Chapter 4

Civic and Citizenship Education

for the Future

Abstract Traditionally, citizenship education programs have sought to consolidate

democracy by equipping students with the knowledge and skills that help them to
understand democratic institutions, develop democratic values and engage in the
political life of society. Some programs have gone further and encouraged students
to engage with key social problems, understand their causes and seek solutions to
them. This chapter argues that future citizens will need to know more than the simple
workings and requirements of democracy. As democratic deconsolidation proceeds,
future citizens will need not only understand democracy but also learn how to protect
it, how to interrogate issues that seem to undermine it and how to continue building
societies that are fair, tolerant and just, while recognizing that all values do not support
democracy. A framework for these new demands on democratic citizens is suggested:
a framework designed to prepare knowledgeable, engaged and tolerant citizens for
a very different future. Classroom processes that support this kind of citizenship
preparation are discussed along with ways to harness more informal channels that
will also influence young people in the future. The frameworks that are outlined are
the beginning of a necessary conversation about the way future citizens can support
democracy and its values in challenging times.

Keywords ‘Good citizens’ · Citizenship curriculum · Pedagogies · Assessment

time allocations · Critical thinking

Given the contexts that have been portrayed in the earlier chapters (globalization,
fundamentalisms, populism and post-truth politics) and their impact on the decon-
solidation of democracy, how should CCE be constructed in the future? In seeking
to address this question, the assumption will be that these trends will continue
in one form or other and that future citizens will have to negotiate them. It is
also a reflection that political systems are not perfect, and democracy itself is not
perfect. Recognizing democracy’s imperfections is a key issue for understanding
the future. Democracy experiences highs and lows and at times is not equal to
the job. This helps to explain the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1930s where
Adolf Hitler could be democratically elected, the emergence of Richard Nixon in
the United States in the 1970s where lust for power initially outplayed democratic
institutions and democracy ‘Singapore style’ that has witnessed the same political
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 45
K. J Kennedy, Civic and Citizenship Education in Volatile Times,
Springerbriefs in citizenship education for the 21st century,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6386-3_4
46 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

party democratically elected since the inception of the nation in 1965. Currently,
the election of radical right-wing parties in different European countries either in
power-sharing arrangements (as in Germany and Austria) or as governments (as in
Hungary, Poland and Italy) shows how electorates can be swayed by issues such as
immigration, appeals to nationalism and the protection of the state from any kind
of external influences. These examples demonstrate the fragility of democracy and
the need for constant democracy building and ongoing consolidation of democratic
values. The alternative is to take no action and watch democracy’s decline. This, of
course, has not been the view taken throughout this book.
One way to act is to reinforce the significant role of CCE as one means to support
the consolidation of democracy and its institutions. Yet as Foa and Mounk (2016)
have pointed out, democracy can no longer be taken for granted; therefore, there is
also an important role for CCE to defend democracy. Those who support democracy
need to be able to recognize when it is under threat and how it can best be protected.
What follows, therefore, seeks to locate education for democracy as a defensive
strategy designed to support one particular regime type. Why should we do this?
Winston Churchill (1947) speaking in the House of Commons put it this way:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe.
No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy
is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from
time to time …

This quotation is not included here for trivial reasons. Scholars such as Luke
(1990) and Merry (2018) (referred to in Chapter 1) have referred to democratic
citizenship education in terms that highlight the extent to which it supports a single
regime and consequently the lack of choice students have in adopting its values. For
Luke (1990), democratic citizenship education is simply a ‘disciplinary technology’
designed to produce passive and conformist citizens; while for Merry (2018), schools
themselves are such repressive institutions that they are most likely incapable of
achieving liberal objectives. While it is important to be aware of these critiques, the
challenge for educators is how to nurture future citizens and their commitment to
democratic values such as transparency in elections, freedom in its multiple forms,
the rule of law and tolerance. These are not just textbook slogans: they represent
values for building a democratic society. It is a challenge that will be addressed in
this chapter.
That will cover the following issues:
• What lessons can be learnt from current CCE programs?
• What kind of citizens will the future need?
• Framework of CCE for the future.
4.1 Lessons from Current CCE Programs—International Perspectives 47

4.1 Lessons from Current CCE Programs—International

Perspectives

There is no shortage of reviews of CCE in different country contexts. Krzywosz-

Rynkiewicz, Zawelska, and Kennedy (2018) have recently provided snapshots of
CCE across what they called “post-Soviet” countries illustrating how new democra-
cies have coped with the need to reorient their programs. Eurydice (2012) provided
summaries of CCE programs operating across countries belonging to the European
Union. Henderson and Tudball (2017) have reviewed the new civics and citizen-
ship component of the Australian Curriculum, and Godsay, Henderson, Levine,
and Littenberg-Tobias (2012) reviewed state requirements for civic education in
the United States. The International Civics and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS)
conducted in 2009 (Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010) reported on the
main features of CCE in thirty-eight countries that participated in the study. These
reviews provide a wealth of data that can help inform a future perspective on CCE.
As noted earlier, a key point is that there is no single approach to CCE. From the
form that it should take (single subject or as a cross-curriculum theme) to the focus
on content (should it emphasize history or civic structures or civic engagement) to the
amount of time allocated and its location in either primary or secondary education,
there are different approaches. Added to this diversity in program delivery are the
results of national, cross-national and international assessments that indicate how
successfully students have understood issues raised in their local curriculum. In
planning for the future, both program delivery and assessment issues need to be
taken into consideration.
What form should CCE take?
Eurydice (2012) provided a bewildering array of options to describe the situation
of European Union member countries. On balance, CCE as a separate subject in
the lower secondary school probably represents the most favored option. Yet, the
adoption of a single subject approach does not rule out integrating aspects of citizen-
ship education into other school subjects such as history or social sciences. In some
countries a single subject approach is used as well as integrating citizenship issues
into other subjects. While the focus is on the lower secondary in most countries,
there are also examples where CCE is compulsory at the primary level and in some
countries also at the upper secondary level. This complexity is also reflected in the
United States where decisions about the provision of CCE are made by 50 states.
According to Godsay et al. (2012, p. 4), 39 US states require students to take at least
one course in American government and civics, 49 require at least one social studies
course for graduation and 43 states require one US history course for graduation. A
smaller number of states have graduation requirements relating to Geography and
Economics. Thus similar to requirements in many EU countries, there is a single
subject alongside an integrated subject approach.
The Australian context for the delivery of CCE has been changing over the past
two decades. To overcome the problems of a federal political structure (similar to that
in the United States), eight state/territory governments have responsibility for educa-
48 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

tional provision, although recently agreement has been reached on what is known as
‘the Australian Curriculum’ that provides a common curriculum framework, includ-
ing content, across all states/territories. Thus, CCE is now officially referred to as an
‘identified subject’ with the formal title, Australian Curriculum: Civics and Citizen-
ship (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority) (ACARA) (2012,
p. 4). Yet, it is not really a stand-alone subject but rather is part of a broad learning
area that also includes History, Geography, Economics and Business. In addition,
while this curriculum has been developed nationally and includes content, skills,
values and achievement standards for students from years 3–10, its implementation
rests with state/territory education authorities. Henderson and Tudball (2017) have
reported that implementation varies from state to state and the civics and citizenship
component is not always considered mandatory. Thus, there is no guarantee that all
Australian students will have access to this curriculum since so much will depend
on local priorities at the system and school levels. Time pressure may be a key factor
in school decision-making, so the subject may well become optional after primary
school. It will then compete not only with other subjects within the learning area but
also with other learning areas such as science, technology and mathematics where
schools may feel greater pressure to allocate available time.
Schulz et al. (2010, pp. 46–47) drawing on the 38 countries that participated
in ICCS 2009 provided a somewhat more nuanced picture that has been painted
above. To the specific subject mode of delivery (nominated by 18/38 countries) and
integrated subject approaches (32/38), they add CCE as a ‘cross-curriculum theme’
(27/38), assemblies and special events (28/38), extracurricular activities (28/38) and
classroom experiences/ethos (29/38). Not a single country nominated just one of these
approaches, and some countries nominated all of them. This expanded categorization
suggests that schools take different opportunities to support CCE in the classroom,
outside it and across the curriculum in ways that are designed to support but also
expand single subject and integrated subject approaches.
What about the effectiveness of these different approaches? Kerr et al. (2007,
p. 69), referring to the English longitudinal study, asserted that mode of study was
unlikely to be a good predictor of student learning. Fairbrother and Kennedy (2011),
using data from the CivEd study (Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, & Schulz, 2001),
showed that students who studied in countries where CCE was a separate subject
gained higher scores on measures of civic knowledge than students studying inte-
grated approaches. The differences between the two groups of students were rela-
tively small, although significant, and the variance accounted for by modes of delivery
was small at around 2%. Thus, there appear to be some benefits from single subject
delivery, although these should not be exaggerated.
Support for single subject delivery has also come recently from Krzywosz-
Rynkiewicz, Zalweska, and Karakatsani (2017) focusing on citizenship delivery in
post-Soviet societies as well as a smaller number of independent countries. Yet, it is
supported with a twist. Single subject delivery across all levels of education (primary,
secondary and upper secondary) appears to influence passive aspects of citizenship
such as national identity formation, loyalty and patriotism rather than any active
engagement in political activities. Yet where citizenship education is delivered at
4.1 Lessons from Current CCE Programs—International Perspectives 49

two levels of an education system, their students seem more inclined to engage in
the political system through voting and in other aspects of electoral democracy. At
the same time, passive forms of citizenship engagement are as strong in countries
where citizenship education is not compulsory. Yet, moderate levels of citizenship
education where there is no compulsory subject seem to influence more personally
oriented conceptions such as the importance of financial independence and personal
development. As the authors point out that these are somewhat ambiguous results,
but they highlight the complexities of identifying both the compulsory nature of
citizenship education and its intensity across an education system.
As with the Fairbrother and Kennedy (2011) study, it is probably the
compulsory/non-compulsory nature of citizenship education that is the most
important distinction leading to different outcomes whether it is civic knowledge
or citizenship behaviors. Yet, Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz et al. (2017) have added to
this the concept of intensity—how many levels of the education system require
citizenship education? The results indicated that it was by no means clear that ‘more
is better’ (delivery at two levels appears to be more effective than at three levels)
and non-compulsory integrated citizenship education seems to be more effective in
promoting political engagement that compulsory single subject forms of delivery
that seem more likely to lead to passive forms of civic engagement.
An outcome to consider from the Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz et al. (2017) study is
that school-level citizenship education does not appear to encourage active forms of
civic engagement such as protests and change-oriented civic strategies. This result is
supported by a great deal of other research that also points to the somewhat conser-
vative nature of citizenship education. At times, young people will express concern
for the environment or even indicate the possibility of involvement in legal protests,
but rarely much more than this. As indicated earlier, there is always a minority
willing to go further, but they do not represent the mainstream. Seeking a balance
between understanding and supporting the status quo and challenging injustice and
unfairness remain key issues for considering the future of citizenship education.
What, then, of the future? The research evidence seems to suggest, albeit tenta-
tively, that CCE delivered as a single subject may be a more effective way to enhance
student learning but, in this case, a great deal of attention needs to be made to desired
learning outcomes. It is also clear that integrated forms of citizenship education
through mainstream curriculum subjects also yield important outcomes as shown
both by Fairbrother and Kennedy (2011) and by Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz et al. (2017).
Yet, the evidence is equivocal and as Fairbrother and Kennedy (2011) pointed out
policymakers and politicians ought not to expect large gains in learning because of
adopting a single subject approach. Yet, they also pointed out that a single subject
provides greater visibility for CCE in the school curriculum so that both teachers
and students can be more aware of it, especially where it is mandatory rather than
optional. The issue for the future appears to center on what policymakers and politi-
cians expect from their citizenship education programs: What kind of citizen do they
seek to produce to cope with the challenges of the twenty-first century? Resolve this
issue and the form, and function of citizenship education is likely to follow.
50 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

At the same time, Eurydice (2012) results are also instructive since they suggest
that in general schools do not seem to rely on a single approach. This means there
are multiple ways of providing a ‘civic environment’ in schools and seeking to
achieve the kind of outcomes desired for future citizens. CCE is not just a matter of
learning specific content (although such learning is important) but is also about being
inducted into ways of engaging as citizens, becoming involved at different levels of
society and contributing to the maintenance of social values that support a fair and
just society. A single CCE subject may contribute to this kind of environment, but
it needs to be supported with a school-wide approach that supports different kinds
of civic learning. Explicit objectives for civic learning that can also be reflected in
other school subjects may also assist in creating a more expansive civic environment
as will opportunities for participation such as school councils and other decision-
making processes. Finally, classrooms can also carry a message about civic values,
civic engagement and civic development reflected in pedagogies, decision-making
processes and classroom organization. In the future, ensuring civic messages are
clear and unequivocal will be an important priority.

4.1.1 The Content of CCE

The ‘message’ of CCE is most clearly conveyed in the content of the curricu-
lum—whether it is in a single subject or integrated across the curriculum. ICCS
2009 (Schulz et al., 2010, p. 182) asked teachers about the aims of CCE they would
endorse. The results across thirty-eight participating countries shown in Table 4.1 are
instructive. The focus is clearly on knowledge, skills and values rather than participa-
tion and social justice. The same set of items endorsed by school principals (Schulz
et al., 2010, p. 184) showed a similar pattern with the focus on knowledge rather
than participation. In many ways, this runs counter to the discourse in the academic
literature where participation and social justice orientations tend to predominate. If
the data represented in Table 4.1 are in anyway representative, it gives some pause for
reflection given the issues that were outlined earlier in this book. It seems that while
students may be well prepared in terms of civic knowledge, they may not be so well
prepared to ensure that democracy’s values will be well protected. Yet, this does not
seem to prevent education systems from taking a very lofty view of the substantive
content of their citizenship education programs. Australia provides a good example
(ACARA, 2016):
The Civics and Citizenship curriculum aims to reinforce students’ appreciation and under-
standing of what it means to be a citizen. It explores ways in which students can actively
shape their lives, value their belonging in a diverse and dynamic society, and positively
contribute locally, nationally, regionally and globally. As reflective, active and informed
decision-makers, students will be well placed to contribute to an evolving and healthy
democracy that fosters the wellbeing of Australia as a democratic nation, in a dynamic,
multicultural and multi-faith society.
4.1 Lessons from Current CCE Programs—International Perspectives 51

Table 4.1 Teachers’ views of the aims of CCE–ICCS averages

Three most strongly endorsed aims % Three least strongly endorsed aims %
Promoting knowledge of citizens’ rights 60 Preparing students for future political 7
and responsibilities participation
Promoting students’ critical and 52 Supporting the development of effective 10
independent thinking strategies for the fight against racism
and xenophobia
Developing students’ skills and 41 Promoting students’ participation in the 16
competencies in conflict resolution local community
Promoting respect for and safeguards of 41
the environment

In a similar vein, the National Conference of State Legislatures (2017) in the

United States recently reiterated the national goals of civic education:
Civic education should help young people acquire and learn to use the skills, knowledge, and
attitudes that will prepare them to be competent and responsible citizens throughout their
lives. Competent and responsible citizens:

1. are informed and thoughtful; have a grasp and an appreciation of history and the fun-
damental processes of American democracy; have an understanding and awareness of
public and community issues; and have the ability to obtain information, think critically,
and enter into dialogue among others with different perspectives.
2. participate in their communities through membership in or contributions to organizations
working to address an array of cultural, social, political, and religious interests and beliefs.
3. act politically by having the skills, knowledge, and commitment needed to accomplish
public purposes, such as group problem solving, public speaking, petitioning and protest-
ing, and voting.
4. have moral and civic virtues such as concern for the rights and welfare of others, social
responsibility, tolerance.

There is clearly not a problem casting the net widely when it comes to content
for citizenship education. The problem appears to be, as indicated in Table 4.1,
that school versions of these aspirational statements often fall short. Henderson and
Tudball (2017) refer to the problem of teacher preparation and whether adequate
attention is made to specific preparation for CCE as distinct from discipline subjects.
At the same time, they point to some deficits in the Australian Curriculum: Civics
and Citizenship where there does not appear to be a full embrace of the participatory
elements of CCE and the focus seems to be more on knowledge acquisition. All of
this suggests that the gap between policy intentions and school-level implementation
is as significant in CCE as in other areas of the curriculum. An important issue for the
future is how to overcome this gap in a curriculum area that is not merely academic
but also of genuine social and political significance.
52 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

4.1.2 Time Allocation

There are severe constraints in estimating the amount of time spent on CCE-related
activities in schools. Eurydice (2012, pp. 24–27) attempted to do so with respect to
European countries but had to discount ten countries for which no data was available.
For the remaining 18 countries, there was extraordinary variation across levels of
schooling (primary, secondary and upper secondary) as well as within levels. One
constraint was that only time allocated to CCE as a single school subject could be
included as there is rarely any time stipulated where CCE is integrated with other
school subjects. Within these constraints, what emerges is that the primary level is the
least chosen for CCE, the lower secondary level is the time when most countries focus
on CCE and the upper secondary is also chosen but not as frequently as the lower
secondary. Countries such as France and Spain use a single subject across the three
levels of schooling, and this contrasts with others that choose delivery at just one level
that is usually at lower secondary. This leads to gross distortions in the total amount
of time allocated to CCE in Europe ranging from a total of 72 h in France across the
three levels of schooling to 11.6 h in Bulgaria at the upper secondary level only.
The Australian context shares some similarities with European countries. At the
primary level, CCE is integrated with History and Geography for years 3–4 and with
History, Geography and Economics and Business for years 5–6. There are no specific
time allocations for this integrated mode of delivery. At the secondary level, 20 h a
year is suggested for each year (7–10) when CCE is treated as a separate subject within
the broad learning area, Humanities and Social Sciences. Yet, this time allocation is
not mandatory since the implementation of the Australian Curriculum is left entirely
to the eight state/territory governments that may determine different arrangements.
For example, the Northern Territory Board of Studies (n.d.) recommends 30 min a
week for CCE across years 3–10: 160 h across two levels of schooling. In Queensland,
there is a roughly similar allocation of 18–20 h per year across years 3–9 (reduced
to 17–19 h for year 10) (Queensland Curriculum and Assessment Authority, 2011).1
While Henderson and Tudball ( 2017) feel such time allocations may not be sufficient
to achieve all the objectives of CCE, the progress that has been made since the early
1990s in Australia when CCE was rarely considered as a permanent part of the school
curriculum, considerable progress has been made. Whether it is enough is a matter of
judgement and, the extent to which ‘advice’ and ‘indicative allocations’ are actually
followed in schools remains an issue for further research.
The Education Commission of the States (2017) outlined a bewildering array of
graduation requirements across the United States. The main lesson to be learnt from
these is the total lack of uniformity in relation to CCE. The requirements are too
diverse to review here, but they range from some states having no specific require-
ments in any subjects (Pennsylvania, North Dakota and Vermont) to specific require-
ments regarding Civics and Government or Civics and Economics or Constitutional
History of one kind or another. Yet, even these requirements do not refer to specific

1 This recommendation may well have changed since CCE is now part of HASS rather than a single

subject, but there is no indication of any revised time allocations considering this change.
4.1 Lessons from Current CCE Programs—International Perspectives 53

time allocations but rather to ‘units’, details of which are most likely specified at
state and district levels, and these are likely to differ across states. Thus, while it is
possible to point to compulsory courses in Civics and Government in the majority
of states, it is not possible to identify specific time allocations. It is perhaps for this
reason that the Centre for Civic Education (Branson, 1998) almost two decades ago
recommended time allocations ranging from 30 to 40 h per year in the primary years
and 40 to 120 h per year in the lower and upper secondary. There does not appear
to have been any action on these recommendations, so they remain aspirational only
and real-time allocations remain masked at district and school levels.
Focusing on time allocation for CCE may seem like a technical issue. Yet time
in an overcrowded curriculum is a precious commodity and its allocation is a clear
indicator of the value placed on particular parts of the curriculum. If there is no
specific time allocation, or a minimal allocation, then not only will this limit students’
learning opportunities but it sends a message about the value of that learning. Thus
any curriculum should be clear about not only what is to be learnt and how it is to
be learnt but how much time there is available for learning. It seems such a simple
principle, but clearly it is one that has escaped the attention of many policymakers
leaving CCE to struggle for curriculum space against competing priorities such as
Mathematics, Language and Science. In the future, a consensus needs to be reached
on this important issue.

4.1.3 Results of CCE Assessments

The assessment of CCE has gathered some momentum over the past two decades.
The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
has launched three major international studies (Schulz et al., 2010; Schulz, Ainley,
Fraillon, Losito, & Agrusti, 2016; Torney-Purta et al., 2001). As part of a National
Assessment Program in Australia, students in year 6 and year 10 are tested on CCE
once every three with the focus on ‘measure[ing] not only students’ skills, knowledge
and understandings of Australia’s system of government and civic life but also student
attitudes, values and participation in civic-related activities at school and in the
community’ (ACARA, 2014). The National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) in the United States includes regular assessment (once every four years or
so) of students’ knowledge and skills in civics, US History and Geography. In the
United Kingdom The Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS) ran from
2001 to 2010 collecting both quantitative and qualitative data on the implementation
of citizenship education as part of the national curriculum. Thus, we are in a much
better situation today to try and understand citizenship learning outcomes than we
have been for some time. Knowles and Stefano (2016), for example, have brought
together findings from IEA’s 1999 CivEd Study and the 2009 ICCS to produce
an annotated bibliography that highlights the extensive secondary analysis that has
been conducted on these data sets. Reichert (2016a, 2016b, 2016c) and Reichert and
Print (2017a, b) have conducted similar secondary analyses using the data from the
54 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

Australian National Assessment Program in Civics and Citizenship. The results of

this body of knowledge are extensive, but several key points emerge:
1. Civic knowledge is important. It moderates civic engagement with high levels
of knowledge being related to conventional forms of engagement in the future
(e.g., voting).
2. Young people are not interested in political engagement or at least engagement
in political systems as they are currently constructed. They prefer social engage-
ment such as volunteering and community work and internationally show strong
support for environmental protection.
3. On average and across countries, there is little support for radical or illegal forms
of civic engagement, although some studies have shown that this inclination might
be reinforced by social economic status and low levels of civic knowledge.
4. While schools have a role to play in the preparation of citizens, other influences
such as peers, parents and teachers have also been identified. Social media also
seem to be a strong influence, but national and international assessments seem
somewhat slow in tapping its importance.
5. Teaching strategies and classrooms seem to be important in supporting citizenship
development but particularly the creation of an open classroom climate that can
influence both civic knowledge and other forms of civic engagement.
6. The use of person-centered analytic techniques with secondary data has revealed
new insights, especially related to the diversity of civic attitudes among young
people. These can be glossed over with averaging processes of traditional anal-
yses. For example, in terms of civic engagement, person-centered analysis has
shown that within most countries there are small groups of individuals who will
opt for more radical forms of engagement.
There is some consistency between the results of these assessments and the cur-
riculum emphases shown in Table 4.1. European schools, and possibly most others,
do not focus on teaching about political participation, and students themselves indi-
cate it is not something to which they aspire. This may be a natural inclination on the
part of students, or it may simply be that it is not an issue that has ever been canvassed
with them. Service learning and volunteering are common aspects of current school-
ing practice, and this may explain students’ inclination to be supportive of such social
engagement. These kinds of links need further exploration that cannot be given here.
They are important to pursue in seeking to understand the role of schools in preparing
future citizens since it is not only what schools do in terms of citizen preparation
that is important but what they do not do. Schools can facilitate or constrain civic
learning. The most significant challenge for the future is to support schools to be
sites for facilitating civic learning that will help young citizens to fulfill their poten-
tial as both knowledgeable and engaged future citizens who understand the contexts
in which their citizenship is embedded and who can make a difference in securing
fair, just and equitable outcomes across societies for all individuals and groups. In
addition, when these values are threatened, future citizens need to know how and
when to defend them. This is a big ask, and the final part of this chapter will address
the ways CCE might be able to support young people to achieve this objective.
4.2 What Kind of Citizens Will Be Needed in the Future? 55

4.2 What Kind of Citizens Will Be Needed in the Future?

The CCE curriculum and the results of CCE assessments reviewed so far suggest two
broad areas in which citizens are expected to be proficient: They should understand
the civic contexts that influence them, and they should be willing to participate in
those contexts. Underlying these proficiencies is often an expectation that citizens
support democratic processes and will also have some commitment to the country in
which their citizenship resides. The latter is often implied in countries like Australia
but maybe more overt in other jurisdictions (see Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz et al., 2018).
Variations on these general citizenship requirements have often been summed up by
considering the qualities of ‘the good citizen.’ Yet, there is a range of views on the
requirements for ‘good citizens’ in the current environment, and these are helpful to
understand when considering the needs of the future.
As mentioned earlier, Westheimer and Kahne (2004) provided an interesting
framework for considering notions of the ‘good citizen’: ‘the personally respon-
sible citizen; the participatory citizen; and the justice-oriented citizen’ (p. 3). As
important as these types have become in the CCE literature, of greater significance
is the authors’ critique of each position in relation the question they were seeking to
ask: ‘What kind of citizen do we need to support an effective democratic society?’
Their answer was very clear, although as will be shown later, this may no longer
be the relevant question for the twenty-first century. Personally responsible citizens
may well vote, volunteer and contribute to community activities, but this may not be
enough to secure democratic purposes in society. It is a passive kind of citizenship,
and often the activities in which such citizens engage have nothing to do with advanc-
ing democracy’s purposes. Participatory citizens, on the other hand, can be skillful in
becoming engaged in important community activities that are related to democratic
purposes, and they may develop skills that enable them to be effective contributors
who may well lead changes for the better. This is seen as active citizenship, but the
question is is it really thoughtful citizenship? The final category, justice-oriented
citizens, is seen to be one based on social critique so not only there is participation
in serious activities that can advance democracy’s causes but also understandings
are developed about what causes society’s ills and what action is needed to address
these root causes. For Westheimer and Kahne (2004), there is no doubt that their
basic question is answered through the development of justice-oriented citizens; but
they are confronted with the stark reality that most CCE programs in the United
States focus on the development of personally responsible citizens. Thus their basic
question, while answered, remains problematic because from their point of view
democracy is not being well served by current practice.
Another perspective on this issue is to take into consideration the view of students
about their citizenship and how they see their responsibilities. This is a ‘bottom-up’
approach but realistic because students do not come to CCE as ‘blank slates’—their
views develop as they age and as they interact with their families and their peers so
that CCE becomes just another input to their thinking. Commitments to democracy
are built on a foundation—but what is that foundation?
56 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

Kuang and Kennedy (2014) investigated Asian students’ attitudes to ‘good citi-
zenship’ using data from ICCS 2009 (Schulz et al., 2010). In terms of citizenship
types, the results revealed that students across the five Asian societies studied were
both ‘dutiful’ and inclined to be ‘participatory.’ The results were not reflected in the
same way in each society so that more often than not Indonesian and Thai students
endorsed all items more strongly and Korean students tended to be more ‘partici-
patory’ and less ‘dutiful’ than their other East Asian peers. Yet across this regional
diversity, the best predictors of these citizenship values were the students’ democratic
values as well as their commitment to traditional values. This suggests that citizen-
ship commitments are shaped by multiple influences and these may not always be
democratic in nature. Values such as obedience, harmony and respect for authority
sit alongside democratic values to influence the way these students saw their citi-
zenship. These multiple influences, articulated specifically in this study, are likely to
vary in other contexts, but they highlight the importance of values. It is values that
are needed to when considering the kind of CCE required in the future to answer
a different question from that posed by Westheimer and Kahne (2004): ‘What kind
of citizen is needed to support democratic societies under threat?’ The remainder of
this chapter will attempt to provide an answer to this question.

4.3 Democracy Under Threat: What Kind of Citizens

for the Future?

The future is one where democracy as a regime type rather than just a set of practices
needs to be the focus of CCE. As discussed throughout, public discourses, right-wing
political activities, the dominance of social media as an information source and the
constant questioning of the rule of law, traditional democratic values and democratic
processes are challenging democracy: This means CCE must be much more explicit
about the value of democracy itself.
When considering CCE for the future, while the curriculum remains important
and so too are teacher preparation, school leadership, school climate, classroom
pedagogies that promote open classrooms and time allocation for both formal and
informal learning. It is optimal to consider these as a whole—a set of interacting
variables all of which have the potential to influence student learning.
How might this ‘set’ be developed? It would need to embrace a broad framework
that would include agreed civic dispositions, a recognition of the role of multiple
civic environments and the need to develop critical, resilient and thoughtful citizens
for the future. ‘Active citizenship’ is no longer enough:
• Action must be related to moral purposes.
• Engagement must be seen as a means of improving outcomes for all rather than
as an individual attribute.
• Citizenship values must become the frontline defense for democracy.
What follows is an initial, but by no means the final, attempt to outline such a
framework.
4.4 Framework for CCE in the Future 57

4.4 Framework for CCE in the Future

In developing a future framework for CCE consideration will be given to the kind of
understandings and dispositions citizens should have, the school environments they
should experience and the community influences that will affect them.

Understandings and Dispositions

1. Knowledge and skills that will develop knowledgeable citizens;
2. Participatory cultures that will develop engaged citizens;
3. Consideration of others to develop tolerant citizens.

Knowledgeable citizens will need to know more than discrete information about
civic structures. They will know such structures, but above all will understand their
importance to democracy. This means they will be in a position to defend them should
they be threatened. They will have the skills to do this—critical thinking, problem
solving, inquiry orientations. They will not accept explanations without evidence
and proof, and they will continue to ask questions when they are not satisfied with
answers. They will interrogate social media and be able to respond to multiple points
of view and discern those that are most in line with democracy’s values. They will
take nothing for granted until it has been tested against evidence, values and the
benefits to society as a whole.
Yet they will not just engage in debates about abstract knowledge. They will have
experiences of engagement both in their schools and in their communities. But they
will also be able to ask questions about such engagement—about its purposes and the
issues it is trying to address. They will need to evaluate whether simple participation
is enough to address these issues or whether more is needed at a deeper level. They
will not regard participation as end in itself but as a means of better understanding
the world in which they live and their role in improving it.
Knowledgeable citizens who also participate will also be tolerant citizens under-
standing that the world is not just about themselves but about others who also inhabit
it. Whether the issue is environmental protection, climate change, discrimination
against minorities, racism, sexism or any other behavior that puts others at risk,
knowledgeable citizens will respond in thoughtful ways designed to support oth-
ers. Democratic societies are inclusive societies, and their democratic structures are
designed to support all citizens not just some. Tolerance that leads to a celebration
of difference clearly reflects democracy’s inclusive values, and so the development
of tolerant citizens is one of the key outcomes of future CCE programs.
Yet, there is an important caveat on the extent of tolerance. This issue is highlighted
by current antidemocratic discourses that encourage social exclusion rather than
inclusion and are characterized by hate speech to vilify groups and individuals. These
proponents often seek to benefit from democracy’s valuing of free speech. Yet such
values that seek to undermine democracy are not values that democrats can support.
58 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

Young citizens in the future need to be discerning enough to make judgements about
which values benefit democracy and which do not.

4.5 School Learning Environments Will Be Characterized

by

1. Teachers specifically prepared as citizenship education teachers in order

to professionalize CCE.
2. Whole school approaches to citizenship education to promote leadership
for civic learning.
3. Explicit and articulated curriculum with time allocations to create CCE
curriculum space.
4. Pedagogies of engagement to promote authentic and dynamic learning.

Schools will continue to be important places for the development of knowledge-

able, participatory and tolerant citizens. While students are the focus of CCE pro-
grams, such programs must be staffed by teachers who are well equipped with the
knowledge, skills and values that will help them to be effective citizenship educators.
They will have experienced relevant discipline-based education supported by ped-
agogical preparation that will help them to make their classroom sites for engaged
student learning. Their education will not stop at the preservice level but will be
ongoing enabling them to extend their knowledge base and pedagogical repertoire.
Yet good teachers, as important as they are, need to be supported by school envi-
ronments that reflect an understanding of the importance of citizenship preparation.
This means that principals and other school leaders need to ensure that their schools
provide opportunities for student engagement in different aspects of school life. This
is an issue of how schools are managed and how principals in particular construct
their roles as leaders of civic learning. Such learning is not just a matter for class-
room teaching. It is also a matter of creating a school ethos and culture that values
citizenship development and reflects this in the opportunities provided for students
to act out their roles as young citizens in the life of the school. One of the key criti-
cisms of Merry (2018) is that schools are inimical to democratic citizenship values:
School leaders, therefore, must address this issue so that school structures reflect the
democratic values they wish to see students adopt.
CCE curriculum in the future needs to have a clear and unambiguous role in the
general curriculum provided by schools. It must be seen as important as Mathematics,
Science and Language, and this needs to be recognized with a specific time allocation.
Exactly how CCE curriculum will be delivered will always be a school decision but
that it should be delivered within a specified time frame will be a national priority.
CCE curriculum must focus on learning outcomes: What should knowledgeable,
participatory and tolerant citizens know, value and be able to do? Existing curriculum
4.5 School Learning Environments Will Be Characterized by 59

provides some answers to this question, but more consideration is needed in light of
the insistent deconsolidation processes that characterize public discourse. Democ-
racy is valued not just because it has been part of a society’s historical development
but because it must be seen as part of its future development. Democracy cannot
be taken for granted in the current context. Therefore, students must develop deep
understandings about its purposes, operations and procedures and they must learn to
engage in spirited debate both inside and outside the classrooms to defend democracy.
Teaching about citizenship must reflect pedagogical innovation that values stu-
dent engagement. CCE classrooms must be lively and engaging places that draw
on the knowledge and skills of ‘digital natives’ and integrate these into everyday
CCE activities. Such classrooms must also recognize student diversity as an aspect
of the political orientation of students, the values they bring to the classroom and
their capacity to engage with others both inside and outside the classroom. Students
will always have questions about citizenship issues, and CCE classrooms must be
safe spaces for the interchange of ideas between students and between students and
teachers. Classrooms need to be open learning environments that model as far as
possible democratic processes so that students do not only learn about democracy,
but they learn how to be democratic and the benefits that result from this.

4.6 Community Learning Environments Will Be

Characterized by

1. Social media that can provide direct citizenship experiences and engage-
ment of a non-conventional nature;
2. Peers and parents who can influence personal citizenship values;
3. Community organizations that contribute to networked learning.

It has always been recognized that civic learning takes place both inside and
outside the schools. Torney-Purta et al. (2001)’s model of political socialization
acknowledged the importance of public discourse and its influence on the way young
people understand their citizenship. Yet notions of ‘public’ have undergone funda-
mental changes in the twenty-first century. Virtual private spaces are now public, but
notions of the public in these spaces are very constrained. This is the world of social
media where peers talk to each other oblivious of other members of the public and
convince each there that their views are exactly what the world needs, irrespective
of evidence, rationality or contrary arguments.
Yet at the same time, access to social media means that ideas and ideologies of
all kinds float freely so that private spaces can be easily invaded, and private con-
versations can become sites for the most diverse topics, the origins of which may be
unknown to the conversationalists. Lennart (2015), drawing on a report from the Pew
Foundation, highlighted the fact that “aided by the convenience and constant access
60 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

provided by mobile devices, especially smartphones, 92% of teens report going online
daily—including 24% who say they go online “almost constantly,” … More than half
(56%) of teens—defined in this report as those ages 13–17—go online several times
a day, and 12% report once-a-day use. Just 6% of teens report going online weekly,
and 2% go online less often”. Social media have become a significant influence on
political socialization as the century progresses. In any event, social media can be
both a tool to develop citizenship skills and a social practice requiring careful scrutiny
and investigation. This issue will be explored in some depth in Chapter 5.
Any focus on social media must be accompanied by an equal focus on the
role of peers. Always a focus for issues concerned with political socialization, the
potent combination of peers and social media highlights the new dimension of peer
influences in these virtual contexts. Peer interaction is a feature of classroom life,
so advantage needs to be taken of the new ways in which peers come together.
Research has shown that peers may meet online and then become friends or as
friends they may exchange ideas and attitudes online. Either way, social media
provide the mediating processes for peer-to-peer interaction. This highlights the
need for classrooms to be discussion-oriented and for greater emphasis to be placed
not just on the interaction but also on the skills needed to engage in such interaction
in an open and critical way. Questioning ideas, asking for explanations, interrogating
ideologies need to be part of the discourse both in classrooms and online. Peer
approval is always important for young people, but it can never be as important
as discerning right from wrong and establishing the values needed for successful
engagement in society and its development.
The focus on peers does not cancel out the importance of parents, although there
will always be a tension between the two as adolescence progresses. Yet there is
evidence, at least in the case of younger adolescents, that conversations with parents
about social and political issues can be an important influence on the development of
civic attitudes. These links will be even more important in the future as social media
continue to create private spaces for young people devoid of external input. There
are also pedagogical implications when it comes to parents. Students can be asked
specifically to engage with parents relating to homework and assignments to conduct
‘parent focus groups’ to seek parents’ views on different issues, and parents can be
used as a point of reference for many topics and issues that arise during teaching. That
is to say, parents need to be seen as an extension of the classroom and as powerful
allies in the citizenship development of their families. Parents themselves may not
even be aware of the important role they play in this regard, so they too may need to
be educated. The key issue for the future is that parents should not be ignored when
citizenship education is being planned because alongside schools, peers and social
media they will continue to have a role to play in supporting civic learning.
Much has been written about the role of social capital in helping to build trust
among members of a community. Engaging in community organizations is one way
to bring people together where they can share common goals and aspirations. Yet
the consensus seems to be that such community engagement is declining whether
it is in churches, bowling alleys (this is the metaphor used by Putnam) or NGOs in
general. This is worrying at a time when lack of trust is exactly what characterizes
4.6 Community Learning Environments Will Be Characterized by 61

much of social and political life today and will in all likelihood continue to do so
in the future. Building trust in democratic institutions, in democratic citizens and in
democracy itself has to be a key priority for the future.
Schools can contribute to this objective because they are embedded within com-
munities so can assist students to be integrated into community organizations. The
purpose of such integration is twofold: on the one hand, it can help students to con-
tribute to whatever public good is the focus of a particular organization’s mission;
but it can also bring students and adults together around common causes and pur-
poses and thus help to build cross-generational and intergenerational trust. These are
important dispositions of a successful future.
In focusing on the development of social capital in this way some distinction
needs to be made between such development and the current preoccupation with
volunteering and service learning. The latter are largely concerned with individ-
ual placements in willing organizations that are more likely to be looking for
additional human resources rather than providing opportunities for meaningful
social engagement, social development and community building. Volunteering as
a social process needs to be enhanced in the future so that it is linked to positive
community development with the potential for the individuals involved to work
together for common good building trustful relationships that provide the foundation
for citizenship development.
In drawing these different strands of future citizenship development together, its
main contours are:
1. The development of knowledgeable citizens driven to participate in their democ-
racy and tolerant of others with similar aspirations;
2. A recognition that schools remain important civic environments for citizenship
development but in new contexts where learning opportunities are more diverse
and where students’ autonomy is enhanced by technology;
3. Civic environments extend beyond schools to homes, peer-to-peer interactions,
the private spaces of social media and community organizations. Discerning and
critically analyzing these various influences are major skills for future citizens.

4.7 Synopsis

Current citizenship education programs seek to consolidate democracy by equipping

students with the knowledge and skills that help them to understand democratic insti-
tutions, develop democratic values and engage in the political life of society. Some
programs go further and encourage students to engage with key social problems,
understand their causes and seek solutions to them. The underlying assumption of
these programs is that democracy is a given feature of the political landscape, and
future citizens simply need to understand its workings and requirements and make
a contribution to its consolidation. Yet in the future, it is this major assumption that
is under question. As democratic deconsolidation proceeds, future citizens need not
62 4 Civic and Citizenship Education for the Future

only understand democracy but also learn how to protect it, how to interrogate issues
that seem to undermine it and how to continue building societies that are fair, tolerant
and just, while recognizing that all values do not support democracy. A framework for
these new demands on democratic citizens has been suggested to prepare citizens for
a very different future. The framework that has been discussed here is the beginning
of a necessary conversation about the way future citizens can support democracy and
its values in challenging times.

References

ACARA. (2012). The shape of the australian curriculum—civics and citizenship. Retrieved July
20, 2017, from Australian Curriculum and Reporting Authority: https://www.acara.edu.au/
curriculum/learning-areas-subjects/humanities-and-social-sciences/civics.
ACARA. (2014). National assessment program: Civics and citizenship years 6 and 10 report 2013.
Sydney: ACARA.
ACARA. (2016). Civics and citizenship rationale. Retrieved July 23, 2017, from Australian Curricu-
lum and Assessment Reporting Authority: http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/humanities-
and-social-sciences/civics-and-citizenship/rationale.
Branson, M. (1998). The role of civic education—A forthcoming education policy task force position
paper from the communitarian network. Retrieved July 24, 2017, from Center for Civic Education:
http://civiced.org/papers/articles_role.html.
Churchill, W. (1947). Extract of speech to the house of commons. Retrieved July 19,
2017, from http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/30799-many-forms-of-government-have-been-
tried-and-will-be.
Eurydice Network. (2012). The european higher education area in 2012: Bologna process imple-
mentation report. Brussels, Belgium: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
Fairbrother, G., & Kennedy, K. (2011). Civic education curriculum reform in Hong Kong: What
should be the direction under Chinese sovereignty? Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(4),
425–443.
Foa, R., & Mounk, Y. (2016). The danger of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 27(3), 5–17.
Godsay, S., Henderson, W., Levine, P., & Littenberg-Tobias, J. (2012). State civic education require-
ments. Centre for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
Henderson, D., & Tudball, L. (2017). More than national education: Possibilities for critical par-
ticipatory learning in the Australian curriculum through civics and citizenship. Curriculum Per-
spectives, 37(1), 51–61. Singapore: Springer.
Kerr, D., Lopes, J., Nelson, J., White, K., Cleaver, E., & Benton, T. (2007). Vision versus pragmatism:
Citizenship in the secondary school curriculum in England. London: DfES.
Knowles, R., & Stefano, D. (2015). International citizenship education research: An annotated
bibliography of research using the IEA, ICCS and IEA CIVED datasets. Journal of Interna-
tional Social Studies, 5(2). Retrieved March 21, 2019, from http://www.iajiss.org/index.php/
iajiss/article/view/213.
Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B., Zalewska, A., & Karakatsani, B. (2017). Whether citizenship education
matters: Young people’s citizenship activity in countries with different citizenship education
experience. Citizenship Teaching and Learning, 17(2).
Krzywosz-Rynkiewicz, B., Zalewska, A., & Kennedy, K. (2018). Young people and active citizen-
ship in post-Soviet times—A challenge for citizenship education. London & New York: Routledge.
Kuang, X., & Kennedy, K. (2014). Asian students’ perceptions of ‘good’ citizenship: The role
of democratic values and attitudes to traditional culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Educational
Development, 3(1), 33–42.
References 63

Lennart, A. (2015). Teens, social media & technology overview 2015. Retrieved on July 16, 2018
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/09/teens-social-media-technology-2015/.
Luke, T. (1990). Social theory and modernity: Critique, dissent, and revolution. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Merry, M. (2018). Can schools teach citizenship? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1488242.
Reichert, F. (2016a). Learning for active citizenship: Are Australian youths discovering democracy
at school? Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 11(2), 130–144.
Reichert, F. (2016b). Students’ perceptions of good citizenship: A person-centred approach. Social
Psychology of Education, 19(3), 661–693.
Reichert, F. (2016c). Who is the engaged citizen? Correlates of secondary school students’ concepts
of good citizen? Educational Research and Evaluation, 22(5–6), 305–322.
Reichert, F., & Print, M. (2017a). Mediated and moderated effects of political communication on
civic participation. Information, Communication & Society, 20(8), 1162–1184.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 Report. Amsterdam:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA).
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., & Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA International Civic and
Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Open.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and education in
twenty-eight countries: Civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Amsterdam: IEA.
Westheimer, J., & Kahne, J. (2004). Educating the “good” citizen: Political choices and pedagogical
goals. Retrieved from. PS Political Science and Politics, 37(2), 241–247.