[International Perspectives on Education and Society Volume 5] Gita Steiner-Khamsi_ Judith Torney-Purta_ John Schwille (Eds.) - New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship_ an International Co

1 • INTRODUCTION:
ISSUES AND INSIGHTS IN

CROSS-NATIONAL ANALYSIS
OF QUALITATIVE STUDIES
Downloaded by New York University At 01:03 17 February 2015 (PT)
Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Judith Torney-Purta

and John Schwille
What is this civic education when viewed across countries? What sense can be
made of 24 national case studies of civic education analyzed cross-nationally?
To put them in context and yet compare them: is that possible? In answering
these questions, the authors of this volume have taken a dual approach to
their presentations. First, they introduce new methodological approaches for
analyzing qualitative data cross-nationally. Second, they provide a content-based
exploration of these data that draws out the intricacies of civic education in the
schools of 24 countries.
Cross-national educational research, country comparison, large-scale
comparative studies, lEA-type or OECD-type studies - just a few of the terms
used to denote this genre of comparative research - are most commonly
associated with quantitative analysis. This approach emphasizes the relatively
parsimonious identification of explanatory variables that are common and
intended to be measured precisely and validly across countries. Such an
approach has raised many doubts about the usefulness of such studies beyond
and even for policy-related purposes. These concerns are by no means new.
New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship, Volume 5,

pages 1-36.
© 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
2 GITA STEINER-KHAMSI ET AL.
We now have behind us two decades of growing interest in and skepticism

about the place and purpose of large-scale international comparative studies.
While many policy analysts applaud studies that allow them to assess and rank
the achievement and performance of their own educational system against those
of other systems, many qualitatively oriented scholars condemn such studies as
superficial and devoid of any cultural context. The polarization of the two camps
seems to have reached a peak. The first camp is made up of supporters of
standards-based and outcomes-based educational reform, as well as the other
performance-based reform models that are presently spreading at breath-taking
speed around the world. They have re-discovered international comparative
studies as the herald of an era in global-wide school reform in which it matters

a great deal how one educational system scores in relation to other systems.
Scholars in the other camp have waged a war against what they see as the
absurdity of cross-national studies, because in their view concepts such as "civic
education" mean something totally different in different contexts. So large and
irreconcilable are these semantic differences for them that comparability p e r s e
is questionable. From their perspective, any comparison across cultural contexts
is at the expense of understanding the complex realities of a particular context.
Attacks against large-scale country comparisons are not singular incidents. They
are, indeed, indicative of a visible qualitative and cultural turn in social science
and educational research that demands smaller, multiple and more meaningful
units of analysis than national educational systems. The group of authors
presented in this volume attempt to seriously challenge the contention that those
who compare are unable to understand, and those who understand are unable
to compare.
In response to the critics of large-scale quantitative studies, the authors also
shed light on the heatedly debated "blind spots" of country comparisons by
asking, "What does civic education m e a n in different country contexts, and
what does it entail for different communities and groups within a country?" As
is customary for researchers in all types of empirical studies, the authors of this
volume have had to make a series of methodological decisions in order to reduce
the number of cases and observations that would allow for cross-national
comparison. At the same time, in presenting their results to policy-makers,
researchers and other audiences, they have been wary about retaining the context
and "thick descriptions" that are characteristic of case studies. What are the
specific methodological challenges of multiple case study analysis? How do
they differ from those methodological challenges of data reduction, reliability
and validity that are the norm in quantitative analysis? The authors have reflected
on specific methodological challenges that relate to qualitative cross-national
analysis. They present different solutions. Their responses suggest that there is
Introduction 3
a need for paving new methodological paths and formulating new paradigms
that would allow for cross-national analyses of qualitative rather than quanti-
tative data.
Content-wise, the authors of this volume attempt to illuminate the multiple
layers of a construct that, at first sight, appears to be an empty shell. In stark
contrast to mathematics, language, biology and other subject matters taught
in schools, civic education cannot be confined to a particular time-slot in
the curriculum of schools. In several countries civic education is taught as
part of civics, government, social studies, legal studies, economic studies
or moral education. More often, however, civic education is taught across
the curriculum (including, for example, in history, literature, geography),

reflected in school and class organization, and reinforced in extra-curricular
activities and community service. Thus, at closer examination, civic educa-
tion is not an empty shell but ubiquitous.
An investigation of civic education therefore needs to be more than a matter
of simply accumulating content taught in civics-related subject matters (civics,
government, social studies, and so on), and it needs to be less than a general
examination of schools as educative sites for political culture. Civic education
in this volume is studied as a construct with much potential variation in meaning
and not a particular subject matter that presupposes some sort of international
consensus on what it entails. To reach a common understanding of the construct
across 24 national research teams, the core domains of civic education (that is,
democracy, national identity and social cohesion/diversity) were defined only
after initial more open-ended international and national data collection.
Narrowing the definition of the construct, however, resolved only part of
the problem. How do we, as researchers, deal with inconsistencies and
contradictions in the case studies? How do we interpret, for example, the
discrepancy between content and teaching methods, that is, the mismatch
between what is taught in civic education (content) and how it is taught
(method)? What does it mean, for example, when students are taught in, say,
an authoritarian, dull and teacher-centered way about the importance of critical
thinking, political participation and civil action for democracy? How do we
analyze discrepancies between students' political experience outside of school
and what is being taught to them in schools? In qualitative cross-national
analyses, such discrepancies are not quantitd ndgligeable, that is, they are
not "noise", artifacts or outliers obscuring a more theoretically defensible
underlying pattern or process. On the contrary, several authors purposefully
tracked down discrepancies in order to understand the nature and status of
civic education in various contexts. What comes across as a discrepancy is
sometimes perfectly logical if captured in its own context. Following the traces
4 GITA STE1NER-KHAMSI ET AL.
of a particular paradox in civic education has proved a key practice in this kind
of contextual cross-national analysis.
All studies in this volume have been guided, in one way or another, by its
bifocal perspective, that is, reflection on the methodological challenges of
analyzing qualitative data cross-nationally and searching for recurring paradoxes
in education for citizenship.
THE TWO-PHASE IEA CIVIC EDUCATION STUDY
The first and overarching goal of the IEA Civic Education Study has been
to identify and examine within a comparative framework the ways in which

nations prepare adolescents to undertake their role as citizens. A central focus
of the study is the school, but without being restricted to any particular
subject matter or to the formal curriculum. The study tried to obtain a picture
of how adolescents are initiated into the various levels and types of
political community in which they are likely to become members. IEA studies
usually begin with an explication of the so-called "intended curriculum" as
embodied in official or semi-official documents that specify desired learning
outcomes in particular subject matters. In civic education, however, to rely
so heavily on official documents that outline the intended curriculum is likely
to be insufficient. Official documents have even less value in this regard in
those areas of the world where governments have recently undergone
profound transformations.
Across the world, we see many differences in the content and process of
civic education. In societies undergoing rapid social and political change, and
especially in those attempting to establish or re-establish democracies, attempts
are being made to prepare adolescents for a political and economic order
that is shifting. Even within societies with long democratic traditions, civic
education differs from many other subjects in the extent of disagreement over
the appropriate knowledge and attitude base.
In developing an overall design for the project, the group of national research
teams examined the complexities of civic education at two levels: the policy
or social level and the individual student level. At the societal level, the
researchers needed to know about the complex array of factors that potentially
affect the transmission of knowledge and learning about citizenship, govern-
ment and political processes. Nearly all of the major social institutions are
involved, including family, economy, religion and media as well as government.
Political and social movements must be considered, as well as distinctive
cultural and historical traditions. At the individual level, the need is to find out
how adolescents respond to and understand these institutions and movements.
Introduction 5
Those who live within a given society internalize and act upon only part
of what is present at the broader societal level. From the point of view of
the individual, civic education consists of the process by which collective
identifications are given private or personal meaning. The civic values that
individuals internalize and act upon often differ substantially from those that
the education system (and others) attempt to inculcate. Nor is the process
entirely one way (Torney-Purta, 1992). The thoughts and actions of individuals
can transform public political values and institutions.
The group of national research teams found that these levels could best be
incorporated by organizing the study in two phases: one focusing on the social
and political ecology in which civic education is embedded, and the other on
the actual views and knowledge of young people coming of age in such a
system. The former took the form of qualitative country case studies that are
capable of capturing diverse interpretations and points of view about how
adolescents should be prepared for political life. A summary of all 24 country
case studies was published in Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four
National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (Torney-Purta
et al., 1999). The latter was implemented in a survey similar to those that lEA
has conducted in the past (but also different because it puts primary emphasis
on non-cognitive outcomes and because its questions are based on themes
identified during the case study). The first international report summarizing
major findings from the quantitative phase was released in 2001 and is titled
Citizenship and Education in Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and
Engagement at Age Fourteen (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
The authors of this present volume have based their cross-national analyses
on data from the first, qualitative phase of the IEA Civic Education Study. The
authors make use of the already published country-by-country analyses of
the 24 national case studies (Torney-Pttrta et al., 1999). In addition, most
of the cross-national authors have drawn on the international database, which
includes the complete set of case study materials produced by national research
teams in 24 countries. The international database was posted on a Web-site of
the Department of Human Development, University of Maryland, College Park
(the international coordinating center for the first phase of the IEA Civic
Education Study).
The Theoretical Framework of the Qualitative Phase
During preliminary discussions in 1993-1994, many IEA member countries

expressed interest in the study but were wary about assessing their students
according to definitions and expectations developed in other countries rather
than in terms of their own objectives. Consequently, starting with country-based

case studies of what is understood about civic education from existing theory,
policy and practice rather than with the development of a test and survey had
substantial appeal. Furthermore, some countries that had recently experienced
major transitions saw in the case study a process valuable in itself to help
stimulate new thinking about these aims and programs on the part of
educators and the public. In other words, each country saw the case study as
a chance to examine its own situation and learn from other countries as they
collected the Phase 1 information. The fact that this information would then
be used to develop the framework for the Phase 2 test and survey was also
attractive.
Identifying a single best approach to civic education in a democracy has
never been the goal of this international study. Rather the study was premised
on the assumption that definitions of and approaches to civic education will be
understood best by considering them within the contexts in which they are
found. Common dimensions or domains of interest could then be identified (see
also Janoski, 1998). Efforts were made not to choose prematurely a conceptual
model that would privilege certain schools of thought or limited sets of
variables. Instead, we wanted a model that would invite the expression and
analysis of the many points of view that significant actors and thinkers see
as being relevant to civic education in democracy. It was only after much
preliminary work and after each national research team had submitted proposals
for the case study that it was possible to reach an agreement on an overall
approach and a graphic schema to represent it.
Although this model was inspired in part by psychological theories, namely
Bronfenbrenner's views (1988) on the ecological approach to studying devel-
opment and the situated cognition theories of Lave and Wenger (1991), it is
equally well suited to the incorporation of other views and perspectives (for
example, Conover & Searing, 1994). From its schematic shape, the model
became known as the octagon model (Fig. 1).
The model captures the individual and societal levels discussed earlier. In
the center is the individual student, surrounded by public discourse or discus-
sion of the goals, values and practices with relevance to civic education. This
discussion is presumed to influence the individual student through face-to-face
contact with a set of "carriers". These include the family (parents, siblings and
sometimes extended family), the school (teachers, intended curriculum and
participation opportunities), peer group (which functions both in and out of
school), and neighbors (including those with whom the adolescent works or
meets in youth organizations). In addition to these face-to-face relationships,
there is also the impact of television and other media. Theories such as that of
Introduction 7
~,< ...... taN ,
o,~ k~ ~-~'
IVID
{ 1 % %~'$-" " ' - " - ~ STU DE NT(' ' - ' y . I I
\ \ School: Teachers;Intended / /
\ \ ~. Curriculum;Participation ~ / /
X o,,,,ortun,t,os o.,,.?.>. /
.,y
Fig. 1. The Octagon Model of the Civic Education Study.
Bronfenbrenner would call most of these carriers part of the "microsystem."

Previous work on political socialization has usually referred to them as agents
of socialization. The main (though not exclusive) emphases of the Civic
Education Study have been the school and the peer group (especially as it
functions in schools, school organizations and classrooms).
The outer octagon that circumscribes these processes includes what would
be called the "macrosystem" in theories such as that of Bronfenbrenner. This
includes institutions, processes and values in domains such as politics,
economics, education and religion. It also includes a country's position
internationally, the canonized symbols or narratives deemed important at the
national or local level and the social stratification system (including not only
social class but also the way in which opportunities are shaped by ethnic and
gender membership). The action of carriers is thus embedded in a cultural
and institutional context as represented by these eight "dimensions."
The approach that we selected to operationalize this model is one of
coordinated, structured case studies similar to the approach suggested by Miles
(1990), that is, pre-structured case studies carried out consecutively in different
settings (in Miles's case, different schools; in our case, different countries).
This approach poses the question of how much structure to impose on the
individual cases. The aims of Phase 1 created a tension between two competing
principles. The first is the principle of inclusiveness, which allowed the partic-
ipating countries to include whatever they thought relevant and important

when analyzing civic education in their countries. The second principle is that
of methodological rigor, which provides guidelines and structure to elicit
the systematic and rigorous design, data collection and analysis needed for
comparative purposes. This tension has been managed over the course of four
years by a participatory, iterative process in which an international planning
committee and national project representatives were the main (although not
the only) actors.
The national case studies themselves took shape in response to the design
decisions, and were also progressively revised and reshaped after feedback
from external reviewers. This methodological approach does not fit neatly
into any qualitative research paradigm. Rather, as the authors in this volume
argue, the distinction between comparative studies that seek general theories
and qualitative studies that argue for "cases" has become somewhat obsolete
and needs to be seriously reconsidered. The debate over "variable-oriented"
versus "case-oriented", or Big-N (big sample size) versus Small-N (small
sample size), research is not new. Teune (1997) points out that this debate
surfaced in anthropology in the 1940s as "emics" and "etics"; in sociology and
political science in the 1960s as area and comparative studies; as historical
sociology in the 1970s; and as case studies in the 1980s. Similar debates have
occurred in psychology. Greenfield (1997), for example, contrasts "cultural
psychology" (in which insiders' views of phenomena influencing adolescents'
development are sought using methods chosen for their meaningfulness within
a country rather than for straightforward cross-cultural similarity) with the
approach of "cross-cultural psychology" (in which the outsiders' views predom-
inate to make comparisons using a common set of instruments).
Within the long history of heated debate over area studies versus compara-
tive studies, qualitative versus quantitative studies, case-orientation versus
variable-orientation and cultural psychology versus cross-cultural psychology,
the IEA Civic Education Study is a milestone. It bridges two research paradigms
Introduction 9
commonly regarded as irreconcilable. Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study

is an exemplar of how researchers from two traditionally opposing research
traditions can remain in dialogue throughout a research process. The area studies
and content specialists kept the need for comparability in mind when preparing
their country case studies. The authors of this volume, in turn, committed
themselves to cross-national comparison without losing sight of the "thick
descriptions" provided by the aforementioned specialists.
THE COUNTRY CASE STUDY DATA

The term "country case studies" is used throughout this volume. The authors
have drawn their data either from short versions of country case studies
(published as chapters in Tomey-Purta et al., 1999), the full but incompletely
analyzed versions (posted on the worldwide web), or a combination of
both (short versions and full versions). The full versions of the case studies
posted on the restricted-access Web site allowed the authors conducting the
cross-national analyses of these studies to access the data from locations
anywhere in the world. The database for each case study included the following
six documents that were prepared by the 24 national research teams:
(1) The research proposal prepared by each national research coordinator to

specify the design and methods of the case study for his or her country.
(2) The review of the existing national research literature organized around 15
policy questions. National research teams consulted informants among
persons with responsibility for civic education, such as current or former
officials in ministries responsible for relevant subject matters, educational
policy-makers, political leaders, inspectors, curriculum development
officers, members of government commissions, representatives of teachers'
or students' organizations, leaders of youth organizations, and media
representatives.
Examples of policy questions: What is the status of citizenship educa-
tion as an explicit goal for schools? What are the priorities within formal
education programs that attempt to provide preparation for citizenship?
How are programs of civic education organized?
(3) Responses to the 18 original international framing questions. As a first
step, each country was asked to respond to 18 questions in terms of each
question's importance within the country; whether its topic had been
addressed in the official curriculum goals of the country; what sort of
public discussion or controversy (if any) there had been relating to
the topic of the question; what organizations had taken an interest in the
question; and what sources should be consulted. In short, the responses

dealt not just with conventional aspects of how officials have defined and
implemented civic education, but also with opposition movements, polit-
ical controversy, the role of civil society and aspects of civic education
that otherwise might tend to be overlooked or neglected.
Examples of the framing questions: What are young people expected or
likely to have learned by age 14 or 15 from study of the nation's history
or literature (or the arts) as a guide to understanding their country, their
government and the rights and obligations of citizenship? What are young
people expected or likely to have acquired as a sense of national identity
or national loyalty by age 14 or 15? What are 14 or 15 year-olds expected

or likely to have learned about relations between their country and other
countries?
(4) Responses to the three core domains. A comparison of the responses
from each national research team to the 18 original international framing
questions led to the emergence of three domains. The first relates to
how adolescents within each country are taught about the meaning of
democracy. The second has to do with how a sense of national identity
or national loyalty is transmitted, as well as the nature of relations with
other countries and supranational organizations. The third is concerned
with what adolescents learn about issues of social diversity and social
cohesion. There was a great deal of agreement among the national
research teams on the centrality of these issues to civic education across
countries. At the same time, there was an expectation that a great deal
of difference would be evident between countries in terms of how their
civic education dealt with these issues. Several participating countries
also identified other domains as central to civic education: economics,
local and national social issues, and the media:
Examples of core international framing questions for the domain
"democracy": Given that democracy is a central concept, what does it
mean in the national context and what are young people expected or likely
to learn about it by age 14 or 15? In particular, what is most emphasized
as inherent to or distinctive about democracy? In other words, what is of
most substantive or symbolic importance to democracy, and what are the
most salient perceived strengths and weaknesses of democracy with relation
to each of the following sub-domains: institutions and practices, rights of
citizenship, and obligations or responsibilities of citizenship.
(5) A case study summarizing the most important aspects of the collected
material (textbooks, curriculum objectives, policy documents, etc.) and
highlighting a pressing issue for civic education. These case studies also
Introduction 11
include reports on primary data collected in many countries especially

for this purpose and including material obtained from interviews with key
informants, from focus groups and from special questionnaire surveys.
(6) A report summarizing and reflecting on the methods used in the Phase 1
data collection and analysis.
Two central features of the data collection design deserve special mention.
First, the design of the case studies reflects the iterative process of data
collection. After each stage of data collection, the national research teams and
the international steering committee of the IEA Civic Education Study reflected
on emerging themes that appeared to be relevant to the various contexts. As a

result of this process, the participating researchers agreed to focus on the three
domains of civic education identified as central to each context: democracy,
national identity and diversity/social cohesion. This focus on three domains or
topics enhanced comparability. Second, the multi-level approach to collecting
data was maintained throughout each stage of data collection. In each iteration,
the national research teams identified multiple perspectives on a given domain
or topic (policy perspective; perspective of teachers, students, organizations,
administrators, etc.) and used multiple sources (interviews, analysis of policy
documents, textbook analysis, research literature, surveys, etc.). The Civic
Education Study researchers departed from the method of triangulation that
uses multiple sources of information, and which allows researchers to obtain
robust and reliable data by concentrating on the overlapping "sets" of infor-
mation that emerge from these different sources. They did not use their multiple
sources of information for purposes of data reduction, reliability or validity.
Rather, throughout the data collection process, they maintained a multi-level
approach to studying civic education and stressed divergent views on civic
education, thereby acknowledging that what should be taught in civic education
in a given context is contested.
ISSUES OF METHOD AND SUBSTANCE IN THE

CHAPTERS OF THIS V O L U M E
A lively debate exists among qualitative social scientists about the strengths
and weaknesses of "case-oriented" methodologies that are associated with
"small N, many variables" (Goldthorpe, 1997; Ragin, 1997; Tilly, 1997). How
representative can a small sample be? What is a case? Who speaks in a case:
the case study author or the informants? Qualitative researchers in comparative
education are not alone in having to deal with the issue of representation. They
share similar problems with colleagues in comparative (macro-)sociology,
comparative political science, comparative economics, and comparative history,

where the number of societies, political systems, economic systems or nation-
states in the world restricts the "universe of cases". Small sample size is only
part of the problem. Comparative qualitative researchers need to ask themselves
these questions: How can we understand other contexts? How do we know that
we understood other contexts? Who are we to interpret other contexts on behalf
of those from other contexts?
In terms of the IEA Civic Education Study, moreover, the authors of this
volume have had to deal not only with a massive amount of information
(variables), but also with a sample (N= 24) that is relatively large for a
qualitative multiple-case study analysis. It is therefore not surprising that

most of the authors (the exceptions being Lee Wing On, John Schwille and
Jo-Ann Amadeo) developed contextual sampling criteria that allowed them to
concentrate on a few cases only. Another common concern among the authors
was to reduce the information in ways that would retain the internal validity,
"texture" and "thick descriptions" of each case. Most authors reduced content
by focusing either on specific core domains of civic education (democracy,
national identity, or diversity/social cohesion) or levels of analysis (policy,
practice, curriculum). Another method for narrowing the radius of the analysis
was informed by reviewing the controversies surrounding theories of citizen-
ship and civic education. A few authors developed interpretive frameworks
based on such literature reviews. These frameworks have been fundamental for
anchoring cross-national comparison within particular concepts of citizenship,
which already are well documented by other scholars in the field. The purpose
of this type of cross-national analysis is to examine whether the cases match
the theoretical model. Finally, one author (Gerald LeTendre) engaged in a
meta-level methodological analysis, by reflecting on how the qualitative data
was collected and how that process differed from other studies in qualitative
research or comparative education.
What the authors of this volume found with regard to the development, nature
and status of civic education in various countries of the world is as intriguing
as how they found it. Accordingly, we will now briefly summarize and reflect
on a few of the methodological strategies that the authors of this volume
employed.
Lee Wing On works with the full body of case studies, that is, all 24 of
them, and with all three major content domains (democracy, national identity,
diversity and social cohesion) that each case study addresses. His study advances
a meta-qualitative approach to analyzing qualitative data cross-nationally,
in which he draws from quantitative measures to first identify patterns,
subsequently analyze these patterns contextually, and finally to generate
Introduction 13
theories. It is his integration of quantitative and qualitative methods as well as

empirical and theoretical analyses that makes Lee's contribution to this volume
quite remarkable.
More specifically, in the first step of his study, Lee identifies the key words
and key concepts that cut across all three domains and that therefore seem
to offer meaning on how citizenship and civic education are understood in
various contexts. His search for frequently mentioned key words and key
concepts allows him to map the semantic fields of citizenship. It is striking that
cross-national differences surfaced during the very first step of his content
analysis. For example, the use of concepts that denote a de-politicization
and de-ideologization of civic education is restricted to case studies from

post-socialist countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
As a second step, Lee examines each of the three domains separately and
identifies clusters of concepts associated with a particular domain. Focusing on
those 24 semantic fields that overlap, he empirically establishes a set of "external
dimensions", in comparative research referred to as a tertium comparationis,
against which each case can subsequently be compared. It is important
to bear in mind that the design of the IEA Civic Education Study has already
determined a set of "external dimensions" by asking national research teams
to respond to a set of specific questions. Lee draws from these pre-determined
sets of tertium comparationis and specifies them in more detail. An essential
aspect of Lee's accomplishment is his ability to fine-tune the underlying
common external dimensions for each domain empirically by conducting
a content analysis. For the domain "national identity", for example, he
finds for all 24 cases three clusters that consist of frequently mentioned
key concepts. The first cluster contains concepts that describe national identity
in terms of "self", "self-definition", "self-determination", "self-realization",
"self-perception" and "collective and individual identity". A second cluster of
concepts hints at the changing boundaries of national identity, in most instances
extending the territorial space associated with citizenship into a larger
geo-political unit, such as the European Community or the European Union.
Correspondingly, a new type of citizenship, denoted by "the European citizen",
is repeatedly discussed in country case studies from European countries.
A strong finding of Lee's content analysis, emerging in all domains and
described in various contexts, is the predominance of notions of supranational
citizenship and global citizenship, both of which clearly challenge conventional
notions of citizenship defined by the nation-state. It is on the basis of this strong
finding that Lee formulates his research question: How do civic education
curricula justify and incorporate the territorial extension of citizenship? Using a
sequence of methodological steps similar to that proposed in grounded theory
(see, for example, Strauss & Corbin, 1990), where data are reviewed in great
detail, with research questions and explanations gradually emerging as a result
of that review, Lee postulates that there exist, in particular, two supranational
developments that account for a territorial extension of citizenship concepts in
civic education curricula. On the one hand, civics-related curricula tend to
emphasize the need for recognition of universal human rights. On the other hand,
they need to adapt to the realities of a supranational or global market economy.
In his third step, Lee interprets what he found in the first and second steps,
thereby concluding the description-analysis-interpretation cycle that marks
any type of solid empirical inquiry. Thus, in his study, Lee starts out with
cross-national description by conducting a content analysis (step 1), then

moves on to a cross-national analysis by using grounded theory methods
(step 2), and concludes with interpretation by placing his descriptions and
analyses in a larger theoretical framework. Affirmed by his observation that
new, universalistic and economic notions of citizenship are emerging in
civics-related curricula, Lee reflects in the third step on the impact of the
"post-national model of membership" (Soysal, 1996, 1998) on citizenship
education. In contrast to the first and second methodological steps in which
he provided contextual meaning to his quantitative findings, he explores in
the final step the theoretical meaning of his findings. As a corollary, his study
concludes with a review of existing theories that are able to conceptualize his
empirical cross-national descriptions and analyses in a larger theoretical
context, that is, in an ongoing debate on changing notions of citizenship in
the social sciences.
Heinrich Mintrop's comparative study starts out with a poignant summary
of the two fundamental assumptions that guide cross-national curriculum studies
in the area of civic education:
First, across countries, definitions of what constitutes civic education diverge: boundaries
circumscribing the field of civic education are blurry, and the instructional arrangements
provided in schools for what gets defined as civic education vary widely by country, Second,
conditions, goals, methods and outcomes of civic education are highly sensitive to the macro-
political cultures of nations and the micro-political cultures of schools within those nations.
Keeping in mind these assumptions regarding the "fuzziness" of the research

topic and the vast cultural and institutional differences that exist across
and within countries, Mintrop compares teacher characteristics (preparation,
qualification and support of civic education teachers), student perceptions of
civic education, and curricular provisions for the teaching of civic education
in the following seven countries: Chinese Taipei, the Czech Republic, Finland,
Hungary, Hong Kong, Italy and the United States. His sampling criteria,
in taking account of geographical and cultural distribution as well as the
Introduction 15
completeness and quality of available data, gives the following sampling

outcome: four country case studies from Europe (two Central European and
two Western European countries), and two from Asia. For the Americas,
Mintrop restricts his analysis to the United States case study because other
available data sets did not sufficiently explore that particular field of study.
Mintrop's multi-level investigation, contrasting perspectives of teachers,
students and schools, reveals all kinds of contradictions and discrepancies that
are fundamental to understanding the complexity of civic education. For
example, although policy-makers in the seven case study countries strongly
believe in the importance of citizenship education, in all countries (except
Finland) the concept or curriculum of civic education is not clearly defined.

There is no canon, no "codified body of knowledge", constituting civic
education and no subject-specific preparation in teacher education. Mintrop
remarks that in most countries civic education teachers rely on "informal
personal knowledge, on-the-job craft knowledge, and life experience". If a
clearly defined intended curriculum for civic education exists at all, the gaps
between it and the implemented curriculum are likely to be substantial. How
students perceive the teaching of civic education in their classroom is quite
different from how teachers envision their own teaching. Mintrop sketches a
"modal civic education classroom" that captures the commonalities of civic
education teaching that he found across all seven cases:
In this [modal civic education] classroom, students are not all that interested in the content,
the teacher is not particularly well trained, and civic education as a subject, if at all distin-
guished from the subject of history, is of secondary concern for that teacher. The type of
knowledge dispensed is heavily weighted towards facts and the common every-day wisdom
of the ins~uctor. With the exception of a few activities, most notably mock elections, class
discussions and perhaps a rare simulation, the instructional format is teacher-centered. The
atmosphere in the class is on the dull side due to the students' lack of interest and the teacher's
uncertainty over the advisability of holding discussions on lively and controversial topics.
Referring to numerous examples, Mintrop illustrates that civic education is

culturally sensitive as well as "institutionally ill defined", lacking a clear
definition, curriculum and provision in schools. He also dismantles a powerful
myth related to qualitative data, namely that qualitative and exploratory methods
of data collection p e r se are culturally more sensitive and generate more
accurate descriptions of how insiders (that is, individuals who are familiar with
the context) view and define civic education. His study reminds us that the case
studies have been developed by experts and therefore provide an accurate
description of how e x p e r t s worldwide talk abut civic education but do not
necessarily represent actual school realities. As a corollary, it becomes method-
ologically indispensable to think in terms of multiple country contexts rather
than presuming a singular country context. Clearly identifying the authors and
informants of a case study is central to determining the communities or groups
to which a case study has been culturally sensitive. To some extent, of course,
the design of the IEA Civic Education Study attempted to "control" biases in
representation by requesting that each national research team appoint a panel
of experts that would represent divergent views on civic education. These expert
panels were in charge of reviewing the case study material and providing their
interpretation of the material. In addition, several national research teams
conducted interviews and surveys of students, teachers and other groups
that were closely involved in civic education in order to expand their base of
informants. Nevertheless, Mintrop's critical comment is valid. It helps us to

tackle the widespread belief among qualitative researchers that exploratory
methods are, by design, "closer to the people" and culturally more sensitive
than paper-and-pencil tests and surveys. These methods are only as culturally
sensitive as we design them to be.
Zsuzsa Mdtrai provides us with a fascinating account of how she resolved
the two fundamental methodological challenges of empirical research (including
qualitative empirical research), namely, how to reduce the number of cases and
how to reduce the number of variables in a responsible manner. Her intention
during this exercise was not to compromise on the strength of qualitative data,
but to preserve the "thick descriptions" (Geertz, 1983) of case studies that allow
the researcher to understand what is meant by civic education in a given context.
In terms of the first challenge, reducing the sample size from 24 to five cases,
M~trai takes several features of case study research into consideration. Because
she was charged with developing the Hungarian case study, she realized that
her access to contextual information would be unbalanced in that she knows
much more about the context of civic education in Hungary than in other
countries. When analyzing the data, she therefore keeps reminding herself that,
for her, some "descriptions" are "thicker" than others, and that she needs to
watch out for the methodological biases that result from differences between
self-reported data (the Hungarian case study) and other data.
M~itrai also has to contend with unequal weighting of information. In contrast
to researchers engaged in quantitative data collection, where questions and answer
categories are highly structured and therefore comparable, case study researchers
tend to elaborate in detail on issues that they find relevant for understanding their
specific context and only briefly reply to questions that they consider marginal.
It is an outstanding feature and strength of qualitative data collection methods
that informants, and not the outside researchers, prioritize content with regard to
(perceived) centrality. Unequal weighting of information of case study questions
is an issue for all authors in this volume, and has determined to various degrees
Introduction 17
their sampling procedures. In comparative social research, this particular problem

is referred to as homogeneity. As Berg-Schlosser (2002) points out, "[C]ases
must 'parallel each other sufficiently' and be comparable along certain specified
dimensions." Mfitrai resolves the homogeneity problem by selecting those cases
that deal with her research topic - national identity and civic education - not only
in the greatest detail but also in similar detail to one another.
Variance with regard to political context also informs Mfitrai's sample
selection. According to Przeworski's categorization (Przeworski & Teune, 1970;
Przeworski, 1987), M~itrai pursues the "most different" sampling design by
contrasting political systems that, in her view, are most different from one
another. Using as a basis the three sampling criteria summarized in this section
- access to information, sufficient and comparable weighting of information,
variance of context - Mfitrai selected the following cases: Germany, Greece,
Hong Kong, Hungary and Israel.
The second set of challenges delineating the focus of M~trai's analysis
is reduction of information or "reduction of variables". In line with the
practice of other authors in this volume (notably Kontogiannopoulou-
Polydorides and Steiner-Khamsi), she "externally validates" her frame of
reference by drawing from research literature in political science and
political sociology. Using her review of literature as a base, she develops
two sets of binary constructs, "political nation/cultural nation" and 'national
majority/national minorities", and then examines how the selected five cases
are situated in that particular conceptual space. She expects to find, and,
indeed, does find, that they vary considerably with regard to these two
dimensions of national identity.
John Schwille and Jo-Ann Amadeo start out by observing that civic education
is ubiquitous - potentially everywhere in schools - with students learning civic knowledge,
disposition and skills from various courses, extracurricular activities, hidden curricula, peers,
and relations between teachers and students more generally.
Keeping a policy perspective in mind, the authors conclude that any civic
education reform needs to involve multiple levels of interventions, such as
change in curricula, examinations, teaching methods, school organization,
school-community relations and so on. They identify five key policy areas where
comprehensive civic education reform is needed:
(1) civic education as a problem of curriculum development,
(2) civic education as a problem of pedagogy and student participation,
(3) civic education as a problem of school organization and student rights,
(4) civic education as a problem of school response to factors outside the school,
(5) civic education as a problem of systemic reform.
For each of these five policy areas, they identify clusters of cases that are similar
with regard to specific policy options. For example, the first policy area (civic
education as a problem of curriculum development) is divided into three
different policy options:
° The non-existence of civics as a separate subject (for example, Australia,
Bulgaria, England).
• Civics as a separate subject matter (for example, Cyprus, Romania, the
Netherlands).
° Civic education in other established school subjects such as history (for
example, Hungary, Lithuania), or in a combination of subject matters, most
typically, history, religion, language and literature, and geography (for

example, Greece).
It is important to point out here that the authors do not attempt to quantify the
various policy solutions by counting how many cases fall into which category,
but are instead interested in fleshing out the context of each policy solution.
Their point is to explain, not to count the frequency of occurrences. This choice
makes perfect methodological sense because the sample of 24 country case
studies is by no means representative of political, educational or social systems
across the world. Rather, the authors explain why in one context a policy
solution is selected over another. As pointed out by scholars in the social
sciences, such as Tilly (1984) and Ragin (1987; see also Ragin & Becker, 1992),
or in educational research (Merriam, 1988), the strength of case studies lies in
their explanatory power. In Tilly's words (1997, p. 50), case study researchers
need to construct "causal stories", that is, stories that are verifiable, "resting on
different chains of cause-effect relations, relations whose efficacy can be demon-
strated independently of those stories." Schwille and Amadeo's cross-national
"causal stories" (which, in turn, are based on many different "causal stories"
written down in country case studies) follow a common thread. They discuss
civic education in 22 countries with regard to its position in educational policy
and school practice.
In addition it is remarkable that Schwille and Amadeo operate with a
relatively large sample size - 22 of the 24 case studies. They explicitly do not opt
for "purposeful sampling", the sampling procedure applied by most of the other
authors in this volume in order to reduce the sample size. These other authors
tended to select their cases with regard to type of political system, stability of
political system ("new democracies" versus "old democracies"), or geographical
or cultural distribution. Instead, Schwille and Amadeo identify the emergent
themes from the case studies according to a policy framework, and they provide
examples of specific countries to illustrate different types of policy solutions.
Introduction 19
Schwille and Amadeo conclude that civic education in school is not only
ubiquitous, having yet to find "a secure and major place in the curriculum as
a formal subject-matter" and being treated marginally in other non-curricular
policy areas, but also elusive. They argue that unless civic education reform is
embedded in overall school reform, it is likely to remain both marginal and
ineffective.
The study of Georgia Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides stands out for its
non-traditional definition of "case" and her systematic application of an inter-
pretive framework.
She begins by selecting a fascinating sampling design that will be presented
in more detail in the next section of this chapter. She distinguishes between
three clusters of political systems - ex-communist countries, capitalist
countries with a politically active citizenry, and capitalist countries with a
politically apathetic or passive citizenry. In contrasting these divergent systems,
she expects to find vast differences or outcomes between them ("most different
systems and most different outcomes" design). She also establishes sub-groups
for each of the three clusters, assuming that variations will be evident within
clusters of political systems. The first cluster of ex-communist countries contains
case studies that relate to Bulgaria, Hungary and the eastern part of Germany;
the second cluster consists of Mediterranean countries with an established
history of western-type democracies and with a politically active citizenry. In
this second cluster the case studies of Greece, Italy and Portugal are subject to
scrutiny. A third cluster comprises case studies from countries that are regarded,
like the second cluster, as western-type democracies but (self-)reportedly deal
with a politically apathetic or passive citizenry. The case studies of the
Netherlands, the United States and Western Germany fall into this category of
political system. Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides' selection of cases for each
of the three clusters accords with the "most similar systems" design. It is
this mixed-design sampling procedure, "most different systems design" for
establishing three heterogeneous clusters and "most similar systems design"
for establishing a homogeneous group within each cluster, that makes her study
particularly complex and interesting.
Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides' second step is to expand the conceptual
framework of the IEA Civic Education Study. After reviewing the case study
material, she finds, as does Lee and also Steiner-Khamsi, that a concentration
on three major domains (democracy, national identity, diversity/social cohesion)
is too narrow. It is noteworthy that Lee, Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides and
Steiner-Khamsi independently found that case study authors frequently refer to
the economy when describing citizenship concepts and civic education in their
country. In addition, Lee and Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides found a clear
indication that supranational identity (European citizenship) is considered a

major challenge in the civic education curricula of European case studies.
As her third step, Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides provides theoretical
explanations for the need to engage in multi-level qualitative analysis. She
focuses on two levels of analysis, which constitute two different educative
sites for political education. The first level is school, more precisely, civic
education curriculum, and the second level is students' everyday political
experience outside of schools. Her study traces discrepancies between these two
levels, identifying contradictions, "silences" and discrepancies between what
is taught to students in civic education with regard to four selected topics
(democracy, citizenship, disenfranchised minorities, free-market economy) and

what they experience with regard to these four areas of political life outside of
schools, in concert with other scholars who contend that citizenship education
in schools is sometimes irrational, the author explores how schools legitimize
teaching practices that are socially disruptive and contradict other principles,
such as social cohesion, diversity and democracy, that are taught in schools.
Steiner-Khamsi applies a hypothesis-driven design. Determined not to codify
or quantify the rich qualitative data, nor to use the cases studies merely as
anecdotal evidence to make a case, she first elaborates a theoretical model. The
model draws from theories of citizenship in political science, sociology
and political philosophy. In reference to Hannah Arendt's (1958) spherical
conception of citizenship, she labels that model "spheres of citizenship." By
modifying and extending Arendt's model to suit the international framework of
the IEA Civic Education Study, Steiner-Khamsi produces a hypothetical model
that distinguishes four different spheres of citizenship (constitutional, economic,
civic and moral) that political systems pursue with differing degrees of emphasis.
She tests her model against the data from the IEA Civic Education Study.
Steiner-Khamsi selects those cases that appear to be prototypical for each of
the conceptions of citizenship and formulates the following three hypotheses.
First, educational programs in Asian countries manifest a strong commitment
to moral aspects of citizenship education. Steiner-Khamsi therefore expects
civic education in Hong Kong, the only complete case study from the Asian
region, to display a high commitment to moral aspects of citizenship. Second,
the United States is the country with a state ideology that most visibly promotes
anti-statism, more precisely, advocates an ideology of small government
administration and strong civic associations, and a global free-market economy.
She predicts that economic and civic aspects of citizenship education are more
stressed in the United States case than in other cases. Third, countries under-
going political transformation are more likely to emphasize constitutional
aspects of citizenship because they have recently established new constitutions
Introduction 21
and political systems. Here, Steiner-Khamsi includes the Romanian case as

representative of a country that has recently undergone political transformation.
She also considers the German case in more depth, because of its relatively
recent transformation process.
For Steiner-Khamsi, a case is more than merely a bounded system and more
than a unit of analysis. As such, her reduction of N from 24 to four was guided
by the question of which country case studies would allow her to make a case
for a particular spherical model of citizenship. In accordance with Walton's
contention that "[c]ases come wrapped in theories", functioning as hypotheses
that "embody causal processes operating in a microcosm" (1992, p. 122), she
attempts to read and understand the theory (chain of causal relations) of each
of the four cases, that is, the theories of how concepts of citizenship are related
to civic education curricula. In her design, the four selected cases stand
for different political systems that weigh the major indicators of citizenship
(constitutional, economic, civic and moral) to various degrees. As a corollary,
her selected cases are prototypes or ideal typical cases of different citizenship
conceptions.
Her predictions failed. The theoretical model was not able to nest the data
from the IEA Civic Education Study. She concludes that:
Civic education curricula in Hong Kong are not particularly moralistic, German and
Romanian curricula emphasize constitutional aspects no more than other countries, and civic
education programs in the United States do not place a particularly high priority on teaching
about the economy nor do they engage students in civic actions. Moreover, in all four
examined case studies, the political and economic spheres are inextricably linked.
Her unexpected finding of the discrepancy between theories of citizenship and
practices of civic education in various contexts calls for further investigation. She
finds more similarities than differences than a spherical model of citizenship or,
for that matter, any other multidimensional model of civic education would have
predicted. What is needed, says Steiner-Khamsi, is a different theoretical model,
one that is based on a multi-level qualitative analysis and that considers the
complexity of civic education. The study of civic education is complex because
civic literacy spans different educational sites, operates at different policy levels
(talk, action, implementation) and crosses national boundaries.
David Kerr explores the nature and status of citizenship education develop-
ments in nine countries by using three different sources of information. He
triangulates nine case studies from the IEA Civic Education Study with data
from expert reviews as well as data from the I N C A Archive. The a r c h i v e
comprises a description of the educational aims, structure and organization, and
curriculum and assessment framework in each country that was involved in the
International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks (IRCAF)
Project. All three data sources - the lEA Civic Education Study, the IRCAF
Project, and the expert reviews - were collected in the same time period, the
mid to late 1990s. The author selects all the country case studies from the lEA
Civic Education Study that overlap with cases from the other two comparative
studies. The countries are Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Hungary, Italy,
the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United States. Drawing from three different
sources of data, Kerr is able to identify similarities and differences with regard
to the nature and status of citizenship education in these countries.
The author anchors his cross-national analysis in three sets of conceptual
frameworks. The first acknowledges a "continuum of citizenship" (McLaughlin,
1992), with conceptions of civic education being placed at one end (minimal
conception) of the continuum and conceptions of citizenship education at the
other (maximal conception). His second frame of reference, which he
constructed on the basis of peer review, distinguishes between education about
citizenship, education through citizenship and education for citizenship. Finally,
he distinguishes between citizenship education that is "values-explicit" as
opposed to "values-neutral", a distinction that is part of a broader debate about
the balance between the "public" and "private" dimensions of citizenship,
leading to what the educational philosopher McLauglin (1992) has termed
"thick" and "thin" citizenship education.
In keeping with the other authors in this volume who pursue a policy perspec-
tive, notably Lee, Mintrop and Schwille and Amadeo, Kerr focuses on key aspects
of citizenship education in a larger school reform perspective. Using a multi-level
qualitative approach, he applies his three sets of conceptual frameworks to each of
the following layers of civic education: curriculum aims, organization and
structure; teaching and learning approaches; teacher specialization and teacher
training; and use of textbooks and other resources.
His triangulation of civics-related information reveals a strong congruence
among the three different data sources and many similarities across the nine
country contexts. In all nine countries, there is, for example, a move away from a
narrow, knowledge-based approach to citizenship education, to a broader
approach encompassing knowledge and understanding, active experiences and the
development of students' values, dispositions, skills and aptitudes. Also, there is
agreement among experts from all the selected countries on the centrality of the
teacher, who, in most countries is ill prepared for teaching civics-related subjects.
Gerald LeTendre's piece on "cross-national studies and the analysis of
comparative qualitative research" differs markedly from the other chapters in
this volume in that it focuses exclusively on methodological aspects of the IEA
Civic Education Study. What we gain from his study is an intriguing reflection
on the process of data collection and an insightful dialogue between quantita-
Introduction 23
tively oriented comparativists and qualitative researchers. Having been closely

involved in both the TIMSS (Third International Mathematics and Science
Study) Case Study Project and the Civic Education Study (Phase 1) of IEA,
LeTendre observes that these kinds of qualitatively oriented study mark a new
era in large-scale country comparison, an era in which the importance of consid-
ering culture in cross-national analyses has re-emerged.
Before TIMSS and before the Civic Education Study of IEA, the camps of
comparativists (since the 1960s those who are, by self-definition, mostly
quantitatively oriented) and qualitative researchers seemed far removed from
each other. Whenever the case study format was used in large-scale comparative
studies, it was done so in order to obtain a "typical" or "average" picture of a

given topic that would ensure that the subsequently developed standardized test
would be sensitive to national differences. In most instances, this first phase
was exclusively regarded as a preparatory measure for the "real phase", the
second phase, of comparative studies. It helped to legitimize the development
of international survey instruments. Usually, little attention was paid to analyzing
country case studies cross-nationally. Country case studies were considered.
non-comparable and non-interpretable from a strict quantitatively oriented
perspective. Qualitative researchers, in turn, had their own good reasons for
staying away from comparativists and borrowing from other disciplines. As
LeTendre points out,
qualitative studies that have a comparative or international orientation have been more influ-
enced by studies from the anthropology of education or studies in psychological anthropology
than by articles in Comparative Education Review or Compare.
Although comparative education in its early days, at the turn of the last century,
was associated with historiography, when predominantly area study experts
conducted qualitative case studies, the field of comparative education subse-
quently distanced itself from its qualitative past. The "quantitative tuna" in
comparative education (Paulston, 1993, p. 104), which was triggered four
decades ago by psychologists, sociologists, political scientists and economists
joining and soon numerically dominating and shaping the paradigms of the field,
left comparative education with a void with regard to qualitative approaches
to comparative education. By the early 1990s, the situation had changed
considerably. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA), by many scholars regarded as an institutional fortress of
quantitative comparative research, started to include case study format, and not
only in preparation for and prior to the "real, quantitative" phase. TIMSS, for
example, developed not only tests and surveys but also videos and qualitative
components amalgamating "comparative methods" and "qualitative methods."
The lEA Civic Education Study, in turn, has used ethnographic case studies
that are focused in terms of guiding research questions. Similar in nature to
traditional ethnographies of schooling or education that tend to focus on specific
schools or communities, the "mini-ethnographies" provided in the country case
studies explore conflicting viewpoints and alternative interpretations in a
bounded system. LeTendre provides a detailed historical account of how
the lEA Civic Education Study has ensured the maintenance of conflicting
viewpoints and alternative interpretations throughout the different stages of the
data collection and data analysis process.
The appearance of works by such researchers as Crossley and Vulliamy
(1997), Paulston (1996) and Arnove and Torres (1999) indicate the growing
interest in the use of qualitative methods as well as theoretical foundations in
comparative education.
SMALL N, GREAT CHALLENGES
We now turn to the question of how the authors of this volume addressed the
challenges of qualitative cross-national analysis. In particular, how did they deal
with the relatively large (in qualitative terms) sample of 24 country cases, the
massive amount of data collected for each case, and the general problem of
comparability of data?
Comparability
The issue of comparability is not restricted to qualitative comparative research.

In fact, many would agree that nothing per se is comparable. Unless the
researcher identifies a commonality, or more accurately constructs a specific
dimension against which two or more cases can be compared, comparison is
ruled out (apple and oranges can only be compared if there is an agreement on
the construct "fruit"). Given that the Civic Education Study was conceived as
an international comparative study, the issue of comparability among the case
studies has been continuously addressed, from the study's beginning in 1993
to its end in 2001.
Throughout the lEA Civic Education Study, the community of participating
researchers has engaged in ongoing dialogue and reached (social) agreements on
how to conceptualize civic education or citizenship education. As mentioned
before, there was early consensus that an international study of civic education
needed to stay away from any one singular model of democracy, citizenship
or civic education, which meant that none of the participating researchers
could promote American, European, Chinese or other context-specific criteria of
Introduction 25
comparison. Rather, the 24 national research teams and the international steering
committee agreed on a set of questions (framing questions, core domains, policy
issues) to address in each case study. Thus, what they succeeded in achieving
was the establishment of a set of tertium comparationis, that is, a set of specific
dimensions (for example, policy issues, levels of analysis) and constructs
(democracy, national identity, and so on) that are context-sensitive and allow for
comparison (see, for example, Hilker, 1964, p. 225). It cannot be overstated how
important it was to discuss and sometimes argue at length about differences in
the meaning of such concepts as "democracy", "minority", "national identity",
"human rights" and the many other politically and socially highly charged terms
that are indispensable for describing civic education. There was a considerable
amount of perseverance in discussing and reflecting on a set of tertium
comparationis that would be relevant and applicable across contexts.
Moreover, although the participants and informants for this study were
encouraged to propose and discuss multiple, competing concepts of democracy,
it is important to note that the study was done by a more or less self-selected
group of countries, research institutions and researchers, all of whom brought
to the study their own beliefs about what democracy does and does not
entail. The participants turned out to have a shared operational definition of
democracy as requiring in some measure certain individual and group political
rights, certain mechanisms for holding political 61ites accountable to a broader
citizenry, and certain assumptions about what practices do and do not conform
to the rule of law. In essence, researchers in this study did not proceed to design
the study in a manner that would accept as valid the concept of democracy as
"dictatorship of the proletariat" as institutionalized in the Leninist, Stalinist and
post-Stalinist Soviet Union and other formerly communist countries. (In
contrast, the participants did disagree over the extent to which democracy also
involves social welfare rights for individuals or groups.) This agreement on
some form of representative democracy as imperfectly institutionalized in the
participating countries and as conceptualized by political scientists was further
reinforced by a methodological consideration. It would have been ethically and
practically impossible to conduct either the qualitative or the quantitative phase
of the study in the countries where it is impossible to ensure a certain minimal
freedom of expression to respondents and informants when their views are
contrary to those of ruling 61ites and other dominant groups.
Selection of Cases
Except for Lee and Schwille and Amadeo, all other authors in this volume
focus on a few selected cases for which they clearly state their sampling criteria.
When reviewing their sampling procedures, it becomes obvious that their defi-
nition of "what is a case?" (see Ragin & Becker, 1992) varies substantially.
Several authors (Lee, Schwille & Amadeo, Mintrop, Kerr) utilize the country
case studies as units of analysis for cross-national comparison, whereas others
(Steiner-Khamsi, M~trai) regard the country case studies as bounded systems
that represent different models of citizenship or civic education. As a result,
the latter group of authors uses the "causal web" (Tilly, 1997, p. 49) of a case
study "to make a case" for or against particular theoretical models of citizen-
ship or civic education.
What is also remarkable is that most authors use sampling criteria that clearly
reflect the design of contrastive analysis (Berg-Schlosser, 2002). The cases they
select are those that they perceive to be "most different" from each other with
regard to political system, educational system, or other criteria. However, most
qualitative cross-national researchers tend to choose studies of "concomitant
variation", thus selecting systems or cases that they perceive to be similar. The
"most similar systems" design, elaborated in more detail by Przeworski and Teune
(1970, p. 32 ff.), would have led to naming only those "most similar systems" that
were numerically well represented in the lEA Civic Education Study, such as
the post-communist countries or Western European cases. The purpose of the
"most similar systems" design is to explain different outcomes in systems that
are otherwise similar. In other words, it is easier to posit the effects of particu-
lar independent variables in a "most similar systems" cross-national analysis
design where the contexts are similar except for the variable(s) in question.
Nevertheless, all authors of this volume opt for the "most different systems"
design; a design resulting perhaps from a temptation to make use of the
international scope of the IEA Civic Education Study, which generated case
studies from all continents except Africa. Berg-Schlosser (2002) provides a
useful overview of comparative qualitative research designs. The 2 x 2 matrix,
presented in Fig. 2, distinguishes between similarity of systems (cases) and
predictions with regard to outcomes (variables).
All of the authors in this volume who reduced the sample of cases
(Mintrop, Mfitrai, Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Steiner-Khamsi) apply
a contrastive method based on the "most different systems and different
Most similar systems + similar outcomes Most different systems+ similar outcomes
Most similar systems+ different outcomes Most different systems+ different outcomes
Fig. 2. Sampling Design in Research Using the Case Sudy Format.

Introduction 27
outcomes" design. Steiner-Khamsi, for example, selects the Hong Kong,

Romanian and United States cases because they appeared to differ, as based
on a prior literature review, with regard to their conceptions of citizenship.
Furthermore, she expects to find different outcomes with regard to civic
education curricula.
Two of the authors (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Mintrop) utilize a
fascinating mixed-sampling design. Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides selects
a two-step approach to reducing the sample size and the number of
variables. In a first step, she distinguishes between political systems that are
most different: ex-communist countries, capitalist countries with a politically
active citizenry, and capitalist countries with a politically apathetic or passive

citizenry. She expects to find vast differences or outcomes between these
groups of countries. This first procedure of her sampling design reflects the
"most different cases with different outcomes" design (MDDO). In addition,
she establishes sub-groups for each of the three clusters on the assumption
that variations exist within clusters of political systems. Thus, the second
sampling procedure is one of "most similar cases with different outcomes"
(MSDO). The result of her two-step sampling procedure is as follows:
• C l u s t e r 1: Ex-communist countries: Bulgaria, Hungary and the eastern part

of Germany.
. C l u s t e r 2: Western-type democracies with a politically active citizenry:
Greece, Italy and Portugal.
• C l u s t e r 3: Western-type democracies with a politically apathetic or passive
citizenry: the western part of Germany, the Netherlands and the United States.
One could assert that the second procedural step is unnecessary and risks
encountering problems of "over-determination" because it is assumed that
each case that has already been selected in the first step is, per definition of
"case", representative of other cases in the same group. It is common to
assume that different cases within a larger political system, for example, ex-
communist countries, are methodologically homogeneous, that is, constitute
"most similar cases with similar outcomes" (MSSO). Kontagiannopoulou-
Polydorides, however, rejects from the outset that assumption of homogeneity
or essentialism and makes a case for examining within-system or intra-system
variations as well. Because of her specific definition of case as a unit of
analysis rather than in terms of the methodological sense, where a case is
regarded as representative of other similar contexts, her cross-national
analysis is, by necessity, much more extensive and longer than the other
studies presented in this volume.
Also deserving of particular mention here is that Mintrop, for different

reasons, applies a similar sampling design that generates double-occupancy
for three of the four "cases" or contexts. For him, the "cases" (in the sense
of case study methodology) are "clusters" of one or two country case studies.
Thus, the country case studies are not "cases" but rather units of analysis.
He selects four clusters of countries based on geographical and cultural
distribution as well as the completeness and quality of data: two Asian
case studies, two Eastern European case studies, two Western European case
studies, and one American case study. Except for the Americas, in which he
had to restrict himself to the United States case study because of insufficient
data from the other case study from the region, he selects two case studies
for each context ("case"), thereby following a MDSO ("most different cases
and most similar outcomes") design. Unlike Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides,
however, Mintrop pursues the double-occupancy for the Asian, Eastern
European and Western European "cases" for purposes of reliability and
robustness of his interpretations.
Multi-level Qualitative Analysis
Civic education lends itself to multi-level qualitative analysis because it is a

ubiquitous, multi-layered concept that cuts across different subject matters, is
located in both formal and non-formal education, and is offered within formal
education in curricular and extra-curricular programs. Furthermore, it is defined
by many stakeholders (governmental organizations, political organizations,
social movements, non-governmental organizations, churches, businesses), who
continuously contest one another's views on what constitutes good citizenship
and valuable civic knowledge, and on which civic-related knowledge, skills and
attitudes should be taught in schools. The Octagon Model (Fig. 1) illustrates
this multi-level nature of civic education.
In analyzing different layers or levels of civic education, the authors of
this volume expected to find either "conflicting viewpoints and alternative
interpretations" among the various actors of civic education (see, for example,
LeTendre, Mintrop, Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides), or different weight and
status attributed to civic education at the various levels of an educational system
(see, for example, Schwille & Amadeo, Kerr). We would like to highlight Kerr's
cross-national analysis as an example of multi-level qualitative analysis. Kerr
first applies three sets of interpretive frameworks to analyze four layers of civic
education policy, and then applies this analysis to nine different contexts or
countries ("cases"). The three sets of interpretive frameworks, as based on his
review of literature, comprise the following.
Introduction 29
Interpretative framework:
(A) Continuum of citizenship: From minimal conception (civic education) to
maximal conception (citizenship education).
(B) Education about citizenship, education through citizenship, and education
for citizenship.
(C) Values-explicit versus values-neutral citizenship.
In the terminology of comparative studies, we refer to the three sets of inter-
pretative frameworks as three sets of tertium comparationis than enable Kerr
to compare different contexts/cases.
Layers of civic education policy: Kerr uses these three interpretive frame-
works as a lens through which to examine the following four layers of civic
education policy:
(1) Curriculum aims, organization and structure.
(2) Teaching and learning approaches.
(3) Teacher specialization and teacher training.
(4) Use of textbooks and other resources.
Context~cases: The third dimension relates to the nine contexts (cases):
Australia, Canada, England, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and the United States.
Ken"s design can best be illustrated with reference to Bray and Thomas's
(1995) three-dimensional graphical presentation of a multi-level analysis design
(see Fig. 3). Figure 4 displays Kerr's triangulation method, which allows him
to apply, the same multi-level analysis design (see the cube in the figure) for
the three different sources of data. In his text, Kerr analyses and discusses
congruence and incongruence between his three multi-level data analyses.
TOWARD AN INITIAL INTEGRATION OF THE

TWO PHASES
Now that data have been collected and published for both phases of the IEA
Civic Education Study - the qualitative first phase and quantitative second phase
- it is possible to move toward a synthesis that will show more precisely how
the two phases complement each other. The qualitative phase proved essential
for developing international survey instruments for Phase 2. In addition, without
denying that the first phase stands on its own, study researchers have also
intended that it should provide a context in which to situate and explain further
the findings of the second phase. The second phase, in turn, permits a more
precise assessment of the extent to which certain findings of the first phase can
Case 1' Australia

Case 2: Canada
Case 3: England
Case 4: Germany
Case 5: Hungary
Case 6: Italy
Case 7: Netherlands
Case 8: Switzerland
Case 9: USA
Fig. 3. Kerr's Multi-level Qualitative Analysis.
be generalized to the countries in question and, in particular, to the national

samples of their students and teachers. In many cases this comparison will
enable researchers to quantify variation among countries that is evident but not
precisely measured in Phase 1. As Mintrop points out in this volume, despite
efforts to examine all major competing points of view in the case studies, these
studies still largely represent the views of chosen experts in civic education. In
certain cases, it is not clear that experts representing opposition movements
were as well represented in the expert panels and the findings of the studies as
was desired. For all these reasons, it is important to examine the Phase 2
analyses (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
One example that can be mentioned is gender. Gender receives little mention
in the case studies. As is usual in such cases, lack of mention raises the
question of whether researchers ignored the issue or whether that issue turned
out to be less important than might have been expected. Two points favor the
latter conclusion. One is that relationship of gender to civic education was the
focus of one of the original 18 framing questions that all countries had to
address initially in their first case study responses. But more convincing is the
©
C¢3
Introduction
z~
<
e.
"4
¢m
CY
~o
31
fact that in the Phase 2 data, gender differences are few and generally modest
in size (for example, in the civic knowledge scores).
To provide another example of the relation between Phase 1 and 2 findings,
one can use Phase 2 data on the extent to which teachers and students agree
that patriotism and national loyalty are learned in school. Written before the
Phase 2 data were available, Schwille and Amadeo's chapter in this volume
emphasizes variation among countries with respect to the school's role in
national identity formation. The authors reported:
Responses to questions about national identity among case study countries are extremely
varied and reflect a myriad of national needs, concerns and issues (both historical and
contemporary). They range from viewing the promotionof national identity as a key aspect
of civic education to seeing it as something to be cautiously treated or even avoided in
school. At the extreme, national identity has become a problematical, even negativeconcept.
In that chapter, Germany and Italy are cited as examples of the avoidance
tendency, and in Switzerland the experts consulted for the case study ques-
tioned and opposed use of the term "national identity" altogether.
The Phase 2 data clearly reflect a similar variation in views concerning
national identity. In 14 countries a very high percentage of weighted teacher
responses agree that students learn patriotism and national loyalty in school.
Forty-eight percent or more of students in each of these countries also agree.
But in five countries less than half the weighted teacher responses and less than
half of the students agree with this item. These countries include Germany and
Switzerland. In Italy the situation was mixed, with students tending to agree
with and teachers to disagree with this item.
A similar comparison with a more nuanced conclusion can be made for a
central finding of Phase 1, namely, that the experts and stakeholders interviewed
largely agreed that civic education should go beyond knowledge acquisition to
a participatory and experiential learning of democracy that emphasizes critical
thinking by an active citizenry. In Phase 2 data collected from teachers and
students there is also much support for this point of view. However, Phase 2
data also show considerable support for more traditional aspects of civic educa-
tion. In fact, on the basis of the first Phase 2 analyses, this latter tendency
appears somewhat stronger than one might have predicted from the qualitative
case studies. The traditional aspects of civic education that are salient in Phase
2 include the following:
• the already mentioned belief in most of the countries that patriotism and
national loyalty are learned in school;
• the strong curriculum emphasis on the centrality of national history to the
teaching of civic education;
Introduction 33
• the fact that the courts and the police are, across countries, the most trusted
government-related institutions; and
• substantial support in many countries for serving in the military and working
hard as attributes of citizenship.
This discrepancy is not surprising given the role of experts in Phase 1 to try
to move the field toward the more participatory and experiential approach.
Again, this role was somewhat more predominant than would have been the
case if all major competing points of view had been adequately represented in
each of the cases.
Much more needs to be done to provide a more adequate synthesis of Phases
1 and 2. The point here is that the cross-national analyses of Phase 1 reported
in this volume contain insights, make claims, offer hypotheses and raise ques-
tions that, if considered in the further analysis of Phase 2, will greatly enrich
the analyses and the impact of the study as a whole.
THE INTERPLAY OF CONSTRUCTS AND DATA:

TOWARD THEORIES O F C I V I C EDUCATION
Ragin's assertion that "[s]everal basic featttres of the comparative approach make
it a good strategy for advancing theory" (1994, p. 111) might be related to two
kinds of experiences that several of the authors had when preparing their analysis.
First, most of the authors found it indispensable to identify an interpretive
framework for anchoring their cross-national analyses. They depended on
a framework, in most cases developed from a review of literature in political
science, sociology or political philosophy, that allowed them to focus on particular
aspects or "chains of causality" contained in the various cases. Without a theoret-
ical foundation, they would have drowned in an ocean of data, descriptions or
"variables." It appears that qualitative comparative research forces us to explicitly
state the interpretive framework from which we are operating.
Second, in qualitative cross-national analysis, there is room for dealing with
surprises, that is, unexpected findings that can subsequently be used to re-frame
a research question. In short, the case study material "talked back." As
mentioned in the previous section, while reviewing the qualitative database,
three of the authors (Lee, Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides and Steiner-Khamsi),
for example, found the original conceptual framework of the IEA Civic
Education Study too narrow. On the basis of their independently conducted case
study analyses, they suggested extending the original conceptual framework by
including economic and supranational aspects of citizenship. They noticed that
although the case studies were supposed to "speak" exclusively to the three
specific domains of citizenship (democracy, national identity, diversity/social

cohesion) previously identified (in international meetings with all national
research teams) as relevant for all country contexts, many case studies "talked
back". The case studies also addressed other topics and domains that were not
among the three major domains of the framing questions of the study. For
example, most case studies stressed the economic dimension of civic education
curricula (free market economy, unemployment/fight to work, global economy,
external trade, and the like). In addition, the European cases reflected the
relatively recent debate about new, supranational models of citizenship such as
"European citizenship". Thus, although these two domains did not fit the original
conceptual framework of the IEA Civic Education Study, they were brought
into focus when qualitative data from the case studies were reviewed.
In many regards, qualitative researchers experience the same methodological
challenges of cross-national data analysis that quantitative researchers in
comparative education experience. Both need to deal, to various degrees, with
problems of sampling, reducing data, validity and reliability, to list but a
few of the most obvious tasks. However, there is one additional challenge that
qualitative comparative researchers face. When they analyze their case study
material cross-nationally, they must ensure that the "texture" of the case study
material is not harmed. The material needs a different treatment than, for
example, open-ended questions in a survey. Case studies are coherent stories,
wrapped in theory. They tell us something about causal relations in a bounded
system and are much more contextual than are all open-ended questions
combined in a survey. Not losing sight of contextuality, that is, not diluting
"thick descriptions" so that they become "thin descriptions", during the process
of comparison, appears to be a challenge that only qualitative comparative
researchers are privileged to have.
REFERENCES
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Amove, R. F., & Tortes, C. A. (Eds) (1999). Comparative Education: The Dialectic of the Global
and the Local. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Berg-Schlosser, D. (2002). Comparative studies: method and design. International Encyclopedia of
the Social and Behavioural Sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights
from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 472-490.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1988). Interacting systems in human development. In: N. Bolger, C. Caspi,
G. Downey & M. Moorehouse (Eds), Persons in Context: Developmental Processes
(pp. 25-49). Cambridge: Canabridge University Press.
Introduction 35
Conover, P., & Seating, D. (1994). Democracy, citizenship, and the study of political socializa-
tion. In: I. Budge & D. McKay (Eds), Developing Democracy. London: Sage Publications.
Crossley, M., & Vulliamy, G. (1997). Qualitative Educational Research in Developing Countries:
Current Perspectives. New York: Garland.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge. New York: Basic Books.
Goldthorpe, J. J. (1997). Current Issues in Comparative Macrosociology. Comparative Social
Research, 16, 1-26.
Greenfield, P. (1997). Culture as process: empirical methods for cultural psychology. In: J. Ben'y,
Y. Poortinga & J. Pandey (Eds), Handbook of Cross Cultural Psychology (Vol. 1,
pp. 301-346). Nedham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hilker, F. (1964). What Can the Comparative Method Contribute to Education? Comparative
Education Review, 7(3), 223-225.
Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and Civil Society: A Framework of Rights and Obligations in Liberal,
Traditional, and Social Democratic Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McLaughlin, T. H. (1992). Citizenship, Diversity and Education: A Philosophical Perspective.
Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235-246.
Merriam, S. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. (1990). New Methods for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis: Vignettes and Pre-
structured Cases. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 37-51.
Paulston, R. G. (1993). Mapping Discourse in Comparative Education Texts. Compare, 23(2),
101-114.
Paulston, R. G. (1996). Social Cartography: Mapping Ways of Seeing Social and Educational
Change. New York: Garland.
Przeworski, A. (1987). Methods of cross-national research. In: M. Dierkes, H. N. Weiler & A. B. Antal
(Eds), Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience (pp. 31-49). Aldershot:
Gower.
Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. (1970). The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York: Wiley.
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative
Strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: the Unity and Diversity of Method. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Ragin, C. C. (1997). Turning the Tables: How Case-Oriented Research Challenges Variable-Oriented
Research. Comparative Social Research, 16, 27-42.
Ragin, C., & Becket H. S. (Eds) (1992). What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social
Inquiry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinatra, G., Beck. I., & McKeown, M. (1992). A Longitudinal Characterization of Young Students'
Knowledge of their Country's Government. American Educational Research Journal, 29,
633-661.
Soysal, Y. N. (1996). Changing citizenship in Europe: remarks on postnational membership and
the nation state. In: D. Cesarani & M. Fulborok (Eds), Citizenship, Nationality, and
Migration in Europe (pp. 17-29). London: Rontledge.
Soysal, Y. N. (1998). Toward a postnational model of membership. In: G. Shafir (Ed.), The
Citizenship Debate (pp. 189-217). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures
and Techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Teune, H. (1997). Stories, Observations, Systems, Theories. Comparative Social Research, 16, 73-83.
Tilly, C. (1984). Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Tilly, C. (1997). Means and Ends of Comparison in Macrosociology. Comparative Social Research,
16, 43-53.
Torney-Purta, J. (1992). Civic education. In: M. Alkin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Research
(pp. 158-161). New York: Macmillan.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship and Education in
Twenty-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam:
IEA.
Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (Eds) (1999). Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: IEA.
Walton, J. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In: C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becket (Eds), What is a
Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 121-137). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
This article has been cited by:
1. Thomas Misco. 2011. Deontological Reconceptualization: A Study of Moral

Education in Beijing. Theory & Research in Social Education 39:4, 464-493.
[CrossRef]
2. Thomas Misco. 2010. Moving Beyond Fidelity Expectations: Rethinking
Curriculum Reform for Controversial Topics in Post-Communist Settings. Theory
& Research in Social Education 38:2, 182-216. [CrossRef]
3. Kjetil B⊘rhaug. 2008. Educating voters: political education in Norwegian upper‐
secondary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40:5, 579-600. [CrossRef]
2Q THE EMERGENCE OF NEW
CITIZENSHIP: LOOKING INTO THE
SELF A N D BEYOND THE NATION
Wing On Lee
INTRODUCTION
The I E A C i v i c Education Study, launched in 1995, was designed as a two-

phase study. The first phase adopted a qualitative study approach, which served
the role of obtaining contextual information on citizenship education in the
participating countries. The information obtained in the first phase was expected
to facilitate the development of survey instruments in the second phase of
the study. In the first phase of the study, all participating countries provided
background information on recent political, economic and social situations, the
education system, civic education curricula, and the obstacles and challenges
to civic education development, as well as the findings of textbook analyses
and interviews with various stakeholders. Information to be obtained in relation
to citizenship focused on three major domains of questions: democracy, national
identity, and social cohesion and diversity. A fourth domain covered three addi-
tional questions of which the country could choose one, that is, environmental
issues, mass media or economic mechanisms.
The first product of the first phase study was a collection of country reports
with an introductolN overview by the editors (Torney-Purta et al., 1999). Further
analyses of the country reports are being conducted, and this chapter represents

pages 37-60.
© 2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
37
38 WING ON LEE
one of those efforts. The major task of this chapter is to provide a cross-cutting
analysis of the major issues related to conceptions of citizenship contained in
the country reports.
A cross-cutting analysis is by nature a comparative education study. However,
this analysis is atypical of the conventional comparative education study, partic-
ularly of the IEA tradition, which is based upon a design whereby comparable
data are obtained under restrictive definitions and circumstances. This analysis
is also different from another major approach in comparative education in which
analysis focuses on education documents in different countries. The materials
for analysis in this current study are qualitative case reports provided by the
participating countries; the documents cited in the country reports are secondary,
being both selected and interpreted by the country representatives. This analysis
is thus a kind of case study, but unlike most comparative case studies, which
are confined to a few cases, this study involves 24 cases. Whether referring
to a restrictive comparative framework, a first analysis of documentation, or
a limited number of cases, conventional comparative studies are characterized
by the control of comparability of data. However, this present task involves a
cross-cutting analysis of case reports that are interpretive reports. In terms of
both the difficulty of controlling comparability of data and the large number
of cases involved, the nature of this analysis is therefore unique. To maintain
the characteristics of the country reports, I adopted a qualitative approach when
analyzing the qualitative reports.
To approach the analysis, I employed two groups of research assistants with
backgrounds in sociology and politics, to identify themes for further analysis.
I asked one group to identify keywords within the four domains of questions
and to group these according to the following categories: terminology used for
civic education; subjects for civic education; significance of these subjects;
central curriculum goals; textbooks; examinations; classroom activities; extra-
curricular activities in school; extra-curricular activities outside school; mass
media, teacher training; political parties; obstacles; and recent changes in civic
education. (The Civic Education Study's steering committee had developed
these categories during the study's early stage of collecting information under
a common framework.) I assigned the second group the task of conducting a
qualitative analysis of the reports according to the following topics: changes in
civic education in the last 10 years; democracy and civic rights; national iden-
tity, social cohesion and diversity; and obvious historical changes in countries
that relate to the change in civic education. The first group of assistants produced
a range of tables containing keywords, and the second group produced several
working papers that helped to identify the main thrusts of discussion within the
topics of analysis.
The Emergence of New Citizenship 39
The most striking finding, although not entirely unexpected, was the great
variety of subjects used for civic education. These include history, geography,
language and literature, social studies, religion, religion and ethics, ethics/
morality, personal and social education, social and political education, civic
culture, morality and civics, history and politics, history and civics, democracy,
peace and social life, homeland and society, human beings and society, society
and ethics, law and economics, economics and public affairs, and science/
environmental education. The finding highlights the diverse perceptions of civic
education. A further grouping and analysis of these subjects would doubtless
uncover an even greater richness of meaning attributed to civic education.
However, I was unable to do this analysis, mainly because the country reports
provided little detail of the subjects. A valid analysis would require access
to civic education syllabi and textbooks in the participating countries,
and would therefore go beyond the country reports. Several other themes with
potential for more in-depth analysis, such as teaching approaches, teaching and
learning activities, teacher training, and national identity, similarly were not
further developed, either because of a lack of detailed information in the reports
or because they are being dealt with by the other authors of this volume.
Having ruled out many of the possible topics for analysis, I began to look
into themes that could cut across the three major domains of questions. I did
this by looking at the keywords both in the tabulations and the working papers
produced by the research assistants, and by repeatedly reading through the
country reports. The search allowed me to identify themes or keywords that
seemed to have attracted little, if any, attention during the preliminary stage of
analysis. In respect to political background, such terms as "transitional period"
(Torney-Purta et al., 1999: see, for example, pp. 345, 512, 517, 519) and "new
democracies" (p. 551) become fundamental for understanding changes in
relation to the notions of citizenship and civic education.
In respect to the domain of democracy and human rights, I found many
expressions of discontent toward democracy, for example, "not to deal with
politics at school" (p. 519), "[lack of] trust in the institution of democracy"
(p. 350), "unfavorable life conditions" (p. 350), "limited dialogue" (p. 520),
and "weak participation" (p. 520). The term "depoliticization" occurs several
times in the country reports (for example, pp. 188, 201, 374), as do terms
associated with depoliticization, such as "deideologization" (pp. 201, 526).
In respect to the domain of national identity, I identified a cluster of terms
about self-definition of citizenship, for example, "sell" (p. 297), "self-definition"
(p. 351), "self-respect" (p. 534), "self-determination", "self-realization"
(pp. 518, 527), "self-perception" (p. 210), and "collective and individual
identity" (p. 143). Another cluster of terms and expressions pointed to notions
40 WING ON LEE
of citizenship beyond country boundaries: "European Union . . . emerges as a

locus of students' loyalty" (p. 492, cf. pp. 472-473, 353, 307), "European
Community" (p. 303), "European citizen" (p. 175), and "European and
Universalistic" (p. 406). A third cluster of terms denoted the notion of universal
citizenship: "universalistic values" (p. 383), "globalization and global citizen-
ship" (pp. 55,275), and "international cooperation" (p. 146). Several expressions
revealed particular expectations toward citizenship, such as "active citizenship"
(pp. 207, 39), "effective citizens" (p. 41), and "civic morality" (p. 207).
Within the domain of social cohesion and diversity, there were many mentions
of social and cultural diversities, for example, "pluralistic ideal" (p. 113),
"multicultural co-existence" (p. 573), "cultural diversity" (p. 573), multicultural

approaches (p. 540), and "multicultural education" (p. 585). Related to
multiculturalism were terms denoting concepts of ethnicity and ethnic identity,
such as "ethnic, regional and religious identities" (pp. 119, 426, 511), "multiple
identities" (p. 62), and "inclusive model of citizenship" (p. 46).
The above list of terms and clusters of terms is only mentioned here so
as to illustrate the approaches to and process of obtaining themes from the
qualitative reports, and is therefore not meant to be exhaustive. Examination of
the repeated occurrence of certain terms, as well as of the clusters of closely
related terms, suggested that the themes could be linked to the concept of
citizenship in one way or another. I consequently decided to conduct a content
analysis of the texts attached to those terms and, to this end, asked the research
team first to identify in all the country reports those texts that were attached
to the terms and then to analyze the meanings of the terms further. Whenever
the possibility arose of developing a better interpretation and articulation of the
meanings of the terms, the team further cut-and-pasted and re-grouped the texts.
The cross-cutting analysis revealed that many of the themes developed
challenged conventional notions of citizenship. My primary aim in this chapter
therefore is to attempt an exposition of the features of these new orientations
toward citizenship as manifest in the country reports. The chapter is organized
into seven parts.
The first part discusses self-definition in the development of definitions of
citizenship. It explicates the various emphases on the role of self in defining
citizenship under existing national boundaries as well as political ideologies and
political systems. The possibility that "self' plays a role in defining citizenship
leads to the need to look at universal definitions based on humanistic principles.
The second part of the discussion focuses on humanistic and universalistic
definitions of citizenship identity. Here, I suggest that when allowance is made
for the self to define citizenship, a new scenario emerges, whereby citizenship
comes to be understood from a universalistic perspective (one that allows
individuals to exert their rights). The exercise of individual rights, in turn, is

grounded in the increasingly significant principle of respect for humanity. This
principle can be regarded as the one that underpins the development of
definitions of citizenship. The focus in this section of the chapter on "the sell"
fi'om a personal perspective and "all selves" from a universalistic perspective
requires, of necessity, a re-examination of the relationship between the personal
self and the universal selves within the nations that accommodate those selves.
The third part of this chapter re-examines the relationship between culturalist
and particularistic definitions of citizenship identity. More specifically, this
examination looks at the extent to which nations, or nation-states, define
citizenship not only for the individuals but also the various cultural groups
within their polities. The discussion, in focusing on how nation-states deal
with plurality in defining citizenship identities, points to the necessity for
nation-states to open up boundaries wfien defining citizenship.
The fourth part of this chapter highlights a significant feature of the citizenship
discussions, that is, depoliticization and deideologization. By focusing upon
the rights of the individuals and cultural groups in citizenship education, both the
universalistic concerns and particularistic concerns of citizenship tend to transcend
politics and political ideologies. This part describes how citizenship discussions are
disassociated from political and political ideologies in various countries.
This opening up of boundaries is evident in the emergence of two notions:
supranational citizenship and global citizenship. It is these notions that I examine
in the fifth part of this chapter. The notion of supranational citizenship, which
I discuss in terms of the development of the European Union, is a significant
challenge to the conventional notion of citizenship defined in terms of the
nation-state. The notion of supranational citizenship has created the possibility
and need for certain European Union countries to recognize "citizenship" for
those immigrants from other European Union nations who are illegally residing
within their borders. While the notion of supranational citizenship extends the
boundaries of what nationality encompasses, the concept of universal citizenship
goes beyond national boundaries.
One might ask why nation-states are willing to accommodate an extended
definition of citizenship. One reason is humanistic. For example, the human-
istic and universalistic values that underpin such a definition call for recognition
of human rights. Another significant reason is economic. Many country reports
made this point in explaining why their countries wanted to join the European
Union. The sixth part of this chapter therefore focuses on the economic concerns
that underlie the extended definitions of citizenship.
In the last part of the chapter, I provide an overview of the various themes
emerging from the country reports that contribute to the development of
42 WING ON LEE
concepts of citizenship. I also place this conceptual overview under the spotlight
of recent literature so as to indicate how the notions of citizenship evident
within the former strengthen the new conceptions of citizenship evident within
the latter.
THE PLACE OF SELF-DEFINITION IN THE

DEVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTS OF CITIZENSHIP
It is apparent from the country reports that, when investigating concepts of

national identity and citizenship, the country representatives addressed this task
from the perspective of self-definition. The report from England, for example,
suggests that people within this country perceive their national identity more
in terms of a sense of Englishness than of being a citizen of that nation. Drawing
on the results of a comprehensive study of adults, the author of the English
report notes that "if citizenship meant anything it was defined in relation to
being a member of a community (local rather than national) and doing something
beneficial in that community" (Kerr, 1999, p. 210). In the report from Colombia,
individual personal identity is identified as a focus of social sciences education,
but it is also perceived within the wider and parallel context of collective
identity. There is thus a sense of national, regional and local belonging, as well
as an understanding that the nation is part of world interdependency. Colombia
seeks to make each student "the owner of a cultural, moral and historical heritage
that renders one respectable vis-gt-vis any other nationality" (Rueda, 1999,
pp. 145-146).
The Hungarian report points out that an overwhelming majority of young
people considers self-definition, not concrete issues of origin, as the distinctive
factor in being Hungarian. As confirmation of this phenomenon, the report's
author cites a survey that revealed that only 20% of the general populace regard
themselves as having strong nationalistic feelings. She then comments: "In terms
of the strength of national identity, belonging to the nation is of less importance
for Hungarians than is belonging to other affiliations" (Mfitrai, 1999, p. 354).
In the Romanian report, the authors point out the significance of individual
rights to national identity when they refer to a sub-chapter in one civics textbook.
Titled "The Individual and the Communities: The Right to Identity and
Difference", the sub-chapter introduces the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the "rights of individuals and groups to their identity, which, in
turn, implies "the recognition and acceptance of differences concerning beliefs,
convictions and values which they have." A chapter in another civics textbook,
called "The Loss of Personality", warns of the potentially destructive influence
of the group upon the individual (Bunescu et al., 1999, pp. 512-513).
The Russian report points out that in the civics textbooks produced since the
early 1990s, the issue of national identity is discussed in relation to a citizen's
personal life, the motives behind a person's social behavior, his or her rights
and freedom, and his or her feelings of self-respect and civil honor (Bogolubov
et al., 1999, p. 534). Whereas education in the past was regarded as hyper-
ideological, the new approach to education focuses more on attributes related
to personal development, including "altruism . . . and aspiration to see it [one's
context] as free, just, developed and civilized" (p. 526). There is certainly
a stress on national respectability (also seen in Colombia and several post-
communist countries), so that students will not be ashamed of themselves or
their country. However, civic culture in Russia today is discussed in terms of

the sphere of the private activity of citizens and a complex of non-State relations
(p. 541). Like the Hungarian report, the Russian report illustrates a wide
difference in self-definition in national identity. The report's authors note
that a study conducted in 1993 in 10 regions found that 6% of the respondents
identified themselves as "a soviet person", 58% as "a Russian citizen", 14%
as "a representative of one's nationality", and 31% said, "I don't know who I
am" (p. 533).
This type of wide variation in citizenship identity is also evident in the Hong
Kong report, especially in relation to the territory's political transition from a
British colony to a part of China. The Hong Kong report quotes the following
responses from students in focus group interviews conducted at the end of 1995:
"I am a Chinese." "I belong to China." "I am a Hong Kongnese." "I belong to
Britain." A similar response pattern was evident among the adult interviewees,
about one half of whom identified themselves as Chinese, and one-third of
whom identified themselves either as Hong Kongnese or Hong Kong Chinese
(Lee, 1999, p. 327).
There are certainly historical and political reasons as to why the respective
countries have such diverse self-definitions of citizenship. However, it is impor-
tant to note here that the authors of the country reports attended to individual
perceptions in their examination of national citizenship - of how individuals
define themselves within their own national collectivities or national boundaries.
With this perspective in mind, the discovery of wide differences within national
entities is not surprising.
H U M A N I S T I C AND UNIVERSALISTIC DEFINITIONS

OF CITIZENSHIP IDENTITY
The emphasis on self-definition in national and citizenship identity may stem

from recent emphases on individual human rights as a universal value. Because
44 WING ON LEE
of this, many of the discussions on national identity in the country reports are
closely linked to discussions on humanity or human identity, concepts which
form the basis of human rights. The emphasis on human identity and human
rights, in turn, has provided the basis of a humanistic emphasis and a univer-
salistic orientation in citizenship identify, thereby forming a perspective that
has allowed for self-definitions of citizenship.
These universalistic and national emphases do not, however, necessarily
converge easily with one another. As is pointed out in the Polish report, "a
number of people are wondering how much 'national' and how much 'universal'
there ought to be in the Polish educational system" (Janowski, 1999, p. 471).
Poland struggles to balance nationalistic and universatistic concerns in its civic

education, while Italy struggles to balance European and universalistic
emphases. In Italy, the teaching of civic education aims to detail understanding
of the "origins and developments of European culture" on the one hand
and "the discovery of literature as a representation of universal feelings and
situations" on the other (Losito, 1999, p. 406).
Whereas the reports from Poland and Italy identify struggles between univer-
salistic values and particularistic values in citizenship, other country reports
simply affirm the significance of universalistic values in citizenship education.
For example, Israel defines civic identity from a universalistic perspective, and
suggests that universalistic civic identity can be distinguished from the other
more particular forms of collectivist identity. The steering committee of
the IEA Civic Education Study in Israel has also suggested that the country
should give greater support to universalistic values in citizenship (Ichilov, 1999,
p. 383).
The Greek report contains a similar discussion but with a somewhat different
tone. Central to the discussion of national identity in Greece is the notion of
universal civilization, especially as it relates to the birth of democracy. National
identity is recognized as a right and an obligation of all humans. Moreover,
it is held that the understanding of national civilization has to be made
from the perspective of its contribution to the civilization of humanity. In
the main, "Greek civilization transcended Greek space/territory and became the
acquisition of all humanity . . . . All peoples take from humanity and give to
humanity" (Makriniotti & Solomon, 1999, p. 303).
Several country reports refer directly to the humanistic perspective of
citizenship. The Hungarian report cites a 1996 study conducted in the country
wherein "being part of the whole of humankind" was rated by the respondents
as more important than "belonging to the nation" (M~itrai, 1999, p. 354).
Likewise, the Romanian report points out that a feature of civic education reform
in the country, as stipulated by the Law of Education, is to educate young
people "by fostering respect for . . . human rights and freedoms, a sense of
dignity and tolerance, and free exchanges of opinion [and] . . . by cultivating
sensitivity to human problems, ethical-civic and religious values, and nature
and the environment (Articles 4 d, e)" (Bunescu, 1999, p. 508). The Czech
report notes that since 1989 civic education in the country has been organized
on new lines that include humanistic and social sciences elements and stress
helping students understand "humankind and morality" as well as "humankind
and human rights." This emphasis has built up the democratic teaching of a
subject called civics, developed as early as the 1920s (Vfilkov~i & Kalous, 1999,
pp. 185, 188, 191).
The Bulgarian report remarks that, nowadays, citizenship is perceived as

being related not only to the State but also to membership in a civic society
and to humankind as a whole. Hence, the objectives of civic education are to
develop respect for human rights and basic freedoms, master the roles of active
and positive citizenship, and develop respect for human dignity and values
(Balkansky et al., 1999, pp. 91, 101). The humanistic perspective of citizenship
evident in the Russian report is quite elaborate, with the authors noting that
the newly developed social science education has placed specific loci on
"human person", "human life", "humanism", "humanistic education", "self-
determination" and "self-realization" (Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 527).
CULTURALIST AND PARTICULARISTIC

DEFINITIONS OF CITIZENSHIP IDENTITY
It is noteworthy that the inclusion of self-definitions in citizenship identity is

justified according to universalistic concerns on the one hand, and particularistic
concerns on the other. Particularistic concerns are mainly referred to in terms
of one's cultural rights, that is, the particularistic aspect of one's citizenship
that is actually derived from the universalistic human rights values. Hence,
respect for cultural rights generates multiculturalism.
Most of the countries in the IEA Civic Education Study claim that multi-
culturalism is being fostered in their national policies and education systems,
although not without controversy. The report for the United States emphasizes
that multicultural education has been advocated in the country for years, in
support of its pluralistic society (Hahn, 1999, p. 585). The Canadian report
points out its emphasis on bicultural and multicultural understanding for the
development of a pluralistic ideal, and that ethnic identities, as well as commu-
nity and regional identities, have always been strong in the country. The social
studies program specifically mentions the multicultural nature of Canada, and
calls for respect for its cultural groups (Sears et al., 1999, pp. 113, 119, 127).
46 WING ON LEE
The Australian report mentions that multiculturalism, as an inclusive model of

citizenship, has become the key factor for social cohesion in the country (Print
et al., 1999, p. 46). The report from Switzerland refers to the perception that the
country holds of itself as "a model for multicultural co-existence", although
its author expresses some skepticism about this (Reichenbach, 1999, p. 574).
The Lithuanian report stresses that the country's various ethnic groups,
namely, Polish, Russian, Byellorussian and Jewish, are encouraged to preserve
their cultures, languages and religions and to maintain their national schools.
In Lithuania, the relation between ethnic features of Lithuanian people is
taught in school in history and mother-tongue subjects (Zaleskiene, 1999,
pp. 426-427). The Cypriot report mentions the dual emphasis within its education
system on strengthening Greek national identity for Greek Cypriots and Turkish
national identity for Turkish Cypriots (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-Ioannidou,
1999, p. 173).
Duality is also apparent in the Russian report. While acknowledging that
the ethnic situation in the country is rather difficult, Russian politicians and
scientists have suggested building a multicultural nation that is based upon a
notion of citizenship wherein identity is both "ethnically-cultural and State-
civic" (Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 532). The authors of the Romanian report
mention that the civics textbook for Grade 7 shows the existence of forces that
are acting to transfer political power downward to "sub-national groups" or
minorities. Moreover, regional, ethnic and religious groups claim their own
identity, leaving national governments "in an impossible situation to deal
differentially" with each of these groups. However, the textbook interprets these
forces rather negatively, with the comment in it that "[t]hey could generate a
dramatic intensification of separatist movements, jeopardizing the unity of many
national states" (Bunescu et al., 1999, p. 511). In line with the situation in
Romania, the Belgian report points out that although Belgians experience
multiple identities, for example, Belgian, French-speaking, Walloon, citizen of
Brussels, and European, the country is experiencing a rise in fundamentalism
and xenophobic attitudes (Blondin & Schillings, 1999, pp. 63, 75). Such tension
can also be found in many other country reports. However, the fact that
this tension is openly acknowledged is itself a signal that a multicultural and
pluralistic ideal is being pursued in these societies, despite the sometimes
unsatisfactory progress toward that end.
As previously mentioned, culturalistic definitions of citizenship identity are
based on the notion of cultural rights. This notion, in turn, is based upon univer-
salistic respect of human fights. Universal recognition of the rights of particular
cultural groups necessitates the emergence of the notions of pluralism and multi-
culturalism. Respect for cultural rights and respect for individual rights within
self-defined notions of citizenship share several common features. Both are built
upon a common recognition of rights, whether for individuals or for particular
groups in the society. Such recognition allows for or, indeed, necessitates
diversity. Diversity requires recognition of the significance of pluralism as a
common thread that binds the individuals and groups inhabiting a national or
political entity. However, diversity and plurality also denote difference. Tension
is unavoidable, as demonstrated in the country reports, when individuals or
groups of different interests live together in a national or political entity. The
need to de-emphasize difference and emphasize commonality in citizenship
education is obvious.
DEPOLITICIZATION AND DEIDEOLOGIZATION
In addition to emphasizing the two major characteristics of individual rights

and cultural rights in their definitions of citizenship, the authors of the IEA
country reports tend to de-emphasize politics and ideologies in these defini-
tions. This kind of de-emphasis is sometimes termed depoliticization and
deideologization or, more correctly, depolitico-ideologization. The reasons for
this de-emphasis vary. For many countries, the presence of diverse cultural
groups, religious groups and political groups has necessitated this stance for
the sake of peace within those countries. For other countries, there seems to
be a disassociation between citizenship and politics, in the sense that internal
political debates and party politics are nowadays only a minor concern for
citizens.
The depoliticization of citizenship in the face of internal diversities is reflected
in the Israeli and Belgian reports. In Israel, where tensions between ethnic and
religious groups have long been evident, disassociation of the educational system
from politics began in the 1950s. According to the author of the report, "[t]he
depoliticization of the school system was accompanied by strict instructions
that politics and ideological controversies should not enter the schools . . . .
Civic education focused on the structural and legal characteristics of state insti-
tutions" (Ichilov, 1999, p. 374). In Belgium, where ideological conflict existed
between those favoring religious and those favoring non-religious emphases in
education, the government adopted a policy of ideological neutrality in education
so as to respect plurality and diversity of values (Blondin & Schillings, 1999,
pp. 64-65). In Switzerland, "perpetual neutrality" is one of the three basic
elements of the Swiss Confederation (Reichenbach, 1999, p. 559).
The disassociation of citizenship from politics is mentioned in the Dutch
report. The author observes that a "gap" exists between citizens and politics.
This is reflected in low voter turnout in elections and a marked decrease in
48 WING ON LEE
political party membership, and is also associated with the emergence of

right-wing politics in the country (Dekker, 1999, p. 454). The reduction in many
countries of ideological differences between political parties has rendered partic-
ipation in "political" affairs "meaningless" for citizens. In making this point,
the Finnish report documents an attitude of rejection of political parties since
the 1980s (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 236). In England, where there is a tradition
of non-interference in political education in schools, "It]he avoidance of any
overt official government direction to schools concerning political socialization
and citizenship education can almost be seen as a national trait" (Kerr, 1999,
pp. 204, 216).
As noted, deideologization in citizenship and citizenship education is partic-

ularly obvious in the post-1989 Eastern European countries. The Russian report
criticizes the education of the past as hyper-ideological and notes that a process
of deideologization and moving away from communist ideology is evident in
social studies. However, according to the authors, this process is sometimes
superficial (Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 526). The authors of the Romanian report
observe that lessons carrying ideological content have been removed from
syllabi and textbooks. There is also the interdiction "not to deal in politics at
school." It is revealing that the author of the Romanian report commented that
"the education decision-makers were mainly concerned with eradicating the
communist ideology rather than promoting another ideology" (Bunescu et al.,
1999, pp. 508, 516).
The depoliticization and deideologization of citizenship is mainly a post-war,
and especially a post-cold war, characteristic. This situation represents a very
significant departure from the previous emphasis on political ideology as a major
contributor to national identity. Politico-ideological differences between nations
used to function as a significant cause for national cohesion. Thus, the national
identity of citizens was intrinsically bound to the political ideology of the
government. Nowadays, politico-ideological difference between parties is no
longer a major factor in securing the support of the populace. Instead, the nature
of citizenship focuses more on the universalistic and humanistic concerns that
underpin human and cultural rights. As such, present-day discussion on
citizenship tends to focus not only on individuals or groups of individuals who
possess these rights, but also on those factors beyond one's nation that affect
citizenship.
SUPRANATIONAL AND GLOBALIZED CITIZENSHIP
From certain perspectives, the deideologization of citizenship represents both a

political and an ideological stance. The political choices made in a number of
countries reflect certain post-war and post-cold war ideological value orienta-
tions that mark the end of national antagonisms, the adoption of universalistic
human values, and the development of supranational and global notions of
citizenship. Most of the countries participating in the IEA Civic Education Study
are European countries, and supranational and global notions of citizenship have
particular significance for them, especially in relation to the development of
the European Union. There are strong concerns about the implications of the
European Union for the definition of citizenship.
The author of the Netherlands report notes that citizenship discussion in the
country focuses on two major topics. The first is the aforementioned gap
between citizens and politics, and the second is the issue of European Union
citizenship (Dekker, 1999, p. 54). Similar remarks can be found in the German
report. The two major issues related to citizenship education in Germany are,
first, Germany's role as an integral part of the European Union and, second,
Germany's responsibility for developing countries (H~ndle et al., 1999,
pp. 272-273). The Belgian report mentions various efforts within the country
to raise attention to "European realities" among the population as a whole and
among youth in particular. The authors cite a 1995 Eurobarometer survey, which
found 67% of the adult inhabitants of Belgium describing themselves as "very"
or "quite attached" to Europe (Blondin & Schilling, 1999, p. 63). In Switzerland,
it is reported that students are much more concerned with the European Union
than with the notion of Swiss neutrality (Reichenbach, 1999, p. 571). The
Portuguese report mentions several government initiatives to promote awareness
of European citizenship. For example, at the school level, the curricula evolve
from a regional focus to one that recognizes the need to articulate national
identity within a European consciousness. "The European Union," the authors
write, "emerges as a locus of students' loyalty and consciousness if not of
identity and belonging" (Menezes et al., 1999, p. 492). In Cyprus, which in
1999 applied to join the European Union and simultaneously declared its
European orientations, the orientation toward European citizenship and the
realization of the European dimension in Cypriot education is inevitably having
an impact on citizenship education (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-Ioannidou,
1999, p. 175).
The political change in Eastern Europe has created a strong desire among
the countries of this region to join the European Union. For example, a strong
sentiment of "back to Europe" and "integration into Europe" is evident in the
Czech Republic (V~lkovfi & Kalous, 1999, p. 180). The Hungarian report points
out that the government has made efforts to encourage the country to join the
European Union (M~itrai, 1999, p. 343). In Poland, most Poles would like to
join both the European Union and NATO. Because of this, it is felt that civic
50 WING ON LEE
education in the country should be adjusted to emphasize Poland's position in

relation to international structures, or, in more general terms, to teach people
to analyze local, regional and national phenomena within a more global frame-
work (Janowski, 1999, p. 473).
Beyond the supranational concerns associated with European citizenship lie
those of globalization. This is evident in Germany, where experts see teaching
students about the "European market" and about "market globalization" as an
important goal of civic education (H~indle et al., 1999, p. 275). In similar vein,
the Cypriot report mentions that civic education in the country is expected to
contribute to the new world order of European citizenship, which is based on
inter-relationships among nations and requires communication and cooperation

between them (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-Ioannidou, 1999, pp. 175-176). The
Australian report points out that many teachers in the country favor the concept
of global citizenship over that of national identity (Print et al., 1999, p. 55).
Colombia also reports of teaching national identity in the wider international
context, and through the understanding of international cooperation and inter-
dependency (Rueda, 1999, p. 146). In Hong Kong, citizenship textbooks often
mention Hong Kong's international identity as a trading center rather than its
national identity (Lee, 1999, p. 328).
The emphasis on global citizenship has led to environmental concerns
becoming a definitive aspect of citizenship. In the IEA Civic Education Study,
most of the country representatives voted to include environmental issues in it.
Some of the country reports explicitly associate these issues with citizenship.
The Italian report, for example, states that environmental topics and problems
are regarded as an essential part of the country's education programs (Losito,
1999, p. 411). In Germany, awareness of ecological problems and responsibility
for environmental protection are seen as central goals of civic education at
Secondary Level I. Almost all of the experts surveyed by the authors of the
German report saw protection of the environment as an important and a well-
achieved goal of civic education (H~indle et al., 1999, pp. 275-276). The Finnish
report points out that young Finns are well aware of the contradiction between
economic growth and protection of the natural environment. Moreover, the
young defend environmental values more strongly than welfare structures and
express more concern about pollution than about ethnic or social conflict
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 246).
A key element arising out of the significance that nations place upon the
individual and upon supranational factors when addressing issues related to
citizenship identification is that of humanitarianism. Within nations, individuals
and groups increasingly are being viewed in terms of humanistic principles,
while beyond the nation, humanitarianism functions as a cohesive factor that
allows citizenship to be seen as an entity that extends beyond national

boundaries. In facilitating acceptance of differences between individuals and
groups within nations, humanitarianism, through a process of extension, fosters
acceptance of differences between nations under the common framework of
°'humanhood." Of course, supranational development can still be based on
certain political elements, such as nationalistic ideologies, but one nation can
no longer so readily realize its particular aims without the approval or support
of other nations. The commonly held supranational concern for environmental
protection has led to the situation whereby people now realize that what one
does in one nation has an impact on humans inhabiting other regions.
Supranationalism can thereby be associated with the concept of global village,

although the two may not have a causal relationship.
ECONOMIC CONCERNS IN NOTIONS

OF CITIZENSHIP
One major feature of the discussions regarding citizenship in the IEA Civic
Education Study country reports is economic considerations. A fundamental
reason as to why these considerations are so prevalent is that many nations
today are intent on strengthening their economies. This concern has
overshadowed ideological differences between political parties both within and
across countries. Economic concerns appear to be as widespread as the concern
for human rights. For many citizens, economic wellbeing is an intrinsic part
of any definition of democracy. To some extent, the economic conditions of
a country can even affect whether its citizens perceive their government to
be "democratic". Beyond the national level, the supranational European
Union certainly has a very strong economic basis. As H~tndle et al. (1999,
p. 275) put it, the European Union can be seen as an economic unification
of Europeans, or simply as a European market. Hence, in the German report,
market economy, European Union and globalization are inseparable issues in
citizenship considerations.
In regard to how economic conditions affect citizenship perceptions, the
Hungarian report notes that half of the country's voters view democracy in
terms of economic elements, moderate economic differences, safe jobs and
an improving economy. Moreover, many people in Hungary want the country
to be included in the European Union in the hope that it will catch up econom-
ically with the developed Western world (M~trai, 1999, pp. 350, 353, 355). In
Russia, the concept of civic culture covers the economic element in that civic
culture has to be formed by "economically independent citizens" (Bogolubov
et al., 1999, p. 541). Post-1989 Poland has put forward a four-fold ideal of
52 WING ON LEE
citizenship: to live in a safe and secure country, to live in a truly democratic

country, to develop a civic society, and to live in an economically efficient
country. The four essential elements of citizenship as cited in the Polish report
are thus safety, democracy, civic culture and economy, all of which are seen
as supporting and defining one another (Janowski, 1999, pp. 472-475).
The fact that a country's economic conditions can affect its people's percep-
tions of citizenship and the government is evident in the Romanian report, which
deplores the restoration of a democratic society that is accompanied by increases
in poverty, unemployment and crime. This collapse in the quality of life in
Romania has become an obstacle for civic education, especially given that
children hear their parents expressing a lack of confidence in the government.

As the authors of the report remark, "the social cost of transition is great"
(Bunescu et al., 1999, pp. 506, 519-520). The author of the Lithuanian report
states that economic reform and a decrease in living standards have contributed
to a decrease in political activity (Zaleskiene, 1999, p. 433). Similarly, the
Slovenian report criticizes the association of the "new democracy" for growing
social and economic inequalities, insecurity and unemployment. The report's
authors observe that many Slovenians have trouble understanding the new rules
of the capitalist economy and are imbued with a strong sense of uncertainty
(Strajin, 1999, pp. 546, 551). Mfitrai's (1999) characterization of Hungary as
the "unhappiest democracy" is substantially related to economic concerns.
For many countries, economic concems have outstripped concems regarding
politics and ideologies, a change that is having a major impact on conceptions
of citizenship. In a sense, the depoliticization and deideologization of citizenship
is attributable to the strong significance people ascribe to economic concerns.
Nations are accepting supranational configurations because the people within
them believe that doing so offers economic advantage for their own country.
Today, when people choose and criticize their "new democracies", they are
doing so more for economic reasons than for reasons of political ideology.
DISCUSSION
The Changing Context of Understanding for Notions of Citizenship
The above analysis of the IEA country reports confirms the need to reconsider
traditional concepts of citizenship. These concepts have been vigorously
reviewed and debated in the recent literature, where it has been pointed out
that the context within which citizenship notions have been considered has
changed tremendously in the post-war, especially the post-cold war, period.
According to Soysal (1996, pp. 18-19), four features of post-war global devel-
opment have contributed to this changed context:
(1) The internationalization of labor markets, characterized by massive flows
of immigrants: The existence of large numbers of immigrants has brought
challenges to traditional concepts of citizenship in terms of national identity
and loyalty.
(2) Massive decolonization after 1945, which led to the mobilization of newly
independent states at the international level: This situation has facilitated
global discourse about the "rights" of such states to exist within
universalistic parameters. Parallel to this has been the emergence of new
social movements centered on collective and individual rights, in terms not

only of cultural identity but also of social identities, such as women, gays
and lesbians, environmentalists, and immigrants.
(3) The emergence of multi-level politics, as seen, for example, in the European
Union: The emergence of European Union citizenship has breached the
link between the status attached to citizenship and national territory by
conferring rights that are not necessarily located in a bounded nation state.
For example, European Union member nations can now extend citizenship
to immigrants "illegally" residing in their countries.
(4) Increased global discourse on individual rights: The movement toward
greater recognition of human rights is providing a world-level index against
which legitimate and non-legitimate treatment of humans can be ascer-
tained. This index also allows people to legitimately claim a hold to rights
above and beyond those sanctioned by the nations to which they belong.
Soysal's major argument is that the classical conceptions of national citizenship
based on the nation-state as a territory no longer offer the flexibility needed
to understand the meanings presently ascribed to citizenship. This view is
shared by many writers of citizenship-related issues, especially those who hold
that citizenship has to be understood from globalization perspectives (for
example, Meehan, 1993; Soysal, 1998), post-national perspectives (for example,
Feldblum, 1998), and postmodern perspectives (for example, Gilbert, 1997).
Self-determination and Heterogeneity in Citizenship
One feature of the new concepts of citizenship is that of self-determination of

national identity. This characteristic has its basis in the principle of human
rights, which, by ascribing status to the rights of individuals, transcends national
boundaries. This notion of "personhood" accordingly allows the extension of
rights to the foreigner of a country, who is regarded as a human even though
54 WING ON LEE
he or she is not a national of that country. Personhood represents a post-national

conception of citizenship in that it is neither based on institutionalized national
status nor generated by the State (Feldblum, 1998, p. 239).
The notions of self-determination and personhood accord with Habermas's
analysis of active citizenship. According to Habermas (1994, pp. 25-27), active
citizenship has the following characteristics:
• Membership of a particular citizenship is exemplified by the principles of
freedom and equality, and relies on the principle of voluntarism.
° The status of citizen is thus constituted by democratic rights that individuals
can lay claim to in order to alter their legal status.
• It represents a holistic model of citizenship that emphasizes political

autonomy as a purpose in itself, to be realized not by single persons in the
private pursuit of their particular interests but rather by all people together
in an inter-subjectivity praxis, and by mutual recognition; a we-perspective
of active self-determination.
Soysal (1996, pp. 26-27) claims that self-determination can be made at both
individual and collective levels. The personhood of citizenship, or universal
personhood, basically refers to the person as an individual. Collective self-
determination is evident among emerging collectives of people who aspire to
form territorial states or nations within the post-war global configuration of
nations. Their aspirations are a product of self-claimed rights of political and
cultural existence, predicated, in turn, on the basis of universal human rights.
In claiming particularistic rights under a universalistic framework, such groups
exemplify a paradox, that of "the universalization of particularism and the
particularization of universalism" (Soysal, 1996, p. 26; 1998, p. 194).
Whenever self-determination facilitates claims for political rights and cultural
rights of existence, attention is drawn to the position of minorities and cultural
groups within a territory. In this regard, Dahrendorf (1994, p. 17) makes the
very strong point that "[i]n the name o f self-determination, the prospects of
citizenship are put at risk." What he means is that if a society accepts the
principle of self-determination, then it must also accept the principle of hetero-
geneity. Its members must actively respect the fact that people who are different
in origin, culture and creed from themselves are entitled to the same rights
and freedoms as they are. For Dahrendorf, the notion of self-determination
requires an inclusive policy for different cultural groups; "exclusion is the
enemy of citizenship." In short, the successful exercise of citizenship rights
requires an open society. For Gilbert (1997, p. 81), cultural heterogeneity
helps to enrich, rather than create problems for, citizenship identity because
the process of accepting and respecting heterogeneity brings about new and
positive attitudes. Turner (1994, p. 161) suggests the adoption of the principle
of cultural democratization, which allows diverse cultures to see one another
in terms of "excellence", leading to what Turner terms the "distantiation of
culture", or cultural equalization, that is, the erosion of the distinction between
high and low culture.
Multiple Citizenship and Globalization of Citizenship
The changing context within which notions of citizenship are construed bring
to the fore the concepts of multiple citizenship and global citizenship.
Dahrendorf (1994, p. 17) makes the cogent point that "citizenship is never
complete until it is world citizenship." The establishment of the European Union
has contributed to political globalization, while international organizations like
the United Nations are taking more active roles with respect to the activities
and attitudes of national governments. As Gilbert (1997, p. 72) has observed,
membership of these global political entities places the notion of national
citizenship in a new light that can both challenge and empower the authority
of national governments. Brubaker (cited in Soysal, 1998, p. 190) maintains
that the forms of supranational membership brought about by post-war
immigration deviate from the norms of classical nation-state membership, which
he views as "egalitarian, sacred, national, democratic, unique, and socially
consequential." He offers a model of "dual membership" organized as concentric
circles: an inner circle of citizenship, based on nationality, and an outer circle
of denizenship, based on residency.
The notion of multiple citizenship is attributed to Heater (1992, pp. 154-155),
who sees the emergence of a world citizenship alongside state citizenship.
To Turner (1986), the globalization of citizenship reflects the emergence of
international economic trends that have diminished the capacities of nation-
states to respond to the economic demands of their citizens. In this sense, the
globalization of citizenship is related to the notion of economic citizenship.
As Lehning (1997, p. 195) suggests, the founding of a united Europe has
depended mainly, if not totally, on the "four freedoms" that help ensure
economic integration: the free movement of persons, goods, capital and services.
Economic citizenship therefore has been very much a part of the desire to
establish a united Europe.
The globalization of citizenship is also capacitated by the creation of a world
culture through the global communication system. Electronic media, by
constructing a sense of shared experience, are connecting diverse groups across
vast distances. World culture is also being shaped by mass media, with nations
now easily able to access one another's media (Gilbert, 1997, p. 81). Meehan
56 WING ON LEE
(1993, p. 8) points out that modem global communications facilitate widespread

knowledge of what is possible elsewhere, of what succeeds and what fails,
thereby informing domestic conceptions of the rights of citizenship and raising
or dampening the demands that people make of their governments.
Paradoxes and Complexities Related to Notions of Citizenship
The new orientations regarding definitions of citizenship give new meaning to

civil society. As Einhorn et al (1996, pp. 4-5) have ably observed, this new
notion of civil society is characterized by the empowerment of all individuals
to take control of their own lives. Citizens are empowered not only through the
provision of opportunities to participate, but also to take action. Thus, civil
society is not simply used as the rule of law, but as the medium through which
individuals become citizens. It is associated with anti-politics. It is bound neither
by the State and the concepts of sovereignty nor by particular groups within
the polity, but by the concept of political community. Moreover, it provides a
basis for the democratic control of international institutions.
However, these new notions also exemplify the complexity associated with
definitions of citizenship in today's world. Although adherence to universal
human rights underpins self-determination in citizenship, it also justifies cultural
particularism in the case of collective self-determinism. Post-national citizenship
has challenged traditional concepts of national citizenship based on nation-states,
but this does not mean that nation-states necessarily are organizationally weaker
than formerly or that their formal sovereignty is questionable (Soysal, 1998,
p. 196). It is still possible, as Dahrendorf (1994, p. 17) proposes, to support
heterogeneity as the ultimate recognition of self-determination and citizenship
rights, within a framework of "heterogeneous nation-states." The notion of
active citizenship can also be interpreted from two polarized perspectives.
On the one hand, it can refer to citizens as private persons who bring their
pre-polifical interests to bear on the State apparatus. On the other hand, it can
be interpreted from an obligatory perspective wherein citizenship is realized
only when all citizens are jointly engaged in the practice of self-determination.
The former is thus individualistic and autonomous, while the latter is ethical
and obligatory (Habermas, 1994, pp. 25-26).
Van Gunsteren (1994, p. 38), in posing many of the problems associated with
defining citizenship that remain to be solved, also illustrates the complexity of
these notions. He contends that these problems occur in association with:
• admission practices (asylum, European citizenship, education);
• membership requirements (social security, employment, the "underclass');
° questions of competence (civic-mindedness, civil servants as citizens,

conflicts within democratic institutions); and
• pluralism (minorities and the law, senior citizens, businesses as quasi-
citizens).
As van Gunsteren rightly claims, the solutions to these problems lie in re-
envisioning established conceptions of citizenship.
IMPLICATIONS OF NEW NOTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP

FOR CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
The emergence of new concepts of citizenship is evident in the direction that

citizenship education is taking in the countries participating in the IEA Civic
Education Study. By critically examining the state of citizenship education in
their home countries, the authors of the study's first-phase reports have produced
pictures of the ideal that is held for this form of education and of its present-
day reality. The ideal of citizenship education is to develop such competencies
and attitudes as democratic-mindedness, open-mindedness, tolerance and
critique, and it also encompasses the expectation that national identity will be
set in terms of belonging and loyalty, as well as social equality. The reality,
as most of the authors report with disappointment, is that true democracy
has yet to be realized, especially in schools, where teaching favors didactic
over inquiry-based and interactive approaches. Nevertheless, one of the most
important factors to emerge from the country reports is the apparent universal
emphasis on the need for inquiry, critical thinking, tolerance and interactive
teaching in citizenship education. Examples abound, and a few of them suffice
for illustration:
• "Teachers are especially urged to use discussion so that students can clarify
their thoughts by exploring a number of points of view and becoming
personally interested in the topic" (Zaleskiene, 1999, p. 428).
• "[T]he Italian school s y s t e m . . , does recognize and safeguard the opportunity
for students' discussion (even of a political kind). Students have the fight
to organize public debates and demonstration at school . . . " (Losito, 1999,
p. 412).
• "Critical thinking, interest in social matters, and an investigative and
questioning mind are fundamental qualities for learner and citizen alike"
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 249).
® "The schools should educate citizens who are able to think independently
and critically, who are morally strong, tolerant, active, educated and
responsible" (V~lkov~ & Kalous, 1999, p. 189).
58 WING ON LEE
"[The public education system] emphasize[s] that preparing students to

participate, by helping them develop as critical thinkers and skilled decision-
makers, is part of 'the basic education required to participate in and contribute
to society'" (Sears et al., 1999, p. 125).
The emphasis in citizenship education on these competencies and attitudes,

despite whether they are satisfactorily implemented or not, suggests the ideal
for nurturing an open-minded, critical-minded, democratic-minded and action-
oriented generation that is mostly likely to respect the rights of others and to
be critical of its own nation-states. Such an emphasis is entirely congruent with
the changing conceptions of citizenship portrayed in the country reports of the

IEA Civic Education Study.
REFERENCES
Ahonen, S., & Virta, A. (1999). Toward a dynamic view of society: civic education in Finland.
In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 229-256).
Amsterdam: IEA.
Balkansky, P., Zahariev, S., Stoyanov, S., & Stoyonova, N. (1999). Challenges in developing a
new system of civic education in conditions of social change: Bulgaria. In: J. Torney-Purta,
J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National
Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 89-109). Amsterdam: IEA.
Blondin, C., & Schillings, P. (1999). Education for citizenship in the French community of Belgium:
opportunities to learn in addition to the formal curriculum. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
& J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case
Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 1-87). Amsterdam: IEA.
Bogolubov, L., Klokova, G. V., Kovalyova, G. S., & Poltorak, D. I. (1999). The challenge of civic
education in the New Russia. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic
Education Project (pp. 523-547). Amsterdam: IEA.
Bunescu, G., Stan, E., Albu, G., Badea, D., & Oprica, O. (1999). Cohesion and diversity in national
identity: civic education in Romania. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds),
Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic
Education Project (pp. 505-521). Amsterdam: lEA.
Dahrendorf, R. (1994). The changing quality of citizenship. In: B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The
Condition of Citizenship (pp. 10-19). London: Sage Publications.
Dekker, H. (1999). Citizenship conceptions and competencies in the subject matter "Society" in
the Dutch schools. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education
across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project
(pp. 437-462). Amsterdam: lEA.
Einhom, B., Kaldor, M., & Kavan, Z. (1996). Introduction. In: B. Einhorn, M. Kaldor & Z. Kavan
(Eds), Citizenship and Democratic Control in Contemporary Europe (pp. 1-6). Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
The E m e r g e n c e o f N e w Citizenship 59
Feldblum, M. (1998). Reconfiguring citizenship in Western Europe. In: C. Joppke (Ed.), Challenges
to the Nation-state: Immigration in Western Europe and the United States (pp. 230-270).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, R. (1997). Issues for citizenship in a postmodem world. In: K. Kennedy (Ed.), Citizenship
Education and the Modern State (pp. 65-81). London: The Falmer Press.
HSndle, C., Oestereich, D., & Trommer, L. (1999). Concepts of civic education in Germany based
on a survey of expert opinion. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Habermas, J. (1994). Citizenship and national identity. In: B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The Condition
of Cit&enship (pp.10-19). London: Sage Publications.
Heater, D. (1992). The History of the Concept of Citizenship. Curriculum, 13(3), 149-157.
Ichilov, O. (1999). Citizenship in a divided society: the case of Israel. In: J. Tomey-Purta,
L Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National
Janowski, A. (1999). The specific nature and objectives of civic education in Poland: some
reflections. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project
(pp. 463-482). Amsterdam: IEA.
Hahn, C. (1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 583-607). Amsterdam: lEA.
Kerr, D. (1999). Re-examining citizenship education in England. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 203-227). Amsterdam: IEA.
Lee, W. O. (1999). Controversies of civic education in political transition: Hong Kong. In:
J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Lehning, P. B. (1997). European citizenship: a mirage? In: P. B. Lehning & A. Weale (Eds),
Citizenship, Democracy and Justice in the New Europe (pp. 175-199). London: Routledge.
Losito, B. (1999). Italy: educating for democracy in a changing democratic society. In: J. Torney-
Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four
National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 395-418). Amsterdam:
lEA.
Makriniotti, D., & Solomon, J. (1999). The discourse of citizenship education in Greece: national
identity and social diversity. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic
M~itrai, Z. (1999). In transit: civic education in Hungary. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille &
J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies
from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 341-370). Amsterdam: lEA.
Meehan, E. (1993). Citizenship and the European Community. London: Sage Publications.
Menezes, I., Xavier, E., Cibele, C., Amaro, G., & Campos, B. P. (1999). Civic education issues
and the intended curricula in basic education in Portugal. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille
60 WING ON LEE
Papanastasiou, C., & Koutselini-Ioannidou, M. (1999). National identity in the civic education of
Cyprus. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille and J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project
(pp. 162-177). Amsterdam: IEA.
Print, M., Kennedy, K., & Hughes, J. (1999). Reconstructing civic and citizenship education in
Australia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project
Reichenbach, R. (1999). Abandoning the myth of exceptionality: on civic education in Switzerland.
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 557-582).
Amsterdam: lEA.
Rueda, A. R. (1999). Education for democracy in Colombia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 137-159). Amsterdam: lEA.
Soysal, Y. N. (1996). Changing citizenship in Europe: remarks on postnational membership and
the nation state. In: D. Cesarani & M. Fulborok (Eds), Citizenship, Nationality, and
Migration in Europe (pp. 17-29). London: Routledge.
Soysal, Y. N. (1998). Toward a postnational model of membership. In: G. Shafir (Ed.), The
Citizenship Debate (pp. 189-217). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Sears, A. M., Clarke, G. M., & Hughes, A. S. (1999). Canadian citizenship education: the pluralistic
ideal and citizenship education for a post-modern state. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the IEA ChTic Education Project (pp. 111-135). Amsterdam: lEA.
Strajin, D. (1999). Citizens in view of public controversy in Slovenia: some reflections. In:
Amsterdam: lEA.
Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (Eds.) (1999). Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: lEA.
Turner, B. S. (1986). Citizenship and Capitalism: The Debate over Reformism. London: Allen and
Unwin.
Turner, B. S. (1994). Postmodern culture/modern citizens. In: B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The
Condition of Citizenship (pp. 153-168). London: Sage Publications.
Vfilkov£ J., & Kalous, J. (1999). The changing face of civic education in the Czech Republic.
Amsterdam: lEA.
van Gunsteren, H. (1994). Four conceptions of citizenship. In: B. van Steenbergen (Ed.), The
Condition of Citizenship (pp. 3~48). London: Sage Publications.
Zaleskiene, I. (1999). National identity and education for democracy in Lithuania. In: J. Torney-
lEA.
1. Roland Tormey, Jim Gleeson. 2012. The gendering of global citizenship: findings
from a large-scale quantitative study on global citizenship education experiences.
Gender and Education 24:6, 627-645. [CrossRef]
2. LAURANCE SPLITTER. 2011. Identity, Citizenship and Moral Education.
Educational Philosophy and Theory 43:5, 484-505. [CrossRef]
3. Alex Pomson, Howard Deitcher. 2010. Day School Israel Education in the Age of
Birthright. Journal of Jewish Education 76:1, 52-73. [CrossRef]
3 • TEACHERS AND CIVIC
EDUCATION INSTRUCTION IN
CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARISON
Heinrich Mintrop
INTRODUCTION
An attempt to understand the teaching of civic education across a large number

of countries is usefully framed by two assumptions specific to this curricular
field. First, across countries, definitions of what constitutes civic education
diverge: boundaries circumscribing the field of civic education are blurry,
and the instructional arrangements in schools for what gets defined as civic
education vary widely. Second, conditions, goals, methods and outcomes of
civic education are highly sensitive to the macro-political cultures of nations
and the micro-political cultures of schools within those nations.
During Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study, national project
representatives wrote case reports in which they reviewed the national scholarly
literature on civic education and offered opinions and comments from expert
panels, focus groups, and country-specific questionnaires. The reports captured
institutional and cultural differences across a large number of countries. In this
chapter, I review and interpret the yield from this phase with an emphasis on
teachers of civic education. Teachers' situation is captured by their preparedness

pages 61-83.
Copyright © 2002 by Elsevier Science Ltd.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
61
62 HEINRICH MINTROP
and training for civic education-related curriculum and instruction, the way their
students receive civic education instruction, and the institutional space allotted
to the curricular field. I analyze these components with a twofold aim: the first
is to sketch similarities and differences associated with civic education teaching
across a number of countries, and the second is to identify dimensions and
concepts that warrant further inquiry in relation to data collected through a
teacher questionnaire recently administered during the quantitative part of the
study.
The Database
The Phase 1 database that I exploit for this paper consists of the literature
reviews, reports summarizing answers to a number of framing questions given
to the national teams by the study's international steering committee, and
national case study chapters, written by national experts and later published.
Analysis of these materials points to a conspicuous absence of representative
empirical studies on civic education instruction in most countries. With a few
exceptions, the authors of the national reports were unable to call on reliable
quantitative national data when describing how teachers deliver civic education
in their countries' schools. Instead, they relied on the following: interpretation
of documents; review of expert discussion and debate; the querying of other
civic education experts, administrators and school officials; the interpretation
of case study findings; and content analysis of textbooks. This situation makes
the importance of the empirical data collected during Phase 2 of the IEA Civic
Education Study glaringly obvious, not only for comparative purposes, but also
for purposes of intra-nation investigation.
What we gain, then, from the complete Phase 1 database is a picture of each
country's civic education teaching that is based on the subjective views of
the expert authors and enriched by careful documentation and interpretation
of a variety of expert voices and qualitative data. This picture of civic education
is further constrained by the international framing questions that guided
the qualitative inquiry and by the elaborate review process that the reports
underwent. For example, the framing questions directed the national researchers
to inquire about conditions of teaching civic education within the dimensions
of democracy, citizen's rights and responsibilities, national identity, and social
cohesion and diversity.
Although the examined data are exceptionally strong with regard to the
experts' espoused theories or views, depictions of the intended curricula,
and anecdotal evidence from the lived culture of schools, they do not furnish
a robust representation of the actual state of civic education in the respective
Teachers and Civic Education Instruction in Cross-National Comparison 63
countries. For this, the complementary Phase 2 data are required (Torney-Purta
et al., 2001). Thus, the analysis of civic education teachers presented here is
essentially a comparison of expert analyses and judgments that cannot clearly
distinguish between the civic education reality of the country and the view of
the expert. The material conceivably will speak as much to the way that experts,
worldwide, talk about civic education as to actual school realities. But given
the above-mentioned cultural and institutional variety across countries, the
experts' views are nevertheless indispensable and of great value in combination
with prospective quantitative data.
Countries Chosen for Analysis
My analysis in this chapter focuses on only seven of the societies or countries

that participated in Phase 1 of the study: Chinese Taipei, t the Czech Republic,
Finland, Italy, Hong Kong, Hungary and the United States. I selected these
societies according to the criteria of geographic and cultural distribution and
the completeness and quality of data. I could have chosen other European coun-
tries but considered it useful to strike a balance between Eastern European
and Western European cases. In the Americas, I was restricted to the United
States as the country with a complete data set.
At first glance these seven societies cover a wide range of civic traditions.
The United States is a country with a relatively long and stable tradition of
capitalism, representative democracy and liberal ideology and values. In
contrast, the two Asian cases, to varying degrees, are influenced by Confucian
ideological and value traditions. Neither one has experienced sustained demo-
cratic governance and full sovereignty. Both Hungary and the Czech Republic,
with intermittent democratic experiences, developed their nation-states against
Austrian domination and, until recently, lived under an externally imposed
communist regime. The two Western European countries, Italy and Finland, are
older democracies, but in their cases as well nationhood has been at times
coupled with authoritarian stirrings, such as fascism in the case of Italy. History,
it seems, has played out quite differently for these seven cases with regard to
national identity, statehood, sovereignty and democratic traditions. Civic culture,
then, could be expected to have developed quite differently in each country,
while civic education in schools, as an integral part of the political and civic
history of a country, also could be expected to have taken quite different forms
(Holmes, 1981).
That said, the seven cases are held together by commonalities due to their
position in the capitalist world system (Meyer, 1992). All seven countries
are industrialized and either developed or newly developed. Integrated into the
64 HEINRICH MINTROP
world market and culture, they are affected by worldwide trends of the last few
decades. Technological revolution, the internationalization of national economies
(Thurow, 1996) and the hollowing-out of nation-state capacities externally and
internally have given ascendancy to knowledge areas encompassing technology,
mathematics, science and economics over those encompassing politics, national
and community affairs, and civil society. These international trends may put civic
education in a defensive position at school, with governments neglecting or
de-emphasizing civic education programs, students regarding civic education
content as irrelevant for succeeding in modern society, and teachers themselves
attaching less value to civic education instruction than to other areas of national
curricula.
Confounding this picture of different national civic traditions and common
international trends are recent national experiences. All seven societies under-
went major upheaval and change in the political and cultural arenas during the
last decade. The Czech Republic and Hungary opened up with the collapse of
communism, the (re)-introduction of capitalism and representative democracy,
the reassertion of their national sovereignty, and their efforts to attain member-
ship in European supra-national organizations. Finland relinquished a part of
its national sovereignty when it became a member of the European Union and
had to come to terms with neo-liberalist trends challenging the welfare-capitalist
underpinnings of its civic culture. Italy saw a complete and rapid remake of its
post-World-War II party system and its national unity and cohesion put to the
test. Hong Kong shifted its political status while Chinese Taipei abandoned
martial law and began a process of cautious democratization. Finally, the United
States, politically stable relative to the other six cases, has been experiencing
an influx of immigrants that approaches proportions not seen since the late
1890s/1900s when over 10% of Americans were foreign-born.
The effect on schools of these national traditions, international trends, and
recent political and cultural experiences is what is pertinent to the discussion
in this chapter. Specifically, are differences among countries in terms of
moral conduct, democratic experience or nationhood reflected in the way civic
education is delivered in schools? How sensitive are the outlooks of students,
educators and experts on civic education to the recent political developments
so clearly and differently played out in the countries studied? Has the political
upheaval and change evident in some countries breathed new life into civic
education and rearranged institutional and cultural conditions for its delivery in
schools? Conversely, in those countries where change has been more placid,
has civic education stayed much the same? Or have the international trends
and forces prevailing across modern industrialized countries had the effect
of simultaneously homogenizing conceptualizations of civic education and
deflating the value of civic affairs and civic education in the eyes of educational
actors and society as a whole?
Developing answers to broad-based questions such as these is no simple task.
However, narrowing the focus of analysis (as I do in this chapter) to similarities
and differences in the situation of those who teach civics-related subject matters
may begin to address this difficulty. At this point, the findings of my analysis
can be summarized as follows: the examined materials uncover a surprising
similarity across the seven societies while patterns of difference are less promi-
nent. This is not to say that differences do not occur, but that, on the whole,
the views of Phase 1 experts regarding civic education teachers and teaching
converge rather than disjoin. In the detailed analysis that follows I look first at
teachers of civic education and then at aspects related to their students and the
wider institutional status of civic education.
TEACHERS OF CIVIC EDUCATION
Valuable data on the subject-matter background of civic education teachers

come from Italy (Salerni, 1997). This report, citing figures from a survey of
one region of the country, points out that the academic background of teachers
teaching in the field of civic education is probably not in social sciences. In
that survey, about half the teachers held a literary degree and about one-fourth
a degree in philosophy, while close to a fifth held a degree in education. The
report concludes that "a high percentage of teachers are actually not involved
in civic education issues and do not have the necessary competence at subject
content level" (section 3.1). (This assumes that the social sciences are the proper
subject-matter base for civic education.) Due to this lack of subject-specific
preparation, teachers, according to the authors of the Italian reports (Losito,
1999; Salerni, 1977), do not pay specific attention to civic education and are
seen, in particular, as unable to deliver lessons with complex student-centered
formats. As a result, civic education in Italy faces a multi-faceted problem: a
"gap between the intended curriculum and the implemented curriculum and the
inadequate training of teachers" (Losito, 1999, p. 400), and a need for teacher
retraining and re-qualification (Salerni, 1997, section 3.1). In the absence of
such formal training and professional development, teachers rely on their own
personal experience and informal knowledge as citizens. The Italian Ministry
of Education seems to reinforce this informal approach to civic education
knowledge and instruction. According to the ministry, "[i]t is not necessary to
wait for new programs to do all this [that is, to fulfil the goals of civic
education]; what is needed is great commitment (also in self-training) and
66 HEINRICH MINTROP
a great deal of inventiveness" (Salerni, 1997, section 3.1). Losito (1999, p. 400)
observes that the informality of civic education knowledge can be seen in the
infrequent use of civics-related textbooks. Often, students do not even buy these
books, and this lack is not compensated for through recourse to other teaching
tools or the reading of newspapers and magazines.
It is evident from the Finnish material that the quality of civic education
teachers is not as urgent a concern in Finland as it is in Italy. Teachers in
Finnish comprehensive schools receive a university education and finish with
a Master's degree. Social studies teachers usually have majored in history and
gained a minor in social studies. For the most part, the authors of the Finnish
report deem teachers of civic education to be well qualified to teach civic

education topics (Ahonen & Virta, 1997, p. 6; Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 234).
Echoing the Italian sentiment, the author of the Hungarian report states that
in Hungary "the training of social studies and civics teachers has no tradition
within the system of teacher training. Those who teach these subjects are
mainly history teachers who regard social studies and civics as secondary
and usually neither their theoretical knowledge nor their teaching techniques
equip them to feel secure" about teaching current political issues (M~itrai, 1999,
pp. 366-367). The author concludes that teacher training is the key to developing
a more engaging and present-day oriented model of civic instruction.
As in Hungary, the Czech Republic has experienced a fundamental shift
away from Marxism-Leninism as the underlying dogma of teacher education.
However, because teacher education is not nationally regulated in this country,
the quality of teacher preparation varies widely among preparation programs
and institutions (Institute for Research and Development of Education, 1997,
p. 18). Although continuing education and in-service training are deemed to be
of great importance in order to retrain teachers who received their professional
socialization in the former communist system, the authors of the Czech report
are skeptical about the effectiveness of these efforts (V~ilkov~i & Kalous, 1999,
pp. 188-189).
Teachers in Hong Kong generally do not enroll in university degree programs,
but instead attend a two-year program at a teacher-training institute. Responses
from school officials and anecdotal evidence from schools that were examined
in the Phase 1 Hong Kong reports suggest that teachers in civic education-
related fields, such as economic and public affairs (EPA), government and
public affairs (GPA), social studies, and moral education, "have not received
relevant pre-service training. Language teachers and form masters/mistresses
are usually required to teach Social Studies" (Lee et al., 1996a, p. 83). Some
of the interviewed teachers asserted that their primary subjects were not in the
field of civic education, leading Lee and his colleagues to conclude that these
teachers were "teach[ing] these subjects on the basis of their own experience"
(p. 83). Such a situation not only reinforces the informal character of civic
knowledge and instruction but also fails to equip civic education teachers with
relevant teaching strategies, including those that motivate students.
A picture similar to that for Hong Kong emerges from the Phase 1 material
for Chinese Taipei, although civic education instruction seems overall more
regulated in this country than in Hong Kong. The report from Chinese Taipei
points out that teacher education has recently become the province of the univer-
sity rather than the normal school for a number of teacher candidates. Qualified
civic education teachers, however, are in short supply. As a consequence,
schools "usually adapt flexible teacher schedules with language or history

teachers teaching a couple of classes [in] civic education" (Liao, 1997, p. 31).
This, in turn, means that teachers who are not properly trained for this field
" a r e . . . assigned to teach this subject" (p. 30). In addition, the report bemoans
the fact that pre-service and in-service teacher education courses stress the
development of factual knowledge over skills in teaching methods that might
elicit more involvement from students.
The United States reports stress that elementary school teachers in the field
of civic education have completed at least one college course in United States
government, and that secondary school teachers in social studies very often
have at least a college minor in history (Hahn, 1999, p. 603; Hahn et al., 1997,
p. 60). But even in the United States, where civic education is traditionally
fairly well ensconced in the subject of social studies, teachers, according to the
Phase 1 reports, do not regard their academic training as an important factor
in knowing what to teach in civic education and how to teach it. The exception
to this viewpoint relates to the field of economics. When this subject becomes
part of civic education, teachers consider the acquisition of specialized
knowledge to be important (Hahn, 1999, p. 604).
In summation, the training of teachers in charge of civic education instruction
is seen as insufficient by the authors of all seven case studies. With the possible
exception of Finland, most teachers in these countries are not deemed to be
subject-matter specialists in civic education. Knowledge in this field is
constituted not by a formalized or codified body of knowledge, but by the
informal, personal knowledge, on-the-job craft knowledge and life experience
of the instructor. Civic education content thus is likely to consist of the common-
place knowledge, norms and practical wisdom held in those segments of society
to which teachers belong. Ironically, despite the country experts stressing the
necessity for teachers to receive more training that will equip them with both
knowledge of civics and how to teach it, teachers in some countries consider
such training irrelevant.
68 HEINRICH MINTROP
STUDENTS OF CIVIC EDUCATION TEACHERS
The situation of civic education teachers is contextualized by the students they

teach and the institution within which they work. I examine the place of students
in this context in this section and that of the institution in the next.
For the authors of nearly all seven societies examined here, students' attitudes
toward politics, civil life and civic education are problematic, irrespective of
the political and cultural traditions or the impact of recent political events in
these countries. One of the authors of the Italian reports (Losito, 1997, 1999),
drawing on published surveys as well as expert opinion, diagnoses among Italian
youths a "considerable lack of confidence in politics" (1999, p. 403) and "an

ineffectiveness of the school system to provide certain skills and attitudes
necessary for the responsible and conscious exercising of democracy" (1997,
p. 9). He suspects that the development of these democratic skills is hampered
by a lack of open communication between teachers and students (pp. 403-404).
Finnish students, like their Italian counterparts, show a lack of interest in
politics and civic education. The Finnish report documents that young people's
participation rate in national elections is very low. The low turnout, according
to the report's authors, shows alienation from the traditional channels of
influence and even from the voting procedure (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 236).
Lack of interest among young people in politics is also reflected in their ratings
of civic education-related subjects: "History and social studies, the subjects that
systematically address the topics of society and its development, were not ranked
high in a survey of comprehensive school pupils. The subject combination was
ranked as the 10th in terms of importance, and 14th in popularity, among 18
subjects" (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 235). The authors further point to the
difficulty that civic education teachers have in reaching their student clientele.
Accounts of student passivity are also evident in the reports from the United
States, although they are not as prominent as in the Italian and Finnish cases.
The United States authors document students' lack of participation in political
affairs and teachers' complaints about student lack of receptivity (Hahn et al.,
1997, pp. 11, 87).
The sentiment of the Western European experts surfaces in the Eastern
European material as well. The Hungarian and Czech reports inform that after
an initial heightened interest in matters of democratic participation during the
phase of transition from communism, a mood of disenchantment with democracy
set in. Young people especially have been affected. The "disinterest of Czech
students in politics and current events" (Institute for Research and Development
of Education, 1997, p. 20) is attributed by the Czech authors to the level of
over-politicization during the previous communist regime. In other words,
political apathy is understood as a response to the forced political mobilization

of the populace under communism (Vfilkovfi & Kalous, 1999, p. 180). The
author of the Hungarian report concurs that in regards to the recent political
transition in Hungary, most young people "did not show any interest in
political issues, and only a small proportion of them were active participants
in political life" (M~trai, 1999, p. 351). Mfitrai locates reasons for this low level
of interest in the prevalence of traditional instructional arrangements in schools
and a lack of first-hand experience in civic affairs due to a weakly developed
civil society and local political community. Like their brethren in Western
Europe, Eastern European teachers of civic education are struggling to find a
voice that is appropriate and will be heard by their students.

According to the Phase 1 material from Hong Kong, students are apathetic
about civic affairs and civic education: "School practitioners generally perceived
that youngsters are not enthusiastic about political participation and volunteer
activities" (Lee et al., 1996b, p. 12). Educators expected students to be passive
participants in civic activities: "School practitioners attributed youngsters' weak
civic awareness to the failure of placing civic education in the official
curriculum" (p. 12). In fact, the subjects constituting civic education in Hong
Kong, namely EPA, GPA and social studies, are not popular subjects and not
even widely taught in the schools (Lee et al., 1996b). Moreover, as Lee (1999,
p. 324) documents, Hong Kong students tend to be avid consumers of popular
culture and emphasize individual goals and interests over civic ones.
The Hong Kong report provides a telling example of student passivity and
apathy regarding civics-related matters when it cites a teacher's account of a
mock election in his school. "Students [according to this teacher] were not
enthusiastic to understand the background of the candidates, and they polled
on the basis of candidates' form of presentation. Worst of all, students would
rather follow the opinion of the majority than making critical and independent
judgements" (Lee et al., 1996b, p. 47). Similar comments regarding student
lack of interest in all seven country reports suggest that this vivid account from
Hong Kong would present a not unfamiliar scenario to educators in the other
countries participating in the Civic Education Study.
It is not quite clear from the reports cited here as to what exactly is amiss
in students. Is it that they lack an interest in expressing personal autonomy,
a critical stance, and a willingness to execute their democratic rights; or is
it that they lack a sense of civic duties, involvement in community affairs, and
acceptance of social norms? And why is it that the experts are so concerned
about the deficiencies they perceive in their young people? Is it concern for
individual freedom and a lively democratic culture in which citizens engage,
or is it concern for social stability or a fear of too much "individualization and
70 HEINRICH MINTROP
privatization" (Ahonen & Virta, 1997, p. 8)? The Italian report seems to favor
the former, while the two Asian reports appear to stress the latter.
The Asian reports merit closer examination in this regard. According to the
Hong Kong report, "Our interviewees, both within and outside of school, tended
to think that youngsters are abusing the concept of democracy to expand
personal freedom, leading to selfish or self-centered conduct. That view reflects
the interviewees' expectation that democracy, to be balanced, must include
social responsibilities" (Lee, 1999, p. 324). The author of the Chinese Taipei
report similarly notes that, in recent years, "some emerging values, such
as pursuit of profit, materialism, pragmatism, and hedonism have risen and
brought challenges to the continuity of traditional values" (Liao, 1997, p. 7).

The direction this budding individualism has taken, particularly among the
younger generations, gravely concerns this author. Echoing similar sentiments
in other countries that have experienced recent liberalization, he continues
with these observations: "After the lifting of Martial Law, people mistakenly
perceive liberty as liberation. As a result, disordered social phenomena
constantly emerge out of everywhere. This implies that the majority of people
are not well prepared for a life in a democracy. In other words, it is observed
that people lack the dispositions which are indispensable for the healthy
functioning of democracy" (p. 7).
While voicing concern for the validity of social norms and the maintenance
of social order, the Chinese Taipei report simultaneously criticizes a school
system that severely stifles students' interests and their ability to express
themselves. More so than the authors of any other country report, perhaps with
the exception of those from Hong Kong, the Chinese Taipei author deplores
the structure of the educational system that forces students to study for
examinations and teachers and schools to disregard instructional activities that
do not serve that narrow purpose. Closely following the textbook, cramming
and rote memorization are the prevalent features in Chinese Taipei classrooms
that make the flourishing of a more democratic instructional culture difficult.
The Hong Kong reports identify a similar scenario. Written examinations
are based on the content of the textbooks. "Examinations are conducted in
conventional form by requiring students to answer questions based on textbook
information... [and students] are required to know the technical terms involved
and to memorize the facts addressed in the textbooks" (Lee et al., 1996a,
p. 84). However, the Hong Kong data show that instructional methods vary
according to the culture of respective schools. In some schools studied during
Phase 1, lectures prevailed, while in more civic-minded schools open discussions
and the use of a variety of instructional formats could be found. Generally,
study for examinations makes textbook use pertinent and pervasive, leaving
little room for activities requiring critical thinking. Textbooks do suggest activ-
ities, such as mock elections (Lee et al., 1996b, p. 10), but these activities
are often preempted by tight examination schedules that emphasize facts. In
addition, as already mentioned, syllabi of the formal subjects in the civic
education field (for example, EPA and GPA) do not emphasize critical thinking,
but duties and responsibilities.
This kind of critique of instructional arrangements, classroom and school
culture can be found, to varying degrees, in the experts' judgments from
all cases. The Italian reports conclude that "most teachers' teaching activities
do not seem to be very participatory" (Losito, 1997, p, 17; also Losito, 1999,
pp. 413-414). For the most part, teachers are oriented toward following pre-
established topics of the curriculum that are assessed without student input.
Students report that the great majority of activities they encounter in class have
to do with covering material; very few require active involvement. Teachers
embrace the importance of civic education, but point to "lack of time" to
get through the curriculum. However, the Italian author dispels the notion
of uniformity. Exceptions to the preponderance of teacher-centeredness exist
and are pointed out. Perhaps what is more to the point is that they are held up
as the more potentially valuable teaching methods.
Across the seven societies, the most widespread instructional practices in
civic education are the transmission of factual knowledge tested in teacher-
made or official tests, adherence to the textbook or syllabus, lectures and
recitation. Although the Finnish civic education curriculum is decidedly
constructivist in its pedagogical philosophy, the actuality, as the reports surmise,
is characterized by knowledge that is "abstract and distant [from] teenagers'
everyday reality" (Ahonen & Virta, 1997, p. 22; also Ahonen & Virta, 1999,
p. 249) and students' reluctance to engage in active knowledge construction.
The authors lament the dominance, in Finnish civic education classrooms, of
passive reception of information and superficial learning of facts.
In the United States, according to data reported by Hahn and her colleagues,
teacher-centeredness and recitation-style instruction are also common, but a
greater variety of activities seems to be employed. The latter include audio-
visual aids, simulation, role-play and mock elections (Hahn et al., 1997, pp. 12,
18). Some activities, such as a simulation of the Constitutional Convention or
mock trials, have become staples in many social studies classrooms. The authors
surmise that the kind of civic instruction a student is likely to experience will
depend on the curricular track and the social class environment of the school.
When queried during the Phase 1 data collection, teachers in middle-class
suburban schools reported more student-centered activities while teachers in
urban, working-class environments emphasized student behavior control and
72 HEINRICH MINTROP
basic skills (Hahn, 1999, p. 602). As one urban teacher in the United States
study put it, "What the administrators in our building are most concerned about
is order, and the last thing they wanted was for kids to speak out on issues"
(Hahn, 1999, p. 593).
In Eastern European post-communist countries, the situation is somewhat
different. The two reports, examined here, paint the familiar picture of teacher-
centered instruction in civic education, but reveal that the style of instruction has
changed in recent years. In Hungary, where a normative, indoctrinating posture
previously held sway, class discussions are now dominated by a "descriptive-
analytical approach" (Mfitrai, 1999, p. 366). Although the Hungarian author
expresses approval of the dismantling of the indoctrination approach to civic

education, she bemoans the fact that a more problem-oriented and participatory
approach is not very widespread in present-day practice (M~itrai, 1999, p. 367).
One reason is that the standard civic education programs in Hungary give
little room to present issues about which strong differences of opinion exist
(see also Institute for Research and Development of Education, 1997, p. 23,
for similarities in the Czech situation). Although problem-oriented programs
(for example, a World Bank-sponsored program) exist as alternatives to the
standard approach, the report is pessimistic: "Due to the conflict-avoiding
attitude of teachers it seems to be sure that the problem-oriented approach that
touches upon sensitive issues will not spread soon in practice . . . . [According
to the teacher survey,] the majority prefers social cohesion related topics (family,
nationality, men-women) and avoids the discussion of more controversial issues"
(Mfitrai, 1997a, p. 29). Thus, it is the tradition of conflict avoidance along
with the lack of training mentioned in the previous section that makes lively
discussions about current topics unlikely in Hungarian civic education
classrooms. Rather than faulting the political system, the author stresses that it
"is more a matter of the teachers who are socialized into avoiding problems.
Most teachers, even today, believe that sensitive issues should be kept out of
the school" (M~trai, 1999, p. 366). Thus, in the case of Hungary, the author
concludes that teacher training is the key to moving away from the descriptive-
analytical model of civic education toward a more exploratory and participatory
model.
The theme of conflict avoidance as a norm of civic instruction reverberates
through all seven case reports. In the case of Hong Kong, the report author
observes, "With regard to political issues, teachers generally avoid politically
sensitive issues in the process of teaching civic education" (Lee, 1999, p. 324).
The Italian material surmises that teachers shy away from controversy "perhaps
for fear of politicization" (Salerni, 1997, n.p.). In the United States, this fear
of controversy surfaces in the form of fearing to be "perceived as insensitive
to any person" (Hahn et al., 1997, p. 88). The report from Chinese Taipei
discusses the absence of controversy not in terms of teacher norms but in terms
of tight syllabi that do not leave room for controversial topics to arise. In
summary, the reports attribute the avoidance of controversy and lively debate
about current issues to a number of reasons:
° Classroom teachers lack knowledge and skills to handle present-day topics
and to teach them in a way that appeals to students.
• Teachers emphasize curriculum coverage over ways of actively involving
students.
• Syllabi, curricula and textbooks avoid controversy.
• Instruction is subordinated to the demands of exams.

• Teachers fear that they will be criticized for departures from neutrality.
THE INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF THE SCHOOL
How does the institutional context of schools contribute to the difficulties and
limitations surrounding civic education that are so vividly documented in the
seven country reports? In Italy, civic education is "assigned to the school as a
whole before being assigned to the various school subjects"; it is concerned
with "not only the cognitive dimension but also the affective-expefiential one"
(Losito, 1999, p. 399). The curriculum follows a liberal-democratic conception
of civic education, and the constitution of the country, with its stipulations on
the rights and duties of citizens, provides the centerpiece of instruction. At
present, as the report states, "Lower and upper secondary school programs
include a specific subject area called 'civic education' that is taught in conjunc-
tion with history" (p. 399). Losito laments the precarious space available in
school programs for civic education because of this organizational m'rangement.
"The lack of a specific teaching space and independent evaluation of knowledge
gained by students greatly reduces its [civic education] importance for both
teachers and students" (Losito, 1997, p. 5; also Losito, 1999, p. 399).
In Finland, the other selected Western European country, civic education is
"the task of the whole school system" (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 232), and the
core subject for civic education is social studies, which "is combined with
history in the same syllabus" (p. 233). A recent increase in school-based and
student-based flexibility and a lessened emphasis on prescription in the social
studies syllabus mean that civic education teachers can now vary the actual
content of civic instruction. As a consequence, the implemented civic education
curriculum varies widely from school to school within the country. This trend
toward variability is reinforced in Finland through the forms of assessment used.
74 HEINRICH MINTROP
Tests that assess civic education knowledge are school-based and teacher-made
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 232).
Moving from Western to Eastern Europe, we find that in Hungary students
are exposed to civic education in different ways at various grade levels. A
specific subject, "civics", is taught following a chronological course in history
at the end of secondary school (M~trai, 1999, p. 346). According to a national
survey conducted in 1995, the majority of Hungarian teachers believe that
current civics-related issues deserve greater attention in a separate subject. "This
is important," the Hungarian author states, "because [the] teaching of history
had a hegemony in social science education in Hungary in the 80s" (M~itrai,
1997b, p. 23). A national core curriculum, recently passed by the national

legislature, stipulates basic topics and objectives of civic education. Beyond
that, it is up to teachers and other authorities in the schools to decide on the
actual delivery of the curriculum. After the dismantling of the previous model
of civic education, which was based largely on indoctrination, controversy arose
over the degree of church influence and religious content in the new version
of the civic education curriculum. The Hungarian constitutional court conse-
quently issued a ruling demanding ideological neutrality of teachers in public
schools. Within the framework of the national core curriculum, deliberations
about national examination standards began in the mid-1990s. The degree to
which they will touch civic education is uncertain. According to M~trai (1999,
p. 345), if civics or social studies "become examination subjects, the significance
of civic education in the Hungarian educational system could grow."
In many respects, the Czech case conforms to descriptions in the Hungarian
report. As an antidote to the centralism of the communist state in the past,
national curricula state general objectives and content, but leave teachers and
schools with ample discretion within the basic curricular framework (V~lkov~i
& Kalous, 1999, p. 190). Teachers dispense civic education in conjunction with
a number of other subjects, such as history and mother tongue, and it exists as
a discrete program of study "with a minimal mandatory time allowance" for
Grades 6 through 9 (Institute for Research and Development of Education, 1997,
p. 10). The Czech report does not mention the topic of national examinations.
As in Hungary, the Czech Republic has struggled to nudge teachers away from
the indoctrination-style of civic education that held sway under communism
(V~ilkov~i & Kalous, 1999, pp. 188-189) and is currently grappling with the
degree of influence churches should play in civic education. The report mentions
one of the discrete civic education programs currently in use in Czech schools
as Catholic Church-inspired and ethics-centered.
In Hong Kong, although formal civics-related subjects or programs, such as
EPA, GPA, social studies and moral education, exist, "these school subjects
emphasize duties and responsibilities, rather than rights" (Lee et al., 1996b,
p. 7). They tend to be de-politicized, stress allegiance and public morality, and
lack the emphasis on democracy and citizenship rights commonly associated
with a Western liberal conception of civic education. The report is ambiguous
as to whether these subjects, when viewed from this liberal conception, should
be counted as true civic education courses. Rather, civic education in its more
Western liberal bent is a course of study to be taught across the curriculum
outside of GPA, EPA and so on. With this conception of civic education in
mind, the Hong Kong authors state that "civic education is not part of the
formal curriculum", and because of this, "there is no textbook and examination
particularly prepared for civic education in Hong Kong" (Lee et al., 1996b,
p. 5). Guidelines for the civic education program consist of a collection of
themes to be integrated into all subjects and extra-curricular activities. Often,
history and language arts teachers and form mistresses and masters (akin to
home-room teachers) are required to teach civic education. But "since the
existing education system is exam-oriented, encouragement for students' civic
awareness during lessons is ignored due to the tight time-schedule of the
syllabus" (Lee et al., 1996b, p. 26). The Hong Kong authors suggest that
civic education needs to be taught as a separate subject with its own curriculum
and exam schedule.
Unlike the Hong Kong report, the Chinese Taipei report identifies civic
education with the civics-related courses that exist in the country's schools. In
Grades 7 through 9, civic education courses have a discrete time slot, a detailed
syllabus, a textbook to be followed and an examination schedule to be fulfilled.
For example, the textbook, Understanding Taiwan, "is composed of two parts:
lessons and social life norms" (Liao, 1997, p. 4). The content of the lessons is
specified, and the social life norms, Confucian in character, are enumerated.
Eighty percent of the weekly lesson is to be devoted to knowledge, and
20% to the norms. By employing clearly demarcated instructional formats
and emphasizing virtues in civic education, Chinese Taipei teachers of civic
education differ from the cases that have been analyzed so far.
In the United States, teachers concentrate civic education instruction within
the framework of social studies, a field that includes, among other subjects,
history, geography, civics and economics. The format of courses offered varies
greatly from state to state and even from school to school. However, in many
instances, social studies instruction for 14-year-olds is heavily history-based.
About 50% of the states require a state-wide test of social studies knowledge,
although the test format varies greatly by state. When state coordinators for
social studies were asked by the Phase 1 researchers about upcoming changes
that "were likely to significantly impact how social studies is taught in grades
76 HEINRICH MINTROP
6-12 in their state, more than half of the respondents mentioned the development
of new state standards and corresponding assessments" (Hahn et al., 1997,
p. 20). Furthermore, 75% of the respondents noted that existing state or local
district assessments had a moderate or significant influence on the way teachers
teach social studies in schools, even though social studies is often excluded
from the states' assessment programs. Just under half of the respondents said
that "exclusion from state testing was a moderate or very significant obstacle
to effective social studies instruction in grades 6 to 12" (p. 21).
In summary, in most of the seven societies, those who teach civic education
occupy a space without clear boundaries or distinctions. Instruction either
happens across all subjects or is, in many cases, tied in with history instruction
in particular, at least in the upper primary and lower secondary school levels.
Teachers' civic education standards and the implementation of these standards
in the classroom vary widely within the educational systems of the countries.
Chinese Taipei, with its fairly standardized curriculum, is an exception in this
regard. In all reports, the presence or absence of official tests or assessments
is identified as one crucial reason for the widespread variation. The method of
assessment determines the status of civic instruction in schools, influences
teachers' approaches to the curricular field, and shapes events in classrooms.
But despite many similarities across the reports, there are also characteristic
differences related to the institutional space that civic education occupies. These
differences are a result of particular traditions and recent political events within
each country. For example, the two Eastern European post-communist countries
are struggling to position core civic values and knowledge between "indoctri-
nation" and "ethic relativism" (Institute for Research and Development of
Education, 1997, p. 33), a situation that has pitted the church and the secular
state against each other. The two Chinese societies are grappling with two main
problems. First, civic education as democratic political education is feebly
developed programmatically, and, second, it is being severely "crowded out"
in the schools because of the examinations-burdened school curriculum.
TEACHERS OF CIVIC EDUCATION IN THE MODAL

CLASSROOM ACROSS COUNTRIES
Is it possible to construct from the seven country portraits a modal depiction

of a civic education classroom? I believe it is. In this classroom, students are
not all that interested in the content, the teacher is not particularly well trained,
and civic education as a subject, if at all distinguished from the subject of
history, is of secondary concern for "the assigned" teacher. The type of knowl-
edge dispensed is heavily weighted toward facts and the common every-day
wisdom of the instructor. With the exception of a few activities, most notably
mock elections, class discussions, and perhaps a rare simulation, the instructional
format is teacher-centered. The atmosphere in the class is on the dull side due
to the students' lack of interest and the teacher's uncertainty over the advisability
of holding discussions on lively and controversial topics. This rough sketch
does not do justice to the peculiarities of each society's situation, of course,
but it is significant that such a sketch can nonetheless be drawn.
Documented differences notwithstanding, how might these similarities be
explained? The first, and one should add for the researcher most delightful,
explanation could be that the similarities do exist in reality. If this were the
case, then the material presented here might be fruitfully interpreted within a
world-culture argument, as expounded by Meyer (1992). According to Meyer's
theory, the apparent homogeneous nature of civic education teaching cross-
nationally could reflect the force of internationalizing trends that unfold both
within lived culture and institutional culture, with the result that the two cultures
become increasingly isomorphic.
A less ambitious explanation has to do with the power of scholarly discourse.
The findings of the reports may fundamentally reflect expert opinions and
judgments. Indeed, as pointed out earlier, empirical studies on civic instruction
p e r se are rare in most cases, leaving ample space for experts to interpret the
field. Most of these experts, one can safely assume, participate in international
discourse on civic education that is firmly rooted in Western liberal-democratic
conceptions. It is not surprising, then, that the experts' representation of civic
education in all seven countries exhibits perspectives and concerns that tend to
be highlighted in this discourse. As the Finnish report so aptly puts it, "In
all, the situation o f civics is rather contradictory. On the one hand, there is
the modem concept of learning, which . . . matches with the ideals of civics.
On the other hand, research findings [such as those in the Phase 1 reports]
tell about . . . persistent teaching traditions" that diverge from the espoused
concepts (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 251). It will be interesting to observe how
this interlacing of discourse and reality will be played out when expert data
from Phase 1 are compared with the teacher and student views examined through
surveys in Phase 2.
Responses to the teacher questionnaire administered in Phase 2 will allow
researchers to check the reports from experts against data from the practitioners,
with the latter possibly more steeped than the former in the every-day practicality
of the workplace and the lived culture of society and less attuned to the interna-
tional discourses of civic education. It is also quite possible that expert reports and
teacher responses will turn out to be congruent; after all, a number of Phase 1
country reports included teachers as informants and based some of their findings
78 HEINRICH MINTROP
on national or regional surveys of practitioners. In the case of congruence, inter-

pretation could take two directions: either experts and teachers will participate
in the same discourse of "modem" civics (Ahonen & Virta, 1999) and neglect
"traditional" reality when responding to the survey, or consensus between
teachers and experts will corroborate our Phase 1 view of reality. Students
represent a third view on civic education, one that is more detached from the
normative assumptions about civic education presumably held by educators and
experts. Ultimately, it is the response of students that will test the dose of reality
we are presented with from the educators' Phase 1 and Phase 2 data.
KEY DIMENSIONS OF CIVIC EDUCATION

INSTRUCTION
The heuristic of the modal classroom composed from Phase 1 data suggests a
number of key dimensions regarding similarities and differences in civic
education across countries. In the ensuing brief discussion of these dimensions,
I will summarize the findings presented in this chapter and speculate about
their relevance for Phase 2 of the Civic Education Study, especially their
utilization in the construction of the Phase 2 questionnaires for teachers. Direct
responses from practitioners on these key dimensions will complement the
expert interpretations that are discussed here.
I began this chapter with the assumption that civic education teachers instruct
in a field that is institutionally ill defined and culturally sensitive. The key
dimensions enumerated here speak to both of these aspects. In the seven country
reports discussed in this chapter, issues of teacher training and preparation loom
large. Expert interpretations pose the question: what kind of preparation do
teachers have to teach in the field and do they feel adequately prepared for
their task? Tied in with issues of academic preparation are teachers' conceptions
of civic education knowledge. Several conceptions of such knowledge hold
sway to varying strength in the explored countries (for example, formal body
of knowledge, informal folk wisdom, and teaching of accepted norms and
codes of behavior). It appears likely from the reports that in Phase 2 we
will find teachers' construction of civic education knowledge to be related
to the way the institution controls and enables their work through official
curricula, examinations, textbooks and so on. However, in many instances,
the reports point to a gap between institutional intentions and implemented
instruction in schools. In Phase 2 we will have to ascertain what teachers
actually teach in their classrooms, that is, the specific topics that are taught in
real classrooms.
Moving closer yet to the lived experience of classrooms, we can detect in

many of the country reports skepticism about the efficacy of civic education
instruction and of the ability of teachers to tap into their students' interests. It
will be interesting to discover in Phase 2 if teachers see their instructional
efficacy in a similar light. While the reports tend generally to attribute a lack
of student interest to societal phenomena, some experts accentuate intra-school
conditions that influence the way teachers interact with their students in the
classroom. They surmise that instructional methods as well as teachers' own
civic attitudes or norms of acceptable behavior can tacitly shape the message
students receive in their civic education classroom. Thus, the key dimensions
to be investigated in Phase 2 are these: teachers' training and preparation,

conceptions of civic education knowledge, institutional levers, the implemented
curriculum, teacher efficacy, instructional methods, and teachers' civic attitudes.
I will now briefly revisit these themes.
Training and Preparation
The authors of the country reports point repeatedly to the issue of training. The
kind of training and preparation (that is, academic preparation, in-service courses
and re-certification courses), the kinds of academic and school subjects where
civic education is normally nested, the relevance of preparation and training for
actual classroom performance, and the familiarity of teachers with specific topics
of civic instruction raise important issues regarding institutionalization and
formalization of the curricular field. Phase 1 material from the seven cases
suggests that, across the board, civic education teachers are deemed to be
somewhat ill-prepared generalists, although some variability is evident between
and within countries.
Conceptions of Civic Education Knowledge
This dimension deals with teachers' views of what civic education ought to be
(see Stodolsky, 1988, as an example of American educational research in this
area). The Phase 1 material suggests that teachers of civic education tend to
transmit common factual knowledge and convey norms and values (most
strongly in the case of Chinese Taipei). In contrast, and less prevalent, are those
teachers who conceptualize the civic education curriculum as a disciplinary
body of knowledge or as a curricular field that requires critical thinking
and participation on the part of students. While civic education in some
80 HEINRICH MINTROP
countries is addressed across the whole-school curriculum, other countries

seem to favor an arrangement whereby the field is given the status of a separate
subject so as to upgrade its importance for students. In the light of the reports,
teachers appear to espouse a view of civic education knowledge as uncontested.
It will be interesting to see from teachers' direct responses in Phase 2 if
differences in political stability among the countries affect the degree to which
their teachers view civic education knowledge as canonical or negotiated/
constructed, consensual or conflicted. It is conceivable that, particularly in
countries that have recently experienced shifts in the paradigmatic foundations
of social sciences and political systems, civic education knowledge will become
more contested. Some Eastern European countries come to mind where the
previous Marxist-Leninist dogma has been dismantled and replaced by Western
liberal institutions and ideologies.
Institutional Levels
Issues associated with the external instruments that steer teachers when
preparing their lessons, choosing certain instructional formats or neglecting
others have a high profile in the country reports. The presence or absence of
official examinations, textbooks, syllabi and official curricula, on the one hand,
and the opportunity or inclination to use teacher-made or site-based materials,
on the other, will indicate the degree of standardization and instructional
variation that is likely to be encountered in classrooms. But the institution not
only constrains teachers' work, it also enables teachers to carry out their task
by assigning the field a particular status and making civic education compelling
to students.
The Implemented Curriculum
From the Phase 1 material we have gained an idea of what time slots are
designated for civic education for 14- and 15-year-olds across countries.
Similarly, we have a rough idea, from tightly or loosely knit curricular
frameworks or syllabi, of what general topics will be taught or not taught. But
we also know from the Phase 1 material of the gulf that exists between intended
and implemented curricula. As we saw in the reports, this is particularly the
case in civic education because of the lack of institutional elaboration of
the subject. The Phase 1 material, however, has left unanswered what the
curriculum that teachers actually implement looks like. Teachers' responses on
the Phase 2 questionnaires fill this knowledge gap.
Teacher Efficacy
Teachers approach their task with a sense of personal and institutional efficacy
(Ashton & Webb, 1986). The concept of efficacy circumscribes whether teachers
feel that the field of civic education or their personal efforts will have an effect
on student learning. Hence, this dimension will give us information about the
relationship between instruction and student learning as perceived by teachers.
We may recall from the country reports that experts held doubts about the effect
of civic education on student learning. The efficacy dimension in Phase 2 will
shed further light on the commonly reported malaise civic education seems to
encounter in the face of uninterested students.
Instructional Methods
Methods employed in classrooms not only indicate a particular culture of inquiry

and interaction between teachers and students, but also influence the knowledge,
skills and attitudes that students acquire in their civic education classes. Items
in this dimension will check the experts' ubiquitous complaint about lack of
student-centered formats in classrooms against the practitioners' testimony.
Teachers' Civic Attitudes
The Phase 1 reports highlight the significance for civic instruction of common-
place knowledge and teachers' personal practical wisdom. As a consequence,
it is necessary that we become better informed about variations in and sources
of teachers' civic-mindedness. Are there parallels between what a student
assumes to be "a good citizen" and the views that teachers convey of this notion
in their classrooms? The extent of this congruence is a particularly important
area of investigation for Phase 2, given that the Phase 1 reports examined in
this chapter were more or less silent on teachers' personal and political attitudes.
Knowledge conceptualization, instructional formats and civic attitudes will
provide us with some indicators of the culture of the school and the classroom
students are likely to encounter.
Further data on these dimensions will be of great value for the ongoing
exploration of issues associated with the teaching of civic education, particularly
given the dearth of empirical data on this field in most countries. However, it
will be even more interesting to determine the kinds of connections that exist
between the situation of civic education teaching and students' civic knowledge,
attitudes and perceptions of civic education instruction.
82 HEINRICH MINTROP
NOTE
1. Chinese Taipei is the official name designated given by IEA. The chapter author,
however, would like it noted that both he and the case study authors referred to the
country as Taiwan.
REFERENCES
Ahonen, S., & Virta, A. (1997). Towards a dynamic view of society: civic education in Finland.
Unpublished draft report of country case study for the lEA Civic Education Study.
In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Sehwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Ashton, P., & Webb, R. (1986). Making a Difference: Teachers' Sense of Efficacy and Student
Achievement. New York: Longman.
Hahn, C. (1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille
Hahn, C. M., Hughes, P., Dilworth, S. T., & Miller, A. (1997). Responses to the four core
international framing questions (g-q). Unpublished draft material produced for the IEA Civic
Education Study.
Holmes, B. (1981). Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method. London: Allen &
Unwin.
Institute for Research and Development of Education, Prague (1997). National case studies: IEA Civic
Education Project. Unpublished draft material produced for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Lee, W. O. (1999). Controversies in civic education in political transition: Hong Kong. In:
J. Tomey-Purta, J. SchwiUe & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: lEA.
Lee, W. O., Constas, M. A., & Wong, S. (1996a). First draft case study report: Hong Kong.
Unpublished draft of country case study report for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Lee, W. O., Constas, M. A., & Wong, S. (1996b). Hong Kong summaries of the four core inter-
national framing questions. Unpublished draft material produced for the IEA Civic Education
Study.
Liao, T. (1997). Phase 1 report." Taiwan. Unpublished draft of country case study report for the
lEA Civic Education Study.
Losito, B. (1997). Educating for democracy in a changing democratic society. Unpublished draft
of country case study report for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Losito, B. (1999). Italy: Educating for democracy in a changing democratic society. In: J. Tomey-
thu'ta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four
National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 395-418). Amsterdam: lEA.
Mfitrai, Z. (1997a). Review of literature: Hungarian case study of civic education. Unpublished
draft of country case study report for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Mfitrai, Z. (1997b). In transit: civic education in Hungary. Unpublished draft of country case study
report for the lEA Civic Education Study.
M~trai, Z. (1999). In transit: civic education in Hungary. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 341-370). Amsterdam: IEA.
Meyer, J. (1992). School Knowledge for the Masses. London: Falmer Press.
Salerni, A. (1997). Review of studies on civic education in Italy. Unpublished draft of country case
study report for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Stodolsky, S. (1988). The Subject Matters: Classroom Activity in Math and Social Studies. Chicago,
IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Thnrow, L. (1996). The Future of Capitalism: How Today's Economic Forces Shape Tomorrow's
World. New York: William Morrow.
Twen~-eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam:
IEA.
Vfilkowl, J., & Kalous, J. (1999). The changing face of civic education in the Czech Republic.
In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 17%202).
Amsterdam: IEA.
1. Kjetil B⊘rhaug. 2008. Educating voters: political education in Norwegian upper‐

secondary schools. Journal of Curriculum Studies 40:5, 579-600. [CrossRef]
2. Orit Ichilov. 2007. Civic Knowledge of High School Students in Israel: Personal and
Contextual Determinants. Political Psychology 28:10.1111/pops.2007.28.issue-4,
417-440. [CrossRef]
3. Elisabeth Buk‐Berge. 2006. Missed opportunities: the IEA’s study of civic
education and civic education in post‐communist countries. Comparative Education
42:4, 533-548. [CrossRef]
4. HEINRICH MINTROP. 2004. Fostering constructivist communities of learners
in the amalgamated multi‐discipline of social studies. Journal of Curriculum Studies

36:2, 141-158. [CrossRef]
5. Ichilov Orit. 2003. Teaching civics in a divided society: The case of Israel.
International Studies in Sociology of Education 13:3, 219-242. [CrossRef]
41 NATIONAL IDENTITY CONFLICTS
AND CIVIC EDUCATION:
A COMPARISON OF
FIVE COUNTRIES
Zsuzsa M~itrai
INTRODUCTION
This comparative study examines issues of national identity and how civic
education curricula in various countries address them. As in other studies that
attempt to analyze qualitative data cross-nationally, this particular study had to
deal with two kinds of methodological challenge: how can the number of cases
be reduced, and how can the complexity and number of observations be
reduced?
The first kind of data reduction is commonly referred to as sampling. In
this study, this meant taking the following three features of the data set into
consideration. Fh'st, access to contextual information was unequal across
countries. There is no doubt that the strength of qualitative data lies in the
"thick description" or the contextual information that a case study provides. In
the IEA Civic Education Study, national research teams in 24 countries
gathered and provided that "thick description" of civic education in their own
country. I was charged with developing the Hungarian case study. Thus, my

pages 85-104.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
85
86 ZSUZSA MATRAI
access to contextual information for this study was greater than my access to
information for other countries. This meant that, except for my own case study
material, I had to rely on contextual case study information published in Torney-
Purta et al. (1999).
Second, the case study researchers of the IEA Civic Education Study,
unlike researchers engaged in a quantitative data collection, in which
question and answer categories are highly structured and thus comparable,
were given some structured questions but also had the liberty to elaborate
in detail on issues that were relevant in their own country. At the same time,
they could choose to respond only briefly to other questions that were
perceived to be sensitive in their context. A further difficulty was that it was

not always possible to distinguish the stated intent to deal with an
issue through education and the actual extent or effectiveness of the related
educational program. The responses in a qualitative data set are, on purpose,
unequally weighted, reflecting social realities in each case or context. Since
the issue of national identity was only one of the topics addressed in the
case studies, the depth of attention given to it varied markedly from
case study to case study. As a consequence, the sample selection for my
cross-national analysis needed to be based on the criterion of which country
case studies dealt with the topic of national identity in the greatest detail as
well as in similar detail to one another.
The third consideration for the sample selection was variance with regard
to political context. I ensured that the selected country case studies reflected
different economic and political situations, and that they provided sufficient
information on how they individually seek to effect social cohesion through
their political systems in general and civic education in particular.
Taking the three sample selection criteria into consideration, I selected the
following country case studies for cross-national comparison: Germany, Greece,
Hong Kong, Hungary and Israel.
Whereas the first set of methodological challenges dealt with justifying
the sample selection, the second challenge had to do with explaining the
focus of analysis. In quantitative studies, this second reduction process
is referred to as a reduction of observations or information. A review of
literature and of the ways in which the various case study authors discussed
national identity enabled me to develop an interpretative framework for
processing the information provided in each of the case studies. My search
for an appropriate framework was guided by my concern to find variation
or difference with regard to the way national identity is discussed. What is
the nature of attempts to create certain feelings of national homogeneity while
still recognizing the realities of national heterogeneity? The questions I thus
National Identity Conflicts and Civic Education 87
asked myself were these: How do the country case studies differ with regard
to their definitions of national identity? What are the major controversies
and tensions surrounding the concept of national identity?
Two sets of binary constructs surfaced as a result of my reviews of
literature and country case studies. The first set of controversies and tensions
deal with the definition of "political nation" and "cultural nation". The second
area of potential conflict is the relation between "national majority" and
"national minorities." Given the current debates on globalization, it appears
appropriate to question whether a differentiation between political nation and
cultural nation really does justice to the complexity of issues surrounding
the transnational flow of individuals, finance, values and communication, to

list only a few of the most visible manifestations of globalization. However,
despite globalization, the concepts of geo-political space, national territory
and national identity, along with the underlying concepts of political nation
or cultural nation, still seem viable and were therefore included in the
analysis.
NATIONAL IDENTITY CONFLICTS
Cultural Nation - Political Nation
The concept of cultural nation, introduced at the turn of the 20th century,
helps us to understand ways of discussing national identity and how they
are framed differently in so-called nation-states and multinational states.
Given the recent Soviet past of Central and Eastern European countries,
where governments were not able to integrate citizens belonging to different
nationalities, the concept of cultural nation, borrowed from the past, seems
to have regained currency. The concept of cultural nation thus expresses the
notion that a historically developed national community is not the same as
a community of citizens (political nation). Rather, it is formed along special
linguistic-ethnic and religious lines, and if it cannot integrate into a given
political nation, it will sooner or later claim its independent state, that is,
attempt to become a political nation (Szt~cs, 1997, p. 339). Yugoslavia, as a
multinational successor state of the multinational Austrian-Hungarian
monarchy that collapsed after World War I, serves as a past example of this
process, while the complete disintegration of the Balkan states provides a
recent example.
The five country case studies selected for this present study display four
historically different relations between cultural nation and political nation.
88 ZSUZSA M,~TRAI
(1) A Cultural Nation Wishes to be a Political Nation

Whether Jews can be Germans, and Palestinians can be Israelis, are questions
that have elicited different responses at different times in history and under
different political circumstances. Thus, changing attitudes toward the Jewish
population in Germany and toward the Palestinian population in Israel
illustrate the transformation from a nationhood concept that used to be
framed exclusively in cultural terms to a concept that also includes a political
dimension.
Germany, as a cultural nation, became a political nation in 1871, somewhat
later than other European nations of the time. During the period between the
two world wars, the Nazi regime attempted to destroy (through genocide and
other atrocities) the Jewish population, which for centuries had considered itself
a part of the German political nation. For the Jewish people, the fact that
the Holocaust could actually happen indicated that German nationhood was, in
fact, still defined in terms of culture, and hence excluded people who were
considered non-Germans. The demand to move beyond the exclusionary
practice of cultural nations and establish instead political nations, where
citizenship and not ethnicity matters, was clearly voiced on a world-wide scale
after World War II, especially as a response to the atrocities against Jews.
In 1948 the establishment of the Israeli state in Palestine saw the former
cultural nation of the Jewish people transformed into a political nation.
This situation produced a new conflict of nationhood in that the Palestinian
people could live only as a cultural nation in a territory that, for historical and
political reasons, they also claimed to be their own. The demand of the
Palestinian people to be recognized, if necessary by force of arms, as an
independent political nation led to an alliance with Arab states. The protracted
territorial conflict and the almost constant state of war between the state of
Israel and the Palestinian territories have not promoted the integration of those
Palestinian minorities that remained within the territorial borders of Israel.
Palestinians or "Arabs" residing in Israel now live not only as a cultural nation
within Israel, but also as part of another nation that considers itself a political
nation.
(2) A Cultural Nation Splits into Two Political Nations, Which Later Reunite
The country case studies of Germany and Hong Kong illustrate this particular
process of nation formation.
At the end of World War II, the Allied nations divided Germany into two
according to the two main post-war world political and economic systems
(Western-based capitalism and Eastern-based communism) that these countries
represented. For the German people, national identity had to contend with the
fact that members of the same German cultural nation had to be loyal to
one of the two German political nations, each of which was the enemy of the
other. The identity disorder caused by this drastic division of cultural nation
and political nation seemed to vanish for a brief time after the two Germanys
reunited in 1990. However, it returned as the social and economic differences
that had arisen as the result of the two German political nations, representing
two different political systems and developing separately for nearly five decades,
became obvious. A significant number of former East Germans today feel they
are "second-class" citizens in their own political nation (for example, because
of over-representation among the unemployed), a situation that many of them
attempt to deal with not by turning against their own cultural nation, but by
exhibiting militant nationalism and xenophobia.
The situation in Hong Kong seems to be somewhat similar to that in Germany,
but in terms of the future is actually more complicated. Hong Kong was
re-annexed to China, its mother country, in 1997 after 150 years of British
colonization. Theoretically, we might have expected Hong Kong's separation
from the political nation to result in a national identity crisis among its
residents, a crisis that we also might have thought would disappear after
re-annexation. In reality, something quite different has happened. The reasons
for this may be found in what occurred during the years of British coloniza-
tion. The large numbers of political refugees arriving in Hong Kong from China,
along with the capitalist-based and democratic politics of British governance,
supported an economic boom within the colony. Hong Kong thus became a
semi-sovereign political nation with a political and economic ideology opposed
in many ways to that of communist China. For the people of Hong Kong,
re-annexation has meant reunification with their own cultural nation, but it
has also meant some ambivalence in identifying themselves with their new
political nation.
(3) A Semi-Sovereign Political Nation Exhibits Features of a Revitalized

Cultural Nation
This particular constellation on the "cultural nation-political nation" continuum
can best be observed in Hungary and Hong Kong, countries that, for very
different reasons, have experienced significant shifts in how "cultural nation
identity" is defined.
Like other Central and Eastern European countries, Hungary entered
the Soviet Union's sphere of influence after World War II. The resulting
introduction of a Soviet-type political system placed strong limitations on
Hungarian sovereignty. Although the Soviets managed to repress the revolution
by the Hungarian people in 1956, this event visibly loosened the ties between
90 ZSUZSA MATRAI
the two nations. Hungarians no longer felt so defenseless against the one-party
regime and pressured the Hungarian government to redefine its relation to the
Soviet Union in the direction of lessened dependence. During this period of
limited national and individual sovereignty in Hungary, the consciousness of
the Hungarian people was characterized by a kind of hidden national feeling.
This process was simultaneously fed and suppressed by several factors: first,
the external dependence on the Soviet Union; and second, the so-called
internationalist ideology that downplayed national sovereignty of each member
state and emphasized Soviet multinationalism.
Internationalist ideology and Soviet multinationalism meant for the nation-
states a loosening of the existing geo-political boundaries, while for some

peoples, it meant displacement. The territorial disannexations that occurred
as the result of the Trianon Peace Treaty at the end of World War I, for example,
left three million Hungarians in neighboring, mostly Eastern-European countries.
The regaining of sovereignty and other political changes that occurred after the
withdrawal of the Soviet troops in the late 1980s/early 1990s both liberated and
polarized Hungarians in terms of their national identity. The cultural nation
identity that until then had been kept alive within Hungary by recounting of
the country's past heroic wars of independence began to encompass Hungarians
living in neighboring countries. This often re-ignited a sense of cultural
nationhood and strengthened ties between these Hungarians and those within
Hungary's borders. Since the late 1990s Hungary's so-called "nationally
committed" political parties have fostered this spirit of belonging to the same
cultural nation by supporting calls for stronger political ties with bordering
countries and social and economic assistance for the Hungarian minorities living
in them. Hungary's liberal and socialist parties, however, favor only cultural
and financial help for these people.
For the people of Hong Kong, identity had little to do with cultural nation
identity during both the British era and the transition period before re-
annexation to China. Even as members of a semi-sovereign political nation,
they had strong bonds with the Western world, some would argue even stronger
than with China. After re-annexation, Hong Kong became legally one political
nation with China, the de-politicization strategy of the British era ended,
and the cultural nation identity, not the political identity, received political
affirmation. Thus, while present-day Hong Kong appears to emphasize the
cultural and historical roots that it shares with China, it also appears to perceive
its political ties with China more in the sense of a formality than a reality.
In the newly independent sovereign state of Hungary, some political groups
see cultural nation identity as a manifestation of political belonging. For these
groups, the presence of Hungarians in neighboring countries provides Hungary
with the rationale to seek political alliances with those countries. In Hong Kong,
re-annexation to China has had a very different effect. The revival of cultural
nation identity has served to maintain a certain political distance between the
two different political and economic systems that exist within the now united
political nation.
(4) The Cultural Nation Identity Grows in Importance in a Sovereign

Political Nation
The Greek situation illustrates this situation. Unlike the political systems of the
previously mentioned four countries, the political system of Greece has not
undergone recent change. Democracy was restored in 1974, after the overthrow
of a military junta that had been in power for seven years (1967-1974). A sign
of political stability is that, except for the 1989-1993 period, the socialist party
(PASOK) has been in power since 1981. However, this political stability has
not changed Greece's status as a marginal player on the world economy stage.
The refugees who flooded into Greece from the Balkans during the 1990s not
only exacerbated Greece's economic difficulties but also widened the country's
cultural differences. Greece has long been a monocultural nation-state wherein
political nation and cultural nation are the same. The Greek government
responded to the increase in national heterogeneity by firmly determining to
maintain national homogeneity. The government's standpoint is supported by
two sources of national pride: the important role Greece has played in world
history, and the historical continuity of the Greek culture. In regard to political
nation, Greece is regarded as the cradle of Western democracy. In terms of
cultural nation, Greek society is the bearer of an ancient culture. In reality,
however, Greece's ongoing economic difficulties mean that immigrants cannot
easily integrate into Greek society, making it impossible to effectively address
the linguistic, ethnic and religious differences within Greece's homogeneous
cultural nation identity.
National Majority - National Minorities
As can be seen from each of the four cases of political nation-cultural nation
interaction, political nations often have conflicts with national minorities while
cultural nations without statehood tend to have conflicts with the national
majority. In the previous section I analyzed these conflicts solely from
the perspective of cultural homogeneity. In this section, I look at cultural
heterogeneity within political nations, drawing out from the five selected cases
the national minority conflicts that arise as a result of heterogeneity, as well as
the policies with an impact on these minorities.
92 ZSUZSA MATRAI
National minorities within a single political nation can be characterized in

various ways, such as the length of time they and the national majority have lived
together. Members of minority cultures may be new immigrants, or they may
have long resided in the country. Their entry to the country may have been
voluntary or it may have been forced upon them. Similarly, their integration with
the majority culture(s) may have been imposed upon them or left up to them. In
regard to their cultural background, they may differ from the majority culture on
linguistic-ethnic grounds only, on religious grounds only, or on both linguistic-
ethnic and religious grounds. With the exception of Hong Kong, we can identify
in each of the selected countries which majority and which minority group(s) are
in conflict with one another. I conduct my discussion in this section by taking

into account the extent to which the majority cultures in these four countries seek,
through their policies, to accept and/or assimilate the minority cultures. These
policies can thus be termed integrative or non-integrative.
(1) Refugees in Germany: Integration into a Larger Political Space (Europe)

As early as the seventeenth century the German Empire opened its borders to
Protestant immigrants seeking refuge from religious persecution. The gains and
losses for these immigrants varied. Czech and French Protestants mostly became
prosperous citizens of German cities. The Slavic economic refugees who arrived
after German unification also integrated into German society, but had the
adverse effect of increasing the number of poor laborers. The Jews who
had been expelled from other countries were accepted provided that they
assimilated themselves within German society, which many of them indeed did.
For a time after World War II the Federal Republic of Germany increased
its ethnic mix by recruiting laborers from other European countries. At
the beginning of the 1990s it accepted more refugees than most other countries
in Europe. However, although Germany's post-World War I! policy toward
minorities has maintained its admissive character, there is a part of German
society that, since the time the two Germanys reunified, has radically changed
its attitude toward immigrants. This conflict is reflected not only in atrocities
against immigrants and the appearance of laws strictly punishing the perpetra-
tors, but also in the desire to help establish a politically integrated Europe
that would more easily accommodate different cultures living together. German
policies support the idea of a multicultural society set within a politically
integrated Europe, if for no other reason than because the historical burden of
the Nazi regime makes it highly difficult for Germany to handle minority
problems within the context of either cultural nation or political nation. Both
have bad connotations. The German case is unusual in that it illustrates a specific
pattern of resolving a national identity conflict, one that takes attention away
from the national level, in part by turning it toward a supranational level. The
case study material suggests that in Germany a European identity is favored
over any kind of German nationalism, be it political nationalism or cultural
nationalism.
(2) Refugees in Greece: Disintegration From the Cultural Nation

In Greece, most of the population belongs to the Greek Orthodox majority nation;
until the early 1990s the proportion of ethnic and/or religious minorities did not
exceed two percent of the total population. However, the number and variety of
minorities increased markedly during this decade with the influx of repatriated
Greeks (mostly from Albania) and refugees, also from Albania, but from other
ex-communist countries and Asia as well. It is difficult to obtain reliable figures
on minority populations residing in Greece, however. Some sources identify
Turks, Albanians and Macedonians as ethnic minorities (see, for example,
FOldrajzi Vildgatlasz, 1992, p. 195). The IEA Civic Education Greek case study
(Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999, p. 291) cites Stavros (1995), who lists the diverse
ethnic and religious minorities residing in Greece as: "(a) the Muslims, (b) the
bilingual people of certain parts of Macedonia, (c) the Jewish community, (d) the
Catholics, (e) the Protestants, (f) several other religious g r o u p s . . . (g)
the Gypsies." The Greek case study authors also mention "Vlachs and Albanian
speaking Greeks" (p. 291). Most commentators, however, do not name Greece's
minority groups, instead referring to them collectively as a very small proportion
of the country' s total population. Although difficult to determine clearly the extent
of present-day linguistic-ethnic and religious diversity in Greece (a difficulty that
is compounded by the fact that Muslims are not recognized as a national but as
a religious minority), that diversity has certainly increased markedly as a
consequence of recent waves of immigration.
While some Greeks have reacted directly, that is, with xenophobia, to the
greater degree of cultural heterogeneity in their country, the government
has reacted indirectly with policies that endeavor to maintain the illusion of a
monocultural nation-state and to foster ethnocentrism. The government's efforts
to strengthen the economy have had a negative effect on minorities. Although
Greek human rights organizations are standing up against racial, ethnic and
religious discrimination toward immigrants, discriminatory and exclusionary
practices are likely to continue given the country's current economic climate -
a climate that even the prospect of European integration may not improve.
(3) Arabs in Israel: Disintegration from the Political Nation

What makes Israel unique in regard to its national majority-national minorities
relationship is that it is not simply a country of immigrants but also a country
94 ZSUZSA MATRAI
of mostly Jewish immigrants. After the foundation of the state of Israel, the
European survivors of the Holocaust and Jews from the Arab countries of
the Middle East emigrated there in vast numbers. Another influx, of mainly
Russian Jews, occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another unusual
feature in relation to Israel is that while other countries endeavor to limit
immigration, Israel encourages it in order to increase its Jewish population.
Thus, in Israel, immigration does not have the effect of increasing cultural
heterogeneity but of establishing cultural homogeneity.
In this county of immigrants, cultural markers draw from the preservation of
Jewish traditions and the collective historical experience of persecution, and
they do not depend on having the same mother tongue or the same type
of political socialization. Despite these broad markers of common culture, Israeli
society has become more and more divided. The preservation of Jewish
traditions has made the Jewish religion a divisive factor when theoretically it
could be one of the most important means of creating unity. The national
orthodox and ultra-orthodox stances within the Jewish faith have created a
militant nationalist barrier to finding solutions to the two most important issues
affecting Israel's national identity at the turn of the 21st century; namely, the
country's relationship with the Arab minority living within its borders, and its
relationship with the state of Palestine.
Israel's policy regarding its Arab minority is decisively influenced by the
fact that Israel is the only country in all of the Middle East where Arabs
live as a minority. This factor, in turn, is influenced by the conflict between
Israel and Palestine, which has made Israel's relationship with surrounding Arab
states extremely fragile. Under such circumstances, the Israeli government,
lacking trust in the loyalty of its Arab citizens, has minimized these citizens'
obligations toward the state. Israeli Arabs cannot, for example, serve in the
army, and consequently are unable to receive the privileges that Israeli army
veterans enjoy, such as an apartment or a loan. The lack of identification with
the political nation is further increased for Israeli Arabs by the fact that
they find the symbols of the state of Israel (its flag, its national anthem)
unacceptable.
(4) Roma (Gypsy) Population in Hungary: Integration with the

Political Nation
It is commonly said that there is no minority problem in Hungary because there
are no nationalities. Even if this statement is somewhat exaggerated, it needs
to be pointed out that after World War I three million Hungarians, as well
as most of the Hungarians of mixed descent that had lived in Hungary for
centuries, left the country. Those from these groups who remained (for example,
Slovaks, Romanians and Germans) successfully integrated into Hungarian

society despite their language differences. Since the return of democratically
elected government in Hungary, policies have seen the establishment of minority
self-governments and financial support for national minority schools in Hungary.
The aim is to preserve cohesion within the various cultures residing within
Hungary. As noted above, this policy has also had a tremendous impact on
Hungarians residing outside of Hungary. This is because it places pressure on
neighboring countries to grant cultural autonomy to Hungarian minorities living
within their borders, by introducing, for example, Hungarian as a language of
instruction at university level.
The recent phenomenon of migrants entering Hungary itself has met a mixed
reception from the Hungarian public and government. While Transylvanian
Hungarians from Romania have been well accepted, immigrants of different
national backgrounds, among them illegal ones (mostly Yugoslavs, Ukrainians,
Russians), have been greeted with reserve. This latter attitude can be attributed
less to Hungarians' fear of losing their cultural homogeneity and more to their
fear of international crime (Mfitrai, 1999, p. 359).
The main ethnic conflict for the majority Hungarian society relates to
Hungary's Roma population, which has lived in the country for a long time.
After Hungary became a republic in 1990, social prejudice against the Roma
not only became openly apparent but also grew significantly. Hungary's
transition to a market economy has seen the usually undereducated Roma
population lose its previous state support and also become the losers in
competition for jobs. This situation sharpened the long-existing lifestyle
differences between Hungarians and the Roma and has become a constant and
daily source of conflict between the two cultures. Although the government's
policies definitely support political integration of the Roma population in a
manner that will simultaneously preserve their cultural traditions (Roma
self-government, Roma schools and Roma foundations), it is likely that this
policy, along with the lack of financial support, will substantially postpone the
Roma's social and economic integration.
(5) Minorities in Hong Kong: The Absence of Minority Policies

Unlike the other countries in this analysis, no minority conflicts are apparent
in Hong Kong. Among the rather small number of national minorities -
Vietnamese, Chinese refugees, Philippines, Indians - there are even some
privileged groups. Although Hong Kong's ethnic composition is practically
homogeneous, its religious composition is very heterogeneous, but even here
discrimination does not exist, so much so that a state religion does not exist.
More importantly, social mobility and social stratification do not seem to be
96 ZSUZSA MATRAI
constructed along ethnic or religious lines. Thus, the government of Hong Kong,
perhaps because of the strong value attached to economic growth, has not seen
any political need to develop special policies to handle potential minority
conflicts.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND COHESION

FORMATION IN CIVIC EDUCATION
As can be seen from my dual-factor (cultural nation-political nation and

national majority-national minorities) analysis of national identity conflicts,
situations involving conflict between national majorities and national minori-

ties can destroy societal cohesion if not handled carefully by government.
Furthermore, the "national homogeneity equals cohesion" strategy evident in,
for example, Hungary or Greece, does not necessarily offer a successful
means of resolving social conflict. Although the means by which typically
homogeneous and typically heterogeneous political nations attempt to achieve
societal cohesion certainly differ, nations do have a possible means of
achieving success, namely strong solidarity between the majority and the
minority cultures.
Education, and especially civic education, can play a very important role in
conflict resolution and cohesion formation. However, success is much more
likely if governments and schools face up to national identity conflicts by
exploring them thematically from historical and/or current perspectives. They
must also aim, through the different civics-related subjects, to strengthen and
deepen the aforementioned solidarity.
When analyzing the civic education programs of my five selected cases,
I examined these two factors. In regard to conflict resolution I tried to find out
whether the actual national identity-related conflicts are explicitly mentioned
in the summaries of the country case studies (Torney-Purta et al., 1999) and,
if so, how. My aim regarding cohesion was first to find where examples of this
appear in the summaries of the country case studies, and then to determine the
extent to which these instances indicate an intention on the part of the majority
culture to produce the type of solidarity that facilitates solutions to conflict.
National Identity Conflicts as Central Themes of Civic Education
The summaries of the country case studies (Torney-Purta et al., 1999) yielded
a variety of content that pointed out and offered possible solutions to existing
conflicts. This content ranged from no acknowledgment of conflict at all, through
expressed intentions regarding identify conflicts, to seeking ways to solve
conflicts. I paid special attention to examining the content of civic education

programs or civics-related subjects in the five selected cases.
(1) Presenting Conflict Topics: Germany

In Germany, even the use of national identity-related concepts is a source of
conflict, since such concepts as national consciousness, national belonging and
national pride have negative connotations because of their association with the
National Socialist past. One might therefore expect a complete avoidance of
national identity-related focus in civic education programs, but this is not the
case. For the above reasons, national symbols (flag, anthem), national heroes
and national holidays are not emphasized, whereas those issues that really
distress or occupy German national consciousness are stressed.
Of the issues that trouble Germans' sense of national identity, the Holocaust
and the present-day influx of refugees, asylum-seekers and immigrants are
accorded the greatest importance in reality and in civic education alike. The
50th anniversary of the end of World War II in 1995 in particular made the
Holocaust a major topic of study, with German students discussing it within
the context of various projects. Through study of the concentration camps and
through meetings with survivors, they faced the atrocities against the Jews,
developed all kinds of documentary material and organized memorials. This
program of study made it possible to show students clearly what had happened,
but not necessarily with the intention and consequence of awakening within
them a feeling of personal responsibility for these events.
The situation of refugees and attitudes toward them are evident in
two thematic foci of civics-related subjects. The first relates to human rights,
which stresses controversies over the social and legal status of refugees, crimes
perpetrated against them and the prevention of these. The second, found within
geography textbooks, broadens the topic to cover the causes of immigration
and religious and cultural differences. Several projects also deal with
refugee-related problems in connection with such everyday situations as the
poor living standards of refugees living in the neighborhood of the students or
school conflicts between culturally heterogeneous groups (H~indle et al., 1999,
pp. 269-272, 274-275). It is important to bear the divided structure of the
German educational system in mind when examining civics-related subjects
(geography, history, literature, etc.) and civic education. The latter is referred
to in most German Lander as political education (German: Politische Bildung).
(2) Passing Over Conflict Topics: Hong Kong

As I pointed out in the analysis of national identity conflicts in Hong Kong,
the main national identity conflict here arises out of the transition from "one
98 ZSUZSA MATRAI
cultural nation - two political nations" to "one cultural nation - one political
nation." National identity is therefore not explicitly addressed in civics-related
subjects. Identity matters are evident, though, mostly in terms of descriptions
of Hong Kong's cultural interdependence with China, Chinese traditions,
Chinese national holidays and Chinese customs. Historical topics also provide
opportunity to strengthen cultural nation identity, but Hong Kong's typically
descriptive teaching methods allow avoidance in these topics of the actual
political aspects and conflicts originating from the move to one political nation.
For example, China's historical heroes are introduced with little or no
evaluation of their merits or their activities (Lee, 1999, pp. 316--318).
(3) Avoiding Conflict Topics: Hungary

As described above, two main national identity issues give rise to conflict in
Hungary: the political support of Hungarians living beyond the country's
borders, and the co-habitation of the Roma and Hungarian peoples. Although
both issues are evident in the content of civics-related subjects, they are
presented with little emphasis, and there is no mention whatsoever of conflict.
For example, the current disagreement about whether Hungarian people living
outside the country should receive direct political support or only economic and
cultural support is not addressed. Similarly, everyday lifestyle conflicts between
Roma and Hungarians living together, and analysis of the economic and cultural
reasons for these conflicts, are not discussed in civic education curricula and
textbooks (M~itrai, 1999, pp. 361-362).
(4) Seeking Ways to Introduce Conflict Topics: Israel

It is probably fair to suggest that Israel presents the most complicated situation
in relation to national identity-related conflict issues, but, in saying this, I
do not mean to underestimate the difficulties being experienced by the other
countries in this analysis. The transitional conditions of the long-lasting search
for peace make it is almost impossible for Israel to find a way of introducing
conflict topics in civic education without sharpening the mutual grievances
between religious and non-religious Jews and between the Jewish majority and
the Arab minority. Nevertheless, various agencies have endeavored to introduce
content that in some way touches upon national identity and conflict. For
example, the Jewish-Zionist Institute has in place programs that emphasize the
cultural aspect of the Jewish identity. In addition, in the late 1990s there were
fewer nationalist elements and less negative treatment of Arabs than previously
in Jewish civic education. However, the national symbols (flag, anthem, national
holidays) that alienate the Arab minority are still compulsory in Arab schools.
Moreover, important issues, such as that of Jews and Arabs living peacefully
together and that of peace itself still receive little attention in Israeli schools
(Ichilov, 1999, pp. 385-389).
(5) Neglecting Conflict Topics: Greece

Becatrse Greece's political conception of the homogeneous nation-state takes
account of neither cultural heterogeneity nor tensions resulting from the sudden
influx of refugees and immigrants, civic education in the country's schools
almost completely neglects the contradiction between this concept and the reality
of linguistic, ethnic and religious heterogeneity. Those topics that deal with
cultural differences refer to other countries, and any comparison of "culturally

homogeneous" Greece with those countries is made within the context of the
form of national identity that Greece most values - national unity (Makrinioti
& Solomon, 1999, pp. 295, 298-306).
Solidarity Education as an Agent of Social Cohesion
The manner in which national identity conflicts are presented in civic

education topics is not the only characteristic requiring attention in the
analyzed cases. What may be even more important to consider is how the
resolution of civic-related topics within the schools contributes to finding
solutions to the existing conflicts, that is, to forming social cohesion.
According to Oszk~ir J~iszi (the well-known Hungarian political scientist who
emigrated in the early 20th century to the United States), civic education
that emphasizes solidarity is the key to bringing cohesion between political
nations and between majority and minority cultures within a political nation
(Jfiszi, 1983, p. 553). The wider the scope of solidarity (extending to more
political nations and minorities), the more cohesion-forming strength it will
have. I have chosen the term "solidarity education" to denote educational
objectives that aim to convey an inclusive concept of citizenship, that is, one
that includes minorities in the country and displays openness towards other
political nations. Thus, to be truly effective, solidarity education in a country
has to go well beyond looking at national identity conflicts in terms of how
those conflicts affect that country and perhaps one or two others. In this
section I examine passages from the summaries of the country case studies
that address, directly or indirectly, issues of social solidarity (within a nation)
and political solidarity (with other nations).
100 ZSUZSA MJkTRAI
(1) The International Dimension as a Major Focus of Cohesion Formation:

Hong Kong
Although Hong Kong's main national identity conflict lies in Hong Kong's
assimilation as one political nation with China, education for solidarity within
the schools has a cultural and historical rather than a political character, as
I have previously stressed. However, the main direction that solidarity is
taking in civic education is not focused on an identity that is related to the
national sphere. Hong Kong reached its present position in the worldeconomy
not as a part of China but as a part of the Western world. As such, the
direction of its solidarity is primarily international. Identity for Hong Kong
is associated not with being a (re-annexed) part of China but with being one
of the most important centers of global trade, an attitude that is reflected in
civic education-related curricula and textbooks (Lee, 1999, p. 328).
(2) The European Union Dimension as a Major Focus of Cohesion

Formation: Germany
In Germany, solidarity education is more comprehensive than it is in the other
analyzed cases, and its scope extends far beyond the areas of national identity
conflict. For example, even though fewer Third World immigrants have entered
Germany than other European countries, solidarity education covers Third World
countries. It also focuses on Western and Eastern European nations, and empha-
sizes the Eastern parts of Germany. This latter emphasis aims to loosen the tension
between the ideologies of the old and the new federal states as a step toward
resolving the serious socioeconomic differentials between the former Eastern and
Western German people. Strengthening Germany's international connections is
also a generally well-emphasized topic in civic education, with several projects,
such as international student exchange programs, providing students with oppor-
tunity to gather direct experiences about other nations' lifestyles and problems.
Solidarity is also being strengthened through topics and projects that deal
directly with conflict areas: the Holocaust, the human rights of immigrants,
and how to live successfully with immigrants. The most striking indicator
of the importance of solidarity education is that it is conducted with almost
no reference to German national symbols and national status, which are
acknowledged as symbols of nationalism that could alienate other nations or
national minorities. There is a clear intention in Germany's civic education
to achieve societal cohesion by developing solidarity with other nations and
national minorities. It is recognized that the way to do this is not to strengthen
German national identity but to foster a broader European consciousness
among German people (Handle et al., pp. 272-273).
(3) The National Dimension as a Major Focus of Cohesion Formation:

Israel
The equilibrium between those factors that build cohesion and those that
threaten cohesion are more fragile in Israel than in the other selected countries.
The authorities have chosen to deal with this situation by emphasizing the
national dimension in solidarity education. This is evident from the importance
accorded to Jewish national symbols. These act as cohesion-forming agents
for Israel's Jewish majority, but alienate its Arab minority. However,
even though solidarity is not directed toward the Arab minority, civic
education topics moved during the 1990s to treat these groups with less nega-
tivity and hostility than previously. It is not only the tension between Jews
and Arabs that makes the national dimension important in cohesion
formation. Solidarity between religious and non-religious Jews is also an
issue. To this end, non-profit organizations have tried to find ways of building
up direct relationships between religious and state schools (Ichilov, 1999,
pp. 375-378).
(4) The Political Nation Dimension as a Major Focus of Cohesion

Formation: Hungary
In every newly democratic country, respect for human rights is an important
measure of the strength of democracy. In Hungary's civic education,
solidarity-related educational aims are most evident in teaching relating to
human rights topics. However, solidarity education does not have a direct role
in lessening national identity conflicts. Those areas of conflict that can
adversely affect cohesion formation - solidarity with the Roma population
and with Hungarians living behind the borders - are handled with great
care and only indirectly in the curricula and textbooks of civic education.
Thus, there are no concrete references to them in the teaching materials. The
issue of solidarity with the Roma is embedded in topics related to Hungary's
social welfare system and the practice by national-ethnic minorities of their
political rights. In these instances, the Roma are not referred to by name, and
the areas of conflict arising out of the co-habitation in one country of Roma
and Hungarians is left untouched. Even the issue of political solidarity with
Hungarians living beyond Hungary's borders is addressed only implicitly in
the teaching materials. For the Hungarian government, explicit mention risks
either criticizing the minority policies of not only neighboring countries
but also the various political parties that represent the interests of specific
Hungarian minorities (M~trai, 1999, pp. 361-362).
102 ZSUZSA MATRAI
(5) The Cultural Nation Dimension as a Major Focus of Cohesion

Formation: Greece
It is interesting that even though Greece today faces several linguistic, ethnic
and religious minority tensions, reference to them is generally absent from civic
education. This does not mean that efforts to strengthen solidarity are not present
in Greek civic education. Rather, the textbooks suggest that the types of tension
that could be lessened by solidarity education exist elsewhere but not in Greece.
Educational goals that seek to facilitate respect for human and minority rights,
disapproval of racial, national and religious discrimination, and condemnation
of violation of these rights are evident only when teaching about the history of
other regions and countries or non-democratic states. Thus, solidarity education

in Greece has no inner cohesion-forming function, because cohesion is seen as
having already been ensured by the homogeneous Greek nation-state. In Greek
civic education textbooks, until 1998 at least, solidarity has been portrayed as
the democratic norm and consequently has not been directed toward solving
national identity conflicts within the country (Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999, pp.
301-302).
DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH COHESION

FORMATION
My analysis of secondary sources (the five country case studies) reveals that
although the civic education programs of the five countries have common
difficulties in effecting social cohesion (for example, political status change,
mass immigration), the type and extent of these problems vary considerably
across the countries. The main difficulties hindering cohesion formation i n
Greece and Hungary seem to be largely related to economic conditions, while
in Germany, Hong Kong and Israel they seem to be related primarily to the
political situation.
The development of solidarity with national and ethnic minorities is hindered
by the existential uncertainty of the majority nation in both Greece and Hungary
originating from the marginal state of their respective economies. The extremely
poor social and economic integration of refugees in Greece and of the Roma
population in Hungary is largely neglected in the civic education of these two
countries. In countries such as Hong Kong, where politics are regarded as the
root of national identity conflicts, civic education tends to at least acknowledge
national identity if only through passing mention. It seems that while it may
be possible to ignore or neglect within civic education difficulties that are
economic in origin, it is not so easy to do so in relation to difficulties that are
political in origin.
Difficulties of political origin can be differentiated according to whether

solutions to them are sought before, during or after a time of political upheaval.
It appears that governments find it easier to address conflicts in reality and in
civic education after rather than before this type of change, especially if they
can rely on a strong economy to facilitate the social cohesion of their people(s).
Germany and Hong Kong are examples of such government interventions.
However, it is likely that even in countries with a strong economy, cohesion
formation will be limited if political decisions regarding conflicts of national
identity are protracted, as in Israel.
Finally, cohesion formation is influenced by whether national identity
conflicts have a long or a short history. In Germany, Israel and Hungary,

conflicts affecting national identity and, in turn, social cohesion, are shaped by
the historical burden of such events as (respectively) the Holocaust, the history
of Palestine, and the relegation of many Hungarians to countries other than
Hungary. However, some governments (such as that of Germany) recognize the
important role that civic education can play in addressing past experiences with
exclusionary concepts of citizenship that discriminated against social groups
within a country.
In essence, it appears that it is most difficult to form social cohesion in coun-
tries with a protracted inter-ethnic or inter-religious conflict whose governments
have long and unsuccessfully endeavored to find a solution to national identity
conflicts. Conversely, governments are less likely to experience difficulties if
they have a strong economy, are politically willing to face conflicts openly, and
are in a position of economic and social power internationally.
CONCLUSION
Orit Ichilov, the author of the Israeli case study (Ichilov, 1999), contends that
civic education reflects the social, political and value changes of a society.
I would like to present a different perspective and argue that civic education
reflects not so much the changes themselves but rather the official policies
toward those changes, and only to the extent that they are actually included
in school programs. This proviso is particularly important in regard to an
issue that is as politically sensitive as national identity. Also, the picture I have
developed here of the manner in which national identity conflicts are addressed
in the civic education of the five cases must be treated with caution, as various
factors can affect the validity of that picture. As I observed early in this chapter,
current national identity-related policies change or are modified over time.
Second, the lack of quantitative data for analysis means I have been unable
to ascertain the extent to which civic education-related policies are actually
104 ZSUZSA MATRAI
implemented in the schools and how they relate to other socialization

influences.
One of the main goals of the second phase of the IEA Civic Education Study
is to assess students' civic-related achievements and attitudes (Torney-Purta
et al., 2001). The data gathered during this phase not only tell us more about
the realization of civic education policies in schools but also the extent to which
civic education is shaping our future generation's sense of national identity
consciousness.
REFERENCES
F61drajzi Vildgatlasz (Geographic world atlas) (1992). Budapest: Kartogfftfiai Vfillalat.

Handle, C., Oestereich, D., & Trommer, L. (1999). Concepts of civic education in Germany based
J~iszi, O. (1983). A Habsburg Monarchia felbomldsa (The dissolution of the Hapsburg monarchy).
Budapest: Gondolat.
J. Torney-Pttrta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Makrinioti, D., & Solomon, J. (1999). The discourse of citizenship education in Greece: national
identity and social diversity. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Sehwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Mfitrai, Z. (1999). In transit: civic education in Hungary. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 341-370). Amsterdam: IEA.
Szl)cs, J. (1997). A magyar nemzeti tudat kialakuldsa (The shape of national consciousness in
Hungary). Budapest: Balassa/JATE/Osifis.
Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam: lEA.
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H., & Schulz, W. (2001). Cit&enship and Education in
IEA.
1. Laura Quaynor. 2015. ‘I do not have the means to speak:’ educating youth
for citizenship in post-conflict Liberia. Journal of Peace Education 12, 15-36.
[CrossRef]
2. Kathy Bickmore, Christina Parker. 2014. Constructive Conflict Talk in
Classrooms: Divergent Approaches to Addressing Divergent Perspectives. Theory
& Research in Social Education 42, 291-335. [CrossRef]
3. Kathy Bickmore*. 2005. Foundations for peacebuilding and discursive
peacekeeping: infusion and exclusion of conflict in Canadian public school
curricula. Journal of Peace Education 2:2, 161-181. [CrossRef]
5 I THE PARADOXICAL SITUATION OF
CIVIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS"
UBIQUITOUS AND YET ELUSIVE
John S c h w i l l e and Jo-Ann A m a d e o

INTRODUCTION
If schools did not exist, civic education would still take place. Young people
would grow up and learn how to become citizens or political subjects. Thus,
we could talk about whether they are active or inactive, informed or uninformed,
and supportive or not of the political system and its practices. Schools, however,
do exist and are so much a part of contemporary society that it is difficult,
even impossible, to imagine civic education being totally excluded from
them. Moreover, as long as parts of the political system aspire to foster active,
informed and supportive citizens, schools will be considered a possible means
to this end. To date, however, their success in this respect has been mixed.
THE PERCEIVED NEED FOR REFORM

OF CIVIC EDUCATION
'The case studies from the lEA Civic Education Study show that in many
ways the current relationship between schooling and civic education is highly
problematical.1 This situation is aptly illustrated by the Israeli case study, which

pages 105-136.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
105
106 JOHN SCHWILLE AND JO-ANN AMADEO
concludes with the following harsh assessment of the state of civic education
in the country:
Citizenship education within a polarized society, where little consensus exists over the very
essence of collective identities, is almost an impossible task . . . . The formal curriculum
seems to offer unsystematic and sporadic treatment of citizenship education. Civics as a
school subject is marginal, and many students encounter it for the first time only in the last
grades of high school. Similarly, only a few students are exposed to the social sciences.
History, literature and language, as well as the study of the Bible, geography and other
school subjects that offer opportunities to discuss issues and concepts, are relevant for
citizenship education. In many instances, however, textbooks portray stereotypical images
of Arabs and neglect the rich cultural traditions of many Jewish and non-Jewish communities
which reside in Israel (Ichilov, 1999, p. 390).
This conclusion goes on to say that, even though there are many programs
and materials for supplementary activities, the extent to which students
engage in extracurricular activities related to civic education is unknown.
Student government, for its part, has a mixed record, engaging some students
and failing to attract the participation of others.
Other case studies draw similar conclusions. They reveal that civic education
is widely perceived as a problem area in countries that are otherwise different
from one another. For example, in the Canadian case, the authors declare that
there is a lack of clarity concerning precisely what is expected of the school system in terms
of civic education; there is a lack of professional knowledge concerning how the knowledge,
skills and dispositions of citizenship are learned; and even less about how they might be
taught; and, based on the foregoing, there is a lack of surety about how to monitor progress
(Sears et al., 1999, p. 130).
Of particular concern is the fact that, in country after country, surveys and other
sources of information show young people to be ignorant of and alienated from
political institutions and practices. This leaves educators with a predicament.
The more students are alienated, the more difficult it is to find ways to interest
them in civic education. This alienation is particularly well documented in the
Finnish case study, which notes that in a longitudinal study of young people
in the 1970s and 1980s more than half of them regarded politics as insignificant,
whereas only a third considered it important. A 1993 study of Finnish 16- to
19-year-olds also documented young people's negative views of politics. Given
a word association task, these young people characterized politics as
"'incomprehensible speech', 'foul play', 'dull' and 'plain stupid'. Politicians were charac-
terized as 'clowns', 'swindlers' or, for instance, 'old, stupid people past 50 making unwise
decisions'." Nearly 50% of these young people regarded politics as irrelevant for them
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, pp. 235-236).
The Paradoxical Situation of Civic Education in Schools 107
In Hungary, a 1994-1995 survey of a representative sample of 18- to 35-year-

olds found that 72% of this age group were dissatisfied with the functioning
of their democratic institutions. Only 25% of the 25- to 35-year-olds and 15%
of the 18- to 24-year-olds expressed interest in politics as compared to 46% of
adults overall (M~itrai, 1999, p. 350).
Similarly, the Belgian report asserts that young people have "a poor
knowledge of political doctrines or even about current political events" (Blondin
& Schillings, 1999, p. 71), and the German case study reports that German
youth have not maintained the interest and involvement in politics that was
evident in the 1960s and 1970s (H~ndle et al., 1999, p. 266). In Italy, studies
show not only that students lack confidence in politics and towards political
institutions, but also that "the knowledge actually acquired by [them] . . . is a
long way from what was envisaged in the objectives of schooling" (Losito,
1999, p. 403). And in Australia "the evidence disclosed by research on student
learning and specific outcomes suggests that students, in fact, understand little
about civics and citizenship" (Print et al., 1999. p. 49).
While young people's knowledge of politics and political institutions is less
than desired in the countries studied, the problem is not that civic education
is missing from school. Rather, even where there is no subject-matter whose
name calls to mind civics learning, civic education is ubiquitous - potentially
everywhere in school - with students learning civic knowledge, dispositions
and skills from various courses, extracurricular activities, hidden curricula,
peers, and relations between teachers and students more generally. In responding
to the perceived need, civic education reform could therefore likewise take many
forms. It could involve changes in curricula, examinations, teaching methods,
school organization, school-commuhity relations and so on. But although one
or more case studies allude to each of these possibilities, the accomplishments
documented in Phase 1 of the lEA Civic Education Study are much less
extensive. No matter how civic education is defined, the obstacles to reform
are formidable.
Civic Education as a Problem o f Curriculum Development
The easiest, though by no means risk-free, way for schools to intervene in civic
education is through conventional curriculum development, that is, by changing
the school syllabi and textbooks that provide an intended curriculum. The
authors of the national case studies were asked to say what their countries were
doing in this respect. Their answers are revealing.
108 JOHN SCHW1LLE AND JO-ANN AMADEO
The Nonexistence of Civics as a Separate Subject
First, there are countries where civics does not exist as a separate subject, such
as Australia, Bulgaria and England. As the English case study illustrates, this
omission does not mean that civic education is considered unimportant. To the
contrary, it is argued in the English case that making civic education a specific
subject matter in the manifest curriculum might distort the larger aims of civic
education as embodied in the whole of the educational experience. The author
explains:
Though the maintenanceof a democratic society is a central aim of education in England,

it is not formalised in the curriculum.Rather it remains an intended outcome of the whole
educational experience for students offered through many different forms and context, and
involving not only schools but also parents and society in general (Kerr, 1999, p. 211).
Indeed, the history of education for citizenship in England is a curious mixture: noble
intentions, which are then turned into general pronouncements,which, in turn, become
minimal guidance for schools. The avoidanceof any overt official governmentdirection to
schools concerning political socialization and citizenship education can almost be seen
as a national trait. Such educationhas long been perceived by educators and politicians as
unbecoming, vulgar and "unEnglish" (p. 204).
The English case study further illustrates how such an approach can give to
civic education its elusive character of being hard to document conclusively:
The case study findings also highlight, in particular, how tittle is known about just what
emphasis is given to citizenshipeducationin schools and about how it is addressed through
the curriculum. They demonstrate how each school has a large degree of autonomy in
delivering the non-statutorycurriculumframework and in deciding how, where and when
the topic domainsassociatedwith citizenshipeducationmightbe includedas part of students'
experiences (p. 212).
The case study continues by pointing out that although Education for Citizenship
is officially one of five recent cross-curricular themes in England's national
curriculum, only 19% of the schools sampled in a survey for the case study
deliver it as a "defined cross-curricular theme" and only 2% offer it as a
separate subject (p. 212). Since the case study was done, however, the five
cross-curricular themes have been superceded by the revised national curriculum
in England, introduced in schools in September 2000. Reversing the long-
standing tradition, citizenship will be a new statutory subject in the national
curriculum from September 2002 (personal communication from National
Research Center).
Civics as a Separate Subject Matter
In various other countries, an explicit civics curriculum is developed in the

form of syllabi and textbooks, but the emphasis on this aspect of the manifest
curriculum varies greatly between and sometimes within countries. In some
cases the time allocation to this subject within the formal curriculum is so small
that the learning attributable to this subject is likely to be minimal. For example,
Belgian primary schools organized by the French community are theoretically
required to devote one class period of a 28-hour week to civics from the third
to the sixth grade (Blondin & Schillings, 1999, p. 69), but not many do so in
practice and, in any case, such schools constitute only about 10% of the total
number of primary schools. In other schools civics is supposed to be integrated
into other subjects (personal communication from National Research Center).
In Cyprus civic education is taught in lower secondary school for only 45
minutes a week and for only one semester (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-
Ioannidou, 1999, p. 163). In Romania, civic culture, as a separate subject matter,
is required in the third and fourth grades and again in the seventh and eighth.
However, the course is taught only one hour per week for a total of 36 hours
per year (Bunescu et al., 1999, p. 508).
As far as we could tell from the case studies (some are not precise about
time allocation), not one country mandates on a daily basis for all students
before the age of 15 an extensive curriculum devoted to civic education with
a focus on political institutions and processes. The Netherlands case study,
however, offers an excellent example of a more ambitious attempt to use the
creation of a new course as an occasion for constructing an appropriate subject
matter for civic education. The course, called "society", was legislated in 1963
and launched in 1968, initially for only two hours per week for one school year
in secondary education. The case study author says the course risked becoming
a "hodgepodge", but gradually evolved into a curriculum focusing on social
and political education with a source book for teachers that included details on
the goals, topics and key concepts for the course. Teachers have also been able
to receive in-service help with the course. Topics have varied over time and
across schools but have included such matters as political decision-making,
mass media, multicultural society, criminality, and environmental policy. For
some years the time allocation varied in different types of schools from 80 to
280 hours per year, culminating in either a school or national examination.
However, the most recent change, decided in 1997, will, according to the
author of the case study, reduce the importance of the course and is likely to
make it an option chosen by only a small number of students (Dekker, 1999,
pp. 451, 459).
1l0 JOHN SCHWILLE AND JO-ANN AMADEO
In Switzerland, where there is no nationwide coordination of the curriculum,

civic education is treated in different subjects under different headings. Teachers
have substantial freedom to select the content. There are four different main
approaches: one is oriented toward social studies and the social sciences;
a second emphasizes integrating economics into civic education; a third
emphasizes international understanding and related concepts; and the fourth
focuses on the links between civic education and active student participation.
A n example of a course in which many topics pertaining to civic education are
dealt with is the subject called Lebenskunde (social studies). These topics
include prejudice and discrimination; pluralism and individualism; lifestyle and
personality; drugs; conflict and conflict resolution; community obligations; and

friendship, love and sex. However, there is no obligation to deal with all these
topics, and performance in these classes is not graded. " T h e disadvantage may
be that neither students or teachers take them very seriously" (Reichenbach,
1999, p. 561).
Civic Education in Other Established School Subjects
Civic education in schools is never restricted to courses with a title explicitly

referring to civic education as a subject matter. The case studies contain many
examples of civic education being taught through history, literature, geography,
religion, and so on. However, as in the English case discussed above, in most
cases there is little evidence of a coherent plan or scheme underlying these
attempts to integrate civic education into diverse subject matters.
It is in these other subject matters that we find much of what is distinctive
about a country's attempt to inculcate the features of its own national identity.
The Hungarian case study provides a good example:
In Hungary, forming of the national identity is traditionally the task of history teaching,
spread over eight years of education, and teaching of literature over 12 years of education.
This is reflected in a 1996 opinion poll among teachers where 65% of the respondents
insisted that history and literature should remain compulsory final examination subjects
because of the central importance of these two subjects in forming national identity. . . .
In the chronologically structured history teaching there is great emphasis on national
historic events like movements of independence, wars and peace treaties, changes of
the country's borders resulting from the peace treaties, and local history. Those historical
personalities and political groups that stood for the idea of national independencein the
history of Hungary receive special attention. In addition to its aesthetic value, literature is
important as an historical carrier of the idea of national cohesion. The so-called national
writers and poets whose patriotic works kept the national idea alive receive special attention
(M~itrai, 1999, p. 355).
In Greece, a c c o r d i n g to the case study authors, the courses o f history, religion,

M o d e m G r e e k l a n g u a g e and literature, A n c i e n t G r e e k l a n g u a g e and g e o g r a p h y
all h a v e contents
interwoven with political messages and national ideals and have an important role as means
of political socialization, given that they refer, either directly or indirectly, to the construction
of the historical past, historical continuity of the Greek civilization from ancient to modem
times, the preservation of Greek language, national symbols and holidays, the country's
territory and religion as a dominant element of national identity (Makrinioti & Solomon,
1999, p. 292).
L i k e w i s e , in Lithuania, the history textbooks include
documents which are widely believed to be important for all citizens to know about, for
example, the text of the Roman historian Tacitus about our ancestors, the first mention of
the name Lithuania, the letters of Grand Duke Gediminas, with the first mention of Vilnius,
and the Act of Declaration of Lithuania's Independence. Another textbook includes readings
about national leaders - kings (Mindaugas), dukes (Gediminas, Vytautas), national liberators
(V. Kudirka), and political figures (A. Smetona). They are presented as heroes of history
(Zaleskiene, 1999, p. 425).
In Australia, national policy has g o n e f r o m f a v o r i n g an integrated cross-curricular

a p p r o a c h to " e n t h u s i a s m for the school subject history as the o p t i m u m v e h i c l e for
t e a c h i n g civics within the existing school c u r r i c u l u m " (Print et al., 1999, p. 44).
It is difficult to k n o w h o w m u c h i m p a c t the p r e s e n c e o f civic e d u c a t i o n in
the c u r r i c u l u m o f various subject matters has, a point tellingly m a d e in the
Finnish case study:
Generally speaking, textbooks for various subjects depict Finns and Finland as a nation that
is small, the most Lutheran one in the world, located in the remote north, speaking a hard-
to-learn language, and whose history as a state consists of solitary wandering between crises
and threatened peace. These components are dispersed across the textbooks, and it is hard
to tell how a teenage reader interprets them, and what relevance they have ultimately with
respect to identity formation (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 240).
Comparison to Other Subjects
A s is e v i d e n t f r o m all o f this, civics is not like other school subjects. It is not

as s c h o o l - b a s e d as science or mathematics. It is probably learned m o s t l y outside
school, w h i l e inside school it does not e n j o y the s a m e status as the better-
established subjects. A s a separate subject it typically has l o w status and is
often taught within v e r y limited blocks o f time. And, as w e h a v e seen, it m a y
be taught m o r e through other subjects than through courses w i t h labels that
refer explicitly to civic education. More importantly, civic education is little

involved in the credentialing and selection process that so largely determines
what happens in school and what people think is important about what happens.
We do not see in the case studies instances of civic education being sought
after by students as an important means of enhancing their occupational
prospects and social status. Nor does it generally figure prominently among the
high-stakes examinations that students must pass in order to advance to and
through the more selective, 61ite and prestigious parts of educational systems.
The point made in the conclusion to the Italian case study applies to other
countries as well: "The fact that civic education does not have its own time
slot and does not have a separate evaluation of the knowledge gained by students
greatly reduces its importance for both teachers and students" (Losito, 1999,
p. 399). In fact, in some countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands,
explicit civics instruction is seen as most needed and suitable for the less
rigorous and demanding tracks and types of schools. In Finland, in a survey of
comprehensive school students published in 1993, history and social studies
were ranked as 10th in importance and 14th in popularity among 18 subjects
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 235).
This consideration of civic education as a problem of curriculum development
leads us to point out that the extent to which schools can expect to control
or even intervene in the process of civic learning is different from that for
mathematics and science. It is true that for mathematics and science, schools are
well advised to take into account the fact that students and others outside schools
may hold conceptions of the subject matter that are different from those that
inform learning in school. Nevertheless, with mathematics and science,
researchers and educators do play an important role in legitimating school knowl-
edge as the correct version of "truth" to be learned. In civic education, researchers
and educators have a much more marginal role in which they are forced to take
into account the normative "facts" of political institutions and processes, with all
their embodied ideologies and biases. The freedom of researchers and educators
to impose a certain version of truth as the intended curriculum of schools is
limited and often contentious. Instead, as we see in the English, Dutch and United
States examples, politicians and legislators can more easily play a dominant role
in determining the content of school learning in civics.
The different subject matters can even become vehicles for competing visions
of civic education. In the United States, for example, history competes with
social studies (although one needs to keep in mind that each of these fields is
open to dispute from within as well). An excerpt from a book by Nash et al.
(1997) on conflicts over the teaching of history in the United States illustrates
this competition:
Historians worried ... that too many social studies educators thought history was mainly
useful for laying out "background" for the study of up-to-the-minute national and interna-
tional events. On this issue, many historians tended to line up with moderately conservative
critics, sharing their view that the rich four-year history curriculum of the early twentieth
century had been a good idea, that history should be taught chronologically,and that children
might better devote less time to solving political crises abroad or social problems at home
and more to gaining the historical perspectives and understandings they would need to
address public problems in adulthood, when those issues would for the most part have
changed (p. 108).
Civic Education as a Problem of Pedagogy and Student Participation

In all of the case studies, civic education is conceived of as more than a process
of curriculum development, implementation and assessment. In most, the authors
give attention to school initiatives that go beyond the formally established
subject-matter curricula. But if civic education is not simply one of the subjects
studied in school, what is it? One aspect that the authors frequently mention is
the intention to give students the opportunity to participate more actively in the
selection of activities, the execution of those activities, and the construction of
their own knowledge, either in or outside of formal coursework.
Earlier research on political socialization has shown that children construct
their knowledge of political processes somewhat differently from adults (Hess
& Torney, 1967). Thus, a case can be made for students to participate more
actively in their own learning on the basis not only of general pedagogical
principles but also of what is known about young people's political knowledge.
In addition, the results of the first IEA Civic Education Study suggested that
allowing more freedom for student expression in classrooms was productive in
terms of learning. Controlling for other relevant variables, the researchers found
that, across countries, the students of teachers who encouraged independence
of opinion in their classrooms tended to receive the higher scores on the civics
cognitive tests (Torney et al., 1975). Nevertheless, the current case studies show
that the pedagogical issues in civic education are far from resolved, and it is
not clear whether giving students more participatory opportunities in civic
education has made as much progress as many had hoped.
One obstacle to free expression of student or teacher opinions is the pressure
to avoid too much political controversy. Indoctrination is largely out of favor
in the countries represented in the case studies, but so is complete freedom of
expression. In some countries this takes the form of a prohibition on taking
political sides in school. Hong Kong has been a good example of this point of
view. Before 1990, in a regulation introduced to limit the spread of nationalist
Chinese ideology in school, the following was mandated:
114 JOHN SCI-fWILLE AND JO-ANN AMADEO
No salutes, songs, dances, slogans, uniforms, flags, documents or symbols which, in the
opinion of the Director [of Education for Hong Kong], is in any way of a political or partly
political nature should be used, displayed or worn, as the case may be, upon any school
premisesor uponthe occasionof any schoolactivityexceptwith the permissionof the Director
and in accordancewith such conditions as he [sic] may see fit to impose(Lee, 1999, p. 316).
The former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, especially, have
emphasized freeing schools from political indoctrination. For example, the
authors of the Bulgarian case study say, "Great effort is being made to disengage
topics from political ideology. Nowadays, any party's propaganda is absolutely
forbidden at school" (Balkansky et al., 1999, p. 98). However, as the Romanian
case study authors point out, the prohibition designed to keep partisan politics
out of school can easily be interpreted by teachers as a ban on any sort of
political and social problems in school (Bunescu et al., 1999, p. 518). Similar
examples are evident in the Czech Republic and Hungarian case studies
(V~lkovfi & Kalous, 1999, p. 188; Mfitrai, 1999, p. 366).
In Greece, with its very different political history, the case study notes an
evolution away from indoctrination toward more tolerance for student expression
of diverse political viewpoints. It asserts that under the strongly anticommunist
regime of the late 1950s and early 1960s, citizenship education "took on the
character of political indoctrination, an orientation reinforced by the character of
pedagogic practices adopted. The course was textbook and teacher oriented
while the students were expected to adopt a passive role as learners. Military-like
behavior and attire were imposed both in the school and the community"
(Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999, p. 293). Two decades later, the period of socialist
party government saw policies favoring a more active child-centered pedagogy.
Even in the Western countries, whose political systems and culture might be
thought open to free expression, the schools often favor passivity on the part
of students. The authors of the Canadian study believe that current practice is
little changed from an earlier study in 1968, which concluded that history
teaching "focused almost exclusively on political and military matters, avoided
controversy, did not connect material to the present, and emphasized the
memorization of 'nice, neat little acts of parliament'." They go on to say that
"many scholars have argued that, traditionally, citizenship in Canada has been
constructed in more 61itist and passive terms than in many other democracies"
(Sears et al., 1999, pp. 124-125).
A Finnish study of the late 1980s focused more directly on pedagogical issues
and found that "about one half of the respondents felt that the senior secondary
school experience accustoms students to passive reception of information and
that matters are learnt only superficially and soon forgotten. These findings get
support from studies on verbal interaction, which have produced a so-called 2/3
rule: teacher's talk takes up about 70% of the lesson time" (Ahonen & Virta,
1999, p. 250). Similarly, in Germany, although empirical studies show that both
teachers and students prefer student-oriented, problem-centered civic education,
German secondary schools remain dominated by teacher-centered instruction
(Handle et al., 1999, p. 261).
In contrast, the authors of the Australian case study claim that the situation
in their schools is different: "Interactive teaching, where the teacher provides
information and discusses issues with students in a structured classroom
environment, is the most favoured teaching strategy. There is ample anecdotal
evidence that classroom discussion of student opinions is common" (Print
et al., 1999, pp. 48--49). The case study contains an impressive set of activities
dealing with civics and citizenship:
Students may visit or be visited by elected officials; observe question time in Parliament;
design and produce their own election material; stand as candidates and vote for represen-
tatives on a student representative council; set up and run class parliaments; develop
and observe class codes of conduct; use databases to research information on Australian
institutions and practices; follow the working through of a contemporary" political issue
involving their own community; express opinions in letters to the editor; create and circulate
petitions; take part in panel discussions; review current affairs broadcasts and discuss issues
and views expressed; make flow charts to show elements of a political system and how
processes connect these elements; debate ideas on rights and responsibilities of citizens;
contribute their labour and ideas to a community project; and research and report on the
origins of selected aspects of Australian democracy (Print et al., 1999, p. 49).
The authors admit that the frequency and effectiveness of these activities vary
considerably within Australia. In other countries where the case studies relied on
quantitative studies for estimating the frequency of a given activity, the evidence
is not always consistent and conclusive. In the United States, for example, all
students in the focus groups convened for the case study said that they had
participated in mock presidential elections in 1996. However, the case study is
also careful to note that in an earlier national assessment sample in 1988, 52%
of 12th graders said they had never participated in mock elections (Hahn, 1999,
pp. 593-594). Was this difference due to a real increase in mock elections, or a
non-representative sample of focus group students, or the timing of these surveys
in relation to major United States elections? Whatever the answer, it is important
to note that the qualitative nature of the national case studies does not permit
precise comparison of countries according to the prevalence of these or other
activities. This more exact cross-national analysis requires examining Phase 2 of
the Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
Since participatory opportunities in formal coursework remain limited in
many countries, special student projects and extracurricular activities offer the
most extensive opportunities for participatory forms of civic education in school.

As the German case study notes, "student-oriented and open teaching styles are
more likely to be practiced in extra-curricular activities that are not compulsory,
as well as in project days and project weeks" (H~indle et al., 1999, p. 261).
And in the German case study survey of experts, "project work and opening
the schools took priority over both increasing the number of hours in the subject
of civic education and easing the amount of classroom instruction in favor of
additional activities" (p. 278). The case study reports on the results of a 1995
competition in which 283 projects were submitted from all types of schools
and all German states. Some projects originated in civic education lessons, some
in extra curricular activities and others in project weeks.

Some of the student projects mentioned in the German case study focus
specifically on expanding the activities of student government while other
projects encourage all students to participate in the school in order to represent
student interests. To that end, projects have included school assemblies to
discuss problems, as well as peer mediation and conflict resolution. Projects
also offer students opportunities for social action in their immediate community.
In one such instance, students investigated the "free-time interests of their peers
and the situation of playgrounds and youth homes" (p. 268). They documented
their findings and then represented their peers' interests to the community
govemment. The National Socialist period and the Holocaust were central topics
in many of the student projects. This was especially so in 1995, which marked
the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II (p. 271). Student projects also
reflect an interest in international relations by encouraging partnerships between
schools in different countries (p. 273), in intercultural understanding by fostering
awareness within their schools (p. 275), and an interest in ecological issues
and problems (p. 276). In sum, the student projects cover a wide range of
topic areas and often serve to reduce the gap between the official goals of civic
education and the realization of those goals in the school. Unfortunately, not
all students have the opportunity to participate in such projects because of time
constraints in schools, which generally operate on half-day sessions, and because
of the extra work that such projects make for teachers (personal communication
from National Research Center).
In the Belgian case study, one organization, the Fondation Roi Baudouin, is
mentioned for its role in fostering student participation through partnerships with
agencies outside the school. In one of the projects described as exemplary,
secondary school students suggested solutions to local problems, such as
insecurity in the school neighborhood, unsafe highways, inadequate traffic
signs and deteriorating housing. They met with local officials and organized
educational activities to deal with these problems (Blondin & Schillings, 1999,
pp. 79-80). In Israel, 1 lth graders are required to dedicate time to community
work with, for example, children or older people (Ichilov, 1999, p. 380).
Although the English case study laments the lack of research evidence on
extracurricular activities in English schools, it, more than the other case studies,
provides some empirical information on the nature of these activities. A 1990
survey of secondary schools found that the most common extracurricular
activities were community activity or service (found in 90% of the schools)
and school councils (60% of the schools). A survey carried out for the case
study itself found that among 11- to 14-year-olds the most common activities
were charity fund-raising (87% of schools), school councils (67%), clubs and
societies (57%), environmental projects (50%) and community activities (49%)

(Kerr, 1999, pp. 213-214).
Civic Education as a Problem of School Organization and Student Rights
There is wide agreement in the case studies that students learn about democracy
by experiencing democracy and that ideally schools should be models of
democracy. The author of the Lithuanian case study raises the following
questions: "Does the teacher use democratic methods in teaching? Are students
encouraged to be responsible for the school community? Does self-government
exist in the school? Do students and parents take an active role in establishing
curriculum priorities? Does the school have close relations to local governmental
institutions?" She goes on to note that while some of these features have
been mandated, in most cases they have not been put into practice (Zaleskiene,
1999, p. 422).
More generally among the case studies, there is little evidence that this radical
challenge to school organization has really taken hold, perhaps because it runs
up against a central problem of any democracy: How much freedom and
autonomy can citizens enjoy without undermining the social order and collective
aims that have brought them together? What is pertinent here are two facts.
First, young people in contemporary states are obligated to be in school whether
they want to or not (that is, without voluntarily committing themselves to the
collective aims of schooling). Second, they have not yet reached the age at
which they attain the citizenship rights accorded by their particular nation state.
As such, educators have been little encouraged to give students extensive rights
to govern themselves. If it is difficult to transform classrooms into places that
welcome participation, it is proving even more difficult to transform schools to
make them democratic from the point of view of students (or even teachers for
that matter).
118 JOHN SCHWlLLE AND JO-ANN AMADEO
Among the case studies, Australia lays out the most extensive structure of
student government:
Students, in all nigh schools and most primary schools, may directly experience the
democratic processes of citizenship through participation in school representative councils,
usually known as the Student Representative Council. Elections for such councils are held
regularly in most schools. Class parliaments are also common.... Youth Parliaments for
secondary age students, organised by the local state legislature, are held in all states and
territories. The Constitutional Centenary Foundation provides other opportunities through
its organisation of student constitutional conventions in all states and territories (Print et al.,
1999, p. 50).
However, it is not clear in the Australian case how effective this structure is,
how much students are able to decide on their own, and to what extent they
deal with school issues in which they have an immediate stake as opposed to
simulations of more general political issues that they will have to come to grips
with in the future.
Israel likewise has taken steps to make schools more democratic. It also has
student councils at school, municipal, regional and national levels. Moreover,
in 1994-1995, 94 of Israel's high schools were organized as "community
schools", which actively encourage involvement of parents and students
(Ichilov, 1999, p. 380).
In Belgium, many official statements emphasize the importance of offering
students opportunities to practice democracy and to exercise both the rights and
responsibilities of democratic citizenship. This is done but only in some schools
or some classes by creating bodies wherein students can express their interests,
elect representatives, and be part of the decision-making relevant to school life
(Blondin & Schillings, 1999, p. 79).
The Belgian case study not only describes these requirements for student
government, but also is explicit about their limitations. Since 1990 in the French
community it has been compulsory for secondary schools to organize a mech-
anism for student participation. Most commonly, students elect delegates to
represent them in school affairs. However, according to the case study, the
choice of these delegates tends to be more of an appointment than a real election.
Furthermore, the functions performed are typically not "self-actualizing" in that
they include taking care of the attendance list, overseeing the scheduling of
exams and daily homework and checking to see if the classroom is in order
(Blondin & Schillings, 1999, p. 79).
Likewise, other case studies express dissatisfaction with opportunities given
to students to practice democracy. For example, in both Italy and Cyprus,
the case studies express dissatisfaction with the mandated structure. In both
countries there is provision for student councils at different levels. However,

the Italian case study declares that "it is widely believed at this time that these
forms of participation are quite unsatisfactory" (Losito, 1999, p. 404). Similarly,
the Cypriot case study, based on interviews with ministry personnel and
students, concludes that "student councils are not realizing their full potential
at this time . . . [and that] students believe that their opinions are not taken
under serious consideration at any level" (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-
Ioannidou, 1999, p. 166). The Colombian (Rueda, 1999, p. 150) and German
case studies (Handle, 1999, p. 278) offer similar conclusions.
Nevertheless, in contrast to countries where politics are banned from schools,
Italian schools guarantee students the right to organize political debates and
demonstrations at schools. In addition, student participation in external demon-
strations is largely tolerated (Losito, 1999, p. 412). The Cypriot report also
emphasizes these sorts of student rights:
The students, especially those of the lyceum, take part when they wish in political
demonstrations or events. They do this in association with adults (outside school time).
According t o . . . [informants], they are very well informed about political and other matters.
Discussions on politics are allowed in school, and the general impression that is projected
is that active participation in common affairs is an obligation of the citizen and that the
government is responsive to the wishes and claims of its citizens. Moreover, students in
Cyprus are members of the youth organizations of political parties, which are special sections
of political parties dealing with issues that concern the young (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-
Ioannidou, 1999, p. 167).
In contrast, in the Czech Republic, a 1995 inspection of 362 basic schools found
that official school rules in 66% of the schools did not mention student rights
(Vfilkovfi & Kalous, 1999, p. 196). The Romanian case study concludes that
"student participation in decisions regarding their personal, school and social
situations is not encouraged. There is no student representation on the school
governing boards; there are only a few student associations, and they play no
part in decision-making or even consultations" (Bunescu et al., 1999, p. 518).
The Hungarian case study agrees: "The main problem in Hungary is that the
school and the community do not provide opportunities for students to practice
their democratic fights . . . . Students are not urged to play an active role in the
political life of the school" (Mfitrai, 1999, p. 352).
In the United States, according to the case study, whether or not students
participate in classroom discussions, extra-curricular activities, or even student
government varies substantially from school to school, and even among class-
rooms within the same school (Hahn, 1999, p. 594).
Civic Education as a Problem of School Response to Factors

Outside the School
Given that much of civic education admittedly takes place outside schools and
that school learning is mediated and ultimately limited by what happens outside
school, the school's response to these outside influences is critical. Much could
be written on this topic. However, for the sake of brevity, we illustrate this
aspect of the school's role in civic education by discussing an example of two
common types of response. One is to declare a certain aspect of civic education
beyond the purview of the school, leaving it to the family and other institutions.
A prime example of this is religion. In countries with established religions,

religion can be very much a part of the school's role in civic education, but in
other countries whose political institutions and norms preclude government
support of religion, it can be excluded from such a role within the public school.
Among the case study countries, the United States and Belgium are good
examples of this situation.
Religion as an Exclusion Response
Religion in such instances is often assimilated into other expressions of

partisanship on the part of teachers and other school authorities and therefore
banned. The Belgian case study quotes from an official decree in its interpretation
of the ideological neutrality required of all schools organized by the French
community. The decree stipulates that:
[T]eaching staff teach the students to recognize the plurality of values which constitute
contemporary humanism. . . . They deal with political, philosophical and doctrinal roots of
events and point out diverse motivations. They deal with questions about beliefs, political
or philosophical convictions, and religious options, using words that cannot offend the
opinions and feelings of any of the students. When in front Of students, they refrain from
any partisan attitude or speech on ideological, moral or social problems which are topical
issues of the day and divide public opinion; also they refuse to favor a philosophical or
political system, whatever this might be (Blondin & Schillings, 1999, pp. 64-65).
But this stipulation, strictly speaking, applies to only one type of relatively rare
public school. Moreover, in these schools, each student not yet 18 years old
takes an ethics course or a course in one of five recognized religions. In such
religion courses, positions may be taken in favor of a particular religion, but
other religions or positions cannot be disparaged (personal communication from
National Research Center),
This sort of general policy favoring choice, balance and respect for all
religious and non-religiou s viewpoints does not settle once and for all issues
of the place of religion in school. In Belgium the controversy over the wearing
of the Islamic shawl (chador) by girls in school is a case in point. Is this to
be tolerated as a way of recognizing and encouraging diversity or is it an
intrusion on the neutrality of the school? According to one authority quoted by
the case study, "some are of the opinion that abandoning the chador is an
important step forward in the integration process. To the contrary, others
consider the continued use of the shawl as indicative of the success of that
process" (Blondin & Schillings, 1999, p. 73). The case study cites the instance
of a few female students who were dismissed from school because they insisted
on wearing their shawls. Their parents filed suit against the school.
In the United States, students cannot be required to study religion in public

schools. In fact, the teaching of a particular faith is banned from public schools
because of the country's constitutionally mandated separation of church and
state. Public schools use a secular approach when discussing religion whereas
parochial and private schools often explicitly teach religious values. For the
most part, young people are taught religion by their families and formal religious
organizations. However, students in public schools are expected to learn that
the United States Constitution guarantees "freedom of expression" of religion
as well as a "wall of separation between church and state". Students also learn
(as early as elementary school) that the first immigrants came to the United
States seeking religious freedom, and that religious freedom continues to this
day to be an important reason for immigration. In addition, students learn, from
both inside and outside school, that religion plays an important role in American
society and politics.
As the American case study author points out, school teachers and adminis-
trators are quite sensitive about the separation between religion and government
and ordinarily try to avoid any conflict in this area. There is nevertheless a
continuing controversy among the American public. This centers on the concern
that the absence of religious education in the schools may be contributing
not only to the perceived moral decline in American society but also to some
educators shying away from teaching about the role that religion plays in history
and society. Disputes over religious expression at school functions such as
athletic events, graduation ceremonies and school assemblies also continue
to erupt. 2
Media Education as an Inclusion Response
Another common strategy for dealing with outside influences is to try to use
the school to educate the young about the influence. This is illustrated in much
of what the case studies say about what should be done in relation to the media,
but here again practice lags behind aspiration. Although, in most countries,
14-year-old students are avid consumers of the media, and educators recognize
the importance of media education, the extent to which schools effectively
prepare students to analyze and interpret media messages varies. In Bulgaria,
the case study authors note that while political messages are prevalent on radio,
television and in the press, the curriculum and textbooks "do not address the
role of the mass media in a systematic way" (Balkansky et al., 1999, p. 100).
They further argue that the goals of the school and the mass media are often
in conflict. Thus, while schools attempt to present civic education in a politically
neutral fashion, the mass media tend to be politically confrontational. Similarly,

textbook analyses in Hungary found no mention of the mass media in textbooks
aimed at 14-year-old students (Mfitrai, 1999, pp. 352-353). In Hong Kong,
nearly all of the informants interviewed for the case study saw the mass media
as important to society and to civic education, but at the same time many were
also critical of the media. In practice, mass media are mentioned as a topic area
in many of the Hong Kong syllabi of the formal curriculum. However, textbook
analyses indicate that only 53.3% of the textbooks under review covered this
topic (Lee, 1999, pp. 332-334).
Colombia has a set of explicit official expectations related to students'
understanding of the mass media and the media's role in the political process.
Among other skills, officials believe that students should be taught to distinguish
between fact and opinion, and should be critical when analyzing information
(Rueda, 1999, p. 147). However, the author acknowledges that there is a
gap between the country's expectations and the actual implementation of
curricular topics concerning "new socialization agents, such as mass media"
(p. 149). Like Colombia, Finland also asserts through its case study that
media education is an integral part of civic education. The aim of media
education in Finnish schools is to teach students to be "critical media
consumers" (Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 248). Here, media education is taught
in mother tongue as well as history and social studies. Yet, as in Colombia,
the Finnish authors speak of a gap between the "ideals and practice of media
education" (p. 248). Thus, while Finnish students may be frequent newspaper
readers, it appears that they do not use newspapers to stay as informed about
political news as their teachers might want. Rather, the most popular sections
of the newspaper among young readers were found to be comics, sports, and
the television and radio sections. In addition, while the schools place an
emphasis on the print media, adolescents often prefer other media, most notably
television (p. 248).
Civic Education as a Problem of Systemic Reform
If one puts all these problems of civic education together, the need for systemic
reform becomes apparent. In recent years it has been fashionable to discuss and
attempt to carry out the sort of systemic or comprehensive reform whereby
coherent changes are made in interrelated parts of educational systems. In such
cases, attention is given not only to those aspects of curriculum development
and assessment that can be more readily reformed, but also to matters of teacher
development and even the very organization of the school.
If any area were seen to be in need of such reform, then it is fair to suppose
it would be civic education, for this is an area that many commentators assert
is vitally important - even indispensable. Moreover, it is woven into diverse
subject matters and has extracurricular and out-of-school as well as formal
curricular ramifications. For example, if we really wanted to make schools
models of democracy, we would have to ensure that student government is a
major component of such a reform policy. We would also have to ascertain the
reform's success by assessing what students learn from participating in or
observing the activities of student government.
When compared with systemic reform in civic education, systemic reform in
science or mathematics education can be seen as relatively limited in scope since
it is more readily confined to the formal curricular, pedagogical and assessment
functions of educational systems. Systemic reform in the science and mathe-
matics domains might be more properly termed subsystem reform because, unlike
effective civic education reform, it need not be so concerned with school
governance, student rights, extracurricular activities and out-of-school influences.
Unfortunately, we are unable to name any countries that have been able to
put such an ambitious and comprehensive agenda effectively into practice.
Often, such agendas are linked to movements for decentralization and privati-
zation of schooling, strategies that are thought to make experimentation and
reform more likely. But it is not yet clear that decentralization and privatization
will be effective in leading to widespread change, public accountability
and adherence to standards of best practice, especially in such difficult and
contentious areas as civic education.
The two countries in the case studies whose holistic approach to civic
education comes closest to approximating a plan for systemic reform are
Portugal and Colombia. In Portugal the basic legislation declares that civic
education is a central aim of schooling. Accordingly, the Minister of Education
decreed in 1989 that "personal and social education" (PSE) during primary and
secondary education should be:
(i) the aim of all subjects through cross-curricular dissemination; (ii) comprise a specific
subject, namely, "personal and social development" (PSD), of one hour per week and as
an alternative to "moral and religious education"; (iii) be part of extracurricular activities;
and (iv) include a non-disciplinary curricular space for project development ("school area"),
occupying 110 hours per year (Menezes et al., 1999, p. 486).
However, the case study authors conclude that implementation of this compre-
hensive reform has been extremely limited:
The leading players in the educational systemdo not experience this [comprehensiveemphasis
on citizenship] in the daily life of the classroom, except in uncommon situations. . . .
Noteworthy exceptions, such as the school area projects and extracurricular activities, are
frequently episodic and discontinuous experiences, a characteristic that does not ensure their
potential for developing students" citizenshipconcepts, attitudes and competencies... (p. 501)
Similarly, in Colombia since 1991, "school education in civics has been

legitimated as education in and for democracy. Legislation, national programs
and the evaluation of the educational system all are oriented in that direction"
(Rueda, 1999, p. 141). In 1995 a new General Law on Education emphasized
decentralization and requested each institution to prepare and update annually
an Institutional Educational Project (PEI) with the participation of directors,
teachers, students and community representatives. "Based on a diagnosis of
community and student needs, the local group formulates objectives, goals,
educational plans, curricular programs and educational projects. The PEI is
adopted by the school government, a joint governing body made up of teachers,
parents and students" (p. 141). The basis of civic education is being able "to
live democracy" at school with students learning from their interpersonal
relationships. Courses and time allocations are not mandated, but the PEI must
include provision for "school government that includes the organization and
participation of students in the Directive Council of public and private schools
and the election of a school spokesperson in charge of defending students'
rights" (p. 141).
Much of this reform is very new for Colombia and may be adversely affected
by the unstable political situation in the country. In fact, the case study mentions
many difficulties of implementation. For example, the "school spokesperson is
often merely a formal figure in high schools. Most often the spokesperson cannot
adequately exercise his or her function in defense of student rights because
students are not informed, teachers are not open to it, and student organiza-
tions are under-developed" (p. 150). Nevertheless, the case study author finds
much potential for positive change in this set of Colombian reforms (pp.
148-150).
Most Neglected Areas
Of all the areas needed for systemic reform, two that have been particularly
neglected are assessment and teacher preparation. In the case of teacher prepa-
ration suffice it to say that the gaps are well analyzed in Chapter 3 of this
current volume.
The neglect of assessment is also well illustrated in the case studies. In none
of the case study countries does there seem to be a high-stakes examination on
civic education that all or even most secondary school students must pass. In
some cases, as we have seen, this may be because civic education is spread
throughout much of the curriculum, making it difficult to assess as a discrete

subject. 3
In Russia, before 1990, all school graduates had to pass examinations in social
studies, and the fact that this is no longer required, according to the case study,
has undermined the teaching and learning of this subject (Bogolubov et al., 1999,
p. 527). In the Netherlands, a study of the society course compared the impact
of the more intensive examination-oriented version of the course with the
same course without examination. It was found that the examination-oriented
course was associated with more political interest/involvement and less political
cynicism, but not with any change in political tolerance (Dekker, 1999, p. 445).
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THREE DOMAINS
Based on the input of the national case study authors, as well as on an

independent examination of the case study data, three core domains were chosen
for this cross-national research: (1) democracy; (2) national identity; and (3)
social cohesion and diversity. In each of the three domains, the results of civic
education reform on schooling as viewed through the case studies are so far
quite limited.
Democracy
One theme emerging from the case studies in relation to the domain of democ-
racy is that civics-related knowledge is considered necessary, but not sufficient,
for learning and for becoming a competent democratic citizen. In other words,
to be effective, civic education must deal not only with knowledge, but also
with attitudes, dispositions and behavior. However, due to the limitations
brought about by viewing civic education primarily as a school subject matter
(which is a problem of curriculum development), there is little evidence that
schools are successful in helping students acquh'e the attitudes, dispositions and
behaviors needed for democratic societies. Most of the case studies give far
more attention to textbooks and other aspects of curriculum reform than to what
it would take to make schools models of democracy that would give students
the experience of democratic decision-making. It is relatively easy for policy-
makers to put in place new textbooks, but hard for schools to change attitudes
and behaviors (whether of teachers and students) concerning democracy.
Moreover, as the Finnish case study authors note, what is written about democ-
racy in syllabi, curricula or textbooks "does not allow us to draw conclusions
about the practice in schools or instruction as experienced by the students"
(Ahonen & Virta, 1999, p. 240).
In Finnish schools, as in other countries, knowledge about democracy is

understood to be a "fairly unproblematic thing", that is, most Finnish textbooks
are relatively neutral in their treatment of democracy and democratic principles
and do not really address controversial issues or social conflicts (Ahonen &
Virta, 1999, p. 243). The United States case study author makes a related point
when she argues that content about democracy is often presented to the students
as "uncontested", with teachers focusing more on "vocabulary and facts" than
on "controversial historical and contemporary issues" (Hahn, 1999, p. 592).
Similarly, in Italy, the case study author argues that while there is explicit
and even "constant" reference to democracy in primary as well as lower and
upper secondary schools, this does not lead to an "in-depth analysis of the many
meanings that the term 'democracy' can take on, and indeed has taken on
throughout history" (Losito, 1999, p. 402). In fact, as we have already noted,
several Italian studies suggest that the knowledge about democracy actually
acquired by students is different from that stated within the objectives of the
school programs (p. 403). In short, such studies illustrate the fact that, in many
instances, teaching about democracy has not been able to incorporate an
emphasis on critical thinking, analysis of the issues, or open discussion of
controversial issues.
Thus, in Italy, as in other countries, even formal course work tends to be
weak in fostering knowledge in this domain, particularly compared to what is
expected of students in more high-status subjects. This could be because civics
is perceived to be a low-status subject, or because of inadequate teacher training,
or the lack of student assessment specific to civics, or a combination of these
and other factors.
To provide for what courses have not been able do, schools in many settings
have taken on additional roles or functions, with students participating in
a broad array of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities. For example,
in Australia, students may learn about the democratic process from partici-
pation in "school representative councils" and school parliaments, or from
participation in community projects (Print et al., 1999, p. 50). Students in the

United States have similar opportunities and are able, if interested, to participate
in a wide range of activities outside the formal curriculum. For example, many
American students participate in student elections (for leadership positions in
clubs or student governments) as well as in activities designed by the school
specifically for the purpose of developing civic responsibility in young people,
such as community service, peer mediation or conflict resolution programs
(Hahn, 1999, p. 593).
Across countries, the extent to which the school environment actually models
democratic principles or fosters student participation varies significantly, but,
on the whole, these opportunities are limited. This has been illustrated in the
above section on school organization and student rights. In many instances,
the school climate impedes open expression of ideas as well as discussion of
In conclusion, teaching about democracy by allowing debate over contro-
versial issues or by making schools more democratic is difficult because it
means taking away some of the power of teachers and administrators and giving
students more autonomy and power. But, however difficult this may be, creating
opportunities for students to practice democratic skills may very well prove
essential to their learning in this area. In too many countries there is a gap
between what students are expected to learn about democracy, and what they
are actually able to achieve in this area. Phase 2 of the IEA Civic Education
Study sheds further light on the distance between expectations and achievement
in this domain as well as in the second, and in some ways even more complex,
domain of national identity (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
National Identity
Given what we have learned from these case studies, it seems that the role of the
school in national identity formation has become more marginal over the years
- at least in many countries. In the 19th century and early 20th century, the State's
implantation of mass common schools was a part of nation building in such
countries as France and the United States, and in the transformation of Prussia
into the German Empire. In France, in particular, it was common to portray public
elementary school teachers (instituteurs) as the foot soldiers of the Republic
fighting for the minds of the people against the forces perceived by many to be
reactionary, namely, the church, monarchists and the aristocracy (Weber, 1976).
Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, indoctrination is challenged and
national identity education is perhaps more fragmented and latent as states
grapple with how to remain unitary and cohesive, and at the same time confront
issues of multiple identities and multiculturalism. Immigration looms increas-

ingly large, both in countries where it has long played an important role, as
well as in countries where it is a newer phenomenon. Immigration, which has
always been a major issue in Australia, Canada and the United States, and
which has now been so for several decades in various Northern and Western
European countries, has recently become much more salient in Southern
European countries as well, such as Italy and Greece. As the case studies
illustrate, immigration is just one of the diverse issues that influence a country's
notion of national identity and the school's role in its formation.
Responses to questions about national identity among case study countries
are extremely varied and reflect a myriad of national needs, concerns and issues
(both historical and contemporary). They range from viewing the promotion of
national identity as a key aspect of civic education to seeing it as something
to be cautiously treated or even avoided in school. At the extreme, national
identity has become a problematical, even negative concept. Because of their
histories in the Nazi and Fascist era, Germany and Italy are examples of this
avoidance tendency. According to the German case study:
Because of the German crimes committed during the National Socialist period, the concept
of nationalism carries negative connotations in Germany. Even concepts such as national
identity, national consciousness and national pride are used with reluctance (H~dle et al.,
1999, p. 269).
Civic education focused on national figures, national holidays and national symbols is little
developed in German schools. The national anthem and national flag do not play a role in
schools; schools likewise avoid celebrations of national memorial days (p. 270).
Thus, because of its history, national identity is viewed with great ambivalence
in Germany. Similar attitudes are evident in the Italian case study. Specifically,
the Italian author notes that the schools place little importance on some national
symbols such as the "national flag or the portrait of the President of the
Republic", reflecting an unwillingness in the schools "to underline and to
encourage feelings and attitudes connected with national identity" (Losito, 1999,
p. 406). This unwillingness among Italian schools to foster a national identity
may be at least partially explained by the "identification of the idea of "father-
land" and "nation" with the fascist r e g i m e . . , and the nationalistic use of these
words during fascism" (pp. 406--407).
In contrast to the case studies from Germany and Italy, other case studies
show less avoidance in this domain, and instead emphasize the transitory,
evolving state of national identity. Belgium, Bulgaria, Hong Kong and Russia
illustrate this perspective. In Belgium, for example, the case study authors
describe the issue of national identity as being "in an evolutionary phase". They
point out that what was once considered national could now be considered
European or could "devolve to the communities or to the regions" (Blondin &
Schillings, 1999, p. 62). According to the authors, Belgian students are involved
in "identity issues at several levels: Belgian, French-speaking, Walloon [or]
Brussels citizen and European" (p. 62). And while the case study researchers
found "nothing explicit in official curricula that would move a teacher to
promote national identity in students", a study published in 1991 found that
despite the federalization process, the national Belgian identity had remained
predominant among young people in the French community (p. 75).
The notion of national identity is also evolving in Hong Kong. Before 1997,
while still a British colony, the Hong Kong people generally viewed national
identity as an issue "best left unmentioned" (Lee, 1999, p. 325). Since Hong
Kong's reintegration into China, the topic of national identity has taken on
importance and urgency. As one might expect, however, the issue is a compli-
cated one: students are generally considered weak in this area and textbooks
tend to treat the topic in an ambiguous fashion (p. 325).
The Russian case study also emphasizes transition and change, pointing out
that despite its long history, Russia is still in the process of becoming a nation
state. The case study found that since the fall of communism, textbooks have
put more and more emphasis on "the Russian people, statehood and Russian
culture", whereas earlier textbooks included more on the history of other nations
within the Russian Federation (Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 540).
In Bulgaria, another case study country in transition, the disintegration of a
sense of national identity is seen as a reason for the alienation of young people.
According to the case study authors:
Our national history was rewritten three times in three different ways during the last 120
years. This has affected the national consciousness of young people and confused their
national loyalty, identity and national ideals. The inconsistent interpretation and explanation
of historical events also reinforces their national nihilism and alienation from the State,
increases their interest in emigration, leads to objection to mandatory military service and
generally reinforces their criticism and scepticism.
Faced with this situation, Bulgarian schools view the development of a positive national
identity and national loyalty (through particular subjects and the "students' class", as well
as extracurricular and out of school activities) to be of the highest priority (Balkansky
et al., 1999, p. 98).
While Germany and Italy avoid the topic of national identity in their schools,
and Belgium, Bulgaria, Hong Kong and Russia and have adapted it to meet
their present predicaments, Switzerland has responded to the domain in a much
different way. Swiss experts consulted for the case study questioned the use of
the term "national identity" itself:
Some experts consideredthis notion not only to be out-datedbut also possibly dangerous, while
others thought it should be possible to speak of a national identity without automatically
making a connection with nationalistic intentions.
... However, the experts seemed to agree that historical consciousness, in the sense of
self-reflective confrontation with the history of the country, is important. This formal
definition, however, is countered by great gaps in terms of real content; it is not even clear
which symbols of Swiss nationhood (as well as events and personalities) are really of
unequivocal importance (Reichenbach, 1999, p. 571).
Finally, at the other end of this spectrum of countries, civic education is still
used in the more traditional manner that reinforces national identity and makes
it a positive goal of schooling. The United States case study, for example,
documents the importance of history courses, national symbols like the flag and
holidays, national heroes and certain documents such as the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution and the Bill o f Rights for the teaching of national
identity. The case study author found indications of the impact of this teaching
in the focus groups conducted for the case study: "In referring to events in the
nation's past, students frequently used terms such as ' w e ' , 'us' or 'our' . . .
Clearly, they identified with the narrative they were told in their history books,
even when they knew that their own personal ancestors were not part of the
dominant group at the time of the particular event to which they referred"
(Hahn, 1999, p. 597).
In Greece, as well, students are expected to identify with an illustrious
historical tradition that reaches much further into the past than is typical of
other countries:
In fact, Greek civilization is considered "superior to any civilization that ever existed." As
such it influenced the whole world and became the basis for modem European civilization.
. . .The Greek past is presented as a constituent part of the national self, bringing with it
long-lasting traits such as ability for great achievements,.., resistance and "natural" supe-
riority, loyalty to country and willingness to sacrifice for the sake of its freedom (Makriniotti
& Solomon, 1999, pp. 299-300).
In summary, the case studies illustrate a wide range of practices and opinions
regarding the role of the school in the development of national identity. Even
the definition and interpretation of its meaning and importance varies according
to each country's historical perspective, its current challenges, or both. The
formation of national identity, which was once the s i n e q u a n o n of civic educa-
tion in many countries, is no longer a core domain of much consensus. Similar
variation can also be seen in the third and final domain under consideration -
social cohesion and diversity.
Social Cohesion and Diversity
The case studies give examples of how the emphasis on history and rituals
through which schools have sought to reinforce national unity can also be used
to celebrate diversity. The Canadian case study refers to a guide for opening
and closing exercises in Ontario schools. The authors explain "that one of the
purposes of these rituals is to build understanding of and respect for people
from a wide variety of traditions . . . . 'Patriotic activities that build pride in
heritage, diversity, interconnectedness, and ideals of Canada a r e . . , an important
part of opening or closing exercises.'" (Sears et al., 1999, p. 128).
However, the authors also emphasize that national unity has not been over-
looked in these rites since, for example, the playing and singing of the national
anthem remains compulsory in public schools in Ontario.
The United States case study illustrates the notion that the lessons of diversity
do not need to be confined to the positive aspects of history. Teachers and students
in focus groups conducted for the case studies indicated that information about
slavery and more generally the segregation and discrimination experienced by
African-Americans and Native Americans are a part of history courses. Students
said they learned about discrimination in conjunction with Martin Luther King
Jr.'s birthday and the celebration of Black History Month. According to the
same focus groups, less attention is given to Hispanics and Asian-Americans.
A history expert known for her research on students' understanding of history,
when interviewed for the case study, declared that "by the end of Grade 8 'all
of the kids knew there was prejudice' and that 'race, class and gender were
problematic' in the history of the United States" (Hahn, 1999, p. 599).
In contrast, in other countries the existence and importance of diversity
is still minimized, as this statement from the Greek case study shows:
"Representations of the Greek nation that appear in the textbooks (history,
geography, language) emphasize its uniform and homogeneous character
through time, neglecting to mention internal differentiations, such as the
existence of minorities. Moreover, negative representations of 'national others'
aim at fostering national homogeneity" (Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999, p. 300).
Similarly, in an analysis of a sixth grade Greek textbook, the case study found
that "no reference whatsoever is made to any group diverging in any way (ethnic,
language, religious, cultural) from the elements and rules constituting the Greek
national entity . . . . Minorities in the country are absent" (p. 307). Likewise, in
Cyprus, "students of all grades never come to know about the life and the culture
of the Turkish Cypriots or about the Maronites, the Armenians and the Latins who
live among us" (Papanastasiou & Koutselini-Ioannidou, 1999, p. 168).
The Czech Republic, Hungary and Romania also downplay certain aspects
of diversity. The Hungarian case study illustrates this avoidance through analysis
of two textbooks:
The civics textbook written for 14- to-15-year-olds contains only 26 pages of discussion
about social issues, does not highlight the problem of social diversity and leaves certain
topics such as gender and the Gypsies untouched. The family and social communities are
presented as representatives of social cohesion. That said, the social studies text for
18-year-olds presents the family and society as scenes of social diversity for a total of 84
pages, but some topics are missing such as foreigners, nationalities, and religious differences
(M~trai, 1999, p. 361).
A similar point is made in the Czech Republic in relation to textbooks in civics,

history, literature and other subjects. The textbooks are cited for lack of attention
to "education for tolerance, antiracism and coexistence, with minorities"
(V~ilkovfi & Kalous, 1999, p. 198).
In Romania, a country with a large Hungarian minority, "most teachers
surveyed by [the case study authors] generally considered that there is no need
to include 'social cohesion and diversity' in the curriculum. The Romanian
Constitution stipulates equal rights for all citizens; hence they seem to argue,
in a democratic state, there are no underprivileged minorities" (Bunescu et al.,
1999, p. 511). In the seventh-grade Romanian civic culture textbook, minorities
living in Romania are mentioned, but there is no discussion of the ethnic
conflicts of the past or present. This textbook, however, does imply that
minorities are a threat to national unity (pp. 511-512).
The Israeli case study gives particular attention to the situation of Israeli
Arabs. It takes note of the many obstacles to creating a shared ideology among
Arab and Jewish Israeli citizens, adding that Arab cultural autonomy has been
discouraged, that Arabs receive fewer resources from the State then their Jewish
counterparts, that there is a general atmosphere of mutual alienation and distrust,
and that many Arabs in Israel are opposed to integration in the Jewish state
(Ichilov, 1999, p. 379). For the case study this situation was addressed through
interviews conducted with staff members at an institution that trains teachers
for Arab schools in Israel. The respondents at this school saw citizenship educa-
tion as a process of developing a national identity based on a unique history
and cultural heritage while at the same time remaining loyal to the state of
Israel. But respondents found this difficult to do. One said: "'Independence
Day is a sad day for me . . . . I cannot relate to the flag and national anthem.'"
Another declared: " ' I belong to the State of Israel, and at the same time I
belong to the Arab people and to the Palestinian people in particular. I ' m trying
to avoid conflicts among these distinct affiliations.'" The respondents viewed
the existing curriculum as "too narrow, neglecting historical, national and
social aspects which are of great significance to the Arab minority", and said
they would like more freedom to design their own curriculum (Ichilov, 1999,
pp. 388-389).
In essence, the case studies as a group display some ambivalence about
how to deal with diversity without undermining national unity, and substantial
differences exist in terms of how each country attempts to adjust its historical
expectations of schooling to the demographic and political trends of the contem-
porary world. In some countries, the negotiation of how national minorities are
to be understood and accommodated is a ubiquitous feature of schooling. In
other countries, the search for acceptance and recognition of certain minorities
remains elusive. The constraints on experts who try to persuade others to accept
their views of what constitutes legitimate school knowledge are readily apparent
in this domain.
TAKING THE QUIXOTIC OUT OF THE QUEST

FOR CIVIC EDUCATION
The case studies show that civic education in school remains problematic in
many ways. Although certain countries and many individual schools appear
to constitute exceptions in certain respects, civic education has not found a
secure and major place in the curriculum as a formal subject matter. Civic
education goes against the grain of conventional educational practice in its call
for participatory students who have rights to and responsibilities for self-
governance. It has not been a priority of teacher education or student assessment
efforts, and the comprehensive nature of its agenda has not been widely
accepted. Progress in improving civic education in each of the three core
domains of democracy, national identity and social cohesion/diversity requires
solutions to these problems. But attempts to address these problems to date
generally have rendered civic education either marginal or ineffective. It is
marginalized when the reforms undertaken are partial and focused solely on the
formal curriculum. It is ineffective when comprehensive systemic reforms are
implemented without sufficient support and follow-up. In short, civic education
typically addresses the great issues of democracy, national identity and social
diversity in partial and fragmented ways. The laudable efforts of civic education
experts appear to have relatively little impact on school practices (although the
second phase of the IEA Civic Education Study provides more representative
and conclusive data on what actually happens in schools). It seems that civic
education will live up to its aspirations only if it is merged into overall school
reform and restructuring movements that are fully capable of mobilizing
sufficient support and know-how to put into practice the sort of fundamental
134 JOHN SCHWILLE AND JO-ANN A M A D E O
- one could say revolutionary - changes called for in the case studies. The
democratic school will not be built on the efforts of civic education reformers
alone.
NOTES
1. In our analyses, we have drawn upon all the national case studies except for those
of Poland and Slovenia, which are reflections of experts rather than representations of
data. Specifically, through the case studies and their supporting documentation we found
several themes related to civic education in schools and provide here examples from
the diverse set of 22 countries. While some similarities exist across countries, many
differences are also evident, most notably in the area of national identity. Therefore, we
did not classify countries by region, years of democracy or system of education but
according to the themes that emerged from the case studies.
2. Source: IEA Civic Education Study Phase 1 database containing the United States
response to framing questions about religion.
3. At the time of data collection in 1998, at least one province in Australia was
developing a mandatory test and thus could be cited as countering this overall trend.
REFERENCES
In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Balkansky, P., Zahariev, S., Stoyanov, S., & Stoyonova, N. (1999). Challenges in developing a
Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 89-109). Amsterdam: lEA.
Blondin, C., & Schillings, P. (1999). Education for citizenship in the French community of Belgium:
opportunities to learn in addition to the formal curriculum. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
Bogolubov, L., Klokova, G. V., Kovalyova, G. S., & Poltorak, D. I. (1999). The challenge of civic
education in the New Russia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Bunescu, G., Stan, E., Albu, G., Badea, D., & Oprica, O. (1999). Cohesion and diversity in national
Dekker, H. (1999). Citizenship conceptions and competencies in the subject matter "society" in the
Dutch schools. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education
across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project
The P a r a d o x i c a l Situation o f Civic Education in Schools 135
Hahn, C. (1999). Challengs to civic education in the United States. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
H~indle, C., Oestereich, D., & Trommer, L. (1999). Concepts of civic education in Germany based
on a survey of expert opinion. In: J. Torney-Pnrta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic
Hess, R., & Torney, J. (1967). The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine.
Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 371-393). Amsterdam: lEA.
Kerr, D. (1999). Re-examining citizenship education in England. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 203-227). Amsterdam: lEA.
J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: lEA.
Losito, B. (1999). Italy: educating for democracy in a changing democratic society. In: J. Tomey-
National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 395-418). Amsterdam:
IEA.
Makrinioti, D., & Solomon, J. (1999). The discourse of citizenship education in Greece: national
identity and social diversity. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadco (Eds), Civic
M~trai, Z. (1999). In transit: civic education in Hungary. In: J. Torney-Purta, 1. Schwille &
Nash, G. B., Crabtree, C., & Dunn, R. E. (1997). History on Trial: Culture Wars and the Teaching
of the Past. New York: A. A. Knopf.
and the intended curricula in basic education in Portugal. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 481-504). Amsterdam: lEA.
Papanastasiou, C., & Koutselini-Ioannidou, M. (1999). National identity in the civic education of
Cyprus. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Australia. In: J. Tomey-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Reichenbach, R. (1999). Abandoning the myth of exceptionality: on civic education in Switzerland.
Amsterdam: lEA.
Rueda, A. R. (1999). Education for democracy in Colombia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
Sears, A. M., Clarke, G. M., & Hughes, A. S. (1999). Canadian citizenship education: the pluralistic
ideal and citizenship education for a post-modern state. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 111-135). Amsterdam: lEA.
lEA.
Torney, J. V., Oppenheim, A. N., & Farnen, R. E. (1975). Civic Education in Ten Countries: an
Empirical Study. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
VNkov~i, J., & Kalous, J. (1999). The changing face of civic education in the Czech Republic.
Amsterdam: IEA.
Weber, E. J. (1976). Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Zaleskiene, I. (1999). National identity and education for democracy in Lithuania. In: J. Torney-
lEA.
1. David Zyngier. 2012. Rethinking the Thinking on Democracy in Education: What

Are Educators Thinking (and Doing) About Democracy?. Education Sciences 2:4,
1-21. [CrossRef]
2. Orit Ichilov. 2007. Civic Knowledge of High School Students in Israel: Personal and
Contextual Determinants. Political Psychology 28:10.1111/pops.2007.28.issue-4,
417-440. [CrossRef]
42:4, 533-548. [CrossRef]
4. Ichilov Orit. 2003. Teaching civics in a divided society: The case of Israel.
International Studies in Sociology of Education 13:3, 219-242. [CrossRef]
60 CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL
EDUCATION
Georgia Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides
TRACING DISCREPANCIES
More than other subjects taught in school, civic education is thought of as linked
to students' political experiences both inside and outside of school. Students'
everyday experience of politics in schools (that is, the political culture of the
school) and their experience as (young) citizens in the world outside of school
are key contexts for understanding how students perceive and re-interpret what
is being taught to them in schools. Taking the multiplicity of educative sites
for political socialization into account helps us to put civic education curricula
in perspective. Thus, what is of interest here are the discrepancies between the
civic education curricula, students' everyday political experience in schools, and
students' political experience outside of school.
Adoption of this broader notion of civic education that acknowledges a
variety of formal and non-formal educative sites for political socialization
signifies a clear departure from the more narrow understanding of analysis;
This investigation was developed during a sabbatical undertaken by the author at the Institute of
Education and the LSE in 1999. The description and analysis of data for the countries reviewed
are drawn from G. Kontogiannopoulou-Polydoridesand M. Kottoula (1999) Citizenship Education:
silenced issues, contested meanings, discontinuities in practices. Athens: Hellenic Coordinating
Center of IEA.
pages 137-178.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
137
138 GEORGIA KONTOGIANNOPOULOU-POLYDORIDES
which frames schooling as a "socializing-by-dictating" activity. In that narrow

methodological approach to curriculum analysis, it would be sufficient to
examine how various civic education curricula describe political institutions
and what specific kinds of political practices and civil actions they prescribe.
This chapter, in investigating discrepancies between curricula and students'
everyday experience in the social and the political realm, moves away
from such a narrow methodological approach. Specifically, I analyze data from
eight countries using a larger interpretive framework that allows us to reveal
differences and contradictions among the divergent educative sites of political
socialization. My analysis also draws from the body of literature that
scrutinizes discursive practices in schools, stemming from the character of

knowledge, practices for knowledge acquisition, and official knowledge
discourse (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, 1996; McLean, 1990), within the
context of overall knowledge, that is, knowledge transmitted in other educative
sites. Throughout this study, I utilize an expanded conception of knowledge,
one that includes "everyday-school-cum-life-experience." As a corollary,
I examine how schools, and civic education curricula in particular, deal with
the fact that students' political experiences - inside and outside of schools -
shape the way in which students interpret political knowledge taught to
them in schools. I will argue here that students' interpretations of political
experiences give us an important lens to examine knowledge that is transmitted
in schools.
The eight countries that I have selected for this study are categorized in three
groups. The first includes ex-communist countries that have recently (re-)
established a Western-type democratic government. I have used the IEA Civic
Education Study case studies on Bulgaria, Hungary and the eastern part of
Germany to shed light on this particular type of political context. The second
group draws on the case studies of countries that have an established history
of Western-type democratic government but display a politically apathetic or
passive citizenry. These two features - established history of democracy and
political apathy - are most visible in the case studies on the western part of
Germany, the United States and the Netherlands. The third group consists of
Mediterranean countries with an established history of Western-type democratic
government and with a politically active citizenry. In this group the case
studies from Portugal, Italy and Greece have been considered for analysis. It
is important to point out that the categorization of the case studies in three
groups reflects neither hierarchical ranking nor clear-cut boundaries between
various political systems.
I examine the differences between curricula and students' experiences that
were reported in the documentation and research material of the country case
Cultural Appropriation of Social and Political Education 139
studies (Torney-Purta et al., 1999). In doing so, I have tried to maintain the
flavor of the data or the emphasis of each case study author and, simultaneously,
have included additional literature to anchor the interpretation of the various
case studies. In an attempt to overcome the difficulties of analyzing and
presenting such qualitative data, I first reviewed the case studies in their own
country context, and then examined them with regard to specific topics that
had been central to the Civic Education Study. The three topics that were
explicitly addressed in the design of the lEA Civic Education Study were
democracy, citizenship and disenfranchised groups. At closer examination,
however, a reduction to these three topics proved to be too narrow. Two
additional topics emerged while I reviewed the case studies in their own country
context: the link between democracy and the free-market economy and the
relation between democracy and the European Union. The emergence of these
two additional topics is not surprising given that most case studies included in
my analysis are European countries, many of which have recently faced a radical
transformation of their economic system and their geo-political space. Therefore,
I added free-market economy as an additional topic. Finally, I have listed these
topics under the following categories, endeavoring to do justice to how case
study authors semantically frame these concepts:
• Democracy (freedom, equality, institutions, practices, rights, liberalism-
cure-free-market, pluralism, welfare state; role of: the State, citizens,
European Union).
• Citizenship (political participation-relationship to the State, rights, responsi-
bilities, individualism, collectivism, liberalism-cum-free-market, social
cohesion-relationship to nation, national identity, European identity).
• Disenfranchised groups (minorities, migrants, "others", rights, social
cohesion, tolerance, multiculturalism, internationalization).
° F r e e - m a r k e t e c o n o m y (liberalism, individualism, globalization, equity,
participation, European Union).
These four categories form the analytical units of this study. I have used them
as observation points in order to uncover discrepancies between what the civic
education curriculum transmits with regard to these four areas of political life
and what students experience within them. I have recorded discrepancies, that
is, contradictory socializing experiences inside and outside of school, as well
as "silences", that is, issues that students experience outside of school but that
are not voiced in the curriculum, and, vice versa, topics that the curriculum
covers that are absent from students' political experience outside of school.
The focus on these topics - democracy, citizenship, disenfranchised groups,
free-market economy - is to some extent biased toward political socialization
in schools given that they draw heavily from what schools as public insti-
tutions of the State consider to be essential for citizenship education. They
reflect conceptions of the Enlightenment that schools as modernization agen-
cies advocate. An integral part of the modernization project of schools
has been to teach students that democracy entails freedom, equality and
participation, and that citizenship, in turn, is related to other political concepts
such as citizen rights, responsibilities and the modern nation-state. I have also
paid attention to areas that students experience in their daily political life but
are not covered in the curriculum. The need to draw attention to the array of
socialization processes that occurs in the economic, cultural, social and
political spheres when scrutinizing civic education programs has been

highlighted by Cogan (1998, p. 4). As other authors have poignantly pointed
out, citizenship education in schools is sometimes contradictory. Schools
sometimes promote conformist behavior, even if it is at the expense of
reinforcing exclusionary social attitudes, such as discrimination against
minorities (Cogan, 1998; Hess & Torney, 1967), that are socially disruptive
and, from a purely conceptual framework of citizenship education, contradict
other principles taught in schools with regard to social cohesion, diversity and
democracy. How schools legitimize such contradictory teaching practice is a
question that I address in this chapter. My analysis also focuses on curricular
blind spots. These are areas of political, economic and social life that schools
tend not to address, such as unemployment, xenophobia, inequality and other
social issues that are often re-framed as mere transitory phenomena and are
thus considered not worth reflecting on in schools.
THE I N T E R P R E T A T I V E F R A M E W O R K
A cross-national analysis unfolds the smallest common denominator of civic

education curricular frameworks - an emphasis on institutional knowledge.
What surfaces as an international convergence of national civic education
curricula is, at closer examination, a modernist conception of knowledge
that Coulby and Jones (1995, pp. 28-29) describe as "self-determination,
individual 'rights' and the economics of the consumer vote and choice,
combined and stressing individuality, the ability of human beings to control
their own circumstances within the free-market, the responsibility of govern-
ment to respond to the multitude of individual preferences without infringing
the rights and the liberty of citizens." In some countries, the modernist
conception of knowledge is supplanted with post-modernist notions of citizen-
ship, which include the teaching of tolerance, multiculturalism and diversity.
It would be wrong to assume, however, that the modernist conception
of knowledge is simply being transferred from one context to another. On

the contrary, this conception is constantly re-negotiated, locally adapted or
re-contextualized, leading to the development of specific constellations of
discrepancies and contradictions.
The discrepancies between civic education curricula and students' everyday
political experiences can be interpreted according to two different perspectives:
a modernist perspective and a perspective of post-colonialism, with the latter
emphasizing the role of culture. For modernists, the act of reflexivity (a notion
elaborated by Giddens, 1990) in relation to social life and the act of negotiating
social agreements are core features of the project of modernity. From the
modernist perspective, political education epitomizes that project since it is both

a product and a vehicle of social reflexivity and negotiation. For Giddens (1990,
pp. 38-39), reflexivity of modern social life entails "social practices [that] are
constantly examined and reformed in the light of incoming information about
those very practices, thus constitutively altering their character" with a view
towards informing future practices. Although, in all cultures, "social practices
are routinely altered in the light of ongoing discoveries which feed into them",
it is an exclusive feature of modernity that an all-encompassing reflexivity is
presumed. As my study illustrates, reflexivity is not widespread in schools.
Nevertheless, for researchers of civic education it is relevant to identify
those educational practices that trigger the process of reflecting on the multiple
meanings of democracy and on developing ways of enhancing political
participation.
The modernist framework differs considerably from the more culturally
oriented post-colonialist framework when it comes to explaining the causes of
discrepancies. For scholars operating from within a modernist framework,
discrepancies are reduced to the deficiencies of externally set models and
practices. Because these discrepancies are thought of as temporary imbalances
or dysfunctional developments in social, economic or political life that will
eventually disappear, they tend to be ignored in schools. In contrast, a post-
colonialist framework suggests that discrepancies are part of culture and that they
tell us something about the unique modes by which each culture appropriates
desired concepts and practices.
In my study I draw from both interpretative frameworks. Whereas the
modernist framework that aims to identify those educational practices that allow
for reflexivity on socially controversial issues is an established tradition in social
studies research, the post-colonialist framework deserves further elaboration. A
central assumption of the post-colonialist framework is that culture mediates,
challenges and reflects the modes of appropriating modern institutions
(Chatterjee, 1993; Moore-Gilbert, 1997). Scholars adhering to this framework
are concerned with questions of why and how certain institutions are
acknowledged as representatives of political life (Resnick & Wolff, 1987,
pp. 25-30). The well-known dictum of Anderson (1983) that states across
the world are modeled on Western "imagined communities" has dominated
academic writing for almost two decades. Alluding to Anderson's dictum,
Chatterjee (1993, p. 5) makes the following very provocative point:
If nationalisms in the rest of the world have to choose their imagined
community from certain "modular" forms already available to them by Europe and the
Americas, what do they have left to imagine? History, it would seem, has decreed that
we in the postcolonial world shall only be perpetual consumers of modernity. Europe and
the Americas, the only true subjects of history, have thought out on our behalf not only the
script of colonial enlightenment and exploitation, but also that of our anticolonial resistance
. . . . Even our imaginations must remain forever colonized.
A post-colonialist argument does not privilege the "rationality characteristic of

post-Enlightenment modernity," which claims "a singular universality
by asserting its epistemic privilege over all other local, plural, and often
incommensurable k n o w l e d g e . . , declaring all other subjectivities as inadequate,
fragmentary and subordinate" (Chatterjee, 1993, p. xi). A post-colonialist
argument in the case of political education requires us to investigate the ways
that specific social contexts and cultures appropriate conceptions of the
institutions of democracy and of political participation practices, rather than
to examine them as deviations from conceptions and practices defined in
contexts of modernity. Such an investigation allows for both the independent
existence of and interaction between modern institutions and culture. Modern
institutions primarily include those relating to the "economy, statecraft, science
and technology", areas in which the West has proved its superiority and
that constitute the State's "material" domain (Chatterjee, 1993, p. 5). Cultural
practices and meanings correspond to what Chatterjee terms the "inner"
domain of the totality of social institutions and practices, "bearing [as they
do] the essential marks of cultural identity" (1993, p. 5), and which some
countries have tried to preserve as distinct and unyielding features of their
societies (1993, p. 6).
The analysis in this chapter argues that modern institutions are not simply
transferred and adopted (as Anderson suggests) nor purposefully resisted (as
Chatterjee proposes). Rather, they are rather uniquely appropriated in specific
ways that evolve from within the everyday prerequisites of social, economic
and personal life (as defined by culture), and from within culture itself. Within
such a context, "culture" is viewed as "a dialectic of system and p r a c t i c e . . .
as a system of symbols possessing a real but thin coherence that is continually
put at risk in practice and therefore subject to transformation" (Sewell, 1999,
p. 52). Culture is also viewed as being coupled with "[a] mode of articulation
of practices that cuts across all the differentiated spheres of s o c i e t y . . . [a
mode involving] a conceptual dialectic which transforms both the meaning and
practice of culture" (Lloyd & Thomas, 1998, p. 160).
I have found the simultaneous use of the lenses of both the modernist
and the post-colonialist framework challenging, given that they are to some
degree mutually exclusive. Nevertheless, I opted to use this bi-focal lens,
acknowledging with Bauman (1993) that epistemological approaches
constitute "states of mind" that display for readers a variety of interpretations.
The usefulness of these frameworks for investigating and interpreting political
education and participation in the selected case studies remains a matter of

individual judgment. In an attempt to bridge the two frameworks or "states of
mind", I have added a cultural twist to the modernist notion of reflexivity. Thus,
how individuals in a given context or culture interpret social concepts matters.
Lloyd and Thomas (1998, p. 160) have utilized a cultural studies approach,
"'taking as its object the differentiated forms of cultural production and
reception that emerge over time" (emphasis mine). Reflexivity is thus likely to
allow multiple possibilities in political education, incorporating cultural as
well as educational production and reception. Such an approach to
analyzing political education implies that schools, instead of persisting only
in inculcating prescribed and, therefore, restricted citizenship conceptions,
roles and practices, might also try an approach to civic education that
involves students' experience, or as Lloyd and Thomas (1998, p. 183) put it,
"raking t h r o u g h . . , in the hope of finding something valuable."
The bi-focal lens allows us to move beyond the strict normative framework
that defines civic education within the narrow terms of desirable outcomes and
prograimnatic goals of political education and which is mainly concerned with
highlighting deviations from that norm. Instead, the adopted perspective enables
us to understand how political participation is defined in various cultural
contexts. Such a culturally oriented framework pays tribute to differences in
systems of meanings as well as practices (Sewell, 1999) and is likely to lay
bare the discrepancies between civic education curricula and students' everyday
political experiences within their own context.
THE CASE STUDIES
The following cross-national analysis of eight cases illustrates that civic-

education-related curricula in the various contexts are more similar than
expected. They primarily describe institutions, prescribe behaviors, are
modernist in conception, non-reflexive in their processes, and exclude students'
everyday political experiences outside of school. In stark contrast to the curricula

in these countries, students' political experiences outside of school are not
directly associated with institutions of the State but rather with social problems
such as inequality, xenophobia, fear of unemployment, lack of security, and
sometimes confusion with regard to the functioning of the free-market. More
precisely, students experience these social problems not only outside of school
but also in schools. It is therefore more appropriate to refer to these political
experiences of students as "everyday-school-cum-life-experiences" and to
contrast them with their experiences in the civics-related classroom.
Bulgaria
A review of the case study reveals the re-interpretation of historical

developments in the country. Civic education is seen as a means to remedy
the aberration of the past decades and continue the tradition of Western
European democracy that was temporarily "interrupted" by communism.
Consequently, the fall of communism is associated with a "historic choice"
towards revitalizing Western European democracy and adopting the Western
model in education (political education included) and the free market
economy. The expectations of the democratization process to undo
everything that went astray had been, perhaps, too high. A few years later,
by the end of the 1990s, democratization had become associated with a new
set of social problems (Balkansky et al., 1999).
This situation has left young people appearing alienated and conformist. Many
want to migrate, are refusing to undertake military service, and are highly
critical and skeptical of politics and the political process. The contrast between
life under the past and present regimes is also creating confusion and
disorientation. Under communism, the citizen was a "true inhabitant", loyal and
patriotic, who depended on the State. Today, individuals are expected to
act independently within the free-market economy and to acknowledge their
responsibilities as members of a civic-minded, multicultural society and of
humankind (Balkansky et al., 1999). For Bulgarians, the conception of society
as multicultural, unknown till now, causes further disquiet: hostile attitudes
towards ethnic minorities, stemming from traditional feelings towards
neighboring people, persist. Religious intolerance and political intolerance also
exist, although the latter is not as prevalent as it was (Topalova, 1996).
Present-day educational legislation and curricula as well as political education
(emphasizing both theory and practice) reflect Western European models and
Bulgarian national traditions. They stress the liberal, pluralistic, multicultural
and "open" features associated with Western societies. School is expected to
Cultural A p p r o p r i a t i o n o f Social a n d Political E d u c a t i o n 145
prepare for political pluralism, reduce social inequality and develop tolerance
regarding individual and ethnic-cultural features (Balkansky et al., 1999). For
many Bulgarians, replacing former concepts and values with new ones is proving
difficult, despite widespread agreement to abandon communist ideology as
propagandist. The reforms have been unable to avoid discrepancies between
educational curricula and everyday-schoo!-cum-life-experiences because they
present democracy and civic culture in idealized form. It is thus important that
teachers "absorb" the new socioeconomic order and ideology in order to
transcend the difficulties inherent in the contradictions occasioned by past and
present conceptions of democracy, society and political education (Balkansky
et al,, 1999). More specifically, these conflicting conceptions include:

. The Western European model of political or civic education v e r s u s
communist education, the latter characterized by the political ideology, social
class and party, and patriotic-cure-international principles of former Soviet
education.
* Multicultural education v e r s u s so-called international education, viewed
according to notions of world revolution and selfless devotion to commu-
nism.
- National, ethnic-cultural identity v e r s u s (communist) party identity.
* Individualism v e r s u s collective/selfless devotion to the party,
* Belonging in the sense of nationhood v e r s u s belonging in terms of the
international proletariat.
® Freedom v e r s u s suppression.
® Tolerance v e r s u s class-hatred.
. Civic activity v e r s u s obedience to the party.
Although, school curricula certainly address the present-day aims of political
education, critics claim that the reality of everyday schooling is not congruent
with these aims (Balkansky et al., 1999, p. 102). They see schools as
ineffectual in terms of addressing problems associated with the present
political and economic situation in Bulgaria, and civic education as failing to
encourage active participation in the democratization of Bulgarian society. They
also claim that youth are not being taught the principles and mechanisms of
the free-market economy in a manner that will allow them to help solve
the country's emerging social problems, and that they are not being given
opportunities to experience democracy in practice. Another criticism is that
schools tend to reinforce stereotypical views of women and ethnic/cultural
minorities. This situation does not encourage the formulation of new
relationships with the State, let alone the development of self-determination
and self-dependence. In essence, youth appear to operate within a civic culture
that requires them to observe the mores of constitutional democratic politics

but that does not take account of the fact that their everyday experience
facilitates within them attitudes at variance with those roles.
Comments on Discrepancies and Contestations

It appears to me that discrepancies between Bulgaria's current social context
and its political education program exist at two levels. First, the values and
viewpoints espoused by the curricula frequently do not accord with the issues
and problems that students encounter in their everyday lives. Schools, through
their curricula, tend to silence discussion of such issues for the reason that they
are within the realm of describing and prescribing the democratic institutions
as part of the "Western model of society." Second, schools are criticized for
failing to address the social problems associated with political and economic
change.
The Western European model of the liberal free-market economy is contested
on two fronts, which have associations with the just identified discrepancies.
The social model of individualism, pluralism and multiculturalism has created
tensions that can only be answered by current social practices. The economic
model has created tension because it cannot adequately address this country's
economic problems unless it tempers strict adherence to the free-market
principles with the socialistic provisions of the former communist regime. It is
my belief that if discrepancies between political education and students'
everyday political experience are to be resolved, then it is necessary to
view the manner in which this country is appropriating the Western European
socioeconomic model with a critical eye. I believe that the country and its
people would be better served by accommodating those elements of Western
European style democracy that accord with and follow on from the democratic
ideals and practices embraced in the late nineteenth century. Furthermore, I
suggest that the country needs to blend these elements with its national tradi-
tions, and to take the valued social provisions of its communist past. This
pluralistic approach may well move political education and participation away
from a model based on importation and prescription towards one that is uniquely
adapted to the needs of modem-day Bulgaria.
Hungary
Political education from the 18th century and throughout World War I promoted
national goals of making Hungary a significant economic and political Power
within Europe. It fostered a democratic, middle-class mentality, nationalism and
respect for law (Mfitrai, 1998). After the communist take-over, the school subject
"government", describing State functioning and civic rights, was used for
purposes of indoctrination. The liberalization of economics and politics in the
1960s was followed by a debate on the content of political education, including
such diverse and non-political alternatives as a descriptive environmental
content and a workbook for students' own opinions. It was finally integrated
into history with the aim of increasing students' social participation (M~trai,
1998).
During the 1990s, civic topics emphasizing economic and social factors were
included within history and social studies. Critics, however, contend that social
rights are not given due prominence in curricula, even though social problems
are acute within Hungary. Social studies, influenced by United States curricula,
include descriptions of institutions and elections and the separation of powers
(parliament, courts and government), while citizenship is seen in terms of human
and civic (not social) rights. Political education is not popular because it is
associated with the past oppressive policies of the previous regime, which was
served by "good citizens." Hungarians are also unwilling to support it because
its rhetoric and embodiment within school curricula are seen as inconsistent
with or detracting from the social problems associated with the country's strug-
gling economy (M~itrai, 1998). Democracy is described from an ideological
stance, with efforts to secure Western-style democracy presented in political
rather than economic terms. National identity, although framed within a multi-
cultural perspective, is described from the perspective of the majority culture,
with little consideration being given to the economic inequalities facing minori-
ties. Curricula and teaching methods thus focus primarily on the political ideals
of Western-style democracy and the free-market economy and not on the real-
ities of Hungarians' everyday social and economic life (M~trai, 1999).
Although it is acknowledged that school curricula have made significant
progress in moving away from the previous indoctrination model of political
education, schools are nonetheless criticized for failing to provide students with
the practical knowledge they need to understand and operate effectively within
their new social and economic environment. Students, uncertain as to whether
the current problems facing Hungary are products of an economy in transition,
a natural outcome of free-market policies, or a crisis, feel inadequately equipped
to deal with these problems at both an individual and societal level. According
to M~itral (1997), their resultant political apathy is more the result of lack of
trust towards the State than distrust of the political changes.
Comments on Discrepancies and Silenced Issues

In Hungary, efforts to secure Western European-style democracy, a free-market
economy and adherence to the principles of multiculturalism have led to economic
and social difficulties. People, uncertain as to how they, as individuals, can help
obviate these difficulties, expect the State to have the answers. They do not negate
the need for or desirability of the new political and economic regime, but they
want it secured in terms of the "mild", not "wild", capitalist framework that will
allow Hungary to join the European Union.
I think that schooling is inadequately supporting the new model of society
for two reasons. First, economics is taught without a relevant analysis of
the socioeconomic realities and demands on individuals arising out of the
transition from market-oriented protective socialism to free-market "wild"
capitalism. Second, social studies do not address the adverse impact of economic
problems on the social and economic integration of ethnic and cultural

minorities. Education's contribution is thus questioned in terms of its pragmatic
ability to fulfill the aims of the new society that are actually promoted in school
curricula.
It appears that Hungary views the appropriation of Western-style democracy
and the continuation of social provisions (of the rejected regime), in order to
limit the adverse effects of political transition, to be the best way of breaking
with its past and speeding its political and economic integration with Western
countries. Rationales such as these indicate a process of problem identification
and solution that takes account of the real-life situation of Hungary. This
process, by identifying exactly which social, economic and political consider-
ations are most relevant to the content, practice and desired outcomes of political
education, seems to offer possibilities for Hungarian civic society far richer
than that of the current imported social studies model.
Germany
For Germany, the most significant events in its recent history have been
the division into two countries (Federal Republic of Germany, or FRG, and the
German Democratic Republic, or GDR) at the end of World War II and
the reunification of these countries following the fall of communism (H~ndle
et al., 1997a). Germany's defeat in the Second World War led to a decline
in national pride among the German people. Germany's division into two
countries with very different political and educational systems - Western
pluralism and communism - created suspicion of totalitarianism on the part of
the FRG and capitalism on the part of the GDR (HS.ndle et al., 1997b).
Schools in the FRG were bureaucratic (controlled by the center and by
overstated and detailed regulations), with educational change very much a
political issue (Derricott, 1998a). Whereas the political education of pre-Second
World War Germany aimed to foster trust in the established order and
devotion to the nation, the political education of the FRG emphasized
democracy in which citizens were conceived as members of a pluralistic society
involving interest groups (Handle et al., 1997b). Notions of liberal democracy
were expanded, in part as a result of student protests, to include both self-
determination and participatory decision-making. Critique and learning-by-doing
projects were emphasized and curricula from the United States extensively
studied (Handle et al., 1997b).
Since reunification, compulsory schooling in the former FRG has introduced
an emphasis on social and community matters, a focus that resembles social
studies curricula in other countries such as in the United States (Derricott,

1998a). Conflicts between interest groups, critical analysis of established
institutions and conflict resolution also are seen as important, with topics
focusing on such matters as pluralistic class structure, individual identity and
acceptance of different political views (Hfindle et al., 1997b). However, critics
claim that political education curricula are failing to address everyday social
problems and issues, including reactionary and intolerant viewpoints, such as
racism, as well as the climate of protest (regarding certain issues, such as the
environment) and political apathy among students (H~ndle et al., 1999).
According to Derricott (1998a), schools of the former GDR were governed
by communist party policies, while school curricula and teacher training were
dominated by Marxist-Leninist viewpoints of class, society and the socialist
state (Derricott, 1998a). Teaching was supervised and prescriptive, with teachers
required to follow pre-planned lessons and official textbooks, and students
expected to learn by rote. The role of parents in education was limited.
Nevertheless, schooling and (in-school and post-school) training were highly
effective in helping people adapt to the technological and economic changes
(Gerber, 1994). The State mandated the participation of both teachers and
students in state-sanctioned political activities, many of which took place outside
the school and included youth organization events connected to classroom
instruction, and "pioneer" afternoons organized by home-room teachers (Hfindle
et al., 1997b).
After reunification, Western ideology permeated the schools of the former
GDR, with the content and curricula of the former FRG holding sway. However,
critics contend that the educational reforms, by simply transplanting the content
and practices of the FRG into the GDR, have not always taken account of the
needs of a people emerging from a political and economic system very different
from that of the FRG (Derricott, 1998a).
Today, in unified Germany, greater effort is being made to present political
education practice and curricula within a framework that gives students practical,
hands-on experience of the democratic process and political participation.

Teachers and students are encouraged to discuss and seek solutions to social
issues in a collaborative manner. The subject of social and political science
encourages objective discussion of historical events. The economy is studied
in the context of welfare issues, global problems, social conflict and the
like. Students are encouraged to see identity in terms of the individual and
of the European Union, rather than nationalism (Handle et al., 1997a, b,
1999). Textbooks present diverse views, with schools free to develop their
own viewpoints, differences that often are more apparent across the new
federal states than between the eastern and western part of Germany (H~_ndle
et al., 1997b).
Despite these innovations, critics continue to claim that political education
curricula, teacher training courses and classroom practices in the states of
both the former GDR and FRG still do not sufficiently reflect the everyday
experience of students. Teachers' ongoing reliance on didactic teaching
approaches means that students often gain an abstract rather than a practical
knowledge of democracy. Traditional emphases within subject matter on
political institutions, democratic principles and the rights and obligations of
citizens rather than on the economic and legal workings of modem society
persist. It is also argued that projects that do attempt to address current social
issues and student interests are subverted by instructional practices
(Mummendey et al., 1996), while political participation, even though a goal of
education, is not enhanced by students' experience of the political process inside
and outside of school (H~indle et al., 1997b). The question of how best to
integrate ethnic groups and immigrants within German society remains
unsolved, and attitudes toward ethnic minorities and cultures stem from personal
choice rather than school influence.

For me, the main discrepancies between Germany's political education curricula
and students' everyday experiences center on re-unification, the economy
and multiculturalism. In the former GDR, the conceptions of Western-style
democracy, with its antecedents in the pre-war unified state, are uncontested in
curricula and create expectations of its social and economic benefits for
Germany's citizenry. However, youth find that they are faced daily with
economic problems for which their schooling ill prepares them. A discrepancy
is also evident between the self-responsibility and liberal rhetoric of the
free market and the ongoing need within society to make social provision for
certain sectors of it. Finally, calls for a Germany that welcomes pluralism and
multiculturalism do not always accord with the realities of a society in which
different ethnic groups and newly arrived immigrants must compete with the
majority culture for limited work places and social resources.
In the former FRG, the free-market economy and individualism of Western-
style democracy are congruent both in life and the curricula. National identity
is successfully seen in terms of integration with the European Union. Pluralism,
however, does not always encompass multiculturalism, and young people often
eschew traditional modes of political and social participation. The different
experiences of the former GDR and t~-RG necessitate programs of political
education that fit the unique needs of each. Instead of relying on a model of
political education, the subject matter and practices of which are essentially
adaptations from pre-unification days, Germany might find its political

education better served by a different model. Such a model, through its content
and its teaching and learning practices, would allow students to examine, reflect
on and find solutions to the problems facing unified Germany from the multiple
ideological, social and economic perspectives of its former eastern and western
states, the requirements of each of its current federal states, and its various
cultures and ethnic groups.
The United States
Civic education has always been a central objective of schooling in the United
States. It is driven by the rationale to prepare a "nation of immigrants" for
loyalty and political participation in their new country. In Mann's words (cited
in Parker, 1998, p. 35), "citizens need not be created through the s c h o o l . . .
[because they were] created by birth or naturalization." Consequently, civic
education programs need not prepare citizens. Rather, they need to develop a
particular kind of citizen: "a 'democratic' c i t i z e n . . , informed through liberal
studies and experience" (Mann, cited in Parker, 1998, p. 36). Mann continues
by defining the "democratic citizen" as an individual who is committed to
democratic values (justice, equality, liberty, limited government) and disposed
to participate in democratic public life. According to Parker (1998), civic
education in United States schools prepares students for "participatory
citizenship", which is not restricted to voting but includes public participation
in policy decisions and actions. It also calls for people to organize and
participate in civil action, including, if necessary, acts of civil disobedience.
While educators in the United States seem to agree generally on the general
aims and objectives of civic education, they tend to disagree on how to achieve
or implement the aims of "participatory citizenship." The disagreement is over
the focus on knowledge versus experience, or academic disciplines (history,
geography) versus social studies. The first group contends that facts, theories
and modes of inquiry are essential for preparing the grounds for participatory
citizenship, whereas the second group stresses the importance of discussing and
reflecting on social issues. An important educational component of the second
group is "community service", which is seen as an integral part of students'
exposure to civil action and participatory citizenship (Parker, 1998).
The fact that United States students see the United States as the one remaining
"world power" and the richest, strongest country in the world has implications
for civic education in United States schools (Hahn, 1995). Given the global
impact of United States politics, it is surprising how little civic education in
schools deals with the role of the United States in world politics. Against all
expectations, civic education is very much domestically oriented, emphasizing

minority issues, human rights and diversity within the country (Hahn, 1995).
In addition to transmitting these fundamental political values of diversity, human
rights and minority rights, an emphasis is placed on teaching the principles
of a free-market economy such as property rights, equality of opportunity,
individual initiative, and responsibility. Students are taught that individuals are
responsible for their economic wellbeing, thus disconnecting individual life from
developments in the larger societal context. It is because little connection is
offered between individual social mobility and economic wellbeing and the
larger political and economic system that relatively little is taught about
economic and political reasons for unemployment, illness and hunger. In line
with the strongly held belief that government should be limited in size and
intervene as little as possible in issues of social equality and justice, students
learn to defend their individual rights against potential government abuse, and
to use civic actions to claim their rights as individuals and members of a commu-
nity or social group (Hahn, 1999).
The United States case study reports on several heated debates in the areas
of civic education and social studies. One such debate concerns the question
of whether schools' primary focus should be on the cognitive domain, leaving
the teaching of attitudes and skills to families and other educational sites (Hahn,
1998). Another concerns the dependency on textbooks in social studies.
Also at the content level, there is disagreement on how schools should discuss
democracy in the context of civil rights, welfare issues, minority groups and
the free-market economy. Some groups demand more government involvement
in regulating the economy, while other groups oppose any form of government
intervention. Educators also hold different opinions on how best to prepare
students from different social backgrounds to become active democratic
citizens. How to deal with the past is another issue of debate. Although most
textbooks clearly condemn any form of white supremacy, reflect on the evils
of slavery and valorize diversity, the extent to which critical self-reflection on

the past should take place in schools is contested. Finally, another issue of
much contestation is the scope of civics-related teaching, leading to the
question of how much emphasis should be placed on domestic issues as opposed
to global concerns.
The case study illustrates the complexity of civics-related teaching in United
States schools. This complexity is mainly the product of differences of
opinions and views, but it also reflects variation in how civics-related teaching
is implemented in the various states of the country (Hahn, 1999). With civics,
government studies, and social studies subject to frequent debate among
educators and educational stakeholders, it would be wrong to assume that only

one model of civics-related teaching exists.

In the United States, despite the variation across states and the differences of
opinions and views of what civics-related teaching should be and how it should
be taught, there are recurring themes that reflect specific political values.
Liberalism is not contested, individualism is celebrated and the free-market
economy is viewed as the centerpiece of a democratic system that needs to be
defended by all means. The combination of all three constitutive elements
of this society - liberalism, individualism, free-market economy - leads
often to simplified conceptions, such as equal access to economic and social
opportunities for all.
Conflicts between the workings of the free-market and demands for
equal distribution of social benefits are presented in schools a s topics on
open-pluralistic society. Given the strongly held belief in limited government,
however, it is not clear whether students see it as the task of government to
safeguard the values of liberalism, individualism and the free-market economy,
or to promote equal opportunity. Students uphold the tradition of distaste for
government intervention and have developed a distaste for politics in general.
In many instances, community participation is seen as a replacement for
political participation, and concerns for community and local politics as a
substitute for reflecting on larger issues of politics both at the national and
global levels. As mentioned earlier, the silence on global developments is
surprising given the leading role of the United States in the world economy
and politics. The actions of the United States government in this regard affects
every other government in the world in one way or the other, yet this matter
is neither a theme nor a major concern of current discussion in the civics-related
classrooms of the United States.
The Netherlands
The origin of the people's conception of nation is illustrated in the following

quotation:
Once freed from imperial authority, it [the nation] was [established]... without any of the
self-evident markers of territory, tribe, language or dynasty that were customarily held
to be the criteria for national self-consciousness. Into the vacuum left b y . . . monarchy
poured . . . the influence of Calvinism, humanism and commercial pragmatism.., none of
these supplied a ready-made answer to the questions the citizens of the new land needed
to ask, to wit: Who are we? Where have we come from? Where do we go from here?
(Sharma, 1991, p. 67).
The Netherlands case study (Dekker, 1999) describes the "pillarisation" of Dutch
society as an essential characteristic of democracy in the country. The
reference here is to the various groups that constitute the pillars of democracy
and that maintain their own political affiliations, schools, newspapers,
broadcasting, and the like. These groups, which are autonomous and not
regulated by the State, play a significant role within political life. They draw
from a history of tolerance toward religious diversity and a belief in commerce
and industry that favors the middle class and respects property. As a result of
a variety of historical circumstances, civic education (in the Dutch context
also referred to as "social and political education") does not set the notions of
historical continuity, national identity, cohesion and democracy within the
context of internal and/or external threats to the Netherlands. In the 1970s, for
example, social and political education focused on various models, including
social behavior, civics, moral education, conflict theory, critical social learning,
political education, and Marxist theory. According to the Dutch case study, the
current goal of social and political education is to prepare students for their
role in society and to provide them with an understanding of the importance
of social networks. Civics-related curricula include social and political
awareness, institutions, and the cultural and structural aspects of society (welfare
state, social security, decision-making, equal opportunities, individualization,
internationalization, technology and environment) (Dekker, 1996).
Civics-related subject matters expose students to concepts from sociology,
political science and cultural anthropology for analyzing social and political
phenomena, strengthening individual development and responsibility as
a citizen, and contributing to democratic processes. The students learn to resolve
concrete problems, recognize the existence of different views, take a position
based on arguments and form issues-related attitudes that are based on a
combination of knowledge, opinion and willingness to act (Karsten, 1998). The
case study contends that the materials used in civics-related subject matters
focus on contemporary public events and political issues. Although civics-

related subject matters are taught in innovative ways and address topics that
are interesting and relevant to students, "social and political education" is an
optional subject and therefore holds a low status in the overall curriculum of
high schools (Dekker, 1996, 1999).
In the Dutch context, youth seem to take democracy for granted. They view
democracy as something that functions independently of their own contribution
or political participation. Instead, they focus on criticizing the everyday
political problems that arise in democracies such as the one they experience
(Bouwman, 1997). Their criticism indicates that democracy is for them a form
of governance not closely related to citizen action and that has little to do with
their own lives. In general, politics seems to be far removed from personal life.
Young people consider themselves citizens of the world yet see little if
any need to take action on collective goals. This de-emphasis of political
participation is partially attributed to the importance that youth place on
economic rather than political issues: public and political issues mostly concern
topics such as criminality, pollution, discrimination, unemployment, foreigners,
housing and refugees. As the case study asserts, interaction between schools
and educational sites outside of schools is weak. Attempts at political
sensitization through the well-designed civics curriculum appear ineffective.
Context seems to define youth's orientation, not school-content.

The review of the case study leads me to suggest that liberalism not only
is well rooted and uncontested in this country but also appears as a natural
extension of the free-market economy and individualism. These characteristics
have become constitutive forces in society that are widely accepted and
practiced. They have been unquestioned in schools, ever since the 1970s
when the civics-related subjects changed. In contrast, issues relating to the
internationalization of the Netherlands, especially opening up the borders and
granting more rights to immigrants, and to political participation are contested.
It is noteworthy that the criteria set in education and society for political
participation are not met at the desired level. It is likely that political
participation is hard to increase within liberal individualism. The curriculum
offers a balanced epistemology: academic content (encyclopedic tradition),
projects depicting everyday problems (pragmatic approach), and a complete
design for their appropriation. The Dutch experts attribute its ineffectiveness,
however, to earlier socialization experiences of youth. Thus, the question that
experts ask, "How big would the gap be before it would become a threat to
the political system?" is a well-placed concern. In my understanding, given that
liberalism and the free-market prevail in the specific context, pluralism

could mean accommodating "others" as equal groups in civil society in a new
"pillarization". But it is obviously hard to integrate in real-life the multicultural
members of society as "new" groups that function together in a state of equality.
Thus, in the Netherlands, extending the structures and practices that might open
up the desired political participation might be possible by mobilizing in life
what exists in the curriculum, but this is a rather weak perspective.
Portugal
In Portugal, the development of civics-related education is associated with

political and social changes as well as historical events of political importance,
such as the past authoritarian regime, the independence of colonies, the
restoration of democracy in 1974 and Portugal's entry into the European
Economic Community (EEC) in 1985 (Menezes et al., 1997). These changes
follow political transformations in the transition to democracy and involve
contrasting experiences for Portuguese people such as the following: the change
from a former solid and isolated state into a weaker state as a result of this
country's recent incorporation in the European Union; the change from a former
homogeneous society into a pluralistic, open, complex society; and the
development of new discrimination patterns and voiceless groups, along with
new economic options (Menezes et al., 1997).
In this context, schooling and civics-related education emerge in three phases
of educational politics (Menezes et al., 1997). Until 1974, a major objective of
schools was to help preserve Catholic values. After 1976, with the end of the
dictatorship, the major agenda of education was to promote national progress,
social cohesion, collective identity, and socialism. In 1986, civic values were
re-defined to match the vision of the new citizen within the European space.
Portuguese citizens are expected to be free, responsible and autonomous, to
actively promote social progress and democratic pluralism, and develop a
national identity that is in concert with values of diversity, universal humanism
and international cooperation (Menezes et al., 1999).
In contrast to the 1970s and early 1980s, when schools were expected to
actively promote socialism, educational policy since the mid-1980s has been
to protect schools from ideological inculcation (Menezes et al., 1999). As a
consequence, attention turned to the consideration of social problems (human
rights, national defense, AIDS) and the personal development of students. The
educational reform of 1989 introduced personal and political education (PSE)
across the curriculum, supported with project work completed by students. PSE
originally was to be implemented as an optional subject that could be taken
alongside PSE-related topics taught across the curriculum, that is, in all subjects.
In practice, however, the teaching of PSE became confined to the independent
subject and student projects. The goals of PSE focus on the deyelopment of
reasoning skills, discussion of various points of view, and reflection on human
relationships and universal values. The content comprises ecology, the family,
sex, health, safety, consumerism, and citizenship education. The inclusion of
citizenship education as a component of PSE was triggered by research that
revealed the general lack of interest of Portuguese youth in political and social
participation (Menezes et al., 1999).
Promoting the practice of democracy in schools involves fundamental rights:
the right to protest, to resist, to revolt, to express opinions and to join political
and civic organizations. Citizenship concepts and civic actions are meant to
reflect a democratic and pluralistic vision of society, a vision that acknowledges
the values of diversity, solidarity and tolerance for difference (Menezes, 1995).
The European dimension of social and economic life constitutes an
important component of schooling and is, in particular, well represented in
projects that students explore. The Portuguese take pride in exploring Europe
as a pedagogic object with special emphasis on the European Union to which
they belong (Belard & Matos, 1994). Another important component of the PSE
curriculum calls on students to be an active participant of the community
and to reflect on political and social life. PSE upholds standards relating to
cognitive and attitudinal aspects as well as skills-related objectives. The
curriculum explicitly states that students must develop the skills required to
solve everyday social and personal problems.
Despite these aims and objectives, the curriculum is, in practice, only partially
implemented. More specifically, it over-emphasizes the cognitive aspects of
civics-related education at the expense of attitudinal aspects and skills. Use of
the school community as micro-society that serves students as a training ground
for political participation has proved to be a vision that is somewhat removed
from current practice. These failures to fully implement the curriculum and the
need to transform schools into more democratic public institutions are now
being widely articulated. Although new curricular strategies are presently being
implemented, they are still not fully responsive to the political experiences of
students outside of school (Menezes et al., 1997).
The case study points out that youth accept the European model of pluralism
and democratization. While they are positive about integration into the European
Union, believing that it will allow Portugal to preserve its national identity
(Menezes et al., 1997), they have reservations about granting more rights to
immigrants. Youth question the effectiveness of political participation. They
feel they have to fight on their own to improve living conditions, because they
believe they will not be provided for by the State. They give little credence to
civic protest as a means of social change (Menezes, 1995). Essentially, unless
their own personal lives are affected, they take little interest in social problems
and political participation. The fact that various protracted social problems and
conflicts, such as unemployment, social exclusion, immigration, regional
and social inequalities, remain unresolved nurtures the wide-spread belief among
youth that institutions and politics are untrustworthy (Menezes et al., 1997).
Academically oriented youth in particular favor individualism, pragmatism,
tolerance and short-term goals. For them, individualism is a lifestyle that dictates
not only how they "operate" within everyday society, but also how they would
like to live in the future. They therefore place a higher priority on tolerance of
individual expression and ways of living than on equity perspectives with respect
to multieultural groups (Menezes et al., 1997). Given this emphasis on indi-
vidualism, it is not surprising that students constantly criticize schools for not
providing them with sufficient room to express their personal experiences and
views (Menezes et al., 1999).

There are two major discrepancies. The first is the high expectations that
Portugal's people have of the government as the guarantor of democracy and
the safeguard for individual wellbeing versus their low political participation.
The second concerns the differences between the meanings that individualism
and tolerance hold in the life of youth and the meanings of those notions
that are being demanded as a result of Portugal's integration with the European
Union. The following observations offer an attempt to relate these discrepan-
cies to civics-related education.
Democracy constitutes a shared value in society. In contrast to earlier times
in Portuguese history, citizens do not perceive it as a need to emphasize and
watch over implementation of that value by the government. Instead, they have
transformed the political issue of democracy into a personal lifestyle-related
issue that emphasizes pluralism, multiculturalism and economic wellbeing.
This shift in perception - from the government as guarantor of democracy
to a safeguard for individual wellbeing - is not examined in civics-related
education.
This change in perception is coupled with the fact that loyalty and interest
are generally no longer vested in the State but in the European Union. The
content of PSE supports this shift from national to European identity.
The content of PSE, however does not deal with the important differences
inherent in the meanings that youth share on the one hand and the new demands
placed by European economic integration and social cohesion on the other. The
first relates to the meanings ascribed to individualism within a context wherein

youth cherish it as a lifestyle, and wherein they must face the new demands
to be individually responsible for their own economic wellbeing within Europe.
The second concerns the meanings ascribed to multiculturalism and tolerance,
perceived by youth as a lifestyle, and to the "new" multicultural society
demanded in the new integrated European social space. Despite an elaborate
curriculum that targets comprehensive development of the knowledge, attitudes
and skills that are relevant for civic literacy and action, the PSE program tends
to be, in practice, very much cognitive-based without attempting to deal with
the above issues that are so important to young people. This way civics-related
education displaces meanings and limits the possibilities for young people to
critically examine those meanings and practices that are part of their social and
political existence.
Italy
As a result of Italy's experiences between the two world wars, when the fascist
regime promoted loyalty to the "nation", any conception of civic education that
is reminiscent of fostering national identity is viewed with negativity. Italians
have long considered notions of "belonging to the nation" as nationalism, as
serving an alien, untrustworthy state (see Italy, 1996a).
History education in Italian schools tends to gloss over the period of
nationalism. However, it deals in detail with ancient and medieval times, when
the region was regarded as an exemplar of political, military and cultural life
for the rest of Western civilization. The teaching of contemporary history pays
considerable attention to the European dimension. Furthermore, democracy, as
a concept, is taught in terms of the political and administrative institutions that
make up the political system, and school curricula provide students with very
little opportunity to reflect on controversial social issues (Latrucci, 1997; Salerni,
1997). In short, schools tend to avoid examination of difficult political and
social topics.
Political education is taught under civil-values education and is diffused
across the curriculum (see Italy, 1996b). According to the curricular framework,
teaching methods and school practices should prepare students to act as citizens
(Salerni, 1997). Despite reforms to implement such aims, teaching practices
continue to encourage memorization of content rather than the skills of critical
thinking and debate (Latrucci, 1997; Salerni, 1997). According to the Italian
case study (Losito, 1999), the content of civics-related education is dated,
neglecting in particular the important social transformations that occurred in
Italian society after the Second World War. Textbooks and curricula are
detached from what students regard as politically relevant based on what they
see and experience outside of school (see Italy, 1996b).
Although students witness the strong influence on the government of different
interest groups and non-governmental organizations (see Italy, 1996a), the
practice of lobbying as a key characteristic of Italian political decision-making
is not addressed in civics-related education. The range of lobbyists is broad,
spanning groups and organizations that even use criminal means, as well as
those that find legal ways to express their opinion and exert pressure on the
government. The knowledge transmitted in civics-related subject matter focuses
on facts and knowledge (see Italy, 1996a) and is detached from what is going
on in real life and politics. What students are presented with is the ideal of
politics, that is, a political system that is free from corruption and lobbying.
Students are not able to match this view, as presented in school, with what they
experience outside of school (Salemi, 1997). Curricular frameworks do
encourage student political participation in debates at school level. However,
the teaching methods and classroom climate are strongly teacher-centered and
therefore not conducive to student initiative and participation (Losito, 1996).
What is particularly fascinating about the Italian context is the interrelation
between regional identity, national identity, and European identity. The data
indicate that civics-related curricula stress the need to strengthen national
identity. One reason for this is to create parity of experience and attitude between
people from the more developed northern regions of Italy (Ruzza, 1996) and
people from the less developed southern regions. It is believed that doing this
will also help bring about a stronger national identity. The educational
objective of strengthening national identity is to make youth feel more citizens
of the country rather than of a region, in relation to setting them on the path
that leads to identification as citizens of Europe (Losito, 1999).

There are three particular areas where discrepancies and silences can be
observed in the Italian context. The first is the unrealistic account of political
life that students receive in school. Students learn that politics is "clean" and
politicians are accountable to society, yet outside of schools they are exposed
to a variety of scandals and to the fact that various external groups and
organizations influence political decision-making. Second, there is silence over
several issues, notably those relating to minorities, immigration and racism. The
data suggests that schools tend to allow the reproduction of stereotypes about
immigrants and to depict migration as a temporary and undesired phenomenon
rather than to examine it as a reality in a global economy (Salerni, 1997).
Moreover, although recent years have seen a raised awareness regarding issues
of racism, the anti-racist movement has found little resonance in civics-related

curricula (Losito, 1999). The third area concerns efforts to strengthen national
identity in relation to developing a European identity. Youth are urged to
overcome regionalism and abandon or counter northern superiority. For this
to be achieved, schools try to promote a stronger national identity. However,
national identity has negative connotations because of association with
the fascist regime. This association begs the question of how civics-related
education can foster national identity and, at the same time, give it a different
and acceptable meaning. Furthermore, the dismissal of regionalism and the
embracing of nationalism - en route to a European identity, so to speak -
contradicts to some extent the European Union vision of "The Europe of

Regions", where regions and minorities are strengthened. These discrepancies
and silenced issues do not open up discussion of the problems and questions
facing youth in their everyday life and limit the possibilities they have to
critically examine meanings that are important for them.
Greece
In Greece, a series of historical and political events has shaped conceptions of

the State and citizenship: Turkish occupation; liberation and the establishment
of the modern Greek state; the Second World War and civil war; the period of
dictatorship (1967-1974); and the restoration of parliamentary democracy
and socialist governments (1980s, 1990s) (Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999).
'The collapse of the dictatorship generated a new political discourse, wherein
citizenship "responsibilities" focused on an obligation to protest and to join
political groups intent on bringing pressure to bear on government and thereby
act as a counter-force to the power of the State (Gotovos, 1998).
Civics-related education, or "political and social education", deals with
political systems, the democratic state, its role (security, health, education,
welfare, employment, and so forth), institutions and functions, the benefits and
problems of social life, the rights and obligations of citizens and human rights,
international organizations, and the European Union (Gotovos, 1998).
Democracy is closely associated with notions of nation and civilization
(Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999). It has a dual meaning, one at the national level
(external or internal threat), and one at a collective level in which people who
share the same ideology, oppose power. In other words, democracy is seen as a
political system that needs to be defended against anti-democratic forces in and
outside the country, and it is viewed as a system of meanings that allows for civil
disobedience and protest against the State. Democracy thus is visible in public
discourse, and is seen in practice in conflicts between politically organized
groups and the State. Its meanings also draw from the dictatorship period
(1967-1974), when youth played a leading role in opposing the then regime.
Students' conceptions and practices of democracy are thus shaped by and include
extensive freedom to express opposition, as the long-lasting public student
protests of November 1998-January 1999 illustrate. Groups that succeed in
mobilizing people to advocate collective rights have a major impact on political
decision-making. However, these meanings and experiences are generally not
reflected in the content of political education. In stark contrast to the political
activism of Greek youth, political education in schools is very much oriented
towards teaching social studies and transmission of formal knowledge about
political institutions and systems (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides & Kottoula,

1999). Democracy is taught in an idealized form, disconnected from struggles
against oppression. The only (and frequently mentioned) instances of strug-
gles against oppression concern opposition to foreign occupation.
Greece has been a fully integrated member of the European Union since
1981. Although the impact of the Union's policies on daily life is important
and publicly discussed, it is not a topic of the political education curriculum
(Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides et al., 2000). Students' attitudes toward
Europe are nevertheless more positive and optimistic than in other countries
(Frangoudaki & Dragonas, 1997). European identity is presented as a second
identity founded on common interests, while national identity is nurtured in
terms of Greek language, history, civilization, culture, religion, and lifestyle,
features that are, according to public opinion, worth protecting from the
homogenizing effects of the European Union (Chryssochoou, 1996).
In the 1990s immigrants entered Greece in great numbers, creating a new
image of immigrants that differed substantially from images shaped by earlier
immigration movements that were mainly composed of refugees of Greek
descent. This experience with Greek immigration has been acknowledged
as economically positive and thrives in cultural production: the names of
localities, bodies of literature, specific art works and Greek immigrant
communities have, in their own ways, fostered the image of successful
integration in society (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides et al., 2000).
Minorities traditionally have been "visible minorities", especially Gypsies,
who are supposedly living an "independent" life at the periphery of cities
and villages and so are not quite accountable for their deeds, and Muslims,
concentrated in the Thrace region. The media focus on covering recent
immigration movements from Eastern Europe in a manner that tends to promote
a "politically correct" attitude. This recent immigration is coupled with serious
social problems that erupt in the areas where the new immigrants live
(Makrinioti & Solomon, 1999). Some people regard immigrants as threats
to democracy and social cohesion (Avdela et al., 1993). Such attitudes are also
a product of the tendency of Greeks to view their nation as culturally
homogeneous and "others" as enemies (Dragonas & Frangoudaki, 1997).
Although public rhetoric on anti-racism regarding refugees, immigrants and
minorities exists, it occurs alongside discrimination that is diffused partially in
the media and other agents of socialization, including school.
The occurrence of racist and xenophobic incidents is not critically dealt with
in schools. The new political education textbook (published 1998) clearly
incorporates a social studies perspective. It emphasizes individual rights,
contending that these need to be granted regardless of a person's ethnic, cultural
or social background. Issues that are related to immigrants are mentioned as

part of inter-group relations and subcultures. The textbook neglects current
immigrant problems as well as the experiences of Greek-origin refugees
(Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides & Kottoula, 1999).
Students' political participation includes periodic marches to the Ministry of
Education, demonstrations in city centers and school sit-ins. The long history
of student movements in Greece is related to the political legitimacy of the
act of protest, a stance that gives protestors a good measure of protection
from sanction (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides et al., 2000). Since the
1980s, protests have been organized by "student-communities" (student self-
government), which were established by policy-makers in the 1970s, as part of a
"progressive pedagogy" reform (Gotovos, 1998). Students criticize on a regular
basis the Education Ministry or, more precisely, the ministers. These criticisms
and protests (sometimes integrated in partisan politics) express in practice the shift
from "obligations" to "rights and demands" in the positioning of youth in the
public sphere (Gotovos, 1998).
As mentioned earlier, the high level of student involvement in political life
is not subject to reflection and elaboration in the civics-related classroom. It is
discussed neither in textbooks nor in course-work. The silence over students'
political participation in public life is surprising given that teachers support this
kind of student activism. Also, Greek students generally do not need to fear
holding opposing views. On the contrary, debate and opposition are seen as
characteristics of an educated person. There are other reasons for explaining
the blind spot regarding students' political participation outside of school. It is
accurate to assume that the educational authorities have imposed their own view
on what should be regarded as civic knowledge. Learning about the role of
political systems and institutions in general fits that view, but teaching students
specifically about what is going on in everyday politics and the role that they
can take in terms of civic action and protest does not (Kontogiannopoulou-
Polydorides et al., 2000). The main issue here is that authorities define
knowledge in general and the teaching of political education in particular

exclusively as academic content. They pay little regard to the notion that there
is something to be learned from what is going on in school sit-ins or outside
the classroom. Although there is a strong general belief in critical thinking and
contrasting opinions, teaching remains text-based, with students required to learn
content rather than critique what they have read. Very rarely are the
abilities of critical thinking and forming arguments utilized to discuss students'
activism as part of the civics curriculum.

There are three phenomena that deserve to be pointed out: the silence of
civics-related education over students' political participation in the public
sphere; the difference between the ideal forms of democracy presented in
education and its dual meaning in everyday life; and the silence of civics-related
education over immigrant and minority issues.
Democracy is highly valued in Greece. People regard it as one of the greatest
accomplishments of their nation, and so rigorously defend it against anti-
democratic forces inside and outside the country. Furthermore, opposition
groups, in questioning what is actually meant by democracy, promote their own
interpretations in the ongoing public negotiation of this issue. Democratic
practices, such as those concerned with struggles to solve social problems and
improve life-conditions, are supported in everyday life.
In contrast to this vibrant political culture in society, social and political
education in schools deals with democracy in two ways: first, in a very
formalistic manner, focusing on teaching the ideal or prototypical forms of
political systems and institutions; and, second, in a historical, descriptive way
that emphasizes the struggles of Greek people against foreign occupation. This
emphasis on history and civilization is limiting, given the realities of political
decision-making and action in current public life. Within the same context, the
neglect of students' political experiences in school settings is even more striking
given that students have long been such a visible presence in civic action.
These silences, without doubt, limit the possibilities that students have to
critically reflect on their own meanings and practices of democracy and
political participation.
In regard to immigrants and minorities, social and political education ignores
related issues as far as the Greek context is concerned. Instead, it focuses on
abstract discussion on multicultural group relations. It should be remembered
that history textbooks focus on the national struggles for liberation and against
fascism. Thus, they contribute to the development of a feeling of anxiety as to
whether democracy can be preserved by opening the country up to peoples
against whom Greeks have fought in the past in order to gain freedom and
maintain democracy. Additionally, it could be argued that the silence regarding
actual immigrant experience limits the possibilities for students to realize that
there have been positive immigrant experiences in the past and thereby help
them to face feelings of fear and xenophobia today.
ADDRESSING SILENCED
ISSUES AND DISCREPANCIES
The relation between what civics-related curricula intend to transmit and what
students experience politically is complex and difficult to explore. Whereas

civics education content reflects in a very general sense the political and
economic circumstances that prevail in a given context (see also Derricott,
1998b), the specificities of students' everyday political experiences are not
reflected adequately.
The cross-national analysis presented above illustrates two related tendencies
with regard to intended civics-related curricula. The first concerns a trend across
the countries reviewed to change civics-related curricula and adopt a "social
studies model." Such a model replaces political and social education, and
emphasizes common social themes rather than examines contextually important
political and social issues. This trend is referred to as the "homogenization" of
civics-related curricula. In the cases examined, civics-related curricula have
moved from reflecting on political institutions and processes (which prevailed
in the 1970s and 1980s) to emphasizing quite similar social themes across
countries. It is important to bear in mind, however, that importing the social
studies model from the United States is not simply a process of copying or
wholesale borrowing. Rather, what has been transferred has been adapted (see
Steiner-Khamsi, 2000) to some degree and in a variety of ways.
Furthermore, as a result of the imported social studies model, there is a
tendency to exclude from civics-related curricula reflection and discussion on
specific issues that are unique manifestations of democracy and citizenship
concepts, meanings and practices as they evolve in everyday political and social
life in the respective societies. These two interrelated trends - homogeneity
with regard to a general consent to adopt the social studies model and the
exclusion of issues that are of crucial importance for the given society and
context - emerged as one of the major findings of the cross-national analysis
presented in this chapter.
Another important commonality between the examined cases is the strong
adherence to modernist conceptions of democracy, citizenship, knowledge and
education. Civics-related curricula emphasize the "institutions of modernity"
and a re-affirmation of the Western model of economic and political life. At

the same time, all cases reveal that the institutions of modernity are given
a wide range of meanings and are manifested through a variety of practices
across countries. This observation is in accord with Giddens' (1990) view that
modernity implies institutional transformations originating in the West with
many possible kinds of cultural response, given world diversity.
Giddens (1990) suggests that moving into post-modernity would entail "the
trajectory of social development.., taking us away from institutions of moder-
nity towards a new type of social order" (p. 46). Whether we view this
development as an "era" involving institutional transformations or as a "state
of mind" (Bauman, 1993), it is apparent in the following discussion that "moving

away from modernity" is not occurring in the countries reviewed, where the
"institutions of modernity" are not questioned per se.
Given the affirmation of the institutions of modernity, and the diversity of
meanings and practices these institutions entail in the various "cultural
responses" (as pointed out by Giddens, 1990), I suggest that the choice of two
lenses (modernism and post-colonialism) adopted at the beginning of
this chapter is justified. The diversity and the differentiation of meanings and
practices of democracy across the countries reviewed, however, hardly justify
the "homogenization" and the de-politicization of civics-related curricula into
a "social studies model."
Within this framework, it is important to focus the analysis on the
ways contextual differences relate to how these countries deal with issues of
democracy, citizenship, the free-market economy, disenfranchised groups and
multiculturalism, the main focus of the IEA civic education research.
Democracy
In all the cases examined in this chapter, democracy is seen as the essential polit-
ical foundation at the national, collective and individual levels. Democracy's
meanings and institutional practices, however, are perceived differently. An
important difference in the way democracy is perceived stems from the
dichotomy between conceptions of individual liberty and rights on the one hand,
and civic activity and political participation on the other (Mouffe, 1992)•
Mouffe (1992, p. 231) elaborates on a reflective approach to examining
perceptions of a democratic community:
• . . what makes us fellow citizens in a liberal democratic regime is not a substantive idea
of the good b u t . . , the principles of freedom and equality for a l l ; . . , to be a citizen is
to r e c o g n i z e . . , those principles and the rules in which they are e m b o d i e d ; . . . [t]o be
associated in terms of the recognition of the liberal democratic principles . . . . Since there
will always be competinginterpretationsof the democraticprinciples of equalityand liberty

there will thereforebe competing interpretations of democraticcitizenship.
Contextual differences exist across the cases reviewed with regard to perceptions
and dichotomies related to the practice of democracy. The cases of Bulgaria,
Hungary and the eastern part of Germany explicitly present a dichotomy between
the role of the democratic state and the demands of the newly introduced free
market and individualism within the economic sphere. The social studies model
for civics-related education presents the "Western model" of democratic
institutions, including the free market, without reflecting on the contested
meanings experienced in daily life. The Dutch, the United States and the West
German cases "naturally" experience the very political and economic practices
defining the "model", and emphasize liberalism, pluralism and individualism.
Pluralism has replaced the welfare commitments of the post-war social contract,
and masks persisting inequalities in distributing society's benefits (Cox, 1977).
In a parallel fashion, the social studies model in civics-related curricula implies
that in a democracy minorities will thrive when competing in the free-market,
provided that prejudice is removed. Thus, schooling contributes to the occlusion
of possibilities for examining the dichotomies in the perception of democracy
and democratic institutions by displacing responsibility from democratic
institutions to the individual.
Finally, countries that have had regimes that undermined democratic
processes indicate yet another version of the gap between the model and
practice of democracy. Greece, Italy and Portugal are concerned with the
continuity of democracy within the country and the new transnational
geo-political space, that is, the European Union. Schools, nevertheless, do not
reflectively investigate fascism (Italy) or dictatorship (Greece, Portugal), the
north-south divide (Italy), or tensions surrounding multiculturalism (Greece,
Portugal, and Italy to a certain extent), but rather focus on "European issues."
Criticizing the State is part of the political culture of youth in these countries,
albeit differently expressed. In Greece it results in active student protest, in
Portugal in a mixture of apathy and individualism, and in Italy in a lack of interest
in national issues and a concentration on local and regional concerns. The social
studies model does not examine the origin, substance and expression of such
criticism and concerns, maintaining instead a descriptive approach.
Citizenship, the State, the Economy and Political Participation
Citizenship concepts and practices are defined by and/or reflect a relationship

between the people and democratic institutions: the State, political participation,
and participation of free individuals in social and economic life. In recent years
the relationship between citizenship and the international sphere has been
expressed in a variety of ways. Within this framework, there are multiple
meanings and practices involving citizenship (see also Janoski, 1997), identified
across the cases reviewed, which have their roots in the historical and
contextual conditions in the respective societies.
The creation of the concept and practices of citizenship has formative and
transforming roots in the European societies, which have had the historical
"chance" to participate in such a creation. Sociological analysis indicates that
historical, political and cultural circumstances have formulated citizenship
primarily according to two patterns: one in which the ruler is "all-powerful",
the subject being "the recipient of privileges"; and another in which the citizen
is "a free man", "an active bearer of rights" (Turner, 1992, p. 52). In the
continental tradition, Roman law provides safeguards for individuals. It is
coupled with the French tradition, in which citizenship abolished all institutions
separating the citizen from the State. The English tradition views citizenship as
being embedded in the continuity of groups, institutions and associations
between authority and individuals. Civil society has hierarchy, order and
regulation. Social rights resided in the individual rights to property, excluding
the majority from political participation (Turner, 1992, pp. 53-54). In the
German tradition, citizenship is passively related to the State, with the latter
viewed as the only source of public authority. In the northern city-states of
Italy, Roman law facilitated the notion of the populo possessing some
autonomous sovereignty (Turner, 1992, p. 52).
Curricula do not examine such unique manifestations in the origins of
citizenship that shape past and present experiences and practices in the
respective countries. The United States perspective rejects centralized power,
adopting instead the rights of independent citizens. The welfare state was late
to develop in this country, provided inadequate forms of participation for the
majority, an inadequacy that can be explained by individualism. Citizenship is
expressed as localism versus centralism. Participation in the "public sphere"
is typically understood in the United States as individual involvement in
local voluntary associations (Turner, 1992, pp. 54-55). The State is asked to
provide not only multiple opportunities that individuals can exploit but also
limited social provisions. In Greece, people raise demands by directly facing
the State and government in a particular blending of the Roman Law and the
French and German traditions. They view the State as the unmediated source
of public authority. Youth understands and practices citizenship by being
politically active and directly (and very often successfully) confronting state
authority. In Bulgaria, the eastern part of Germany, and Hungary, youth view
the State as the source of public authority for providing employment opportu-
nities and social welfare.
It is clear that civics-related curricula tend to teach about citizenship by
variably emphasizing on the one hand the responsibility of democratic
institutions towards citizens and on the other hand the responsibility of
individuals towards these institutions, a responsibility that mostly takes the form
of political participation. The first concept, the role of democratic institutions
vis-&vis its citizens, is closely associated with Gramsci's examination of the
role of the State as "educative" for citizens (see Lloyd & Thomas, 1998). The
function of the ethical state is said "to form citizens and to gain consent,
the two distinct projects being in fact the same: the subject has to be formed
as one who consents to hegemony" (Lloyd & Thomas, 1998, p. 21). These
tasks are mediated through schools, in particular through civics-related curricula
and subjects like civics, social studies and political education. All cases in this
chapter nurture the imagery of the State as an "educator", and as an entity that
is "ethical" and concerned for its citizens.
In the cases of civics-related curricula in Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy and
Portugal, explicit mention is made of the need for the State to become in general
more "ethical" than it has been in the past or in the present. In other cases,
demands for a heightened ethics on the part of the State are uttered with regard
to specific groups in society that were or are disenfranchised.
The close relation between concepts of citizenship and the free-market
economy is a particularly striking outcome of the cross-national analysis. In
many cases, the free-market economy is promoted by state policies as one
of the main features of a democracy. Despite the semantic proximity of
politics (Western-type democracy) and the economy (free-market economy),
little reflection is provided in civics-related curricula on how the fusion of
politics and the free-market economy affects conceptions of citizenship and
political participation. This lack of reflection is surprising given the conceptual
contradictions that result from such a fusion. First, the intrinsic constitutive
element of market mechanisms is unequal participation. Lack of state support
for welfare therefore raises doubts about the "ethical" state. Second, citizenship
and political participation are strongly defined in terms of national boundaries
(nation-state) and national or regional affiliations, whereas the free-market
economy epitomizes transnational and global developments. Given that the
free-market is a global institution, where power is generated, distributed and
claimed, it is somehow problematic to ask citizens for political participation in
terms of the traditional modes and boundaries. Viewed in such a context,
reduced political participation and citizenship at the national level is not
an irrelevant response of citizens who are very active in the (worldwide)

free-market context, such as Dutch youth.
There exist considerable contextual differences with regard to how this
particular fusion between politics and the economy is being explained to students
in civics-related curricula. The analysis of the European cases in this study
indicates that students in post-communist Europe are taught that the free-market
economy is a prerequisite for democratic citizenship, whereas other countries
(Greece and Portugal) legitimize the fusion between politics and the economy
on the basis of requirements for integration within the European Union. In the
United States the fusion between politics and the economy is related to
individualism: individual initiative occupies the core of both economic and

political conceptions for action. In Western countries, the lack of political regu-
lation of economic problems (in particular, the reduction of welfare policies
that were established in the post-war economic boom) has not caused a major
legitimacy crisis for the State. As Cox (1997, p. 62) observes, "Large scale
unemployment has produced fear and concern for personal survival rather than
collective protest."
A Note on the Free-Market Economy
As mentioned in the previous section, the realms of politics and the economy
are inextricably linked both in civics-related curricula and students' political
experiences outside of school. Differences between a capitalist welfare state
that pursues a political agenda of social justice and a state that promotes "savage
capitalism" without concern for social redistribution are not presented as the
two most prominent options within the continuum of free-market economies.
Given that the introduction of the free-market economy was akin to "shock
therapy" for political systems in Central and Eastern Europe (Cox, 1997), it is
surprising how little reflection there is on the impact of the free-market economy
on notions of citizenship in the introduced social studies model. The adoption
of forms of Western capitalism in Central and Eastern Europe "does not
necessarily mean that the values, understandings and priorities of citizens have
become the same as those in Western Europe" (Bacova & Ellis, 1996, p. 146).
Youth question the view that Central and Eastern European countries, as
"new democracies", provide a tabula rasa on which political and economic
models from "old democracies" may be simply inscribed. In reflecting social
concerns and practices, thus rendering "transition" more substantive, their
criticism implies alternative interpretations and options that might greatly benefit
civics-related curricula.
Disenfranchised Groups and Multiculturalism
The concern relating to disenfranchised groups is of particular interest in that

it easily traces the transfer of related issues from Western countries. The problem
is actually very old and universal, but its recent depiction as a problem
originates in wealthy countries. It encompasses not only age-old class-related
concerns but also the dimension of the ethnic and/or racial origin of groups
(see also Janoski, 1997) that are different from the majority group. This
situation aggravates traditional class-related inequalities by adding straight-
forward prejudice.
In recognition of the difficulties involved in the modernist perspective, which

simply asks for the removal of prejudice to solve ethnic and racial minority
problems, a post-colonialist argument takes precedence because it opens up the
conceptions of multiculturalism and of problems associated with disenfranchised
groups. Such a view assumes a post-hegemonic approach, in which different
traditions of civilization could coexist, each defining a distinct set of values
and a distinct path towards development (Cox, 1977). This would imply a
way of thinking that extends globally what is advocated now in international
fora and often imposed as a necessary practice at the state level for countries
across the world. It means creating a different world order through a mutual
recognition, understanding and acceptance of the differentiated images and
practices of world order deriving from distinct cultural and historical roots (Cox,
1977). It necessitates working out the coexistence of these images and practices
by connecting and reconciling these culturally distinct experiences (Cox, 1997).
Global economic developments are conducive to the above argument,
because the free market, in creating globalization processes in production and
accumulation, has clearly defined the locus, actors and recipients of the two
processes. Given economic globalization, the above argument extends the
demands for tolerance and acceptance of difference at the global level. In
doing so, the argument rejects the rather strong boundaries evident in the
qualitative concepts of multiculturalism as they are advanced in schools. The
boundaries indicate that multiculturalism is pursued to apply within countries.
The above argument in rejecting such multicultural concepts points to issues
"beyond the Folklore Museum" that Coulby and Jones (1995, pp. 129-132)
succinctly analyze.
Education has difficulty facing such problems. Primarily, it appears to
emphasize the coexistence of ethnic groups, but to devalue and dismiss the
political, economic and academic power associated with the knowledge and
cultures of non-dominant groups (Coulby & Jones, 1995). The country reviews
indicate that awareness of the above traditional and narrow conception of
multiculturalism exists in the social studies model of civics-related education.

It is painfully clear also that these concerns have not significantly penetrated
school practices.
The problem is most substantially dealt with in the United States, but its
magnitude in everyday life is such that what is done in schools is rendered not
quite adequate. Disenfranchised groups/multiculturalism is not particularly
emphasized in the Netherlands curriculum, even though it constitutes an
important dimension of society. In Germany, priorities focus on re-unification,
rendering reconciliation with immigrant cultures a secondary priority. The
world-citizenship orientation of West Germans does not seem to help
the crossing of "boundaries" at home. In Portugal, individual, eclectic lifestyle

choices include tolerance and, possibly, help prevent acts of xenophobia in
everyday life. Prejudice exists, and schools do not deal with it in a substantial
way. In Italy, rhetoric against racism helps prevent xenophobia from having a
serious impact, but problems are widespread. Schools have introduced
inter-cultural education, the relationship of which to everyday issues is not clear.
In Greece also rhetoric against xenophobia is strong, as are conceptions of
privileged Greek civilization traditions and related educational content and
practice, thereby rendering the progress of various attempts to realize a
true state of multiculturalism very slow. In Hungary, too, acceptance of
multiculturalism is slow in permeating society and schools, since economic
issues define attitudes and restricts tolerance. In Bulgaria a strong ambivalence
is evident because the meaning of multiculturalism being used to shape
Bulgarian society accords with the "Western model."
It is clear that conceptions of problems associated with disenfranchised groups
and efforts to secure multicultural societies are contested across countries.
The relevance of these issues is far from clear to people adjusting to new or
traditional social and economic issues and/or imperatives. Such meanings
acquire their specificities in the objective conditions of respective societies and
are shaped through interaction with the Western model in unique ways and at
two levels - local (national/country level) and international. At the national
level, free-market imperatives and lack of state intervention demand that
individuals center on personal survival. Within the international context,
economic-cum-"membership" imperatives require some countries to severely
reduce state social provisions. This is seen in Greece and Portugal in terms of
monetary integration with the European Union. In Hungary and Bulgaria, this
reduction has been a product of acquiescence to expert advice and demands
made of these countries during their efforts to secure integration with the West
(Cox, 1997).
CONCLUSIONS
EXTENDING MEANINGS AND PRACTICES
In the introductory section of this chapter, I set out to examine discrepancies

between citizenship education and the everyday life experiences of youth, using
two lenses: one involving a modernist view and the other a perspective of
post-colonialism. The modernist view brought to the fore the many discrepan-
cies across the countries reviewed with respect to the prescribed content that
the converging "social studies model" sets forth for democracy and the
democratic institutions and what students live through in their daily experience
in and out of school. The post-colonialist perspective revealed that the

meanings and practices of democracy and democratic institutions across
countries are quite different as a result of a variety of historical and contextual
circumstances. Furthermore, it revealed that students' political participation
practices reflect to a large degree their own concerns and the particular
meanings and practices of democratic institutions in the contexts involved, rather
than what is expected to be achieved through civics-related education.
Efforts to incorporate everyday concerns in civics-related education have not
been successful in radically reducing the abstractedness of institutionalized
subject-content. The "homogenization" into the social studies model has kept
school activities unrelated to crucial social issues, and political socialization
unrelated to curricular practices. Across countries, youth have a strong interest
in problems that reflect their current life circumstances and are likely to engage
in situations related to their everyday concerns. Young people do not seem to
adopt readily behaviors implied in school-subject teaching. Furthermore,
the political participation of youth focuses on their own interpretations of the
issues involved and reflects current cultural modes and practices of coping with
respective problems.
The prevailing social studies model is based on individual determination and
"rights." It includes the economics of the consumer vote guided by the modernist
view that stresses the ability to control one's own circumstances within the free
market. It presumes that it is the responsibility of government to respond to the
preferences of individuals (without infringing the rights and the liberties of
citizens), and it stresses limited state-supplied social provisions. It can be argued
that European countries are importing (at different degrees and in different
ways) the social studies model applied in the United States. This transfer of
content, which tends to become similar from one context to another, is not
achieved without tension, particularly because such content cannot possibly
reflect the multiplicity of meanings and practices that have emerged in the
preceding cross-country analysis. Moreover, this transfer evolves fluidly,

allusively, consciously and unconsciously, penetrating cultures in unspecified
ways. Interestingly, the receiving country, when accepting this importation of
the model from the United States, uses as its rationale the Western European
model or, as is the case with some countries, the goal of integration into the
European Union. The importation sees educational institutions, cultures
and economic bases entangled in a peculiar way, creating a most interesting
discontinuity at three levels: the receiving country, the Western European
(socioeconomic) model to which the country aspires, and the transferred
curriculum. The receiving country participates with educational institutions and
culture (as system of meanings and social practices), and the economic base at
work. The Western European model provides concepts and practices (another
culture in fact) of economics and of democracy, yet it is not clear which of the
two is the prerequisite for the receiving country, and which represents the main
aim. The transferred curriculum, provided by the United States social studies
model, stems from the United States' own economic processes, its own related
model of democracy, and its own culture, all quite different from the ones in
receiving countries.
As indicated in this study, civic-education-related curricula definitely reflect
assumptions of modernist knowledge systems, with one exception: they do
not foster an all-encompassing reflexivity in which social practices are
constantly examined and reformed in the light of reflective work on those very
practices. Given the assumption in the introductory sections of this chapter
that reflexivity is the essence of modernity, then schools offer an illusion
of modernity by presenting/describing/importing what are considered to be
the categories of modern institutions. Thus, they deprive their students of the
opportunity to reflect on life circumstances, a social act that is very much their
own and that might open up multiple possibilities for political participation of
the type that would reinterpret and extend democratic institutions.
What is at stake, however, is not whether the model of citizenship education
ensures (a certain mode of) political participation, which is the primary
concern of educational experts. Rather, the important issue to emerge from
the preceding analysis, as I see it, is whether civics-related education opens up
critical reflection upon multiple meanings of democratic institutions and
practices in ways that appropriate political participation. Imported conceptions
of and prescriptions for democracy, for the institutions of democracy and
for modernization/Westernization are, by their nature, normative. A reflective
perspective, then, would not attempt to import/prescribe/impose certain
meanings and practices to the occlusion of alternative meanings and practices.
It is the denial of a prescriptive provision for a single future that informs the
potential for reflexivity on the present towards a multiplicity of futures. And

this denial is lacking (albeit in varying ways) in western, eastern and southern
countries/educational systems alike.
It is also clear that current "homogenization" penetrates citizenship curricula,
thereby undermining or, even, displacing "encyclopedic" disciplinary content.
The penetration of the social studies model is displacing the political with the
social, yet surprisingly is maintaining the emphasis on political rights instead
of social rights, perhaps because the latter bears a view that would restrict the
operations of the free market. At a time when socioeconomic problems persist,
such tendencies restrict countries' ability to search for alternatives in social
meanings and practices. The dominance of the conceptualizations that prevail

in the social studies model render other forms, other "imaginaries" (Lloyd &
Thomas, 1998, p. 21), as unreadable, inaudible and incomprehensible. They
contribute not in terms of the advocated wholeness and comprehensiveness but
in the displacement of practices and occlusion of meanings.
The cross-country analysis indicates that schooling does not generate
politically active citizens as required by their respective societies; it cannot
create, in my view, the preconditions for an open, multicultnral society. But
perhaps schooling can foster reflective thinking, opening up possibilities to
formulate new conceptualizations and actions. Perhaps schooling may be left
more with processes than content regarding citizenship education. Among these
processes, reflexivity on meanings and practices seems to be emerging as a
means of opening up rather than restricting alternative conceptions and
possibilities for action.
Reflexivity, by focusing on the differentiated forms of cultural production
and the reception of democratic institutions, political participation and the
"other", emerging across time in the society involved, would be likely to allow
multiple possibilities in education for citizenship. In fact, it might render content
reform unnecessary in that it might transcend official educational content.
Reflexivity in education for citizenship would ask for teachers educated to
engage in reflective work on social and political participation related to the
specificities of issues, meanings and practices in the respective societies. Such
meanings and practices may well not be the result of the "homogenization"
of civics-related curricula. Instead of persisting on one-sided programs that
inculcate prescribed and, therefore, restricted citizenship roles, schools might
try (to repeat the words of Lloyd and Thomas) "raking through.., in the hope
of finding something valuable" (1988, p. 183), thus opening up education as
well as political participation.
A seemingly paradoxical demand is then raised for schools regarding
education for democracy: reflexivity (embedded in modernist conceptions) is
required to facilitate the appropriation of political participation based on culture

(stressed in post-colonialist perspectives). The fact that life is more unsettled,
ambiguous and versatile than "states of mind" that are employed in constructing
works of scientific inquiry relaxes the paradox.
REFERENCES
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism.
London: Verso.
Avdela, E., Dragonas, T., & Frangoudaki, A. (1993). Representations of the national "other" in the
Greek educational system. Greeks and Others, MGSA Conference, Berkeley, California.
Bacova, V., & Ellis. P. (1996). Cultural political differences in perception of ethnic concepts in
central-Eastern and Western Europe. In: G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds), Changing European
Identities (pp. 145-68). Oxford: Butte/worth Heinemann.
Balkansky, P., Zahariev, Z., Stoyanov, N., & Stoyanova, N. (1999). Challenges of developing a
Bauman, Z. (1993). Intimations of Postmodernity. London: Routledge.
Belard, M., & Matos, T. (1994). Portugal. In: C. Brock & W. Tulasiewicz (Eds), Education in a
Single Europe (pp. 234-255). London: Routledge.
Bouwman, W. (1997). A teacher's view on the historical consciousness of Dutch pupils. In:
A. Magne & B. Borries (Eds), Youth and History (Vol. A, pp. 396-400). Hamburg: Korber.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The Nation and its Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories. Princeton,
N J: Princeton University Press.
Chryssochoou, X. (1996). How group membership is formed. In: G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds),
Changing European Identities (pp. 297-314). Oxford: Butte/worth Heinemann.
Cogan, J. (1998). Citizenship education for the 21st century. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds),
Citizenship for the 21st Century (pp. 1-20). London: Kogan Page.
Coulby, D., & Jones, C. (1995). Postmodernity and European Education Systems. Staffordshire:
Trentham.
Cox, R. (1997). Structural issues on global governance. In: R. Falk & T. Szentes (F_As),A New
Europe in the Changing Global System (pp. 52-75). New York: United Nations University.
Dekker, H. (1996). Citizenship conceptions and competencies and civic educational goals.
Unpublished material prepared for the IEA Civic Education Study.
Dekker, H. (1999). Citizenship conceptions and competencies in Dutch schools. In: J. Torney-Pmta,
Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp. 437-462). Amsterdam: lEA.
Derricott, R. (1998a). Germany. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds), Cit&enshipfor the 21st Century
(pp. 30-32). London: Kogan Page.
Derricott, R. (1998b). Citizenship: a European perspective. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds),
Citizenship for the 21st Century (pp. 21-23). London: Kogan Page.
Dragonas, T., & Frangoudaki, A. (1997). National identity among European adolescents. In:
A. Magne & B. Borries (Eds), Youth and History (Vol. A, pp. 417-423). Hamburg: Korber.
Frangoudaki, A., & Dragonas, T. (1997). Greece between tradition and modernity. In: A. Magne
& B. Borries (Eds), Youth and History (Vol. A, pp. 303-309). Hamburg: Korber.
Cultural Appropriation o f Social and Political Education 177
Gerber, M. (1994). East Germany. In: T. N. Postlethwaite (Ed.), International Encyclopaedia of

Education (pp. 427-445). Oxford: Pergamon.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Gotovos, A. (1998). Greece. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st Century
Hahn, C. (1995). Responses to framing questions. Unpublished draft material produced for the lEA
Civic Education Study.
Hahn, C. (1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille
H~ndle, C., Oesterreich, D., & Trommer, L. (1997a). Framing questions. Unpublished material
produced for the IEA Civic Education Study.
H/~ndle, C., Oesterreich, D., & Trommer, L (1997b). Case study notes for Germany. Unpublished
draft material produced for the IEA Civic Education Study.
H~indle, C., Oesterreich, D., & Trommer, L. (1999). Concepts of civic education in Germany based
Hess, R., & Torney, J. (1967). The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago, lE:
Aldine.
Italy (1996a). Framing questions for the lEA CE Project. Unpublished material prepared for the
TEA Civic Education Study.
Italy (1996b). Core framing questions for the IEA CE Project. Unpublished material prepared for
the IEA Civic Education Study.
Janoski, T. (1997). Citizenship and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Karsten, S. (1998). The Netherlands. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st
Century (pp. 39-42). London: Kogan Page.
Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, G. (1996). Does technology change education? In: T. Plomp,
R. Anderson & G. Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides (Eds), Cross-National Policies and
Practices in Computer Use in Education (pp. 49-83). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, G., & Kottoula, M. (1999). Citizenship education: silenced issues,
contested meanings, discontinuities in practices. Unpublished research paper. Athens:
Hellenic Coordinating Center of lEA.
Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, G., Kottoula, M., & Dimopoulou, K. (2000). Citizen Education:
Silencing Critical Issues. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, 18.
Latrucci, E. (1997). Specificities of historical consciousness in Italian adolescents. In: A. Magne
& B. Borries (Eds), Youth and History VoI. A, pp. 344-353). Hamburg: Korber.
Lloyd, D., & Thomas, P. (1998). Culture and the State. London: Routledge.
Losito, B. (1996). Civic Education Project: Phase 1, Italy (March-October). Unpublished material
produced for the lEA Civic Education Study.
Losito, B. (1999). Italy: educating for democracy in a changing democratic society. In: J. Tomey-
lEA.
Makrinioti, D., & Solomon, J. (1999). The discourse of citizenship education in Greece. In:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Mfitrai, Z. (1997). In transit. Unpublished material produced for the IEA Civic Education Study.
Mfitrai, Z. (1998). Hungary. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st Century
Mfitrai, Z. (1999). In transit: civic education in Hungary. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille &
from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 341-370). Amsterdam: IEA.
McLean, M. (1990). Britain and a Single Market Europe. London: Kogan Page.
Menezes, I. (1995). Civic Education Project, 2nd draft NCS, Portugal. Unpublished material
produced for the IEA Civic Education Study.
Menezes, I., Xavier, E., Cibele, C., Amaro, G., & Campos, B. P. (1997). Civic issues in the
official curricula and textbooks, IEA CE Project. Unpublished material produced for the
IEA Civic Education Study.
Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (pp. 483-504). Amsterdam: IEA.
Moore-Gilbert, B. (1997). Postcolonial Theory. London: Verso.
Mouffe, C. (1992). Democratic citizenship and the political community. In: C. Mouffe (Ed.),
Dimensions of Radical Democracy (pp. 225-239). London: Verso.
Mummendey, A., Mielke, R., Wenzel, M., & Kanning, U. (1996). Social identity of East Germans.
In: G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds), Changing European Identities (pp. 405-28). Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Parker, W. (1998). The United States. In: J. Cogan & R. Derricott (Eds), Citizenship for the 21st
Century (pp. 64-73). London: Kogan Page.
Resnick, S., & Wolff, R. (1987). Knowledge and Class." a Marxian Critique of Political Economy.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ruzza, C. (1996). Regional identity formation and community integration in the Lega Lombarda.
In: G. Breakwell & E. Lyons (Eds), Changing European Identities (pp. 195-208). Oxford:
Butterworth Heinemann.
Salerni, A. (1997). A review of studies on civic education in Italy. Unpublished material produced
for the IEA Civic Education Study.
Sewell, W. H. Jr. (1999). The concept(s) of culture. In: V. Bonnell & L. Hunt (Eds), Beyond the
Cultural Turn (pp. 35-61). Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
Sharma, S. (1991). The Embarrassment of Riches. London: Fontana.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2000). Transferring education, displacing reforms. In: J. Schriewer (Ed.),
Discourse Formations in Comparative Education (pp. 155-87). Frankfurt, New York: Lang.
Topalova, V. (1996). Changing social identities of the Bulgarians. In: G. Breakwell & E. Lyons
(Eds), Changing European Identities (pp. 169-80). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Torney-Purta, J. Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (Eds.) (1999). Civic Education across Countries:
Turner, B. (1992). Outline of a theory of citizenship. In: C. Mouffe (Ed.), Dimensions of Radical
Democracy (pp. 33-62). London: Verso.
7. SPHERES OF CITIZENSHIP
Gita Steiner-Khamsi
COMING TO GRIPS WITH

DECONTEXTUALIZATION
The study of citizenship traditionally has attracted a wide range of scholars

from different social science disciplines. Curiously, the particular focus
on education for citizenship has not narrowed the disciplinary base but rather
extended the range of academic fields dealing with this topic. With educational
:researchers joining the ranks of scholars in political science, sociology,
psychology and philosophy, it becomes legitimate to ask, what, exactly,
differentiates these different research paradigms and methods of inquiry?
Comparative education research, in particular, reveals a host of different
research avenues for approaching the study of citizenship education.
Noah (1985, p. 869) succinctly summarizes the four major uses of comparative
education research as follows:
Comparative education uses data from one or more countries or regions: (a) to describe
educational systems, processes, or outcomes; (b) to assist in the development of educational
institutions and practices; (c) to throw light on the relationship between education and
society; and (d) to establish generalized statements about education that are valid for more
than one country.
Studies by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) typically are regarded as studies that operate within the first
application of comparative education research, for they document, describe and
analyze, in one way or another, processes or outcomes of educational systems.

pages 179-206.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
179
180 GITA STEINER-KHAMSI
Scholars in comparative education research have challenged this earlier focus

on national educational systems, demanding that more attention be paid to social
groups within a system (Altbach, 1991) and within smaller institutional units
of analysis (Bray & Thomas, 1995).
By far the greatest challenge has been to deal with critics of cross-national
analyses who contend that comparative studies are, of necessity, bare of
context. According to these critics, the very act of comparison across cultural
boundaries implies a level of abstraction that might, at first sight, yield
interesting findings with regard to similarities and differences between various
contexts. Upon closer examination, however, this kind of contrastive analysis
is devoid of any explanatory power for understanding those very similarities

and differences. Moreover, many similarities and differences between
countries are artificially constructed and are artifacts of a method - the
contrastive method - that neglects cultural nuances and local interpretations.
For example, the differences in terminology that are manifest in the
participating countries of the Civic Education Study, such as "citizenship
education", "civic education", "education for democracy", "civics", "political
education" or "government studies", might suggest that we are dealing here
with different conceptions and contents of civic education. We might find,
however, that reviewed from a contextual perspective, these differences in
terminology do not correspond to semantic differences. It is conceivable that,
for a variety of historical and political reasons, which can only be explored
contextually, the civics-related subject matter is merely labeled differently
from country to country despite the content of the subject matter being similar.
However, the contrary could also apply. Similarities should not be taken at
face value, either, given that several of the civic education case studies refer,
for example, to the civics-related subject matter as "citizenship education"
but mean something entirely different when analyzed in the context of each
individual case study.
In response to critics of large-scale comparative studies, however, the study
presented in this chapter attempts to illustrate the claim that cross-national
analyses do not necessarily need to be de-contextualized, and that comparative
studies do not have to maneuver themselves into a de-contextualized vacuum
from which they observe transnational similarities or differences. In fact,
comparative education as an academic field has, since its early days,
emphasized the need to consider context. Nevertheless, Sadler's early reminder
"that things outside the schools matter even more than the things inside the
schools, and govern and interpret the things inside the schools" has haunted
cross-national and cross-cultural analyses for the last 100 years (Sadler, 1900,
cited in Bereday, 1964, p. 310).
Spheres of Citizenship 181
Despite criticism of large-scale studies that rank the performance of student

populations across countries, often tempting policy-makers either to applaud or
condemn ongoing school improvement efforts in their own system according
to their own particular educational reform agendas, these studies can provide
useful insights. For example, the first volume of the IEA Civic Education Study
(Torney-Purta et al., 1999), comprising summaries of country case studies that
were developed by educational researchers in 24 countries and were based on
comparable research questions, contains information that is of interest not only
to policy-makers, but also to policy analysts and educational researchers. A
very simple question, such as "What official curriculum goals exist?" or the
even simpler, "What is the national terminology for civics-related subjects?"

yields interesting findings when approached from a comparative perspective.
The 24 country case studies support earlier findings that most countries
integrate civic education in the subject matters of social studies, history,
geography and literature, and that it is offered as a separate core subject only
in upper secondary schools or high schools. More importantly, how these civics
core subjects at the high school level are conceptualized tells us something
about different emphases with regard to citizenship education. For example,
in Australia the civics-related subjects include "studies of society and environ-
ment" and "human society and its environment" (Print et al., 1999), whereas
in Portugal the subject that is most closely related to civic education in the
lower grades is labeled "personal and social education" and is offered as an
alternative to moral and religious education (Menezes et al., 1999). Hence,
describing educational reforms from a comparative perspective enables us to
highlight country-specific characteristics of civic education.
Nevertheless, the methodological challenges of comparing educational
systems in a manner that is contextually and culturally sensitive are many. In
this study, I would like to address a key challenge that we encounter when we
engage in comparative studies: how to analyze a specific construct - in this
study, "civic education" - that has a different meaning in different contexts.
More quantitatively oriented researchers identify this challenge typically as one
of multi-dimensionality of data while qualitatively oriented researchers point
out that different conceptions of "citizenship" will be embedded in the various
case studies.
The IEA Civic Education Study is based on self-reported educational policies
and practices. Most IEA civic education case studies are based on a combination
of interviews, surveys and document analysis; a few also include observations
in classrooms. It is, thus, not the method of inquiry that these different studies
share, but the interpretive framework. This particular analysis of the IEA
Civic Education Study operates within Noah's (Noah, 1985) third interpretive
framework and examines whether there exist different cultural dimensions or

spheres of citizenship that account for different models of civic education. That
said, I shall assume different models of civic education do, indeed, exist, because
different political cultures exist within each national or regional context.
SETTING THE STAGE
The 24 case studies of the IEA Civic Education Study were developed by
research teams in the respective countries. These teams gathered together
quantitative and qualitative data on civic education that relate to specific policy
aspects (for example, textbooks, curricular frameworks, teacher education)

and address four different content areas (democracy, national identity,
disenfranchised groups, and free choice). In addition to using the same research
questions to collect data, the research teams developed a comprehensive review
of literature covering previous civic education studies, and wrote a short case
study report that was published by Torney-Purta et al. (1999). It is important
to point out that these different sets of questions were previously determined
in international meetings of the participating research teams. Thus, the research
teams examined the same civic-related issues in their respective countries
according to this prior "social agreement." Given the political sensitivity of the
topic and in order to prevent biases toward specific models of democracy, it
was crucial to reach agreement on what to examine in each case study. As a
result of this consensus-driven research design, the data collection criteria and
the research topics were clearly defined so as to provide comparable sets
of data. The amount of information that was gathered in each case study is
overwhelming. In my analysis in this chapter, I refer to all the available
material for each of the selected case studies. This means the analysis is based
on the data collected for the policy-related issues and the four content areas,
as well as on the country-specific reviews of literature and the country case
study reports.
Determined not to codify or quantify the rich qualitative data, nor to use
the case studies merely as anecdotal evidence to make a case, I opted for a
hypothesis-driven design that would allow me to narrow my thematic focus and
to select only a few cases for further analysis. Interested in understanding the
impact of political culture on civic education models, I first formulated
hypotheses with regard to cultural spheres or dimensions of citizenship derived
from a review of research literature, especially in political science, sociology
and political philosophy. From this literature review, I formulated four different
spheres of citizenship: constitutional, economic, civic, and moral. My next step
was to select case studies that appeared to be prototypical for each of these
spheres. I chose to focus on the case studies from Hong Kong, Germany,
Romania and the United States, mainly because I expected them to be
prototypical cases for each of the postulated spheres of citizenship, and partly
because of my familiarity with two of the political systems, Germany and the
United States. Finally, I examined whether these four hypothetical spheres of
citizenship corresponded with the empirical data provided by the IEA case
studies.
SPHERES OF CITIZENSHIP:
A HYPOTHETICAL MODEL
The idea of examining notions of citizenship in the context of societal spheres

was first developed by philosopher Hannah Arendt. In The Human Condition
(1958), Arendt presents a historical perspective of how these different spheres
of society have developed. She contends that in modern societies citizens
simultaneously inhabit three realms or spheres of citizenship: the public-
political sphere, the social sphere, and the private sphere. There is variation not
only in terms of social role (for example, the roles of "wife" in the private
sphere, "worker" in the social sphere and "voter" in the political sphere) but
also in terms of the means by which each sphere is socially regulated.
According to Arendt, each of the three spheres is governed by a different
principle that acts as a cohesive force within the sphere. In the public-political
sphere the principle of equality is prevalent in securing equal rights for
citizens while simultaneously taking account of their individual backgrounds
with regard to gender, class, race and ethnicity. In fact, Arendt asserts that the
political sphere - the sphere of law and constitutional rights - is the only sphere
"in which we are all treated as equals" (Arendt, 1986, p. 106; see also the 1957
edition of her text). In contrast to the first sphere, which is governed by the
general principle of equality, universality and social inclusion, the second sphere
- the social sphere - is based on social distinctions and role differentiation. In
this sphere, individuals form civic associations and collectives based on similar
social status, roles, backgrounds and interests. Moreover, within this sphere, it
is socially acceptable for individuals to "discriminate" or differentiate between
their own group(s) and other groups. Professional associations are examples
of organized groups that restrict their membership to individuals with specific
qualifications. Similarly, this sphere hosts political interest groups and new
social movements (for example, feminist, peace, gay and lesbian, ecology) that
defend the particular interests of their groups vis-d-vis the interests and
privileges of other groups. Lastly, the private sphere is characterized by the
principle of social exclusion. Individuals choose to bond with certain individuals

(partners and friends) and, as a result, exclude others from their private spheres.
Arendt depicts the gradual expansion of the social sphere from a histor-
ical perspective, detailing the means by which formerly political or private
functions have been absorbed as elements of the social sphere. Civic
associations located in the social sphere, such as the Civil Rights Movement
in the United States, for example, have succeeded in influencing the legal
system, which is part of the first (political) sphere. We could interpret the
resurgence of "civil society" debates that acknowledge the great impact of
the non-governmental sector (civic associations, businesses, social move-
ments) on public policy issues as a direct manifestation of the growing

significance of the social sphere (Alexander, 1998; Gellner, 1995; Putnam,
1995). However, feminist scholars Seyla Benhabib (1991, 1993), Nancy
Fraser (1994, 1997) and Iris Marion Young (1993) find Arendt's insistence
on the strict boundaries between these three spheres misleading and suggest
that the civic sphere should be regarded as part of the public-political sphere.
The New Feminist Movement is a living example of how concerns that are
considered to be private (reproduction rights, physical abuse, sexuality) have
been carried into the public-political sphere and, ultimately, the legal system.
In addition, in particular for minorities, the struggle for social redistribution
of economic resources has always been accompanied by political struggles
of another kind - cultural recognition of different lifestyles, languages and
cultures. Nancy Fraser's book Justice Interruptus (1997) poignantly illus-
trates these two kinds of political struggle that exist side by side: the political
struggle for social redistribution and the struggle for cultural recognition.
Insisting on a strict separation of the three spheres and confining the political
struggles for cultural recognition to the private and social spheres, as Arendt's
spherical model would prompt us to do, would negate the political agenda
of these cultural struggles.
Other scholars in philosophy and political science have also found Arendt's
emphasis on constitutional aspects of public-political life too narrow. What
regulates the public-political sphere, that is, what is left once life between our
four walls (private sphere) and life with persons with whom we interact, bond
or identify (social sphere) are excluded, is much more than the constitution.
Benhabib (1991), for example, points out that Arendt's narrow focus on
constitutional matters of politics is not surprising given her high regard for the
Greek polis as the singular model of democracy in which citizens continuously
engage in a dialogue in order to determine the individual rights of citizens.
Over 40 years after Arendt's pioneering conception of the public-political
sphere, it seems necessary to review the scope of this sphere in the light of
more recent developments that include, for example, the spread of anti-statism,
the global diffusion of free-market orientations, the rise of the multinational
economy, and the advance of global technology. In addition, the collapse of
the Soviet Empire and the rise of the New World Order, advocated under the
Reagan and Thatcher administrations, forged a new, inextricable bond between
the political and economic spheres, reducing politicians, more often than not,
to negotiators for international free trade. At stake here is not only the changing
meaning of government but also the changing meaning of nation-state: the
transnational flow of capital, people, ideas, and communications has visibly
blurred the boundaries of nation-states.
If we were merely to embrace a traditional notion of civic education that

deals in one way or the other with democracy, politics, geography or history,
there would be good reasons for concern. From the early 1990s on, several
scholars of diverse political orientation questioned whether these four pillars of
civic life would endure into the new century. In succession, at least four scholars
have predicted the doom of history (Fukuyama, 1993; see also Fukuyama, 1996),
geography (O'Brien, 1992), democracy (Gu6henno, 1993) and politics
(Schedler, 1997). Fukuyama, in The End of History? (1996), and Schedler, in
The End of Politics? (1997), ask whether this demise has already taken place,
while O'Brien (1992) and Gu6henno (1993) explicitly contend (respectively in
the End of Geography and la fin de la ddmocratie) that democracy, politics,
geography and history have, in fact, met their end. These four authors, certainly
not the only prophets of doom in the social sciences, focus on different aspects
of the downfall. Fukuyama (1993) focuses on the end of the ideological struggle
between the Soviet Union and the United States, and reflects on the
consequences of having only one global dominant ideology, that which is based
on American neo-liberalism. O'Brien (1992) and Gu6henno (1994) express
concern regarding global economic forces that are increasingly shaping the
political decision-making process. Specifically, O'Brien (1992) reflects on the
new geo-political reconfiguration of the global world economy, which
transcends national boundaries. Gu6henno (1994) takes the argument a step
further, criticizing the New World Order in which politicians are reduced to
international trade negotiators who have ceased to be representatives of
the common good. In other words, with the New World Order, the common
good has been reduced to purely economic considerations, so collapsing the
distinction between politics and economics. Schedler (1997), finally, provides
an interesting explanation for the increase in anti-government and anti-state
beliefs. He uses Habermas's "colonization thesis" to shed light on why the
American Republican ideology that "the best state is no state" (Reagan) is
rapidly spreading to other parts of the world. In the 1980s, Habermas (1987)
deplored the successful colonization of people's minds by politics and

economics, transforming them into obedient citizens and good consumers. A
decade after Habermas put forward this thesis, Schedler (1997) proposed that
colonization had taken on a different direction in the 1990s. He asserts that it
is not, as Habermas suggested, the social and private spheres that have lost
their autonomy (because of having been infiltrated and colonized with values
prevalent in the political and economic spheres), but rather that politics as an
autonomous sphere has become meaningless due to the merging of economics
and politics.
So far, we need to acknowledge that the public-political is a multidimen-
sional sphere comprising not only Arendt's constitutional aspects (focus on law
and constitution), but also economic (focus on the specific model of
the economic system) and civic aspects (focus on non-governmental, civic
associations). It is important to point out that the suggestions to expand Arendt's
focus on constitutional issues to include the economic and civic aspects, as part
of public-political life, are relatively modest. For pragmatic reasons, I propose
that we put aside, for now, intriguing debates on "electronic space and power"
in the age of the Internet (Sassen, 1998, pp. 177-194) that draw our attention
to transnational citizenship (for example, "netizens") and new forms of civic
action (for example, "cyber-cultural politics", Lins Ribeiro, 1998).
Given the international scope of the IEA Civic Education Study, however,
we need to pause and reflect on whether the expanded version of Arendt's model,
which includes constitutional, economic and civic aspects in the public-political
sphere, is also able to capture developments in other parts of the world. Samuel
Huntington's comprehensive definition of political systems provides useful
clues as to whether the spherical model is sufficiently culturally sensitive.
Huntington (1993, p. 6) lists three main features of political systems: the sources
of authority for government, purposes served by government, and procedures for
constituting government. He then goes on to distinguish between democratic,
semi-democratic and non-democratic political systems. In an attempt to avoid
slippery ground, I will not pursue the issue of whether democracy and
non-democracy should be treated as dichotomous variables, as Huntington
suggests, or of whether a continuum, defined by a set of democracy indicators,
exists, as many other political scientists suggest. Huntington's distinction
between sources of authority ("the will of the people"), purpose ("the common
good") and procedures of government (elections, referenda and the like)
nevertheless appears to be helpful in determining whether constitutional,
economic and civic aspects of the public-political sphere capture the entire
spectrum of governmental functions in other parts of the world. In several
countries, notably those with Confucian or Islamic traditions, moral aspects are
inextricably linked with the purpose of government and with definitions of what
constitutes the common good. Moreover, in a few countries, such as in the
Islamic Republic of [ran, where the constitution rests on the moral code of the
Qur'an, moral and religious values saturate all aspects of government - its source
of authority, its purpose and its procedures. "Soft authoritarianism" (Ban &
Cummings, 1999; Cummings et al., 1988; Hitchcock, 1994; Huntington, 1993),
or to use a more precise and less judgmental terminology, soft versions of "moral
government", must necessarily be included in our spherical model, given the
international scope of" the IEA Civic Education Study.
Not surprisingly, civic education in most Asian countries is strongly associ-
ated with moral education. For example, Japan has replaced its traditional notion
of moral education, such as the pre-war shishin, which was negatively associ-
ated with "morality-by-obedience", militarism and ultranationalism, with a more
interpersonal version of moral education (dotoku). This novel construction is
based on the teachings of specific virtues (Khan, 1997, p. 132 ft.), such as
courage, moderation and gentleness, valorization of scholarship and technology,
and courtesy and kindness in interpersonal relations, that seem to be associated
with the foundations for peace and democracy.
Thus, if we were to draw from Arendt's original spherical model, which calls
-for a strict separation of the three spheres, our perspective would ultimately
be quite biased against non-Western political systems. For Arendt, any
governmental action that attempts to influence citizens' belief systems and to
determine personal characteristics of a good citizen, such as the Japanese dotoku
curriculum, interferes with the private sphere. From a transcultural perspective,
however, we would probably be left with only a few, strictly individualistically
oriented liberal political systems that refrain from expecting certain moral
behaviors and attitudes from their citizens, and, in even fewer cases, from their
political leaders.
The demand that the public-political sphere be differentiated with regard to
the constitutional, economic, civic and moral aspects of different political
systems does not suggest, however, the existence of a strict cultural divide.
For example, the demand to include moral education and character education
in schools in the United States has been as much a recurrent theme (Heslep,
1995; McClellan, 1999) as the rally to purge Japanese schools of top-down
morality lessons (Khan, 1997). In fact, several scholars have pointed out that
the assumption of a clear-cut cultural divide between American and Asian values
has unnecessarily dichotomized these two value systems (see Steiner-Khamsi
et al., 2001). More importantly, there is a need for caution, given that all
societies are multicultural, and thus comprise residents who hold different value
systems. Hence, a political system that emphasizes moral values does not
refer to the actual practices of citizens but rather to "policy talk" and curric-
ular frameworks implemented in schools.
In the remainder of this chapter, using as my base a selected review of
literature in political science, sociology and philosophy, I distinguish four
different spheres of citizenry - constitutional, economic, civic and moral - that
political systems pursue with differing degrees of emphasis. I then identify
prototypical cases for these different conceptions and examine whether the data
from the IEA Civic Education Study support the findings from the literature
review. In this regard, I put forward the following three hypotheses:
(1) Educational programs in Asian countries manifest a strong commitment to

moral aspects of citizenship education. I concentrate here on the Hong
Kong case study because Hong Kong was the only Asian region to fully
participate in the IEA Civic Education Study. 1
(2) The United States is the country with a state ideology that most visibly
promotes both anti-statism or, more precisely, advocates an ideology of
small government administration and strong civic associations, and a
global free-market economy. I therefore expect that economic and civic
aspects of citizenship education are more stressed in United States
citizenship education than in the citizenship education of the other
participating countries.
(3) Countries undergoing political transformation are more likely to empha-
size constitutional aspects of citizenship because they have recently
established new constitutions and political systems. Here, I analyze the data
from the Romanian case study as an example of a country that has recently
undergone political transformation. I also include the German case study,
because of its relatively recent transformation process, as well as its strong
belief in the welfare state.
SPHERES OF CITIZENSHIP:
A R E V I E W OF THE CASE STUDIES
SAR Hong Kong, PR China
Typically, civic education in Hong Kong is covered in three different subjects:

economic and public affairs (EPA), government and public affairs (GPA),
and social studies. It is interesting to note that a process of increasing
politicization accompanied the period of colonial transition (1984-1997), which
was triggered by the Sino-British Declaration of 1984 and completed in 1997
with the establishment of Hong Kong as a Special Administrative Region (SAR)

of the People's Republic of China. The curricular framework for the subject,
GPA, which was introduced in 1988, brought about shifts in political alliances,
with the previously exclusive emphasis on Western liberalism being reduced
to a study of political processes in China. Overall, the 1988 GPA framework
aimed to supplement the existing emphasis on economic development with
an emphasis on political awareness. The learning objectives of GPA thus became
centered on the analysis of the "concepts, structures, and processes involved
in the study of government, political science and public affairs" (Lee, 1999,
p. 317), objectives interpreted in my hypothetical model as the constitutional
sphere of citizenship.
The occasional clue gleaned from the country case study report and the Civic
Education Study's international database indicate that Hong Kong schools value
to some extent the moral sphere of citizenship. I was able to identify practices
at the school but not the policy level that reflect a moral dimension of
citizenship. In several grammar schools, moral education, or religious studies
or ethics is taught at the junior level for students of ages 11 to 14 (Lee &
Constas, 1996, p. 3). However, these classes are offered marginally overall (one
lesson per week) and are integrated mainly within the constitutional sphere
(civic duties and responsibilities). Despite the care that the Hong Kong research
team took to include a representative range of school types in their case study
(that is, schools with academic and non-academic orientations and schools of
different religious orientation, including Taoist, Protestant, Catholic and
Buddhist, as well as non-religious schools), I could find no significant commit-
ment to the moral sphere. Although several passages in the case study show
that individual schools, associations and parents are demanding an increased
emphasis within schools on moral education, these very passages also indicate
a lack of public support for a comprehensive reform that would enhance moral
education in schools. A few informants in the Hong Kong case study seemed
more concerned about the lack of political awareness or "civic-mindedness"
among adolescents, voicing such concerns as:
Their understanding of the meaning of democracy is vague.

They are generally self-centered and selfish. They seldom care about their neighbors or even
schoolmates.
Many of them mistakenly interpret democracy as their freedom to pursue their goals or
interests (Lee, 1999, p. 323 ft.).
Negative perceptions of this kind regarding teenage behavior appear to be more

indicative of a generation gap than the political culture in Hong Kong. According
to the Hong Kong research team, there is a greater degree of public concern about
the increase of discipline problems in schools. However, the research team again
points out that pubfic concern of this nature is unlikely to lead to any special
emphasis on values or moral education in schools (Lee, 1999, p. 319).
Hong Kong has undergone dramatic political and social changes over the last
15 years, This transformation process might account for the strong emphasis
on constitutional and economic spheres of citizenship and the unexpectedly low
priority placed on moral aspects of citizenship.
The United States

Civic education in United States schools is transmitted across several subjects,

which is similar to the situation in the other participating countries. Also,
students are exposed to civic education both in curricular, co-curricular and
extra-curricular activities, such as mock elections or community-service learning
(Hahn, 1999). Apart from the subject "civics" (generally taken in Grade 9), or
"government" (usually Grade 12), classes in American history (often taken in
Grades 5, 8 and 11) and social studies (throughout elementary and secondary
schools) deal with civics-related issues. The author of the United States case
study reports earlier studies from the National Center for Education Statistics
(1997), which found that 75% of all high school graduates had taken at least
one semester course in government.
In her comparative study, Becoming Political, Hahn (1998, p. 218) convinc-
ingly depicts the "problems approach" in social studies whereby teachers and
students often discuss and reflect on controversial political, economic and social
issues such as capital punishment, gay rights, affirmative action and gun control.
The core civic subject differs from this interactive and reflexive approach to
the study of social issues and public policy in that it appears to be relatively
more knowledge-based, focusing on information regarding the structure and
function of government at the national, state and local levels. The United States
research team analyzed thi'ee widely used civics textbooks and found that all
three books "begin with a discussion of representative democracy and
introduce the United States Constitution as the foundation for government. Then
they move through the three branches of government: Congress, the presidency
and the courts" (Hahn, 1999, p. 591).
In the United States, non-governmental organizations play an active role in
the development of teaching material and in educational programs and in-service
training. These organizations are funded by government grants, corporations,
philanthropic endeavors, private donors, or a combination of them all. The
American case study highlights several trends in the development of new civics-
related programs. Besides character education, which, in fact, needs to be
regarded as a movement rather than a mere trend, service learning, economic

literacy and legal education are appearing in schools. In 1997, the National
Council on Economic Education formulated national standards in economics,
which several schools have voluntarily adopted, while the Center for Civic
Education developed the National Standards for Civics and Government, as well
as a civics/government program, "We the People", which is being widely used
according to the author of the United States case study (Hahn, 1999, p. 589).
The United States research team also explored connections between the
economic and political systems as perceived by students, teachers and other
educational experts. In 16 of the 50 states, enrolment in an economics course
,(usually offered in Grade 12) is a requirement for high school graduation. A

fascinating finding of the United States case study is the general perception in
the country that democracy and the market economy are intertwined. In fact,
when students were asked "what democracy meant to them, many contrasted
it with communism or socialism" (Hahn, 1999, p. 599). For these students the
term "democracy" seems to be synonymous with "market economy". Even more
striking is the absence of social welfare discussions in United States classrooms,
a fact that supports the country's adherence to a free market economy with
little state intervention.
The data from the Unites States case study suggest that the core civic subjects
of "civics" or "government" emphasize exclusively the constitutional sphere.
Surprisingly, students actually learn few civic action skills in the classroom. They
are more likely to do so through whole school activities (student governance),
community-service learning and other co-curricular and extra-curricular
activities. However, although United States students are taught that the United
States form of democracy is built on concepts of individual freedom, diversity
and market economy, they simultaneously learn about the dangers of a
government that can "grow too large and spend too much money" (Abraham
Lincoln, cited in Hahn, 1999, p. 600).
Attempts within the United States to introduce the teaching of "civic virtues"
and character education programs have been quite successful, with several states
adopting them. As further evidence of this movement toward the teaching
of civic virtues, the National Council for the Social Studies issued in 1997 a
position statement urging social studies teachers "to refocus their classrooms
on the teaching of character and civic virtue" (Hahn, 1999, p. 585).
Germany
Germany is no different from the other country case studies in terms of the
marginal place that its core civic subject, political education (Politische
Bildung), holds in its schools. As the German team (H~ndle et al., 1999, 1997)
document, political education is accorded one hour of instruction per week, and
offered only after Grade 6. Other civics-related subjects include social studies
(Sozialkunde) and community studies (Gemeinschaftskunde). In the remainder
of this section on Germany, I summarize three findings that are repeatedly
addressed in the German case study: the emphasis on social market economy,
the emphasis on local political action, and the de-emphasis of national
identity.
First, economic education is an integral part of the core civic subject,
political education, which compares different economic systems and highlights
the German model of "social market economy." These features are particularly
important in terms of Germany's political context in which two opposing
economic systems merged or, more accurately, were absorbed by one system,
that of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). The economics sections of
civic education textbooks contrast the model of a "planned economy" (citing
the German Democratic Republic, GDR, as the example) with the model of the
"free-market economy" (for example, the United States). It is noteworthy
that the textbooks provide a critical analysis of both systems, illuminating
the disadvantages of each and offering a third model, the German model of
"social market economy." This particular model maintains a market economy
orientation that appropriates the concept of social welfare, in which "the
disadvantages of free-market competition are mitigated by a comprehensive
system of social-welfare measures (health insurance, state pension system,
unemployment benefits, housing subsidies, and the like)" (Hfindle et al.,
1997, p. 6).
Second, like students of most of the participating countries in the IEA Civic
Education Study, German students do not trust politicians, express little interest
in party politics and are generally apathetic toward "official politics." However,
unlike the young people in the other three case studies presented here in some
detail (Hong Kong, Romania and the United States), but similar to those in
other case studies not discussed in this chapter (for example, Belgium, Greece
and Portugal), adolescents in Germany are very much interested in local
politics as well as in social issues (for example, racism, ecology and human
rights). As a consequence, they tend to participate in civic actions and
demonstrations at local level. Educators, recognizing these actions as political
actions, make them objects of study in civics-related subjects, including
political education. In fact, the experts surveyed in the German case study
identified two main goals of civic education: the practice of democratic social
interactions in the school, and the problem-solving involvement of students in
their local communities (H~ndle et al., 1999, p. 279). There appears to be a
striking consensus that civic actions provide a solid foundation for creating
political awareness at national and international levels. Despite the existence of
a gap between the goals of civic education and their actual implementation in
schools, German educators nevertheless agree that civic education should move
away from merely emphasizing government studies towards embracing a
broader definition of politics that includes social movements, civic actions and
initiatives at the local level.
Third, nationalism and national identity clearly carry negative connota-
tions in Germany as a result of the crimes against humanity associated
with the period of National Socialism. Thus, the strengthening of a national
identity is clearly not a goal of civic education in Germany. Moreover,

concepts such as "national identity", "national consciousness", "national
pride" and (especially) "the German people" are critically scrutinized in
social studies, political education and history education, and, hence, used
reluctantly. Schools also have succeeded in resisting political pressure. This
was particularly so in the early 1990s, shortly after re-unification, when
demands were made of schools to become more active in healing the wounds
of "the German people", who, for over four decades, had been divided into
two hostile political camps (FDR, GDR) with their opposing economic
systems. Rather than re-activating the old fascist pre-war concept of national
identity or creating a new post-reunification concept, schools responded by
extensively teaching the history of the cold war and analyzing the events
that led to the re-unification or integration of former East Germany into
former West Germany. Tensions regarding the "one-sided" re-unification
process are omnipresent in Germany, and inequities such as the extensive
re-training program, the dismissal of civic teachers in former East Germany,
and the fact that the history of the GDR "now occupies less space in
textbooks that it did before the border was opened" (Neuner, 1997, p. 3) are
publicly discussed. The resistance of educators against utilizing the teaching
of history and civics-related subjects for the purpose of creating a sense of
national identity and pride is remarkable. In fact, many educators see the
European Union and the newly created "European consciousness" as the best
substitute for the lack of national identity.
The German case study draws from various sources of information. The
survey of German experts on political education, administered as part of the
case study, found that almost two-thirds of the experts consider the creation of
a European consciousness that would replace German national consciousness
to be an important goal of civic education (Handle et al., 1999, p. 270). Also
relevant here is the finding that, in Germany, the public-political sphere, as
addressed in "political education", is more focused on the local and European
levels, and, to a lesser extent, on the national level of involvement than it is

in the other case study countries.
Romania
In many respects, the findings from the Romanian case study resemble those
from the other case studies conducted in post-socialist countries. Experts on
civic education in post-socialist countries appear to be determined to offer
civic education in ways that are bare of a n y ideological and political content.
The new Law o f Education in Romania of July 1995 (Monitorul Oficial, Nr.
167), for example, stipulates that schools should not deal with politics
and that all discussions of political issues should be banned from schools
(Bunescu et al., 1997, question t4 ft.). Thus, the fear that political
discussions may lead to "political militancy" (Bunescu et al., 1997, question
14c) renders the aim of civic education as one that seeks to raise political
awareness without a discussion of politics. The process of purging schools
of politics, referred to in Romania as the "de-ideologization" process, is also
occurring in other post-socialist countries. The Russian case study, for
example, reports that this process in Russian schools is meant to signal
a rupture with the former communist ideology, the educational objectives
o f which were "hyper-ideologization and classroom regimentation"
(Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 526). Similarly, the Bulgarian case study authors
report that current civic education programs have been developed in
ways that signal a clear break with the previous highly politicized political
education programs:
For more than 40 years the concept"civic education"was replacedby the concept "communist
education", or, more concretely, "political ideology", "social class and party", and "patriotic
and international" education, taught according to the principles of the Soviet educa-
tional system and communist ideology. Intercultural education was replaced by so called
"international education", viewed in the light of "world revolution" and selfless devotion to
the "Soviet system".... "Communist education" represented a lack of differentiation
between the concepts "public", "social" and "civic". The main idea in Marxist doctrine is the
death of the State in favor of the communist party (Balkansky et al., 1999, p. 95).
A m o n g Russian civic education experts the concept of "civic culture" appears

to have found great resonance. Their notion differs from Almond and Verba's
(1963) concept (which, from the perspective of the Russian experts, excessively
circumscribes civic culture as an element of political life) in that it is more
often associated with civil society and comprises non-state institutions and
regulatory processes.
In Romania, the re-activation of the state and of civic life by means of

education takes on several forms. The core civic subject in Romanian schools,
labeled "civic culture", is offered one hour per week (36 hours per year) in
both Grades 7 and 8 and is framed as an educational program that promotes
democracy. The subject "moral-civic education" is also offered at elementary
school level, in Grades 3 and 4.
Interestingly, "democratic culture", which was introduced after the fall of
communism in February 1990, has been replaced by "civic culture." The
mid-1990s saw a growing ambivalence towards the term "democracy" because
of its increasing association with economic hardship, unemployment, cuts in
social benefits, and other undesirable effects of the non-regulated economic

market of the "transition period." The Romanians drew the term civic culture
from Almond and Verba's work titled The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes
and Democracy in Five Nations (1963), a book that is widely discussed in
Central and Eastern European countries and that has been translated into
multiple languages, including Romanian. In practice, however, the syllabi for
civic culture courses read very much as government studies that focus on the
constitution of Romania, citizens' rights, the rights stipulated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, and the structure and institution of the legal state
and civil society. The Romanian case study indicates how "little emphasis is
placed on encouraging political and social participation" (Bunescu et al., 1999,
p. 517). The Romanian research team attributes this lack of emphasis on civil
action to an over-emphasis on "cognitive objectives", that is, the exclusive focus
on knowledge at the expense of promoting participatory skills and civic values.
Despite Romania's bookish and document-based civic culture program, the
Romanian case study repeatedly underscores the importance of building a civil
society. The same inconsistency - the gap between the ideal that building a civic
society should form the objective of civic culture teaching and the actual practice,
which merely emphasizes the constitutional sphere - is also visible in the Russian
and Bulgarian case studies. The Russian and Bulgarian research teams describe
the program of their core civic subject as the study of the constitution, the
political system and international documents (the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and other international charters). However, at the same time, the
Russian research team contends that civic education should not be "limited to
political and legal studies" (Bogolubov et al., 1999, p. 541), while the Bulgarian
research team attempts to understand why the current educational program fails to
motivate students to take on civic responsibilities and actions. The Bulgarian
researchers find that although students learn the elements of representational
democracy, they do so only at the central level and not at the local level, where
they are more likely to become politically involved.
Overall, the Romanian case study, along with the Russian and Bulgarian
studies briefly mentioned here, reveal high expectations of educational
programs. Their conclusion that a lack of political awareness and the presence
of political apathy among adolescents (a phenomenon that is widespread in the
countries participating in the Civic Education Study, whether or not they
have a socialist past) is due to the educational system's failure to create a
"civil society" is, at first sight, dazzling. However, other studies on educational
reform in post-revolutionary societies confirm that the transformational power
attributed to educational programs is not uncommon in countries that have
recently undergone major political and social change (see, for example, La Belle
& Ward, 1990).
THE HYPOTHETICAL MODEL AND THE

CASE STUDY REVIEW: A COMPARISON
In keeping with Ragin's (1994, p. 111 ff.) assertion that "[s]everal basic features
of the comparative approach make it a good strategy for advancing theory", I
have attempted in this chapter to review and refine existing theories on
citizenship and civic education. Ragin (1994) and Walters (1992) claim that
this central feature of comparative studies applies especially to comparative
research interested in identifying and understanding differences or diversity
rather than in tracing commonalities between various cases.
Using the spherical model in an attempt to expose the different dimensions
of citizenship that, in turn, shape distinct models of civic education was
more challenging than I expected, and at this point it is prudent to offer only
tentative interpretations of my findings. My investigation of the case studies
revealed no clear boundaries between the four spheres. The constitutional,
economic, civic and moral spheres overlap, and all four spheres are stressed to
a greater or lesser degree. Thus, the relevant consideration here is not whether
the different models of civic education emphasize one or more spheres at the
expense of others, but rather what these different spheres specifically mean
within each context and how schools convey this particular meaning to students.
A closer examination of the semantics of "democracy" may serve as an
example. As noted earlier, United States students associate the concept of
democracy with capitalism and the free market economy. When asked to reflect
on the meaning of democracy, many can respond only by contrasting it with
communism or socialism. In contrast, German students equate democracy
with their own economic system, the "social market economy", and contrast
it with the "free market economy" (United States) and the "planned economy"
(former GDR and Soviet Union). To take this interpretation a step further,
patriotism in these two countries clearly is not based on an ideology of an

"imagined community" formed from a common past (Anderson, 1983), that is,
on the one-nation-one-people paradigm. On the contrary, teachers and students
distance themselves from such a monocultural conception of nation, either
because they see their nation as a nation of immigrants (United States)
or because they have experienced the abuses of nationalism (Germany).
Instead, what I have found are signs of an ideology that Kleger (1997) calls
"constitutional patriotism", that is, patriotism based on identification with the
constitution and, in particular, with the economic system (free market economy
versus social market economy). In all the case study countries examined in this
present analysis, the constitution is always taught in conjunction with the

economic system to which it subscribes. I therefore suggest that for the purpose
of further examination the constitutional and economic spheres should be
merged into one, that is, the "constitutional-economic sphere".
In all the case studies, the core civic subjects place considerable emphasis
on the constitutional-economic sphere. In most cases, these subjects focus
exclusively on three characteristics of government - sources of authority,
purpose of government, and procedures of government (see Huntington, 1993)
- even though they have different labels: government and public affairs (Hong
Kong); civics or govemment (United States); political education (Germany);
and civic culture (Romania). At the same time, the core civic subject is
allocated a minimum amount of time in the curriculum. In most countries it is
taught at upper secondary school level for one hour per week during one or
two school years. My hypothesis, which stated that countries undergoing
political transformation are more likely to emphasize constitutional aspects of
citizenship, is not, therefore, supported by the empirical evidence. In Germany
or Romania, additional time has not been allocated to the teaching of
constitutional issues despite recent changes in the constitution and strong beliefs
in a strong government. The time spent on constitutional-economic issues has
remained the same in German schools, and has been drastically decreased in
post-socialist Romania and in the post-socialist eastern states of Germany.
In these countries of political transition, teaching of the core civic subjects,
along with a few other subjects (especially history and geography), was, in fact,
temporarily suspended until revised textbooks and a "re-trained" or new teaching
force could be put in place. Contrary to my expectations, political changes have
not led to the prioritization of the constitutional-economic sphere over the other
spheres of citizenship.
Civic literacy, howeverl cannot be reduced to the core civic subjects alone
since it is also an objective of moral or values education and social studies.
Educational systems that offer moral and values education in a separate subject
198 G1TA STEINER-KHAMSI
tend to assign this particular subject to the elementary school level (Romania)
or lower secondary school level (Hong Kong). Otherwise moral aspects of civic
education (for example, civic virtues, responsibilities) are integrated as an
element of social studies. Returning to our hypothetical model, we find that
the curriculum of SAR Hong Kong does not manifest a higher degree of
commitment toward moral education than the curricula in the other case studies.
The fact that the citizens of Hong Kong were under British rule until 1997
and are, perhaps, "less Asian" in their value orientation than other regions and
countries in Asia might explain why Hong Kong needs to be considered
a special case. Then again, a solid qualitative analysis brings to the surface
historical facts and cultural contexts that force us to consider every country as
a special case. Hence, Germany is hardly representative of a Western European
country given its recent "re-unification"; Romania, culturally, does not identify
with Slavic post-socialist countries; and the United States generally is regarded
as non-comparable.
The civic sphere, if addressed as an issue at all, is most visibly included
in social studies, in co-curricular activities (for example, "project week" in
Germany) and extra-curricular activities ("service learning" in the United
States). It is interesting that civic associations (for example, Amnesty
International or Greenpeace in Germany) and non-governmental organizations
(for example, the Soros Foundation in Central and Eastern Europe) that
are outside the educational systems provide educational programs (or better
"educational packages") that aim to strengthen the civic sphere in civics-related
teaching in schools. Contrary to my expectations, United States schools do not
take a leading role in preparing their students for civic action. Although
social studies in the United States prepares students to discuss and reflect on
controversial social issues and public policy concerns, it is, compared to similar
subject matters in other countries, not particularly civic-action oriented.
In contrast, German students, teachers and other educational experts place
a much higher priority on civic action. This unexpected finding can
be partially explained by the fact that social studies teachers in Germany
emphasize local politics and Biirgerinitiativen, literally translated as "citizen
initiatives", that is, non-partisan political initiatives at local level. Educational
experts in Germany recognize that, unlike the situation in relation to party
politics, adolescents can become politically active in these local initiatives
despite being below voting age. Besides these different political contexts in
Germany and the United States, pragmatic pedagogical reasons also may
account for the difference. In Germany, social studies is not as texthook-
centered as its United States counterpart. Social studies teachers, in addition
to using textbooks, and sometimes instead of using textbooks, develop their
own material using current political events or they adopt material published
by professional associations of political education. Thus, German social
studies teachers are allowed a greater degree of flexibility in the inclusion
of current local political events and social movements in their civics-related
resources.
CROSSING EDUCATIONAL, DISCURSIVE AND

NATIONAL BOUNDARIES
Having failed from an examination of the case studies to find supporting

evidence for the different models of civic education (as based on my review
of relevant literature), I suggest that we reflect on the discrepancy between the
theory and the practice of civic education. In retrospect, it appears naive to
assume that schools mirror society, and that civic education policies reflect
the underlying political culture of their system. In particular, the attempt to
categorize models of civic education by identifying four different spheres of
citizenship that, depending on the political context, emphasize some spheres
more than others, has not yielded meaningful interpretation. In fact, none of
my predictions explain differences and similarities between different civic
education models. Civic education curricula in Hong Kong are not particularly
moralistic, German and Romanian curricula emphasize constitutional aspects no
more than other countries, and civic education programs in the United States
do not place a particularly high priority on teaching about the economy nor do
they engage students in civic actions. Moreover, in all four examined case
studies, the political and economic spheres are inextricably linked.
Among the different case studies I found more similarities than differences.
The core civic subject, that is, civics or government in the United States,
political education in Germany, civic culture in Romania, and government and
public affairs in Hong Kong, are very much alike with regard to content. They
transmit constitutional knowledge regarding both the political and economic
aspects of the constitution. It is important to point out, however, that teachers
and students in both the United States and Germany define their own model
of democracy within an economic framework. For German respondents,
democracy needed to be grounded in a "social market system" whereas the
United States respondents expressed loyalty and patriotism toward their own
model of democracy, a model that, in their view, is diametrically opposed to
communism in that it secures the principles of a free market economy.
The unexpected finding of the discrepancy between theories of citizenship and
practices of civic education in various contexts calls for further investigation. It
is a puzzle as to why the qualitative data from the case studies have not been
substantiated by the spherical model that I used as an interpretive framework.

In fact, as already noted, there are more similarities than differences than the
spherical model of citizenship or, for that matter, any other multidimensional
model of civic education would have predicted. Explaining the discrepancy
between theory and practice might provide us with important clues for design-
ing appropriate methods of inquiry that are capable of grasping the complexity
of civic education. The possibility that civic education transcends three types of
boundary: (1) educational, (2) discursive, and (3) national - may help explain
this discrepancy.
In regard to the first boundary, civic education, more than mathematics
and science, for example, intersects different educative sites both inside and
outside of schools. Civic literacy is taught in the civic education core subject
(for example, civics, government) only one hour per week in one or two grades
of upper secondary schools or high schools. It is not fully covered in social
studies, history education, moral education and other school subjects. As
the authors of the case studies unanimously point out, civic literacy is a
comprehensive concept that builds on a culture of participation created in
class, school and the greater community. Precisely because there are different
educative sites for civic literacy, we would gain only a limited understanding
of adolescents' political socialization if we examined exclusively curricular
frameworks and policies in formal education. What adolescents learn from
their peers, family, media, teachers, communities and other educative sites
with regard to civic literacy is not the same, and, more often than not, is
contradictory, and thus does not correspond to a singular political culture but
rather to several political cultures existing side by side.
As for the second (discursive) boundary, civic literacy is a sensitive political
issue. Terms such as "democracy", "civil society" or "civic culture", in partic-
ular, are highly charged concepts that are often used to send out particular
economic and political signals associated with stability, progress and human
rights. When analyzing the qualitative data, I encountered difficulties in
distinguishing between different layers of civic education policies. Several case
studies are more transparent than others with regard to what constitutes "policy
talk", that is, what is defined ideologically as desirable, what is formally outlined
in policy documents ("policy action"), and what is actually implemented in the
school ("policy implementation"). This distinction regarding policy studies, first
proposed by Tyack and Cuban (1995) and (Cuban, 1998), is indispensable for the
study of civic education policies. Other case studies, in contrast, clearly mention
the discrepancies between policy talk, policy documentation and policy
implementation. The case studies of civic education in Bulgaria (Balkansky
et al., 1999) and Romania (Bunescu et al., 1999), for example, suggest that civic
education has made its way into white policy papers but not necessarily into
classrooms. The apparent gap between these different levels of educational
practice and policy deserves careful analysis, and not only in Central and Eastern
Europe.
Consideration of the third boundary brings to our attention a fascinating issue
that came to light precisely because the original method of inquiry failed to
produce coherent interpretations. I found traces of transnational educational
borrowing. For a variety of political or economical reasons (Steiner-Khamsi,
2000), policy-makers borrow civic education programs from other educational
systems. Rather than assuming that each system has its own political culture
or cultures, a transnational perspective draws attention to patterns associated

with the merging or converging of several systems into a larger system. Today,
the large systems axe, of course, no longer communism versus capitalism,
but rather, distinctions within capitalist or "democratic" systems. In the case
studies presented here, I was able to identify two large competing systems:
the democracy model of "free market economy" (United States) and the
democracy model of "social market economy" (Germany, Western Europe).
Certainly, there are other large systems that did not surface in the case studies,
such as the "socialist market economy" model advocated by the People's
Republic of China. In addition to these three (or more) large systems, there
seem to be other free-floating systems that are in the process of merging with
one of the larger systems. Because of the strong impact of United States-based
agencies and organizations in Central and Eastern Europe (for example,
CIVITAS, the Junior Achievement Project, the Soros Foundation), "civic
culture" subjects in Romania and Bulgaria are tending to float toward the free
market economy model of democracy.
In comparative education, research on educational transfer (educational
borrowing, lending and imposition) examines convergence and divergence
effects in education. The impact of the United States democracy model on civic
education reform in Central and Eastern Europe is particularly well suited to
the examination of transfer processes, namely, the lending and borrowing of
civic education programs.
A focus on the lending system of the United States would generate a series
of pressing questions, such as why United States-based agencies and organiza-
tions, more than the bilateral aid agencies of other countries, emphasize so
much civil-society-building as a major goal of civic education in Eastern and
Central Europe? We are witnessing an interesting phenomenon that is currently
understudied in the research on educational transfer: the borrowing of a concept
("civil-society-building") that is not considered a core concept in its original
context (the United States). An investigation of this exported concept challenges
202 GITASTEINER-KHAMSI
the widely held belief that borrowing is always based on concrete experiences
gained elsewhere.
Another new phenomenon of educational transfer that deserves a compara-
tive look is the emergence of educational packages for civic education. The
wholesale transfer of civic education packages, which include modules for
teacher training, textbooks for students, and teacher manuals that are translated
into the national language(s) and nationally adapted, is relatively recent (Steiner-
Khamsi, 1998). For educators, in particular, the greatest concern is the lack of
adaptation to local context. Very often the adaptation of imported educational
material is dismal, reduced to replacing the illustrations, inserting excerpts from
the constitution, and changing the references to the political system in ways
that correspond to the new national context.
A focus on the borrowing system (of, for example, Romania, Bulgaria), in
turn, produces important questions of a different kind. For example, what
do policy-makers in the borrowing systems mean exactly when they identify
"civil-society-building" as the main objective of core civic subjects? Is it more
than a mere political signal ("policy talk")? Is it the first step in a longer
series of steps that will eventually lead to actual "policy action" and "policy
implementation"? Lynch (t998, p. 24) has coined the powerful term "flags
of convenience" to denote frequently used concepts that function as positive
political signals for attracting international funding. Although these concepts
can mobilize funding, they do not necessarily get implemented. It is a common
phenomenon that resources are shifted to other projects once these flags of
convenience have succeeded in soliciting funding. Lynch mentions "poverty
alleviation", "girls' education" and "multiculturalism" as powerful key words that
attract international funding in the Third World context. Similarly, "civil-society-
building" functions as a flag of convenience in post-socialist countries that signals
the willingness to borrow from "old democracies" and, as a consequence,
succeeds in mobilizing funds for civic education programs. However, it is
questionable how much of the resources allocated for civil-society-building and
civic education programs is actually used for implementing new initiatives.
Several researchers of educational transfer have therefore suggested that we need
to turn our attention to the politics and economics of transfer processes in order to
explain why some discourses, models or practices are borrowed, lent or imposed
while others are not (see, for example, Steiner-Khamsi, 2000).
The study of civic education is complex because civic literacy spans different
educational sites, operates at different policy levels (talk, action, implementation)
and crosses national boundaries. We would not have been able to comprehend
the scope of this complexity if we had not been confronted with the contradic-
tions and inconsistencies that this particular method of inquiry has unexpectedly
generated. In light of the complexity that qualitative data tends to disclose, we

seem to be situated at a methodological crossroads. A multi-level analysis (Bray
& Thomas, 1995) that simultaneously explores the different educational sites,
different policy levels and globalization effects in civic education would greatly
enhance our understanding of civic literacy for purposes of academic curiosity
and applied policy research.
NOTE
1. Chinese Taipei initially took part in the study, but did not submit a complete
data set.
REFERENCES
Alexander, J. C. (1998). Real Civil Societies: Dilemmas of Institutionalizations. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.
Almond, G., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism.
London: Verso.
Altbach, P. (1991). Trends in Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 35(3),
491-507.
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Arendt, H. (1986). Zur Zeit: Politische Essays. Berlin: Rotbuch (first published 1957).
Balkmlsky, P., Zahariev, Z., Stoyanov, S., & Stoyanova, N. (1999). Challenges in developing
a new system of civic education in conditions of social change: Bulgaria. In: J. Tomey-
lEA.
Ban, T., & Cummings, W. K. (1999). Moral Orientations of Schoolchildren in the United States
and Japan. Comparative Education Review, 43(1), 64-85.
Benhabib, S. (1991). Hannah Arendt, die liberale Tradition und Jfirgen Hahermas. Soziale Welt,
42(2), 147-165.
Benhabib, S. (1993). Demokratie und Differenz: Betrachtungen fiber Rationalit~it, Demokratie und
Postmoderue. In: M. BmmlJk & H. Brunkhorst (Eds), Gemeinschaft und Gerechtigkeit (pp.
97-116). Frankfurt: M. S. Fischer.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Sir Michael Sadler's Study of Foreign Systems of Education: Reprint of
the Notes of an Address Given at the Guildford Educational Conference, on Saturday,
October 20, 1900, by M. E. Sadler, Christ Church, Oxford. Comparative Education Review,
7(3), (February).
Bogolubov, L. N., Klokova, G. V., Kovalyova, G. S., & Poltorak, D. I. (1999). The challenge of
civic education in the New Russia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds),
Bray, M., & Thomas, R. M. (1995). Levels of Comparison in Educational Studies: Different Insights
from Different Literatures and the Value of Multilevel Analyses. Harvard Educational
Review, 65(3), 472-490.
Bunescu, G., Stan, E., Albu, G., Badea, D., & Oprica, O. (1997). lEA Civic Education Study:
summaries of 18 case study framing questions, a-f Bucharest: Institute of Educational
Sciences.
Bunescu, G., Start, E., Albu, G., Badea, D., & Oprica, O. (1999). Cohesion and diversity in national
Civic Education across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic
Cuban, L. (1998). How Schools Change Reforms. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 453-477.
Cummings, W. K., Gopinathan, S., & Tomoda, Y. (Eds) (1988). The revival of values education
in Asia and the West. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Fraser, N. (1994). Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing
democracy. In: H. A. Giroux & P. McLaren (Eds), Between Borders: Pedagogy and the
Politics of Cultural Studies (pp. 74-98). New York: Routledge.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice lnterruptus: Critical Reflections on the "Postsocialist" Condition. New
York: Routledge.
Fukuyama, F. (1993). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
Fukuyama, F. (1996). The end of history? In: K. Jensen (Ed.), A Look at "The End of History?'"
(pp. 1-29). Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace.
Gellner, E. (1995). The importance of being modular. In: J. A. Hall (Ed.), Civil Society: Theory,
History, Comparison (pp. 32-55). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Guthenno, J.-M. (1993). La fin de la d~mocratie. Paris: Flammarion.
Habermas, J. (1987). The Theory of Communicative Action, II: Life-World and System. Boston,
MS: Beacon.
Hahn, C. L. (1998). Becoming Political: Comparative Perspectives on Citizenship Education.
Albany: SUNY.
Hahn, C. L. (1999). Challenges to civic education in the United States. In: J. Torney-Purta,
Handle, C., Oestereich, D., & Trommer, L. (1997). lEA Civic Education Study: review of literature
about policy questions. Berlin: Max-Planck Institut ftir Bildungsforschung.
H~ndle, C., Oestereich, D., & Trommer, L (1999). Concepts of civic education in Germany based
Heslep, R. D. (1995). Moral Education for Americans. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hitchcock, D. I. (1994). Asian Values and the United States: How Much Conflict? Washington,
D.C.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Huntington, S. P. (1993). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma Press (first published 1991).
Khan, Y. (1997). Japanese Moral Education: Past and Present. Cranbury, N J: Associated University
Presses.
Kleger, H. (Ed.) (1997). Transnationale Staatsbiirgerschafl. Frankfurt/M: Campus.
La Belle, T. J., & Ward, C. R. (1990). Education Reform when Nations Undergo Radical Political
and Social Transformation. Comparative Education, 26(1), 95-106.
J. Torney-Pnrta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across Countries:
Amsterdam: IEA.
Lee, W. O., & Constas, M. A. (1996). The lEA Civic Education Study: Summaries of the four core
international framing questions. Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong.
Lins Ribeiro, G. (1998). Cybercultural politics: political activism at a distance in a transnational
world. In: S. E. Alvarez, E. Dagnino & A. Escobar (Eds), Cultures of Politics, Politics of
Cultures (pp. 325-352). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Lynch, J. (1998). International transfer of dysfunctional paradigms. In: D. Johnson, B. Smith &
M. Crossley (Eds), Learning and Teaching in an International Context: Research, Theory
and Practice (pp. 7-33). Bristol: Centre for International Studies in Education, University
of Bristol.
McClellan, B. E. (1999). Moral Education in America: Schools and the Shaping of Character from
Colonial Times to the Present. New York: Teachers College Press.
Neuner, G. (1997). Die DDR in deutschen Schulbtichern. In: D. Hoffmann (Ed.), Erziehung und
Erziehungswissenschafi in der BRD und der DDR, Bd. 4. Weinheim: Deutscher Studien
Verlag.
Noah, H. J. (1985). Comparative education. In: T. Husen & T. N. Postlethwaite (Eds), The
International Encyclopedia of Education: Research and Studies (Vol. 2, pp. 869-872). New
York: Pergamon.
O'Brien, R. (1992). Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography. New York: Council on
Foreign Relations.
Australia. In: J. Torney-Purta, J. Schwille & J.-A. Amadeo (Eds), Civic Education across
Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the lEA Civic Education Project (pp.
37-59). Amsterdam: lEA.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling Alone: America's Declining Social Capital. Journal of Democracy,
6, 65-78.
Ragin, C. C. (1994). Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Methods. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Sassen, S. (1998). Globalization and its Discontents. New York: The New York Press.
Schedler, A. (Ed.), (1997). The End of Politics? Explorations into Modern Antipolitics. London:
Macmillan.
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (1998). Too Far from Home? "Modulitis" and NGO's Role in Transferring
Prepackaged Reform. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 1(1), online journal
www. tc.columbia, edu/cice
Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2000). Transferring education, displacing reforms. In: J. Schriewer (Ed.),
Discourse Formations in Comparative Education (pp. 155-187). Frankfurt, New York: Lang.
Steiner-Khamsi, G., Lira, Y. Y., & Dawson, W. (2001). Hawai'l: the intersection of Hawai'ian,
American, and Asian Values. In: W. K. Cummings, T. M. Tatto & J. Hawkins (Eds), Values
Education in the Pacific Rim Region (pp. 113-132). I-Iong Kong: CERC.
Torney-Pnrta, J., Schwille, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (Eds.) (1999). Civic Education across Countries:
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Walters, J. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In: C. C. Ragin & H. S. Becker (Eds), What is a
Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 121-137). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Young, I. M. (1993). Das politische Gemeinwesen und die Gruppendifferenz: Eine Kritik am Ideal
des universalen Staatsbiirgerstams. In: H. Nagl-Docekal & H. Pauer-Studer (Eds), Jenseits
der Geschlechtermoral (pp. 267-304). Frankfurt/M: Fischer.
1. Thomas Misco. 2013. ‘We do not talk about these things’: the promises and
challenges of reflective thinking and controversial issue discussions in a Chinese
high school. Intercultural Education 24:5, 401-416. [CrossRef]
2. Roland Tormey, Jim Gleeson. 2012. The gendering of global citizenship: findings
from a large-scale quantitative study on global citizenship education experiences.
Gender and Education 24:6, 627-645. [CrossRef]
3. Thomas Misco. 2011. Deontological Reconceptualization: A Study of Moral
Education in Beijing. Theory & Research in Social Education 39:4, 464-493.
[CrossRef]
4. Jazira Asanova. 2007. Teaching the canon? Nation‐building and post‐Soviet

Kazakhstan's literature textbooks. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education 37:3, 325-343. [CrossRef]
42:4, 533-548. [CrossRef]
80 AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW
OF CITIZENSHIP IN THE
CURRICULUM: THE IEA
NATIONAL CASE STUDIES AND
THE INCA ARCHIVE
David Kerr
INTRODUCTION
The triangulation described in this chapter brought together different layers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,, teaching and learning approaches

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

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

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

OF DATA ON KEY ASPECTS OF CITIZENSHIP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is no different in this regard from other fields of inquiry. For example, when
Vandra Masemann and Douglas Foley urged the field to engage in qualitative
research that seeks to understand educational processes, a debate did not follow,
nor, for that matter, did much research of a qualitative nature on school
processes. The field neither accepted nor rejected the challenge; it simply acted
as if it had never been made (Kelly & Altbach, 1986, p. 320).
Although many scholars in the field of comparative education use descriptive
or textual material in their work, there has been little intellectual interaction
during the past 20 years between scholars who define themselves as "compara-
tivists" and those who define themselves as "qualitative researchers", j This
divergence reflects historical antecedents in the development of the field of
comparative education, and the fields of anthropology of education, sociology of
education and qualitative studies in education. While Foley (1977), Masemann
(1982) and others have tried to draw attention to methodological advances in such
fields during the 15 or so years since Kelly and Altbach's commentary on

pages 239-277.
ISBN: 0-7623-0821-4
239
240 GERALD LETENDRE
comparative education, major journals in this field have continued to "ignore" the
debates on qualitative methodology occurring in both education and the sociology
of education (see continued calls for methodological innovation in Altbach, 1991;
Masemann, 1990).
However, with the opening of the new millennium, this trend in compara-
tive education appears to be ending. The interest in, and controversy over, the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), with its test,
survey, video and qualitative components, has awakened a lively interest in the
problems of amalgamating "comparative methods" and "qualitative methods".
The appearance of works by researchers like Crossley and Vulliamy (1997)
represent high-quality attempts to deal with the epistemological (as well as the
political) issues associated with advancing cross-national qualitative studies of
education. The Civic Education Study described in this volume adds to the
growing body of work that has identified and sought solutions to the problems
of obtaining, analyzing and utilizing qualitative data.
The Civic Education Study breaks new ground in its attempt to reflect on
the methods used in large international studies of education, and in its attempt
to bridge several areas of endeavor: comparative education studies, qualitative
studies of education and international achievement studies. As is evident in one
of the study's earliest proposals, its steering committee foresaw the important
role that various fields of expertise and methodologies could play in furthering
cross-national research:
Cross-national research has a vital role in providing the research base for policy makers,
those who design curricula, those who prepare educators, teachers themselves, and the
general public in both old and new democracies... For the research community it
can provideinsight into ways of combining up-to date qualitative and quantitative method-
ologies that go beyond knowledge to include processes of valuing social and political
institutions which are important to youth as well as to their societies and communities
(Torney-Purta, 1994a, p. 2).
In this chapter I focus on the process of data collection and analysis used in
the Civic Education Study and compare it with similar methods used in TIMSS.
I will discuss how substantial advances in basic qualitative methods as well
as in technology have much to offer the field of comparative education
in general. I also show how the Civic Education Study raises significant
methodological issues pertinent to the core of the "field" of comparative
education, and argue that both it and TIMSS provide advanced models
that can guide future comparative studies that aim to collect large amounts of
qualitative data from a range of nations and to analyze this data in conjunc-
tion with quantitative data.
Cross-National Studies and the Analysis of Comparative Qualitative Research 241
QUALITATIVE VERSUS COMPARATIVE METHODS
Comparative education, as a field, historically has exhibited a tension between

scholars interested in identifying cross-national forces at work (that is, "the
science of comparative education") and those interested in examining the
specific political, economic and historical aspects of one nation or group. This
tension has resulted in studies that tend toward either a quantitative approach
(Boli & Meyer, 1987) or a textual approach (Mazrui, 1975) to describe and
analyze the nations in question. Overall, there has been a lack of sustained
focus on styles of research, different methods of inquiry, and basic issues of

epistemology. A brief comparison of either Comparative Education Review, the
International Journal of Educational Development or Compare with Qualitative
Sociology or the International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education
readily provides the reader with significant differences both in terms of methods
and subject.
In particular, the explicitly cross-national studies conducted by the
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA)
have been perceived, whether accurately or not, as of a highly quantitative
nature. Papers from IEA's Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS)
published in non-comparative journals (for example, Heyneman & Loxley,
1982) are an example of this perception. Educational research that is explicitly
comparative typically has focused on detailed investigations of national systems,
often in an attempt to analyze the effects of larger social forces (for example,
Olmsted & Weikart, 1986). This methodological orientation follows on from
the very origins of the field of comparative education in which a scholar or
scholars who had experience with a given nation conducted highly descriptive
work, which might be better described in the current qualitative terminology as
"historical" case studies or "area specialist studies" (for examples, see Jones,
1971; Kandel, 1933).
A more specific example is that of Zhong (1989), who, in her examination of
child care in the People' s Republic of China, depicts the training of kindergarten
teachers according to a normative, that is, "realist", mode. She writes that "in
China, training of kindergarten teachers is the responsibility of the Department
of High Normal Education and the Department of Middle Normal Education,
both under the Ministry of Education" (p. 248). This, presumably, is an accurate
synopsis of the situation in China at the time this work was written, but it does
not convey the "contested meanings" that would be expected in ethnographies
or ethnographic case studies published in qualitative educational works that focus
on the "culture" of schooling. In an ethnographic study of the Chinese system,
242 GERALD LETENDRE
the researcher most likely would be concerned with documenting and analyzing
historical tensions and conflicts between the Department of High Normal
Education and the Department of Middle Normal Education. We would expect
to read a discussion of the relative status of "high" and "middle" education
and quotes from educators, administrators and officials that would clarify the
existing political relations between the two departments, as well as details
about implicit (that is, cultural) values about middle and higher education. For
example, in Tobin, Wu and Davidson's Preschool in Three Cultures (1989),
'which is widely read as a model for comparative case studies of schooling,
extensive details are given of the basic cultural concepts at play in preschools
in China, Japan and the United States. Verbatim selections from interviews of
teachers and administrators are used to "give voice" to points of consensus
and disagreement among members of the three cultures. The authors take pains
to distinguish between idiosyncratic practices found in one preschool and
"deep" cultural beliefs about learning and child development found in
preschools throughout a given nation.
Qualitative studies that have a comparative or international orientation
have been influenced more by studies from the anthropology of education
(Spindler, 1974; Spindler & Spindler, 1987, 1992) or studies in psychological
anthropology (Whiting & Whiting, 1975) than by articles in Comparative
Education Review or Compare. The work of George and Louise Spindler -
often cited as defining the field of anthropology of education - has, from the
start, contained a strong comparative tradition. Beginning with the Spindlers'
comparative study of American and German schools (Spindler, 1973; Spindler
& Spindler, 1987), this area has seen the production of several studies that
compare national educational situations using ethnographic methods and data
(see, for example, Anderson-Levitt, 2001; Fujita & Sano, 1988; LeTendre,
2000), and that are distinct from those that use anthropological databases (for
example, Schlegel & Barry, 1991).
The lack of a sustained dialogue between "qualitativists" and "compara-
tivists" has meant that, in recent comparative studies undertaken by IEA, the
researchers have had to "borrow" qualitative methods from other fields. The
current trends in both the field of comparative education and IEA studies
suggest there is an urgent need to revive a dialog between those who view
themselves as experts in comparative studies of education and those who
view themselves as experts in qualitative studies of education. The last few
years of the 1990s, in fact, saw the emergence of a number of works within
comparative education (and related fields) that deal explicitly with the
problem of qualitative, comparative analysis (for example, Crossley &
Vulliamy, 1997; LeTendre, 1999).
The Re-emergence of Culture in lEA Achievement Studies
Over the last 15 years, the major journals in the field of comparative education
have seen more and more articles that draw on critical and postmodern theory to
analyze the "culture" of schooling - particularly the contested meanings that
school has for various groups (see, for example, Taylor's 1996 article on
education for democracy and aboriginal Australians). The theme of the 1998
Comparative and International Education Society (CIES), "Bringing Culture
Back In", showed that many scholars who identify themselves as comparativists
are interested in issues of culture. However, the fact that the CIES organizing
committees agreed that culture is something that needed to be "brought back

in" suggests that the problem of dealing with a cultural account within a
comparative framework has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. 2
The problem for the IEA Civic Education Study steering committee was how
to devise a methodology that would bring culture back in. Works like Tobin
et al's (1989) study or the ethnographies of Peak (1991) or Willis (1977) drew
on methodologies derived largely outside the main context of comparative
education debates. Works such as Greenfield and Cocking's (1994) study
of minority childhood - where the impact of culture on early childhood
experiences and socialization is a major theme - assembled the contributions
of psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists and comparative educationists.
Given a potentially enormous range of theories, methods and traditional areas
of focus in each field, how could a suitable set of methods be selected that
would facilitate a study of civic education in 24 countries?
Defining a "Qualitative" Methodology
Previous studies in the comparative tradition have frequently relied on what

would not be termed qualitative data. Textual descriptions of nations or national
systems of education as the basis for a comparative methodology were
codified by Bereday (1964) as well as others in what Jones (1971, p. 83) has
termed the "search for a scientific methodology." Bereday's work, as well as
that of Holmes (1981, 1988), while sensitive to the historical and political
contexts of any given system of education, nonetheless employed a model in
which textual descriptions of the nation as a whole were used as a foundation
upon which to build further analyses that would inform and guide thinking
about research and policy (Jones, 1971, pp. 83-117). In both Bereday's and
Holmes's models, this movement from description to quantifiable analyses
would be termed "mixed methodologies" in today's qualitative educational
literature. Unfortunately, and even though both Bereday and Holmes paid
244 GERALD LETENDRE
a great deal of attention to modeling the process of comparison, the role of

qualitative data has often been relegated to the initial "descriptive" stages of a
study. The qualitative data are thus used to help develop basic hypotheses that
are then "tested" with "empirical" data (that is, surveys, tests, quantitative data
from textbooks, and the like). This strategy, then, is epistemologically quite
distinct from the "constructivist" or "interpretivist" traditions of qualitative
research in which the analyst focuses on the social construction of meaning,
on multiple "truths" or viewpoints, and on the role of power in suppressing the
"voices" of certain groups of actors (Carspecken, 1996).
Many comparative educationists would argue that they conduct "qualitative"
research. As Jones (1971, p. 153) notes, "the comparative study of educational

systems has largely been qualitative and descriptive". However, it is precisely
this fusion of qualitative and descriptive methods that has tended to
distinguish the use of qualitative data in comparative education studies from
their use in comparative studies of schools, classrooms or teaching and learning
conducted by sociologists, anthropologists, linguists and psychologists, or
where analysis and description proceed apace from the very start of fieldwork.
In the various fields of inquiry that have influenced the development of
qualitative studies in education and other fields, qualitative research has
evolved along many parallel lines (Wolcott, 1992). The descriptive function
of qualitative data as a prelude to quantitative investigation is a model of
research that many qualitative researchers would taffy reject (Leininger, 1985;
Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
In comparative education, qualitative data typically have been used as
descriptive or "framing" material from which hypotheses can be derived.
This tendency has resulted in the production of a highly summative case
study format, similar to what Merriam (1988, pp. 24-25) describes as a
"historical" case study (for an example, see Ray & Poonwassie, 1992). The
case study format presented in many IEA studies is one in which qualitative
data are used to provide a "realist" account, to use Van Maanen's (1988)
term, of a nation's schools or educational system as a whole. Van Maanen
critiques the view that a summary description of a school or school system
presents a "typical" or "average" picture of reality, and claims that any such
description will include the writer's interpretation of what is typical or
average in that country. Studies that present such pictures usually pay limited
attention to contested meanings, cultural equivalents of important concepts,
alternative viewpoints or conflicting interpretations.
In education, sociology and anthropology, methodological debates have raged
around the notion that a "description" of a student, classroom, school or school
system is (or is not) merely an interpretation originating from the recorder's
individual perception of the field. (For a highly readable discussion of

postmodern and feminist critiques of the ethnographic process, see Wolf, 1992.)
The debate over what meanings and interpretations arise out of qualitative data
gathered through ethnographic techniques (interviews, observations, and so
on) is too long to summarize adequately here. However, suffice to say that in
education, sociology and anthropology, distinct "camps" have emerged, each
with cohesive, substantial arguments about basic points of methodology and
epistemology.
Jacob (1988, p. 10), for example, describes the sub-field of "holistic ethnogra-
phy" as one in which "ethnographers seek to describe and analyze all or part of a
culture or community by describing beliefs and practices of the group studied and
showing how the various parts contribute to the culture as a unified, consistent
whole." This kind of ethnography fits easily with the ways in which qualitative
data have traditionally been used in comparative education studies as formulated
by Holmes and Bereday. The qualitative summary of historical and cultural forces
that have affected the development of the school system produces a summative
case study of the nation (traditionally introduced by a historical summary or
overview of the formal public system) that portrays the current conditions of the
nation and its schools as a "unified, consistent whole." However, if we examine
the work of "cognitive anthropologists", who, as Jacob notes (1988, pp. 22-23),
focus more specifically on the study of semantic systems, that is, how "cultural
knowledge is organized into categories that are systematically related to one
another", then we find a perspective that better addresses the issues faced by the
Civic Education Study.
From the start, the members of the study's steering committee recognized
that an assessment of achievement in civic education could not proceed in the
same way as is possible for assessments of other subjects, such as mathematics
and science. In contrast to other IEA studies, where we can presume that there
is an authoritative "intended curriculum" serving as a reasonable starting point
for cross-national research, this is not the case in civic education. The purpose
of the civic education national case studies has been to allow exploration and
clarification of how civic education is actually conceptualized and understood
within each participating country. In addition to understanding the meanings
ascribed to "good citizenship" or a "bad citizen", we need to explore what
causes people to be concerned not only about these notions but also the process
that contributes to someone becoming a good or bad citizen. And to understand
fully what goes on in a classroom during a class called "government" or
"civics" or "national history", we need to understand something about what
happens when young people talk to their families at home or to their peers in
social settings, or when they watch television.
246 GERALD LETENDRE
A focus on civics raises two particular problems: how to compare sets of

terms that have culturally bounded meaning, and how to deal with the way that
meaning is produced within a given nation. Issues of conflict over meaning -
Who is a citizen? What does an ideal citizen do? - are readily apparent in a
way that they are not when studying mathematics and science. However, there
is no clear delineation within comparative education of how a study of
civic education might differ methodologically from a study of mathematics
education. The debates and divisions within qualitative studies in education
have had the ultimate effect of producing "schools" or "sub-fields" of research
that have distinct methodological differences (see Jacob, 1988, pp. 34-35 for
a succinct summary), each of which is subject to significant methodological

debate. Such methodological differentiation has simply not occurred to the same
extent in the field of comparative education where debate over qualitative
methods in the wider field has been, as noted at the beginning of this chapter,
ignored until quite recently.
Ignorance is a two-way street. Much of the work done in the field of
comparative education, in general, and under the auspices of the IEA,
in particular, has been ignored by qualitative researchers in education and
sociology as well. Baker (1994) and Torney-Purta (1987) have both attempted
to find reasons for this isolation of comparative research. They suggest that
under-development of the field of comparative education (as contrasted
with, say, the sociology of education) as well as an overwhelming focus on
United States schools in the associated literature have limited the citation of
comparative studies in the wider educational and sociological literature.
The problem that faced the Civic Education Study steering committee at
the outset of this project was one faced by many researchers who seek to use
"qualitative" methods to compare schools or education systems in different
nations: there has been comparatively little methodological progress in
non-quantitative methods within the field of comparative education. Evidence
of this is clearly seen in the design of T1MSS. In the achievement and survey
databases, TIMSS, as compared with SIMS, presented major methodological
innovations. National probability samples of classrooms were used, multiple
imputation allowed the use of a wider range of questions, and survey
components allowed researchers to compare the impact of the intended versus
implemented (including advanced opportunity to learn (OTL) measures)
curriculum on achievement.
TIMSS also included major qualitative studies (the case study and video study
portions), but the methodological sophistication of these studies was limited
compared to that of the quantitative studies. The video study and the three-
country case study represented, for large cross-national studies, major
methodological breakthroughs, but this was due to the fact that such detailed
databases had never been assembled in conjunction with IEA achievement
studies. The case study has been described as the first qualitative database ever
compiled under the supervision of the National Center for Educational Statistics
in the United States. The inclusion in TIMSS of national case studies, then,
represented a major advancement in the field of comparative education, even
though the methods used to collect and analyze the data were not very advanced
by the standards of some anthropologists or qualitative educational researchers.
But how were these case studies different from the older descriptions of nations
found in earlier comparative work?
CASE STUDIES IN COMPARATIVE EDUCATION AND

QUALITATIVE RESEARCH
The Civic Education Study steering committee began by calling on the

expertise of national experts and the IEA General Assembly to support a study
of the current state of civic education in the world in a manner consistent with
much of the previous lEA work. Implicit in this call was the use of a model
in which the nation would constitute the "unit" for the case studies and
subsequent data collection. However, unlike other lEA studies, the steering
committee theorized that civic education was unique, in many respects, among
the various curricular fields, and therefore proposed a series of case studies that
would differ from the summative format common in previous studies. This
difference between the civic education case studies and previous case study
formats highlights the different assumptions for methodologies that have tended
1Lo create a barrier to dialog between comparative education and qualitative
education researchers.
The case study format in qualitative educational studies has evolved along
several lines simultaneously, providing a much richer, if often confusing,
set of methods and perspectives. The case study format common in many
IEA studies had been developed and codified while case study methods in
qualitative educational research were still evolving (Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995;
Yin, 1984). Although IEA-sponsored studies have continued to utilize both
qualitative and quantitative data, the form of the case study, until the advent
of TIMSS and the Civic Education Study, remained generally static relative
to the qualitative methods used in education, with their highly specialized
sub-fields, each with its distinct theoretical traditions and preferences for
data-collection and analysis.
This fragmentation and specialization within the field of qualitative studies
in education has also created barriers to the exchange of ideas. Indeed, it is
248 GERALD LETENDRE
hard to get various researchers to agree on terms for their own research. The
initial model for the civic education case studies, for example, was based
on Miles (1990), who clearly advocates a modified "ethnographic" approach.
Reference to Merriam's (1988) typology of case studies suggests that the
TIMSS and Civic Education Study case studies indeed can be characterized
as ethnographic? However, Merriam's definition of ethnography - "an
ethnographic case study is characterized by its socio-cultural interpretation"
(p. 24) - is not accepted universally. Ethnography may also be defined as the
study of "the culture of groups of people", as opposed to ethno-methodology,
"the ordinary routine of daily life" (Highlen & Finley, 1996, p. 185). However,
anthropologists of education often state that their business is the study of daily
life (Spindler, 1982). Other researchers differentiate "holistic ethnography" from
"ethnography of communication" (Jacob, 1987, p. 2). In trying to sort out these
various terms and associated theoretical orientations, researchers feel a bit
like Alice in Wonderland confronted by Humpty-Dumpty's "A word means
whatever I choose it to mean. ''4
If we pull back from the current controversies among qualitative researchers,
we can begin to see that the basic case study methodology is the research
strategy best suited to an investigation of contemporary events where the
investigator seeks to know "how" or "why" (Yin, 1984, p. 13). Case study
methodology utilizes basic ethnographic research with a specific topic focus
(Merriam, 1988; Yin, 1984). The combined use of observations, interviews and
involvement of community members allows for the significant development of
emic viewpoints, that is, how the people in the community or institution under
investigation describe their world. It also provides concrete details of actual
experiences that exemplify how learning takes place, yet places the researcher
in a position to compare various forms of data and to test hypotheses derived
from the constant review of new data (the "constant comparative method"). In
anthropology, Beatrice and John Whitings' (1975) classic study of children
in six cultures provided a model for large-scale comparative research. The
Whitings' emphasis on sample and comparability reflected the driving concerns
of both psychological anthropology and education - a concern with "measuring
up" to the demands of statistical sampling procedures, which were then strongly
in ascendance.
The impetus for providing such rich description in education and cross-
national studies has come from the obvious limitations that arise from purely
quantitative data. Studies that show Japan (or Singapore) to have significantly
higher mathematics test scores among Grade 8 students do little to answer policy
questions of how this occurs. Unlike in the early comparative education studies,
the collection of large databases (such as those for SIMS and the Second
International Science Study (SISS)) were largely divorced from a detailed

description of the cultural context. In some cases, particularly studies of
textbooks or educational policies, national profiles were created, but these also
generally have been of little use in understanding how the values, perceptions
and beliefs held by students, teachers, administrators and parents affect the
educational process or the educational structure. Placing the results of large-scale
quantitative data within such contexts requires the collection of detailed descrip-
tive data, but the use of case studies is a relatively parsimonious strategy for
obtaining this information.
Questionnaires and surveys - other quantitative techniques used in international
comparative educational research - allow researchers to gather large amounts of

data from a large number of individuals in a relatively short time. Case study
methods, however, provide large amounts of data about a relatively low number
of individuals and take a great deal of time to compile. The significant point here
relates to "depth", that is, the need to approximate Geertz's (1973) insistence on
highly nuanced "thick descriptions" or to describe adequately the complexities
of the cultural scene, at least by capturing all the nuances of the language that
members of the group use (Spradley, 1979). Either way, case studies based on
interviews and observations from long-term residence in the community, group or
institution under study are the only way to achieve this level of detail.
THE CIVIC EDUCATION STUDY CASE STUDIES:

A SHIFT IN P A R A D I G M
Miles (1990) advocates the use of vignettes, which "combine a systematic,

structured approach with the expression of "emic" or "personal meanings"
(p. 38) in designing and conducting case studies. The inclusion of personal
meaning, as depicted in verbatim excerpts from interviews or field observations,
does not mean, however, that case study researchers enter the field without
guidelines or structure. Rather, as Miles points out, their research is driven by
a set of research questions (p. 43). The power of these ethnographic case studies
lies not in their summative qualities, but in the rich, qualitative data they provide.
It is this kind of case study, and this kind of data, that TIMSS and the Civic
Education Study case studies have aimed to provide. This endeavor means,
however, that these two sets of case study cannot be analyzed (or utilized) in
ways that have traditionally been common in lEA and comparative education
studies.
The case study research conducted for the Civic Education Study and TIMSS
use different sources but have in common features that place them in the
tradition of "mini-ethnographies" and thus provide conflicting viewpoints and
250 GERALD LETENDRE
alternative interpretations of the issue in question. Whereas traditional

ethnographies of schooling or education tended to focus on specific schools
or communities (Heath, 1983; Rosenfeld, 1971; Wolcott, 1967), ethnographic
case studies focus more on guiding research questions. Many past ethnogra-
phies of schools described and analyzed every major aspect of school life from
peer relations to the impact of teacher unions. Ethnographic case studies offer
a set of orienting questions that not only are more refined and clearly defined
than in traditional ethnographies but also are more detailed than in traditional
case studies, where only a single issue, such as grade-level configuration, time
on task or use of a specific instructional intervention, might be discussed. The
goal, as Wolf articulates (1992, pp. 5-7), is to understand how people in a

given country think about a certain issue. The ethnographic case study thus
retains much of the rich description of traditional ethnography while addressing
specific research questions.
For the civic education project, 15 original questions, derived from policy
concerns (see Fig. 1), have served to orient it. The study's researchers have
not expected simple "answers." The topics under examination reflect the policy
concerns of those nations that constitute the core members of IEA or
other international organizations. Particularly in the case of civic education,
perceptions of democracy, civics, citizenship and the like are assumed to be
multivariate and perhaps even vociferously argued in some countries. For some
countries, there may be great consensus among the populace on just what a
"good citizen" is and what young adolescents should know about being a "good
citizen." In others, certain political, religious, ethnic, racial, linguistic and
socioeconomic groups might disagree strongly. The importance of capturing the
range of perceptions in any given country thus becomes crucial to understanding
the nature of civic (or mathematics) education in that nation.
Even in the early stages of the evolution of the Civic Education Study,
there was an important shift in terms of the framing questions. The 15 policy
questions reflected an expectation for a summative case study: "How are
programs of civic education organized?" or even "How do students define and
understand the concept of citizenship and related issues?" These questions
were drafted following the first steering committee meeting in January 1994,
circulated and then placed in the proposals for both phases of the Civic
Education Study. The set of case study framing questions was formulated in
February 1995 according to an explicit directive that contested or conflicting
views should be brought out. These questions, numbering 18, were extensively
circulated and revised before being issued in April 1995.
The questions not only focuses on individuals, such as young adolescents,
but also implicitly expected discrepancies between expectations and outcomes.
Thus: "If 'democracy' is a central concept, what does it mean within the
national context, and what are young people expected or likely to learn about
it by age 14 or 15?" or "What are young people of 14 or 15 expected or
likely to believe about the mass media as sources of information about politics
and government?" These questions reveal subtle but significant differences
from those of the first set. Whereas the first set emphasizes the importance
of defining a set of parameters that can be used to identify or order nations,
the second emphasizes the importance of voice and the power of the
researcher to promote or "silence" voices. The two sets of questions also
reflect different expectations for the nature of the data, with the second set
more concerned than the first with providing a naturalistic representation of

how adolescents in each nation perceive and deal with various issues.
The steering committee took these distinctions into account when developing
the questions. In drafting the 18 framing questions, international steering
committee member Jack Schwille professed himself intent on creating a "text"
that others might choose to "put under erasure." In a later meeting, Barabara
Minkiewicz-Malak (another member of the international steering committee)
re-emphasized the point that the committee needed to see the nature of civic
education as providing the impetus to incorporate as many perspectives as
possible. It is the focus, she noted, on recording as many perspectives as possible
that makes the Civic Education Study distinct from previous IEA studies. As
was observed by way of illustration, past studies of achievement in particular
made little attempt to find out what various groups or individuals in any given
country actually thought achievement was.
From the start, the orientation given to the case studies in the Civic Education
Study was one that acknowledged that, within nations, individuals foster
particular ideals of citizenship, and that there might be significant dissension
or conflict over what ideals should be emphasized. As Torney-Purta and
Schwille (1986) had already shown, a national government might try to dissem-
inate certain ideals of civic participation, but not all members of the nation will
agree with those ideals. As such, the long-term residents of a nation ("natives")
are the best describers of those ideals. It was agreed that the study's national
project representatives (NPRs), as both long-term residents and scholars, would
know the history of conflict or dissension over civic ideals in their particular
country. A large part of the basic research in the initial stages of the study was
therefore taken up with determining which ideals were fostered by national
governments and which of these were most contested. This concern with conflict
and dissension is essentially the same concern with power that critical
ethnographers (see Carspecken, 1996) emphasize. Critical ethnographers take
as a starting point of analysis the premise that, in every society, groups have
252 GERALD LETENDRE
;~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ 0~, 0
~ 0 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ © ~ ~ 0
~ 'So .... ~ ~ ~ :.-,~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ' ~
~ =,~,~ ~,~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,-~ ~ ~ ,-~ ~ ~ "~~

&
o#:=o ~oo~o ..... o:.-o-~ =~-~ = ~ I
f..T3
,.=j
.~ o ~ ~=~ ~o ~o
©
~= o=~.~ o° =~. ~', .~ .~ ~
0
•~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ .~ o
-4
~=~ ~ - ~ :c-. "~ ~=~o o
•~ ~'~" ~ ,.-, ~ "~ ~ ~ .~,.~

E~~ .~ ~.~°
=~o.~ == ~o.~=oo
o.~ ~ ~ ~.~
b
2~ ~ ~
o ~-~
~ o ~°
N o
=~ ~m~o o
"~ ~_~= ~
~k ~.~ o
~.~-~ ~ ~-~-~ ~ ' ~o : ~ > ~ =~

•"~ ..~ '~ ~ ~D '-6
e~
t< ©
,.-4
,~ ~-. ~ o=
~o
~ ~ o
~-~ ~.~
~g
o'x
ox
~r.)
~.~ ~
254 GERALD LETENDRE
different amounts of power to impose meaning or meaning systems on other

groups.
As the study evolved, the importance of including alternative perspectives
on civic education became more and more clear. The final guidelines for
conducting the national case studies reminded the researchers of the role of the
case studies:
An important starting point for conceptualizing these case studies has been that within every
social or political group there are different and often contrasting views of what constitutes
good citizenship and, also, that in many there is a relatively fragile consensus about civic
education. There may be conflicting views about the nature and functions of the govern-
ment, what is expected of citizens within it, and how young people should be educated
about it. In some countries, there may be statements of high minded goals for citizenship
which are not very widely carried into practice, and may not even be agreed upon by most
groups in society (Torney-Purta, 1995, p. 3).
The perceptions of teachers, students and others are central to understanding

how any subject is taught. The difficulty lies in accurately representing the
diversity present in any one country. Traditional ethnographies, which are highly
limited in regional scope, most often fail to produce any kind of national
perspective. The ethnographic case study, with its focus on specific questions,
provides a more suitable means for assembling this information. The steering
committee, from the outset of the Civic Education Study, was aware of the
difficulties in identifying areas of disagreement or consensus between different
nations on the topic of civic education. The case study format that was adopted,
where national "experts" would provide a detailed case study of the condition
of civic education in their own nation, provided a consistent research method
that could address problems of national perspective as well as convey contested
meanings. The basic method was further augmented by the implementation of
several modern technologies.
The Impact of the "Electronic Revolution"
S o m e o f the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l constraints to i m p l e m e n t i n g the Civic Education

Study case studies were solved by the use o f current computer and tele-
c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technology. W h e n researchers working with the W h i t i n g s
on their six-culture study o f children entered the field, they carried with them
a highly d e v e l o p e d set of questions and observation protocols that were to
be a d m i n i s t e r e d in each country, but c o m m u n i c a t i o n was largely limited
to mail and telegraph. Even though each researcher or group o f researchers
encountered some difficulties in applying the methods to the respective

countries, they were unable to communicate readily with the principal
researchers and one another about these. This situation meant that little, if
anything, could be done to effect changes to the study's design. Thus, in line
with the reigning paradigm of the day, and one that still dominates in many
social science research projects, each researcher followed the same methods as
every other researcher.
Current thinking and practice in the field of qualitative studies has moved
away from this universal application model to contextualized or process-oriented
models that are responsive to the unique situations that develop in the field.
In terms of cross-national, qualitative study, this kind of model has become

technically practical only within the last few years. Sustaining the kind
of communication needed for these models to work requires dense networks of
communication between the field researchers and their principal researchers or
steering committees. Only with the advent of email and other advanced means
of electronic communication, such as file transfer protocols that allow the
transmission of large sections of text or images, have large research groups
been able to coordinate their efforts across time and distance and thereby form
the tight working groups needed to sustain true process-oriented research
projects.
In the Civic Education Study, two essential communication networks worked
simultaneously. The first was the frequent, detailed communication that took
place between members of the steering committee. The second network involved
communication between the committee and each NPR. This network was used
less frequently and was less detailed (intense) than the first, with communi-
cation more likely to be from the committee to the NPRs than vice versa.
The steering committee in this regard functioned as the primary sorter
and interpreter of the overall research group's communication, and it was
facilitated in this role by the technological advances of email and the World
Wide Web (www).
Email
The advantages of this form of communication are apparent when it is compared
to the telephone. In the Whitings' study, although most of the field researchers
would have been able to call in to the central group at some time, telephone
calls were (and remain) relatively expensive. The researchers would
have known, as does any researcher today, that while the telephone provides
"real-time" interaction, it is highly constrained by time differences around
the world. An excited field researcher who has just had an insight into the
256 GERALD LETENDRE
problems of applying the research protocol is unlikely to receive a positive

response from a member of his or her committee when answering the phone
at 4:15 a.m. Moreover, the dialog is usually restricted to two people. Even
though conference calls technically are possible, they further complicate
the process by forcing more people (in more time zones) to coordinate their
schedules.
Email messages can be sent at any time and are generally delivered within
a few minutes to a few hours of their "posting." They can be sent to a single
person or distributed to hundreds. The increasing access of field researchers to
email allows researchers and their committees to maintain continuous contact
without disrupting sleep cycles or putting a strain on research budgets.

Moreover, email can, as was the case with the TIMSS case study, act as
an ongoing communal dialog. Reactions to various postings can be shared
among the group in general, greatly fostering a process of group reflection and
problem-solving. 5
The Worm Wide Web

Like email, the World Wide Web allows researchers to readily access and post
information. The Civic Education Study's web page has served as a common
base for all researchers, allowing them to access basic material about the various
countries and the more important documents. In some ways, the www has
functioned in ways similar to the Human Relations File, with information being
posted according to question and country. NPRs and other members of the
project have been able to look at topics across countries or to look at a specific
country's overall file. To ensure confidentiality, passwords have been used to
restrict access to some parts of the database.
Unlike email, the Civic Education Study's web site has not functioned as
a nexus of communication, but rather as a repository of important texts
generated by the group. This does not mean that www technology is limited
in this regard. Web pages can be used to post messages and even hold
real-time conversations in "chat rooms." The rapid development of web
software programs suggests that within a few years of publication of this chapter,
the capabilities of the web will be greatly enhanced, giving future research
teams even more reason to use this technology to store data and facilitate
communication. The ability of web pages to display a variety of visual
information may well be utilized in the future, perhaps by including maps,
statistical profiles or even limited video clips of the countries, communities or
institutions that are being investigated. Web technology could also affect the
research process itself by allowing students, teachers and administrators in
participating countries to provide comments (a rich source of qualitative data)

or answer surveys (a rich source of quantitative data).
P E R C E P T I O N A N D R E F L E C T I O N IN THE
RESEARCH PROCESS
In analytical terms, all of the cross-national chapters depended, in part, on how

the information about each country was filtered and interpreted by the NPR
and the national expert panel (NEP). In essence, the process of analysis really
began in the exchange between the NPR and NEP about what information was
important to include. These two actors, it was realized, could affect both
the compilation of background information about the country as well as the
development of the questionnaires and surveys. Thus, if a country's case study
failed to cover a specific topic (social diversity, perhaps), would this be due to
an oversight on the part of the NPR or NEP, to the political orientation of the
NPR or NEP, or to conflict between the NPR and the NEP? Furthermore,
the case study as a document would reflect, in all likelihood, the viewpoints of
both the NPR and NEP. This specter of highly biased case studies prompted
the steering committee to try to impose standards. These, as we shall see later,
created considerable tension among the NPRs and between the NPRs and the
steering committee. However, such tension has potentially positive effects for
qualitative research, as it suggests that the participants are indeed willing to
consider a variety of perspectives. No tension suggests that all participants share
the same perspective, or that some participants have simply given up trying to
articulate their perspective.
In its early stages, the Civic Education Study remained informed by the
methodological tradition that considers "viewpoints" to equal "bias" and
the need for bias to be minimized at all cost. This "positivist" approach is one
that elucidates and underpins much comparative work, particularly international
assessments of educational achievement. One assumption underlying this
approach is that pre-determined sets of characteristics, which can be measured
in each country, will be used to assess how the nation functions (such as the
relationship between expenditure on education, average teacher education levels
and student achievement). A second assumption is that all countries can
be compared against international standards (such as the creation of standard
deviations from an international mean achievement score in the TIMSS
research). In the period between its first and subsequent meetings in January
1994 through mid-1995, the Civic Education Study steering committee moved
from a somewhat unspecific view about what should be asked through to the
provision of a reasonably clear set of framing questions. However, there was
258 GERALD LETENDRE
then, and continues to be, on the committee some differences of opinion about
the extent to which varying viewpoints can and should be represented. This
lack of consensus is, in part, a function of the different disciplines and research
traditions in which committee members have been trained and with which they
identify.
In trying to create the case study frameworks, the IEA steering committee
endeavored to prevent the collection of data that would turn out to be merely
a summary of reported views. However, the quandary remained that it was the
NPRs and NEPs who were working to provide answers to the 18 questions
(refer Fig. 1). But without their input, it would not have been possible to conduct
the case studies. Part of the reason for the impasse lay not in the work of the
NPRs or the committee but in the lack of discourse on qualitative research
methods in journals and publications related to comparative education.
The NPRs and NEPS did not have ready access to the type of methodological
studies they needed in order to develop appropriate methods. While qualitative
educational journals have long published articles dealing with bias, contrasting
interpretations and alternative viewpoints, this methodological focus is quite
limited in the field of education in general and in studies of international
achievement in particular. 6 The numerous works on case study methodology
used in qualitative educational studies have received little attention in works
on comparative methods. (For examples of these works, see Lincoln & Guba,
1990; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1978; Yin, 1984.)
The basic approach used in case study methods derives from ethnographic
techniques where viewpoints or biases are treated as "data" (Spindler &
Spindler, 1987; Spradley, 1979). The most common method is a form of
triangulation, in which the actors relevant to a given situation - say teachers,
students, administrators and parents - are asked about the same topic and
allowed to express their beliefs in or opinions about that topic. The qualitative
researcher then begins to find common themes among groups of actors as well
as conflicts. If clear themes appear among one group of actors (say teachers),
the researcher examines the extent to which (or even if) these themes are
represented by other groups. Through iterations of this process, the researcher
is able to analyze how the groups perceive themselves and each other, and what
degree of disagreement or conflict exists within, between and across groups.
In developing the research questions, the anthropologist or case study
researcher must be ready to amend or even abandon the original research
questions. If the topic derived before the fieldwork begins is inappropriate or
fails to capture the important issues for actors, then the topic must be amended.
In sociology, Glaser and Strauss (1967) have turned this process into a detailed
system of hypothesis generation and testing that they call the "constant
comparative method." Simply put, the researcher constantly compares the form
of his or her original hypotheses against the increasing amount of data. Thus,
analysis of the data is a process that begins from the first day of data
collection and informs (that is, affects) the data collection process.
The problem, as already mentioned, for the original Civic Education Study
was that it was the NPRs who were in the role of researcher, and thus
interacting with the data and the orienting questions. But because the steering
committee was concerned that the study remain "true" to the original policy
questions and case study framing questions, they preferred that the NPRs not
"challenge" the original hypotheses or their underlying categories. The "constant
comparative method" therefore was blocked, leaving the NPRs unable to

generate alternative theories about the field. This greatly limited the inductive
power of theory generation that is the strength of qualitative research and led,
for the Civic Education Study, to tension over how to proceed with the research
process.
In the words of one of the NPRs, asked to reflect about the Enschede meeting
in 1995, which was the first time that the NPRs actually met one another and
the committee, "Everything was too organized yet under-organized." This NPR
and others felt that the 18 framing questions were too detailed and too complex.
The NPR for Hong Kong noted, "I was asked to answer 18 questions. I felt
like a secondary student, and I didn't know the purpose of the questions, how
the data would be used or what kind of analysis would be involved." Thus, the
original research strategy was under-organized in the sense that the NPRs had
no clear view of what the final output would be or how their responses would
be analyzed. They feared that their work would be analyzed and used without
their input or consent and felt their role in the study was that of outsiders judged
by the steering committee.
The Impact of the "Enschede Revolt"
"Ownership" is a term widely used in qualitative and action research. In its

most general sense, it refers to the degree of control that researchers and research
participants have in directing the process of data collection and interpretation.
Perceptions of the degree of control, however, may be as important as any
objectified measure of actual control over the research process. Plainly put,
if researchers or research participants believe that the general program is
responsive to their ideas, they will tend to feel more ownership - a state that
facilitates a sense of trust and more open and even contentious discussion among
co-researchers.
260 GERALD LETENDRE
The ability for researchers and participants to engage in a sustained dialog

where different points of view can be openly expressed is crucial to the success
of qualitative studies. One of the strengths of qualitative research as opposed
to quantitative research is that the former is capable of presenting conflicting
points of view that more accurately portray the range of beliefs and actions in
any given situation. Giving "voice" to a variety of viewpoints supports diverse
interpretations of data (survey, textual or other forms), a situation that leads to
more fertile theoretical development (see Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In the IEA civic education case studies, the NPRs served a primary role as
researchers charged with presenting the views of diverse communities within
each nation as well as providing an overall summary representative of these

views. The NPRs' sense of ownership was crucial to the success of the study.
This was because they were the individuals with primary responsibility for
adjudicating discrepancies between the policy questions and the case study
framing questions in the sense of both simple translation of terms and the
general organization/application/activation of the larger research project. For
example, the seemingly simple term "citizenship" is one that defies easy
translation in terms of many national situations in Eastern Europe and in Asia.
Does citizenship include notions of "fatherland" (a question that appeared in
some Eastern European nations)? How is citizenship in Hong Kong, at that time
working through the transition from British protectorate to re-absorption by
China, to be captured?
Perhaps some of the most important data of the civic education project have
been uncovered at this level - and it is this information that is most often
missed in large-scale survey research - because it sets the basic set of cultural
parameters for the research. How are terms to be translated? Which concepts
are most central? How are "diverse groups" and their opinions to be portrayed?
And, most importantly, how should the central policy questions be altered so
as to represent accurately the conditions within each nation?
As we have seen, some of the NPRs initially felt little sense of ownership
in the overall research process and perhaps saw themselves as being asked to
carry out a difficult piece of work. Their frustration, however, did not remain
unstated, and at the aforementioned first meeting between the NPRs and the
steering committee in Enschede in July 1995 (see the timeline in Fig. 2), the
NPRs expressed their concerns about and frustrations with the study's research
process. The frank discussion that followed allowed the steering committee and
the NPRs to challenge each other's views. For example, some NPRs perceived
the study' s leadership to be dominated by Americans, but the steering committee
successfully pointed out that it included Thai, Swiss, German, Greek, Polish
and Swedish representatives. The meeting, jokingly referred to as the "Enschede
Revolt" in subsequent meetings, produced a fundamental shift in the general

discussion related to the project, particularly in terms of reflection about its
research process. It also allowed diverse points of view to emerge and grow
during the eventual data-interpretation phase. The Enschede meeting was
a crucial moment for the project, but one that is common in most types of
qualitative research.
Anthropologists and others who use ethnographic techniques have long been
sensitive to key turning points, when respondents feel enough trust not only to
confide in the researcher but also to contradict or challenge the researcher's
assumptions. This phenomenon is also a common part of the relationship
Date Place Agenda
April 1993 Chicago, IL, USA Invitation to prepare paper for lEA
General Assembly
August 1993 E1 Escorial, Spain Presentation of paper to General
Assembly
January 1994 Hague, Netherlands Planning Committee formulates 15
policy questions
June 1994 Stockholm Partial Planning Committee writes
proposal sections
August 1994 Jojakarta, Indonesia General Assembly approves proposal
November 1994 Hague, Netherlands Second PlanningCommittee plans
NPR meeting, outlines guidelines
February 1995 College Park, MD, USA Partial Committee meeting discusses
guidelines for case study
July 1995 Enschede, Netherlands First NPR meeting - "Enschede
Revolt"; Planning Committee meeting
September 1995 College Park, MD, USA Partial Planning Committee meeting
November 1995 Athens, Greece NPR votes on Framing Questions
received; Planning Committee
chooses Domains I-IV based on votes
and appoints correspondingadvisors
January 1996 Heinola, Finland Meeting of four country NPRs
August 1996 Bratislava, Slovak Rep. Second Meeting of Planning
Committee and NPRs - "Bratislava
Reunion"
May 1997 College Park, MD, USA Planning Committee and Chapter Authors
Fig. 2. Timeline of Major Meetings During the Development of the IEA Civic
Education Study.
262 GERALD LETENDRE
between organizing groups and field researchers in multiple-member research

projects. But it is equally common for the organizing or coordinating group to
fail to recognize that episodes where field researchers express concerns and
frustrations offer great potential benefits to the project, just as the field researcher
may ignore or discredit respondents' attempts to guide his or her line of inquiry.
Experienced field researchers learn to pay close attention to respondents'
concerns, and project managers should also pay close attention to moments
when field researchers express concerns. It is at these moments that project
directors have two choices. They can defer dialog, thereby silencing the
emergence of diverse voices, or postpone having to face the issues until those
voices emerge in active hostility. Alternatively, they can encourage field

researchers to express their concerns by actively listening and actually changing
the process of research (thereby stimulating even more dialog and clarifying
the diverse voices).
This is what happened to a considerable degree in the Civic Education
Study. On hearing the NPRs' concerns, the entire steering committee
immediately moderated some of their demands on the countries and clarified
some of their instructions. Within a few months, three of the Europeans had
volunteered to become "godmothers" (corresponding advisors), with each of
them taking on responsibility for a specific set of participating countries so
as to give more personalized feedback. Many research directors, perhaps due
to training in traditional quantitative methods, might fear that too much
emphasis on dialog of this sort impairs researchers' ability to "generalize"
across countries or nations because it gives each nation's researcher the ability
to change, to a lesser or greater degree, the focus of the study within his or
her country. However, attempts to "bring researchers" back to the "same page"
is likely to cause the project participants to miss important opportunities to
generate new data and new theory. The appointment of the "godmothers"
proved to be a highly effective technique because it increased the inclusion
of diverse views and the ability of the project to collect complex and highly
detailed data.
It is also important to note that the concerns just articulated have different
implications in qualitative studies. As international steering committee member
Gita Steiner-Khamsi aptly pointed out in one discussion, cross-national research
tends to be input-output oriented rather than process oriented. Qualitative
research traditions have been influenced by hermeneutics and epistemology. The
process of knowing and interpreting the world is a central concern for most
qualitative researchers - a concern that most quantitative researchers do not
share. The IEA Civic Education Study's sensitivity to process reflects a growing
awareness of the importance of this practice. However, more particularly,
it also acknowledges the importance of including primary field researchers'

points of view as a crucial element in developing formats for the successful
collection of the data and its analysis and interpretation.
The Enschede meeting was also crucial because it represented a shift from
what might be styled a "traditional" approach to data collection in comparative
studies - one driven by hypotheses and relatively unresponsive to emerging
ideas (Steiner-Khamsi's input-output metaphor) - to one driven by the
reactions of those closest to the field: a process model. Essentially, the research
model developed for the Civic Education Study moved to incorporate emic
points of view that ultimately affected the course of the research project.
Judith Torney-Purta (chair of the international steering committee) remarked

that initially "there did not seem to be much common interest among the NPRs",
a statement that reflects the fact that there are many different ways to conceive
of a study of civic education and many different issues that one could
emphasize. The NPRs represented a diverse set of scholars with different sets
of interests and concerns. However, by asking them what five major questions
should inform the data collection, Torney-Purta opened up the process for
the NPRs, allowing them to see themselves not as "data collectors" but as
"collaborators". As a result of a straw poll of the NPRs about what the
questions should be (this poll was formalized by an official vote four months
later), Torney-Purta noted "a very real consensus" emerging. It was at this point
that the steering committee set up its system of godmothers, a system that not
only relieved the steering committee from drowning in a sea of paperwork, but
also strengthened the NPRs' sense of ownership. The practice of having NRPs
vote on what questions and domains to include further cemented this sense of
ownership. At the Athens meeting in November 1995, votes established the
final set of orienting questions as well as the three domains. This vote served
both functionally and symbolically to incorporate NPRs as collaborators in the
research design.
As Fig. 3 depicts, the detailed, yet overwhelming, body of 18 questions was
later condensed, again with input from the NPRs, into a more manageable set
of four domains. The domains thus reflect a consensus among the NPRs and
the steering committee about the basic concepts that are most central, and
in many ways most problematic, to gaining an understanding of how civic
education is conducted in various countries. As Wing On Lee, a member
of the cross-national analysis team and steering committee observed at a
cross-national meeting at the University of Maryland in May of 1997, "The
final domains were products of negotiation."
Although seemingly simple, the shift within the Civic Education Study from
imposition of an ideal model to one of dialog and negotiation was very different
264 GERALD LETENDRE
Number Domain Abbreviated Question
Democracy, Institutions, Given that democracy is a central concept, what

Rights and Responsibilities does it mean in the national context and what are
young people expected or likely to learn about it
by age 14 or 15?
2 National Identity What are young people expected or likely to have
acquired as a sense of national identity or national
loyalty by age 14 or 15?
Social Cohesion and What are young people expected or likely to have
Social Diversity learned by age 14 or 15 about those belonging
to groups which are seen as set apart or

disenfranchised (as defined, for example, by
ethnicity, race, immigrant status, mother tongue,
social class, religion or gender)?
4 Open (NPRs select one 1. To what extent are young people expected
of three) or likely to have learned by 14 or 15 that
economic principles (such as free market
principles vs. state intervention and control
over the provision of goods and services) are
connected with government or political issues?
2. What are young people of 14 or 15 expected or
likely to believe about the mass media as
sources of information about politics and
government?
3. What are young people of 14 or 15 expected or
likely to know and believe about the source and
nature of specific local problems, especially
those existing in their own communities?
Source: Torney-Purta, J. (1996). Supplementary guidelines for the summaries of the core interna-
tional framing questions I - IV by points g) through q), December, 1995. Unpublished paper,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Fig. 3. R e v i s e d Core International F r a m i n g Questions.
from the basic methodology previously employed by many research projects.

Not only was the "new order" a product of joint discussion and input (of
consensus) but the domains and questions - the essential categories of analysis
and the underlying hypotheses - reflected the realities of the political, social,
cultural and historical forces in the participating countries. In essence, these
new questions and domains "arose" from the field in the manner described by
Glaser and Strauss. Moreover, the process of revision described here documents
"~ ~
,fi
~9 O
u2~
~
,.N
go'
~
~
LI
-~o~
~gg.
~ ,-, u
m~2~
266 GERALD LETENDRE
the growing awareness on the part of the Civic Education Study researchers of
the need to pay attention to the nature of the research in general and to the
impact of changes within and to that process in particular; a process that is
now referred to as "meta-qualitative" research.
Increased Reflexivity in the Research Process
The second major meeting between the NPRs and the steering committee, which
took place in August 1996 at Bratislava, was characterized by a very different
atmosphere from that which had initially been felt at Enschede. There was now
a strong sense of ownership of the project. Most of those who had been at
Enschede were happy to share the products of their partially completed work
on Phase 1 and to welcome the new NPRs from those countries that had recently
joined the study, The Bratislava meeting reinforced the shift in focus that had
begun at Enschede, as did each meeting thereafter. The researchers (both
the committee and the NPRs) continued to gain a greater awareness of how
other participants saw the process of research, and also of the promises and
problems inherent in that process. In other words, the reflective power of the
research team increased with each meeting.
Reflexivity is a central concept in qualitative studies. Simply put, reflexivity
refers to the degree to which the researcher and research participants are aware
of their relations (especially power relations) to each other and the field and
how these relations affect what they say and do or how they interpret the actions
of others. In terms of written text, a case study that includes descriptions of
the researcher's biases, predilections or competencies is considered to be more
reflective (see Wolf, 1992).
The entire research process used during Phase 1 of the Civic Education Study
was essentially an iterative cycle of different levels of analyses. The first
level (the case studies) was originally conceived of as providing the basic
description and interpretation of the nature and meaning of civic education
in each country, primarily accomplished by the researchers in those countries
gathering together documents and textbooks, and in some cases carrying out
interviews. The second level was seen as one wherein each country's NEP and
NPR would filter (discuss) these data, together drafting and approving answers
to the framing questions. The third level, and also the second, for that matter,
would be characterized by comparisons of trends or the delineation of topics
across countries (see the chapters in this current volume by Zsuzsa Mfitrai
and Gita Steiner-Khamsi), with the presentation of these viewpoints being
substantially affected by the NEP and NPR.
However, by the time of the Bratislava meeting, a fourth level of analysis

had become apparent, one that involved interpretation of the texts and/or topics
presented. Examples are evident in Wing On Lee's analytic qualitative approach
to identify crosscutting dimensions present in the case studies and other
materials collected by NPRs (see his chapter in this current volume).
The various levels of analysis present in all the chapters in this volume span
the range of methods commonly utilized in IEA studies. However, they also
present a kind of fourth or meta-level of analysis, which became apparent
in the Civic Education Study as the presentation of ideas continued, especially
in discussions during the May 1997 cross-national analysis meetings. In these
meetings, several participants noted that each type (or level) of analysis
was affected by this fourth level, namely the reflective discourse on the
research process as a whole. This meta-cognitive discourse (or ongoing "meta-
qualitative analysis" in Lee's terms) was not a separate analytic component, but
rather an integrative analysis that linked and altered the various comparative
analyses. If we think of each level of analysis as part of a process that begins
with the basic data, then we can envision the fourth level as a global analysis
of how the research process itself evolves. We can also determine the impact
of this evolution on any given type of comparison (see Fig. 4). This process is
very similar to the QUALquan method of combining research described by
Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998, p. 44).
It is this level that appears to be unique to the Civic Education Study. While
the TIMSS case study researchers did achieve this kind of dialog within single
countries and among themselves, they did so without making a significant
impact on the overall research process. Thus, even though the TIMSS case
study data are far more elaborate than those of Civic Education (because each
of the 12 T1MSS field researchers spent about three months in the field), the
latter attained a much higher integration of "emic" understanding about each
country (because of its use of NPRs).
Role of the NPR as "Cultural Filter"
Researchers using linear regression or hierarchical linear models seek to know

the source of error in their data, researchers who gather qualitative data
seek to understand the perspective or viewpoint of the informant (refer to
Fig. 4). In the Civic Education Study, the NPR is one source of input - sifting
out his or her direct perceptions of the country as well as the perceptions of
others represented in the literature and of the NEPs. This effect might be deemed
one of "bias" within the terminology of traditional quantitative research.
268 GERALD LETENDRE
However, the meaning ascribed to bias here does not apply to qualitative
work because all interpretations of data are assumed to have some bias, and
the triangulation of viewpoints is essential to the recognition of bias. Unlike
quantitative research, qualitative research does not seek to eliminate perspective
or viewpoint in the manner that one would try to eliminate systematic errors
in a quantitative database. Rather, the perspective is considered to be part of
the information that is collected.
In illustration of this, the G r e e k NPR, for example, acting as a cultural
"interpreter", attempted to inform n o n - G r e e k s o f the importance of the
cultural identity o f Greeks in civic education accordingly:
The main guiding concepts underlying the study of history in Greek primary and secondary
schools are those of an uninterrupted cultural continuity and homogeneity and of a nation
under threat by the enemy neighboring countries. Today's Greece is the direct offspring and
heir of (glorious) Ancient Greece and the "Greek" Byzantine Empire. Historical facts under-
pinning or damaging the image of the Greek cultural continuum and homogeneity are put
to silence or transformed and presented in a way that either magnify this central idea or
are attributed to malignant, barbaric foreign powers against a weak country. (lEA Civics
Education Project, internal communication)
W h a t the N P R conveys in this primary document is the importance of a particular

interpretation of history that emphasizes the ongoing unity of a Greek identity
across the country's long history. The Greek national project representative and
the researchers from the other participating countries were then able to use this
interpretation to guide their analyses of the Greek data.
In contrast, the Belgium N P R focused on very different dimensions. In
response to the framing question on what students are likely to have learned
or are expected to have learned about the history of their country and the various
interpretations of that history, the NPR wrote:
This theme is moderately important in French-speaking Belgium: the recent history of
Belgium throws some light on the linguistic conflicts and rivalries (mainly between Flemish
and French-speaking Belgian people), which explain a lot of problems and some decisions:
for example, in some places, the language spoken by most people is not the mother tongue
of most ancient inhabitants; how to choose the language to teach, to use in the official
circumstances? (lEA Civics Education Project, internal communication)
The historical differences in language groups make the issue of how history is
interpreted qualitatively different in Belgium and Greece. In Belgium, the focus
is not on a unified Belgian identity, but on the role of language and the rights
of certain language speakers.
The NPRs, as those "closest to the data", to use a qualitative phrase,
were also those who were most sensitive to the problems raised by the
original wording of the orienting questions. For the NPRs, the first step in
the actualization of the Civic Education Study was the cultural translation
of the questions into the appropriate contexts. However, faced with the task of
translating the framing questions, which reflected interests derived from
policy contexts outside of the national context, the NPRs were forced to
highlight consideration of just what civic education was construed to be in
each nation.
COMPARISON OF THE TIMSS AND CIVIC

EDUCATION CASE STUDIES
Differences in approaches to conducting case studies led to a good deal of

confusion for the researchers engaged on the Civic Education Study and TIMSS.
Reviewers of proposals for funding to re-analyze the TIMSS case study data
simply did not understand what could be "reanalyzed" because they thought
the case study reports were the case study, a mistake similar to confusing an
SPSS printout of descriptive statistics with the data set itself.
Because many researchers in comparative studies associate the term "case
study" with the type of case that summarizes and portrays a range of practices
as "typical" or "the norm" for a given nation, the nature of the case study data
is not taken into account. The immense amount of textual data in any given
,case study presents problems for the final write-up of reports, an area that I
have not dealt with here. Nevertheless, in both TIMSS and the Civic Education
Study, large amounts of data were distilled and used in the overall research
process. However, several important differences between the two case studies
in terms of the collection and analysis of data may be instructive for future
researchers.
The TIMSS case study was a truly ethnographic one. The researchers were
picked for their intimate knowledge of a specific country - its language
and culture - and they spent at least three months in the "field" conducting
interviews and observations in the schools. Teams of field researchers, which
included scholars who were natives of each of the three countries, focused on
collecting and doing preliminary analysis of the data. Field researchers received
a common training and focused on data collection while in their respective
countries. The Civic Education case studies are more historical in nature,
and although individual interviews were conducted in nearly every country,
these were few in number compared to TIMSS. The researchers for the Civic
Education study (the NPRs) were already resident in the nation, and so assumed
to be "experts" on the nation in question, whereas in TIMSS, the field
researchers were expected to become "experts" about the school sites to
270 GERALD LETENDRE
which they were assigned. The NPRs thus brought with them considerable prior
experience of the topic, but they did not collect the kinds of new data that the
TIMSS researchers did. TIMSS and Civic Education differed in both the focus
and the basic data collection procedures used by the primary researchers.
The Civic Education case study was more limited in its focus than
was the TIMSS case study, which addressed four major areas: individual
differences, adolescent lives, national standards and teachers' lives. This
meant that the questions and queries of the TIMSS researchers were broader
than those of the Civic Education Study researchers and so tended to generate
a great many detailed transcripts, which, to date, have been only partially
analyzed. The TIMSS case study, however, was not connected with either
the survey or the test elements of the overall TIMSS project. The case study,
the collection of quantitative data and the videotaping were conducted as
"stand-alone" research projects. As a consequence, the secondary analysis
of TIMSS data has followed divergent paths, with both qualitative and
quantitative data being used to generate separate analyses (see again
Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). With Civic Education, the quantitative data
collection process (Torney-Purta et al., 2001) was informed by the process
of discussion and qualitative analysis that occurred during the qualitative
data collection. The Civic Education Study was able to harness the theory
generation aspect of qualitative work in a way that TIMSS could not.
Although the TIMSS case study researchers collected far more data than did
the Civic Education NPRs (because all TIMSS data were collected simulta-
neously), there was no chance for the insights provided by the case studies
to inform the development of surveys or achievement instruments.
In both studies, the extent to which the NEPs actively assisted the field
researcher or NPR by providing input varied. In some countries, the panels
closely followed the work of the NPRs; in others, the NPRs were left
very much on their "own." However, it appears that there was somewhat more
coordination between expert panels and researchers on the Civic Education
Study than on TIMSS. The reason for this may be due in part to the fact
that the NPRs were residents of the countries and so more likely to have
professional ties to the expert panels.
In terms of the two studies' steering committees, the TIMSS committee was
based in one place (the University of Michigan), with contact between the
committee and the field researchers largely centered on that location, although
some meetings did take place in other United States cities. The Civic Education
Study had many more members on its committee, and they were based and met in
different geographical locations around the world. The Civic Education Study
team was thus more truly international than the T1MSS team.
SUMMARY
Civics, as a topic of study, prompts the adoption of research techniques that
can be used on any range of topics. However, the techniques chosen also
have to take into account the fact that civics, as a curricular subject, and unlike
mathematics or even science, is hard to define. It was this consideration that
pushed the Civic Education Study steering committee into adopting research
methods and perspectives more commonly found within the broad and
amorphous area of "qualitative research." In doing so, they organized a type
of study that offers a model for future studies of international achievement.
In this regard, the results of the TIMSS case study and video project point
to the likelihood that future such studies will require more complex research
approaches than previously used. Even though the presence of "authoritative
intended" curricula for subjects like mathematics and science seemingly "serve
as reasonable starting points" for research in these fields, a growing number of
studies suggests that cultural considerations also need to be taken into account
(see, for example, Lee, Graham & Stevenson, 1996; Tsuchida & Lewis, 1996;
Stigler, Fernandez & Yoshida, 1996). As international studies of achievement
grow more complex, and the methods used to collect and analyze data more
refined, the impact of various cultural domains (school culture, regional cultural
and/or national culture) will play an increasingly important role in the entire
research process. To fully understand how achievement is contextualized in
a given nation requires not only sets of complex data but also a range of
analytical methods that draw out conflicting views, contested areas and shared
beliefs.
The last decade has seen the continued call for more culturally sensitive
(appropriate) analysis and interpretation of international educational data,
particularly achievement data. There has been a growing expectation that
researchers who use such data sets will be either experts in or have access to
expert advice in the nations selected for comparison. However, this trend alone
will not affect the basic collection of the data. If there is to be a significant
change in the type of data collected - a change that will allow far more
sophisticated qualitative analysis to be conducted - then qualitative data
collection and analysis cannot be simply relegated to the "descriptive" mode.
Both the Civic Education Study and TIMSS have demonstrated that rich
qualitative data, analyzed using methods derived from current qualitative
educational research, can have dramatic effects on the orientation of the research
process.
The use to which data gathered by TIMSS have been put also offers insights
for future projects. One alarming trend has been the tendency for media and
272 GERALD LETENDRE
policy groups to use TIMSS's qualitative data as evidence of the "real"

conditions in a given country. This is particularly true of the video study
conducted by Stigler. Demonstration clips of the videos have been widely
shown on the implicit assumption that educators and policy-makers can directly
use this type of "data" even when it has not been "interpreted" by scholars.
While the aim of creating straightforward data free of disciplinary jargon is
a good one, qualitative data are perhaps more easily misinterpreted than
quantitative data. The impact of a five-minute video clip or an evocative quote
from an interview transcript cannot be denied, but this impact may be
misleading. All data, qualitative or quantitative, are representations of reality.
Experienced ethnographers know that five minutes after the camera or

tape-recorder is turned off, drastically different events may occur or conflicting
statements may be made. The presentation of qualitative data, then, must be
carefully framed within an explicit outline of the methods used to collect and
analyze it.
The greatest danger lies in assuming that all that can be done with qualita-
tive data is to provide the cultural "context" for quantitative analyses.
Unfortunately, this did occur with TIMSS. In contrast, the Civic Education
Study researchers used the hypothesis-generating function of the qualitative
work to challenge original hypotheses and to dramatically re-cast the project.
This continued use of reflective analysis changed the Civic Education Study
from a more traditional "input-output" study to one that was indeed truly process
oriented. Moreover, because the Civic Education case studies were conducted
well in advance of the survey and testing aspects, the Civic Education Study
researchers were able to capitalize on the qualitative data in a way that the
TIMSS researchers could not.
Comparative education scholars have long been aware of the different cultural
values attached to school, learning and teaching in different nations or among
different groups within a given nation. However, recent international achieve-
ment studies have rarely attempted to analyze systematically the cultural
components of achievement. Over 30 years ago, Jones (1971) hailed the first
International Mathematics Study (FIMS), but nevertheless stressed that "because
comparative education is concerned with cross-national or cross-cultural
variability, one of its tasks ought to be the advancing of hypotheses which can
be tested in either established or novel ways" (p. 153). The ethnographic case
studies of the Civic Education Study offer established ways to use qualitative
data to generate and test hypotheses. These approaches have been used for at
least two decades in some areas of qualitative studies, but they present, for the
field of comparative education, novel ways to think about the problems of
comparison.
The politically contested nature of civic education prompted the Civic

Education Study's NPRs and steering committee to alter significantly the
research process that has traditionally been applied to cross-national studies of
achievement. Topics like democracy and citizenship evoke very different
associations in different countries, and even between various groups within a
given nation, a fact that fortunately clarifies rather than obscures the impact
of culture on curriculum, teaching and expectations for competence. The
experience of the civic education researchers suggests that the use of qualitative
data for hypothesis generation and the use of a reflective research process that
links qualitative and quantitative data have significant promise for the study of
achievement in any subject. In addition, continued recourse to highly

integrated studies that utilize a range of research methodologies promises to bring
comparative studies of achievement to a new and higher level of usefulness.
The Civic Education researchers incorporated a range of qualitative tech-
niques, innovative uses of technology, and extensive literature reviews, and
were highly sensitive to the impact of methodological decisions on the kinds
of data collected and the interpretations arrived at. Despite the tremendous
amount of material reviewed and summarized, as well as the incredible cultural,
social and political diversity represented by the participating nations, the work
of these researchers not only is providing crucial insights into the actualization
of qualitative methods on a large scale but also is offering "comparativists" and
"qualitative researchers" alike a wealth of information.
NOTES
1. Qualitative research refers to a broad spectrum of studies ranging from ethnogra-

phies of schools and communities (e.g. Wolcott, 1967) to linguistic studies of schools,
classroom interaction and childhood socialization (e.g. Heath, 1983). In this chapter I
use a rather inclusive definition: one that includes all of the various types of research
listed by Jacob (1988). This inclusive approach is necessary because the methods used
in the case studies described in this chapter have been influenced by a wide variety of
scholars utilizing distinct methodological orientations.
2. Like "qualitative research", the term "culture" has many contested meanings. Louise
Spindler, in her work Culture Change and Modernization, provides a succinct descrip-
tion: "Culture... refers to shared designs for living. It is not the people or things or
behaviors themselves. Culture can be equated with the shared models people carry in
their minds for perceiving, relating to, and interpreting the world about them . . . . These
models are not replicas of each other. Every individual has his or her version" (1977,
p. 4).
3. Merriam describes four major types of case studies: ethnographic, historical,
psychological and sociological, with her typology based on the focus and methodolog-
ical tradition that informs each study.
274 GERALD LETENDRE
4. This increasing fragmentation of qualitative research in education has posed great

difficulties for any sustained dialog about how qualitative and quantitative data might
be linked in terms of international achievement data. Within the qualitative traditions,
some scholars are openly hostile to the mixing of methodologies and have vigorously
argued against the use of qualitative and quantitative research strategies within the same
project (e.g. Leininger, 1985).
5. One negative impact of email on large-scale qualitative projects that Carol Kinney
(1994) has identified is the tendency for the first field researchers to effectively direct
the attention of subsequent field researchers. While this "bias" has not been a factor in
the Civic Education Study, it is one that researchers who anticipate sending several field
researchers to the same site at different times would do well to consider.
6. See, for example, the section on culture in Eckstein and Noah (1969). The basic
methodology employed appears to vary little from that used by the Whitings.
REFERENCES
Altbach, P. (1991). Trends in Comparative Education. Comparative Education Review, 35(3),

49t-507.
Anderson-Levitt, K. (2001). Teaching Culture. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Baker, D. (1994). In Comparative Isolation: Why Comparative Research has so Little Influence on
American Sociology of Education. Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization,
10, 53-70.
Bereday, G. Z. F. (1964). Comparative Method in Education. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Carspecken, P. (1996). Critical Ethnography in Educational Research. New York: Routledge.
Crossley, M, & Vnlliamy, G. (Eds) (1997). Qualitative Educational Research in Developing
Countries. New York: Garland Press.
Eckstein, M., & Noah, H. (F_As) (1969). Scientific Investigations in Comparative Education. New
York: Macmillan.
Fujita, M., & Sano, T. (1988). Children in American and Japanese day-care centers: Ethnography
and reflective cross-cultural interviewing. In: H. Trueba & C. Delgao-Gaitan (Eds), School
and Society: Learning through Culture (pp. 73-97). New York: Praeger.
Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Greenfield, P., & Cocking, R. (Eds) (1994). Cross-Cultural Roots of Minority Child Development.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm Associates.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Highlen, P. S., & Finley, H. C. (t996). Doing qualitative analysis. In: F. T. L. Leong & J. T. Austin
(Eds), The Psychology Research Handbook (pp. 177-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Heyneman, S., & Loxtey, W. (1982). Influences on Academic Achievement across High and Low
Income Countries: A Re-Analysis of IEA Data. Sociology of Education, 55(1), 13-21.
Holmes, B. (1'981). Comparative Education: Some Considerations of Method. London/Boston: Allen
and Unwin.
Holmes, B. (1988). Theories and Methods in Comparative Education. New York: P. Lang.
Cross-National Studies and the Analysis o f Comparative Qualitative Research 275
Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative Research Traditions: A Review. Review of Educational Research,

57(1), Spring, 1-50.
Jacob, E. (1988). Clarifying Qualitative Research: A Focus on Traditions. Educational Researcher
January/February, 16--24.
Jones, P. E. (1971). Comparative Education: Purpose and Method. St. Lucia, Qld: University of
Queensland Press.
Kandel, I. L. (1933). Comparative Education. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Kelly, G., & Altbach, P. (1986). Comparative education: challenge and response. In: P. Altbach &
G. Kelly (Eds), New Approaches to Comparative Education (pp. 309-327). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Kinney, C. (1994). From a Lower-track School to a Low Status Job. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lee, S., Graham, T., & Stevenson, H. (1996). Teachers and teaching: elementary schools in Japan
and the United States. In: T. P. Rohlen & G. K. LeTendre (Eds), Teaching and Learning
in Japan (pp. 157-189). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Leininger, M. (1985). Nature, rationale, and importance of qualitative research methods in nursing.
In: M. Leininger (Ed.), Qualitative Research Methods in Nursing (pp. 1-25). Orlando, FL:
Grune and Stratton.
LeTendre, G. (1999). The Problem of Japan: Qualitative Studies and International Educational
Comparisons. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 38-48.
LcTendre, G. (2000). Learning to be Adolescent: Growing Up in U.S. and Japanese Middle Schools.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Gnba, E. G. (1990). Judging the Quality of Case Study Reports. Qualitative
Studies in Education, 3(1), 53-59.
Masemann, V. (1990). Ways of Knowing: Implications for Comparative Education. Comparative
Education Review, 34(4), 465-473.
Masemaun, V. 0982). Critical Ethnography in the Study of Comparative Education. Comparative
Education, 26, 1-15.
Mazrui, A. (1975). The African University as a Multinational Corporation: Problems of Penetration
and Dependency. Harvard Educational Review, 45(2), 191-210.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case Study Research in Education: A Qualitative Approach. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B. (1990). New Methods for Qualitative Data Collection and Analysis: Vignettes and
Pre-structured Cases. Qualitative Studies in Education, 3(1), 37-51.
Munroe, R., Munroe, R. L., & Whiting, B. B. (Eds) (1981). Handbook of Cross-Cultural Human
Development. New York: Garland Press.
Olmsted, P. P., & Weikart, D. P. (Eds) (1986). How Nations Serve Young Children: Profiles of
Child Care and Education in 14 Countries. Ypsilanti, MI: The High/Scope Press.
Peak, L. (1991). Learning to Go to School in Japan. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Ray, D., & Poonwassie, D. (Eds) (1992). Education and Cultural Differences. New York: Garland.
Rosenfeld, G. (1971). "'Shut those thick lips!'" A Study of Slum School Failure. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Schlegel, A., & Barry, H. (1991). Adolescence: An Anthropological Inquiry. New York: MacMillan.
Spindler, G. (1973). Burgbach: Urbanization and Identity in a German Village. New York: Holt,
Rinehart mad Winston.
Spindler, G. (1974). Education and Cultural Process: Toward an Anthropology of Education, New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
276 GERALD LETENDRE
Spindler, G. (Ed.). (1982). Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in

Action. l~rospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1987). Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and Abroad.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbanm.
Spindler, G., & Spindler, L. (1992). Cultural process and ethnography: an anthropological perspec-
tive. In M. LeCompte, W. Milroy & J. Preissle (Eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research
in Education (pp. 53-92). New York: Academic Press.
Spindler, L. (1977). Culture Change and Modernization: Mini-Modules and Case Studies. Prospect
Heights, 1L: Waveland Press.
Spradley, J. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stake, R. E. (1978). The Case Study Method in Social Inquiry. Educational Researcher February,
5-8.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stigler, J., Fernandez, C., & Yoshida, M. (1996). Cultures of mathematics instruction in Japanese
and American elementary classrooms. In: T. P. Rohlen & G. K. LeTendre (Eds), Teaching
and Learning in Japan (pp. 213-247). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Taylor, A. (1996). Education for Democracy: Assimilation or Emancipation for Aboriginal
Australians. Comparative Education Review, 40(4), 426438.
Tobin, J. J., Wu, D. Y. H., & Davidson, D. H. (1989). Preschool in Three Cultures: Japan, China,
and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Torney-Purta, J. (1987). The role of comparative education in the debate on excellence. In:
R. Lawson, V. Rust & S. sharer (Eds), Education and Social Concern: An Approach to
Social Foundations (pp. 80-89). Ann Arbor, MI: Prakken Publications.
Torney-Purta, J. (1994a). Civic education: proposal approved by the IEA for a two-phased study.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Torney-Purta, J. (1994b). Final guidelines: national case studies, IEA Civic Education Project.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Toruey-Purta, J. (1996). Supplementary guidelines for the summaries of the core international
framing questions I-IV by points (g) through (q), December, 1995. Unpublished paper,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Torney-Purta, J., & Schwille, J. (1986). Civic Values Learned in School: Policy and Practice in
Industrialized Nations. Comparative Education Review, 30(1), 30-49.
Tsuchida, I., & Lewis, C. (1996). Responsibility and learning: some preliminary hypotheses about
Japnese elementary classrooms. In: T. P. Rohlen & G. K. LeTendre (Eds), Teaching and
Learning in Japan (pp. 190-212). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the Field: On Writing Ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 1988.
Whiting, B., & Whiting, J. (Eds) (1975). Children of Six Cultures: A Psycho-Cultural Analysis.
Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press.
Willis, P. (1977). Learning to Labour. Farnbourough: Saxon House.
Wolcott, H. F. (1967). A Kwakiutl Village and School. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wolcott, H. F. (1992). Posturing in qualitative research. In: M. LeCompte, W. Millroy & J. Preissle
(Eds), The Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education (pp. 3-52). New York: Academic
Press, Inc.
Wolf, M. (1992). A Thrice-Told Tale: Feminism, Postmodernism, and Ethnographic Responsibility.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Zhong, S. H. (1989). Young children's care and education in the People's Republic of China. In:
P. Olmsted & D. Weikart. (Eds), How Nations Serve Young Children: Profiles of Child
Care and Education in 14 Countries (pp. 241-254). Ypsilanti, MI: The High Scope Press.

42:4, 533-548. [CrossRef]
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
Jo-Ann Amadeo, Ph.D., Faculty Research Associate, Department of Human

Development, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland (USA)
David Kerr, M.Ed., Principal Research Fellow, National Foundation for
Education Research in England and Wales (NFER), Slough (England)
Downloaded by Iowa State University At 17:30 01 March 2017 (PT)
Georgia Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Ph.D., Professor of Sociology of

Education and Educational Research, National and Kapodistrian University
of Athens, Athens (Greece)
Wing On Lee, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Educational Policy and

Administration and Head, Centre for Citizenship Education, The Hong Kong
Institute of Education (Hong Kong)
Gerald Letendre, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Education Policy Studies,

Eberly Faculty Fellow and Chair of the Committee on Comparative and
International Education, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
PA (USA)
Zsuzsa Matrai, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Education, Miskolc

University (Hungary)
Heinrich Mintrop, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Educational Policy and
Leadership, Urban Schooling Division, Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles (USA)
John Schwille, Ph.D., Professor and Assistant Dean, International Studies in
Education, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan (USA)
Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Comparative and
International Education, Department of International and Transcultural Studies,
Teachers College, Columbia University, New York (USA)
Judith Torney-Purta, Ph.D., Professor of Human Development, College of
Education, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland (USA)
279
AUTHOR INDEX
Ahonen, S. 48, 50, 57-58, 66, 68, Blondin, C. 47, 49, 58, 107, 109, 116,
70-71, 73-74, 77-78, 82, 106, 118, 121, 129, 134
111-112, 115, 122, 126, 134 Bogolubov, L. 43, 45-46, 48, 51, 58,
Albu, G. 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 109, 114, 125, 129, 134, 194-195, 203
119, 132, 134, 194-195, 200, 204 Boli, 241
Alexander, J.C. 184, 203 Bouwman, W. 155, 176

Almond, G. 194-195, 203 Boyd, J. 235, 237
Altbach, P. 180, 203, 239-240, 274-275 Bray, M. 29, 34, 180, 204
Amadeo, J.-A. 5, 9, 12, 17-19, 22, Bronfenbrenner, U. 6-7, 34
25-26, 28, 32, 36-37, 39, 60, 86, 96, Brubaker, 55
104, 139, 178-179, 181-182, 205, Bunescu, G. 42, 45-46, 48, 52, 58, 109,
211, 218, 237, 279 114, 119, 132, 134, 194-195, 200, 203
Amaro, G. 49, 59, 124, 135, 156-158,
178, 18l, 205 Campos, B.P. 5, 14, 49, 135, 156-158,
Anderson, B. 142, 176, 197, 203 178, 181,205
Anderson-Levitt, K. 242, 274 Carspecken, P. 244, 251, 274
Annette, J. 221, 235 Chandler, K. 221, 236
Arendt, H. 20, 34, 183-184, 186-187, Charley, B. 221,236
203 Chapman, C. 221,236
Al-nove, R.F. 24, 34 Chatterjee, P. 141-142, 176
Ashton, P. 81-82 Chryssochoou, X. 162, 176
Avdela, E. 163, 176 Cibele, C. 49, 59, 124, 135, 156-158,
178, 181,205
Bacova, V. 170, 176 Clarke, G.M. 45, 58, 60, 106, 114, 131,
Badea, D. 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 109, 114, 136
119, 132, 134, 194-195, 200, 204 Cocking, R. 243, 274
Baker, D. 246, 274 Cogan, J. 140, 176, 208, 236
Balkansky, P. 45, 58, 114, 122, 129, Conover, P. 6, 35
134, 144-145, 176, 194, 200, 203 Constas, M.A. 66, 69-71, 75, 82, 189,
Ban, T. 187, 203 205
Barry, H. 242, 275 Corbin, J. 14, 35
Bauman, Z. 143, 166, 176 Coulby, D. 140, 171, 176
Beck, I. 35 Cox, R. 167, 170-172, 176
Becket, H.S. 18, 26, 35 Crabtree, C. 112-113, 135
Belard, M. 157, 176 Crick, B. 209-210, 236
Benhabib, S. 184, 203 Crossley, M. 24, 35, 240, 242, 274
Bereday, G.Z.F. 180, 203, 243, 245, 274 Cuban, L. 200, 204, 206
Berg-Schlosser, D. 17, 26, 34 Cummings, W.K. 187, 203-204
281
282 AUTHOR INDEX
Dahrendorf, R. 55-56, 58 Hahn, C.M. 67-68, 71, 73, 76, 82

Davidson, D.H. 242-243, 276 H~indle, C. 14, 49-51, 59, 97, 100, 104,
Dawson, W. 187, 205 107, 115-116, 119, 128, 135,
Dekker, H. 48--49, 58, 109, 134, 149-150, 177, 192-193, 204
154-155, 176 Heater, D. 55, 59
Derricott, R. 23, 148-149, 165, 176, 208, Heath, S.B. 250, 273-274
236 Hepburn, M. 221,236
Dilworth, S.T. 67-68, 71, 73, 76, 82 Heslep, R.D. 187, 204
Dimopoulou, K. 162-163, 177 Hess, R. 113, 135, 140, 177
Dragonas, T. 162-163, 176 Heyneman, S. 241, 274
Dunn, R.E. 112-113, 135 Highlen, P.S. 248, 274
Hilker, F. 25, 35
Eckstein, M. 274 Hitchcock, D.I. 187, 204
Einhom, B. 56, 58 Holmes, B. 63, 82, 243, 245, 274

Ellis, P. 170, 176 Hughes, A.S. 45, 58, 60, 106, 114, 131,
136
Farnen, R.E. 113, 136 Hughes, J. 46, 50, 60, 107, 115, 118,
Feldblum, M. 53-54, 59 127, 135, 181,205
Fernandez, C. 271,276 Hughes, P. 67-68, 71, 73, 76, 82
Finley, H.C. 248, 274 Huntington, S.P. 186-187, 197, 204
Foley, 239
Frangoudaki, A. 162-163, 176 Ichilov, O. 10, 28, 44, 47, 59, 99, 101,
Fraser, N. 184, 204 103, 106, 117-118, 132-133, 135,
Fujita, M. 242, 274 208, 218, 236
Fukuyama, F. 185, 204
Fullan, M.G. 226, 236 Jacob, E. 245-246, 248, 273, 275
Janoski, T. 6, 35, 168, 171, 177
Geertz, C. 16, 35, 249, 274 Janowsld, A. 50, 52, 59
Gellner, E. 184, 204 J~szi, O. 99, 104
Gerber, M. 149, 177 Jones, C. 140, 171, 176
Giddens, A. 141, 166, 177 Jones, P.E. 243-244, 272, 275
Gilbert, R. 53-55, 59 Junn, J. 208, 236
Glaser, B. 258, 260, 264, 274
Goldthorpe, J.J. 11, 35 Kaldor, M. 56, 58
Gopinathan, S. 187, 204 Kalous, J. 45, 49, 57, 60, 66, 69, 74, 83,
Gore, J. 208, 236 114, 119, 132, 136
Gotovos, A. 161, 163, 177 Kandel, I.L. 241,275
Graham, T. 271, 275 Kanning, U. 150, 178
Greenaway, E. 235-236 Karsten, S. 154, 177
Greenfield, P. 8, 35, 243, 274 Kavan, Z. 56, 58
Guba, E.G. 244, 258, 275 Kelly, G. 239, 275
Guthenno, J.-M. I85, 204 Kennedy, K. 46, 50, 60, 107, 115, 118,
127, 135, 181,205, 208, 212, 218,
Habermas, J. 54, 56, 59, 185, 204 228, 236
Hahn, C. 45, 59, 67, 72, 82, 119, Kerr, D. 5, 21-22, 26, 28-30, 42, 48,
126-127, 130-131, 135, 152-153, 177, 108, 117, 135, 208, 211,235-236, 279
218, 226, 230, 236 Khan, Y. 187, 204
Hahn, C.L. 190-191,204 Kinney, C. 275
Author Index 283
Kleger, H. 197, 204 Matos, T. 157, 176

Klokova, G.V. 43, 45-46, 48, 51, 58, M:itral, Z. 16-17, 26, 42, 44, 49, 51-52,
125, 129, 134, 194-195, 203 59, 66, 69, 72, 74, 82-83, 95, 98, 101,
Kontagiannopoulou-Polydorides, G. 17, 104, 107, 110, 119, 122, 132, 135,
19-20, 26-28, 33, 138, 162-163, 177, 146-147, 178, 266, 279
279 Mazrui, A. 241, 275
Kottoula, M. 162-163, 177 Meehan, E. 53, 55-56, 59
Koutselini-Ioannidou, M. 46, 49-50, 60, Menezes, I. 49, 59, 124, 135, 156-158,
109, 119, 131, 135 178, 181, 205
Kovalyova, G.S. 12, 43, 45-46, 48, 51, Merriam, S. 18, 35
58, 125, 134, 194-195, 203 Merriam, S.B. 244, 247-248, 258, 273,
275
La Belle, T.J. 196, 204 Meyer 241
Latrucci, E. 159, 177 Meyer, J. 63, 77, 83

Lave, J. 6, 35 Mielke, R. 150, 178
Le M&ais, J. 217, 220, 235, 236-237 Miles, M. 8, 35
Lee, S. 271, 275 Miles, M.B. 248-249, 275
Lee, W.O. 12-14, 19, 22, 25-26, 33, 43, Miller, A. 67-68, 71, 73, 76, 82
50, 59, 66, 69-72, 75, 82, 98, 100, Mintrop, H. 14-16, 22, 26-28, 30, 279
104, 114, 122, 129, 135, 189-190, Mitchell, P. 221, 236
205, 267, 279 Moore-Gilbert, B. 141, 178
Lehmann, R. 30, 36, 63, 83, 104, 115, Mouffe, C. 166, 178
127, 136, 237 Mummendey, A. 150, 178
Lehning, P.B. 55, 59 Munroe, R. 275
Leininger, M. 244, 275 Munroe, R.L. 275
LeTendre, G. 12, 22-24, 28, 242, 275,
279 Nash, G.B. 112-113, 135
Lewis, C. 271, 276 Neuner, G. 193, 205
Liao, T. 67, 70, 75, 82 Niemi, R.G. 208, 221,236
Lim, Y.Y. 187, 205 Noah, H. 274
Lincoln, Y. 244, 275 Noah, HJ. 179, 181, 205
Lincoln, Y.S. 258, 275 Nolin, M.J. 221,236
Lins Ribeiro, G. 186, 205
Lloyd, D. 143, 169, 175, 177 O'Brien, R. 185, 205
Losito, B. 44, 50, 57, 59, 65-66, 68, 71, O'Donnell, S. 235, 237
73, 82, 107, 112, 119, 126, 128, 135, Oestereich, D. 49-51, 59, 97, /00, 104,
159-161, 177 107, 115-116, 119, 128, 135,
Loxley, W. 241, 274 148-150, 177, 192-193, 204
Lynch, J. 202, 205 Olmsted, P.P. 241, 275
Oppenheim, A.N. 113, 136
McClellan, B.E. 187, 205 Oprica, O. 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 109,
McKeown, M. 35 114, 119, 132, 134, 194-195, 200, 204
McLaughlin, T.H. 22, 35, 212, 214, 217, Oswald, H. 30, 36, 63, 83, 86, 104,
236 115, 127, 136, 237
McLean, M. 138, 178
Makrinioti, D. 44, 59, 93, 99, 102, 104, Papanastasiou, C. 46, 49-50, 60, 109,
111, 114, 130-131,135, 161-162, 177 119, 131, 135
Masemann, V. 239-240, 275 Parker, W. 151-152, 178
284 AUTHOR INDEX
Paulston, R.G. 23-24, 35 Stake, R.E. 247, 258, 276

Peak, L. 243, 275 Stan, E. 42, 46, 48, 52, 58, 109, 114,
Poltorak, D. 43, 45--46, 48, 51, 58, 125, 119, 132, 134, 194-195, 200, 204
129, 134, 194-195, 203 Steiner-Khamsi, G. 17, 19-21, 26-27,
Poonwassie, D. 244, 275 33, 165, 178, 187, 200-201,205, 266,
Print, M. 46, 50, 60, 107, 115, 118, 127, 279
135, 181,205 Stevenson, H. 271,275
Przeworski, A. 17, 26, 35 Stigler, J. 271,276
Putnam, R.D. 184, 205 Stodolsky, S. 79, 83
Stoyanov, S. 45, 58, 114, 122, 129, 134,
Ragin, C.C. 11, 18, 26, 33, 35, 196, 144-145, 176, 194, 200, 203
205 Stoyanova, N. 45, 58, 114, 122, 129,
Ray, D. 244, 275 134, 144-145, 176, 194, 200, 203
Reichenbach, R. 46-47, 49, 60, 110, Strajin, D. 52, 60

130, 135 Strauss, A. 14, 35, 258, 260, 264, 274
Resnick, S. 142, 178 Szfics, J. 87, 104
Rosenfeld, G. 250, 275
Ruddock, G. 231,235, 237 Tabberer, R. 235, 237
Rueda, A.R. 42, 50, 60, 119, 122, 124, Tashakkori, A. 267, 270, 276
136 Taylor, A. 243, 276
Ruzza, C. 160, 178 Teddlie, C. 267, 270, 276
Teune, H. 8, 17, 26, 36
Salemi, A. 65-66, 72, 83, 159-160, 178 Thomas, P. 143, 169, 175, 177
Sano, T. 242, 274 Thomas, R.M. 29, 34, 180, 204
Sassen, S. 186, 205 Thurow, L. 64, 82
Schedler, A. 185-186, 205 Tilly, C. 11, 18, 26, 36
Schillings, P. 47, 49, 58, 107, 109, 116, Tobin, J.J. 242-243, 276
118, 121, 129, 134 Tomoda, Y. 187, 204
Schlegel, A. 242, 275 Topalova, V. 144, 178
Schulz, W. 30, 36, 63, 83, 104, 115, Torney, J. 113, 135, 140, 177
127, 136, 237 Torney, J.V. 113, 136
Schwille, J. 5, 9, 12, 17-19, 22, 25-26, Torney-Purta, J. 5, 9, 30, 36-37, 39, 60,
28, 32, 36-37, 39, 60, 86, 96, 104, 63, 83, 86, 96, 104, 115, 127, 136,
139, 178, 181-182, 205, 211, 218, 139, 178, 181-182, 205, 211,218,
237, 251,276, 279 237, 240, 246, 251, 254, 264, 270,
Searing, D. 6, 35 276, 279
Sears, A.M. 45, 58, 60, 106, 114, 131, Tortes, C.A. 24, 34
136 Trommer, L. 49-51, 59, 97, 100, 104,
Sewell, W.H. Jr. 142-143, 178 107, 115-116, 119, 128, 135,
Sharma, S. 154, 178 148-150, 177, 192-193, 204
Sinatra, G. 35 Tsuchida, I. 271, 276
Solomon, J. 44, 59, 93, 99, 102, 104, Turner, B. 168, 178
111, 114, 130-131, 135, 161-162, Turner, B.S. 55, 60
177 Tyack, D. 200, 206
Soysal, Y.N. 14, 35, 53-56, 60
Spindler, G. 235, 248, 258, 275-276 Vfilkovg, J. 45, 49, 57, 60, 66, 69, 74,
Spindler, L. 235, 258, 273, 276 83, 114, 119, 132, 136
Spradley, J. 25, 249, 276 van Gunsteren, H. 56-57, 60
Author Index 285
Van Maanen, J. 244, 276 Willis, P. 243, 276

Verba, S. 194--195, 203 Wolco~, H.F. 244, 250, 273, 276
Virta, A. 48, 50, 57-58, 66, 68, 70-71, Wol~M. 245, 250, 266, 276
73-74, 77-78, 82, 106, 111-112, 115, Wolff, R. 142, 178
122, 126, 134 Wong, S. 66, 69-71, 75, 82
Vulliamy, G. 24, 35, 240, 242, 274 Wu, D.Y.H. 242-243, 276
Wal~rs, J. 196, 206 Xavier, E. 49, 59, 124, 135, 156-158,

Walton, J. 21, 36 178, 181,205
Ward, C.R. 196, 204
Webb, R. 81-82 Yin, R. 247-248, 258, 277
Weber, E.J. 127, 136 Yoshida, M. 271,276
Weikart, D.P. 241,275 Young, I.M. 184, 206
Wenger, E. 6, 35
Wenzel, M. 150, 178 Zahariev, S. 45, 58, 114, 122, 129, 134,
Whiting, B. 242, 248, 276 144-145, 176, 194, 200, 203
Whiting, B.B. 242, 275 Zaleskiene, I. 46,52,57,60,111, l17,136
Whiting, J. 248, 276 Zhong, S.H. 241, 277
SUBJECT INDEX
NOTE: page numbers in italic f i g u r e s refer to illustrations.
analysis 12-24, 33-34 civics and students' experience

triangulation method 22, 29, 31, 144-146

208-232 national identity 129
see also cross-cutting analysis;
qualitative analysis; quantitative Canada
analysis curriculum in Ontario 227
Arabs, national minority in Israel 93-94 instructional practices 228
Australia need for civic education reform 106, 114
civics and the curriculum 108, 226 pluralistic ideal 45
cross-curricular civic education 111 social cohesion and diversity 13l
"Discovery Democracy" initiative 219, case selection see sampling
227, 229 China, re-annexation of Hong Kong 89,
domain of democracy 126-127 90-91
global citizenship 50 Chinese Taipei 82
interactive civics 115 avoidance of controversy 73
multiculturalism 46 institutional context of school 75, 76
student government 118 social changes and education 70
student learning 107 teacher education 63-64, 67
citizenship
Balkan States, national identity conflicts 87 changing notions 14, 34, 37-58
Belgium civil society 56
civics and the curriculum 109 in context of societal spheres 179-203
depoliticization of citizenship 47 cross-country variations in perception
European Union citizenship 49 167-170, 245
extra-curricular civics 116 culturalist and particularistic definitions
ideological neutrality 120-121 41, 45-47
multiple civic identities 46, 129, 268 depoliticization and deideologization
student awareness 10 13, 41, 47-48
student councils 118 extended definitions 41
Bulgaria global 13, 41, 48-51, 55-56
avoidance of political ideology 114, humanistic and universalistic
194 definitions 40, 44, 45
civic identity 45 multiple 55-56
civics and the curriculum 108 political socialization in schools 139,
civics and mass media 122 167-170
287
288 SUBJECT INDEX
citizenship c o n t i n u e d . . . and social cohesion formation 102-109

post-national perspectives 53-54 social reflexivity 141-143, 174-176
postmodern perspectives 53 solidarity education 99-102
research s e e comparative education student assessment 125
research student attitudes 68-70, 76-77, 78,
self-definition 40, 42-43 106
"spheres of citizenship" 20-21, student government 123
179-203 student learning 107, 113, 225-228
supranational 13, 20, 34, 41, 48-51 student rights 117-119, 123
citizenship education and students' experience outside
alms 57-58, 216-221 school 20, 137-176
avoidance of controversy 72-73, teacher education 15, 65-67, 78-81,
113-114 125, 228-230
cohesion formation 96-103 teacher specialization 228-230

comparative education research s e e teachers' civic attitudes 81
comparative education research teaching 61-81,225-228
conceptions of civic education 78, textbooks 231-232
79-80 transnational educational borrowing
concepts of citizenship 20-21, 57-58 201-202
conflict resolution 96-103 ubiquitous and elusive 17-19,
context-sensitive concepts 25 105-134
continuum 214-216 values 216-221
curriculum s e e curriculum "values-explicit" o1" "values-neutral"?
development 217, 220-221
discrepancy between policy and citizenship identity
practice 214, 228 collective 42
discrepancy between theory and humanistic definitions 43--45
practice 199-203 multiple 46
distinct from civic education 215-216 personal 42
educational packages 202 universalistic definitions 43-45
influencing factors 219, 225 s e e a l s o national identity
institutional context 73-76, 80 civic education
international discourse 77, 214 distinct from citizenship education
international factors 63-65 215-216
international u'ansfer of programs 218, s e e a l s o citizenship education;
226 curriculum development
media education as an inclusion Civic Education Study s e e IEA Civic
response 121-122 Education Study
and national civic traditions 63-64 civic sphere of citizenship 182, 186, 188,
and national identity conflicts 96-104 189-193, 197-198
nature and status 3, 32-33 civics s e e citizenship education; civic
need for school reform 17-19, education; curriculum development
105-125 Civil Rights Movement 184
objectives 57-58, 216-221 Colombia
political context 137-176 civics and mass media 122
religion as an exclusion response national identity 50
120-121 status of civic education 12
and school organization 117-119 colonization of minds 186
Subject Index 289
communication networks cultural democratization 55

email 255-256 cultural diversity 47-48
s e e a l s o World Wide Web cultural groups, self-determination 54-55
comparative education research cultural heterogeneity 91
analysis s e e analysis cultural homogeneity 54, 91
Big-N 8 cultural nation 87-97
"case oriented" methodologies 8, 11, culture, in lEA achievement studies 23,
18 243
case studies and differences in curriculum development 4, 39, 79-80
approach 269-273 changing notions of citizenship 13-14
communication networks 254-257 cross-curricular approach 110-113, 222
conceptions of citizenship 14, 34, cross-national studies 14-16, 219
37-58 domain of civic education 11, 125-133
constant comparative method 258-259 domain of democracy and human

in context of societal spheres 179-203 rights 39, 125-127
contextual and cultural sensitivity domain of national identity 39,
181-188 127-130
cross-cutting analysis s e e cross-cutting domain of social cohesion and
analysis diversity 40, 131-133
cross-national analysis 1-9 economic dimension 34
decontextualization 180 "education for citizenship" projects 227
and educational reform 2 exclusion of issues 165
educational transfer 201-202 "homogenization" 165, 173, 175
ethnographic case studies 24, 247-254 institutions of modernity 165-166
formulation of spheres 182-188 modernist knowledge systems 174
international comparative studies 1-4 and national identity conflicts 85-104
investigations of national systems need for reform 107-113
241-242 primary curriculum 223-224
perspective of context 180 secondary curriculum 224-225
qualitative analysis s e e qualitative and students' political experience
analysis 137-176
quantitative analysis s e e quantitative time allocation to civics 109
analysis s e e a l s o citizenship education
reduction of variables 17 Cyprus
reflexivity in the research process civics and the curriculum 109
266-267 dual national identity 46
sampling s e e sampling European Union citizenship 49, 50
Small-N 8, 11, 24 social cohesion and diversity 131
"variable-oriented" methodologies 8 student councils 119
s e e a l s o IEA Civic Education Study Czech Republic
Confucian tradition 186-187 civic identity 45
constitutional sphere of citizenship 182, and European Union 49
190, 195, 197, 199 institutional context of school 74, 76
country case studies s e e lEA Civic instructional practices 72
Education Study minorities 132
cross-cutting analysis 38-42 student attitudes 68-69
s e e a l s o analysis; qualitative analysis; student rights 119
quantitative analysis teacher education 63-64, 66
290 SUBJECT INDEX
data s e e lEA Civic Education Study, data extra-curricular civics 117, 227
decolonization 53 Junior Citizenship project 227
democracy 25, 39, 117-119 national identity 42
core domain 10, 11, 125-127 values and the curriculum 221
cross-country variation in perception environmental issues 50-51
166-167, 196, 199 ethnographic case studies 24, 247-254
social and political education 139, European citizenship 20, 34, 49-50, 53,
166-167 193
Department for Education and European Union 41, 49, 51, 53, 55
Employment s e e England: Department
for Education and Employment Finland
DfEE s e e England: Department for civics and mass media 122
Education and Employment depoliticization of citizenship 48
disenfranchised groups, political domain of democracy 126

socialization in schools 139, 171-172 environmental concerns 50
institutional context of school 73-74
ecological issues 50-51 instructional practices 71, 114-115
economic concerns status of civic education 112
and citizenship concepts 19, 51-52, 55 student attitudes 68, 106
and social cohesion 102 teacher education 63-64, 66
economic sphere of citizenship 182, 186, freemarket economy, political,
197 socialization in schools 139, 170
German case study 192 funding civic education, "flags of
Hong Kong case study 190 convenience" 202
United States study 199
education s e e citizenship education gender differences 30, 32
education research s e e comparative geo-political space 87
education research Germany
emall 255-256 civics and students' experience 148-151
England: Citizenship Advisory Group economic concerns 51
209, 210 environmental concerns 50
England: Department for Education and European Union citizenship 49, 51,
Employment 209 193
England: INCA Archive 21-22, 207-235 immigrants and minorities 92
England: International Review of instructional practices 115, 116, 228
Curriculum and Assessment market globalization 50, 51
Frameworks 21-22, 209-239 national identity in civic education 97,
England: National Foundation for 100, 193
Educational Research 209 national identity conflicts 88-89,
England: Qualifications and Curriculum 92-93, 128
Authority 209, 210, 211 Opening the Schools project 227
England: School Curriculum and solidarity education 100
Assessment Authority 209 spheres of citizenship 191-194
England teacher education 230
citizenship education review process global citizenship 13, 41, 48-51, 55-56
208-210 global communications 55-56
civics and the curriculum 108 global market economy 14
depoliticization of citizenship 48 globalization 50, 51, 53, 55, 87, 171
Subject Index 291
Greece identity s e e citizenship identity; national

civic identity 44, 268 identity; personhood
civics and students' experience 161-165 IEA Civic Education Study 4-9, 37-38,
cross-curricular civic education 111 182-183
evolution of civics 114 analysis s e e analysis; cross-cutting
minority populations 93 analysis; qualitative analysis;
national homogeneity 91, 102, 131 quantitative analysis
national identity 130 bias control 16, 257-258, 268
neglect of conflict topics 99, 102 Bratislava meeting 266, 267
case selection s e e sampling procedures
heterogeneity 53-55, 56, 91 compared with TIMSS 239-273
homogeneity 17, 91 concept identification 13
homogenization 165, 173, 175 concepts of citizenship 57-58
Hong Kong conceptual framework 33-34

avoidance of controversy 72, 113-114 core domains 10-12, 33-34, 125-133,
civic identity 43, 50 263
civics and mass media 122 s e e a l s o democracy; human rights;
cultural nation identity 98 national identity; social cohesion
institutional context of school 74-75, 76 and diversity
national identity 88-89, 90-91, 129 cross-cutting analysis 38--42
national identity in civic education curriculum development s e e
97-98, 100 curriculum development
national minorities 95-96 data 9-11, 62-63
spheres of citizenship 188-190 data collection 247-269
student attitudes 6%72 Enschede meeting 260-266
teacher education 63-64, 66-67 ethnographic case studies 24, 247-254,
human rights 39, 43--47, 53-54 258
universal 14, 54, 56 field researchers' concerns 257-269
humanitarianism 50-51 framework creation 33-34, 257-259
Hungary framing questions 9, 10, 62, 250-253,
avoidance of controversy 72, 98, 101, 257
226 methodology 5, 8, 9-11, 22-24, 258
civics and mass media 122 national expert panels (NEPs)
civics and students' experience 146-148 257-258, 266, 267
economic concerns 51, 52 national project representatives (NPRs)
and European Union 49, 51 61,257-263, 266, 267-269
immigrants and minorities 94-95 Octagon Model 6--8, 7
institutional context of school 74, 76 "ownership" and the research process
instructional practices 72, 226, 228 259-260, 266
ininorities 132 phase one 4-6, 61-63, 77-81,
national identity 42, 44, 63-64 266-267
national identity conflicts 89-90, phase two 4-6, 62-63, 77-79
89-91, 98, 101, 110 phases one and two integration 29-33
Roma population 95, 98, 101 qualitative analysis s e e qualitative
solidarity education 101 analysis
student attitudes 6 8 - 6 9 , 107 quantitative analysis s e e quantitative
student rights 119 analysis
teacher education 63, 66, 229 research dialogue and feedback 262-263
292 SUBJECT INDEX
IEA Civic Education Study c o n t i n u e d . . . environmental concerns 50

research process 239-273 institutional context of school 73
spheres of citizenship 20-21, 179-203 instructional practices 72, 228
web site 256 national identity conflicts 128
s e e a l s o comparative education status of civic education 112
research student councils 118-119
IEA Second International Mathematics student learning 68, 70, 71, 107
Study (SIMS) s e e SIMS teacher education 63-64, 65-66, 230
immigrants
and concepts of citizenship 53, 55 Jewish migration 93
illegal 53 s e e a l s o Israel
and national identity 128
INCA Archive s e e England: INCA labor markets, and concepts of
Archive citizenship 53
individual rights Lithuania
and national identity 42 civics linked with history 111
s e e a l s o human rights economic concerns 52
International Association for the multiculturalism 46
Evaluation of Educational
Achievements s e e I E A majority cultures 91-96
international organizations, political solidarity with minority cultures 96
globalization 55 Maryland, University of s e e University
International Review of Curriculum and of Maryland
Assessment Frameworks 21-22, mass media 55, 122
209-239 media education, and civic education
internationalist ideology 90 121-122
internet s e e World Wide Web Michigan, University of s e e University
IRCAF 21-22, 209-239 of Michigan
Islamic tradition 186-187 minorities 54, 91-96
Israel modernism 140-143, 166, 173
civic identity 44 moral sphere of citizenship 19, 182, 198
depoliticization of citizenship 47 multiculturalism 45-47, 171-172
extra-curricular civics 117 multinationalism 90
Jewish immigration 93-94 multiple case study analysis 1-4
national identity in civic education multiple citizenship 55-56
98-99, 101
national identity conflicts 88, 93-94, national case studies s e e IEA Civic
132-133 Education Study
need for civic education reform National Foundation for Educational
105-106 Research s e e England: National
solidarity education 101 Foundation for Educational Research
student councils 118 national identity
Italy associated concepts 10, 11, 13, 39-40,
avoidance of controversy 72 42-43
civic identity 44 and civic education 127-130
civics and students' experience conflicts 85-104
159-161 "cultural nation"/"political nation" 17,
domain of democracy 126 87-91
Subject Index 293
"national majority/national minorities" political system clusters, mixed-design

17, 91-96 sampling 19
phase two data 32 Portugal
self-definition 39-40, 40, 42-43 civics and students' experience 156-159
self-determination 39, 53-55, 56 European union citizenship 49
see also citizenship identity status of civic education 123-124
national territory 87 post-colonialism 141-143, 166, 173
NATO 49 private sphere of citizenship 183-184,
NEPs 257-258, 266, 267 187
Netherlands public-political sphere of citizenship
civics and the curriculum 109 183-185, 186, 187
civics and students' experience
154-156 QCA see England: Qualifications and
depoliticization of citizenship 4 7 4 8 Curriculum Authority

European Union citizenship 49 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
student assessment 125 see England: Qualifications and
"study house" concept 227 Curriculum Authority
New Feminist Movement 184 qualitative analysis 1-9, 13
New World Order 185 case selection see sampling procedure
N F E R see England: National Foundation comparability 24-25
for Educational Research content analysis 13
North Atlantic Treaty Organization see cross-national data 1-9, 34
NATO cultural sensitivity 15-16, 23
NPRs 61, 257-263, 267-269 multi-level 20, 21, 22, 28-31, 30, 31,
32
Palestinians, national identity conflicts qualitative versus comparative methods
88, 94 241-247, 241-249
patriotism 32, 197 reduction of observations 85
personhood 53-54 reduction of variables 17
pluralism 45-47 theoretical framework 5-9
Poland "thick descriptions" 9, 16, 34, 85, 249
civic identity 44, 51-52 triangulation 22, 29, 31, 208-232, 258
and European Union 49 weighting of information 16-17
political concerns see also analysis; comparative
citizens' attitudes 47-48, 49 education research; cross-cutting
and social cohesion 102-103 analysis; quantitative analysis
political context, and civic education quantitative analysis 1-4, 13, 16, 23
137-176 binary constructs 17, 87
political nation, and cultural nation interpretative framework 86-97
87-91 reduction of observations 86
political socialization in schools 137-176 see also analysis; comparative
countries selected for study 138 education research; cross-cutting
interpretative framework 140-143 analysis; qualitative analysis
modernist interpretive framework
140-143, 166 religion, and civic education 120-121
post-colonial interpretive framework religious diversity 47-48
141-143, 166 research see comparative education
topics selected for analysis 139-140 research
294 SUBJECT INDEX
Romania solidarity education 99-102

civic identity 42, 44, 46 Soviet system 87, 89-90
civics and the curriculum 109 "spheres of citizenship" 20-21, 179-203
civics and politics 114 students' assessment 125
deideologization of citizenship 48, students' attitudes 68-70, 76-77, 78,
194 106
economic concerns 52 students' experience outside school,
minorities 132 related to civics curriculum 137-176
spheres of citizenship 194-196 students' government, civic education
student rights 119 reform 123
Russia students' rights and civic education
assessment of students 125 117-119, 123
civic culture 194 students, s e e a l s o citizenship education
civic identity 43, 45, 46 supranational citizenship 13, 20, 34, 41,
deideologization of citizenship 48, 48-51, 52, 55
194 supranational market economy 14
economic concerns 51 Switzerland
national identity 129 attitudes to national identity 129-130
civics and the curriculum 110, 226
sampling and European Union 49
criteria 6, 12, 26 multiculturalism 46
"most different" design 17, 19, 2 6 "perpetual neutrality" 47
"most similar systems" design 19, 2 6
outcome 14-15, 17 Taiwan s e e Chinese Taipei
sampling designs teaching s e e citizenship education
case study format 26, 27-28 Third International Mathematics and
political systems 19 Science Study (TIMSS) 23, 240,
sampling procedure 18, 25-28, 38, 246--247, 257, 269-273
63-65 TIMSS s e e Third International
sample size reduction 16, 17, 27, Mathematics and Science Study
85-87 (TIMSS)
SAR Hong Kong, PR China s e e Hong Trianon Peace Treaty 90
Kong
SCAA s e e England: School Curriculum United Nations 55
and Assessment Authority United States of America
School Curriculum and Assessment avoidance of controversy 72-73
Authority s e e England: School civics and students' experience
Curriculum and Assessment Authority 151-153
schooling s e e citizenship education domain of democracy 126, 127
Second International Science Study educational transfer 201-202
(SISS) s e e SISS institutional context of school 7 5 - 7 6
SIMS 241,246, 248 instructional practices 71-73, 226-227
SISS 249 mock elections 115
Slovenia, economic concerns 52 multiculturalism 45
social cohesion 96 national identity 130
and diversity 10, 11, 40, 131-133 separation of church and state 121
formation 96-103 "service learning" education 221
through solidarity education 99-102 social cohesion and diversity 131
Subject Index 295
spheres of citizenship 190-191 world citizenship see global citizenship

student attitudes 68 World Wide Web 255, 256-257
student rights 119 England's INCA Archive site 235
teacher education 63-64, 66, 229, England's National Grid for Learning
230 site 232
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 42 IEA Civic Education Study database 5,
universal human rights 14, 54, 56 9, 256
University of Maryland, Department of see also emall
Human Development Web-site 5
University of Michigan 270 Yugoslavia, national identity conflicts 87

[International Perspectives on Education and Society Volume 5] Gita Steiner-Khamsi_ Judith Torney-Purta_ John Schwille (Eds.) - New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship_ an International Co

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[International Perspectives on Education and Society Volume 5] Gita Steiner-Khamsi_ Judith Torney-Purta_ John Schwille (Eds.) - New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship_ an International Co

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 • INTRODUCTION:

ISSUES AND INSIGHTS IN

Gita Steiner-Khamsi, Judith Torney-Purta

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

We now have behind us two decades of growing interest in and skepticism

studies as the herald of an era in global-wide school reform in which it matters

the curriculum (including, for example, in history, literature, geography),

THE TWO-PHASE IEA CIVIC EDUCATION STUDY

to identify and examine within a comparative framework the ways in which

The Theoretical Framework of the Qualitative Phase

During preliminary discussions in 1993-1994, many IEA member countries

than in terms of their own objectives. Consequently, starting with country-based

~,< ...... taN ,

Fig. 1. The Octagon Model of the Civic Education Study.

Bronfenbrenner would call most of these carriers part of the "microsystem."

ipating countries to include whatever they thought relevant and important

commonly regarded as irreconcilable. Phase 1 of the IEA Civic Education Study

THE COUNTRY CASE STUDY DATA

(1) The research proposal prepared by each national research coordinator to

question; and what sources should be consulted. In short, the responses

or national loyalty by age 14 or 15? What are 14 or 15 year-olds expected

include reports on primary data collected in many countries especially

on emerging themes that appeared to be relevant to the various contexts. As a

ISSUES OF METHOD AND SUBSTANCE IN THE

comparative political science, comparative economics, and comparative history,

qualitative multiple-case study analysis. It is therefore not surprising that

theories. It is his integration of quantitative and qualitative methods as well as

and de-ideologization of civic education is restricted to case studies from

cross-national description by conducting a content analysis (step 1), then

Keeping in mind these assumptions regarding the "fuzziness" of the research

completeness and quality of available data, gives the following sampling

Finland) the concept or curriculum of civic education is not clearly defined.

Referring to numerous examples, Mintrop illustrates that civic education is

informants. Nevertheless, Mintrop's critical comment is valid. It helps us to

their sampling procedures. In comparative social research, this particular problem

typically, history, religion, language and literature, and geography (for

indication that supranational identity (European citizenship) is considered a

(democracy, citizenship, disenfranchised minorities, free-market economy) and

and political systems. Here, Steiner-Khamsi includes the Romanian case as

tively oriented comparativists and qualitative researchers. Having been closely

studies, it was done so in order to obtain a "typical" or "average" picture of a

SMALL N, GREAT CHALLENGES

The issue of comparability is not restricted to qualitative comparative research.

Fig. 2. Sampling Design in Research Using the Case Sudy Format.

outcomes" design. Steiner-Khamsi, for example, selects the Hong Kong,

active citizenry, and capitalist countries with a politically apathetic or passive

• C l u s t e r 1: Ex-communist countries: Bulgaria, Hungary and the eastern part

Also deserving of particular mention here is that Mintrop, for different

Multi-level Qualitative Analysis

Civic education lends itself to multi-level qualitative analysis because it is a

TOWARD AN INITIAL INTEGRATION OF THE

Case 1' Australia

Fig. 3. Kerr's Multi-level Qualitative Analysis.

be generalized to the countries in question and, in particular, to the national

THE INTERPLAY OF CONSTRUCTS AND DATA:

specific domains of citizenship (democracy, national identity, diversity/social

Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

1. Thomas Misco. 2011. Deontological Reconceptualization: A Study of Moral

The I E A C i v i c Education Study, launched in 1995, was designed as a two-

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

of citizenship beyond country boundaries: "European Union . . . emerges as a

"multicultural co-existence" (p. 573), "cultural diversity" (p. 573), multicultural

individuals to exert their rights). The exercise of individual rights, in turn, is

THE PLACE OF SELF-DEFINITION IN THE