0.5. New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education For Citizenship - An International Comparison

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for
Citizenship: An International Comparison

8. An international review of citizenship in the curriculum: the tea national case
studies and the inca archive
David Kerr
Article information:
To cite this document: David Kerr. "8. An international review of citizenship in the
Downloaded by New York University At 01:05 17 February 2015 (PT)
curriculum: the tea national case studies and the inca archive" In New Paradigms
and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: An International Comparison.
Published online: 2002; 207-237.
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3679(02)80011-1
Downloaded on: 17 February 2015, At: 01:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 31 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 70 times since NaN*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Maurice Holt, (1943),"Calculation of Wing Profile Drag: A New Simplified Method of
Practical Value to Engineers", Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 15
Iss 10 pp. 278-280 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb031059
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

198285 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please
use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which
publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.
The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and
book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and
additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner
of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the
LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at
time of download.
80 AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW
OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE
CURRICULUM: THE IEA
NATIONAL CASE STUDIES AND
THE INCA ARCHIVE
David Kerr
INTRODUCTION
The triangulation described in this chapter brought together different layers

of qualitative data about citizenship education within and across countries.
The sources of information used to formulate national case studies for Phase 1
of the IEA Civic Education Study, notably empirical, document review and
curriculum analyses, were supplemented and enhanced by policy statements
from the INCA Archive and by the professional judgements, experiences
and views of experts in the field. The breadth and depth of these different
layers of data afforded the opportunity to analyze and interpret similarities and
differences between the layers. The result was a rich comparative analysis of
citizenship education which, while indebted to the findings from the Phase 1
national case studies, enabled the construction of wider 'frames' through which
to view citizenship education. These frames provide insights into the nature and
status of citizenship education and the common challenges in this area within
New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship, Volume 5,

pages 207-237.
Copyright © 2002 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
207
208 DAVID KERR
and across countries. They afford flesh ways of viewing the Phase 1 national
case studies and provide wider frames through which to analyze and interpret
the further layers of data about citizenship education in Phase 2 of the study.
The chapter is divided into three sections. The first provides background
information about the reasons for the triangulation of data sources and the
conduct of the comparative analysis. The second sets out some wider compar-
ative frames through which citizenship education and the data from the IEA
national case studies and INCA Archive can be viewed. These are based on
the analysis and interpretation of the triangulation of the qualitative data. The
third section examines the implications of these frames for the analysis of
key aspects of citizenship education in the curriculum. Finally, the conclusion

sets out what has been learned from the triangulation and comparative analysis.
The focus is on two types of learning. The first is knowledge based, namely
what was learned from the analysis about the nature and status of citizenship
education and about common issues and pointers to more effective practice.
The second is methodological, that is, what was learned about new paradigms
from the analysis of cross-national data.
THE TRIANGULATION OF QUALITATIVE DATA
The triangulation of the sources of qualitative data on citizenship education

came about through a mixture of national policy initiative and professional
circumstances: in other words, the usual mix of planning, opportunity and good
fortune. The overriding reason for the triangulation was the current interest in
citizenship education. Citizenship education is highly topical in many countries
as this new century dawns and urgent consideration is given to how better to
prepare young people for the challenges and uncertainties of life in a rapidly
changing world (Gore, 1996; Kennedy, 1996; Ichilov, 1998; Niemi & Junn,
1998; Cogan & Derricott, 2000). Major reforms of schools and the curriculum
are underway in many locations, and citizenship education is very much a part
of this reform process. England is no exception in terms of this period of intro-
spection and reform. Indeed, the place, definition and purpose of citizenship
education in schools have been thoroughly examined in England in recent years
as part of a wider review of the national curriculum (Kerr, 1999a, b, c). The
coming together of the sources of qualitative data on citizenship education
described in this chapter is very much tied to the review process in England.
Citizenship education has increasingly come to the fore in England in
discussions about how schools and the curriculum should respond to today's
unprecedented level and pace of global change. The advent of a new Labour
Government in May 1997 greatly accelerated this process of reflection and
An International Review of Citizenship in the Curriculum 209
coincided with a decision that England should participate in Phase 1 of the IEA
Civic Education Study, albeit after that phase was well underway in most
countries. The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) was
asked, by the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) 1 and the
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), to carry out the work. This
involved the production of the national case study report on developments
in citizenship education in England, drawn from a wide variety of sources.
Given my background in civics-related issues, I became the national research
co-ordinator.
The national case study report for Phase 1 was successfully completed on time
despite the considerable pressures of catching up with the other participating

countries. The completion coincided with the announcement, in September 1997,
of the establishment of a government advisory group on Education for
Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, chaired by Professor
Bernard Crick of the University of London. The group was charged with
"provid[ing] advice on effective education for citizenship in schools - to include
the nature and practices of participation in democracy, the duties, responsibilities
and rights of individuals as citizens; and the value to individuals and society
of community activity" (Crick, 1998b, p. 4). The group was specifically invited
to set out the aims and purposes of citizenship education and how it could be
successfully delivered, both within and outside the formal school curriculum, and
through links between schools and the wider community. QCA was asked to
provide professional support and management services to the group in an attempt
to ensure that any recommendations dovetailed with the overall revision of the
national curriculum that QCA was leading simultaneously. On the strength of
the Phase 1 national case study report, I was seconded to QCA, in October 1997,
as professional officer to the advisory group.
Meanwhile, in May 1996, in an earlier development, the (then) School
Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) 2 had commissioned NFER to
undertake an international review of curriculum and assessment frameworks in
16 countries.3 This review was intended to assist SCAA in its work in monitoring
the curriculum in England and, in particular, in its evaluation of different
methods of curriculum organization. The aims of the International Review of
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks (IRCAF) Project are to:
• Build a ready-to-use resource, comprising a succinct description of each

country's educational aims, structure and organization and its curriculum and
assessment framework, collectively referred to as "INCA". The INCA
Archive is now in place.
• Provide comparative tables and factual summaries in specific areas of interest.
210 DAVID KERR
• Provide detailed information on specific areas to enable QCA to evaluate the

national curriculum and assessment frameworks in England. These specific
areas are addressed through "thematic studies" 4 that bring together the findings
of INCA with additional research and include invitational seminars involving
participants from most of the countries.
During my secondment to QCA, I worked closely with the advisory group's

chair, Professor Bernard Crick, and group members in the production of a
unanimously agreed initial report published in March 1998 (Crick, 1998a). The
report set out the aims and purposes of citizenship education. It was followed
six months later by a final report, which set out, alongside the aims and purposes,
a framework for the development of citizenship education in schools (Crick,
1998b). The final report recommended that "the teaching of citizenship and
democracy is so important, both for schools and the life of the nation, that there
must be a statutory requirement on schools to ensure that it is part of the
entitlement of all pupils" (p. 7). The report and its recommendations were
considered as part of the professional and public consultation on the shape of
the revised national curriculum (QCA/DfEE, 1999a, b). As a result of the
positive responses, citizenship education is set to become part of the statutory
school curriculum in England for the first time ever (QCA/DfEE, 1999c, d).
Citizenship education has been explicitly written into the revised national
curriculum in England. It is part of a non-statutory framework for personal,
social and health education (PSHE) and citizenship, introduced in August
2000 for students aged 5 to 11. It is being introduced from August 2002 as a
new statutory foundation subject, entitled citizenship, for 11- to 16-year-old
students.
The positive reception to the advisory group's final report made it clear to
QCA that citizenship education would feature in the revised national curriculum.
However, the distinct lack of tradition in explicitly tackling social and political
issues in the curriculum meant that there was limited existing expertise and
practice in England on which to draw in shaping this new area. There was an
urgent need therefore to find out what was going on in citizenship or civic
education in other countries so as to inform curriculum and assessment
approaches in England. This is how the triangulation of the data sources from
Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study, from the INCA Archive and
from national experts came about. The national experts were a mixture of
those from the national expert panels of the IEA Civic Education Study in
various countries, those involved in updating the INCA Archive, those suggested
by governments and ministries of education, and those contacts who provided
comparative information to the Citizenship Advisory Group.
The combination of my continued role as national research co-ordinator for

the IEA Civic Education Study, my work with the advisory group and my
secondment to QCA, and the close working relationship between NFER and
QCA on comparative analysis provided the perfect set of circumstances for the
triangulation to take place. Accordingly, in late 1998, I was commissioned by
QCA to undertake a thematic study on citizenship education. This study
was designed to enrich INCA by allowing an examination of key aspects of
citizenship education that were of interest in England, namely:
,, curriculum aims, organization and structure

,, teaching and learning approaches

. teacher specialization and teacher training
,, use of textbooks and other resources.
The thematic study combined material from:
(1) The IRCAF Project (from INCA and previous thematic studies).
(2) Specific inquiries about citizenship education addressed to the 16 countries.
(3) Discussion at an invitational seminar on citizenship education held in
London in 1999.
(4) Published sources, most notably national case studies from Phase 1 of the
IEA Civic Education Study (Tomey-Purta et al., 1999).
My intention in combining what is contained in INCA about citizenship

education, the findings of previous thematic studies, and the richer contextual
information and analysis from those countries also involved in the IEA Civic
Education Study was to produce deeper insights into policy and practice in this
area at the individual country level. I also hoped that the comparative analysis
would raise fundamental cross-national questions and issues about aspects of
citizenship education. I accordingly combined the data sources from the IEA
national case studies and the INCA Archive and undertook an initial analysis
of questions, issues and challenges. I presented the analysis as a discussion
paper at the invitational seminar for national experts on citizenship education
from each of the 16 countries. In line with the outcomes of the seminar and
further comments from the national experts, I substantially revised and published
the initial analysis as a thematic study (Kerr, 1999d).
The layering of the analysis, policy and practice from official frameworks
and written sources, combined with the experiences and views of national
experts, produced the intended deeper insights. It also enabled the identification
of broader frames within which to view challenges, trends, gaps (particularly
between policy and practice) and commonalties within and across countries. As
212 DAVID KERR
a result, the thematic study has attracted considerable interest in England and
elsewhere.
This chapter details, in particular, the comparative findings about citizenship
education from the thematic study for the nine countries involved in both the
IRCAF Project and Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study. The countries
are Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and the United States. The third section of this chapter details the
results of viewing, through the wider frames, the key aspects of citizenship
education that nnderpinned the thematic study.
Above all, the conduct of the thematic study demonstrated that, although
there are gaps in our knowledge and understanding, there are considerably more
areas of common interest and approach to citizenship education within and
across countries. I hope that the findings highlighted in this chapter will
encourage further, in-depth exploration of these commonalties beyond those
countries involved in the lEA Civic Education Study. Such exploration provides
important pointers for those attempting to achieve more co-ordinated and
effective policy and practice in citizenship education.
Before moving on to describe the wider interpretative frames, it is worth
explaining briefly the terminology used in this chapter. Citizenship or civic
education is construed broadly to encompass the preparation of young people
for their roles and responsibilities as citizens and, in particular, the role of
education (through schooling, teaching and learning) in that preparatory process.
The term "citizenship education" is used throughout, although there is an
attempt, in the next section of this chapter, to draw a distinction between
citizenship education and civic education as a way of framing this area. This
distinction accords with that of other commentators, notably Kennedy (1997)
and McLaughlin (1992). What is clear from the thematic study is that the area
of citizenship education is covered by a wide range of terms across the nine
countries and comprises many subjects. These terms include citizenship, civics,
social sciences, social studies, society, studies of society and life skills. The
area also has links to curriculum subjects and options, including history,
geography, economics, law, politics, environmental studies, values education,
religious studies and languages. The breadth and complexity of the area is
evident.
Evolving Frames for Interpretation
The IEA national case studies are rich sources of data on citizenship education
developments within countries, in their own right. They combine different data
sources, including empirical, document review and curriculum analyses, in the
formulation of each case study. Taken together, the national case studies offer
the most comprehensive and up-to-date set of qualitative data, currently avail-
able, on citizenship education developments across the world. The triangulation
of data that is at the heart of this chapter could not have been conceived without
the Phase 1 data already in place and available for analysis and interpretation.
The triangulation proceeded from the IEA national case studies rather than from
the INCA Archive or the views of the national experts. It could not have been
carried out any other way. The use of a common framework in the formulation
and presentation of the national case studies offers a specificity and uniformity
of data that is unrivalled in any other data source on citizenship education.
It provides a rich and powerful base from which to begin to analyze and interpret
issues, gaps, inconsistencies and commonalties in approaches to citizenship
education within and across countries.
The thematic study benefited immensely from the existence of this rich source
of data but also from the fact that it had been under-utilized for comparative
purposes in Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study. The emphasis in
Phase 1 had been primarily on the completion by each country of a national
case study. This was crucial to the overall study in providing a contextual
backdrop against which the specific findings from Phase 2 in each country
could be interpreted. The emphasis in Phase 1 had been more on analysis
and interpretation within rather than across countries. Although the Phase 1
participants recognized the power of the collected national case studies as a
source of data for comparative analysis and interpretation, they had insufficient
time to fully act upon it. The thematic study harnessed the latent comparative
power of the IEA national case studies. It not only compared the national case
studies from the nine countries involved in the IRCAF project but also brought
to bear two further qualitative sources of data on the IEA national case studies.
The second source of data in the triangulation was the INCA Archive, which
comprises a description of the educational aims, educational structure and
organization, and the curriculum and assessment framework in each country
involved in the IRCAF Project. The uniformity of structure and layout of the
archive, as with that of the IEA national case studies, is a great advantage for
comparative analysis. With its focus on the official curricula and assessment
system in each country, the archive provides a data source that complements
elements in the IEA national case studies and also sets citizenship education
developments within a broader perspective. The data in the archive locates
citizenship education within the broader development of official education
systems in each country, thus helping to fill in some of the gaps and inconsisten-
cies within and between the national case studies. It also enables the identification
of wider frames through which these gaps and inconsistencies can be explored.
214 DAVID KERR
The final source of data in the triangulation was the experience and views
of national experts in citizenship education. The definition of "national expert"
was wide and encompassed government officials, people from support agencies,
academics, inspectors, teachers and teacher educators. A number of these experts
were involved in the IEA Civic Education Study as national research co-
ordinators, members of national expert panels or contributors of data to the
Phase 1 reports. Such involvement was a great advantage in terms of familiarity
with the data sources. The familiarity enhanced the quality of the exchange of
information and discussion that ensued at the invitational seminar. What the
national experts did, above all, was to act as catalysts in the process of making
connections between the other two sources of data in the triangulation. Through
exposition, questioning and discussion, the national experts were able to throw
further light on these two sources. They also were able to begin exploring the
extent of the gaps existing between official and intended curricula, as well as
between policy and practice within and across countries. Such explanation and
exploration enabled frames for interpreting citizenship education to evolve,
which were wider than those contained in the IEA national case studies and
the INCA Archive. The thematic study underlines the benefits of setting up
structured opportunities for collaboration and discussion among those involved
in citizenship education across the world. The evolution of wider frames depends
on the creation of such opportunities in order to move beyond mere description
of data sources to their more detailed analysis and interpretation.
The analysis of the data sources in the thematic study led to the identification
of a number of frames for interpretation. It should be noted that these frames
are not mutually exclusive, nor are they the only way to interpret citizenship
education developments. Indeed, there are considerable connections between
them. Rather, the frames are tools that aid the process of organizing and sifting
the different and complex sources of qualitative data on citizenship education.
The frames assist, in particular, in both identifying patterns and anomalies and
pointing to more effective policy and practice within and across countries. They
enable these patterns, pointers and anomalies to be explored in further detail.
A Continuum of Citizenship Education
The first frame to emerge from the thematic study was the suggested existence
of a continuum of citizenship education (see Fig. 1). Philosophers and commen-
tators have argued that citizenship is conceptualized and contested along a
continuum, which ranges from minimal to maximal (McLaughlin, 1992).
Exploration of the validity and implications of this continuum brought an
acknowledgement of its potential for categorizing definitions and approaches
MINIMAL MAXIMAL
Thin Thick
Exclusive Inclusive
Elitist Activist
Civic education Citizenship education
Formal Participative
Content-led Process-led
Knowledge-based Values-based
Didactic transmission Interactive interpretation
Easier to achieve and More difficult to achieve and

measure in practice measure in practice
Fig. 1. Citizenship Education Continuum.
to citizenship education. This was achieved by setting out the type of citizenship
education that might be found at both the minimal and maximal ends of the
continuum. When set out in this way, the continuum draws an interesting
distinction between the characteristics of civic education and citizenship
education.
Minimal interpretations are characterized by a narrow definition of citizenship.
They seek to promote particular exclusive interests, such as the granting of
citizenship to certain groups in society, but not all. Minimal interpretations lead
to narrow, formal approaches to citizenship education - what has been termed
civic education. This is largely content and knowledge led. It is centered on
formal education programs that concentrate on the transmission to students of
knowledge of a country's history and geography, of the structure and processes
of its system of government and of its constitution. The primary purpose is to
inform through the transmission of information. It lends itself to didactic
teaching and learning approaches, with teacher-led, whole-class teaching as
the dominant medium. There is little opportunity or encouragement for student
interaction and initiative. The outcomes of minimal approaches are much easier
to measure, often through written examinations or even multiple choice tests.
Maximal interpretations are characterized by a broad definition of citizenship.
They seek to actively include all groups and interests in society. Maximal
interpretations lead to a broad mixture of formal and informal approaches to
what has been termed citizenship education. This citizenship education includes
the content and knowledge components of minimal interpretations, but actively
encourages investigation and interpretation of the many different ways in which
these components are determined and carried out. The primary aim is not only
216 DAVID KERR
to inform, but also to use that information to help students understand and
improve their capacity to participate. It is as much about the content as about
the process of teaching and learning. It lends itself to a broad mixture of teaching
and learning approaches, from the didactic to the interactive, both inside and
outside the classroom. Structured opportunities are created for student interac-
tion through discussion and debate, and encouragement is given to students to
use their initiative through project work, other forms of independent learning
and participative experiences. It is difficult to measure the extent to which the
outcomes of maximal approaches have been achieved. They may be expressed
in locations outside school or serve as the precursors of actions that are realized
in the student's adult life.
A Three-part Classification of Citizenship Education
Discussion of the implications of the continuum for policy and practice in the
conduct of the thematic study led to the emergence of another frame. This frame
is centered on the intended aims or goals of citizenship education. When looked
at in this way, citizenship education comprises three strands: education about
citizenship, education through citizenship, and education for citizenship.
Education about citizenship focuses on providing students with sufficient
knowledge and understanding of national history and the structures and
processes of government and political life. Education through citizenship
involves students learning by doing, through active, participative experiences
in the school or local community and beyond. This learning reinforces the
knowledge component. Education for citizenship encompasses the other two
strands and involves equipping students with a set of tools (knowledge and
understanding, skills and aptitudes, values and dispositions) that enable them
to participate actively and sensibly in the roles and responsibilities they
encounter in their adult lives. This strand links citizenship education with the
whole education experience of students.
This frame has connections to the continuum frame, with "education about
citizenship" more toward the minimal end of the continuum and "education for
citizenship" more toward the maximal. Such positioning has implications
for policy and practice in citizenship education. The extent of the gap between
the three strands generated considerable discussion in the thematic study. It
was argued, particularly by the national experts, that this conceptualization
makes it much easier to deliver "education about citizenship" than to deliver
the other two strands. However, what is taught for one or two hours per week
in the classroom is not sufficient to equip students with what is required for
their future participation in "education for citizenship." Instead, what is required
is the setting out of the values, dispositions, skills and aptitudes underpinning
citizenship education and the building in of experiences (the 'education
through citizenship' strand) that complement the 'education about citizenship'
strand. It was recognized that although this was being attempted in several of
the nine countries, much more needed to be done if the goals of "education for
citizenship" were to be achieved.
Values-explicit and Values-neutral Citizenship Education
The final flame to emerge came through joint consideration of the other two
frames and of the findings of the Thematic Study of Values and Aims in
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks (Le M6tais, 1997). This flame focuses
on how countries express educational values and aims. Such expression has a
marked influence on the definition of and approach to citizenship education. One
of the major tensions in approaching citizenship education is the extent to which
it is possible to identify, agree on and articulate the values and dispositions that
underpin citizenship. The response hinges in many countries on the answer to
a simple question: is citizenship education values-explicit or values-neutral?
To state the question in more detail: Should citizenship education be "values-
explicit" and promote distinct values that are part of a broader, nationally
accepted system of public values and beliefs? Or should it be "values-neutral"
and take a neutral stance to values and controversial issues, leaving the decision
on values to the individual? The answer determines a great deal about a country' s
approach to citizenship education.
This tension is part of a broader debate about the balance between the
"public" and "private" dimensions of citizenship, leading to what the educational
philosopher McLaughlin (1992) has termed "thick" and "thin" citizenship
education. Those who view citizenship as a largely public concern see a major,
or thick, role for education (through the school and formal curriculum) in
the promotion of citizenship and, in particular, for teachers. Those who view
citizenship as a largely private affair see a much more limited, or thin, role
for education (largely through the hidden curriculum). They advocate a far
stronger role for the family and community organizations than for teachers.
Values-explicit approaches are commonly criticized for the associated dangers
of bias and the indoctrination of students, while "values-neutral" approaches
are attacked for their failure to help students deal adequately with real-life,
controversial issues.
The identification of these wider frames was crucial to the successful
triangulation of the layers of qualitative data on citizenship education. The wider
frames were particularly helpful in assisting the structure and conduct of the
218 DAVID KERR
thematic study, which was structured around the examination of key aspects of
citizenship education of interest in England. The wider frames provided the
means to sort the layers of data from the triangulation that were available
for each of these key aspects. They also guided the process of interpreting the
similarities and differences from these layers both within and across the key
aspects. Without them the discursive and interpretative elements of the thematic
study would have lacked focus and rigor. What emerged when each of the key
aspects was viewed through these wider frames is examined in the next section.
THE TRIANGULATION AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA ON KEY ASPECTS OF CITIZENSHIP

EDUCATION
Curriculum Aims, Organization and Structure
Viewing the curriculum aims, organization and structure of citizenship education

in the nine countries through the interpretative frames emphasizes a number
of important issues that impinge on the development of effective policy
and practice. The first issue is the important role of context. The complex and
contested nature of the concept of citizenship leads to a range of definitions
and approaches to citizenship education. This diversity of approach came
through very forcefully in the thematic study and is underlined in a number of
comparative studies on citizenship (Hahn, 1998; Ichilov, 1998; Kennedy, 1997;
Torney-Purta et al., 1999). However, there was also a general recognition that
the transfer of approaches and programs of citizenship education from one
country or location to another could only succeed if the transfer took account
of the unique historical, cultural and social traditions of the new context. This
is an important lesson when citizenship education is being reviewed and
renewed. What works in one context cannot simply be transported to another.
Careful adaptation rather than wholesale adoption should be the watchword.
This applies whether at national, regional, local, school or individual classroom
level. The newer democracies among the nine countries reported considerable
difficulties when attempting to introduce ideas and practices from the longer
established democratic countries into their schools. This was very evident in
Hungary. It is therefore important to recognize and respect not only the breadth
of interpretations of citizenship but also the different approaches that countries
take to citizenship education.
The second issue is the influence of a number of broad contextual and detailed
structural factors on the definition of and approaches to citizenship education
in the nine countries. The broad contextual factors include:
• historical tradition
• geographical position
• socio-political structure
• economic system
• the position with regard to global trends.
The detailed structural factors include:
• organization of and responsibilities for education

• educational values and aims
• funding and regulatory arrangements.
There is neither space nor time in this chapter to examine their relative influence
and interplay within each country and across countries. However, it should be
understood that a combination of these factors in each country impacts not only
on the definition of and approach to citizenship education but also on the size
of the gap between policy (what is intended) and practice (what actually
happens).
The three wider frames also made it possible to categorize the curriculum
aims, organization and structure of citizenship education within and across the
nine countries. Combining and applying the wider frames of the minimal to
maximal continuum and the aims and goals led to the conclusion that, in terms
of curriculum aims, organization and structure, there are two parallel continuums
of citizenship education in operation. The first continuum is at the national level
within each country. There is constant movement both backward and forward
along this national continuum dependent on the interplay of factors. For
example, countries in Central and Eastern Europe are currently attempting to
move from a formal ("education about") to a more participative ("education
through") approach to citizenship education. This is in line with revised national
educational goals, which stress the need for more critical thinking and increased
initiative and creativity. Meanwhile, in Australia, the Liberal-National Party
federal government has introduced the "Discovering Democracy" initiative,
which is grounded in a more formal "education about" approach to Australia's
national history and constitution, in contrast to the approach of the previous
government. Every country experiences these episodes of introspection and
revision of citizenship education. Indeed, as explained earlier, the thematic study
on which this chapter is based is the result of renewed interest in citizenship
education in England.
The second continuum is at the comparative level across the nine countries.
Application of this comparative scale places those countries in Eastern Europe
more toward the minimal, "education about" end of the continuum, those in
220 DAVID KERR
Southern and Central Europe somewhere in the middle, and those in Northern
Europe and some of the former British colonies, such as the United States,
more toward the maximal "education for" end. However, there are exceptions
to this scale. Australia, interestingly, views itself as somewhere in the middle
of the scale but striving for the maximal, while Hungary is attempting to move
away from the minimal. Canada probably cannot be placed because of the
variation in approach across its provinces.
The remaining frame of educational values and aims offered a further way
to classify the curriculum aims, organization and structure in the nine countries.
This highlighted the fact that those countries with a "values-explicit" approach
were much clearer than those from a "values-neutral" tradition in setting out
both what citizenship education is (aims and goals) and (as a consequence)
the role of schools, teachers and the curriculum in achieving those goals. This
dovetailed with the findings of the Thematic Study of Values and Aims in
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks (Le Mrtais, 1997), which categorized
the nine countries as three broad groups, according to the degree of detail with
which national values are expressed or prescribed in education legislation. It
is worth bearing these categories in mind when comparing approaches to
citizenship education across the nine countries. The three categories were:
(1) Minimal reference to values in education legislation: The countries in this
group share a commitment to pluralism and devolved authority. Values are
expressed in the constitution and/or statutes, which provide a framework
for the expression of values through devolved educational structures. The
countries include Canada, England, Hungary, the Netherlands and the
United States.
(2) National values expressed in general terms: In this group of countries,
general statements on values are made at national level, but authorities with
devolved responsibilities determine the details. The countries include
Australia, Germany, Italy and Switzerland.
(3) National values expressed in detail: Countries with highly centralized
systems tend to express very detailed aims and clear educational and social
values. None of the nine countries that could be included in this joint
analysis of the IEA national case studies and the INCA Archive falls into
this category. Examples of such countries include Japan, Korea, Singapore
and Sweden.
It is clear from an examination of the categories that those countries in the first
category take a "values-neutral" approach to citizenship education. (This has
certainly been the tradition in England.) Those in the second category are
somewhere between "values-neutral" and "values-explicit", while those in the
third category are very much "values-explicit" in approach. This tripartite

categorization is particularly opposite in the light of the claims of some
commentators that, in response to the challenges and uncertainties in the modern
world, many countries are moving toward a more explicit statement of the
values and aims underpinning their education systems. Certainly, this is a
notable feature of the revised national curriculum in England. When this was
first introduced in England in 1990, it consisted of 10 statutory subjects, religious
education (RE), sex education, and five, non-statutory, cross-curricular themes.
There was no overarching definition of the aim and purpose of the school
curriculum and the national framework. The revised national curriculum for
2000 included, for the very first time, an explicit statement of the values, aims
and purposes of the school curriculum. The intention is to enable schools to
develop their own curricula in a way that reflects the spirit of nationally agreed
aims (QCA/DfEE, 1999c, d). It highlights the considerable debate about the
values underpinning citizenship education, particularly in those countries with
a tradition of a "values-neutral" approach. It suggests that the evolution of
educational values and aims has a considerable impact on the definition of and
approaches to citizenship education.
The availability of the frames and the layers of data also enabled the
categorization of the terminology, approach and amount of time per week given
to citizenship education across the nine countries (see Tables 1 and 2). It must
be emphasized that this was an attempt to quantify approaches to citizenship
education in the formal rather than the whole curriculum. In most countries,
citizenship education is broader than the formal curriculum, involving the hidden
curriculum, whole-school and extra-curricular activities, as well as students'
everyday experiences of life. In the United States, for example, there has been
an expansion in "service learning" education based on active partnerships
between schools and their local communities (Niemi et al., 1999; Nolin et al.,
1997). This is a growing area of interest in England (Annette, 2000; Mitchell,
1999). Meanwhile, some countries are strengthening the involvement of students
in school or class councils. However, such activities and experiences are
extremely difficult to quantify within and across countries.
Table 1 examines the curriculum for students 5 to 11 years of age, termed
the primary phase in the INCA Archive. Table 2 looks at the curriculum for
students 11 to 16 or 18 years of age, termed the lower and upper secondary
phases in the INCA Archive. What patterns, if any, are discernible? An exam-
ination of both tables enables four points to be made. The first is that citizenship
education is addressed in the formal curriculum across the whole age range in
every country. The second is the broad range of terms used to describe this
area. The third point is the existence of two main curriculum-related approaches
222 DAVID KERR
Table 1. Organization of Citizenship Education in the Primary Phase.
Country Terminology Approach Hours per week
England Formerly Education for Non-statutory Schools to decide

Citizenship Cross-currictdar
From 2000, Citizenship Non-statutory Schools to decide
and PSHE
Australia Human society and its Non-statutory Not specified
environment (HS1E) Integrated
Canada Social studies Non-statutory Not specified
Integrated
Germany Sachunterricht Non-statutory Not specified
Integrated
Hungary People and society Statutory core 4 to 7% of curriculum
Integrated time
Italy Social sciences Statutory core Not specified
Integrated
The Netherlands Social structures and Statutory core 80 to 100 hours per year
life skills Integrated
Switzerland Social studies Non-statutory Not specified
Integrated
United States Social studies Statutory core Time specified per week
Integrated varies among states
to citizenship education, namely integrated and cross-curricular. In the integrated

approach, citizenship education or civics is part of a broader course, often social
sciences or social studies, and is linked to other subjects and curricular areas.
In the cross-curricular approach, citizenship education is not part of an integrated
course, but permeates the entire curriculum and is infused into subjects. Some
countries adopt a mixed approach to citizenship education, with the broad inte-
grated approach more prevalent in the primary curriculum giving way to more
specialized citizenship education or civics courses in the secondary curriculum.
The fourth point is the mixture of statutory and non-statutory approaches to
citizenship education. In some countries it is a statutory part of the core national
curriculum, while in others it is non-statutory, with greater freedom left to states,
districts, municipalities, schools and teachers. However, the non-statutory nature
of provision in some countries means that not all students m a y encounter
citizenship education in their curriculum-related experience.
Table 2. Organization of Citizenship Education in the Lower and Upper

Secondary Phase.
Country Terminology Approach Hours per week
England Formerly Education for Non-statutory Schools to decide

Citizenship Cross-curricular
From 2002, Citizenship Statutory Schools to decide
Australia Human society and its Non-statutory Not specified
environment (HSIE) Integrated
Canada Social studies and also Non-statutory Not specified
history, law, political Integrated

sciences and economics
Germany Social studies linked to Non-statutory Not specified
history, geography and Integrated
economics
Hungary People and society with Statutory core 10 to 14% of curriculum
specific social studies, Integrated and time
civics and economics specific
courses
Italy Civics linked to history Statutory core Four hours
and geography Separate and
integrated
The Netherlands Civics and citizenship Statutory core 180 hours over three
and social studies Integrated years (ages 12-15),
two to four hours per
week (ages 16-18)
Switzerland Social studies Non-statutory Not specified
Integrated
United States Social studies, including Statutory core
civics and government Separate and Time specified per week
integrated varies among states
The Primary Curriculum (Ages 5 to 11)
The major pattern in the primary curriculum is the organization of citizenship

education through an integrated approach of domains in many countries. This
pattern suggests a deliberate emphasis in the intended curriculum, particularly
in the early years of this phase, on children's understanding of their interaction
with the world around them with respect to topics and aspects. For example,
224 DAVID KERR
Hungary has eight curricular areas, one of which is "People and Society", while
Australia uses the term "Human Society and its Environment."
The Secondary Curriculum (Ages 11 to 16 or 18)
Citizenship education in the secondary curriculum is still organized through an

integrated approach in most countries, but often as a discrete, explicit component
alongside other subjects and aspects. The most common approach is through
social studies or social sciences courses, where citizenship or civics is closely
linked to the subjects of history and geography. For example, in Hungary, the
domain is still entitled "People and Society" but it incorporates specific reference
to social studies, civics and economics courses. In the Netherlands, citizenship
education is part of history and civics at the lower secondary level (ages 12 to
15) and is an integral part of social studies (maatschappijleer) courses, while
in some Canadian provinces, social studies is linked with history, law, political
sciences and economics.
In many countries, the range of subjects relating to citizenship education is
extended as the secondary phase progresses, taking in economics, law, commerce
and political sciences. The other feature of the secondary phase is the increased
time given to citizenship education, particularly in the upper years of this phase.
This practice reflects the growing maturity of students and also their ability to
handle complex, topical issues. It is spurred by the proximity of students to the
end of their compulsory or post-compulsory period of education and to their entry
into the world as full citizens, with legal, political, economic and social rights
and responsibilities.
Viewing the layers of data on the curriculum aims, organization and structure
of citizenship education through the interpretative frames brought a greater
understanding of how citizenship education has evolved in the nine countries.
This understanding assisted the identification of current challenges in this area
and consideration of how countries are responding to them. The data from
the INCA Archive and the IEA national case studies reveal concern in many
countries about how to respond to a period of unprecedented global change.
The concern is both immediate (how to respond in the short term through current
economic, social and political policies) and more long-term (how better to
prepare current and future generations for their roles and responsibilities as
citizens, parents, consumers, workers and human beings). There is no simple,
"quick-fix" solution. Although the aims and intended outcomes of citizenship
education can be readily drawn up, their successful achievement is a long-term
project, often involving more than one generation of students and teachers. The
unprecedented pace of global change has thrown up for countries a common

set of challenges or issues that demand a response. They include:
• the rapid movement of people within and across national boundaries
• a growing recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and minorities
• the collapse of political structures and the birth of new ones
• the changing role of women in society
• the impact of the global economy and changing patterns of work
• the effect of a revolution in information and communications technologies
• an increasing global population
• the creation of new forms of community and organization.

The last challenge is of particular relevance in many countries at the moment,
where concern exists about the lack of interest in and involvement of young
people in public and political life; a situation that has been termed a "democratic
deficit."
These challenges touch on complex issues concerning pluralism, multi-
culturalism, ethnic and cultural heritage and diversity, tolerance, social cohesion,
collective and individual rights and responsibilities, social justice, national
identity and consciousness, and freedom among others. The education system
is a vital part of the response to these challenges. Countries set down national
aims for their education systems to help address these challenges. These aims
are very similar across countries, invariably including the national aim of
promoting citizenship and democratic values. However, countries approach these
national aims in a myriad of ways. This is certainly the case with the aim of
promoting citizenship and democratic values. Those who participated in the
thematic study accepted this diversity of approach to citizenship education
but were motivated by the opportunity to explore areas of common concern
and to learn from the experiences of others. This positive attitude allowed the
discussion to move beyond policy rhetoric to a more in-depth analysis of what
is meant by "effective" citizenship education and how it can best be achieved
in practice.
Teaching and Learning Approaches
Three aspects of teaching and learning approaches in citizenship education were

explored through the interpretative frames. The first was the influences on
teaching and learning approaches, the second their range of approaches, and
the third the extent of the gap between official policy and actual practice.
An examination of the teaching and learning approaches across the nine
countries, through the triangulation of data, emphasizes the profound influence
226 DAVID KERR
that teacher culture and beliefs have on approaches to citizenship education.

This confirms Hahn's (1998) timing in her comparative study of citizenship
education that there are significant differences between countries in terms of
their pedagogic traditions and cultural norms. It explains why it is not possible
to readily transport approaches to and programs of citizenship education from
one country to another and expect them to be successful. This consideration is
related to the power of teachers in determining the learning environment in
schools, and it is a point that was very strongly made by the national experts.
Teachers are themselves influenced - in their beliefs and actions - by the cultural
traditions and norms in a country. This factor can be both positive and negative.
Teachers are generally one or two generations removed from the students
they teach, often having more in common with parents than with students. This
situation can lead in some countries to a gap in beliefs, attitudes and acceptable
practices between teachers and students, and also between teachers and the
prevailing civic culture. The latter occurs particularly where significant and
rapid change in policy is attempted. Research shows that the culture of schools
and classrooms is very slow to adapt to change (Fullan, 1991). For example,
as the IEA national case study for Switzerland highlighted, teachers in the
secondary phase have long viewed their primary duty in citizenship education
as providing information about national history and politics and describing
relevant situations in a didactic and non-controversial way. There is little room
or encouragement for other approaches in the classroom. Meanwhile, countries
with a tradition of a formal, knowledge-based approach to this area can also
find it difficult to change teacher attitudes and opinions. This was underlined
by all three data sources for Hungary, where official moves to a more discussion-
based approach to citizenship issues in classrooms are being frustrated by the
deep-seated belief of teachers that controversial or sensitive issues should be
kept out of the classroom. The power and durability of teacher culture should
not be underestimated in attempts to review and renew citizenship education.
The lEA national case studies hinted at the wide range of teaching and
learning approaches employed by teachers in citizenship education. This was
confirmed through the conduct of the thematic study. While a number of
countries are still dependent on a passive, didactic, transmission approach as
the dominant teaching methodology, there are others who encourage a more
interactive, participative approach, with room for classroom discussion and
debate supported by project and inquiry work, fieldwork, visits and extra-
curricular learning. There is evidence in Australian classrooms of structured
classroom discussion and debate as the most favored approach, while in the
United States many opportunities exist for learning through extra-curricular
activities and through service learning programs, national competitions and
mock elections. There is an equal range of opportunities available in England

through the work of the main citizenship organizations and in the encouragement
given to school and class councils. However, whether students in all schools -
those in urban and rural areas, small, medium and large schools - have the
same level of access to these activities is not known.
Some countries, as detailed in the INCA Archive and confirmed by national
experts, have developed specific curriculum programs that encourage a mixture
of approaches to ensure the goals of "education for citizenship" are achieved.
They include, among others, the Junior Citizenship project in England, the
Opening the Schools project in Germany and the Discovering Democracy initia-
tive in Australia. The national experts agreed that there is an urgent need to
map those curriculum projects that lead to effective practice and to make this
practice more widely available both within and across countries through the
development of a database. However, even in countries with curriculum projects
and effective practice, there is still a tremendous variety in approach from
school to school and classroom to classroom. This means that not all students
experience all approaches. Indeed, in most countries, citizenship education
teaching still relies on the textbook as the predominant teaching resource.
Structured teacher exposition of textbook passages and follow-up opportunities
for student discussion and questioning is a very common teaching approach.
However, as is evident from all three data sources, a number of countries
are recognizing the need for increased encouragement of active and participative
learning in citizenship education through formal structures and policies. For
example, the Netherlands is developing in its upper secondary schools a "study
house" concept, where students are encouraged to move away from traditional
learning methods toward other approaches to studying. Elsewhere, there are
attempts to achieve greater coherence between what students learn in the formal
subject curriculum with what they experience through the hidden curriculum.
For example, the province of Ontario in Canada has recently redefined the word
"curriculum" to include all the learning experiences that students have in school.
Opportunities also exist in some countries for students to learn about democracy
through active participation in school life. In England, there is growing support
for school and/or class councils in every school. However, not all countries
have such opportunities. In Australia, school representative councils and youth
parliaments are rare. There is also a distinct lack of such developments in
Hungary, while in other countries, notably Italy, their existence does not mean
they function satisfactorily. Such opportunities often are open to only a small
percentage of students in a school.
To a degree, practice often lags behind policy in education. In regards to
citizenship education, the size of the gap, the extent to which it is accepted,
228 DAVID KERR
and what, if anything, is being done to address it, are all issues that were
explored through the data. What is clear is that the gap between policy and
practice in citizenship education can exist at many levels, from national policy
all the way to policy and practice within an individual school. Indeed, Kennedy
(1997) has suggested that the loftier a country's ideals for citizenship education,
the less likely it is to have any meaningful practice. As already mentioned, a
gap can appear when national policy attempts to bring a significant shift in
teacher attitude and classroom practice in a relatively short period of time. This
is the case currently in Hungary with the shift in central policy to encourage
more discursive and creative elements in schools. It may well take a generation
before new teachers, comfortable with the changed emphasis in practice, begin
to close the gap in such countries.
Meanwhile, in other countries, as the national experts explained, there is
a gap that is accepted as part of the system. For example, in Italy, there is a
marked contrast for students between the open, participative climate within the
hidden curriculum in schools, and the non-participative climate in the formal
curriculum in the classroom. A similar situation exists in Germany, but in
reverse. The hidden curriculum in German schools, with its strong emphasis on
"studying for tests" and "conforming to authority", has a powerful influence
on the formal curriculum. Meanwhile, in Canada, it is recognized that actual
practice in many provinces is considerably more conservative and traditional
than official policy mandates.
Teacher Specialization and Teacher Training
The focus in this key aspect was on the extent to which teachers of citizenship
education are specialists or generalists; on arrangements for initial and in-service
training for citizenship education; and on how well prepared teachers are to
handle citizenship education in the school curriculum. The IEA national case
studies contained some relevant information but the main source of data was
previous thematic studies and the views and experiences of the national experts.
In regard to whether students are taught citizenship education by generalists
or specialists, the data are generally consistent. Generalists teach students in
the primary phase, and specialists teach those in the lower and upper secondary
phases. The only variations concern the degree to which older primary students
receive some specialist teaching and the extent to which lower secondary
students receive teaching from generalists. While the general picture is one
of consensus across countries on the use of generalists to teach citizenship
education in the primary school, with increasing teacher specialization thereafter,
the reasons for this pattern are not totally clear. The economics and practicalities
of having specialist teaching of citizenship education in the primary school

may account for the dominance of generalist teachers, particularly in areas
where many primary schools are small. Similarly, educational considerations
concerning the centrality of the relationship between teacher and student in this
phase may be an important factor.
However, it is also important to qualify what is meant by the term "specialist
teacher" in the context of citizenship education. In many countries, those who
teach citizenship education in the lower secondary and, to a lesser degree, upper
secondary phases are specialists either in a number of subjects closely related
to and including citizenship education, or in one closely related subject. They
are not specialists in citizenship education p e r se, but may teach it alongside
their responsibilities as a teacher of social sciences or social studies, or as a
teacher of history or geography. This situation raises the issue of the priority
that these teachers place on teaching citizenship education compared to their
other teaching duties. Are they primarily, for example, history teachers who do
a bit of citizenship education to make up a teaching timetable, or are they
citizenship education specialists who also contribute to other subjects? Most
teachers defined as specialist citizenship education teachers have a background,
through qualifications and experience, in history or the social sciences.
The position concerning initial and in-service training of teachers for
citizenship education is that, in most countries, there is no such specific training.
Many teachers are trained in closely related subject areas, notably history,
geography and social sciences, followed with some training in education, where
they learn about teaching methodologies. In Hungary, some universities are
beginning to introduce specific initial training courses for citizenship education,
but are finding this difficult, as there is, as yet, no tradition for training for
civics and social studies. In-service training for teachers of citizenship education
who are already in schools is also very patchy. In the United States, for example,
a number of social science bodies offer specific in-service training courses for
this area, but they can reach only a limited number of teachers across all the
states. Nevertheless, a number of countries recognize the need to back up
curriculum reforms and initiatives with accompanying support materials and
professional development for teachers. This is the case in Australia where
the Discovering Democracy initiative is also supported by a professional
development component, funded by the federal government. A number of
countries are pioneering the use of "expert" or "master" teachers, employed
alongside teacher educators from universities, to train other teachers, because
of the relevance of their highly developed classroom practice.
A number of the IEA national case studies comment on the inadequacy
of the preparation of teachers to handle citizenship education in the school
230 DAVID KERR
curriculum. The national experts confirmed this commentary during their

involvement in the thematic study. This inadequacy relates not only to a lack
of teacher content knowledge but also to an inability to employ a range of
teaching and learning approaches appropriate for citizenship education. The
generalist nature of the training of teachers in the primary phase presents its
own difficulties concerning citizenship education, particularly where, as in
the United States, teachers are trained in education rather than social studies,
history and geography. However, parallel concerns about teachers exist in the
lower and upper secondary phases. The reasons for the inadequacy of teachers'
preparation is not well understood. There is some debate as to whether teachers
who teach citizenship education are lacking appropriate pedagogical techniques

and/or an understanding of the central concepts that underpin citizenship
education. Opinion remained divided among the national experts, although they
generally agreed that, whatever the form of training, teachers need to reflect on
their own practice in order to improve it.
A number of national experts referred to the inadequacy of a university degree
in their country as preparation for the day-to-day demands of teaching citizen-
ship education. Concern focused on the content of the degree and the style of
teaching during the course. The predominant style of teaching during degree
courses is didactic, with an emphasis on "teacher-centered" and "knowledge-
driven" approaches. This problem is evident in Germany and Italy. The experts
also questioned whether a degree in history, geography or social sciences by
itself is an adequate preparation for the teaching of citizenship education.
Furthermore, they highlighted the role of teachers' personal, political and educa-
tion experiences, which can have both positive and negative effects on their
teaching practice. For example, in the United States, a study of social studies
teachers reported a reliance by these teachers on their personal experiences
in teaching citizenship education issues rather than on any degree-related
knowledge or in-service training program (refer Hahn, 1999, pp. 603-604).
However, in Italy there are concerns that teachers cannot fully develop a
participative approach to citizenship education because of deficiencies in their
own civic and political experiences. The same concerns are apparent in
Germany, where an ageing teaching profession, colored by particular post-war
experiences, is having a considerable influence on expectations about and
approaches to citizenship education. These findings again emphasize the
powerful role of teacher beliefs on classroom practice in citizenship education.
In the majority of countries there are limited opportunities for professional
collaboration between teachers and schools and little sharing and discussion of
materials and approaches.
Use of Textbooks and Other Resources
The final key aspect to be examined was the use of textbooks and other resources
to support citizenship education. Information from the IEA national case studies
concerning citizenship education was combined with general information about
textbook and resource production in each country drawn from the INCA Archive
and the thematic study on mathematics (Ruddock, 1998). The information was
supplemented by the first-hand experiences of the national experts. The data
confirm that textbooks are the major resource underpinning the teaching of
citizenship education in most of the nine countries. By playing an important
role in determining the approach of teachers, textbooks shape students'

curriculum-related experiences of citizenship education. This is particularly
apparent in the primary phase, given that teachers are usually generalists, rather
than citizenship education specialists. Given this reliance, it is no surprise to
find differences between countries concerning mechanisms for the approval and
production of textbooks and other resources. Practice as to whether textbooks
are produced or have to be approved by national or local (education) ministries
again varies between countries. In Australia, England, Italy and the Netherlands
there is no system for the official approval of textbooks. Approval is required
in Germany, most Canadian provinces, most Swiss cantons and 21 out of the
50 states in the United States. Textbooks are generally approved in Hungary,
although this situation is under review. Where there is an official approval
system, this involves checking that the prescribed curriculum is being followed.
In Canada, materials produced by provinces are normally piloted before
receiving official sanction. Private sector materials are usually subject to an
approval process involving the ministry. The trend here is away from a single
textbook to a variety from which to choose. In Germany, books must be in line
with the principles of the Constitution and Education Acts, compatible with
the syllabus and with research findings, adequately bound and, interestingly,
of a price that can be justified. Hungary examines content, technical quality
and, again, price. Swiss cantons have the authority to authorize or prescribe
textbooks. In the United States, practice varies by state. About half of the states
recommend textbooks and have a state textbook adoption program.
The general tendency across the countries is for books to be part of a series,
with one book per year or grade level. Italy is unusual in that its primary
textbooks cover a range of subjects - mathematics, science, history, geography
and social sciences - in the same book. Clearly, an official approval system
can influence the approach that schools and teachers take to citizenship
education. In suggesting a certain direction, this influence may suppress the
232 DAVID KERR
confidence and ability of the teacher to adapt and improvise. Indeed, the national
experts raised concerns about the undue influence of textbooks on teaching and
learning approaches. Textbooks generally cover the knowledge component
of citizenship education (the "education about citizenship" strand) rather than
the more active "education through" and "education for" strands. Over-reliance
on textbooks can stifle the two latter strands and turn students off citizenship
education.
However, some countries are beginning to expand the range of resources
available to teachers and schools to support citizenship education. This develop-
ment accords with the wide range and form of material now available to support
citizenship education, particularly through the information and communications

technologies (ICT) that are increasingly evident in schools and society. For
example, in England there are plans to create a citizenship site as part of the
National Grid for Learning (NGfL), which will be made available to teachers,
students and parents. Indeed, the challenge in many countries is to adapt materials
in a form that best suits the needs of busy teachers. This widening of resources is
particularly noticeable in countries involved in curriculum reforms and initiatives,
which seek to support and/or broaden teacher and classroom practice.
CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has raised a number of specific issues concerning the nature and
status of citizenship education developments, and provides some pointers on
how to develop more effective practice across the nine countries. These issues
and pointers include the following:
(1) The topical nature of citizenship education and the breadth, depth
and complexity of the issues it addresses. The area is under review, with
revisions planned in most countries as part of the overall reform of school
curricula.
(2) The important role of context and culture in understanding aims and
approaches to citizenship education. What works in one cultural context
cannot simply be adopted and expected to achieve the same ends somewhere
else. It requires careful adaptation to suit the new cultural context.
(3) Broad agreement among countries on the common challenges facing
citizenship education, even if national responses to those challenges vary.
(4) Recognition that the explicit statement of shared values underpinning
citizenship education can make a difference to policy and practice and may
make a difference to outcomes. However, note that clarity of aims does not
guarantee successful outcomes.
(5) A move in many countries away from a narrow, knowledge-based approach

to citizenship education, to a broader approach encompassing knowledge
and understanding, active experiences and the development of student
values, dispositions, skills and aptitudes. This transition is proving difficult
to manage, however, because of the impact, in particular, of teacher culture
and beliefs and the slow adaptation of schools to change.
(6) The continuing gap between the rhetoric of policy and the reality of
practice in many contexts, ranging from the national level to individual
schools and classrooms. There is still far to go to ensure that effective
practice in citizenship education is developed and sustained within and
across countries.
(7) Agreement on the centrality of the teacher in citizenship education and on
the need for better targeted training for teachers and the development of a
broader range of teacher-friendly resources.
(8) Calls for the urgent co-ordination and dissemination of approaches to,
programs of and initiatives in citizenship education that will allow the
development of effective practice. These could be effected through the estab-
lishment of a citizenship education database within each country and across
countries. The outcomes of the thematic study confirm the potential for such
a database.
The chapter also has highlighted some issues concerning the evolution and use of
new paradigms in the analysis and interpretation of cross-national data. It throws
light, in particular, on the range of sources and layers of qualitative data on
citizenship education and the uses to which these data can be put. These include:
(1) The richness of the lEA national case studies as the most complete source
of data currently available on citizenship education, and the under-
utilization of this source for cross-national analysis. The case studies
provide a depth and range of data on citizenship education that is not
present in other data sources. They are particularly strong on the contex-
tual development of citizenship education and the issues and challenges in
each country. This strength enables them to be viewed alongside broader
data sources and for citizenship education to be set within wider develop-
ments in curricula, education systems and society.
(2) The power of combining the lEA national case studies with other qualitative
data sources on citizenship education. This combination can produce deeper
insights about policy and practice and enable the identification of common
issues and challenges as well as anomalies and gaps.
(3) The advantages of a uniform structure for data sources used for cross-
national analysis. The IEA national case studies and the INCA Archive
234 DAVID KERR
each has a uniform structure for the collection and presentation of data
sources within countries, a fact that greatly assisted the conduct of the
thematic study. It was possible to cross-reference within and across these
data sets in many ways, including by country and by key aspects, and to
present the findings to national experts.
(4) The efficacy of involving experts as both a data source and a means of analy-
sis and interpretation, and of creating structured opportunities for such
analysis. National experts who are familiar with the data sources are a dis-
tinct advantage. One of the strengths of the thematic study was the use of
national experts, from a wide range of backgrounds and experiences, to
compare and comment on the other two data sources. The provision of
focused time for this enabled the discussion to move beyond mere descrip-
tion of data to its in-depth analysis. The result was deeper insights about cit-
izenship education.
(5) The power of developing wider frames as tools through which to view
citizenship education. The wider frames that developed from the triangulation
of sources gave a structure and a means to sort and interpret the different
layers of data, and enabled analysis at micro and macro levels. They conse-
quently offer new ways of looking at citizenship education in the school
curriculum and may prove useful in the analysis of the new layers of data
from Phase 2 of the IEA Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
(6) The need to regularly update qualitative data and review paradigms on
citizenship education because of the speed of developments in this area
within and across countries. This will help ensure that analyses and inter-
pretations not only are relevant but also offer maximum assistance to the
development of effective policy and practice.
What this chapter and the broader thematic study confirm, above all, is the
commonality of interest, challenge and approach to citizenship education across
countries. Once countries get beyond the differences between them in terms of
context and curriculum and assessment frameworks, they soon see that they
have much more in common with one another concerning citizenship education
than they think. Awareness of and in-depth analysis of this commonality is the
key to developing more co-ordinated and effective policy and practice in
citizenship education. Active and participative citizenship requires active and
participative dialogue between all those with an interest in citizenship education
- researchers, teachers, policy-makers, curriculum designers, government
officials, parents and students.
I hope that this central message will be taken forward. Although some
countries are further along the road to securing effective practice in citizenship
education, the evolutionary nature of citizenship means that there is still far to
go and much to learn along the way. It is perhaps fitting to end this chapter with
an excerpt from the final contribution to the invitational seminar: "We know
enough about how students learn in citizenship education to put in place
programmes which are based on the growing research and practice base. We need
to draw out what this research and practice base tells us and then create a
partnership with policy makers and curriculum designers" (Kerr, 1999d, p. 39).
This spirit of partnership is surely the best way to respond to the current
challenges in citizenship education. But this is not easy to achieve in practice.
The thematic study confirmed beyond anything else the benefits of bringing
together those who have a deep understanding of developments in citizenship

education at a national level within a country with those who offer different
perspectives from national, regional and international levels. The results enhance
our understanding of citizenship education and of the complex processes that
affect our efforts to develop more effective and co-ordinated policy and practice.
Partnership is a powerful aid to progress. The IEA Civic Education Study and
the thematic study underpinning this chapter are founded on such partnerships
within and across countries. Citizenship education can only be strengthened
once we can find the right ways to harness these partnerships.
NOTES
1. The DfEE has since been renamed the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).
2. On 1 October 1997, the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority merged with
the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to form the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA), which will be the term used.
3. The original International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks
(IRCAF) countries are Australia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland
and the United States. The Republic of Ireland and Hong Kong joined IRCAF in 2000.
The INCA Archive is available in CD-ROM form (O'Donnell et al., 1998) and also
on-line at http://www.inca.org.uk
4. Five thematic studies have been completed to date. They are Values and Aims (Le
Mrtais, 1997), Primary Education (Tabberer, 1997), Mathematics (Ruddock, 1998),
Citizenship Education (Kerr, 1999d) and Lower Secondary (Greenaway, 2000). The
thematic studies are available online at http://www.inca.org.uk
REFERENCES
Annette, J. (2000). Education for citizenship, civic participation and experiential and service
learning in the community. In: D. Lawton, J. Cairns & R. Gardner (Eds), Education for
Citizenship (pp. 77-92). London: Continuum.
236 DAVID KERR
Cogan, J., & Derricott, R. (2000). Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective
on Education. London: Kogan Page.
Crick, B. (1998a). Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools: Part One
- Advisory Group Initial Report. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Crick, B. (1998b). Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools: Final
Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship. London: Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority.
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The New Meaning of Educational Change. London: Cassell.
Gore, J. (1996). Citizens of the Pacific: are regional concepts of citizenship relevant in a global
community? Paper presented to the Conference of the Pacific Circle Consortium, Sydney,
Australia.
Greenaway, E. (2000). Lower Secondary Education: An International Comparison (International
Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 5). London: Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority.
Hahn, C. (1998). Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education. New
York: State University of New York Press.
Hahn, C. (1999) Challenges to civic education in the United States: In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
& J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case
Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 584-607). Amsterdam: IEA.
Ichilov, O. (Ed.) (1998). Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World. London:
Woburn Press.
Kennedy, K. (Ed.) (1996). New Challenges for Citizenship Education. Canberra: Australian
Curriculum Studies Association.
Kennedy, K. (Ed.) (1997). Citizenship Education and the Modern State. London: Falmer Press.
Kerr, D. (1999a). Re-examining citizenship education in England. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
& J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case
Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 203-227). Amsterdam: IEA.
Kerr, D. (1999b). Changing the Political Culture: The Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship
and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1) and (2),
25-35.
Kerr, D. (1999c). Re-examining Citizenship Education: The Case of England. Slough: NFER.
Kerr, D. (1999d). Citizenship Education: An International Comparison (International Review of
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 4). London: Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority.
Le M6tais, J. (1997). Values and Aims in Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks (International
Review of CUlTiculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 1). London: School Curriculum
and Assessment Authority.
McLaughlin, T. H. (1992). Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective.
Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235-246.
Mitchell, P. (1999). Education for Citizenship: The Contribution of Active Learning in the
Community. London: Community Service Volunteers.
Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven and
London: Yale University Press.
Niemi, R. G., Hepburn, M., & Chapman, C. (1999). Community service by high school students:
a cure for ills? Unpublished paper.
Nolin, M. J., Chancy, B., Chapman, C., & Chandler, K. (1997). Student Participation in Community
Service Activity (NCES 97-331). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Studies.
An International Review o f Citizenship in the Curriculum 237
O'Donnell, S., Le M&ais, J., Boyd, S., & Tabberer, R. (1998). INCA: the International Review of
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Archive [CD-ROM] (2nd ed.). London:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. Also available online at http://www.inca.org.uk
QCA/DfEE. (1999a). The review of the national curriculum in England: the Secretory of State's
proposals. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and
Employment.
QCA/DfEE. (1999b). The review of the national curriculum in England: the consultation materials.
London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and
Employment.
QCA/DfEE. (1999c). Handbook for primary teachers in England. London: Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment. Also available online at
www.nc.uk.net
QCA/DfEE. (1999d). Handbook for secondary teachers in England. London: Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority/Department for Education and Employment. Also available online at
www.nc.uk.net
Ruddock, G. (1998). Mathematics education in the school curriculum: an international perspective
(International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 3). London:
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.
Tabberer, R. (1997). Primary education: expectations and provision (International Review of
Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Paper 2). London: School Curriculum and
Assessment Authority.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in
Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam:
IEA.
Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (Eds) (1999). Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA.
This article has been cited by:
1. Chee Keng John Wang, Angeline Khoo, Chor Boon Goh, Steven Tan, S.
Gopinathan. 2006. Patriotism and National Education: Perceptions of trainee
teachers in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 26:1, 51-64. [CrossRef]

0.5. New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education For Citizenship - An International Comparison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

0.5. New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education For Citizenship - An International Comparison

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0.5. New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education For Citizenship - An International Comparison

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for

Citizenship: An International Comparison

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by

The triangulation described in this chapter brought together different layers

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship, Volume 5,

key aspects of citizenship education in the curriculum. Finally, the conclusion

THE TRIANGULATION OF QUALITATIVE DATA

The triangulation of the sources of qualitative data on citizenship education

despite the considerable pressures of catching up with the other participating

• Build a ready-to-use resource, comprising a succinct description of each

• Provide detailed information on specific areas to enable QCA to evaluate the

During my secondment to QCA, I worked closely with the advisory group's

The combination of my continued role as national research co-ordinator for

,, curriculum aims, organization and structure

,, teaching and learning approaches

The thematic study combined material from:

My intention in combining what is contained in INCA about citizenship

Evolving Frames for Interpretation

A Continuum of Citizenship Education

Easier to achieve and More difficult to achieve and

in the student's adult life.

A Three-part Classification of Citizenship Education

Values-explicit and Values-neutral Citizenship Education

THE TRIANGULATION AND INTERPRETATION

OF DATA ON KEY ASPECTS OF CITIZENSHIP

Curriculum Aims, Organization and Structure

Viewing the curriculum aims, organization and structure of citizenship education

The detailed structural factors include:

• organization of and responsibilities for education

third category are very much "values-explicit" in approach. This tripartite

Table 1. Organization of Citizenship Education in the Primary Phase.

Country Terminology Approach Hours per week

England Formerly Education for Non-statutory Schools to decide

to citizenship education, namely integrated and cross-curricular. In the integrated

Table 2. Organization of Citizenship Education in the Lower and Upper

Country Terminology Approach Hours per week

England Formerly Education for Non-statutory Schools to decide

history, law, political Integrated

The Primary Curriculum (Ages 5 to 11)

The major pattern in the primary curriculum is the organization of citizenship

The Secondary Curriculum (Ages 11 to 16 or 18)

Citizenship education in the secondary curriculum is still organized through an

unprecedented pace of global change has thrown up for countries a common

• the creation of new forms of community and organization.

Teaching and Learning Approaches

Three aspects of teaching and learning approaches in citizenship education were

that teacher culture and beliefs have on approaches to citizenship education.

mock elections. There is an equal range of opportunities available in England

Teacher Specialization and Teacher Training

of having specialist teaching of citizenship education in the primary school

curriculum. The national experts confirmed this commentary during their

who teach citizenship education are lacking appropriate pedagogical techniques

Use of Textbooks and Other Resources

role in determining the approach of teachers, textbooks shape students'

citizenship education, particularly through the information and communications

(5) A move in many countries away from a narrow, knowledge-based approach

together those who have a deep understanding of developments in citizenship

You might also like