. Similarly, the prioritisation of one dimension of citizenship is also related to the challenges of political and societal developments of the particular country.

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

113

Even advanced education systems may find themselves in situations where concepts such as democracy and democratic citizenship are not given due attention in school curricula and teacher education. Lee and Fouts (2005) as quoted by Hahn (2015) reported on a cross-national study of teacher understandings of what ‘good citizenship’ meant in Australia, England, the United States, Russia and China. This study was based on survey and interview data, and researchers found that across these countries teachers emphasised the social dimensions of citizenship over the intellectual and political dimensions, with the words ‘moral’ and ‘duty’ among the priorities of educators in all five countries. This chapter will provide an historical overview of the development of the concept of democracy in Kosovar society and teacher education as Kosovo was emerging as a democratic and independent state. The data for this study includes the analysis of policy documents such as legislation and curricula documents, teacher education curricula and data collected from surveying two cohorts of students in the teacher education programme at the University of Prishtina in Kosovo. The purpose of the chapter is to provide an insight into how the Kosovar context provides meaning to democracy in a new perspective by bringing the important social and political connections into the discussion of how school systems could address the development of democratic culture within such a school setting. The findings are analysed in relation to the Competences for Democratic Culture produced by the Council of Europe (CoE, 2016).

Historical perspective and political background to democracy Kosovo is Europe’s youngest country and also has the youngest population in Europe. It declared its independence in 2008 following decades of hardship. It emerged from the former communist Yugoslavia, and its path to independence was associated with numerous challenges involving a tragic war which reached its peak in 1998 and 1999. In a situation in which people were forced to leave their homes and innocent Albanian civilians were killed, the western democratic countries intervened (led by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) and marked the end of the Serb repressive regime in June 1999. This provided an opportunity for the majority Albanian population to restore order, life and democracy. From 1999 until 2008 (the declaration of independence of Kosovo) the country was managed under the international protectorate of the United Nations as a way to establish democratic institutions. While the local population started to build its democratic system, the education system was a major pillar of life that needed to be addressed. Ever since, education reform has been at the forefront of debate and criticism in the country. Survival period: The period of the 1990s is very specific to Kosovo’s development. The concept of democracy, and the role of education in fostering it

114

Blerim Saqipi

in Kosovo, should be seen from historical and political angles during that period. Basic human rights for the majority of the Albanian population were openly violated especially during the decades of the 1980s and 1990s in Kosovo. During the decade of the latter, education for the majority of the Albanian speaking population was banned, and people organised an underground education system. The role of education during the 1990s was patriotic as it kept people connected to the cause of freedom and democracy. University students and staff were permanently the leaders of the peaceful protests during the late 1980s and 1990s, acting as the main resistance operating against but under a severe regime. Education had the mission of keeping people engaged for a better future and developing respect for basic human rights and values. The motivation behind running an education system in very dangerous circumstances could be described by the terms ‘resistance’ and ‘civic disobedience.’ The motivation of the people involved in education during the parallel functioning of the Kosovar Albanian education system was very high, as they believed education was the only tool for survival. However, at that time, the democracy conceptions that were adopted were not about respecting others; they were more about fighting for democracy and freedom. The operation of an underground school system in Kosovo was and is a unique case. The mobilisation of local people was focused on providing their homes and donating resources for the school system to operate and for children to be educated in their mother tongue. Teachers worked for little payment in classrooms that were parts of Kosovars’ homes. This had implications in terms of the quality of education provided, given the circumstances and limited resources that were available for managing the education system in Kosovo during the 1990s. Stabilisation: The period of 1999 until 2008 can be described as a period of stabilisation in many dimensions. From an education perspective, this period marked the stage when Kosovo developed a new curriculum in 2001. The process was supported by numerous donors operating in post-war Kosovo, led by the United Nations administration which was managing the institutional development in the form of protectorate as a transitional measure. The new 2001 curriculum marked a significant development for the education system in Kosovo as it provided the first formal curriculum to be integrated in developing a post-conflict society. For the first time, issues of respecting other ethnicities and cultures were reflected in the school curriculum. The aim was to build a new Kosovo in which co-existence was a major value and respecting otherness was promoted as a core value by policy makers in education and politics. The approach to this could be characterised as more ‘top down’; policy makers promoted and advocated it, but there was little evidence of its translation into classroom practice (Saqipi, 2019).

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

115

Development: During the efforts to improve the education system, Kosovo embarked on a new curriculum reform which advanced the concept of outcomes-based education. The new curriculum (endorsed in 2011) adopted the competence-based approach emphasising the following competences: effective communicator, creative thinker, successful learner, productive contributor, healthy individual and responsible citizen. The responsible citizenship competence links to the goal of developing democratic citizenship. In this curriculum reform, Kosovo attempted to model its curriculum on what it considered to be good practice models. In general, Kosovo had been following the Global Education Reform Movement which is characterised by developing uniformity in education policies across countries (Sahlberg, 2011). This global reform movement has had a common trend of having a prescribed curriculum and managed professionalism that places teacher autonomy at risk. Kosovo education policy making has followed largely this same philosophy during the last decades (Saqipi, 2014). In situations where politics is closely connected to education and the inter-ethnic tensions still exist in relation to how different communities coexist, the concept of developing a culturally responsive curriculum to address the particular challenge gains more importance. A culturally responsive curriculum and instruction that links the present to the past whilst always thinking about the future perhaps best addresses the achievement of these goals. Contextualising pedagogy by connecting it to local communities and to their students’ lives and culture is a necessary first step. Media, popular culture and others tools should be integrated to enhance such learning (White, 2015). In some ways, Kosovo has addressed all these elements when planning curriculum reform. However, much remains to be done in ensuring teachers act upon these principles in classroom practice.

Conceptualising democracy The reform of teacher education can be considered from the perspective of teacher education being a policy or training issue (Cochran-Smith, 2005). A similar question can be raised in relation to whether the challenge of educating teachers to teach democratic citizenship is viewed as a policy problem or a training problem. The two dimensions are not necessarily exclusive and can be correlated. Education reform in Kosovo has focused on the debate of democracy and citizenship more at the policy than practice level. The view is to provide more space for these concepts to be included in school and teacher education curricula than into teaching and learning pedagogies. The extent to which these values are, or are not, fostered and developed among the young generations is a critical issue. Among the scant research accomplished regarding democratic citizenship is a survey (conducted in 2012) and its findings released by the Kosovo Education

116

Blerim Saqipi

Centre (KEC) and the Zurich University of Teacher Education in 2014 (KEC, 2014). The survey was administered in 171 schools and included 1700 grade eight students. The survey had four dimensions: knowledge of citizenship; participation and civic activities; the related beliefs and values; and the role of schools in education for democratic citizenship. The survey revealed some important findings in terms of how young generations perceive issues related to the concept of democratic citizenship. The findings pointed to an inclination towards gender bias (a large number stating that males should have priority for jobs), lack of participation in various activities and resistance towards dividing the state school and religion (56.5 per cent answered ‘Disagree’ and ‘Strongly Disagree’). Although the survey was administered in 2012, its findings are still relevant today. School reform in Kosovo has attempted to pay attention to the concepts of democratic citizenship and promoting values that society has championed. Nevertheless, the question still remains whether or not schools are nurturing the values that both society and state have assigned to the school system. Above all, students need to know how to impact the global system as world citizens and as advocates of a well-grounded position or point of view. This suggests that students must acquire both a new knowledge base and a new skill set (White, 2018). Traditionally, initial teacher education has mainly focused on subject knowledge and understanding embedded within the programme for new students; however, it is always a challenge to ensure that the graduates possess the skills to translate and transfer subject knowledge through effective pedagogic practice. Policy projections of democracy and citizenship

The 2011 Kosovo Curriculum Framework (KCF; Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [MEST], 2011) was seen as a mechanism to push the school system towards achieving the education vision agreed upon for Kosovo’s future generations. The purpose of this curriculum was to shift the education provision from an objectives approach to a learning outcomes approach. The 2001 curriculum was considered to be content and input oriented whereas teacher practice was oriented towards information processing and transferring knowledge and content to the students. The 2011 KCF (MEST, 2011) emphasises the need to organise teaching and learning around core sets of competences which correspond with the European Union’s 21st-century competences: • • • • • •

Communication and expression competences – Effective communicator Thinking competences – Creative thinker Learning competences – Successful learner Life, work and environment-related competences – Productive contributor Personal competences – Healthy individual Civic competences – Responsible citizen

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

117

Curriculum competences reflect the civic competence which entails the elements of respect for the state, otherness and so forth, which resonates with the CoE’s Competences for Democratic Culture (2016). Furthermore, the purpose of education according to the 2011 KCF is: • • • • •

Cultivating the personal and national, state and cultural identity Promotion of general cultural and citizenship values Developing responsibility towards oneself, others, society and environment Developing entrepreneurship and use of technology Developing life-long learning skills

The purpose of education as defined in the curriculum framework for preuniversity education emphasises the promotion of cultural and citizenship values. According to Freire (1970), all education should be focused on efficacy and empowerment of both students and teachers. Hence, the teacher education system should aim to view the competences as constructs that not only reflect certain knowledge and skills but also aim to empower prospective teachers in the direction that the school system wants to drive societal development. So far, little is known about how teacher education in Kosovo reflects those principles. Within this study, a survey was administered to two cohorts of students in the teacher education programme at the University of Prishtina, the biggest provider of teacher education in Kosovo. The purpose of the survey was to see how student teachers and teachers understood the concept of democracy as defined by the CoE (2016) as well as how they interacted with this concept in practice. The students surveyed were completing the last course of teacher education at Bachelors level or were at the Masters level (working teachers and qualified teachers not working but continuing Masters studies). The survey included open-ended questions on (i) what was their understanding of the terms ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic culture,’ (ii) how did they feel teacher education prepared them in understanding the concept of democracy and applying it in school practice and (iii) what concepts of democracy and civics they found most difficult to apply in practice. Table 8.1 presents a summary of the topics that were raised in student reflective writing. Student reflections were grouped into the categories of how they currently understood the concept of democratic culture and how they thought the concept of democracy and democratic citizenship was reflected at classroom level. The analysis was done by referring to the CoE’s (2016) definition of democratic culture. The themes and concepts summarised in Table 8.1 are ranked based on the frequency of appearance in student reflections. The analysis of concepts can be compared with the Council of Europe’s competences (CoE, 2016) based on their relevance to the educational system specifics. Given the Kosovo context as being a post-communist country and one that has gone through decades of hardships and oppression, the themes of freedom of expression, rule of law

118

Blerim Saqipi

Table 8.1 Student teachers understanding and practicing democracy Understanding of democratic culture

Realities in practice

Freedom of expression Rule of law Fairness Respecting state Cooperation with others Communication with others Active citizenship and participation in decision making Accountability Empathy Respect for diversity Respect for otherness

Lack of coordination between school and family on values development Theoretical preparation for concepts Theory-praxis gap Able to provide debates Lack of practical situations Large number of students in class a restriction Lack of professional development for in-service teachers Lack of reference materials

and fairness understandably were the ones that appeared most frequently in student reflections. On considering the Marshall (1950) definitions of citizenship, it can be inferred that student teachers and teachers in Kosovo have an inclination to overemphasize political citizenship as opposed to the moral and social orientation. It is clear this has roots in the political and historical context of the country. Undergoing a recent war and a decades-long history of violation of the Albanian population’s human rights has to be recognised as a very important variable. An equally important dimension is to look at how student teachers feel about addressing concepts of democracy and citizenship education, both in relation to how they were prepared by their teacher education programme and the realities they have been facing day to day. The reflections of participants in this survey were analysed, and the resulting findings show that teacher education in Kosovo addresses the concept of democracy and citizenship education by seeing it as a theme that is addressed within a single course. The interpretation of this data shows that the Kosovar practice of teacher education is still far from treating the concept of democracy as a cross cutting theme to be integrated within the teaching of various subjects, or even to be reflected upon as an underpinning value or philosophy. The surveyed student teachers were critical of how they were prepared and how much they are able to address the culture of democracy in the daily practice in schools. Many say they are not able to practice the theoretical concepts in the classroom context because of a lack of family cooperation on the matter of values development, as well as the preparation in initial teacher education for teaching democracy remaining only at the theoretical level. In addition, the survey data identified those elements of the school system that are important factors in impeding the teaching and learning of democratic concepts, such as lack of reference materials, lack of professional

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

119

development support in-service, large number of students in the class and lack of coordination with family on developing important values.

Democracy in teacher education curricula The analysis of a sample of teacher education curricula at the University of Prishtina’s Faculty of Education was conducted to understand the extent to which the concepts of democracy are reflected. An overall assessment leads to the conclusion that the concepts of democracy are downplayed to a set of generic skills. The analysis was focused on pre-primary and primary teacher education and two subject teacher education programmes (Masters in teaching history and Masters in teaching geography). The selection of these two Masters programmes was based on the understanding that graduates of these two programmes are expected to teach civics education in addition to their main subject. A general finding is that the concepts of democracy and democratic citizenship are mostly reflected in the general education courses while the more academic or subject pedagogy courses presently have little integration of these concepts. In the Masters programme on teaching history there are courses on conflict resolution and teaching marginalized groups. Traditionally, in the Kosovo school system teachers of history were also teaching courses on citizenship within the curriculum. However, the broader democratic culture concepts are not reflected as umbrella principles or objectives of the curriculum and are more focused at course level. Primary teacher education has one specific course on civics education which addresses the selected knowledge, skills and attitudes for democratic culture focusing on avoiding negative behaviours, understanding and respecting differences, ethnic backgrounds and creating democratic culture. The values’ dimension, however, is ignored in this course as well, despite the fact that the new Kosovo curriculum foresees responsible citizenship as a core principle. One can conclude that teacher education curricula reflect the dimension of skills such as the generic skills of communication, listening and learning. These are generic skills not necessarily related to democracy but are prerequisite skills for developing democratic culture. In addition to what the prospective teachers are directed to learn in terms of democracy and citizenship, it is also how teacher education approaches the concept of teaching future teachers to act in a particular school context. Zinn (1980) and Loewen (1995) both suggest that social studies and history education should by their very nature focus on culturally responsive approaches. They also suggest that denying voice, perspective and culture in both content and pedagogy are antithetical to democratic ideals. According to Gay (2000), culturally responsive teaching is validating, comprehensive, multidimensional, empowering, transformative and emancipatory for the students of different cultures in Kosovo’s schools; hence this discussion about the need to give

120

Blerim Saqipi

students more knowledge and skills as advocated by the CoE competences for democratic culture (2016). A rethinking and reorienting is greatly needed to balance curriculum and instruction in schools, particularly if students are to be prepared for 21stcentury life (Maitles, 2013). This entails mandating critical citizenship education beyond the narrow confines of minimum standards. Doing citizenship is really the approach that should be taken by promoting service programmes and projects, internships and partnerships with community organisations and government entities, as well as problem- and project-based investigations in classrooms. Citizenship education necessitates investigating and debating relevant issues and controversies, cooperative and collaborative engagement and active and interactive learning by going beyond the four walls of the classroom and allowing for critique and questioning (Maitles, 2013). So it is truly much more than planning the content of teacher education curricula and delivering it well. It is also about externalising, reflecting and debating upon individual and social democratic processes and experiences. The data from this study show hardly any evidence that teacher education in Kosovo has taken its students through such processes and experiences.

Understanding the importance of teacher practice context When understanding the realities of teachers enacting specific concepts and practices at the classroom level, it is important to note that the contexts of those practices represent an important factor. The educational system in Kosovo has undergone continuous reform with the aim of transforming the professional practice of teachers. Within this effort, there has been continuous reform of teacher education policy (Saqipi, 2019) in order to re-shape professional practices that lead towards student-centred and improved quality of student learning and experiences. Kosovo has conducted two major curriculum reforms in the last two decades (one initiated in 2001 and one in 2011 which is still at the initial stages of implementation). Both reforms are aimed at transforming teacher practice towards a student-centred approach. Whilst this new conception of teaching has been clearly emphasised in the last curriculum reform, there was no other major substantial change in terms of expectations from younger generations. The old curriculum had a greater emphasis on content whereas the new curriculum was oriented towards competences which include the development of civic competence as one of the main objectives (Saqipi, 2019; Tahirsylaj, 2018). However, the focus still remains on traditional subjects when implementing the curriculum at a practical level. The emphasis is placed on more traditional subjects as compared to cross curricular themes such as democracy and citizenship is not new (Garrat, 2000), and those challenges have been evident in the

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

121

Kosovo school context. Themes such as citizenship and democracy have until recently been taught as individual subjects expecting to address the various concepts related to values that are advocated among new generations as well as knowledge about the state and political and social structures in the national context. Reform of the curriculum to reflect citizenship as a core curriculum competence has marked a shift in curriculum policy in Kosovo. The expectation is that competences are addressed across curriculum subjects; however, this is still at the level of planning and initial reform implementation. As a result teachers are inclined to look at their narrow subject content rather than link with other subjects or address the relevant cross cutting themes. This phenomenon has a high impact on how change is managed through curricula and provides insights into two dimensions of Kosovo curriculum reform in last decades. First, it emphasises the fact that there is policy-praxis gap that is very significant and evident in the Kosovo education system and as such should not be underestimated (Saqipi, 2019b). Second, it also emphasises the fact that the education reform agenda has been very ambitious in Kosovo as attempts were made to move quickly from a rote memorisation approach towards sophisticated competence-oriented teaching, reflecting a set of core competences. This study has indicated that teacher understanding of the true meaning of citizenship and democracy education is crucial. Citizenship education makes it necessary to investigate and debate relevant issues and controversies, to provide cooperative and collaborative engagement and to engage in active and interactive learning by getting beyond the four walls of the classroom and allowing for critique and questioning (Maitles, 2013). In order to achieve this goal, it is not sufficient for teacher education to simply provide information and knowledge on the meaning of those concepts. Also, the understanding of democracy and citizenship in the Kosovo system is mainly oriented towards the political dimension, referring to rule of law and respecting the state. This is explained by the recent and present circumstances of the political and societal development in the country. It cannot be assumed that the content of teacher education curricula directly shapes the behaviour of teachers in school regarding education for democratic culture. Without serious discussion of the citizenship competency content, educators will not be able to tackle the conditions of ethnic divisions, political corruption and economic disparity that justified Kosovo’s classification as a fragile state (Otting, 2018). Although input in teacher education is of paramount importance, there are other dimensions that are equally significant such as the personal and professional elements of who teachers are and how schools, the teaching profession and curriculum policies are managed. Planning and enacting the change process to enhance teaching democracy and citizenship needs to incorporate these dimensions into the discussion. However, the key to success is how to establish

122

Blerim Saqipi

democracy and citizenship as themes that are taught across a number of courses rather than as a theoretical one-off input to students.

Conclusion While any school system promotes certain values and dispositions through teacher education and school processes and outcomes, the stages of development and how the concept of democratic culture is understood and practiced differ. These differences are important and grounded in specifics of an education system and its society. Understanding democracy is often narrowly perceived and underemphasised due to the increasing focus on performativity agendas and a skills focused approach to foster an economic development agenda. Democracy and citizenship cannot be taught as isolated concepts. They are broad concepts that encompass skills and values. The important aspect is how prospective teachers are prepared to act in relevant contexts as they transition to school. Teacher education in Kosovo reflects the concepts of democracy and citizenship in a rather contrived manner owing to its political and education developments over the last two decades. Most of the concepts related to democracy and citizenship are addressed within one single course in general teacher education programmes or in a selected number of courses when the programme aims at training teachers to teach civics education. The Kosovo experience shows that the development of democracy and citizenship occur in different stages, influenced by the contextual circumstances in which they are embedded. In Kosovo, these stages are first related to the political and then to social and moral conceptions. This can be argued along the lines of Dewey’s notion of democracy that individuals are revealed as they relate to the societies in which they are embedded. Hence it is important that in dealing with the development of democracy there should be a socio-cultural approach (see Vygotsky, 1979, for the approach). Kosovo teacher education needs to recognise the limitation that teachers cannot become agents of developing democratic culture in schools by only being provided input through a transmissive approach in individual courses. Democracy is about action and application, and teacher education has to reflect this principle. What is done to ensure meaningful education for citizenship and democracy is vital today – thus the need to rethink how teacher education teaches these concepts. Teacher education often effectively preaches democracy, but modelling and allowing critical democracy through the concept of youth participatory politics should be the goal. The Kosovo context clearly shows how politics and history have shaped its basis for the development of democracy and how teacher professional practice realities determine the level in which this concept is addressed. The Kosovo context needs a combined top-down and bottom-up approach in addressing the concept of democracy and citizenship in its education system.

The evolving concept of democracy in Kosovo

123

Kosovo teacher education has planned limited content, more in primary than in secondary teacher education. However, the feedback from practicing teachers and student teachers shows that there has to be development at the school level, and more importantly family input too, in order to ensure that progress is made towards achieving the aspired goal. The key is to ensure the shift from political focus towards social and moral purpose as well as community involvement in developing a shared understanding and action for evolving democratic culture. The need for a clear purpose and strategy in Kosovar teacher education is essential.

References Cochran-Smith, M. (2005) ‘The New Teacher Education: For Better or for Worse?’ Educational Researcher, 34 (7), pp. 3–17. Council of Europe (CoE) (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture: Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/16806ccc07 (Accessed 15 June 2019). Dewey, J. (1990) The School and Society: The Child and the Curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Press. Garratt, D. (2000) ‘Democratic Citizenship in the Curriculum: Some Problems and Possibilities’ Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 8 (3), pp. 323–346. Gay, G. (2000) Culturally Responsive Teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Hahn, C. L. (2015) ‘Teachers’ Perceptions of Education for Democratic Citizenship in Schools with Transnational Youth: A Comparative Study in the UK and Denmark’ Research in Comparative and International Education, 10 (1), pp. 95–119. KEC. (Kosovo Education Centre) (2014) Concepts of Citizenship among Schools Students in Kosovo. Prishtina (Kosovo): KEC. Available at: www.kec-ks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ botime_036-english.pdf (Accessed 10 July 2019). Lee, W. O., and Fouts, J. T. (2005) Education for Social Citizenship: Perceptions of Teachers in the USA, Australia, England, Russia, and China. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Loewen, J. (1995) Lies My Teacher Told Me. New York: Touchstone. Maitles, H. (2013) ‘What Type of Citizenship Education?’ UN Chronicle, 50 (4), pp. 17–20. Marshall, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) (2011) Kosovo Curriculum Framework. Prishtina (Kosovo): MEST. Otting, J. (2018) ‘Rendering Technical the Responsible Citizen: Implementing Citizenship Education Reform in Kosovo’ Journal of Comparative and International Education, 48 (3), pp. 451–466. Reid, A., Gill, J. and Sears, A. (eds.) (2013) Globalization, the Nation-State and the Citizen: Dilemmas and Directions for Civics and Citizenship Education. London: Routledge. Sahlberg, P. (2011) ‘The Fourth Way of Finland’ Journal of Educational Change, 12 (2), pp. 173–185. Saqipi, B. (2014) Developing Teacher Professionalism and Identity in the Midst of Large-Scale Education Reform: The Case of Kosovo. Doctoral dissertation, Tuope, Jyväskylä.

124

Blerim Saqipi

Saqipi, B. (2019) ‘Teacher Education Policy Discourse in the Midst of System Reorganisation and Policy Transfer: Lessons for Small and Developing Countries’ International Journal of Management in Education, 13 (1), pp. 28–39. Saqipi, B. (2019b) ‘Understanding the Relation between Policy Discourse and ReConceptualizing Curriculum: Kosovo’s Perspective on New Meaning of Context’ CEPS Journal, 2, pp. 33–52. Tahirsylaj, A. (2018) ‘Curriculum Reform as a Political Statement in Developing Contexts: A Discursive and Non-Affirmative Approach’ Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 15 (2), pp. 38–49. Vygotsky, L. S. (1979) ‘Consciousness as a Problem in the Psychology of Behavior’ Soviet Psychology, 17 (4), pp. 3–35. White, C. (2015) ‘Linking Present and Past through Culturally Responsive Teaching’ Social Studies Texan, 31 (1). White, C. (2018) Internationalizing Education: Local to Global Connections for 21st Century. Boston: Brille Sense. Zinn, H. (1980) A People’s History of the United States. New York: Harper Collins.

Chapter 9

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making Towards alternative ways to do alternative forms of teacher education João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

Introduction Relying on critical, post-critical, and de/anti-colonial perspectives, this chapter will dissect the concept and practices of citizenship education in initial teacher education in Europe with a focus on Portugal. It is a case study that attempts to unveil how to produce alternative ways to do alternative forms (Santos, 2014) of teacher education as a way to challenge curriculum epistemicides (Paraskeva, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2018) and to decolonize citizenship formations. In doing so, the chapter examines a teacher education project at a Portuguese university that places itinerant pedagogical and curriculum inquiry (Paraskeva, 2011) as the driving force for initial teacher education at a postgraduate level as one of the social engines of a just Union against the backdrop of rising xenophobia, islamophobia, and right wing extremist parties.

Decolonizing citizenship One cannot address the concept of a just citizenship education without connecting it to the wider processes of neoliberal globalization taking place in the European space, especially at a moment when Europe is facing unprecedent massive waves of citizens from Africa and other parts of the world. They seek a place in Europe, due to poverty, exploitation, starvation, violence, rape, slavery, human traffic, and traffic of organs. Notwithstanding their own citizenship praxis, they are insultingly labelled ‘as immigrants’ from and within the modern Western Eurocentric way of reading the wor(l)d, as if like any human beings in world, they do not have the supreme right to fight for their own lives and existence. Undeniably, globalization and massive migrations “are changing the ways we experience national identities and cultural belonging [yet paradoxically] difference is becoming increasingly normative” (Suárez-Orozco and QinHilliard, 2004:3). To invite Bauman (1998) to our examination, the ‘tourists and vagabonds’ grid has been complexified, de-manichaeisticized.

126

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

Despite the gargantuan global inequality, poverty, exploitation, oppression, and its nefarious human consequences, instead of a move towards more social justice, one alarmingly witnesses the resurgence of vigorous far-right authoritarian, populist, and fascist impulses, paving the way for an overt attack against immigrants raising serious concerns of the return of an unwanted close past. The ideological anti-ideological swamp triggered by decades of neoliberal power is showing its invoice. This chapter argues that the concept and praxis of citizenship needs to be re-thought out of the ideological straitjacket mechanisms imposed by the modern Western Eurocentric epistemological grid. It implies to be openly delinked from such a (n)eugenic matrix and to be rethought ‘where one stands in terms of the recognition (Honneth, 1995; Fraser, 2003) of a pluriversal epistemologically populated world socially, culturally, and economically developed by an endless multitude of identities and citizens(hips)’ formations. It implies a decolonial turn, to walk towards not resistance but ‘re-existence’ (Walsh, 2018) against the unending sagas of oppressed communities and social dynamics; it pushes for the need for a radical co-presence against the monoculture of knowledge (Santos, 2007). It implies to fight for just civic values – epistemologically pluriversal – rather than some elusive ‘common heritage’ that usually means stressing Greco-Roman or Judeo-Christian heritages as the lay foundation of Europe (Nóvoa and DeJong-Lambert, 2003:48). As a concept lost in a jungle of different and sometimes even opposing meanings, citizenship can either be a basic instrument for political and juridical emancipation or a discriminatory practice in its exercise, as history has repeatedly shown over the centuries through social phenomena like slavery, aporophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-gypsyism, islamophobia, xenophobia, homophobia, and other  -isms and phobias. However, citizenship is not a monolithic identity formation, and current dominant/official citizenship archeological formations cannot be examined out of the modern Western Eurocentric matrix, a matrix that sustains a vision and existence of a humanity that is only conceivable through a sub-humanity (Santos, 2014). That is, dominant (and some counterdominant) citizenship formations and its praxis need to be re-escalated, reaching above and beyond non-Western non-Eurocentric ways of civic culture, public sphere, and political participation. Modern Western Eurocentric citizenship formations have been targeted by the decolonial advocates (Dussel, 1995; Quijano, 2000; Maldonado-Torres, 2008; Grosfoguel, 2010; Mignolo, 2012), forms of citizenship that are profoundly (n)eugenic and erupted right at the first ‘encounter’ between Europeans and non-Europeans, a mythical encounter that gave birth to ‘the other’. Under the yoke of neoliberal globalization (Paraskeva and Torres Santome, 2012; Paraskeva, 2018), the latest coloniality metamorphoses-habitus, as Bourdieu (1993) would put it, such as civic participation in the public sphere and decision-making, forces one to question not just whose civic participation one is talking about, but whose public and whose decisions? Who benefits? To address such difficult questions – arguably among the most crucial questions facing critical educators – McLaren (1998:355)

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

127

claims, it is crucial not to think “who are you, but where are you”, an issue so overtly absent from teacher education programs nowadays. From where should these civic values come from, in a hyper-complex society marked by multiculturalism, diversity, and difference at all levels? A just citizenship, the very core of a world this chapter supports (Amin, 2008), needs to confront questions of difference and dissent that undergird social inequality, poverty, exploitation, human trafficking, ethnical cleansing, and genocide, a struggle that cannot avoid the “decolonization of citizenship as part of a project of radical democracy that is grounded in the specific, not abstracted, struggles of ordinary people” (Maira, 2004:226–227). In doing so, education and teacher preparation programs are placed in a decolonial path, one that will help debunk modern Western Eurocentric abyssal reasoning: of a system of visible and invisible distinctions, the invisible ones being the foundation of the visible ones. The invisible distinctions are established through radical lines that divide social reality into two realms, the realm of “this side of the line” and the realm of “the other side of the line”. The division is such that “the other side of the line” vanishes as reality, becomes nonexistent, and is indeed produced as nonexistent. (Santos, 2007:45) Needless to say that teacher preparation programs are quite responsible for such abyssal thinking, one that helps produce a very concrete identity formation and citizenship format that interprets the world based on ‘visibility/invisibility’ realities produced by ‘this side of the line’.

On teacher education and citizenship education Teacher preparation programs within the European Union (EU) are quite responsible for the legitimization of what Valenzuela (1999) would call subtractive pedagogical forms. Such programs are not only subjugated to the very (n)eugenic matrix of modern Western Eurocentric epistemologies (Baker, forthcoming), but also concomitantly they were responsible for the development, upgrading, and legitimization of such a matrix both through its content and form. Taylorism and Fordism in education couple with the cult of positivism (Giroux, 1981), not only de-intellectualize teachers, but in so doing trivializing teachers’ work and fueling a lack of social recognition and prestige of the teaching profession, especially when one looks at the huge unemployment rates in the profession and overall dissatisfaction and resentment among teachers (SuárezOrozco and Qin-Hilliard, 2004; Flores, 2011; Simões et al., 2018). Lack of teamwork amongst teachers, low morale, excessive bureaucracy, and regulations and control within schools and teaching, as well as high demands placed upon teachers from families and society in general, are all concerns expressed alike by both novice and more experienced teachers in Portugal (Flores and Ferreira,

128

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

2009). These concerns need to be dissected within a much larger and intricate context of coloniality, whose matrix can only exist by fostering a culture of individualism, regulation, excessive bureaucracy, so far and so forth. While teacher education has the capacity to make a difference and promote a distinctive vision for the future, such cannot happen by persistently working just within ‘this side of the line’; such cannot happen by persistently working just within ‘this side of the line’, and odd as it might be, and thus paradoxically co-championing the epistemicide. This chapter supports the argument presented by Santos (2014) for an alternative way to think differently about teacher preparation in Portugal – and within the EU – one that challenges epistemological privilege and fascism (Santos, 2014; Paraskeva, 2018). A good way to address the intentional lack of epistemological pluriversal teacher education and teacher preparation programs is to engage in an itinerant curriculum theory (ICT). A decolonial turn within education, curriculum, and teacher preparation programs is needed, one that through an itinerant curriculum path will provide a process of justice against the curriculum epistemicide (Paraskeva, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c) by recognizing that there is no social justice without cognitive justice (Santos, 2014). Citizenship within a just, multicultural, and democratic society requires schools and teachers to incorporate issues of national identity, civil rights, and freedom in pedagogy, joining ideas and efforts to help learners become critical and engaged citizens who understand the challenges but also take action to create a more equitable, peaceful, and sustainable Europe (Maira, 2004; Simões et al., 2018). This work is needed to prevent violent extremism and radicalism (Council of Europe, 2018b), as well as violent and radical centrism (Paraskeva, 2008, 2018). The recently approved National Strategy for Citizenship Education in Portugal (Direção Geral de Educação [DGE], 2017) represents the outcome of a process that started in 2012 (with the publication of Decree-Law 139/2012, July 5, with changes introduced by Decree-Law 91/2013, July 10). It introduced citizenship education as an area to be developed across the curriculum in basic education: “Citizenship Education vows to contribute to the development of responsible, autonomous, and solidary people that know and exercise their rights and duties through dialogue and respect for others, with a democratic, pluralist, critical thinking and creative spirit” (DGE, 2012:1). By then, the areas included human rights education, environmental education/sustainable development, road safety education, financial education, consumer education, entrepreneurship education, education for gender equality, intercultural education, education for development, education for defense and security/ peace education, volunteering, media literacy, European dimension of education, and health and sex education (DGE, 2012). In 2017, a new curriculum area – citizenship and development – was created, and after a piloting phase, it is being widely implemented in the school year of 2018/19. It includes three domains to be developed through compulsory education and states the need

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

129

to integrate citizenship education in the preparation and professional development of teachers (DGE, 2017). The first domain is to be included in all school levels and includes work on human rights, gender equality, interculturality, sustainable development, environmental education, and health. The second domain should be developed at least in two cycles of basic education: sexuality, media, institutions and democratic participation, financial literacy and education for consumption, risk, and road safety. Finally, the last domain is optional in any school year: entrepreneurship, the world of work, safety, defense and peace, animal well-being, volunteering, and others identified by the school. Regarding its methodology, a whole-school approach is recommended as well as sustained integration in the curriculum, involvement of the families and of the community, with hands-on activities, responding to the needs and priorities of learners and their community (DGE, 2017). One hopes that notions such as ‘citizenship’ and ‘development’ would be the ‘rover bed’ of post-abyssal philosophies of praxis establishing a radical co-presence between both sides of the line, smashing abyssal ways of thinking (Paraskeva, 2016b, 2016c).

English language and citizenship education Within the battle for cognitive justice egregiously stands the challenge against the coloniality of the English language (Paraskeva, 2018) and the advocacy of biculturalism (Darder, 2012). The English language ended up being one of the visible tools of the empire (Hardt and Negri, 2000). It was thus instrumental during the heyday of capitalism and its division of material of labor, and it remains crucial within the third hegemonic phase of neoliberalism (Arrighi, 2005) and its division of (i)mmaterial labor. That education, curriculum, and teacher preparation programs are not related with such a linguistic yoke is a wrong assumption. Modern Western Eurocentric coloniality of power (Quijano, 2000) and its epistemicidal impulses did not happen in a social vacuum. It is a historical process that is not detached from capital formation and its commodities (Mészáros, 1996) in which the yoke of the English language and its concomitant monoculture of knowledge (Darder, 2012; Santos, 2005) glues a very concrete identity and form of citizenship, out of which there is no existence or at maximum miserable ways of existence. Despite the recognition of the dangers and pitfalls, the fact remains that the English language plays an important role in creating a global community and developing a planetary global citizenship (Gimenez and Sheehan, 2008). Thus English as a foreign language (EFL) school curricula and teacher education are invested with great responsibilities and demands in what comes to promoting global, democratic, and inclusive citizenship education. Associated with critical pedagogical and literacy practices, analytic global citizenship education helps learners “to imagine ‘otherwise’; to engage ethically with difference; and to understand the potential implications of their thoughts and actions” (Andreotti, 2008:42). In practical terms, and for the

130

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

EFL school curriculum and teacher education, it means that besides having to develop communicative skills (linguistic, pragmatic, and sociolinguistic), EFL also includes the development of an intercultural competence that will work against the emergence of stereotypes and prejudices, helping learners talk about cultural diversity in a respectful manner (Byram et al., 2002). As stated in the Council of Europe’s (CoE) Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture: Intercultural dialogue requires respect for the dignity, the equality and the human rights of other people. In order to participate in intercultural dialogue, citizens require intercultural competence, and respect is a vital component of that competence. (CoE, 2018a:24) Therefore, the EFL classroom is a privileged place to promote intercultural dialogue and democratic global citizenship.

A case study in initial teacher training In this section what is viewed as an illustrative case of citizenship education in foreign language learning at the primary level will be described. This attempts to unveil how to produce alternative ways to do different forms (Santos, 2014) of teacher education as a way to challenge curriculum epistemicides (Paraskeva, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c). It was developed within an initial teacher preparation program that took place in the practicum year at a Portuguese public university in the north of the country. An analytical account is given of an inquiryoriented teaching project on EFL in primary school developed by a female student teacher. It is presented as a story-telling case study, a narrative story of a project that deserves to be told to interested audiences, taken as empirical inquiry that constructs a worthwhile argument and aims at illuminating theory (Bassey, 1999) – in this text, on the educational value and feasibility of ICT in initial teacher education. Setting the scene

Since 2007, initial teacher education in Portugal is post-Bologna in format, and this has resulted in newly qualifying teachers being obliged to have a Master’s degree as a mandatory qualification. The law stipulates 33 teaching profiles and the required number of credits (ECTS) for each qualification area/ teaching profile, both for admission and conclusion purposes. Teacher preparation to teach English in primary schools takes place in a post-graduate course of 18 months, following a three-year Bachelor’s degree. The Master’s program addressed here includes academic preparation of language studies, EFL methodology, curriculum development, psychology of education, and other

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

131

educational subjects. Student teachers have a one-year practicum in primary schools. In this year, they are required to develop an inquiry-oriented teaching project that will result in a Master’s practicum report subjected to public examination. The main goal of this project is “to develop student teachers’ critical ability to understand and transform pedagogy” (Flores et al., 2016:5) by strictly following these guiding principles (Vieira, 2012:1): appropriateness to teaching contexts; practice-orientation; ethically and theoretically guided; inquiry at the service of pedagogy; and developmental purposes. In the development of this project, student teachers are required “to articulate various types of professional knowledge [. . .], thereby revealing the enactment of a praxeological epistemology that counteracts a theory-to-practice rationale” (Vieira et al., 2019:52). In the case presented here, the second author was the university supervisor of a 35-year-old white female student teacher with 10 years’ experience of teaching English and Spanish from primary school children to adults. In the practicum year, she was teaching English to a group of 19 middle class children between eight and nine years old in an urban primary school. This class was selected among the cooperating teacher’s classes for having one disabled child. After spending some time collecting data for characterizing the context (through observation, document analysis, informal conversations and register, and questionnaires), she chose the theme for her pedagogical inquiry project (Table 9.1). She selected intercultural understanding and citizenship education, using storytelling as a strategy for motivating children for learning and integrating the development of communication skills and intercultural understanding with citizenship education (Sá, 2017). The disabled child was a strong reason for selecting this theme, as the student teacher observed that the other children did not relate to her. She identified additional problems with relationships, with some children very resistant to working with others, perceived as rude, violent, or self-centered. She aimed at presenting children with a diversity of cultures, attitudes, and values with a view to “promoting engagement with global issues and perspectives and an ethical relationship to difference, addressing complexity and power relations” (Andreotti, 2008:42) in the classroom. Three picture books were chosen (Parr, 2004, 2009, 2010) for their potential for global citizenship education, intercultural understanding, and language development aims, as well as authenticity in depicting situations with which the children could relate (Mourão, 2003). The books include diversity (gender, ability, ethnicity), relating it to the animal kingdom while extending children’s knowledge of the world and promoting values such as respect, acceptance, friendship, solidarity, and environmental sustainability. Developing the pedagogical inquiry project

The student teacher’s didactic approach to EFL learning included consciousnessraising activities on diversity (including ability, culture, ethnicity, gender), on sustainability (‘go green’ activities), and on communication and non-violence

1st Teaching sequence: Let’s create a beautiful world! November 2016

November 2016

May 2016

March to June 2016

Period

Phase 2: Developing and monitoring the project’s activities Lesson 1 • Brainstorming from the image on the book cover of The Earth Book (Parr, 2010); • Getting to know more about Todd Parr; • Implementing listening and reading comprehension activities. Lesson 2 • Final task: in groups, creating a poster on the theme Let’s create a beautiful world! • To teach and/or revise vocabulary related to the protection of the planet, recycling, and things people like about the earth; • To create a poster on a ‘go green’ campaign in school; • To reflect on learning (self-assessment).

Phase 1: Context analysis Analysis of the context for the pedagogical intervention: class observation of the cooperating teacher (using an observation grid on Children’s Well-being and Involvement, adapted from Laevers et al., 2005); analyzing national regulations; informal conversations with the cooperating teacher and with other class teachers; questionnaire on the children’s sociolinguistic profile, motivation, and preferences towards language learning, as well as their attitudes towards stories and their use in the English classroom (Questionnaire: Tell me about you . . . /Now, about stories . . . ). Experimental teaching: developing a storytelling task; final task: to draw a new book cover. • To teach and/or revise adjectives related to feelings and emotions through matching exercises; • To listen to or read the story Susan Laughs (Willis, 2011); • To talk about diversity; • To draw a new book cover; • To reflect on learning (self-assessment). Inquiry about the children’s knowledge, behavior, and attitudes on intercultural understanding and citizenship education (Questionnaire: What do you think?).

Teaching and pedagogical inquiry activities

Table 9.1 Phase activities of the pedagogical inquiry project

February 2017

3rd Teaching sequence:Peace is always beautiful! February 2017

2nd Teaching sequence:Being different is beautiful! January 2017

Phase 3: Project’s final evaluation To characterize children’s conceptions on learning, on class activities, and on intercultural understanding and citizenship education (Questionnaire: What do you think? – second version and group interview).

Lesson 1 • Brainstorming on the question: What is diversity? (gender, ethnicity, age, ability, nationality, clothing, likes . . . ); • Implementing listening and reading comprehension activities on the story It’s Okay to Be Different (Parr, 2009); • To teach and/or revise vocabulary related to animals; • CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning) activity: analyzing different animal covers. Lesson 2 • Same or different? – activity with two eggs of different colors to show they have the same inside, but a different cover; • To listen to the story again and complete a reading comprehension activity; • Learning to work together – activity to develop cooperative learning, using adjectives related to diversity; • Viewing a short film on diversity (Jacob Frey, 2014, The Present, (www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjqiU5FgsYc), followed by a debate; • Final task: to draw a book page in order to have a class book – Being Different Is Beautiful! • To reflect on learning (self-assessment). Lesson 1 • What is peace? – brainstorming related to peace, using several images; • Implementing listening and reading comprehension activities on the story The Peace Book (Parr, 2004); • Peacemaker or peacebreaker? – writing a class poster; • Our acrostic poem – writing a poem on peace working in groups. Lesson 2 • To learn how to say ‘hello’ in different languages • To listen to children’s music from several countries; • To learn about breakfast in two English-speaking countries (England and USA); • Peace is making new friends – writing a postcard to a child in a different country; • To reflect on learning (self-assessment).

134

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

(acceptance, collaboration, solidarity, care, and other values related to peace education). It also included collaborative activities and small class projects like drawing a book cover or a class poster for a ‘go green’ campaign at school. Besides working on language development and global citizenship education, the approach included developing children’s autonomy in learning by collecting their preferences and opinions on class activities and having them reflect on learning. Table 9.1 presents a synthesis of the main phases and activities undertaken. The student teacher’s inquiry approach included a diagnostic phase (Phase 1) that included collecting information on the children, on the school, on the community (including families), on national regulations, and on the pedagogical approaches of the class teachers (including the cooperating teachers). This phase included document analysis, direct observation, and inquiry techniques (questionnaires and interviews) for data collection. The questionnaires used by this student teacher included an initial sociolinguistic characterization of the children (contact languages, language learning experiences, attitudes towards English learning, etc.) and the children’s preferences and interests regarding stories. The two versions of the questionnaire ‘What do you think?’ focused on children’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding the themes of the lessons: protecting the planet, respecting and valuing diversity, peace education, collaboration, and solidarity. The initial questionnaire aimed at the diagnosis, the final one at evaluation. At the end of each teaching sequence, children were asked to reflect on their learning through another questionnaire on their opinions/reactions to the class themes and activities and on their performance (participation, collaboration with peers, use of the language, completion of activities, knowledge acquired, etc.). The final group interview aimed at finding out about children’s perceptions and opinions on the student teacher’s teaching and on their learning, including class activities, themes, difficulties, or likes. Results of the citizenship education project

As the project moved along, the student teacher was keeping a teaching portfolio where she would document the decision-making process associated with teaching and pedagogical inquiry, and the reflections with her cooperating teacher and university supervisor, as well as data from observation and informal conversations with the children. At the end of the practicum, she delivered a practicum report. As her university supervisor, the second author observed three lessons (November, January, and February) and took notes using the Observation Grid on Children’s Well-being and Involvement (adapted from Laevers et al., 2005). The process and outcomes of the student teacher’s project will be analyzed using the Model of Competences for Democratic Culture (CoE, 2018b), as the student teacher’s approach included using the existing curriculum in a given

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

135

subject area (English) while having her learners experiencing democratic processes in the classroom and cooperative learning (cf. CoE, 2018c; DGE, 2012, 2017). As expected, our analysis of this case does not show the development of all areas of competence; notwithstanding, the majority of the descriptors, at a basic level of competence, are evidenced in the pedagogical intervention, as evidenced in Table 9.2. In this table, it is clear that the focus is on some competences more than on others (such as valuing cultural diversity, openness to cultural otherness, respect, civic-mindedness, empathy, cooperation skills, and knowledge and critical understanding of environment and sustainability). However, and avant la lettre, as this project was developed in the school year of 2016/17, all areas of competence for democratic culture (CoE, 2018b) were a focus for development, as well as four of the six main domains for primary education of the National Strategy for Citizenship Education (DGE, 2017): human rights, interculturality, sustainable development, and environmental education.

Final thoughts The golden days of some of the most daring EU codes – the mostly discursive, such as human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, law, and human rights – seem to be numbered. As Ginselberger (2017) would argue, or as Adorno (2004) insightfully would call, the future holds a ‘retrogressive anthropogenesis’, a substantial regression that will radically transmute the real epistemological color of citizenship and democracy, thus concussing the very mission of the EU’s educational matrix and its public interest. It goes without saying that education, curriculum, and teacher education programs must pay attention to how curriculum materials and pedagogical approaches reinforce existing oppressive power structures and discriminatory practices (Santomé, 2011; CoE, 2018c) now with a cynical fascist face. As stated by the CoE (2018c:42), “addressing violent, discriminatory and anti-democratic structures within classroom settings” is not incompatible with critical work undertaken in enjoyable and safe learning environments. The challenge facing educators really committed to social and cognitive justice is how to impact the emergence of a radical new order out of the hydra of the modern Western Eurocentric epistemological platform, knowing fully well that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house” (Lorde, 1981:99, quoted in Smith, 2012). A further option to think alternatively (Santos, 2007) about teacher education for pluriversal citizenship implies “rewriting and rerighting” (Smith, 2012: 29, emphasis mine) theory and praxis through a commitment to a radically different theoretical position, and maneuverable curriculum theory, both pushing for non-abyssal momentum. ICT is a new conceptual grammar (Jupp, 2017), against the yoke of book worship (Tse Tung, 2007), that moves itinerantly within and beyond “(a) the coloniality

Attitudes

Valuing human dignity and human rights Valuing cultural diversity

Values

Respect

Valuing democracy, justice, fairness, equality, and the rule of law Openness to cultural otherness

Key descriptors

Area of competence

To learn how to say ‘hello’ in different languages To listen to children’s music from several countries To write postcards to foreigners describing one’s life/likes Observation data collected by the university supervisor on Children’s Well-being and Involvement – Criterion: “The children appear to be interested and focused on the activity”: Most children were in the three lessons. • Student teacher’s reflection on portfolio (February 2017): “When I read the sentence “Peace is offering a hug to a friend” . . . I instinctively hugged the girl next to me and, without me saying anything, most children ended up by hugging their colleagues, thus creating a special moment in class”. • Group interview: “I believe that we are all the same inside and outside we are different” (Child L).

• • • •

• Promotes the view that one should always strive for mutual understanding and meaningful dialogue between people and groups who are perceived to be “different” from one another

• Listening to and reading It’s OK to Be Different (Parr, 2009) and discussing differences among people • Student teacher’s reflection on portfolio (January 2017): “The children were immersed in this story, commenting on it, on the animals’ sounds and on some sentences. This book made children reflect, not only on recognizing difference, but on some values as well, namely respecting difference”. N/A

• Expresses respect for other people as equal human beings

• Shows interest in learning about people’s beliefs, values, traditions, and world views

N/A

N/A

Basic level (validated descriptors)

N/A

Activities (teacher/ children)

Table 9.2 Analysis of the pedagogical intervention of the student teacher

Skills

• Class poster on the activity “Peacemaker or peacebreaker?”

Analytical and critical thinking skills Skills of listening and observing Empathy

Flexibility and adaptability Linguistic, communicative, and plurilingual skills

• Listening to stories sitting on the floor around the teacher; responding to teacher’s prompts. • Group interview: “I think that your lessons helped us understand that is better to help people so that no one will be isolated” (Child D). • Class poster on the activity “Peacemaker or peacebreaker?”: Peacebreakers (are/do): “Tell people they are not intelligent; Tell people they are ugly; Laugh at different people; Are unkind”. N/A • Brainstorming on the themes: earth, diversity, peace.

N/A • Self-assessment at the end of each teaching sequence.

Tolerance of ambiguity Autonomous learning skills

Responsibility Self-efficacy

• Class poster on the activity “Peacemaker or peacebreaker?”: Peacemakers (do/are): “Share; Work together; Offer a hug; Say I’m sorry; Listen to the teacher; Raise your hands; Clean up; Are nice and help”. • Observation data collected by the university supervisor on Children’s Well-being and Involvement – Criterion: “The children are willing to interact in class and cooperate with others”: Most children were in two lessons; some children were in one lesson. Supervisor’s notes: “Children look happy and very much involved working in groups on the poster Peacemakers/Peacebreakers” (February). N/A • Self-assessment at the end of each teaching sequence.

Civic-mindedness

(Continued)

• Can recognize when a companion needs his/her help; Expresses compassion for people who are being treated unfairly; Can describe feelings identified at other people N/A • Can express his/her thoughts on a problem

N/A • Expresses a belief in his/her own ability to understand issues N/A • Identifies what he/she knows already and what he/she doesn’t know • Can compare different ideas when thinking about a topic • Actively listens to others

• Expresses a willingness to cooperate and work with others

Knowledge and critical understanding

Area of competence

Table 9.2 Continued

• When working as a member of a group, does his/her share of the group’s work; When working as a member of a group, shows appreciation of and consideration for other group members N/A • Can describe his/her own motivations N/A

N/A • Can describe basic cultural practices (e.g. eating habits, greeting practices, ways of addressing people, politeness) in one other culture • Can reflect critically on the values, behavior, and lifestyles that are required for a sustainable future

• Working in groups (creating a poster, a book page, an acrostic poem). • University supervisor’s observation notes: “Children express joy when asked to help other colleagues in class” (January).

N/A • Answering the questionnaire Tell me about you . . . /Now, about stories ... N/A

N/A

• Activity: learn about breakfast in two English-speaking countries (England and the United States); learning to say ‘hello’ in different languages

• Listening to and reading The Earth Book (Parr, 2010) and writing about individual and social actions to promote change. • Group interview: “I think that the lessons you taught us made us learn that we all should behave better and treat the world better” (Child C).

Cooperation skills

Conflict-resolution skills Knowledge and critical understanding of self Knowledge and critical understanding of language and communication Knowledge and critical understanding of politics, law, and human rights Knowledge and critical understanding of culture, cultures, religions

Knowledge and critical understanding of history, media, economies, environment, and sustainability

Basic level (validated descriptors)

Activities (teacher/ children)

Key descriptors

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

139

of power, knowledge, and being; (b) epistemicides, linguicides, abyssality, and the ecology of knowledges; and, (c) poststructuralist hermeneutic itinerancy”, producing a new non-abyssal alphabet of knowledge (Paraskeva, forthcoming). ICT is thus a way to challenge curriculum epistemicides (Santos, 2014; Paraskeva, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c) and aims “to deterritorialize both curriculum and teacher education fields which cannot be done without counteracting linguisticides or epistemological euthanasia” (Moreira, 2017:3) carried out by the colonial powers in the past (but still going on in the present) and in so doing floods the terrain with a language beyond Western Eurocentric linguistic formations, hoping for an alternative philosophy of praxis. ICT aims toward “a general epistemology of the impossibility of a general epistemology” (Santos, 2007:67). Sentient that subaltern and marginalized individuals and communities have been oppressed by theory (Smith, 2012), ICT implies: A theorist that is an epistemological radical, an epistemological pariah, who is challenging and challenged by a theoretical path that is inexact yet rigorous; s/he ‘runs away’ from any unfortunate ‘canonology’. The theory(ist) is a volcanic chain, who shows a constant lack of equilibrium, is always a stranger in his/her own language. ICT challenges the sociology of absences and how certain non-Western epistemologies have been rendered as nonexistent; challenges any form of indeginestoude; that is, it challenges any form of romanticization of indigenous cultures and knowledges, and it is not framed in any dichotic skeleton of West-rest. (Paraskeva, 2011:177–178) It is, as Darder (2016:12) argues, “an epistemology of liberation that can persistently challenge structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life must be cultivated, nurtured and embodied within the blessed messiness and unwieldy chaos of everyday life within schools and communities”. ICT confronts and throws the subject to a permanent unstable question of ‘What is there to think?’ (Paraskeva, 2011, 2016a). In this sense, ICT is “a theory of change” (Spivak, 1988:3) that goes beyond confrontation as the matrix for change and assumes a commitment to “radical co-presence” (Santos, 2014), or, better said, a subaltern radical co-presence towards a non-abyssal path. ICT “travels extensively through the ‘other side of the epistemic abyss’” (Moreira, 2017:2). ICT is an ethical take; it is the subaltern momentum. ICT is people’s theory. ICT is “not merely invocation or evocation; it exemplifies how ideas can be added powerfully to the sources of curriculum studies by substantially including Works” (Schubert, 2017:10), above and beyond the modern Western Eurocentric epistemological dominant and counter-dominant traditions. Acknowledgement: the second author acknowledges the funding of her work by CIEd – Research Centre on Education, project UID/CED/01661/2019,

140

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

Institute of Education, University of Minho, through national funds of FCT/ MCTES-PT.

References Adorno, T. (2004) Negative Dialectics. New York: Routledge. Amin, S. (2008) The World we Wish to See: Revolutionary Objectives in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Andreotti, V. (2008) ‘Innovative Methodologies in Global Citizenship Education: The OSDE Initiative’ in Gimenez, T. and Sheehan, S. (eds.) Global Citizenship in the English Language Classroom. London: British Council, pp. 40–47. Arrighi, G. (2005) The Long Twentieth Century. New York: Verso. Baker, B. (forthcoming) ‘Image Management? Sites of the Real, Visual Culture, and Digital Present-Futures in Education’ in Paraskeva, J. (ed.) Once Upon a Time in New England: Critical Transformative Educational Leadership and Policy Studies: Lessons from Dartmouth. New York: Meyers Educational Press. Bassey, M. (1999) Case Study Research in Educational Settings. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bauman, Z. (1998) Globalization: The Human Consequences. London: Blackwell Publishers. Bourdieu, P. (1993) The Field of Cultural Production. New York: Columbia University Press. Byram, M., Gribkova, B. and Starkey, H. (2002) Developing the Intercultural Dimension in Language Teaching: A Practical Introduction for Teachers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Available at: http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1562524/1/Starkey_InterculturalDimensionByram.pdf (Accessed 27 June 2019). Council of Europe (2018a) Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Vol. 1: Context, Concepts and Model. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2018b) Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Vol. 2: Descriptors of Competences for Democratic Culture. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Council of Europe (2018c) Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Vol. 3: Guidance for Implementation. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Darder, A. (2012) Culture and Power in the Classroom. New York: Routledge. Darder, A. (2016) ‘Ruthlessness and the Forging of Liberatory Epistemologies: An Arduous Journey – Foreword’ in Paraskeva, J. (ed.) Curriculum Epistemicides. New York: Routledge, pp. ix–xvi. DGE (2012) Citizenship Education – Guidelines. Lisboa: Direção Geral da Educação. Available at: http://dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/ECidadania/citizenship_education_guidelines.pdf (Accessed 27 June 2019). DGE (2017) Estratégia nacional de educação para a cidadania. Lisboa: Ministério da Educação. Dussel, E. (1995) Philosophy of Liberation. Oregon: Wipf & Stock. Flores, M. A. (2011) ‘Curriculum of Initial Teacher Education in Portugal: New Contexts, Old Problems’ Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogy, 37 (4), pp. 461–470. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.611015 (Accessed 27 June 2019). Flores, M. A. and Ferreira, F. I. (2009) ‘The Induction and Mentoring of New Teachers in Portugal: Contradictions, Needs and Opportunities’ Research in Comparative and International Education, 4 (1), pp. 63–73. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2009.4.1.63 (Accessed 27 June 2019).

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

141

Flores, M. A., Vieira, F., Silva, J. L. and Almeida, J. (2016) ‘Integrating Research into the Practicum: Inquiring into Inquiry-Based Professional Development in Post-Bologna Initial Teacher Education in Portugal’ in Flores, M. A. and Al-Barwani, T. (eds.) Redefining Teacher Education for the Post-2015 Era: Global Challenges and Best Practice. New York: Nova Publisher, pp. 109–124. Fraser, N. (2003) ‘Social Justice in the Age of Identity Politics: Redistribution, Recognition, and Participation’ in Fraser, N. and Honneth, A. (eds.) Redistribution or Recognition? A Political Exchange. London: Verso, pp. 7–109. Gimenez, T. and Sheehan, S. (2008) ‘Preface’ in Gimenez, T. and Sheehan, S. (eds.) Global Citizenship in the English Language Classroom. London: British: Council, pp. 4–5. Ginselberger, H. (2017) O Grande Retrocesso. Um Debate International sobre as Grandes Questões do Nosso Tempo. Lisboa: Objectiva. Giroux, H. (1981) Ideology, Culture and the Process of Schooling. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Grosfoguel, R. (2010) ‘Epistemic Islamophobia: Colonial Social Sciences’ Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge, 8 (2), pp. 29–39. Hardt, M. and Negri, T. (2000) The Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Honneth, A. (1995) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: MIT Press. Jupp, J. (2017) ‘Decolonizing and De-Canonizing Curriculum Studies: An Engaged Discussion Organized around João M. Paraskeva’s Recent Books’ Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 12 (1), pp. 1–25. Laevers, F., Debruyckere, G., Silkens, K. and Snoeck, G. (2005) Observation of Well-Being and Involvement in Babies and Toddlers: A Video-Training Pack with Manual. Leuven: Research Centre for Experiential Education, Leuven University and CEGO Publishers. Lorde, A. (1981) ‘The Master’s Tool Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House’ in Moraga, C. and Anzaldúa, G. (eds.) The Bridge Called Me Back. New York: Woman of Color Press, pp. 98–101. Maira, S. (2004) ‘Imperial Feelings: Youth Culture, Citizenship, and Globalization’ in SuárezOrozco, M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. B. (eds.) Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 203–234. Maldonado-Torres, N. (2008) Against War: Views from the Underside of Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press. McLaren, P. (1998) ‘Revolution and Reality: An Interview with Peter McLaren’ in Pinar, W. (ed.) Curriculum towards New Identities. New York: Garland Publishing, pp. 355–376. Mészáros, I. (1996) ‘The Legacy of Marx’ in Osborne, P. (ed.) A Critical Sense: Interviews with Intellectuals. London: Routledge, pp. 47–62. Mignolo, W. (2012) Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges and Border Thinking. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Moreira, M. (2017) ‘And the Linguistic Minorities Suffer What They Must? A Review of Conflicts in Curriculum Theory through the Lenses of Language Teacher Education’ Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 12 (1), pp. 1–17. Mourão, S. (2003) Realbooks in the Primary Classroom. London: Mary Glasgow Scholastic. Nóvoa, A. and DeJong-Lambert, W. (2003) ‘Educating Europe: An Analysis of EU Educational Policies’ in Phillips, D. and Ertl, H. (eds.) Implementing European Union Education and Training Policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 41–72. Quijano, A. (2000) ‘Colonialidad del poder y classificacion Social’ Journal of World Systems Research, 6 (2), pp. 342–386.

142

João M. Paraskeva and Maria Alfredo Moreira

Paraskeva, J. (2008) ‘Kidnapping Public Schooling: Perversion and Normalization of the Discursive Bases within the Epicenter of New Right Educational Policies’ Policy Futures in Education, 5 (2), pp. 137–159. Paraskeva, J. (2011) Conflicts Curriculum Theory: Challenging Hegemonic Epistemologies. New York: Palgrave. Paraskeva, J. (2016a) Curriculum Epistemicides. New York: Routledge. Paraskeva, J. (2016b) ‘The Curriculum: Whose Internationalization?’ in Paraskeva, J. (ed.) Curriculum: Whose Internationalization. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 25–63. Paraskeva, J. (2016c) ‘Opening Up Curriculum Canon to Democratize Democracy’ in Paraskeva, J. and Steinberg, S. (eds.) Curriculum: Decanonizing the Field. New York: Peter Lang, pp. 3–38. Paraskeva, J. (2018) Towards a Just Curriculum Theory: The Epistemicide. New York: Routledge. Paraskeva, J. (Forthcoming) ‘What Happened to Critical Theory!’ in Paraskeva, J. (ed.) Once Upon a Time in New England: Critical Transformative Educational Leadership and Policy Studies: Lessons from Dartmouth. New York: Meyers Educational Press. Paraskeva, J. and Torres Santome, J. (2012) ‘Pouring Old Wine into New Ideological Bottles: Globalisms and the Rebooting of Mankind’s Revolution’ in Paraskeva, J. and Torres Santome, J. (eds.), Globalisms and Power: Iberian Educational and Curriculum Policies. New York: Peter Lang, pp. vii–xxii. Parr, T. (2004) The Peace Book. New York: Hachette Book Group. Parr, T. (2009) It’s OK to Be Different. New York: Little, Brown & Company. Parr, T. (2010) The Earth Book. New York: Little, Brown & Company. Sá, M. F. (2017) “Abrir horizontes e janelas para o mundo”: As histórias na promoção da consciência intercultural e educação para a cidadania. Relatório de estágio. Mestrado em Ensino do Inglês no 1º Ciclo do Ensino Básico. Braga: Universidade do Minho. Santomé, J. T. (2011). La Justicia Curricular. El Caballo de Troya de la Cultura Escolar. Madrid: Morata. Santos, B. (2005) Democratizing Democracy: Beyond the Liberal Democratic Cannon. London: Verso. Santos, B. (2007) Another Knowledge Is Possible. New York: Verso. Santos, B. (2014) Epistemologies from the South. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Schubert, W. (2017) ‘Growing Curriculum Studies: Contributions of João M. Paraskeva’ Journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies, 12 (1), pp. 1–21. Simões, A. R., Lourenço, M. and Costa, N. (2018) ‘Introduction: How to Become a European Teacher? Exploring the (Need for a) Concept’ in Simões, A. R., Lourenço, M. and Costa, N. (eds.) Teacher Education Policy and Practice in Europe: Challenges and Opportunities for the Future. Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 3–10. Smith, L. (2012) Decolonizing Methodologies. London: Zed Books. Spivak, G. (1988) ‘Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography’ in Guha, R. and Spivak, G. (eds.) Selected Subaltern Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–32. Suárez-Orozco, M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. B. (2004) ‘Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium’ in Suárez-Orozco, M. and Qin-Hilliard, D. B. (eds.), Globalization: Culture and Education in the New Millennium. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 1–37. Tse Tung, M. (2007) ‘Oppose Book Worship’ in Žižek, S. (ed.) Slavoj Žižek presents Mao on practice and contradiction. London: Verso, pp. 43–51. Valenzuela, A. (1999) Subtractive Schooling. New York: SUNY Press. Vieira, F. (2012) Estágio profissional/ Prática de ensino supervisionada nos mestrados em ensino da UM. Seminário para o 2º ano dos mestrados em ensino da UM. Braga, outubro de 2012.

Itinerant curriculum theory in the making

143

Vieira, F., Flores, M. A., Silva, J. L. C. and Almeida, J. (2019) ‘Understanding and Enhancing Change in Post-Bologna Pre-Service Teacher Education: Lessons from Experience and Research in Portugal’ in Barwani, T., Flores, M. A. and Imig, D. (eds.) Leading Change in Teacher Education. Oxon and New York: Routledge, pp. 41–57. Walsh, C. (2018) ‘Insurgency and Decolonial Prospect, Praxis and Project’ in Walsh, C. and Mignolo, W. (eds.) On Decoloniality: Concepts, Analytics, Praxis. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 33–56. Willis, J. (2011) Susan Laughs. T. Ross (Illustrations). London: Andersen Press.

Chapter 10

“Democracy for me is saying what I want” The teaching profession on free speech, democratic mission and the notion of political correctness in a Swedish context Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

Introduction Another part of democracy which is undoubtedly of great value is the freedom to be who you are and express your opinions without having to worry about the consequences (Swedish student teacher, autumn 2017). When analysing examination papers on Swedish student teachers’ understandings of democracy in the teaching profession (Edling and Liljestrand, 2018) the issue of free speech is often highlighted as important. At times the students state that they have found the requirement to be politically correct to be problematic in society because it hampers free speech. The expression ‘political correctness’ (PK) is accentuated by groups and movements on the far right, where it is argued that the elite, in the name of democracy and a cherishing of plurality, hamper people’s possibilities to express the truth about the world (Hare and Weinstein, 2012; Hume, 2016; Rydgren, 2018). In today’s society, the possibilities and limitations of free speech have become further actualised by social media and the technical ease and availability of expressing ideas and opinions. Parallel to these tendencies, teachers in Sweden are expected to actively oppose various forms of violence between people, such as discrimination, violation and bullying (SFS, 2008:567, 2010:800; The Higher Education Ordinance), phenomena that, amongst other things, are created by people’s ways of thinking and speaking about the world (Allport, 1954; Arturo and Arteaga, 2003; Cohran-Smith, 2004; Bensel et al., 2009; Edling, 2016). Free speech has been a cornerstone in western society and is deeply associated with democracy and a form of government that is based on ‘the people’. As members of society, student teachers’ attitudes and opinions are shaped by influential discourses and in turn contribute to shaping society and students’ understanding(s) of what characterises a democracy. However, from a politicalphilosophical perspective, freedom of speech is a right that is related to other values and is not an isolated and private right of expression (Ash, 2016; van

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

145

Mill, 2017). Free speech is approached from the assumption that its meaning changes according to how democracy is understood and that the social and societal context needs to be taken into consideration if freedom of speech is to support democracy. Discussion in this chapter is related to teacher education as a social institution, particularly in Europe, with a mission to promote democracy. More precisely, the outlining of the meaning of free speech is attempted within the frame of narrow and broad notions of democracy. Simply stated, this concerns the differences between democratic parliamentary principles and formal procedures on the one hand and the consequences for people’s everyday actions and choices on the other. The chapter begins with a background on the ideological governing of Swedish teacher education. This is followed by an outline of how the professional teacher influences teacher education programmes in Sweden and places the idea of the professional teacher (Englund et al., 2012; Stanley and Stronach, 2013; Edling and Frelin, 2016) in relation to ideas about free speech, teachers’ democratic assignment to combat violence and the far right movement’s mobilisation of people. Swedish teacher education is then described in order to contextualise the study and to outline the most internationally relevant arguments. The next section connects the study to two other studies: one smallscale study of Swedish student teachers and a larger scale study of teachers’ attitudes to students’ expressed negative stereotypes towards minorities during lesson time. The final section outlines what an approach to the freedom of speech based on a broad notion of democracy might mean.

Democracy as an ideological governing form in Swedish teacher education; an historical perspective As a tool of the state, the structure and content of education have never been neutral, but are infused with values that are considered desirable at a particular time and place in history and that set the frames for what can and cannot be done (Apple, 2013). Moreover, education and teacher education have historically always had a symbiotic relationship, meaning that what is taught at teacher education institutions is in direct dialogue with what are regarded as important teacher qualities at a specific time (Zeichner, 1994; Zeichner and Noffke, 2001; Hallsén, 2013). Awareness of the various frames governing education grew during the 1960s and 1970s, in a period in which education was regarded as mainly being about transferring objective knowledge to students and behavioural modification. The concept frame factor theory was introduced by two Swedish researchers in pedagogy, Urban Dahllöf and Ulf P. Lundgren. This theory was important in the Swedish educational debate and showed how the pursuit of educational aims was dependent on the forms of governance that prevailed, such as the time that was allotted for students to learn, the order of subjects and their specific

146

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

aims. Accordingly, in order to develop student learning it was not sufficient to merely modify students’ behaviour or package the knowledge better, but it was equally important to ponder how different governing forms – legal, economic, ideological and governing through control and evaluation – determined the conditions for education. These four governing forms are interconnected, but have different foci (Lundgren, 1989; Lindensjö and Lundgren, 2000; Edling and Mooney Simmie, 2016). Central to this chapter is the notion of ideological governing forms, that is to say the way a government dictates what is desirable to strive for in education and indirectly what is not. Sometimes the ideological governing form is implicit and hidden behind a cloak of neutrality, as during the 1960s and 1970s, while at other times it is explicitly articulated. When Swedish folk high schools were established in 1842, thereby rendering education obligatory for all independent of wealth, the ideology of the educational system was explicitly to foster good and obedient Christians and loyal patriots in order to build a strong nation state (Englund, 1986; Lundgren, 1989; Dahlstedt and Olson, 2013). Hence, Christian ethics and nationalism coloured the ideological governing form at that time, which was about socialising children in education to be loyal to their superiors and accept unjust treatment by turning the other cheek when they were mistreated, with the promise of entering the gates of heaven in the afterlife (Hedin and Lahdenperä, 2000; Linné, 2001). Although the content of the ideological governing form in education had nothing to do with democracy, the processes that took shape during the 18th and 19th centuries in Sweden can be understood as a form of democratisation in that the power of the church and the monarch started to decrease in parallel with the strengthening of the nation state and the power of the people. The process was slow and it took until 1 January 2000 for the Swedish church to be finally severed from the state (Ekman and Todosojevic, 2002). Accordingly, the processes of democratisation in Sweden took time. At the end of World War I in 1919, the right for women and men to vote at the national level was legally accepted – an act that was first used in 1921. However, two brutal and bloody wars were needed in order to shake the very foundation on which education rested. In the wake of World War II in 1945, the ideology of blind obedience and a hierarchical world view were seriously questioned in the educational debate. The conclusion that wars were not merely created by the existence of deadly weapons, but through people’s ways of thinking, was put forward (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization [UNESCO], 1945), thereby drawing attention to ideological governing forms. In dialogue with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it was stated that education should be based on ideas of every person’s equal value, that pluralism needed to be seen as something positive and that critical and active democratic citizens need to be emphasised in education and teacher education (Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU), 1948:27). In 1962 an elementary school for all children was established based on an idea of every person’s equal value, and the ambition to socialise democratic

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

147

citizens became central in the school curriculum. The ideological transformation of the Swedish educational system was motivated by a desire to put an end to future wars, and democracy was seen as the remedy. However, the way in which democracy has been promoted in Swedish education has changed since 1962, and changes in meaning have influenced the professional responsibilities of teachers and, thus, teacher educators (Dahlstedt and Olson, 2013).

Democracy and teacher professionalism in (teacher) education The meaning of teacher professionalism and democracy are not carved in stone. Following the American psychologist, philosopher and pedagogue John Dewey (1916/2002), democracy can broadly be understood as either being about procedures emphasising the kind of democracy that is in focus or democracy as a way of life, including people’s everyday engagement and the consequences of ideas and practice for human co-existence. Dewey’s reasoning has been used to understand the various tendencies of present-day democracy, where terms such as thick and thin democracy (Barber, 2003; Zyngier, 2016) and broad and narrow democracy (Carr, 2008; Green, 1999) have been coined to describe where the focus lies. Approaching democracy in a thin way means that only the procedural aspects of democracy matter, that is to say election systems, voting, majority rule and so forth. In the thick approach, the formal aspects of democracy are important. In order to keep democracy alive, it is important to take people’s everyday actions, thoughts, participation and conditions into consideration. It is subsequently not a question of opposites in a dualistic sense, that is, procedures or acknowledging the flow of life, but rather where people’s attention span should be directed and/or where the lines of responsibility for politicians and the people should be drawn (e.g. Barber, 2003; Zyngier, 2016; Edling, 2016; Edling and Mooney Simmies, forthcoming). Similarly, teacher professionalism can be said to oscillate between a professionalism premiering thick responsibilities versus thin responsibilities. Accordingly, education can have various purposes: to transfer different kinds of knowledge, to socialise young people into handling and following the dominant values and norms in society and to promote equal conditions (Edling, 2012, 2016). Biesta (2010) refers to these three purposes as qualification, socialisation and subjectification (emancipation). The latter involves the possibilities for unique subjects to break into education in ways that allow for change and questioning of the given order (ibid.). Depending on the country and time, the ideological governing form deals with these three educational aims differently, thus influencing the range of teachers’ responsibilities. During the 1960s and 1970s teachers were regarded as technicians rather than intellectuals (Ball, 1995), and the philosophy governing education was based on essentialism, that is, the idea that the fixed core in everything can be located scientifically, thus rendering society as homogenous and possible to categorise,

148

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

study and keep under control through objective methods. Teachers’ responsibilities during this period can be described as narrow, focusing solely on transferring certain kinds of knowledge (qualifications) based on the research methods generated by external experts. Through these lenses democracy was seen as procedural, and it was believed that the task of education was to objectively provide knowledge about democracy (Englund, 1999). The understanding that efficient methods suit all people and contexts ruled, which made the teaching profession universal rather than practice oriented (Colnerud, 2004). Teachers’ professionalism came from external experts (outside-in-professionalism) rather than from their systematic interpretations and judgements of external and internal needs (inside-out-professionalism; Stanley and Stronach, 2013). Purposes such as socialisation and subjectification were tuned down, made more or less invisible and later questioned by researchers, such as in Jackson’s (1968, 1990) hidden curricula and frame factor theory (Lundgren, 1989), for being insufficient, showing that processes linked to socialisation and emancipation were not disappearing simply because they were ignored. On the contrary, they continued to influence the outcome of education behind the scenes (Edling and Mooney Simmies, forthcoming). Indeed, since 1962 the Swedish educational system can be said to have oscillated between preparing citizens for labour and involving socialising democratic citizens and pursuing equal conditions (e.g. Englund, 1999:23–24; Ekman and Todosojevic, 2002). Parallel with processes stressing the need for teachers’ inside-out-professionalism and the decentralisation of the Swedish school system, the pendulum changed during the 1980s and 1990s towards arguing that teachers cannot be neutral tools of knowledge transfer, but must actively take responsibility to foster democratic citizens. The essentialist philosophy based on dualism – a separation between entities such as private and public, theory and practice, values and knowledge and subjectivity and objectivity – was exchanged for a dialectical philosophy in which teachers were encouraged to consider how practice was infused with ideas and values, people’s life conditions and possibilities for achieving educational aims (see for example Zachari et al., 2000). The ideological governing form became more explicit and accentuated the importance of socialising children and young people into adhering to democracy and democratic values and also actively working to oppose various forms of violence and discrimination (Arneback, 2012; Edling, 2012, 2016). What do teachers today need to know?

Sweden is a country of approximately 10 million people and at present has 28 teacher education institutions, all of which are strongly regulated by the state (Hallsén, 2013). In Sweden, teacher education is regulated by national policy. As one of seven general objectives, teacher education at all levels should include the “history, organisation and conditions of the school as well as values, including the fundamental democratic values and human rights” (The Higher

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

149

Education Ordinance, 2011). The local courses provided in teacher education are obliged to follow the objectives in the national curricula and the teacher education programme. As the objectives are general and compendious, they are interpreted by each individual teacher education institution and further regulated in the local course syllabus. These objectives resemble other international documents, such as the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the core values formulated by the Council of Europe. Teacher education institutions in Sweden are influenced by the Global Education Reform Movement (GERM) (Sahlberg, 2011), which means that many countries in the world are undergoing similar policy reforms. For teacher education, it means that common core curricula have been created for education (Ross, 2000; Priestley and Biesta, 2013). Countries approach the core curricula differently (Priestley and Biesta, 2013), but are nonetheless united in their emphasis on economic instrumentalism and individual development (Yates and Collin, 2010). The national core curriculum for teacher education in Sweden consists of seven points, of which democracy is the first: • • • • • • •

History of the school system, its organisation and conditions as well as the core values of early childhood education, including fundamental democratic values and human rights Syllabus theory and didactics Theory of knowledge and research methodology Development, learning and special needs education Social relationships, conflict management and leadership Assessing and analysing learning and development Evaluation and development processes

In the Higher Education Ordinance (2011), democracy is translated into specific aims, which are the same for all levels of the teaching profession: • • •

Demonstrate the capacity to communicate and instil core educational values, including human rights and the fundamental democratic values Demonstrate the capacity to prevent and restrain discrimination and other forms of harassment of children Demonstrate the capacity to respect, communicate and instil a gender equal and equal rights perspective in educational processes

In order to realise these aims it is important to turn to the political guidelines for education in general, such as reports from the Swedish National Agency for Education and the relevant curricula. In relation to the Swedish policy documents for teacher education, the responsibilities of teachers can be regarded as thick, in that their obligations go beyond objective knowledge transfer to also encompass democratic socialisation and emancipation. Rather than regarding education as dualistic, a dialectical understanding dominates in which

150

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

knowledge cannot be separated from values and where practice is regarded as loaded with certain perceptions that need to be articulated. Moreover, the legal form of government stresses that education should be understood through the lens of curriculum theory (The Higher Education Ordinance, 2011) where the following ideas are central: the content of education is not fixed but changes (is contingent), context matters, meaning is created through language and meaning comes with moral consequences that need to be addressed (Englund, 1997). Student teachers thus need to acquire knowledge about democracy that ranges from facts to values and be able to use this knowledge to systematically interpret a practice in movement and intervene and change structures and situations that discriminate (harass) or risk discriminating (harassing) students (Swedish National Agency for Education, 2014a, 2014b, 2017; Edling, 2016). These political demands emphasise the need for a broad understanding of and approach to democracy (see Table 10.1).

Table 10.1 An overview of how democracy is linked to various purposes, aims and teacher responsibilities Democracy

Aims

Teachers’ responsibilities

KNOWLEDGE (ABOUT)

Facts Skills Understanding Analysis/synthesis Valuing Existential Moral Values Citizenship Democratic citizenship

Using knowledge about democracy to analyse/systematically interpret everyday action (judgement) Teach children and students about democracy

SOCIALISATION (IN)

Using knowledge linked to socialisation to analyse/systematically interpret everyday action and form it in a desired direction (judgement) Pay attention to students’ ways of understanding life Socialise children and students to adhere to the democratic value foundation Socialise children and students to understand how values form people’s life conditions Socialise children and young people to become citizens Socialise children and students to become democratic citizens through participation, discussions, underpinned argumentations and influence Teachers need to actively work with their own values and actions Teachers need to cooperate with others to create an educational climate that fosters democratic values and participation

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

151

Democracy

Aims

Teachers’ responsibilities

EQUAL POSSIBILITIES (FOR)

opposing discrimination opposing violation (bullying)

Using knowledge about equal possibilities to analyse/systematically interpret everyday action (judgement) and form it in a desired direction Promote a safe environment that facilitates learning in the everyday work Structure education and social relations so that equal possibilities are premiered React when someone says they are exposed to discrimination and/or violation Explore risks for discrimination and violation in order to prevent discrimination and violation: (1) investigate, (2) analyse, (3) remedy, (4) follow up and (5) document

The Swedish government actively supports teachers who do not merely transfer knowledge to students, but also create a democratic environment. This requires teachers to at times take a stand against certain behaviours and world views. It is important to think about what these responsibilities mean, especially in relation to the right of free speech. A short comparison with Competences for Democratic Culture (2016) and current Swedish teacher education policy shows similarities regarding that knowledge is perceived as an approach for democratic conduct. For Swedish teacher education policy, in the table labelled as socialisation, such as openness for different others, the obvious counterpart is to be found among the “Attitudes” in the Competences for Democratic Culture. In the last column above, designed as equal possibilities and other democratic rights, we find similar and corresponding virtues, mentioned as “Values” in Competences for Democratic Culture. One difference between the agendas consist in that Swedish teacher education policy address goals. In Competences for Democratic Culture, competences are instead highlighted “in order to respond to new circumstances as they arise” (2016, p 10). Swedish teacher education policy emphasizes goals for individual students while Competences for Democratic Culture more clearly highlights dialogue between people. However, there are also goals that address “participation, discussions, underpinned argumentations and influence” mentioned in Swedish teacher education policy. From this short comparison we may conclude that the similarities between the policies are more salient than from what separates them, although some differences are present there as well.

Current challenges: free speech and the obligation to oppose oppression Many stable democratic countries are today facing an upsurge of nationalistic and conservative movements. These movements are varied, but are nevertheless

152

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

united in a desire to oppose pluralism and ignore the idea of every person’s equal value (Rydberg, 2018). The Sweden Democrats, a populist-nationalist party that actively works to reduce the number of foreigners in the country, has now become the third largest political party in Sweden. Problems with political correctness are accentuated, along with the idea that a political establishment (elite) prevents people from speaking the truth about the world. These tendencies are not unique to Sweden, but can be observed in many countries worldwide and are increasing (Bonikowski and DiMaggio, 2016; Lazaridis et al., 2016; Postelnicescu, 2016). Parallel to these tendencies, the Swedish teaching profession can easily be understood as a tool for political correctness in that teachers are encouraged to take a stand against inequality, discrimination and bullying with the aid of knowledge-based arguments and action. When asking 56 student teachers at a university in Sweden to describe how they understood their democratic assignment, a formal conception of democracy dominated in terms of following the guidelines in political documents without linking them to practice, content and interpretation (Edling and Liljestrand, 2018). The studies of student teachers undertaken by Zyngier (2012, 2016) and Zyngier et al. (2015) associate freedom of speech with student teachers’ thin conceptions of democracy. This pattern was also found in the authors’ study, for example, in their highlighting of freedom of speech as a quality. All the students responded to the following question: What do you think about democracy interlaced with the democratic ideals that teachers are expected to pay attention to today? In the category of narrow approaches to democracy, many of the responses referred to freedom of speech as a hallmark of democracy and for fostering a democratic mindset. Two typical quotes illustrate how student teachers actualise freedom of speech as an important contribution to their future teaching: The politically correct culture is often good, but it cannot be allowed to overstep the freedom of expression that people enjoy. (1 d) The quote consists of two contrasts: a culture that can embody good values on the one hand, and the democratic right of free speech that should not be constrained by a culture embracing firmly established values on the other. The next quote illustrates the tendency to contrast freedom of speech with values aimed at protecting people from not being treated equally. My thoughts about the concept of democracy are that all people should be treated equally . . . but also that everyone in a democracy should have the right to think and act freely. (1dd) This quote opens up the possibility to interpret freedom of speech in relation to another value, namely the right to freedom of speech. However, as in

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

153

Zyngier’s studies, in the authors’ data freedom of speech appears as a singular right of the individual. This understanding of free speech does not take the restrictions of the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression into account, stressing that it is not allowed to use free speech in order to set groups of people against each other (The Swedish Act of Free speech, 1991:14691). When democracy is addressed in the authors’ course, the orientation is more towards a narrow conception of democracy. In order to problematise the idea of democracy as corresponding to free speech, the authors first turn to a study of Swedish teachers in a nine-year compulsory school (grade 8) conducted by the Swedish team for the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS). The national survey included teachers working in a sampled group of schools according to the ICCS design (Schultz et al., 2016). Although this selection is not randomised, providing a statistically representative base for generalisation, it still provides a strong indication of how Swedish teachers value situations in which students express stereotypical views of minorities. In the survey the teachers (n = 1571) were asked to respond to the following situation. Four alternative answers were provided, including the possibility for further comments (n = 366). The frequencies of the responses are presented alongside each alternative in the following. “How would you react if during a lesson one of the students expressed negative opinions about a minority group? (The lesson has no connection to minority issues)” • • • •

I would interrupt the lesson to discuss the opinions with the students (n = 1222/1571; number of further comments, n = 209) I would try to prevent discussion and continue with the lesson (n = 178/1571; number of further comments, n = 56) I would allow the discussion to continue without intervening myself (n = 6; number of further comments, n = 1) Other alternative (what?) . . . (n = 165/1571; number of further comments, n = 100)

When the further comments were analysed (by the authors of this chapter) by taking their relevance for freedom of speech as the point of departure, the answers could be coded into four main groups, disregarding their connection to alternatives one to four: claiming values, where teachers reported that they stated democratic values in class or to a specific student (n = 181/366), problematised the student’s opinion (n = 50/366), clarified what the student meant (n = 28/366), encouraged open discussion without take a stand (n = 0/366) and, finally, it depended on the situation at hand (n=43/366). In many of the comments the teachers also added reservations about how much time in the planned lessons should be reserved for discussion. This general analysis of the further comments, together with the strong preference for the first alternative, provides sufficient support for a dominating approach to not allow students’ negative opinions on minorities to be publicly aired in the classroom without restriction.

154

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

Thus, the survey question was not understood by teachers relying on an abstract notion of democracy, such as the right of free speech, as their guiding principle. Rather, it indicates that teachers with a broad understanding of democracy, supported by the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance (SHEO, 1993:100), sometimes take a stand against certain behaviour and world views. The nature of the survey question highlights that some situations require specific consideration, in contrast with how the idea of democracy is approached by student teachers.

Discussion This chapter has focused on the ideological governance of teacher education. The teaching profession can nowadays be understood in terms of an insideout-professionalism, which is in line with a broad understanding of democracy in which forms of democracy need to be combined with an awareness of what takes shape in day-to-day practice. Hence, Swedish teacher education can be understood as being based on the notion of developing professional judgement that pays attention to co-existing democratic values when analysing and deliberating on pedagogical situations. This also seems to reflect how freedom of speech is considered as a democratic value; its relevance in the school context depends on the teacher’s judgement of the situation and whether the principle of free speech is relevant for realising democracy, including the values of human dignity and human rights promoted by the Council of Europe. The document Competences for Democratic Culture (2016) states that “recognition that fundamental freedoms should always be defended unless they undermine or violate the human rights of others” (2016, p. 37). But the document also comprises principles supporting a tolerance of ambiguity that lean towards a broad concept of democracy as we have outlined above, such as emphasizing the value of “acceptance of complexity, contradictions and lack of clarity” and furthermore in the same section, a willingness “to tolerate uncertainty and to deal with it constructively” (p 43). In light of these formulations we find support in the Council of Europe for the basic ideas presented in our chapter. Teachers’ deliberations on how to handle democratic values also include judgements about the practical teaching situation in general. There are signs of deliberation in the comments that address how much time should be reserved for discussing a topic that is not part of the original lesson agenda. In other situations, such as when discussing controversial topics or student elections, free speech could be seen as necessary in order to achieve a flow of student perspectives. However, the authors claim that present teacher judgement of the meaning and consequences of free speech also needs to be actualised in activities in which differences of opinions are encountered. Thus, teachers need to decide whether students’ opinions are understood as violations of human rights and dignity and when and how they are contributions to discussions and learning about controversial issues. In light of the current context, teacher education

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

155

should highlight the borders between nationalistic tendencies and the right and possibility to seriously discuss topics within the discourse of nationalism.

Note 1 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/ yttrandefrihetsgrundlag-19911469_sfs-1991-1469 [191001]

References Allport, G. W. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Apple, M. (2013) Can Education Change Society? London: Routledge. Arneback, E. (2012) Med kränkningen som måttstock: om planerade bemötanden av främlingsfientliga uttryck i gymnasieskola. Örebro: Örebro University. Arturo, A. and Arteaga, A (2003) Violence and the Body: Race, Gender and the State. Indiana: Indiana University Press. Ash, T. G. (2016) Free Speech: Ten Principles for a Connected World. Yale: Yale University Press. Ball, S. J. (1995) ‘Intellectuals or Technicians? The Urgent Role of Theory in Educational Studies’ The Brittish Journal of Educational Studies, 43 (3), pp. 255–271. Bansel, P., Dawies, B., Laws, C. and Linnell, S. (2009) ‘Bullies, Bullying and Power in the Contexts of Schooling’ British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30 (1), pp. 59–69. Barber, B. (2003) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkely, Los Angeles, and London: University of California Press. Biesta, G. (2010) What Is Education for? Good Education in an Age of Measurement: Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Bonikowski, B. and DiMaggio, P. (2016) ‘Varieties of American Popular Nationalism’ American Sociological Review, 81 (5), pp. 949–980. Carr, P. (2008) ‘Educators and Education for Democracy: Moving Beyond “Thin” Democracy’ Interamerican Journal of Education for Democracy, 1 (2), pp. 146–165. Cohran-Smith, M. (2004) Walking the Road: Race Diversity and Social Justice in Teacher Education. New York: Teacher College Press. Colnerud, G. (2004) ‘Värdegrund som pedagogisk praktik och forskningsdiskurs’ Pedagogisk forskning i Sverige, 9 (2), pp. 81–98. Council of Europe (2016) Competences for Democratic Culture. Living Together as Equals in Culturally Diverse Democratic Societies. Council of Europe, March 2016. Dahlstedt, M. and Olson, M. (2013) Utbildning, demokrati, medborgarskap. Malmö: Gleerups. Dewey, J. (1916/2002) Democracy and Education. Mineola: Dover Publisher. Edling, S. (2012) Vilja andra väl är inte alltid smärtfritt. Om mångfald och motverkandet av diskriminering och kränkning i utbildningssammanhang. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Edling, S. (2016) Demokratidilemman i läraruppdraget. Att arbeta mot lika villkor. Stockholm: Liber. Edling, S. and Frelin, A. (2016) ‘Sensing as an Ethical Dimension in Teacher Professionality’ Journal of Moral Education, 45 (1), pp. 46–58. Edling, S. and Liljestrand, J. (2018). Student Teachers’ Task Perceptions of Democracy in Their Future Profession – A Critical Discourse Analysis of Students’ Course Texts. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (7), pp. 82–97. 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n7.5. Edling, S. and Mooney Simmie, G. (2016) Ideological Governing Forms in Education and Teacher Education: A Comparative Study between highly Secular Sweden and Highly Non-Secular

156

Silvia Edling and Johan Liljestrand

Republic of Ireland. Available at: http://nordstep.net/index.php/nstep/article/view/32041 (Accessed 27 June 2019). Edling, S. and Mooney Simmie, G. (forthcoming) Democracy and Teacher Education: Dilemmas, Challenges and Possibilities. Course book for Routledge. Ekman, J. and Todosojevic, S. (2002) Unga demokrater. En översikt av den aktuella forskningen om ungdomar, politik och skolans demokrativärden. Stockholm: Fritzes. Englund, T. (1986) Curriculum as a Political Problem: Changing Educational Conceptions, with Special Reference to Citizenship Education. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Englund, T. (1997) ‘Undervisning som meningserbjudande’ in Uljens, M. (eds.) Didaktik – teori, reflektion och praktik. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Englund, T. (1999) ‘Inledning’ in John Dewey’s (ed.) Demokrati och utbildning. Göteborg: Daidalos, pp. 11–32. Englund, T., Forsberg, E. and Sundberg, D. (2012) Vad räknas som kunskap? Läroplansteoretiska utsikter och inblickar i lärarutbildning och skola. Stockholm: Liber. Green, J. M. (1999) Deep Democracy: Community, Diversity, and Transformation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Hallsén, S. (2013) Lärarutbildning i skolans tjänst?: En policyanalys av statliga argument för förändring. Uppsala: University of Uppsala. Hare, I. and Weinstein, J. (2012) Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hedin, C. and Lahdenperä, P. (2000) Värdegrund och samhällsutveckling. Stockholm: HLS förlag. The Higher Education Ordinance (2011). Swedish Council of Higher Education. Available at https:// www.uhr.se/en/start/laws-and-regulations/Laws-and-regulations/The-Higher-EducationOrdinance/. Hume, M. (2016) Trigger Warning: Is the Fear of Being Offensive Killing Free Speech? London: HarperCollins Publishers. Jackson, P. W. (1968/1990) Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Lazaridis, G., Campani, G. and Benvenist, A. (2016) The Rise of the far Right in Europe: Populist Shifts and ‘Othering’. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lindensjö, B. and Lundgren, U. P. (2000) Utbildningsreformer och politisk styrning. Stockholm: HLS förl. Linné, A. (2001) Värdegrund och svensk etnicitet. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Lundgren, U. P. (1989) Att organisera omvärlden: en introduktion till läroplansteori. Stockholm: Utbildningsförlaget. Postelnicescu, C. (2016) ‘Europe’s New Identity: The Refugee Crisis and the Rise of Nationalism’ Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12 (2), pp. 203–209. Priestley, M. and Biesta, G. (eds.) (2013) Reinventing the Curriculum:. New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Ross, A. (2000) Curriculum Construction and Critique. London and New York: Falmer Press. Rydgren, J. (ed.) (2018) The Oxford Handbook of the Radical Right. New York: Oxford University Press. Sahlberg, P. (2011) Report on the International Review Panel on the Structure of Initial Teacher Education Provision in Ireland: Review Conducted on Behalf of the Department of Education and Skills. Dublin: Higher Education Authority. Schulz, W, Carstens, R, Losito, B and Fraillon, J (2016) International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016. Technical Report. ICCS. IEA. SFS (2008:567) Diskrimineringslag. SFS (2010:800) Skollag.

“Democracy for me is saying what I want”

157

SHEO (1993:100) Swedish Higher Education Ordinance: Education. Available at: www.notisum. se/rnp/sls/lag/19930100.htm (Accessed 29 November 2018). Stanley, E. and Stronach, I. (2013) ‘Raising and Doubling “Standards” in Professional Discourse: A Critical Bid’ Journal of Educational Policy, 28 (3), pp. 291–305. Statens offentliga utredningar (SOU) (1948: 27) 1946 års skolkommissions betänkande med förslag till riktlinjer för det svenska skolväsendets utveckling. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget. The Swedish Act of Free speech (1991:1469). https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokumentlagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/yttrandefrihetsgrundlag-19911469_sfs-19911469 [191001]. Swedish National Agency of education (2017). Yttrande över betänkandet Bättre skydd mot diskriminering, SOU 2016:87 (Vol. 1). Stockholm: Kulturdepartementet. Swedish National Agency of education (2014a). Främja, förebygga, upptäcka och åtgärda. Hur skolan kan arbeta mot trakasserier och kränkningar. Stockholm: Fritzes. Swedish National Agency of education (2014b). Allmänna råd och kommentarer för arbetet med att främja likabehandling och för att motverka diskriminering och annan kränkande behandling. Stockholm: Fritzes Förlag. UNESCO (1945) Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. London: His Mjesty’s Stationary Office. van Mill, D. (2017) ‘Freedom of Speech’ in Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/ (Accessed 27 June 2019). Yates, L. and Collin, C. (2010) ‘The Absence of Knowledge in Australian Curriculum Reforms’ European Journal of Education, 45, pp. 89–101. Zackari, G., Modigh, F., Stalfelt, P. and Ohlson Wallin, E. (2000) Värdegrundsboken: om samtal för demokrati i skolan. Stockholm: Värdegrundsprojektet, Utbildningsdepartementet, regeringskansliet. Zeichner, K. M. (1994) ‘Conceptions of Reflective Practice in Teaching and Teacher Education’ in Harvard, G. R. and Hodkinson, P. (eds.) Action and Reflection in Teacher Education. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation. Zeichner, K. M. and Noffke, S. E. (2001) ‘Practitioner Research’ in Richardson, L. (ed.) Handbook of Research on Teaching. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Zyngier, D. (2012) Rethinking the Thinking on Democracy in Education: What Are Educators Thinking (and Doing) About Democracy? Education, 2, pp. 1–21. Available at: doi:10.3390/educ2010001. Zyngier, D. (2016) ‘What Future Teachers Believe about Democracy and Why It Is Important’ Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22 (7), pp. 782–804. Zyngier, D., Traverso, M. D. and Murriello, A. (2015) ‘Democracy Will Not Fall from the Sky: A Comparative Study of Teacher Education Students’ Perceptions of Democracy in Two Neo-Liberal Societies: Argentina and Australia’ Comparative and International Education, 10 (2), pp. 275–299.

Chapter 11

Changing society, changing teacher education Matti Rautiainen and Andrea Raiker

As discussed in the introduction, democracy is not only complex and complicated; over time its conception and practices change according to the state of individuals, their relationships with varying communities and the environments in which they live. Its simplest form occurred in its emergence in ancient Greek city-states, such as Athens. Nowadays, with country populations being many millions, their representatives in parliaments and governments are substantially influenced by pluralism, meaning varying interpretations of ‘democracy’ and pluralism, meaning domination of democracy by international and global neoliberal business and commercial groups. These two forms of pluralism, together with direct (individually focused) elitism and the impact of technology on truth, imply that learning what ‘democracy’ is through a simple, straightforward definition is impossible. Orwell’s post-war deliberation is still valid. Also, as highlighted in the Italian chapter, to think nationally on how to develop citizens on their understanding and practice of thinking and acting democratically is not enough. Comprehension of globalisation, stimulated in Europe through immigration, racism and terrorism, means that there needs to be elements in the teaching and learning of democratic citizenship that go beyond national parameters because democracy has values that are appreciated world-wide, even if national governing ideologies restrain their practice; it is in fact a reality people build, or wish to build, together based on democratic values such as equality, justice and freedom. This necessitates citizens to acquire intercultural dialogue, as argued by Claudia Lenz. According to John Dewey’s well-known conception, democracy can become a reality though living democratically, as a way of living (Dewey, 1939; Dewey, 1966). A way of living begins at birth, so children and young people should be taught to understand as they grow up why and how they should act in relation to others and how this relates to democratic practice and citizenship. This is extremely important for children who encounter ‘Not for children under 18’ signs and experiences in their societies because they cannot act as full citizens everywhere. The place of schooling in the development in democratic citizenship is fundamental and paramount. The vast majority of children and young people attend the communities called ‘schools’ in Europe, so schools can

Changing society, changing teacher education

159

develop communality and communal life, in other words democratic living, for all but a few. As discussed in the Kosovar chapter, in teacher education there tends to be more emphasis on democratic values and actions in primary, rather than secondary, education. If children come from families who act democratically because that is part of their historic traditions of communicative action, having more emphasis on democracy related to primary rather than secondary education is understandable. This suggests the necessity of two approaches, from both governments and people, partly because secondary education has to be more focused on young people acquiring what is necessary for their future work. And as ‘ordinary’ people, that is, not those in government or power, are the ones who have to live democratically together for their lives to be content and peaceful, their impact on political actions through democracy is of great importance. School is the place children, young people and teachers can and should practice full citizenship because, as Dewey maintained, schools are miniature or minor democratic societies. Those who are leaning to teach, that is, in teacher education, are students of an age that is regarded as being ‘adult’ and therefore have full rights as citizens in their society. Teacher education should be built upon the same idea of ‘minor society’ where teacher students can act as full members of their educational community. Democracy can only be known and understood if it is present everywhere in society. In times to come, it is essential that a strong democratic culture is present in teacher education so that future teachers can identify this ethos during their study period, through analysing and evaluating their experiences, and then transfer their understanding to their work in their schools. From this perspective, how does the state of education for democracy in teacher education appear to be in Europe? The chapters in this book show how common values of democracy – for example the ability to vote rationally, to act as an attentive and responsible citizen, to support the morality and ethics in society and the resulting rules depending on nationality; to cooperate and collaborate with other people; to accept diversity and interact with the view of inclusion – are addressed in varying degrees, ideologically and practically. Democracy and its related citizenship appear to have stages, first as political and then as social and moral/ethnic conceptions. This can be linked to Dewey’s notion of democracy being based on individuals ‘being in the world’ (Heidegger’s dasein). This also links to Claudia Lenz’s conclusion that the development of democratic citizenship through teacher education is top down and bottom up. However, all chapters indicate that there are challenges in addressing democracy in teacher education curricula. For example, in England, the one-year teacher education PGCE course does not give sufficient time within programmes either for the discussion of or progression in knowledge and understanding of morals, democratic values and citizenship education; in addition, there is not time for experiments as in Finland to address such issues. In Estonia, despite primary teacher courses being five years long,

160

Matti Rautiainen and Andrea Raiker

and secondary teacher courses being at Master’s level, the new requisites for advancing diverse proficiencies connected to the teacher’s role (as a classroom leader, councillor, translator in a multicultural setting, Information and Communication Technology and design specialist designing contemporary teaching and learning materials, etc.), together with arching emphasis on natural sciences and technology, has resulted in little time being left for engagement with the development of democratic citizenship. Irish historical and religious culture has resulted in constrained discussion and actions that have had a negative impact on teachers being able to develop their students’ democratic Values, Attitudes, Skills, Knowledge and Critical Understanding. All chapters, despite their authors’ engagement with the promotion of democratic citizenship in teacher education, include discussion of the difficulties involved in their countries in achieving this. Despite the development of education for democracy based on democratic experiments in education as in Finland, together with the value placed on inclusive pluralism in some countries such as England and Sweden, issues in other countries such as Portugal and Kosovo of social inequality, poverty, exploitation and human trafficking together with the over-riding value placed on neoliberal ideology means that teacher educators are expected to conform, not create. Also, a common concern is the state of democracy threatened by anti-democratic movements. Nevertheless, despite the dark clouds threatening democracy throughout the 2010s, the chapters reveal that there are many actions at a grassroots level which are leading school education as well as teacher education towards more democratic cultures and related pedagogies.

Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture – from awareness to action The 20 competences for democratic culture (RFCDC) by the Council of Europe (CoE) have been considered throughout this book. They offer positivist, democratic culture in Europe. Although the idea of a democracy categorised in four boxes, or in the wings of butterfly, is reducing conceptions of the elements of democracy, it provides a useful and helpful framework that reflects international, indeed global, communities and cultures from their varying viewpoints of democracy and therefore creates a basis for uniting them. By identifying key words and phrases, and defining them, the RFCDC suggests and encourages processes embedded to take forward education for democratic culture from the levels of awareness of democracy to higher levels of action. The history of democracy in Europe varies considerably in the countries whose academics have contributed to this book. However, whilst the rise of totalitarianism following the First World War and throughout the 1920s and 1930s stopped the wave of democracy, for 40 years after the Second World War with totalitarianism segregated from Western Europe by the Iron Curtain, democracy became integrated into all political groups. During that period, tensions between left and right wing political groups caused conflict because

Changing society, changing teacher education

161

conceptions of democracy included communistic ideology from one perspective and neoliberalist ideology from another. Since the 1990s, countries in Western Europe have been seeking new forms of democracy, not only to reflect the difference in local communities, but also as a new experimental culture in schools and education, as shown in this book. Different stakeholders in societies have always focused on wide range of aspirations and demands directed at teacher education. It is like a barrel that is always overflowing and visible in the everyday life of teacher educators. According to the chapters in this book, teachers and teacher educators highlight the lack of speed, time and space to develop democratic involvement. Democracy is highly respected and considered to be fundamental to ensuring positive and peaceful relationship among individuals, their peers and those that manage their schools and universities. Most individuals take its existence for granted, even though its implementation in everyday learning and life is seen as very challenging because all the varying levels of curricula and the activities they generate are already full of other content. This raises the question: is it possible to raise the core content of teacher education from the perspective of democracy and/or democratic culture? For example, self-efficacy and autonomous learning skills are considered to be key qualities that individuals need for continuing professional development and meaningful, progressive lives. Rarely, if ever, have these skills been seen as essential in forming the basis for a democratic culture, although it is now clear that the foundation of a democratic society – that is, critical, active and autonomous citizens – needs these competences in their everyday lives. Therefore, the shared findings from these chapters indicate that RFCDC should be viewed foremost as an outline providing a framework whereby learners can study, reflect and develop the state of democracy in every community. Because there is no evidence that the range and depth of content in both school and teacher education are going to diminish in the future – in fact, it can be assumed on the contrary – engagement with the Framework will provide opportunities to create democratic perspectives in all levels of teacher education from curriculum to practice (see Table 11.1). In other words, with RFCDC it is possible to make democracy systematically visible in teacher education. Democracy is not content just to be studied, but also to be actively practised, a life of democracy in everyday life, an approach that would be supported by Dewey. As Claudia Lenz wrote in her chapter, the CoE has campaigns to strengthen the implementation of RFCDC across Europe. The aim of these campaigns is to raise awareness of RFCDC and to encourage activities that take educational institutions forward to become communities that are more democratic. Successful implementation in teacher education practices requires participation of the whole community in implementing RFCDC. As Dewey maintained, schools are miniature democratic societies. In addition, democratic values as well as education for democracy have to become more important aspects of the teaching profession and its development.

162

Matti Rautiainen and Andrea Raiker

Table 11.1 Phenomena in the phenomenon-based teacher education curriculum at the Department of Teacher Education at the University of Jyväskylä (Curriculum Plans 2017–2020, 2017). Phenomenon

CoE Competences

Interaction and cooperation

Cooperation skills Conflict-resolution skills Responsibility Skills of listening and observing Empathy Flexibility and adaptability Tolerance of ambiguity Linguistic, communicative and plurilingual skills Autonomous learning skills Self-efficacy Analytical and critical thinking skills Knowledge and critical understanding of the self Knowledge and critical understanding of language and communication Knowledge and critical understanding of the world: politics, law, human rights, culture, cultures, religions, history, media, economies, environment, sustainability Valuing human dignity and human rights Valuing cultural diversity Valuing democracy, justice, fairness, equality and the rule of law Openness to cultural otherness and to other beliefs, world views and practices Respect Civic-mindedness

Learning and guidance Scientific thinking and knowledge Education, society and change

Pluralism in democracy The RFCDC as well as other European level documents concerning democracy are aiming to create a common state of will and ambition throughout Europe. Forms of democracy, principles and practices, however, are historically and culturally constructed, mostly at the national level. Thus, although democratic values in Europe are based on the same philosophic perspective that involves relating individuals to their communities and environments, they are interpreted in very different ways in each country. What the CoE’s RFCDC offers to this perspective is an attempt to see ‘outside the box’, that is, to create a dialogue between competences and national culture. The key concept in this process is the thought and action of a citizen in democracy (democratic citizenship), which according to the CoE’s competences is the ability to be autonomous, communal, critical and respect humanity from different perspectives. (Rautiainen, 2019.) The framework of European democratic citizenship has been systematically under construction since the 1990s around four dimensions of citizenship: political, social, cultural and economic citizenship (CoE, 2003). According to the CoE, ‘democratic citizenship emphasises the belief that citizenship should

Changing society, changing teacher education

163

be based on democratic principles and values such as pluralism, respect for human dignity and the rule of law’. The RFCDC must be seen as one phase in the implementation process of democratic citizenship, but also as a counterreaction; for example, member countries of the European Union (EU) are deeply concerned about the commitment to democracy and education for democracy by the member states like Poland and Hungary. This indicates that, should policymakers and educators gain access to greater knowledge and understanding of the interplay between the historical, economic, political and social factors that have resulted in their country’s current educational system, policies and practices, the advance of democratic citizenship would receive greater support. The chapters in this book show how RFCDC can be used as a daily process in educating for democracy. The cultures of national states and RFCDC are mutually supportive, not opposing perspectives. There is no one format for democracy, but different constructions by people, as long as the community is respecting highly democratic values, giving the right to ‘voice’ rational opinions and experiences to everyone.

Climate change – threat or possibility for democracy? To sum up perspectives of teacher education and education for democracy presented in this book, the awareness in teacher education of the development of education for democracy as well democratic citizenship is increasing. However, these principles are not prominent in the curriculum or in the culture of teacher education, even if there is more and more experimentation and/or intervention with the intention of education for democracy challenging the culture. The utopia, which has been building up at the rhetorical level since the 1990s, is now implementing itself in different levels of teacher education to encourage practice. Phenomena under study in this book can also be approached from the viewpoint of what is not emphasised in teacher education. Considering that people globally are concerned about climate change, it is surprising that this was mentioned in the Finnish chapter, discussed in the Italian chapter as a planetary element of democratic citizenship was discussed, but nowhere else. When more than 15,000 researchers signed a second warning to humanity (Ripple et al., 2017) in November 2017, most people, especially in Western Europe, became keenly aware of climate change. Uniquely, children have been at front of the battle against climate change. The most famous is Greta Thunberg, a 16-yearold Swedish schoolgirl and climate activist, who has been invited to various countries to give presentations on activities to minimise climate change. As a matter of fact, anti–climate change actions are good examples of how men and women of different ages can be equally active in their societies, defending not only our common world but democracy too. However, there are more and more voices maintaining that decision-making should be carried out in a more

164

Matti Rautiainen and Andrea Raiker

straightforward manner so that responses to the threats of climate change can be faster and more effective. This idea is not new; on the contrary, it is very familiar. The ancient Romans had a political system that, in times of crisis, allowed the concentration of power on one person, the dictator, for a short period. This system ended when Julius Caesar forced his ascension to a permanent dictatorship. The same process has occurred in Europe several times since then. As indicated by the 185 countries ratifying the Paris Agreement by 2018, climate change is regarded globally as an enormously threatening issue facing humanity, and solving it requires everyone’s contribution and significant changes in their lifestyles. Citizens must learn to live, consume and work within the limits of the earth’s essential but finite resources. Thus, building sustainable citizenship should be a core element of democratic culture and therefore of teacher education, for example, at the following three levels (Rautiainen and Toivanen, 2018): 1

2

3

Teacher education departments must become communities where the status of students is much more significant than at present. To develop sustainable citizenship, it is essential that students acquire related knowledge and understanding so that they have the ability to participate in and be responsible for maintaining, indeed improving, the earth’s sustainability. In addition, teacher education as an entity has to develop, step-by-step, to acquire sustainable lifestyles where the environmental impact of their actions is always taken into account when decisions are made. Teacher education courses must include content and activities that support the construction of a sustainable lifestyle and understanding of climate change as an integral part of being democratic citizens. It has long been recognised in the scientific world that solving the threatening issues of our time involves including and developing appropriate knowledge of sufficient breadth and depth in multidisciplinary teaching and learning practices. Best practices should be shared internationally as effectively as possible.

All in all, teacher education should be able to provide a space for a future scenario where working and living not only realistically identifies threats, but also encourages and educates student teachers into being sustainably responsible through their pedagogical approaches. In this way, teacher education would support a pedagogy that will ensure the learning of achieving sustainable lifestyles so that future generations can live a good life within the limits of the earth’s essential but finite resources, in other words, its natural carrying capacity. As Raiker has argued (2017:70), teachers being researchers can be ‘crucial in developing democratic ideals and ways of behaving with their students that accord with Dewey’s philosophical positioning’. Teachers’ research could reveal effective ways of incorporating issues connected with climate change into developing teacher education to promote global and current conceptions of democratic citizenship. However, the weight of content and practice, and

Changing society, changing teacher education

165

relatively short courses in teacher education in some countries, as discussed, means that student teachers and teacher educators would find researching as suggested impossible. This also implies that some countries would find it difficult to include philosophical content in their teacher education courses so that the ethical underpinnings of the CoE’s Values and Attitudes can be gained through reflection on the Knowledge and critical understanding gained through the application of Skills.

Think big, act bold Traditionally, education for democracy has not represented the core of teacher education throughout Western Europe, although democratic values are generally considered a communal necessity for successful individual student learning. An aim of this book was to seek how academic authors across Western Europe considered the extent to which the CoE’s RFCDC is currently embedded into their countries’ educational policy and practices. On the most part, the authors had not considered the RFCDC in relation to education for democratic citizenship in their countries. Their research, analysis and evaluation of elements that were defined as competences by the CoE revealed that a number of competences were an integral part of their policy and practices, but were present because of the work of individual teachers, teacher educators and/or schools. No author provided evidence that the CoE competences they identified were in their work because of insistence through systematic organisational implementation. Like so many other aspects, strengthening a county’s democratic culture in education appears to be simple, by sharing its elements with stakeholders through giving uncomplicated definitions and by providing examples of common experiences, but doing so through social processes and procedures involves extreme complexity (see e.g. Fullan, 1995, p. 65). This suggests the need for a systematic approach so that competences could be methodically described in curricula and implemented at all levels of operational culture in university teacher education departments. Teacher education is the interface between individual learners and political power to promote democratic citizenship. That is why the CoE competences are helpful, but they are not teacher education directed, more policy-maker and teacher directed. Hence the challenge for teacher educators in including them in their curricula. However, a fundamental in the success of teacher education in developing democratic citizenship is to what extent it is embedded in everyday living, to create youngsters and student teachers who have democratic citizenship embedded in their everyday lives. This is where the historic, socio-political and economic underpinnings of society (both individuals, teacher educators and government) are so important. So, as concluded by Claudia Lenz, an interaction between government policymakers and teachers/educators to create change initiated by a spectrum of stakeholders is required. Change requires rethinking, even radically, of what education is and of what it should consist, for democratic values, principles and

166

Matti Rautiainen and Andrea Raiker

activities to become the core of teacher education. There is never an end to such change. Neither strengthening democracy nor fully integrating education for democracy is ever complete.

References CoE. (2003) Under Construction: Citizenship, Youth and Europe – T-Kit on European Citizenship. Available at: https://issuu.com/visiontoolkits/docs/tkit7 (Accessed 1 June 2019). Curriculum Plans 2017–2020 (2017) Department of Teacher Education; University of Jyväskylä. Available at: www.jyu.fi/edupsy/fi/laitokset/okl/opiskelu/luokanopettajakoulutus/ opetussuunnitelmat-ja-opetusohjalmat (Accessed 15 May 2019). Dewey, J. (1939) ‘Creative Democracy: The Task before Us’ in John Dewey and the Promise of America, Progressive Education Booklet, No. 14. Columbus, OH: American Education Press. Republished in John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Vol. 14. Dewey, J. (1966) Democracy and Education. New York: The Free Press. Fullan, M. (1995) The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell. Raiker, A. (2017) ‘The Teacher as Researcher: Establishing an Environment for a SelfImproving Education System’ in Saqipi, B. and Vogrinc, J. (eds.) The Prospects of Reforming Teacher Education. Pristina: Libri Skollar. Rautiainen, M. (ed.) (2019) Towards a Better Democracy: Council of Europe’s Competences for Democratic Culture in Education and Teaching. Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskylä. Available at: https://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/63745 (Accessed 6 June 2019). Rautiainen, M. and Toivanen, T. (2018) ‘Koulun on tuettava kestävää elämäntapaa’ Suomen Kuvalehti, 5 January, p. 67. Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M. I., Laurance, W. F. and 15,364 Scientist Signatories from 184 Countries (2017) ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice’ BioScience, 67 (12), pp. 1026–1028.

Index

active: citizen 2, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 95; citizenship 55, 56, 62, 65, 76, 78, 83, 84, 94, 100, 118; participation 17, 18, 27 alternative: pedagogies 4; philosophy of praxis 149; in teacher education 14; ways of teacher education 125 Athenian democracy 4–5 autonomy 50, 51, 65, 92, 108, 115, 134 Blair, A. (Tony) 35, 48, 56 bottom-up 11, 32, 64, 122, 159 Britain’s exit from EU (Brexit) 2, 7, 11, 37, 44 citizenship education 21, 24, 35, 40, 42, 46, 82, 96, 108–10, 120, 128; active 20, 62, 64, 78, 83, 96, 106, 117; Athenian roots 4; and civic education 11, 48, 76, 93, 97, 112; and competences 11, 13, 49, 52, 55, 59, 121; conceptual aspects 11, 47–8, 71, 74–5, 78, 93–4, 101, 104, 112, 115–16, 121, 126; critical 12, 65, 120; and curricula 12, 35–6, 51, 57, 80, 119; and fundamental British values 11; global/European/planetary 13, 20, 32, 86, 97–100, 103, 125, 127, 129–30, 134, 158; and religion 75; in teacher education 14, 52, 54, 77, 85, 101, 118–19, 129, 131–4 climate change 70, 71, 100, 104, 163–5 communism 13, 50, 63, 113, 117, 161 comprehensive education 47, 52, 62, 63, 108, 119; and comprehensive schools 3, 32, 47, 51, 52, 53, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 68, 88, 108, 119; in Council of Europe 32 context: cultural 1, 11, 14, 23, 25, 32, 48, 49, 60, 66, 86, 88, 92, 94, 97, 98, 115, 117, 119; historical 1, 46, 49, 60, 86, 92, 98, 113, 118, 145

cooperation 2, 4, 18, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 46, 48, 49, 55 Council of Europe 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 32, 33, 36, 43, 44, 47, 49, 59, 63, 67, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 110, 113, 117, 123, 128, 130, 140, 141, 149, 154, 155, 156, 160, 166 cultural 1, 2, 11, 14, 19, 20, 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 44, 48, 49, 50, 55, 57 curricula 47, 52, 58; for individuals 20, 68; in school education 3; in school systems 51, 58, 63, 64, 68, 72; for school teachers 53; in teacher education 58, 59, 63 curriculum: school 39, 52, 54, 57, 58, 79, 80, 105, 113, 114, 129, 130, 147; theory 6, 125, 128, 142, 150 Cygnaeus, U. 63 decentralization 114 decolonize 125 degrees: Bachelor 34, 117; Master’s 14, 42, 53, 56, 64, 117, 119, 130 democratic: citizenship 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 33, 47, 45, 57, 58, 59, 60, 65, 71, 88, 112, 113, 116, 160, 162, 163, 164; culture 1, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 44, 49, 59, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 75, 77, 79, 87, 99, 110, 113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 134, 140, 151, 154, 155, 160, 161, 164, 165, 166 Dewey, J. 18, 37, 40, 147, 161; conceptions of democracy 5, 7, 8, 112, 158; education and democracy 8, 9, 37, 43, 164; education as mediator 8; individuals and society 8, 9, 37, 48, 122, 159; schools as micro democratic societies 8, 37, 159, 161 direct democracy 4–5

168

Index

discrimination 29, 77, 106, 144, 148, 149, 151, 152 diversity 19, 65, 96, 127, 131, 134, 159; of citizens 99, 108; cultural 55, 75, 76, 83, 130, 135; school 76; social 2 economy 9, 46, 65, 66, 76, 77, 78, 94, 108, 112, 121, 122, 146, 149, 162, 165; and 2008 Recession 2; European Economic Community 78; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 20, 36; theory 48 Education Policy Advisors Network (EPAN) 11, 31 Ekklesia 4–5 elitism 1, 6, 8 equality 3, 37, 66, 99, 103, 105, 107, 128, 129, 135, 158 European Union 1, 2, 12, 13, 37, 74, 82, 85–6, 127, 128, 135, 163

language: body 23; communication 29; culture 12; development 134; English as a foreign language (EFL) 129–30; foreign language 14, 53, 130; identity 75; meaning 150; ‘voice’ 8 liberal 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 13, 36, 38, 46, 47, 48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 63, 74, 88, 125, 126, 129, 142, 157, 158, 160, 161 liberalism 2, 3, 9, 11, 13, 47, 48, 56, 59, 60, 88, 129 local 9, 11, 24, 34, 35, 43, 50, 56, 71, 76, 79, 83, 84, 97 Marx K./Marxism 3, 50, 64 migration 2, 13 moral: conceptions 11, 122, 159; consequences 57, 150; education 92, 94; individuals 47; orientation 118; perspectives 9, 42, 65; purpose 123; responsibility 112, 118

fascism 92, 126, 128, 135, 136 free speech 14, 144–5, 151–4 freedom of speech 4, 14, 15, 145, 152, 153, 154, 157 fundamental British values 11, 35, 41

national identity 8, 11, 13 neoliberalism 9, 11–12, 13, 47, 48–9, 55, 56, 58, 125, 126, 128, 129, 160, 161 nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) 28, 46

global 9, 11, 13, 20, 60, 65, 71, 79, 83, 84, 89, 90, 92, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 109, 111, 115, 116, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 134, 140, 141, 142, 149, 158, 160, 163, 164 governance 18, 24, 27, 28, 32, 49, 57, 62, 104, 145, 154

Orwell, G. 1, 2, 10

human rights 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25 identity 43, 47, 97, 109, 129; cultural 55, 85, 86, 97, 117; European 86, 110; existential 99; formation 126; leadership 57; loss of 105; monolithic 126; national 8, 11, 13, 86, 87, 97, 128; political 75; professional 4, 42, 57, 65; shared 48, 86; students’ 56 ideology 3, 9, 50, 63, 88, 141, 146, 160, 161 immigration 94, 106, 108, 125, 126, 158 independence 13, 46, 50, 52, 63, 81, 113 inequality 64, 65, 71, 126, 127, 152, 160 inquiry-oriented 131 intercultural 14, 19, 20, 21, 25, 22, 33, 57, 59, 88, 94, 96, 99

pedagogies 10, 11, 14, 25–7, 37, 38, 59, 85, 107, 127, 129, 154, 164; child-centred 50; cultural 94, 106, 115; and dialogical learning 38, 40, 42; freedom 4, 65, 128; and identity 4; as intervention 14, 135; pedagogic inquiry 131–4; practices 4, 56; principles 92; in schools 4, 37; teacher education 33, 34, 64, 108, 119, 131, 164; traditions 12, 43 philosophy 31, 66, 115, 118, 147; of education 11, 37, 42; essentialist 148; history 51; humanist 17; practical 148; of praxis 139 pluralism 1, 6, 8, 47, 48 policy 12, 14, 43, 46, 115, 121, 149; Council of Europe 31, 59, 74, 86, 165; curriculum 121; democratic 6; educational 10, 12, 13, 17, 30, 32, 34, 57, 66, 71, 114, 120; government 11; national 10, 148; school education 58; teacher education 47, 53–4, 113, 115, 149 politics 1–3, 37, 48, 49, 63, 65, 114, 122; democratic 6, 57, 122; in education 64, 83–4, 115; global 54, 98

Index

169

populism 1, 2, 8, 126, 152 Postgraduate Certificate of Education (PGCE) 34, 42 primary school education 12, 14, 34–5, 39, 41, 43, 53, 56, 57, 62, 63–5, 68, 74–6, 79–80, 92, 94, 95, 96, 106, 108, 109, 119, 123, 130–1, 135, 159 professionalism 9, 14, 39, 99, 112, 115, 147, 148 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 20, 36, 38, 72 protestant 74, 77

diversity 2, 99, 127; education 12, 18, 94; equity 13, 99; factors 10, 26, 96, 98, 163; history 3, 95, 96, 119; issues 6, 13; justice 14, 107, 126, 128, 135; literacy 52, 56; media 7, 103, 104–6, 144; reality 13, 65, 97; relations 18, 93, 97, 99, 149; rights 48, 49; sciences 24, 54, 57, 70, 83; skills 11, 95; studies 54, 56, 57, 94, 119; subjects 52, 55 socialism and democracy 2–3, 63 sustainability 13, 21, 97, 103, 131, 135, 138, 162, 164

Qualified Teacher Status 35

teacher education 2–4, 11, 30, 58; aims of 53; for citizenship 52; and classroom practice 9; courses 41–2, 43, 57, 64, 101, 112, 116–17, 118, 120, 127–8, 135, 145, 149, 159; curricula 2, 14, 47, 50, 51, 53–4, 64, 113, 119–20, 125, 130, 159; development 13, 46, 47, 56, 115, 120; effectiveness of 10; institutions 30, 35; and philosophy 10; for primary 57, 65, 78, 119, 159; religious influence on 75; in schools 35; for secondary 13, 34, 78, 123, 159 teacher professionalism 14, 99, 112, 123, 147 technology 7, 53, 55, 58, 97, 98, 116, 117, 158, 160 terrorism 2, 20, 35, 36, 98, 104, 158 textbooks 87, 94, 102 Thunberg, G. 163 top down 11, 32, 84, 114, 122, 159

racism 94, 158 Reference Framework Competences for Democratic Culture (RFCDC) 2, 11, 17, 21, 22, 23, 25, 31, 32, 67, 70, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81–3, 130, 160, 161; competence clusters 22, 30; and curriculum development 24; and educational policy 30; and teacher education 30, 84, 86; Values, Attitudes, Skills and Knowledge and Critical Understanding 2, 10, 12, 21, 74 representative democracy 5 responsibility 9, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 34, 38, 39, 41, 49, 54, 79, 82, 95, 96, 99, 107, 112, 117, 137, 147, 148, 162 rule of law 8, 19, 30, 36, 55, 118, 162, 163 Runciman, D. 6, 7–8 secondary school education 12, 34, 35, 40, 41, 43, 53, 54, 56, 62, 64, 74, 75, 77, 78, 82–5, 93, 94, 96, 101, 104, 108, 109, 110, 123, 159, 160 self-regulation 62 social 47, 64–5, 77–8, 94, 96, 103, 112–13, 126–7, 145, 160, 162; benefits 6, 7, 11; competences 13, 48, 54, 55, 100, 112;

United Nations 20, 38–9, 86, 9, 113–14, 146 voice 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 47, 72, 119, 163; pupil 38–9, 40–3 voting 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 47, 106, 107, 146, 147 Vouli 4–5 Vygotsky, L. 18, 122