British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN 0007-1005

DOI number: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00382.x

Vol. 55, No. 3, September 2007, pp 325–345

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION AND YOUTH

YOUTH
Blackwell
Oxford,
British
BJES
©
0007-1005
XXX
Blackwell
ORIGINAL PARTICIPATION
Journal
UKPublishing
Publishing
ARTICLES Ltd.IN
of Educational
Ltd DEMOCRACY
and
Studies
SES 2007

PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

by Murray Print,University of Sydney

ABSTRACT: Citizenship education in established democracies is

challenged by declining youth participation in democracy. Youth
disenchantment and disengagement in democracy is primarily evident
in formal political behaviour, especially through voting, declining
membership of political parties, assisting at elections, contacting
politicians, and the like. If citizenship education is to play a major role
in addressing these concerns it will need to review the impact it is
making on young people in schools.
This paper reviews a major national project on youth participation
in democracy in Australia set in the context of a national citizenship
education programme. The Youth Electoral Study found that citizenship
education in Australian schools has at best been marginally successful
and substantially more is required to raise levels of democratic engagement.
The paper explores many opportunities available to education systems
and schools to address these issues through reconceptualising aspects of
the formal and the informal curriculum.

Keywords: citizenship education, democracy, participation, youth,

formal curriculum, informal curriculum

1. Introduction1
Established democracies face a conundrum that challenges their
very legitimacy. The international literature is rich with exhortations
of the vital importance for citizens to be engaged in modern, formal
democracy (Crick, 2002, 2007; Dalton, 2004; Forbrig, 2005; Galston,
2004; Macedo, 2005; Power Inquiry, 2006; Print and Saha, 2006;
Print, 2006b). Such engagement, it is argued, is necessary to avoid
weakening the legitimacy of elected governments as they struggle
with falling election turnouts as well as to counter the rise of undemo-
cratic political forces and the growth of ‘quiet authoritarianism’
and ‘presidential’ prime ministers within government.
325
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Yet these same democracies are now characterised by declining

citizen participation of many forms. In reviewing the erosion of
political support in advanced industrial democracies Dalton (2004)
reminds us that ‘Contemporary democracies are facing a challenge
today. This challenge does not come from enemies within or outside
the nation. Instead, the challenge comes from democracy’s own
citizens, who have grown distrustful of politicians, sceptical about
democratic institutions, and disillusioned about how the democratic
process functions’ (p. 1). Hence the conundrum. Over the past two
decades citizenship education has been introduced, reviewed or
consolidated in most established democracies in regions such as
Europe and Britain, North America and the Pacific, to engage citizens
in their democracy. Yet democratic participation has declined.
It may be argued that in modern societies all students need to
experience citizenship education in schools so they may become a
competent citizen in a representative democracy (Crick, 1998). It
has become abundantly clear that the family does not, or cannot,
provide this educative experience, even though research indicates
that parents and television are influential sources of political
information for young people (Print et al., 2004; Torney-Purta et al.,
2001). That leaves the school as the most logical source for conducting
citizenship education.
Yet, paradoxically, as demand for education for democratic
citizenship grows, youth participation in formal democracy is
declining, a decline which is particularly evident in the established
democracies. Growing concern has been directed towards the
phenomenon of non-participation of youth in democracy, especially
the declining levels of youth voting in general or national elections.
In the United States, for example, since the introduction of the 18-
year-old voting age in 1972 the percentage of young people (18–24
years) voting in presidential and non-presidential elections has
steadily declined in every Presidential election (CIRCLE, 2002) until
2004 (CIRCLE, 2004). A similar pattern is evident in related western
democracies such as Britain and France, while youth turnout at
elections is even worse in Canada (Pammett, while LeDuc, 2003)
However, declining democratic participation is more widespread
than voting in elections. Research on youth engagement in the
United States, the various CIRCLE funded projects (CIRCLE, 2002),
supported by the general findings from Putnam’s substantial study
Bowling Alone (2000), found evidence of decline across three broad
categories of democratic indicators, namely civic indicators such as
membership of groups/associations and volunteering; electoral
indicators including voting and assisting candidates with campaigns;
326
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

and political engagement indicators such as contacting media,

signing petitions and boycotting products.
While disenchantment and disengagement of youth in democracy
is primarily evident in formal political behaviour and indicators such
as joining political parties, substantial evidence exists that young
people do have political views and participate in alternative political
behaviour (Norris, 2002; O’Toole, 2003; O’Toole et al., 2003). Indeed
Norris has argued that ‘In sum, indicators point more strongly
toward the evolution, transformation, and reinvention of civic
engagement than to its premature death’ (2002, p. 4). Yet despite
heightened interest in political matters in recent years, flamed
by acts of terrorism, the longer-term trend in youth voting has continued
in a declining trend.
Hence, emphasising alternative participation of youth must be
tempered with caution for several reasons. Even if young people do
hold political views, by not being engaged through formalised
activities such as voting they have little ability to influence or change
political decisions. Second, should they participate in alternative political
activities, these are frequently episodic or idiosyncratic in nature
around a single/limited issue rather than sustained; and third, such
‘participation’ demonstrates little evidence of sustainability in political
terms, being driven by the immediacy mantra of this generation ...
‘we want it now.’ So such alternative approaches to democratic par-
ticipation by young people must be treated with considerable caution.
Meanwhile, is there a solution to this conundrum and to the
challenge of declining participation in democracy by young people?
What influences youth civic engagement and encourages them to
participate in democracy and political life more specifically?

2. Participation in Democracy
Democracy is well grounded in the concept of public participation
in political matters. Indeed, citizen participation is the very raison
d’etre of democracy. As Dalton (2004) contends, ‘Democracy is a
process and a set of political expectations that elevate democracy
above other political forms ... Otherwise, we should praise authori-
tarian regimes ... but we do not ...’ (2004, p. 10). Not surprisingly
widespread support exists for the argument that participation of
citizens is essential if democracies are to be viable, sustainable and
healthy (Crick, 1998, 2002; International IDEA, 1999, 2002; Norris,
2002; Power, 2006; Putnam, 2000).
Political, and more broadly civic, participation occurs when
citizens become part of the body politic/polity as an engaged member.
327
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Participation in a democracy may take many forms but it can be

identified in terms of three sets of engagement indicators:
• Civic indicators – active membership of groups/associations;
volunteering; fundraising for charities, community participation/
problem solving.
• Electoral indicators – regular voting; persuading others; contributions
to political parties; assisting candidates with campaigns.
• Political engagement indicators – contacting officials; contacting
print and broadcast media; protest; written petitions; boycotting
and boycotting activists, email petitions and internet engagement.
(CIRCLE, 2002)
The need for greater and more active participation in modern
democracy has been strongly endorsed by the recent report from the
Power Commission (2006) which sought to re-engage citizens with
British democracy. The report identified the need to engage people
with formal democracy for several reasons, including strengthening
the mandate of elected governments whose legitimacy is threatened
due to turnouts plummeting at elections; emphasising political
equality where whole sections of the community feel estranged from
politics; strengthening effective dialogue between the governed and
those who govern; and opposing the increasing influence of un-
democratic political forces (The Power Inquiry, 2006). While political
participation may take many forms, as the International IDEA (2002)
contend, it is argued that the least problematic, requiring the least
resources and what is potentially the most powerful for most people,
is voting.

Voting in Democracies
Voting is a significant indicator of democratic engagement, a
minimal sign of an individual’s democratic participation as a citizen
and, as Franklin (2004) notes, a useful indicator of the health of a
democracy. Though there is some debate about the importance of
voting in a democracy, there exists widespread support for voting as
a valuable expression of one’s participation in a political entity
(International IDEA, 2002). If these arguments are accepted, then it
is clear that young people need to participate in their democracy
and to vote.
International studies in youth voting show, in most established
democracies, clear declines over the past two decades. In the United
States the decline of youth voting has been well documented. In the
2000 Presidential Elections only 32 per cent of young people (18–24
328
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

years) voted, a record low turnout (CIRCLE, 2002; Putnam, 2000).

A concentrated effort to increase the youth turnout, particularly by
the major political parties, produced an increased vote in the 2004
election to 47 per cent of that youth group (CIRCLE, 2004).
However, it is too early to say if the downward turnout trend
has been reversed, or temporarily suspended and will continue to
decline in the future.
Participation of young people in UK elections presents a similar
pattern. Over the past two decades there has been a noticeable decline
in young people voting in general elections as well as local and Euro-
pean Union elections. The 2001 UK general election showed the youth
vote had declined to 39 per cent of the age cohort (The Electoral Com-
mission, 2002). While voter turnout in the 2005 UK election increased
marginally overall, the youth vote dropped to an all time low of 37
per cent (The Electoral Commission, 2005). In Canada the situation
is worse. Pammett and LeDuc (2003) found that in the 2000 Canadian
elections youth turnout (18–20 year olds) was barely 22 per cent
compared with in excess of 80 per cent for those over 58 years of age.
In European Union elections voter turn-out among young people
is also declining, though the decline varies considerably across
countries (International IDEA, 1999; 2002). European youth tend to
vote moderately highly at national elections, with a lower turn-out at
provincial, state or local levels. But the lowest level of voter turn-out
is clearly the European Union elections.
As a country with both compulsory voting and a high level of
applied sanctions to enhance compliance on non-voters, Australia
would be expected to demonstrate exceptionally high levels of youth
voting. And in large measure that is the case. Yet there is persuasive
evidence that young people aged 18 to 25 years of age are increasingly
disengaging from their electoral responsibilities by avoiding
enrolment and not voting in elections (Hallett, in press; Print et al.,
2004; Saha et al., 2005). To a large extent this disengagement is masked
by compulsory voting, but, as Hallett (in press) demonstrates, there is
ample evidence of non-compliance and non-voting by upwards of
400,000 Australian youth. What do these data mean for the future
of Australian democracy, or any other democracy where evidence of
declining youth turnout has been found?

3. Schooling and Education for Democratic Citizenship

in Australia
Extensive research on political socialisation over many years (Delli-
Carpini and Keeter, 1996; Hooghe, 2004; Patrick, 1999; Print, 2006a;
329
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Saha, 2000; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al., 1997) shows three primary
sources of influence on young people’s learning about politics and
democracy – the family, through role modelling, discussion, and
media use; the media, mostly television and newspapers; and third,
school experience providing knowledge, skills and values from
non-partisan educators. Other sources such as peers, the extended
family, community and church, count for little.
Of these sources it has been widely argued that the school offers
the best chance of building an informed, balanced sense of democratic
worth, political knowledge and democratic values and skills (Forbrig,
2005; Nie et al., 1996; Niemi and Junn, 1998; Patrick, 1999; Print et al.,
2002; Saha, 2000; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Indeed, research shows
that the best predictor of adult voting and democratic engagement
available is the course taken in civics or citizenship education (Niemi
and Junn, 1998).
In modern democracies citizenship education may be translated
as meaning programmes in education for democratic citizenship,
that is, learning about being a citizen in a democracy through
educational programmes in schools (Crick, 1998; Patrick, 1999).
Education for democratic citizenship, or civics and citizenship
education (CCE) as it is known in Australia, may be defined as the
opportunity to learn about our system of government, democracy,
rule of law, rights and responsibilities, democratic values, and the
knowledge, skills and values associated with political issues (CEG,
1994; Kemp, 1997; Print, 2006a). It is clearly the direct intention of
citizenship education in Australia (Curriculum Corporation, 1998;
Howard and Patten, 2006; Kemp, 1997) to prepare young people for
active citizenship, which implies democratic participation.
The work of Niemi and Junn (1998) as well as Finkel (2003)
demonstrates that studying civic education can make a difference to
student civic knowledge, student civic values and student civic
participation. McAllister (1998) noted that education produced higher
levels of political knowledge that, in turn, made a person a ‘better
democratic citizen’. More broadly, citizenship education, which
encourages students to acquire civic knowledge, civic skills and civic
values, is more likely to produce engaged citizens (Niemi and Junn,
1998; Saha, 2000; Torney-Purta et al., 2001) as well as to assist with
the formation of social capital (Print and Coleman, 2003).
Given that healthy democracies are those where citizens participate,
Australia has been curiously complacent about educating its future
citizens about democracy, despite the imperative of compulsory
voting. Competing forces impacting on the school curriculum have
been more successful in gaining resources and curriculum time.
330
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Australia has relied upon some vague, benign expectation that its
young would learn about their democracy through exposure to
schooling and society. The reality is quite different.

4. The Discovering Democracy Programme

From the report of the Civics Expert Group (1994) which identified
a ‘civics deficit’ to the creation of Discovering Democracy (Kemp, 1997)
and the recent report on student civic understanding (MCEEETYA,
2006), it has been evident that young Australians know little about
their democracy. The Discovering Democracy programme offered an
opportunity to address that need. It provided several sets of curriculum
resources, over the period 1997–2003, to Australia’s 10,000 schools.
Substantial teacher professional development was funded by the
programme, but managed by the states, to familiarise teachers with
the programme and the materials (Erebus, 2003).
For the past decade what constitutes citizenship education in
Australian schools has effectively been drawn from these non-
compulsory Discovering Democracy resources. Each of the states and
territory education systems interpreted and applied the programme
marginally differently. Schools and teachers, however, the evaluators
found (Erebus, 2003), selected differentially from within the
programme’s offerings. The outcome of such choice is that it is
difficult to identify nationally a picture of what is being taught in
schools about citizenship education.

Outcomes of Discovering Democracy

If there are differences in the way citizenship education is imple-
mented across Australian education jurisdictions and schools, there
are also some strong similarities on matters of principle. All State
and Territory authorities argue the need for students to be active
citizens, critically informed, socially just and knowledgeable. There
is also a strong commitment to those civic values (tolerance, balancing
rights and responsibilities, respect for the common good, equity and
social justice and being inclusive) that underpin Australian democracy
(Erebus, 2003; Howard and Patten, 2006).
Extensive and well-prepared curriculum materials available to all
Australian schools were a feature of the programme. The evaluators
found teachers consistently highlighted the currency and relevance
of topics for students, as well as the range of print, audiovisual and
electronic resources, and the enduring nature of the materials.
Nevertheless, teacher use of the resources was characterised as sparing
331
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

and limited to specific subject matter or to personal pedagogical

preferences (Erebus, 2003). In terms of adoption, by 2003 some
12 per cent of teachers had not used the materials at all and a
further 43 per cent only limited application. After at least six years of
availability, the materials were a well established part of the curriculum
for only seven per cent of teachers (Erebus, 2003).
From the Australian Government’s perspective its policy goals for
Discovering Democracy, and for citizenship education more broadly,
may have been minimally met, yet the same cannot be said for schools.
Although citizenship education is clearly recognised within the
National Goals for Schooling, and manifests a presence in all state
and territory curricula, its practice in schools is clearly more prob-
lematic (Erebus, 2003; MCEETYA, 2006; Print and Saha, 2006). With
such a base in citizenship education and Australian democracy, we
might expect high levels of youth participation in Australian democ-
racy. And given the overlay of compulsory voting we would expect
that young Australians are enrolled and voting at extraordinarily high
levels. But is this the case?

5. Youth Electoral Study

Examining youth participation in democracy through the lens of
voting provides a deep insight into young people’s political and
democratic thinking and behaviour. The purpose of the on-going
Youth Electoral Study (YES), a national project funded by the
Australian Research Council, is to investigate the declining particip-
ation and increasing disengagement of young people in Australian
democracy and elections. The study sought to understand the
process by which young adults become politically informed and
engaged in Australian democracy, understand youth behaviour
and attitudes towards voting and identify why so many fail to vote
(see Appendix).
Using a mixed-method approach over a four-year period, data
have been collected through in-depth group and individual interviews
with young people aged 17–25 in school and non-school sites to
identify democratic and electoral behaviour. Two linked national
cross-sectional surveys of 4,700 Year 12 senior secondary schools in
2004 and 2007 investigated student behaviour and attitudes towards
democracy and voting and identified school type, enrolments and
citizenship education programmes.
A necessary initial step was to identify who these young people
are. Combining evidence from the 2001 Australian Census,
CIRCLE, the Electoral Commission and YES, these young people
332
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

appear to constitute a distinct generation (CIRCLE, 2002, 2004;

Electoral Commission, 2002; Galston, 2004; Print, 2006a, 2006b).
The synthesised data about this generation characterises the Dot
Nets, sometimes called the ‘click & go’ generation, as:
Technology-oriented and internet dependent
Networked amongst peers, particularly through technology
Temporally impatient, wanting services/goods immediately
Civically disengaged from politics and political parties
Inattentive to traditional public affairs
Socially tolerant, especially ethnically
Mild consumer activists who both boycott and buycott
Consumption-oriented, credit users and in debt
Well travelled both domestically and internationally
Formally educated, and more than any previous generation
Casual work is commonplace as is volunteering
Demographically constitute 1/7 of total population and growing.
Australian born, urban dwellers, who frequently live with parents
Highly mobile, indeed, the most mobile group.
(ABS, 2001 Census; CIRCLE, 2002; Electoral Commission, 2002)

6. Youth Participation
It could be expected after several years of the Discovering Democracy
programme in schools that the Dot Nets would be actively engaged
in democracy. Is that the case? The Dot Nets know that voting is
compulsory, voting commences at 18 and that there are fines / sanctions
for not voting. The YES research found that most young people will
initially register on the electoral roll, mainly because they believe it
is the right thing to do, because they know it is compulsory or they
wish to avoid being fined (Print et al., 2004). Yet many others are not
enrolled and do not vote.
Recently, using Australian Electoral Commission data, Hallett (in
press) demonstrated a low initial enrolment rate of young Australians
at aged 18 years, with a substantial increase a year later (see Appen-
dix). Yet by aged 20, when young Australians have experienced
at least one federal or state election, less than 82 per cent were
enrolled. A year later enrolment plateaus at around 86 per cent and
subsequent increases are slight. More disconcerting is the total
figure of some 380,000 young Australians aged 18–25 years who were
not on the electoral roll. Something is clearly amiss.
Females were more likely to enrol and more likely to vote than
males and more females would vote than males if it was not compulsory.
333
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

Only a half of all those students surveyed across the country would
vote if it was not compulsory (Print et al., 2004). Despite strong
endorsement of the importance of vote, there were significant
detractions with some two-thirds of students claiming that the act of
voting itself was boring and for about half it was a waste of a Saturday
(Print et al., 2004). Clearly the power of compulsory voting masks
the reality of democratic participation by young Australians, though
there is little political interest in trying to remove the compulsion
from voting in elections.
Half the students feel they lack the fundamental knowledge to
understand the political parties and the key issues, as well as to make
decisions about voting, and in general, to vote. This raises major
questions about the effectiveness of existing formal education
programmes in preparing young citizens. More generally, civic
knowledge amongst young Australians is very limited, and depletes
early. A civics and citizenship study as part of the national assessment
programme (MCEETYA, 2006) identified modest levels of civic
knowledge by students at Years 6 and 10. Yet, by Year 12, students
believe they lack knowledge to understand politics and to actually
vote (Print et al., 2004).

7. Engagement
The YES data identified amongst young people a lack of connectedness
between voting and democratic participation with everyday politics.
Young people do not perceive voting as an important component
of their life. These activities lack status and are largely ignored by
young people in their transition to adulthood.
What might engage students more in democracy? Could voting be
seen as more important to young people? Students were asked to
indicate how they identified with several rite-of-passage events that
typically take place in late adolescence. Significantly, voting is not
seen as an important part of the transition process to adult citizen.
Turning 18, obtaining a driver’s licence and school graduation are
all far more important rites of passage to adulthood.
How might students learn about democracy and political matters
so they may become more engaged? While parents are the most
important source of information about voting and political matters,
as commonly found (Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Verba et al., 1995), tel-
evision and newspapers were ranked second and third with teachers
in fourth position in the YES data (Print et al., 2004). This offers
opportunities for schools and media to perform a more prominent
role in preparing youth to be engaged citizens.
334
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

8. Trust in Government and Politicians

A major disincentive for young people to participate in Australian
democracy is the lack of trust in political leaders. Young people
widely characterised politicians as liars and highly untrustworthy.
Only half agreed that parliamentarians could be trusted to do what
is right for the country, while barely a quarter agreed that politicians
are honest. About one-third of the students agreed that the parlia-
mentarians are smart and know what they are doing in running the
government (Print et al., 2004). It appears students differentiated
between political trust and honesty. While politicians might be
somewhat ‘trusted’ to govern, they were not perceived as honest.
Even with this distinction, the levels of trust, and the levels of attribut-
ing honesty to parliamentarians are low.
In all, the YES data reveal a disconnected youth, aware of democracy
and voting, but reluctant to commit to participate in political matters.
Mostly they felt a lack of civic knowledge about politics, democracy
and voting which made them unprepared to participate. What role
then can citizenship education play in Australian schools to address
these concerns?

9. Citizenship Education in Schools

Of all the options available for young people to learn about partici-
pation in democracy the most strongly favoured and advocated is the
school. Specifically it is argued that the school should provide the
opportunities for students to become familiar with democracy and
how to participate within it (Crick, 1998; Galston, 2004; Patrick,
1999; Torney-Purta, 2001). Yet even the most ardent of advocates for
citizenship education comment that, at least in the United States in
recent years, it has largely failed (Galston, 2004). Further, Galston
notes that while general levels of schooling have increased in the
United States, civic education in schools has declined, potentially
accounting for low levels of civic knowledge and low levels of democratic
participation.
As seen in recent reviews of research in citizenship education such
as the EPPI review (Deakin Crick et al., 2005) and Osler and Starkey
(2005) most of what passes as research has long been either descriptive
or ideological in nature. More recently a few correlational studies
have been conducted which connect citizenship education with student
outcomes such as civic knowledge and democratic participation
(Kerr et al., 2004; McAllister, 1998; Niemi and Junn, 1998; Print et al.,
2004; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). From these, two promising areas for
335
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

building democratic citizens, through democratic engagement by

young people, are found in the curricula of schools.
Within the formal curriculum, citizenship education may be
conceptualised as specific school subjects such as citizenship, civics,
government or history. A broader perspective of citizenship education
in schools includes elements of the informal curriculum such as
participating in student government, voting in school elections,
volunteering, raising funds for charities and the like. Considering
these studies in the light of the YES research outcomes, the school,
and the school curriculum in particular, offer the greatest opportunity
for engaging young people with democracy. In the context of building
education for democratic citizenship designed to engage young people
more substantially in democracy, through education systems and
schools, the options with the greatest potential are found in the
formal and the informal curriculum.

10. Formal Curriculum

If schools are to play a meaningful role in developing political and
civic engagement within young people a necessary prerequisite for
students is an opportunity to learn about democracy, government
and citizenship. The formal curriculum is both a logical and essential
place to provide that opportunity (Torney-Purta, 2002). This view
contends that students can acquire civic knowledge, skills and values
through the formal curriculum by studying subjects in much the
same way they would learn literacy through subjects such as English.
Second, the formal curriculum through school subjects provides
students with opportunities to learn civic knowledge, skills and
values. This rationale is based upon the significance of students
acquiring civic knowledge. The importance of knowledge to citizens
in a democracy has been well developed over many years (Delli
Carpini and Keeter, 1996; McAllister, 1998; Nie et al., 1996; Niemi
and Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta et al., 2001), and in the context of
Australia, clearly identified by McAllister. ‘One of the most important
requirements for the functioning of representative democracy is the
existence of informed and knowledgeable citizens’ (1998, p. 7).
Evidence from other countries indicates that learning civics and
citizenship enhances political knowledge and probably political
engagement. From the 1988 NAEP Civics Study, for example, Niemi
and Junn found that for Years 4 and 8 a correlation existed between
levels of student civic knowledge and the amount and frequency of
civics studies in subjects such as Social Studies, American Government
and Civics. Clearly, they contend, ‘... the school civics curriculum
336
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

does indeed enhance what and how much they [students] know
about American government and politics’ (1998, p. 147). Similarly,
from a multi-national IEA study, Torney-Purta and her colleagues
found that students who had studied civics-related topics at school
had higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement (2001; Torney-
Purta, 2002).
In England, a substantial study of 15–16 year olds by John, Morris
and Halpern (2003) found that citizenship education programmes
positively influenced political knowledge and efficacy, though not
political interest or political activity. This reflected the newly developed
programmes on citizenship education for English schools. Further-
more, they found that citizenship education had positive effects
upon student trust, political efficacy, willingness to vote and volun-
teering. While the effects are not strong, the influence of citizenship
education programmes are positive even when controlling for SES,
parental and background variables. The YES data, however, showed
clearly that Australian students did not feel knowledgeable about
political matters, elections or voting and from the qualitative data it
was equally clear that students did not identify with citizenship
education in schools (Print et al., 2004).
Further American research by Finkel (2003) and Niemi and
Finkel (2006) shows that studying civic education can make a positive
difference to student civic knowledge, student civic values and to
student civic participation. In general, therefore, the evidence
suggests that young people who take citizenship education type
courses in school also demonstrate higher levels of civic knowledge
and skills than those who have not studied such courses. In Australia,
however, this opportunity has been remarkably limited until recent
years, especially in secondary schools. The Discovering Democracy
programme addressed this need in part, though with varying
levels of success (Erebus, 2003). If the outcome measure of student
performance is evidenced through knowledge acquired, as used by
MCEETYA (2006), Australian students have either had little
opportunity to learn about democracy and government or they have
learnt little.
However, the school can make a difference. Through the formal
curriculum it can build levels of civic and political knowledge which
can positively influence engagement and participation. School
subjects which address civics and political issues are a necessary first
step, but they are not sufficient to ensure political engagement (Hart
et al., 2007; Patrick, 1999; Print et al., 2003; Youniss et al., 1997). There
are, however, three important qualifications to consider which, if
not addressed through the formal curriculum, will undermine school
337
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

attempts to engage young people with democracy. First, research

shows that participatory pedagogy is weak in schools. Rather,
instruction in citizenship education is characterised by textbooks,
rote learning and non-participatory, non-critical strategies, as
well as inadequate teacher preparation (Hahn, 1998; Niemi and
Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
Second, substantial research from the United States and interna-
tionally shows that participatory approaches, such as class voting,
group inquiry, simulations, fieldwork and co-operative learning, are
more likely to engage learners in experiential learning and aspects
of democratic values and practice (Hahn, 1998; Niemi and Junn,
1998; Print and Smith, 2001; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Youniss et al.,
1997). The EPPI review showed that engaged pedagogy can enhance
student learning and achievement, especially when characterised by
a facilitative, conversational pedagogy (Deakin Crick et al., 2005).
Such pedagogy can increase student participation, improve commu-
nication skills and empower students to become more engaged.
Finally, open, informed, meaningful and critical discussion with
non/bi-partisan teachers is highly significant in engaging students
(Deakin Crick et al., 2005; Hahn, 1998; Niemi and Junn, 1998;
Torney-Purta, 2002; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Youniss et al., 1997).
These approaches offer opportunities for learning about democracy,
politics and government in any country, but given the context of
compulsory voting are particularly appropriate to Australia.

11. Informal Curriculum

The informal curriculum includes learning from activities not
acquired through school subjects as part of the formal curriculum.
These activities are informal in that while they are recognised by the
school they are characterised as non-subjects, low status and low
value. Potentially, however, these activities constitute powerful means
for educating about democracy and engaging the young actively in
democratic citizenship. As Patrick claims, ‘Participation in demo-
cratically run student organizations, and especially in student
government activities, provides opportunities to practice the habits
and skills of democracy’ (1999, p. 53).
The informal curriculum consists of two sets of related activities.
Instrumental activities, which develop civic engagement, include stu-
dent governance, newspapers, debating, student elections, fundrais-
ing and political clubs (Kirlin, 2002, 2003; Print et al., 2002). These
are real, meaningful activities which encourage active participation
by students, are positively correlated with later civic engagement and
338
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

are, potentially, the best predictor of adult political engagement

(Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995). Second, expressive
activities, such as sports, clubs, bands and social activities, are perceived
as contributing less to building civic engagement, though they do fall
along the same participation continuum (Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin,
2002, 2003; Print and Coleman, 2003).
Volunteering and service learning are problematic as they are
located at the crossroads between the formal curriculum (may be a
‘required subject’ in schools), the informal curriculum (within-
school volunteering on approved activities) and the extra-curricular
(volunteering outside the school), and there is debate as to how
much they constitute ‘volunteering’ or school compulsory requirements
(Hart et al., 2007). Volunteering drops sharply once young people
enter the paid workforce and it is often characterised by young
people as an alternative to formal politics (Galston, 2004). In his
overview of participation by the young, Galston noted the problematic
relationship between volunteering and political engagement. ‘They
have confidence in personalized acts with consequences they can
see for themselves; they have less confidence in collective actions ...
whose consequences they see as remote, opaque, and impossible to
control’ (p. 263). Nevertheless, community service seems to assist civic
engagement, generates pro-civic attitudes and is linked with
civic knowledge (Hart et al., 2007; Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002;
Zukin et al., 2006).
A growing body of literature claims that student participation in
the informal curriculum is positively related to engaging young
people in later political and civic life (Niemi and Chapman, 1999;
Patrick, 1999; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al., 1997). Over the past
decade American research has demonstrated that participation in
both student government and school interest groups is strongly
related to adult engagement in political and civic life as voters,
members of voluntary associations and as contributors to the
common good (Putnam, 2000; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al.,
1997). Verba and his colleagues (1995) argued that institutions in
which individuals have an opportunity to practice democratic gov-
ernance are ‘schools of democracy’. In their study, adults’ having
participated in student government while in high school was the
most important school variable in predicting adult political activity
(Verba et al., 1995). More recently, Hart and his colleagues (2007)
found that participation in the informal curriculum was associated
with higher rates of voting in presidential elections in early adulthood.
International research using the IEA Civics Study shows that the
culture of the school is indeed significant in engaging young people
339
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

(Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Schools, she suggests, are effective places

for developing student engagement through ‘... supporting effective
participation opportunities such as school councils’ (2002, p. 210).
Yet these findings need qualification from the perspective of young
Australians. The YES project found that while students appreciate
these activities, they do not value them highly, largely because the
school appears not to value them. In particular student government,
for most students, and for the same reasons, was perceived as incon-
sequential. The most common student comment on student govern-
ment was that the results were manipulated by teachers and could
not be taken seriously (Saha et al., 2005). Students perceived they
had little influence over important decisions, their opinions were
not valued and student government had no – or negligible – power,
unlike the case in Scandinavian countries (Print et al., 2002).
Equally problematic was that participating in student elections was
unconnected to voting and democratic participation. School elec-
tioneering, voting, counting the vote, and reporting results were
largely perfunctory tasks which had little meaning for the world of
adult citizenship. Given the school’s role in ‘duty of care’ the application
of democratic participation is clearly restrained, yet compromises
can be found. Mostly schools do not seek such compromises and
students miss valuable opportunities to develop political and civic
engagement.
Yet the YES data show students who have voted in school elections
are significantly more likely to vote, while those who have stood for
a student election are even more likely to say they would vote as an
adult (Saha et al., 2005). A similar difference exists when students were
asked if they had stood for office in school elections. These findings
reinforce the argument that young people’s democratic and electoral
behaviour is likely to be significantly influenced by prior experience
with student elections, even if they do not recognise the association.
There are, however, several reservations to consider. First, student
governance is clearly undervalued by schools and students as sources
for building student civic and political engagement. Until its status
is raised and it is treated as a worthwhile learning activity, it will
continue to underperform in building democratic engagement.
Second, instrumental activities, rather than expressive activities,
need to be encouraged in order to build democratic participation.
Third, volunteering and service learning need to be treated with
caution. Seemingly they assist civic engagement but their problem-
atic application (episodic, event-related) and ‘required’ status in
many school contexts may diminish their positive impact as a contributor
to democratic engagement.
340
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

12. Conclusions
Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) contend that informed citizens are
demonstrably better citizens, as judged by the standards of democratic
theory and practice underpinning the American system. They are
more likely to participate in politics, more likely to have meaningful,
stable attitudes on issues, better able to link their interests with their
attitudes, more likely to choose candidates who are consistent with
their own attitudes, and more likely to support democratic norms,
such as extending basic civil liberties to members of unpopular groups.
Furthermore, ‘The differences between best- and least-informed
citizens on all of these dimensions are dramatic’ (1996, p. 272).
The Australian experience has lessons for other established
democracies. The Youth Electoral Study sought to understand the
process by which young adults become politically informed and
engaged citizens in Australian democracy, as well as to understand
youth behaviour and attitudes towards enrolment and voting. It
found that Australian students in the final year of school lacked
knowledge of political and electoral matters, yet most intended to
vote when they reached the voting age. If voting was not compulsory
barely half would vote. This was attributed to their lack of knowledge
about political issues, political parties and voting, to the lack of
identification with gaining the vote as a significant milestone in life
and to their substantial mistrust of politicians and political parties.
On the basis of the YES findings, there are measures that can be
introduced to improve the awareness and participation of young
people in Australian democracy. While there is no single or simple
strategy that will instantly improve the democratic participation of
young people, schools are very important, and indeed essential,
agents in this process.
Through both the formal and informal curricula, schools offer an
opportunity for young people to become more knowledgeable and
actively engaged in democracy. The Australian evidence suggests
that most schools have far to go in helping students achieve such a
goal. Therefore, there is a clear need to encourage and lobby
governments, policy makers and educational authorities to ensure
the presence of specific courses in citizenship education taught by
dedicated, prepared teachers.
Furthermore, research has demonstrated that where students
have experienced elections, either as a candidate or a voter, they are
more likely to vote and engage in democracy in the future. Similarly
students were likely to be more engaged when they participated
in instrumental activities such as school-based newspapers, debating
341
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

and fundraising. Therefore, greater encouragement of these

elements of the informal curriculum is needed to offer students,
schools and education systems an enhanced opportunity for demo-
cratic participation by young people.

13. Acknowledgement
The author wishes to acknowledge the funding support for the
Youth Electoral Study from the Australian Research Council and the
Australian Electoral Commission and the support of his co-researcher
Professor Larry Saha, Australian National University.

14. Note
1
This paper is based on a keynote address delivered at the Second CitizED Inter-
national Conference, Oxford University, July 2006.

15. References
CENTRE FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH ON CIVIC LEARNING AND
ENGAGEMENT (CIRCLE) (2002) Youth Civic Engagement: Facts and Trends
(Maryland, CIRCLE).
CENTRE FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH ON CIVIC LEARNING AND
ENGAGEMENT (CIRCLE) (2004) The Youth Vote in 2004 (Maryland, CIRCLE).
CIVICS EXPERT GROUP (1994) Whereas the People: Civic and Citizenship Education
(Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service).
CRICK, B. (1998) (Chair) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in
Schools (London, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).
CRICK, B. (2002) Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
CRICK, B. (2007) Citizenship, the political and the democratic. Keynote address, 3rd
International Citized Conference, University of Sydney.
DALTON, R. (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: the Erosion of Political
support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
DEAKIN CRICK, R., TAYLOR, M., TEW, M., SAMUEL, E., DURANT, K. and
RITCHIE, S. (2005) A systematic review of the impact of citizenship education
on student learning and achievement. In: Research Evidence in Education Library
(London, EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education).
DELLI CARPINI, M. and KEETER, S. (1996) What Americans Know About Politics and
Why It Matters (New Haven, Yale University Press).
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2002) Voter Engagement and Young People (London,
The Electoral Commission).
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2005) Young People and Political Participation in
Northern Ireland (London, The Electoral Commission).
ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2005) Election 2005: Turnout (London, The Electoral
Commission).
EREBUS CONSULTING (2003) Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Programmeme
(Canberra, Department of Education, Science and Training).
FINKEL, S. (2003) Can democracy be taught? Journal of Democracy, 14 (4), 137–151.

342
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

FORBRIG, J. (Ed.) (2005) Revisiting Youth Political Participation (Strasbourg, Council

of Europe).
FRANKLIN, M. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition in
Established Democracies since 1945 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
GALSTON, W. (2004) Civic education and political participation, PS: Political Science
and Politics, April, 263–266.
HAHN, C. (1998) Becoming Political (Albany, State University of New York).
HALLET, B. (in press) Legislation on youth enrolment and voting. In: L. SAHA, M.
PRINT and K. EDWARDS (Eds) Youth and Political Participation (Amsterdam,
Sense Publishers).
HART, D., DONNELLY, T., YOIUNESS, J. and ATKINS, R. (2007) High school
community service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering, American
Educational Research Journal, 44 (1), 197–219.
HOOGHE, M. (2004) Political socialization and the future of politics, Acta Politica,
39, 331–341.
HOWARD, C. and PATTEN, S. (2006) Valuing civics: political commitment and
the new citizenship education in Australia, Canadian Journal of Education, 29 (2),
454 –475.
INTERNATIONAL IDEA (1999) Youth Voter Participation (Stockholm, International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).
INTERNATIONAL IDEA (2002) Voter Turnout Since 1945 (Stockholm, International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).
JOHN, P., MORRIS, Z. and HALPERN, D. (2003) Social capital and causal role of
socialisation. Paper presented at ESRC Democracy and Participation conference,
University of Essex.
JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS ( JSCEM) (2006)
Inquiry into Civic and Electoral Education (Canberra, Parliament of Australia).
KEETER, S., ZUKIN, C., ANDOLINA, M. and JENKINS, K. (2002) The Civic and
Political Health of a Nation: a Generational Portrait (Maryland, CIRCLE).
KEMP, D. (1997) Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education (Canberra,
Ministerial Statement).
KERR, D., IRELAND, E., LOPES, J. and CRAIG, R. (2004) Making Citizenship Education
Real: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Second Annual Report (London, DfES).
KIRLIN, M. (2002) Civic skill building: the missing component in service learning?
PS: Political Science and Politics, 3 (35), 571–575.
KIRLIN, M. (2003) The Role of Adolescent Extracurricular Activities in Adult Political
Engagement (Maryland, CIRCLE).
MCALLISTER, I. (1998) Civic education and political knowledge in Australia,
Australian Journal of Political Science, 33 (2), 7–23.
MACEDO, S. et al. (2005) Democracy at Risk (Washington, DC, Brookings Institute).
MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND
YOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (1999) National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-
first Century (Adelaide, MCEETYA).
MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND
YOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (2003) A Measurement Framework for National Key
Performance Measures (Canberra, MCEETYA).
MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND
YOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (2006) National Assessment Programme – Civics and
Citizenship Education, Years 6 and10 Report (Canberra, MCEETYA).
NIE, N., JUNN, J. and STEHLIK-BARRY, K. (1996) Education and Democratic Citizen-
ship in America (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

343
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

NIEMI, R. and JUNN, J. (1998) Civic Education: What makes Students Learn (New
Haven, CT, Yale University Press).
NIEMI, R. and CHAPMAN, C. (1999) The Civic Development of 9th through 12th Grade
Students in the United States (Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Education).
NIEMI, R.G. and FINKEL, S.E. (2006) Civic education and the development of
civic knowledge and attitudes. In: L. HARRISON and J. KAGEN (Eds) Essays
on Cultural Change (London, Routledge).
NORRIS, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism (Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press).
OSLER, A. and STARKEY, H. (2005) Education for democratic citizenship, Research
Papers in Education, 21 (4), 433– 466.
O’TOOLE, T. (2003) Engaging with young people’s conceptions of the political,
Children’s Geographies, 1 (1), 71–90.
O’TOOLE, T., LISTER, M., MARSH, D., JONES, S. and McDONAGH, J. (2003)
Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-partiicpation among young people,
Contemporary Politics, 9 (1), 45– 61.
PAMMETT, J. and LeDUC, L. (2003) Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal
Elections: a New Survey of Non-Voters (Ottawa, Elections Canada).
PATRICK, J. (1999) Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democratic
civil society. In C. BAHMUELLER and J. PATRICK (Eds) Principles and Practices of
Education for Democratic Citizenship (Bloomington, IN, ERIC Clearinghouse).
POWER INQUIRY (2006) Power to the People (York, York Publishing Distribution).
PRINT, M. (1995) Political Understanding and Attitudes of Secondary Students
(Canberra, Department of the Senate, Australian Parliament).
PRINT, M. (2006a) Socializing young Australians to participate in compulsory voting.
Paper presented at the triennial meeting of the International Political Science
Association, Fukuoka, Japan, July.
PRINT, M. (2006b) Youth participation in democracy and elections. Keynote address,
Citized International Conference, Oriel College, Oxford University, July.
PRINT, M. and COLEMAN, D. (2003) Towards understanding social capital and
citizenship education, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (1), 123–149.
PRINT, M. and SAHA, L. (2006) Adequacy of Civics and Electoral Education in Australia.
Invited submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters
(Canberra, Parliament of Australia).
PRINT, M., ORNSTROM, S. and NIELSEN, H. (2002) Education for democratic
processes in schools and classrooms, European Journal of Education, 37 (2),
193–210.
PRINT, M., SAHA, L. and EDWARDS, K. (2004) Youth Electoral Study: Report 1
(Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission).
PUTNAM, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community
(New York, Simon and Schuster).
SAHA, L. (2000) Political activism and civic education among Australian secondary
school students, Australian Journal of Education, 44 (2), 155–174.
SAHA, L., PRINT, M. and EDWARDS, K. (2005) Youth, Political Engagement and
Voting. Report 2 (Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission).
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAIN-
ING (SSCEET) (1989) Education for Active Citizenship Education in Australian
Schools and Youth Organizations (Canberra, Parliament of Australia).
TORNEY-PURTA, J. (2002) The school’s role in developing civic engagement: a
study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries, Applied Developmental Science, 5 (4),
203–212.

344
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES
 YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

TORNEY-PURTA, J., LEHAMAN, R., OSWALD, H. and SCHULZ, W. (2001)

Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement
at Age Fourteen (Amsterdam, International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement).
VERBA, S., SCHOLZMAN, K. and BRADY, H. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).
YOUNISS, J., MCLELLAN, A. and YATES, M. (1997) What we know about engen-
dering civic identity, American Behavioral Scientist, 40, March, 620–631.
ZUKIN, C., KEETER, S., ANDOLINA, M., JENKINS, K. and DELLI CARPINI, M.
(2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing
American Citizen (New York, Oxford University Press).

Correspondence
Professor Murray Print
Centre for Research and Teaching in Civics
Faculty of Education
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
E-mail: m.print@edfac.usyd.edu.au

Appendix: Participation Rates of Young Australians

in Elections*

Revised ABS Participation rate

estimate of eligible Actual federal as percentage of
Age population enrolment ABS Estimate

18 year olds 261,927 152,687 58.29

19 year olds 261,373 194,559 74.44
20 year olds 256,903 209,751 81.65
21 year olds 256,157 220,421 86.05
22 year olds 249,831 213,768 85.57
23 year olds 243,892 212,112 86.97
24 year olds 236,210 209,773 88.81
25 year olds 232,427 207,042 89.08
Overall 18 –25 1,998,720 1,620,113 81.06
year old cohort

Source: Hallett (in press)

* Participation based upon adjusted Australian Bureau of Statistics demographic
data (2004) compared with the electoral roll at 30 June, 2004.

345
© 2007 The Author
Journal compilation © 2007 SES