626090

research-article2016
ESJ0010.1177/1746197915626090Education, Citizenship and Social JusticeReichert

Article
ecsj
Education, Citizenship and
Social Justice
Learning for active citizenship: 1­–15
© The Author(s) 2016
Are Australian youths Discovering Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
Democracy at school? DOI: 10.1177/1746197915626090
ecsj.sagepub.com

Frank Reichert
University of Sydney, Australia

Abstract
For democratic societies to sustain, it is important to educate young people for active and democratic
citizenship. This article examines the long-term yields of temporary civics and citizenship educational policies
with respect to student participation at school as a precursor of political participation in adult life. The focus
is on the Australian Discovering Democracy initiative and whether it improved education for active and
democratic citizenship at Australian schools and, thus, contributed to actively engaged citizens. Based on the
Australian National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship, the analysis suggests that policy initiatives
can support schools in the development of experiential civics and citizenship learning in school life, especially
if national governments, states and teachers cooperate. The article identifies some gains in improving active
and democratic citizenship among secondary school students and concludes that Australian schools laid the
foundation of prospectively increasing numbers of active democratic citizens during the past two decades.

Keywords
active citizenship, citizenship education, civic education, civic participation, democratic citizenship, school
participation

It is commonly understood that democratic societies need engaged citizens to persist and to resist
internal threats (Putnam, 2000; Dalton, 2004) and that adolescence is a significant period in life for
becoming an engaged democrat (Youniss and Yates, 1997; Sherrod, 2006; Flanagan, 2009). When
concerns were raised about a lack of political involvement of young Australians in the 1990s, the
Discovering Democracy initiative was established to promote active and democratic citizenship,
particularly among Australian adolescents (Kemp, 1997). The National Assessment Program –
Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC) was first conducted when Discovering Democracy matured to
monitor the situation of and developments in Australian civics and citizenship education, but yet
we do not know much about the long-term impact of this initiative and if it indeed happened posi-
tively to affect democratic citizenship education. The aim of this article, thus, is briefly to trace the

Corresponding author:
Frank Reichert, Faculty of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney, Education Building A35, Sydney
Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: frank.reichert@sydney.edu.au

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

2 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

developments in Australian civics and citizenship education during the past two decades, connect
them to the concept of active and democratic citizenship and to examine whether education for
active and democratic citizenship at Australian schools improved through and in the aftermath of
Discovering Democracy and, hence, contributed to lay the preconditions of actively engaged
citizens.

What is active and democratic citizenship and why is it important?

Democratic citizenship
The question what constitutes a democratic citizen may yield overlapping as well as differing
responses, as it is a contested concept. Education for democratic citizenship, however, is com-
monly conceptualised by three dimensions or aspects: the development of cognitive, affective and
behavioural competencies (e.g. Audigier, 2000; Kahne and Westheimer, 2003). These contain
knowledge about democracy, democratic principles and processes, and historical developments as
well as present issues in society; democratic attitudes and value choices; and active participation,
cooperation and involvement in democratic problem solving and decision making. Thus, demo-
cratic citizenship education goes beyond instruction and mere knowledge transfer.
Westheimer and Kahne (2004) distinguish three kinds of democratic citizens (in a similar vein:
Veugelers, 2007): The personally responsible citizen is an honest, law-abiding person who acts
responsibly in his or her community. He or she believes that one must have good manners and act
on citizens’ rights and responsibilities. The second kind is labelled participatory citizen. This citi-
zen is an active member of society who participates within established societal and community
structures and processes to improve society. Eventually, Westheimer and Kahne identify the jus-
tice-oriented citizen who is concerned about social injustice. This citizen critically questions exist-
ing systems and structures and aims at social change in order to achieve a just society.

Active citizenship
Particular attention has recently been paid to the active dimension of citizenship (e.g. Ross, 2012).
The concept of active citizenship is linked to participation and engagement with a strong emphasis
on skills development and motivated behaviour as a result of participation in various contexts, such
as schools, communities or civil organisations (Nelson and Kerr, 2006). Kennedy (2006) identifies
both active components, that is, behaviours such as participation in political activities or in the
community, and passive components of citizenship that refer to values and comprise national iden-
tity, patriotism and loyalty.
In particular, the works by Hoskins and her colleagues (Hoskins et al., 2006; Hoskins and
Mascherini, 2009) provide (empirical) conceptualisations of active citizenship. They suggest that
active citizenship includes participation in conventional and unconventional forms of political
action, in civic organisations and in community life. They also emphasise the role of ‘values of
participation in democracy, human rights and non-discrimination’ (p. 467).

Education for active and democratic citizenship and the role of schools
In particular, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) demonstrate that the pedagogical approach affects the
outcome of citizenship education and, thus, what kind of citizen emerges (see also Kahne et al.,
2013). Yet we may agree that own experiences of democracy are especially powerful to promote
active and democratic citizens. Or as Menthe (2012) concludes, ‘encouraging democratic practice

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 3

is the most promising way to introduce democracy and democratic values and attitudes’ (p. 77).
Hence, schools are significant socialisation agents when it comes to their contribution to education
for active and democratic citizenship.
Already Dewey (1956 [1916]) argued that schools and communities enable students to acquire
dispositions that are necessary for effective and active citizenship in a democratic society. Other
scholars claim that school experiences promote the development of engaged citizens, suggesting
that schools are important in preparing students for participation in democratic societies (Verba
et al., 1995; Youniss et al., 1997; Hahn, 1998; Patrick, 1999; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Keeter
et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Galston, 2003; Hart et al., 2007; Saha and Print, 2010; Geboers et al.,
2013).
Moreover, Print (2009) argues that besides non-school factors like family, media, peers or com-
munity, school factors are important in learning democratic citizenship. In the realm of schools, he
distinguishes formal and informal learning. Formal learning takes place in the form of school
subjects, whereas the informal curriculum includes planned learnings that are not school subjects.
The latter comprises instrumental and expressive activities: Instrumental learning develops civic
engagement, such as student governance or student elections, and is probably among the best pre-
dictors of adult political engagement, whereas expressive activities such as sports, bands or social
activities seem to be less important in building political engagement (Kirlin, 2002; Keeter et al.,
2002; Print, 2009).
In addition, international research using the International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study (CIVED) shows that the culture of the
school is significant in engaging young people (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Schools, the authors
suggest, are effective places for developing student engagement through ‘supporting effective par-
ticipation opportunities such as school councils’ (Torney-Purta, 2002: 210). Recent findings from
the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) indicate that active civic participa-
tion at school was common and a valuable predictor of later civic behaviour (Schulz et al., 2010).
Consequently, active and democratic citizenship is a valuable goal of civics and citizenship
education. In fact, education for active and democratic citizenship is clearly a key aim of citizen-
ship education in Australia and has been for almost two decades (e.g. Kemp, 1997; Ministerial
Council on Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2008). The tremen-
dous efforts undertaken to promote civics and citizenship education during the past two decades in
combination with a triennial civics and citizenship survey among secondary school students make
Australia a perfect case to examine whether attention towards the schools’ role in the development
of active citizenship has yielded positive gains in terms of increased levels of engagement of stu-
dents at school, which may be understood as precursors of later active and democratic citizenship
in adult life.

Australian civics and citizenship education: the past two decades

In the 1990s, Australia experienced a dramatic concern about the state of civics and citizenship
education, and the level of attention towards civics and citizenship education increased. In 1994,
the Labour Prime Minister Paul Keating convened a Civics Expert Group ‘to provide the
Government with a strategic plan for a non-partisan program of public education and information
on the Australian system of government, the Australian Constitution, Australian citizenship and
other civics issues’ (Civics Expert Group, 1994: 1).
In their report, the Civics Expert Group (1994) observed rather low levels of perceived knowl-
edge about the Australian political system among Australians. Other research pointed into the same
direction suggesting that young people reported rather low levels of interest in politics (Vromen,

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

4 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

1995; Beresford and Phillips, 1997; Mellor, 1998) and political efficacy (Mellor, 1998). Concerns
were raised about low levels of political literacy and a lack of active citizenship, meaning that
young people were less committed actively to get involved in politics (Civics Expert Group, 1994;
Doig et al., 1994; Print, 1995). Hence, unsurprisingly the Civics Expert Group came to the conclu-
sion that there was a need to improve civics and citizenship education.

Discovering democracy
As a consequence, a governmental funding initiative commenced in 1995, but it was David Kemp,
then Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training in the newly elected Liberal-National
Party Government, who launched a major civic and citizenship education initiative entitled
Discovering Democracy (Kemp, 1997). From 1997 until 2004, Discovering Democracy provided
massive funding for the development of curriculum resources, teacher professional development
and national activities.
Discovering Democracy aimed to ‘help students to recognise the relevance of their political and
legal institutions to everyday life, and to develop capacities to participate as informed, reflective
citizens in their civic community’ (Kemp, 1997: 4). Besides citizenship knowledge and intellectual
skills, Discovering Democracy clearly focused on education for active citizenship. One of the
means to achieve this goal was to engage students in their everyday environments:

Students will be assisted to learn the skills of participating in voluntary associations and performing school
and community services. They will learn how to deliberate on public issues, to research public issues and
to speak before public bodies such as school councils. (Kemp, 1997: 6)

Discovering Democracy was endorsed by all states and territories in June 1997, and 2 years
later, the MCEETYA agreed on the Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the
Twenty-First Century. This declaration emphasised the key goal: ‘be active and informed citizens
with an understanding and appreciation of Australia’s system of government and civic life’ (goal
1.4; Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA), 2000: 41).

The Erebus evaluations and Australia’s participation in CIVED

A first evaluation of the outcomes of Discovering Democracy was conducted by the Erebus
Consulting Group (1999) after an initial period of 2 years. It took place from September to
December 1999, yet most schools had scheduled the implementation of school materials for 2000.
The evaluators nevertheless concluded that personal efforts of dedicated teachers had contributed
to the programme’s success and that some schools had provided a wide range of activities outside
the formal curriculum, such as student councils, class meetings, school rallies, organising com-
munity activities and conducting fundraising activities for less fortunate people. However, obsta-
cles included, inter alia, competing school priorities, timing in relation to school planning and the
reduction in the civics component to a historical study. Eventually, the assessments of learning
outcomes were rather concerned with the understanding of content, but not with the active dimen-
sion of citizenship.
After the first Erebus evaluation, further financial support was made available by the govern-
ment for an extension of the programme until 2004. The final evaluation of Discovering Democracy
by the Erebus Consulting Partners (2003) concluded that the initiative had an impact on civics
teaching in schools, including the belief that students should become active citizens and have a
commitment to democratic civic values. Competition with other priorities in the school curriculum

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 5

still remained a challenge, and as already stated by the Erebus Consulting Group in 1999, almost
only knowledge outcomes were assessed. The evaluators also suggested that active citizenship and
community participation projects were important aspects of many initiatives and that there was a
need for active citizenship. However, only one-third of all schools included student citizenship
participation activities in their curriculum, and about half of all schools were using materials devel-
oped specifically for Discovering Democracy within a setting that could improve learning out-
comes, though in most of those schools this use was still limited.
Simultaneously to the first Erebus evaluation, CIVED was conducted among Australian ninth
graders between September and November 1999 (Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Mellor et al., 2002).
CIVED focused on, inter alia (Torney-Purta et al., 2001: 22ff), the status of citizenship education
as an explicit goal for schools, instructional principles and formal programmes of civic education,
and opportunities to participate in school decision making (goals 1, 3 and 12). The results yielded
that civic knowledge of Australian students and their confidence about the effectiveness of partici-
pation at school was in the middle of the international average, but students’ views of citizenship
participation and their willingness to participate in politics in adult life were less positive (Torney-
Purta et al., 2001; Mellor et al., 2002). As a consequence, scholars argued for a more participatory
approach and more opportunities to engage in school-based activities to increase the engagement
of young Australians (e.g. Mellor et al., 2002; DeJaeghere and Tudball, 2007; Print, 2007).

Towards a national assessment programme

Substantive funding for Discovering Democracy ceased after June 2004, but the previously
described situation of Australian civics and citizenship education in the 1990s, subsequent
developments and results from research on civic education and participation among youths sup-
ported the argument for establishing the NAP-CC. NAP-CC is a triennial assessment of civics
and citizenship performance in the domains civic knowledge, understanding of civics and citi-
zenship, civic attitudes and civic participation. It was initially developed by Print and Hughes
(2001) and has been conducted regularly since 2004 (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and
Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2011, 2014; MCEETYA, 2006, 2009). Thus, it provides the
opportunity to examine whether Discovering Democracy has made a difference in the long term
with respect to learning outcomes related to active citizenship, especially at school; and more
generally to examine whether civics and citizenship education are preparing youth for active and
democratic citizenship.

Further developments
After the termination of Discovering Democracy, only limited funding was available for civics and
citizenship education in Australia, although the replacement programme Civics and Citizenship
Education funded the development of a website and some national activities (MCEETYA, 2009).
Although the Australian government made civics and citizenship education one of its priority areas
in 2005, for which federal funding depended on the implementation of national statements of learn-
ing for all students by 2008, early in the previous decade the Commonwealth government also
imposed several other measures unilaterally which rather reflected reactionary educational policy
and increased tensions between Commonwealth, states and teacher associations (Macintyre and
Simpson, 2009: 128f).
When the new Labour government, elected in late 2007, came into office, civics and citizenship
education no longer remained a key curriculum priority (Macintyre and Simpson, 2009). By that
time, all schools were provided with civics and citizenship education policy documents, and the

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

6 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

national Statements of Learning for Civics and Citizenship (Curriculum Corporation et al., 2006)
were implemented by 2008. Today, civics and citizenship education is among the subjects in the
key learning area of Humanities and Social Sciences (ACARA, 2015a, 2015b). Although the Draft
Shape of the Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship was published in 2012 (ACARA,
2012), the subsequently developed full national curriculum in civics and citizenship had been
awaiting final endorsement until September, 2015, due to another change in Australian government
in 2013. Furthermore, the current version 8.1 of that curriculum covers only years 7 to 10 (ACARA,
2015b), while the civics and citizenship curriculum for primary school students (see version 7.5 as
of 15 May, 2015; ACARA, 2015a) did not persist. For primary school, civics and citizenship has
been merged into a humanities and social sciences learning area, which also incorporates history,
geography, and economics and business.
Thus, Discovering Democracy was the most significant initiative aimed at improving civic and
citizenship education outcomes in recent Australian history (Hughes et al., 2010). It is therefore
reasonable to look at NAP-CC to examine whether Australian secondary school students indeed
discover(ed) democracy at school. The 1999 findings of CIVED may be used in addition to exam-
ine the outcomes and the potential long-term impact of Discovering Democracy with respect to
active and democratic citizenship learning at school.1

Civics and citizenship learning in Australian schools: are students

Discovering Democracy?
In order to examine how learning for active citizenship in Australian schools has improved dur-
ing the past decade and, thus, to identify the potential gains of Discovering Democracy, and of
democratic civics and citizenship education more generally, this analysis uses data from large
civics and citizenship studies, CIVED (Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Mellor et al., 2002)2 and
NAP-CC (ACARA, 2011, 2014; MCEETYA, 2006, 2009). Although CIVED surveyed year 9
students, whereas NAP-CC surveyed both year 6 and year 10 students, it is nevertheless reason-
able to compare CIVED and year 10 students in NAP-CC, partly due to the fact that civic learn-
ing may primarily take place in year 9, although partly also in year 10 in Australia. We would,
therefore, by no means expect declines if civics learning and informal learning opportunities at
school have improved during the past 10–15 years. Moreover, data from NAP-CC are usually
available for several cycles, which allows us to focus on the developments since the termination
of Discovering Democracy. It needs to be mentioned, however, that data for NAP-CC 2013
were collected online, which constitutes a change to previous data collections that relied on
paper and pencil testing.3
In the following, this article will primarily – although not exclusively – focus on the informal
curriculum for three reasons. First, civic education has not become an independent subject in
Australian schools across provinces, but it is rather interdisciplinary taught in the context of social-
scientific-oriented subjects and may be better described as ‘social studies’ (Davies and Issitt, 2005).
Second, formal civics learning is almost only – and can almost only be – measured via the assess-
ment of knowledge and conceptual understanding, whereas this analysis is predominantly inter-
ested in the more active ingredients of active and democratic citizenship education. Probably most
relevant to the examination of active citizenship is, finally, the fact that particularly instrumental
activities of the informal curriculum rather than the formal curriculum seem more promising to
motivate young people actually to engage in politics (Print, 2009). Hence, when it comes to educa-
tion for active and democratic citizenship, one has good reasons to focus on instrumental activities
or the informal curriculum, respectively.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 7

Table 1. Percentage of Australian students who agree or strongly agree having learned in school.

CIVED 1999 NAP-CC 2004 NAP-CC 2007

About the importance of voting in elections 55 65 66
To understand people who have different ideas to me 88 92 93
To work co-operatively with other students 90 96 95
That I can contribute to solving ‘problems’ at my school 67 72 69
How to represent other students –a 70 70
To be interested in how my school ‘works’ –a 63 63

CIVED: Civic Education Study; NAP-CC: National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship.
Sources: MCEETYA (2006: 77, 2009: 87) and Torney-Purta et al. (2001: 136).
aNot measured in CIVED.

Perceived civics learning at school

CIVED and the first two cycles of NAP-CC asked students what they believe they had learned in
school (4-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree). Given the percentages of
students who (strongly) agreed with the items provided (Table 1), we find a marginal increase in
subjective learning over time: at least students seem to have perceived that they learn about civics
at school.
Specifically, we see that students surveyed in NAP-CC much more than students surveyed in
CIVED believed that they had learned civics-related aspects. This may either be an age effect or an
outcome related to Discovering Democracy, or both. Yet these figures show that at least the subjec-
tive learning outcomes of civics and citizenship education improve through civic education.
Anticipating the figures that are to be presented in the next sections, we may indeed attribute some
amount of the ‘increases’ to the increased availability of active learning opportunities in Australian
schools, which may be due to Discovering Democracy.

Students’ confidence and efficacy in participating at school

In both studies, students were also asked about their belief in the effectiveness of student participa-
tion (strongly disagree, disagree, agree, strongly agree; reverse coding in NAP-CC). However,
these questions were not included in the first two cycles of NAP-CC. Given that the first two items
were quite differently raised in both studies, the figures in Table 2 suggest no change between the
populations of both studies. It is worth mentioning that students’ confidence in participating at
school does not seem to vary much between younger and older students (Amadeo et al., 2002;
ACARA, 2011, 2014). Hence, we may conclude that students are quite positive that student partici-
pation can make a difference as they were already at the turn of the millennium.

Reported participation at school

Student participation at schools was measured differently between studies and cycles. CIVED
included only a few items on actual student participation at school, whereas NAP-CC asked for a
number of activities. Moreover, in the first cycle of NAP-CC, students were only asked about the
availability of student participation activities, which was inquired by principals and directors of
schools in CIVED. While the second NAP-CC cycle also asked for actual participation in a sepa-
rate question, both were put together into one item in 2010 and 2013.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

8 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

Table 2. Percentage of Australian students who agree or strongly agree.

CIVED 1999 NAP-CC 2010 NAP-CC 2013

If students act together at school they can make real 85 89 90
change happen
Elected student representatives (such as student council 82 76 79
or SRC members) contribute to school decision making
Organising groups of students to express their opinions 84 82 85
could help solve problems in schools

CIVED: Civic Education Study; NAP-CC: National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship; SRC: Student Repre-
sentative Council.
Sources: ACARA (2011: 95, 2014: 104) and Mellor et al. (2002: 87).

Table 3. Australian students’ reports on their participation at school (percentages).

CIVED NAP-CC NAP-CC NAP-CC NAP-CC

1999 2004a 2007 2010 2013

N/Ab Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes

Have voted for class –c 37 35 63 18 59 16 60
representative
Have been elected on to a 4 34 7 15 18 6 21 6 21
Student Council […]
Have helped prepare a school 41 16 25 30 15 8 17 6 16
paper […]
Have participated in peer –c 20 22 35 7 43 4 47
support […]
Have participated in […] the 9 –c 7 12 54 2 69 1 74
community
Have represented the school in –c 3 6 72 1 78 1 77
activities outside of class […]

CIVED: Civic Education Study; NAP-CC: National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship.
Sources: ACARA (2011: 84, 2014: 92), MCEETYA (2006: 74, 2009: 84f), Torney-Purta et al. (2001: 142) and supplemen-
tary analyses of CIVED.
aIn NAP-CC 2004, students were only asked about the availability of these activities at school.
bIn CIVED, principals and directors of schools were asked whether these activities were available at school (own calcu-

lations using the school weight; cf. Sibberns, 2005), whereas students only reported their actual participation in these
activities.
cNot measured in CIVED.

We cannot identify an overall and clear development of student participation at their school
across time (Table 3). Therefore, let us first look at the activities that were measured in CIVED and
in NAP-CC. It seems that the availability of student councils has remained rather high during those
years, and the percentage of students who actually report participation in a student council was
only marginally higher in 2010/2013 than in 2007. Moreover, the relatively high percentage of
students who reported participation in a student council in CIVED may be due to the item wording:
whereas students were asked whether they had been represented in or respectively elected on to a
student council in NAP-CC, CIVED rather asked whether they had participated in one.
The number of schools that provided students the opportunity to prepare a school paper or
magazine may have increased between 1999 and 2013. However, the amount of students who

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 9

Table 4. Percentage of Australian students who report participation in civic organisations.

CIVED 1999 NAP-CC 2010 NAP-CC 2013

An environmental organisation 19 31 35
A human rights organisation 4 14 18
A voluntary group doing something 33 52 58
to help the community
Collecting money for a charity or 47 65 65
social cause

CIVED: Civic Education Study; NAP-CC: National Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship.
Sources: ACARA (2011: 86, 2014: 96) and Torney-Purta et al. (2001: 142).

actually reported having participated in these activities remained rather stable between 15% and
17%. Yet the amount of students who reported participation in activities in the community, pro-
vided at their school, was much higher in 2010 compared with 2007, and again higher in 2013 than
in 2010. Moreover, almost all schools seem to give their students the opportunity to participate in
activities in the community nowadays.
It is noteworthy, though, that, for all three activities mentioned so far, the number of students
who reported no such activity was available at their school went up in 2007, while it was smaller
in 2004 and after 2007. This is a result that we can identify for most of the items on participation
at school across NAP-CC. Elections for class representatives are the sole exception. The latter is
surprisingly the only activity which – according to the reports by the students – was still unavail-
able in 16% of the schools in 2013, whereas in that year 1%–6% of year 10 students said they could
participate in the other activities at their school.
Between 2007 and 2013, it also seems that the number of year 10 students who participated in
activities at their school increased, with some activities being at the same level in 2010 and 2013.
Most increases were rather small, but we find considerable inclines in the percentages of students
who reported participation in peer support or mentoring programmes, in activities in the commu-
nity and, to a smaller amount, in activities outside their schools. Only the numbers of year 10 stu-
dents who had voted for class representatives dropped slightly between 2007 and 2010.4
Consequently, we may conclude that participation at school has increased, at least since 2004. The
reason may potentially be found in the increased availability of participation activities at Australian
schools, based on the data from NAP-CC. Yet it is surprising that for most of the activities, the
number of students who reported unavailability of such activities at their school peaked in 2007.

Reported participation in civic organisations

CIVED and NAP-CC asked students whether they had participated in several civic organisations.
The figures in Table 4 yield interesting results: given these percentages, it seems that the number
of students who report participation in civic organisations was way higher among year 10 students
in 2010 in comparison with ninth graders in 1999, and it slightly increased again in 2013.
Most students reported participation in community-related activities such as having collected
money for a social cause or working in a group conducting voluntary activities to help the com-
munity. Civic activities with a wider scope – participating in an environmental or human rights
organisation – were less common among secondary school students, yet considerably more fre-
quently reported in 2010 than in 1999. If there was a constant increase or not cannot be said by
these figures. However, data from 2004 and 2007 rather support the assumption that the number of

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

10 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

students who participated in civic organisations may have slightly increased since 2004
(MCEETYA, 2006, 2009). It is hard to determine, though, whether the participation rates between
CIVED 1999 and NAP-CC 2004 differed, due to the use of fewer items and a 4-point frequency
scale in both NAP-CC 2004 and 2007.

Discussion
This article started by approaching the concepts of active and democratic citizenship, and we found
that civics and citizenship education which aims at promoting citizens that actively participate in
social, political and community life may be best advised by supporting this through democratic
experiences, although the pedagogical approach will influence the kind of citizen that emerges
(Westheimer and Kahne, 2004; Menthe, 2012). Schools are key agents in this regard because they
often provide both formal citizenship learning and, more importantly, informal opportunities to
learn for active and democratic citizenship (Print, 2009).
Policies are key to educational goals, however, and so they are to civics and citizenship educa-
tion in schools. They consequently may affect what is taught in schools and which experiential
learning opportunities schools provide. Considering that a major aim of Australian civics and citi-
zenship policies since the mid-1990s has been an education designed to develop and promote
active citizenship among Australian youths, it seems imperative to understand the potential out-
comes and therefore the effectiveness of these policies.
The evaluations of Discovering Democracy (Erebus Consulting Group, 1999, 2003) indeed
yielded that schools and teachers believed that students should become active citizens, and schools
offered opportunities to participate in school decision making and community life. However,
assessments focused less on active citizenship. Therefore, survey data on active citizenship learn-
ing provided by NAP-CC (ACARA, 2011, 2014; MCEETYA, 2006, 2009) were used to examine
the potential long-term yields of Discovering Democracy in particular and of Australian civics and
citizenship education policies in general, which emphasise(d) the necessity of improvements in
civics and citizenship education and the very need to promote active citizenship among the young.
The article compared results from NAP-CC across time and with CIVED (Torney-Purta et al.,
2001; Mellor et al., 2002), although we need to be aware that the latter surveyed Australian ninth
graders. Yet we may trust that this comparison nevertheless helps better to understand the impact
of Discovering Democracy on active citizenship learning at Australian schools.
We also need to be careful with respect to comparisons that rely on NAP-CC 2013 due to the
change in data collection mode (but see Note 3), but there is reason to conclude that students’
active citizenship learning outcomes have slightly improved during the past 10 or even 15 years.
Their willingness to get involved in political realm may not have increased much, but it is probably
only a matter of time to reap those fruits, too, if active citizenship learning at schools constantly
continues to promote opportunities for experiential learning of democracy and active citizenship.
In particular, opportunities to engage in school decision making and to participate at school in
general have seemingly increased, in particular between 2004 and 2010/2013. This is not simply a
matter of increased opportunity, but in fact actual participation in school activities has also
increased. This is quite surprising given that in 2007, only around two-thirds of secondary school
students said that they had learned about the importance of voting, or that and how they can con-
tribute to school decision making. On the other hand, they were quite positive that student partici-
pation can make a difference (as students were in 1999 as well), and they were convinced having
learned to respect different opinions and to value cooperation between students.
Adding to an increased involvement in school decision making, participation in civic organisa-
tions was way higher among year 10 students in 2010/2013 compared with ninth graders in 1999.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 11

We may ask whether community participation has increased during that time, but there are no
appropriate time series available. Figures from NAP-CC cycles in 2004 and 2007 do, however,
rather suggest an increase in active community participation – at least since 2004, although the use
of different measurement scales additionally cumbers a clear and definite interpretation.
The latter increase could also be understood as representation of the change in political partici-
pation during the past decades during which the repertoire and definition of political participation
broadened and when people more often employed rather unconventional, less institutionalised
means of political participation instead of conventional activities within political institutions
(Norris, 2002; Zukin et al., 2006; Dalton, 2008; Fox, 2014; Van Deth, 2014). This is also reflected
by a movement towards more locally and community-oriented Australian youths (Harris et al.,
2008). Yet the reported findings indicate that more opportunities to participate result in more actual
participation. Transferred to political realm, this may implicate that contributing to political deci-
sions in the community and experiencing how the political process works, in combination with
more opportunities or more obviously available chances to participate in the political process,
might indeed result in higher levels of participation in politics.
We may wonder why fewer activities to participate at school were reported to be available in
2007 compared to 2004 and 2010/2013. It seems implausible to blame the differing measurements
with one versus two items for the availability of and actual participation in activities at school
(Note 3). On the contrary, we may speculate that the reduced funding after the termination of
Discovering Democracy in combination with the subsequent introduction of reactionary educa-
tional policies and increased tensions between the Commonwealth government, states and teacher
associations (Macintyre and Simpson, 2009) caused unease and demotivation among schools and
teachers. Schools’ and teachers’ reduced scope for civics and citizenship pedagogies might have
contributed to the identified developments. The fact that the figures were more positive in 2010
and 2013 may be attributed to the implementation of the national statements of learning for all
students, which occurred only by 2008, and the development of an Australian Curriculum in Civics
and Citizenship Education.

Conclusion
This article dealt with the behaviour-related dimension of democratic citizenship rather than with
the value or cognitive dimension, with particular focus on informal civics and citizenship educa-
tion and participation at school, in civic organisations and in students’ communities. This is of
significance because experiences of and involvement in democratic decision making processes are
very promising ways ‘to introduce democracy and democratic values and attitudes’ (Menthe, 2012:
77). Schools and communities can thereby help students to acquire dispositions that are necessary
for effective and active citizenship in civic life and democratically constituted societies in general
if students learn that and how they actually can contribute to and influence decisions made at their
schools (Dewey, 1956 [1916]; Schulz et al., 2010).
This article has contributed some promising, yet by no means overwhelming insights in that
policy initiatives can support schools in the development of experiential civics and citizenship
learning in school life. This may apply especially to Discovering Democracy – although the pro-
gramme’s benefits seem rather little compared to the financial support; and it is particularly true if
national and state governments as well as teachers act in concert instead of inaccurate cooperation
between these players. Australian schools laid the foundation of prospectively increasing numbers
of active democratic citizens, and we could already identify some gains in improving active and
thereby democratic citizenship among secondary school students. We still have a long way to go,
but we may encourage schools and policy makers to pursue the politics of experiential learning for

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

12 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

building active and democratic citizens. The students who participate in school and community
decision making today are probably those citizens who make our democracy last and, through their
participation, also legitimate democracy.

Funding
This work was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship by the Fritz Thyssen Foundation. The work was carried
out while I was an affiliate member of the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories, Bamberg, Germany,
and a visiting fellow at The University of Sydney.

Notes
1. Australia unfortunately did not participate in the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study
(ICCS), the successor of the Civic Education Study (CIVED).
2. In both reports, frequencies are reported for the entire national sample and may be used to complement
each other here.
3. Statistical evidence suggested that differential item functioning (DIF; Zumbo, 1999) was of no concern
with regard to the NAP-CC comparisons. Hence, it is safe to assume that survey mode can be ruled out as
a potential cause of bias. This also applies to the comparisons between CIVED and NAP-CC, except for
the items reported in Table 1 for which DIF between CIVED and NAP-CC could be an issue. Therefore,
all tables give the item wording from the NAP-CC reports (but see Table 3, where ‘N/A’ was measured in
a different way in the 2004 and 2007 assessments). Finally, the presented figures may differ by less than
1% from the actual data, due to the rounding to integers in the public reports.
4. One item was excluded from the table which did not allow any comparison due to unavailability in
CIVED and because of regular changes in item wording and question format in National Assessment
Program – Civics and Citizenship (NAP-CC). In 2004, it was only asked whether student rep-
resentatives contribute to decision making at school (8% ticked ‘Yes’) (Ministerial Council on
Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA), 2006). In 2007, students were
merely asked about their contribution to school decision making (MCEETYA, 2009), whereas the
phrase ‘decisions about how the school is run’, used in NAP-CC 2010 (5% ticked N/A and 29%
ticked ‘Yes’) and 2013 (3% ticked N/A and 32% ticked ‘Yes’) (Australian Curriculum, Assessment
and Reporting Authority (ACARA), 2011, 2014), may be understood in a slightly narrower sense
by the students. Moreover, it was differentiated between student representatives (18% ticked N/A;
73% of those who had been a representative on a student council ticked ‘Yes’) and ways different
from student councils (20% ticked N/A; 35% of all students answered with ‘Yes’) in the 2007 cycle
(MCEETYA, 2009: 84f).

References
Amadeo J-A, Torney-Purta J, Lehmann R, et al. (2002) Civic Knowledge and Engagement: An IEA Study of
Upper Secondary Students in Sixteen Countries. Amsterdam: IEA.
Audigier F (2000) Basic Concepts and Core Competencies for Education for Democratic Citizenship.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2011) National Assessment
Program: Civics and Citizenship Years 6 and 10 Report 2010. Sydney, NSW, Australia: ACARA.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2012) Draft Shape of the Australian
Curriculum: Civics and Citizenship (Consultation report, Version 1.0., November). Sydney, NSW,
Australia: ACARA.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2014) National Assessment
Program. Civics and Citizenship Years 6 and 10 Report 2013. Sydney, NSW, Australia: ACARA.
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015a) The Australian Curriculum:
Civics and Citizenship (Years 3 to 10) (Version 7.5, May). Available at: http://v7-5.australiancurriculum.
edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/curriculum/f-10

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 13

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) (2015b) The Australian Curriculum:
7-10 Civics and Citizenship (Version 8.1, December). Available at: http://www.australiancurriculum.
edu.au/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/
Beresford Q and Phillips HCJ (1997) Spectators in Australian politics? Young voters’ interest in politics and
political issues. Youth Studies Australia 16(4): 11–16.
Civics Expert Group (1994) Whereas the People: Civics and Citizenship Education. Canberra, ACT,
Australia: AGPS.
Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) (2000) The Adelaide
Declaration on national goals for schooling in the twenty-first century. Journal of the Home Economics
Institute of Australia 7(1): 40–42.
Curriculum Corporation, Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs
(MCEETYA) and Australian Education Systems Officials Committee (AESOC) (2006) Statements of
Learning for Civics and Citizenship. Carlton, VIC, Australia: Curriculum Corporation.
Dalton RJ (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced
Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton RJ (2008) Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Political Studies 56(1):
76–98.
Davies I and Issitt J (2005) Reflections on citizenship education in Australia, Canada and England.
Comparative Education 41(4): 389–410.
DeJaeghere JG and Tudball L (2007) Looking back, looking forward: critical citizenship as a way ahead for
civics and citizenship education in Australia. Citizenship Teaching and Learning 3(2): 40–57.
Dewey J (1956 [1916]) Democracy and Education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. 28th ed.
New York: Macmillan.
Doig B, Piper K, Mellor S, et al. (1994) Conceptual Understanding in Social Education (Research monograph
no. 45). Camberwell, VIC, Australia: ACER.
Erebus Consulting Group (1999) Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Program. A Report to the
Commonwealth Department of Education. Training and Youth Affairs. Canberra, ACT, Australia:
DETYA.
Erebus Consulting Partners (2003) Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Programme 2000–2003. A
Report to the Australian Government Department of Education. Science and Training. Canberra, ACT,
Australia: DEST.
Flanagan C (2009) Young people’s civic engagement and political development. In: Furlong A (ed.) Handbook
of Youth and Young Adulthood: New Perspectives and Agendas. New York: Routledge, 293–300.
Fox S (2014) Is it time to update the definition of political participation? Parliamentary Affairs 67(2):
495–505.
Galston WA (2003) Civic education and political participation. Phi Delta Kappan 85(1): 29–33.
Geboers E, Geijsel F, Admiraal W, et al. (2013) Review of the effects of citizenship education. Educational
Research Review 9: 158–173.
Hahn C (1998) Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education. Albany, NY: State
University of New York Press.
Harris A, Wyn J and Younes S (2008) Rethinking Youth Citizenship: Identity and Connection. Melbourne,
VIC, Australia: Australian Youth Research Centre.
Hart D, Donnelly TM, Youniss J, et al. (2007) High school community service as a predictor of adult voting
and volunteering. American Educational Research Journal 44(1): 197–219.
Hoskins B and Mascherini M (2009) Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite
indicator. Social Indicators Research 90(3): 459–488.
Hoskins B, Jesinghaus J, Mascherini M, et al. (2006) Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe. CRELL
Research Paper 4. Luxembourg: European Communities.
Hughes AS, Print M and Sears A (2010) Curriculum capacity and citizenship education: a comparative analy-
sis of four democracies. Compare 40(3): 293–309.
Kahne JE and Westheimer J (2003) Teaching democracy: what schools need to do. Phi Delta Kappan 85(1):
34–40/57–66.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

14 Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 

Kahne JE, Crow D and Lee N-J (2013) Different pedagogy, different politics: high school learning opportuni-
ties and youth political engagement. Political Psychology 34(3): 419–441.
Keeter S, Zukin C, Andolina M, et al. (2002) The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational
Portrait. Available at: http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/Civic_Political_Health.pdf
Kemp D (1997) Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education. A Ministerial Statement.
Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Kennedy KJ (2006) Towards a Conceptual Framework for ‘Active’ Citizenship. Available at: https://www.
academia.edu/1243639/Towards_a_conceptual_framework_for_active_citizenship
Kirlin M (2002) Civic skill building: the mission component in service programs? Political Science & Politics
35(3): 571–575.
Macintyre S and Simpson N (2009) Consensus and division in Australian citizenship education. Citizenship
Studies 13(2): 121–134.
Mellor S (1998) ‘What’s the Point?’ Political Attitudes of Victorian Year 11 Students (ACER research mono-
graph no. 53). Melbourne, VIC, Australia: ACER.
Mellor S, Kennedy K and Greenwood L (2002) Citizenship and Democracy. Australian Students’ Knowledge
and Beliefs. The IEA Civic Education Study of Fourteen Year Olds. Camberwell: ACER.
Menthe J (2012) Education for democratic citizenship. Values vs process. In: Print M and Lange D (eds)
Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building Democratic Citizens. Rotterdam: Sense
Publishers, 73–78.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2006) National
Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship Years 6 & 10. Report 2004. Carlton, VIC, Australia:
MCEETYA.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2008) Melbourne
Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: MCEETYA.
Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) (2009) National
Assessment Program – Civics and Citizenship Years 6 & 10. Report 2007. Carlton, VIC, Australia:
MCEETYA.
Nelson J and Kerr D (2006) Active Citizenship in INCA Countries: Definitions, Policies, Practices and
Outcomes. Final Report. London: QCA.
Norris P (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Patrick J (1999) Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democratic civil society. In: Bahmueller
C and Patrick J (eds) Principles and Practices of Education for Democratic Citizenship: International
Perspectives and Projects. Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse, 41–60.
Print M (1995) Political Understanding and Attitudes of Secondary Students. Canberra, VIC, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia.
Print M (2007) Citizenship education and youth participation in democracy. British Journal of Educational
Studies 55(3): 325–345.
Print M (2009) Civic engagement and political education of young people. Minority Studies 1(3): 63–83.
Print M and Hughes J (2001) National Key Performance Measures in Civics and Citizenship Education.
Report to the National Education Performance Monitoring Taskforce. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Centre
for Research and Teaching in Civics, University of Sydney.
Putnam RD (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Ross A (2012) Education for active citizenship: practices, policies, promises. International Journal of
Progressive Education 8(3): 7–14.
Saha LJ and Print M (2010) Student school elections and political engagement: a cradle of democracy?
International Journal of Educational Research 49(1): 22–32.
Schulz W, Ainley J, Fraillon J, et al. (2010) ICCS 2009 International Report: Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and
Engagement among Lower-Secondary School Students in 38 Countries. Amsterdam: IEA.
Sherrod LR (2006) Promoting citizenship and activism in today’s youth. In: Ginwright S, Noguera P and
Cammarota J (eds) Beyond Resistance! Youth Activism and Community Change. New Democratic
Possibilities for Practice and Policy for America’s Youth. New York: Routledge, 287–299.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016

Reichert 15

Sibberns H (2005) IEA Civic Education Study User Guide for the International Database. Amsterdam: IEA.
Torney-Purta J (2002) The school’s role in developing civic engagement: a study of adolescents in twenty-
eight countries. Applied Developmental Science 6(4): 203–212.
Torney-Purta J, Lehmann R, Oswald H, et al. (2001) Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries:
Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.
Van Deth JW (2014) A conceptual map of political participation. Acta Politica 49(3): 349–367.
Verba S, Schlozman KL and Brady HE (1995) Voice and Equality. Civic Voluntarism in American Politics.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Veugelers W (2007) Creating critical-democratic citizenship education: empowering humanity and democ-
racy in Dutch education. Compare 37(1): 105–119.
Vromen A (1995) Paul Keating is the prime minister, but who delivers the mail? A study of political knowl-
edge amongst young people. Australian Journal of Political Science 30(1): 74–90.
Westheimer J and Kahne JE (2004) What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy. American
Educational Research Journal 41(2): 237–269.
Youniss J and Yates M (1997) Community Service and Social Responsibility in Youth. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Youniss J, McLellan A and Yates M (1997) What we know about engendering civic identity. American
Behavioral Scientist 40(5): 620–631.
Zukin C, Keeter S, Andolina M, et al. (2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the
Changing American Citizen. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Zumbo BD (1999) A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF). Logistic
Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-Type (Ordinal) Item Scores.
Ottawa, ON, Canada: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National
Defense.

Downloaded from esj.sagepub.com at NORTHWESTERN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016