(Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012)

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building
Democratic Citizens

CIVIC AND POLITICAL EDUCATION
Series Editors
Murray Print, University of Sydney, Australia
This series of publications addresses a wide range of key issues in the increasingly
important area of civic and political education. Fundamentally the series is
concerned with the preparation of future citizens but that in itself raises issues.
What role should civic education play in developing future citizens? What forms of
civic and political education are needed to prepare citizens for the future? What
curriculum is appropriate? What role does the informal curriculum play? How
can civic and political education be assessed? There are cognate questions as
well. What do young people understand as democracy? What interest do they
have in politics? And are they concerned with civic participation?
In this series the key topic of civic and political education will be written from
multidisciplinary perspectives by groups of international scholars, representing a
range of disciplines from political science, to education, to sociology and youth
studies. The publications will present new evidence as well as reflect and argue
previous international research on civic and political education. They will present
best practices and innovations that can inform nations as they consider how they
educate their next generations of young citizens.
The publications will be of value to academics, researchers, students as
well as policy makers and practitioners such as those engaged with electoral and
intergovernmental agencies.

Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for Building
Democratic Citizens
Edited by
Murray Print
University of Sydney, Australia
Dirk Lange
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

A C.I.P. record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
ISBN: 978-94-6209-165-8 (paperback)
ISBN: 978-94-6209-166-5 (hardback)
ISBN: 978-94-6209-167-2 (e-book)
Published by: Sense Publishers,
P.O. Box 21858,
3001 AW Rotterdam,
The Netherlands
https://www.sensepublishers.com/
Printed on acid-free paper
All Rights Reserved © 2012 Sense Publishers
No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microﬁlming,
recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the
exception of any material supplied speciﬁcally for the purpose of being entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclu sive use by the purchaser of the work.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgement vii
Introduction 1
Murray Print and Dirk Lange
Part I: Civic education, curriculum and building democratic citizens 5
1. Developing civic education in schools: The Challenge 7
Wolfgang Beutel
2. A curriculum framework for active democratic citizenship education 19
Ahmet Doğanay
3. Citizenship education in and out of school 41
Gonzalo Jover
4. Evaluating the impact of citizenship education in schools:
What Works and What are We Measuring? 57
Avril Keating, Tom Benton and David Kerr
5. Education for democratic citizenship: Values Vs Process 73
Jürgen Menthe
Part II : Teachers and competences for building democratic citizens in schools 79
6. Teacher competences for education for democratic citizenship:
Training and Classification Challenges 81
Kornelija Mrnjaus
7. The development of civic competencies at secondary level
through service-learning pedagogies 99
Conception Naval and Carolina Ugarte
8. Teacher pedagogy and achieving citizenship competences in schools 113
Murray Print
9. Linking teachers’ competences to students’ competences:
Pedagogical Processes 129
Maria-Helena C. Salema
Author Biographies 145

vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The editors wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by the authors,
first to contributing to an invited workshop in Hannover and then reworking their
papers to become chapters in this book.
We also wish to acknowledge the support from the Volkswagen Stiftung for its
assistance with this project.
The project received support from the International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance in Hannover.
Murray Print
University of Sydney, Australia
Dirk Lange
Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany

M. Print and D. Lange (Eds.), Schools, Curriculum and Civic Education for
Building Democratic Citizens, 1–4.
© 2012 Sense Publishers. All rights reserved.
MURRAY PRINT AND DIRK LANGE
INTRODUCTION
Democracy depends on all of us: the price of liberty is not just ‘eternal
vigilance’, as Abraham Lincoln said, but eternal activity.
Sir Bernard Crick (2008)
Modern democracies face many challenges including the ability to sustain
themselves particularly in times of crises. Over the past few years Europe has faced
many challenges to sustaining democracy across a diverse range of culture, countries
and political traditions. Yet a common theme to all democracies in Europe is the
need for active, informed citizens who will sustain democracy.
In acknowledging that the future of their democracy rests with educating the
young, European societies have engaged in some form of educative experience
to prepare their future democratic citizens. Evidence abounds that young citizens,
though generally supportive of institutions such as parliament and the courts, are
distrustful of politicians and political parties. They are supportive of the idea of
and need for government, but invariably perceive governments as unresponsive,
inflexible and ideologically driven by political party ideologies and special interests.
Many elements of traditional representative democratic processes are ignored by
the young potentially ‘preparing’ them for poor citizenship. Young people vote less
than previously, rarely join political parties, don’t contact politicians and they don’t
support them at election times. What competences do young Europeans need to be
active citizens in the 21st
Century?
An invited research symposium drew together leading civic and political educators
from Europe as well as social scientists and educational administrators to address the
above question through two key issues :
1. Identify key competencies required for active citizenship of young people in
Europe of the future.
2. Translate those competencies to school-based activities in the form of curricular
and pedagogical strategies.
To address these issues a group of invited researchers participated in a three-day
symposium in Hannover, Germany funded through a program by the Volkswagen
Stiftung. The participants then engaged in a modified Delphi Method (explained later
in this book) to determine the amount of consensus achieved on the competences.

M. PRINT AND D. LANGE
2
This book is about exploring what those competences are and how they relate to
civic and citizenship education in schools, particularly in the context of Europe.
The task of the participants for this book was to prepare, in conjunction with their
participation in the symposium and the Delphi, a chapter on an aspect of competences
for European citizens in the context of civic education in European schools. The
book has been divided into two sections: the first contains an overview of significant
issues addressing citizenship education schools as they seek to prepare students to
become active, engaged citizens. The second section includes several approaches
to teacher pedagogy for civic and citizenship education in schools and raises issues
of concern about appropriate pedagogy for educating students to become active,
informed citizens.
Wolfgang Beutel presents readers with a challenge for civic education – how can
schools develop democratic learning? He contends that opportunities for democratic
learning already exist is schools, even in elementary schools. Citing example from
German schools he identifies how this may occur such as through learning in projects
Based upon international research and experience in Turkey Ahmet Doganay
argues in chapter two for a curriculum framework for democratic citizenship
education that is relevant for modern times. He commences by examining the type
of citizen needed for a modern democracy, an issue for many countries to address,
particularly described as ‘recent’ democracies. Doganay then examines the role of
the school in delivering education for democratic citizenship and the problematic
issues that arise. In offering a curriculum framework for EDC he focuses upon the
general knowledge, skills and values that would lead to an active, informed citizen.
By contrast Gonzalo Jover reviews citizenship education both inside and
outside of the school. He begins by identifying that Spanish students’ weak point
is their competency in behaving as critical and active citizens. He then reviews
mostly qualitative research in classrooms on student’s civic experience and
finds that Spanish students participate according to their own rules, ones that
are heavily influence by peer pressure. While relatively knowledgeable about
citizenship, as measured by the recent ICCS study, Jover concludes that the
same Spanish students do not feel competent to act as critical and active citizens.
In chapter four Avril Keating, Tom Benton and David Kerr review the impact of
citizenship education in schools using data from the longitudinal survey of students
in England – the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study. CELS is an extremely
valuable study as it is one of the few to follow a cohort of students through their
schooling in citizenship education. The study found evidence of a link between
schools and outcomes, and that there are certain models of organising and delivering
citizenship education in schools which are likely to produce higher levels of
awareness about received citizenship education and, in turn, better citizenship
outcomes for students. However, the authors were clear to identify several caveats to
the findings which, together indicate, at least in CELS, that the gains from citizenship
intervention in schools is modest.

INTRODUCTION
3
The final chapter in part one Jürgen Menthe explores issues of values and
processes within education for democratic citizenship. Menthe argues that values
play a key role in our understanding, and practice, of democracy. In the context of
German history over the past sixty years trying to fortify democracy, this poses a
problem for how citizenship education should be conducted in schools.
In part two four authors examine issues relating to teachers and competences for
building democratic citizens in schools with a focus on Schools in Europe. Korneljja
Mrnjus reviews competences for those who would teach citizenship education in
schools. After wrestling with key terms, he notes in chapter six that in Europe very
few teachers have specific training / preparation in citizenship education. This
lack of competence by teachers in citizenship education for democracy makes the
educating of students to become active, informed citizens even more problematic.
In chapter seven Conception Naval and Carolina Ugarte contend that service
learning, known as community service in some countries, has the potential for
developing civic competencies amongst students. After reviewing the nature of
competences or competencies, the authors examine the nature of service learning
and identifies some that clearly build civic competencies. The role of selected service
learning programs appears to enhance student acquisition of civic competencies
though a stronger research base is required to determine causality.
Examining the forms of teacher pedagogy likely to build competences for active,
informed citizens amongst student Murray Print identifies prospective strategies
as well as the problematic nature of those pedagogies in the context of citizenship
education. Print identifies are large number of potentially powerful pedagogies that
would build civic competencies within students in schools. While the research base
is limited it appears that some methods are likely to build active, informed citizens
more than others. The specific pedagogies depends upon what a teacher, school and
or program seeks to achieve – knowledgeable students, as evidenced by the IEA
studies, civically engaged students or a combination of both. He further identifies
the potential of the informal curriculum in schools as a source of developing civic
competence amongst students.
In the final chapter Salema seeks to link teacher competences to student
competences through the application of pedagogy. From previous work clusters of
teacher competences have been identified that are appropriate for promoting active
citizenship amongst students. Those identified intend to develop student learning to
become independent engaged citizens in the future.
REFERENCES
Crick, B. (2008). Democracy. In J. Arthur, I. Davies, & C. Hahn (Eds.), The Sage handbook of education
for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage Publications.

PART I
CIVIC EDUCATION, CURRICULUM AND BUILDING
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENS

WOLFGANG BEUTEL
DEVELOPING CIVIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS1
The Challenge
Civic education is and will be a necessary charge in schools. However, it needs
further development. This holds for Europe and Germany and, certainly, it also holds
for already established and still developing democratic communities in western
civilization and beyond.
People educated to commit themselves to community, to an open-minded society,
to solidarity, and to social equity is what democracy needs (Dahrendorf 2003). Such
people will recognize that only democracy can offer them framework conditions for
a stable, social and liberal society. However, they will also learn that a society being
democratic and capable of development is mainly charged with perpetual reform and
change of constant conditions. Only these citizens strengthen the society’s ability to
repel intolerance, racism, xenophobia, and violence.
In addition, societies are constantly facing more and more issues and challenges
institutional frameworks of established democratic systems and their functional
elites cannot deal with on their own. Today’s major issues of the future are issues
of global concern. Thus, these problems are of existential importance for present
and future generations and cannot be solved by national politics alone. For global
challenges are based on regional conditions and result in regional effects and for the
social capital to solve political issues is locally embedded, democracy is a form of
politics which cannot work and be developed without a committed and strong civic
society (Putnam 2000).
Political issues with future significance like
• the use of energy and treatment of the non-renewable energy resources of the
Earth;
• economic development and the resulting environmental pollution;
• climate change;
• the growth of the world population and the increasing life expectancy in developed
countries;
• global mobility caused by economy but also by misguided political developments,
supply bottlenecks, and hunger as well as migration, expulsion and flight caused
by cultural, religious, and political repression;
• international conflicts and wars caused by economical, religious and cultural
issues;

W. BEUTEL
8
and many other questions of the social and political reality will play a bigger role in
people’s everyday life – concerning children as well as adolescents. However, we
cannot only deal with these problems in academically coined subjects of traditional
schools anymore. Still, these issues have to become a part of school education for
these major issues of the future will affect children and adolescents. We have to
develop a new form of education which enables children as well as adolescents
to cope with these problems, i.e. an education relevant to civic society and to the
question of working and living together on our planet.
Hence, such civic education cannot only take place in single school subjects (or
single academic disciplines, single school subjects, single subject-curricula) since
this kind of education is more of a challenge and an educational experience for
the school as a whole: It concerns classes as well as school life and, beyond, the
community (cities, villages, or school and communities).
This kind of education has been termed “democratic learning” or “democratic
acting”, respectively, in connection with the Competition for Citizenship
“Democratic Action” (transl. “Wettbewerb Förderprogramm Demokratisch
Handeln“; URL: http://www.demokratisch-handeln.de). This programme has been
operating innovatively at schools and in youth-education for more than 20 years.
Such democratic acting and learning has to accompany students – children as well
as adolescents – throughout their studies. Moreover, is has to be applied among all
types of schools which is especially in Germany a particular issue due to the three-
tier school-system.
As we have seen, democratic learning and democratic acting is an ongoing and
cross-sectional challenge that has to be carried out by schools. However, delineating
these terms is subject to Civic Education (transl. “Demokratiepädagogik”),
which was established as an independent concept in Educational Sciences, most
notably due to the founding of a respective academic association, named the
German Association for Democratic Education (transl. “Deutsche Gesellschaft
fürDemokratiepädagogik” [DeGeDe]). To professionally establish these cross-
sectional charges of Civic Education at school is a pre-requisite for promoting the
student’s democratic competence, which is formative, learning-oriented and which
enhances their decision-making and responsibility.
THE CHALLENGE OF DEMOCRATIC ACTING AND LEARNING AT SCHOOLS
For realising such Civic Education, it is not only of importance to do research,
define and develop the learner’s skills (Audigier 1999). The school as educational
environment becomes essential as well since it determines the character of democratic
learning and acting. The school – of course in combination with the teacher’s
educational expertise –turns into a key factor for effective learning which does only
not consist of static knowledge but which is rather conducive to the development of
competencies and which promotes learners’ participation and commitment (Print et
al. 2002).

DEVELOPING CIVIC EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
9
Since Politics and Civic Education are just as effective as the school conveys
it and creates such experiences for its students, we propose fourteen theses that
emphasize factors and dimensions of democratic school development. My theses
are based on experiences and scientific results of the Competition for Citizenship
“Democratic Action”, which has been operating for 22 years at the University of
Jena, and of the national school competition – named the German School Award
(transl. “Der Deutsche Schulpreis”)–, a contest that has been organized for six
years by the Robert Bosch Foundation in cooperation with education experts with
both academic and practical background and that has been distinctly influenced by
Democratic Education and the aim of developing democratic competencies (Fauser
et al. 2009).
Even in elementary schools democratic learning takes place.
German elementary schools (containing grades 1 to 4) contribute a distinct
percentage of schools participating in the annual invitation for “Democratic Action”.
The figures show that even elementary schools allow for a culture of appreciation
by discursive, considerate methods of making decisions, especially related to issues
of school culture and to rules of dealing with one another in the classroom and
in the school community, and thus, for Democratic Education (Beutel & Fauser
2007). However, promoting democratic competence should start early in learners’
school life. Democratic values – such as tolerance, empathy, experiencing self-
effectiveness, change of perception, constructive ways of dealing with conflicts, the
ability to judge ethically, and a sense of fairness – determine aspects of learning that
should not be experienced as late as at secondary schools. However, in addition to
all those aspects of Civic Education in elementary schools mentioned before, that
are relevant to the educational practice of all schools, secondary schools can offer
diverse options of learning and commitment by dealing with topics of politics and
democracy in cross-curricular school projects. Here, the strong propaedeutic relation
to the tradition of Political Education/Politics in Germany also appears.
2. Political Education and Civic Education have to propose collectively options
and opportunities for substantive democratic project work.
The work of the Competition for Citizenship has a very wide scope since it is oriented
to daily pedagogical work of schools and does neither distinguish between school
levels, school forms nor between the three-tier school system, nor the different
German federal states. First and foremost, project groups, i.e. students and their
teachers, decide while recording their work what exactly democratic citizenship,
learning and commitment mean to them at school. What creates seemingly random
topics of democratic acting (Sander 2007) – what didactics and experts of Political
Education as well as Political Studies, and, sporadically even by pedagogues criticise
as a shortcoming – turns into a quality: Being open to many schools. The concept

W. BEUTEL
10
of democracy is not normatively predetermined in this respect. Rather, students
and teachers who record their projects in a written report answer the question how
democratic citizenship at schools is exactly defined. Such a record does not only
symbolize a reconstruction of the democratic impact on one’s own acting and
learning. Rather, it appears to be an approach to reflect and develop one’s own idea of
“civic awareness” (cf. Lange 2009, transl. “Bürgerbewusstsein”), which is a guiding
principle setting action and skills as goals of learning Politics and Civic Education.
3. Children and adolescents are sources of democratic innovation.
Above all, children and adolescents, i.e. the learners at schools, are sources of
democratic innovation. By seizing their rights at different educational institutions
and, thus, gaining a new perception of their role, they can interact with adults not
only in a role as inexperienced individuals who are to be instructed but rather as
equal partners. Therefore, students become a corrective and a challenge for them
(Krappmann 2000). For instance, heterogeneity turns into a challenge since it can be
more easily conceived and practised at schools than in society as a whole: On the basis
of mutual appreciation and tolerance, and an active and enriching manner of dealing
with one another, heterogeneous learning premises and, moreover, cultural diversity
with respect to the learners’ biographies and origins have to be integrated (Banks
2002). Basically, not even schools as a whole but also single classes and learning
groups shall have access to democracy in terms of appreciation and tolerance. The
children’s and adolescents’ exceptional ability and readiness to innovate becomes
particularly important with regard to the discussion on an “inclusive school-system”
in context with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which
needs to be considered more intensively as a democratic practice at German schools.
Unfortunately, homogeneous learning groups traditionally predominate in Germany.
If German schools could deal with more heterogeneous learning groups in total, they
will need to build increasingly on students’ experiences and potentials of learning
and social interaction.
4. Leaving nobody behind – School needs to be there for any student.
Chances and opportunities for democratic experiences and civic education have to
be offered to all learners of all school types concerning the German three-tier school
system, of all school levels, and of all kinds of schools. This is what the Convention
on the Rights of the Child demands as well with respect to integration and inclusion
of all children and adolescents. Democracy, in particular, is a political form and
an everyday concern in which everybody is equal with regard to their rights of
participation. All citizens, not only those of the well educated social classes and the
functional elites, need to be included and involved in democracy. “With democratic
appreciation we assume an equal ability to judge for all citizens. In democracy, not
everybody is equally intelligent, educated, or experienced. However, democracy

11
does assume an equal ability to evaluate one’s own and the public affairs when
it grants equal rights of participation to all citizens. The political ability to judge
centers on the essential ability to evaluate what is important for one’s own life and
what is not” (cf. Möller 2008: 18f.). Hence – as the German expert in constitutional
law, Christoph Möller, describes the legal and ethical foundation of democracy –,
democracy reasonably grants an equal faculty of judgement and equal rights of
participation to everybody with equal freedom.
5. Democracy has to be developed as a cultural practice and way of life in school.
Based on John Dewey’s pragmatic theory of democracy and his concept of education
in schools, democracy is not just a form of the order of society and of the institutional
organisation of power; rather, democracy concerns the way we deal with one another
in everyday life, as well as it concerns culture and our way of life. “Democracy is
not restricted to single countries. Every group can deal with its own issues on the
premise of equal freedom” (cf. Möller 2008: 82). Being easily accessible in a cultural
and everyday manner is a decisive and important element for the development of
democratic decision-making and responsibility at schools as well as the learning
culture there. This raises the question why such a culture is not practised at schools
as intense as possible: via participation in class, via an appreciative and equal way
of communication, and via a transparent way of evaluation and feedback on pupils’
achievements (Beutel/Beutel 2010).
6. Giving feedback on pupils’achievements at school in a communicative and
differentiated way is part of a democratic school culture.
Changing the assessment of students is an important aspect of school development
and teaching improvement. Learners have to be involved in the evaluation of
their achievements since, first and foremost, it serves them with respect to their
learning. Additionally, studies show that pupils have a distinguished perception of
the system they are assessed with, i.e. the system of marks and reports. Children and
adolescents perceive the evaluation of their achievements as a manner of treating
their personality and biography, as well as their competencies and their motivation.
This is why they expect appreciation by transparency, by communication and
fairness – including criticism of their learning processes and advice how to improve
them. Students expect teachers to assess their achievements professionally, which
means that teachers are to give reasons for marks and reports and to communicate
their judgements in talks. Hence, these steps of school development and teaching
improvement also require systematic ways of professionalization by means of
teacher trainings. If such mutual appreciation between students and teachers with
respect to both learning and assessment can be developed and established as a
common element of schools, another step of enhancing democratic competencies in
school will be accomplished. In this regard, appreciation, self-efficacy of learning,

W. BEUTEL
12
transparency in grading, portfolios and learning reports, as well as efficient teaching
are essential elements of an assessment that promotes Democratic Education.
7. Learning in projects.
Substantive and democratic projects at schools reflect current issues and challenges
which lead to concrete action according to academic research, insight, and expertise.
Eventheprojectitselfisademocraticmethodbymeansofitsbasicelements:choosing
and planning a topic jointly, realizing it with all group members and recording as
well as evaluating it together. Thus, project work is not just a didactic-methodical
option of designing learning processes at schools. Rather, project work contributes
to a current practice of learning which defines the development of democratic
competence as a goal of learning and, therefore, enables schools to steadily focus on
“contemporary key issues”, according to didactician Wolfgang Klafki (1986).
8. There is more than is already known.
Since we can be sure that there is more about Democracy Education in school
practice than is already known, we have to do research on the schools’ experiences
with democratic acting, democratic learning, and Civic Education. Schools that
promote Civic Education consist of teachers, project-groups, as well as students
who recognize and seize opportunities for democratic learning and acting. In order
to monitor these experiences support and supervision by third parties appears to be
helpful. In cooperation with the University of Jena the competition “Democratic
Action” (Beutel & Fauser 2001/2011) found out that schools seize opportunities for
project work whose value for Civic Education first becomes clear retrospectively
for the persons involved, by means of reconstruction and reflection on their project.
Often, such occasional opportunities of learning turn into projects. Of course, such
projects are neither strategically nor curricularly planned. Rather, they develop
from reactions of the group members with respect to challenges, problems, and
conflicts. Likewise, they are not aware of the project’s value of Civic Education and
its contribution to democratic citizenship at first. In many cases, this only happens
when the project groups are concerned with a challenge by a third party who invites
them to systematically record and critically reflect upon their work and processes.
Such an opportunity is provided, for instance, by applying for the Competition for
Citizenship “Democratic Action” or the German School Award.
9. Seizing opportunities for Civic Education – opportunities can be found at every
school.
Hence, it is important to develop awareness for such opportunities and to discuss
constructively how Civic Education can be realised on their basis. Here, quality-
oriented competitions like the Competition for Citizenship “Democratic Action”

13
or the German School Award (Fauser 2009) contribute decisively. By providing
documentation, they create a platform to identify “best practice” examples for
Democracy Education in school and offer an access for empiricism that is concerned
with professional educational practice. More than practised before at German
schools, researchers have to focus on this and systematically investigate impacts on
the quality of learning and school development.
10. Perceiving and understanding schools as individual, single cases and
individual, developing structures.
Pedagogy is a practical academic discipline. It strives to make schools – as social
institutions as well as the learning that takes place there – understandable and to
improve them. For this, pedagogy makes suggestions for educational and school
policy. Hence, it has to monitor education practice at schools – which is eventually
the sum of plenty individual incidents with regard to the schools’ development
work. Additionally, it has to advice and support them in terms of democratic school
development. Accordingly, the experiences and knowledge of schools being willing
to reform, being flexible and distinguished serve as helpful guidelines. German
competitions like Democratic Action and the German School Award show that there
are experiences and prospects for development in school practice. However, these
experiences have little effect on regular schools so far. Nevertheless, these schools
show leads for the development of a democratic school culture. Yet, they require
support by a third party. This is the only way schools can systematically support a
kind of learning which enhances the students’ democratic competence.
11. Academic research and practice of democratic school development have to
cooperate.
Therefore, democratic schools are not only a matter of school criticism and
educational theory, but also one of cooperation between research on school
development and school practice. Existing models of democratic schools are to be
located, investigated, and supported even more. In this regard, their experiences are
to be analysed in terms of feasibility of transfer and, whenever possible, be mediated
to other schools. Thus, a distinct qualitative school research, which identifies
development and acting conditions of successful individual cases – meaning best
practice models – and which analyses them with respect to possibly expanding to
the whole school system has to complement currently influential output-oriented
school research, which measures effects only on the basis of group skill levels.
Here, networks and concepts of rational school management in such systems,
in terms of the Good governance approach, play an increasing role. However,
educational research focusing on the support of democratic school development
has to combine both approaches, the system-oriented and the case-by-case
basis-oriented one.

W. BEUTEL
14
12. Democracy is a principle issue of school education.
Learning of and for democracy, i.e. Civic Education, is not only subject to Social
Studies or Politics in school, respectively. Moreover, it is subject to all learning
processes as well as interdisciplinary skills. Even elementary schools have to
establish elements that promote experiences of appreciation and avoid those of
exclusion. Transparent and understandable decisions concerning teaching are also
basic elements of democratic school practice. Furthermore, there are multiple
methodical and system-related aspects which are also important for learning
democracy and politics at schools since they influence the professional instruction
of all teachers. These “Characteristics of democratic schools” are defined as both
characteristics of school quality and as sub-components of teaching profession
(LISUM 2011).
13. Professional teaching and corresponding teacher training is required.
For having pupils experienced democracy in everyday life at schools and in their
learning processes (Civic Education) – in a manner that values, practical knowledge
concerning democracy and decision-making skills are enhanced – professional
teaching is required. Having democratic-teaching and decision-making skills is
not only due to the teacher’s educational background and their experiences. It is,
moreover, an important and cross-curricular task of teacher training which, therefore,
needs to be considered to a greater extent in the current debate on its reformation
and in regard to the teacher’s professional skills of education. Dealing with school
as a place where substantive contents in terms of Civic Education – regarding living,
learning and experiencing – can be found has to become an integral part of teacher
training at all stages. Currently, German school educationalists debate about a “boost
of professionalization” with regard to teacher training. However, it will take some
time until this development according to the enrichment of teacher’s professional
knowledge with democracy educational elements will spread across the whole
school system.
14. Pedagogical and democratic development of schools belong together.
Schools distinctly influence democratic competence. Good schools provide a
democratic atmosphere, democratic participation of pupils, and teachers who commit
themselves to Civic Education and realise it in their teaching. Civic Education is an
indication of quality for successful schools. Many areas of living and learning at
schools affect central issues of a society based on democratic participation, maturity,
and enlightenment. Hence, knowledge of democracy, its appreciation and the
resulting willingness to promote tolerance, pluralism, democratic participation, and
human rights in daily life are core tasks of education at school reaching far beyond
Politics as a single subject.

15
CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRATIC SCHOOLS: WHAT SCHOOLS NEED, WHAT
THEY ARE ABLE TO AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE
The discussion concerning Civic Education reflects an important aspect of current
school development. Basically, the protagonists agree upon that a school being
effective and performance-enhancing concerning the pupils’ achievements cannot
neglect the question of its personal and democratic quality. Today, a school appears
to be no longer the sum of its students’ achievements in each subject but rather as
an institution which has to convey skills and virtues of living in a complex, global
society. It is a necessity to offer all students a perspective of a life in a developed
societythattheyarethemselvesresponsibleof.Thus,schoolsareobligedtogiveevery
student the opportunity of an individually appropriate education. “In this respect,
educational equity is an active support of the student’s performance development
which can only be achieved by means of differentiated and individualized learning
with a high degree of participation” (Beutel et al. 2011: 10).
Hence, we touched upon a decisive aspect of the school system’s efficiency.
However, even democracy is not static. It constantly has to justify itself by means
of its ability to form the political process and to integrate society into politics; i.e.
to reconcile the society with the political system over and over again. One could
think that democracy achieves this easily when looking at the current developments
in Northern Africa and the political awakening in Middle and Eastern Europe in the
last 20 years for instance. However, it is obvious that a certain degree of disaffection
with democracy is constantly present since democracy might not always fulfil one’s
own expectations regarding certain political issues. This disaffection sometimes
increases dangerously which is shown, inter alia, by the presence of right-wing
populist parties and developments in the Netherlands, in Denmark, and, above all, in
Hungary. This is further confirmed by the slight willingness to participate, the voting
behaviour, and the discourse on disenchantment with politics in Germany.
We know “that especially democracy – as political system as well as cultural
consensus for coping with our common issues in a global perspective – forces a
regulation of the achievement and efficiency orientation with regard to fairness,
freedom and responsibility” (lc.). Additionally, as practised in democratic societies,
schools not only have to face questions of efficiency and quality in a general sense.
Rather, schools have to agree upon their role as schools of democracy and democracy
learning. “Hence, pedagogy has to be able to delineate how this collection of
requirements can be realised, individually arranged, and described regarding its
effects in democracy-oriented school development” (lc.). Thus, pedagogy creates
compulsory conditions for the development of democratic competence in pupils’
learning-processes.
Moreover, democracy is characterized by perpetual compromise-making which,
on the one hand, actively challenges all citizens. On the other hand, citizens
constantly have to disregard their own pursuits and, thus, give up a part of their
objectives. “Democratic education teaches to act differently” as Christoph Möller,

W. BEUTEL
16
expert in constitutional law, describes the corresponding willingness to change as
well as flexibility which are required and have to become a part of the citizen’s
democratic virtues in democratic states. “The ability to act different than one is
supposed to has to be learnt and exercised” (cf. Möller 2008: 115). Inevitably, this
leads us back to Civic Education at schools and democratic-educational school
development. In this respect, the importance of Civic Education and democratic
school development appears obvious. At the same time, it will be of advantage for
German school development if the discussion on and the practice of Civic Education
became more important in the European and international context than it did before.
NOTES
1
The author would like to thank Matthias Brock and Linda Roeder, both assistants in the Competition
for Citizenship “Democratic Action”, for their translation of the original German version.
REFERENCES
Audigier, F. (1999). Basic concepts and core competences of education for democratic citizenship:
A second consolidated report. Project ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship’. The School Field, 10,
1–2, 57–88.
Banks, J. (2002). Teaching for diversity and unity in a democratic multicultural society. In W. Parker
(Ed.), Education for democracy: Contexts, curricula, assessments (pp. 131–150). Greenwich:
Information Age.
Berkemeyer, N. (2010). Die Steuerung des Schulsystems. Theoretische und empirische Explorationen.
Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Beutel, S.-I., & Beutel, W. (Eds.). (2010). Beteiligt oder bewertet? Leistungsbeurteilung und
Demokratiepädagogik. Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Beutel, W., & Fauser, P. (Eds.). (2001). Erfahrene Demokratie. Wie Politik praktisch gelernt werden kann.
Opladen: Leske + Budrich.
Beutel, W., & Fauser, P. (Eds.). (2007). Demokratiepädagogik. Lernen für die Zivilgesellschaft.
Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Beutel, W., Edler, K., Giese, Chr./Rump-Räuber, M., & Zöllner, H. (2011). Demokratiepädagogische
Merkmale der Schulentwicklung – eine Einführung. In Landesinstitut für Schule und Medien Berlin-
Brandenburg (Eds.), Merkmale demokratiepädagogischer Schulen (pp. 10–21). Potsdam: LISUM.
Dahrendorf, R. (2003). Auf der Suche nach einer neuen Ordnung. Vorlesungen zur Politik der Freiheit im
21. Jahrhundert. München: C. H. Beck.
Fauser, P., Prenzel, M., & Schratz, M. (Eds.). (2009). Was für Schulen! Wie gute Schule gemacht wird
– Werkzeuge exzellenter Praxis. Der Deutsche Schulpreis 2008. Stuttgart/Seelze: Klett-Kallmeyer.
Himmelmann, G. (2005). Demokratie Lernen als Lebens-, Gesellschafts- und Herrschaftsform. Ein Lehr-
und Arbeitsbuch (2nd Ed.). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Klafki, W. (1986). Konturen eines neuen Allgemeinbildungskonzepts. In W. Klafki (Ed.), Studien zur
Bildungstheorie und Didaktik. Beiträge zur kritisch-konstruktiven Didaktik. Neue Weinheim/Basel:
Beltz.
Möller, C. (2008). Demokratie – Zumutungen und Versprechen. Berlin: Wagenbach.
Lange, D. (2009). Bürgerbewusstsein und politische Bildung. Zum Sinnbild ‘Herrschaftslegitimation’.
In H. Oberreuter (Ed.), Standortbestimmung Politische Bildung (=Tutzinger Schriften zur Politischen
Bildung) (pp. 139–150). Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.
Landesinstitut für Schule und Medien Berlin-Brandenburg. (Eds.). (2011). Merkmale demokratiepäda-
gogischer Schulen. Ein Katalog. Potsdam: LISUM.

17
Krappmann, L. (2000). Politische Sozialisation in Kindheit und Jugend durch Partizipation an alltäglichen
Entscheidungen – ein Forschungskonzept. In H.-P. Kuhn, H. Uhlendorff, & L. Krappmann (Eds.),
Sozialisation zur Mitbürgerlichkeit (pp. 77–92). Leverkusen: Leske + Budrich.
Print, M., Ornstrom, S., & Neilsen, H. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and
classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37(2), 193–210.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon
& Schuster.
Sander, W. (2007). Demokratie-Lernen und politische Bildung. Fachliche, überfachliche und
schulpädagogische Aspekte. In W. Beutel, & P. Fauser (Eds.), Demokratiepädagogik. Lernen für die
Zivilgesellschaft (pp. 71–85), Schwalbach/Ts.: Wochenschau Verlag.

AHMET DOĞANAY
A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIVE
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
INTRODUCTION
Although citizenship is a concept that has been discussed over the time since Plato
and Aristotle, recently, especially after the 1990’s, it has been given a renewed
attention. Osler and Starkey (2006) identified six key contextual factors that help
explain the considerable growth in interest in citizenship education over the past
decade. These are global injustice and inequality, globalization and migration,
concerns about civic and political engagement, youth deficit, the end of the cold
war and anti-democratic and racist movement. It has been seen in the literature that
most studies about citizenship fall into two categories. The first one is the theoretical
works that have been done by mostly political scientists on its meaning. The second
one is the pedagogical works on the teaching good citizenship.
Political scientists asserted different citizenship conceptions based on sociologic,
national-global dimensions. Elitist versus activist citizenship model (Sears, 1996);
disciplinary versus cultural citizenship model (Delanty, 2003); achievement versus
citizenship as practice model (Lawy & Biesta, 2006) are among the citizenship
models that have been recommended recently. In modern day on the other hand the
elements such as immigration, national belonging and loyalty, minorities and multi-
culturalism (Kaya, 2003) that were introduced by political, financial and cultural
factors have paved the way for the emergence of a new concept of citizenship that
is referred as global citizenship, European citizenship, gender-neutral citizenship or
ecologic citizenship (Üstel, 1999). Pedagogical works on the teaching citizenship
have been focused on the ways in which education can promote or facilitate
citizenship. In this sense, McCowan (2009) stated that there are two principal ways
in which citizenship relates to education depending on direction of influence: (1)
Citizenship as a guarantee of the right to education, and (2) education as a means to
more effective citizenship (p.20).
Since concept of citizenship lies at the center of democracy education and
citizenship conception and practices of people in a society are among the factors that
effect democratic political culture; education of citizens arises as an important issue.
In the education of active, democratic citizenship a number of integrated resources
play role; yet amongst all, school deserves particular care. In this chapter, the role of
school in the education of active, democratic citizens shall be analyzed deeply and a
curriculum framework for a whole school education shall be presented.

A. DOĞANAY
20
Prior to presenting the curriculum framework, the changing conception of
citizenship from the past till present day shall be focused on and within the scope
of this concept the qualities of citizens that we need in today’s democratic society
shall be discussed. Subsequently the position as well as gravity of instructing active,
democratic citizens shall be emphasized and a curriculum framework for school
education shall be provided.
CHANGING CONCEPTION OF CITIZENSHIP
For a long time, the term citizenship has been seen as ideas of loyalty and patriotism
to the nation state (Carr, 1991, p. 373). Moreover, in Greek city states and the
Roman republic, citizenship has meant involvement in public affairs by those who
had the rights of citizens. The people who had citizenship rights were educated
class and property owners (QCA, 1998). Recently the concept of citizenship has
changed and got new meanings with the changing social, cultural, and political
structure.
The concept of citizenship is not easy to define. When defining the concept
of citizenship, one of the first conceptualization that comes to mind is British
sociologist T.H. Marshall. Marshall considers that citizenship has three components,
depending on the rights it promotes. These are civil, political, and social rights.
Civil component of citizenship is composed of the rights necessary for individual
freedom such as liberty of the person, freedom of speech, thought, and faith, the
right to property, equality under the law. The institution mostly associated with civil
rights is the rule of law and a system of court. Political rights include the right to
participate in the exercise of political power, as a member of a body of invested
with political authority or as an elector of the members of such a body. Political
rights are associated with parliamentary institutions. Third component social rights
are associated with welfare state. Right to education, health care, housing and a
minimum level of income are among the social rights (cited in Council of Europe,
2000, p. 31; Kaya, 2006).
Afterexaminingdifferentcitizenshipapproaches,IchilovandNave(1981)proposed
a five-dimension citizenship model. These dimensions create four dichotomous facets
and one three-dimensional facet. The first facet, the Type of Orientation, differentiates
between verbal and abstract support of a principle and actual behavior. The second
facet, Dimensions of Orientation, distinguishes between the affective, cognitive, and
evaluative responses toward a particular object. The affective dimension characterizes
an early stage of development, whereas the cognitive and evaluative dimensions
express later developmental stages. The third facet, Nature of Activity, discriminates
activity of a productive-active nature-that is, activity directed toward influencing the
environment from activity of a passive consumer nature, or activity that has results
mainly for the individual. The fourth facet refers to the source of demand as perceived
by the individual and distinguishes between external requirement and voluntary

A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK FOR ACTIVE DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
21
preference. The fifth facet refers to the type of object and distinguishes political
objects such as political institutions, processes, and figures from nonpolitical objects
such as family, friends, and place of work.
Zaman (2006), in his thesis that analyzes different approaches towards citizenship,
classifies citizenship models within two main dimensions and the first classification
is based on sociological paradigm. Within the context of this classification there are
political socialization, reflective analysis and critical citizenship approach models.
In the second group that constitutes national-global dimension, national and post-
national citizenship models take place (Gifford, 2004).
Kadıoğlu(2008)statesthatinliterature,citizenshipisanalyzedunderfourdifferent
categories. These are (1) citizenship as national identity or nationality, (2) citizenship
that is identified within the scope of documents, (3) citizenship that is identified
within the scope of rights (4) citizenship that is identified within the scope of duties
and responsibilities. Citizenship as national identity or nationality is the citizenship
approach of which roots go back to French Revolution and identifies the citizen as a
member of nation-state. Citizenship that is identified within the scope of documents
refers to certain documents that establish legal position of individuals. Citizenship
that is identified within the scope of rights refers to a citizenship approach which is
based on civil, political and social rights that were already explained by Marshall.
Citizenship that is identified within the scope of duties and responsibilities, unlike
liberal tradition that focuses on rights, mostly stands for a Republican approach
which points to certain duties (Kadıoğlu, 2008).
Beiner (cited in Osler & Starkey, 2005, p. 17) specified three major strands
of citizenship as liberal, communitarian and civic republican. Liberal citizenship
emphasizes the importance of rights and freedoms whereas communitarian approach
emphasizes group solidarity rather than individualism. The civic republican tradition
of citizenship stresses the political community as an institutional framework capable
of peacefully containing and working out the inevitable conflicts that arise in human
society.
In the Education for the Democratic Citizenship Project of Council of Europe,
Birzea (2000) identified citizenship into two dimensions. First one is citizenship as a
status and a role, and second one is as social justice and equality of rights. Citizenship
is a juridical and political status. It is a set of rights and liberties that the State grants
its citizens. Citizenship is a civic contract between the State and the individual.
Citizenship is also a social role. It is one of the identities of an individual and at the
same time it is contextual. For example, we can refer citizenship as local, national,
European or world citizenship. As Kymlicha and Norman (1995) stated, citizenship
is not only a status as a set of rights and responsibilities, it is also an identity of an
individual who is a member of a political region. In a similar approach Osler and
Starkey (2005) proposed a three dimensions citizenship. These are citizenship as a
status, as feeling and as practice.As Osler and Starkey pointed out there is a dynamic
relationship between citizenship as status and citizenship as practice. Citizens need

A. DOĞANAY
22
to exercise their rights by taking action. In recent days, practice of citizenship is
named as active citizenship.
Active citizenship was defined by European Commission as “empowering
individuals, enabling them to feel comfortable in democraitc culture, and feeling that
they can make a difference in the communities they live” (European Commission,
2005). This definition of active citizenship stresses three aspects. These are
relationship between individuals and their community, democratic values, and
involvement.
Hoskins, who has focused her studies on active citizenship and measurement
of it in recent times, defined active citizenship as: “Participation in civil society,
community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-
violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy”(Cited in European
Commission, 2006, p. 10). Based on this theoretical framework of active citizenship,
Hoskins and Mascherini (2009) developed a scale to measure indicator of active
citizenship competencies. Named as The Active Citizenship Composite Indicator has
four main dimensions. These dimensions are protest and social change, community
life, representative democracy, and democratic values. In summary, we can conclude
that idea of citizenship from as loyalty and patriotism to nation state evolved to
active participation or engagement to social, cultural, economics, and political life.
After examining changing conception of citizenship, what kind of a citizen we need
in a democratic society question needs to be answered.
THE CITIZEN WE NEED IN A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY
The question ‘What kind of a citizen?’ constitutes the starting point of developing
the curriculum. As Oliva (1992) stated “the aims of education are derived from
examining the needs of children and youth” (p. 184). The kind of knowledge, skills,
values and attitudes that children should have as the active and democratic citizens
of future guides the contents of curriculums. The ability of society to catch up with
the increasing globalization and improvement of democracy within this society are
closely related to the citizenship qualities that shall be developed through education.
Parker and Jarolimek (1984) explained the significance of citizens in a democratic
society this way “The success of democracy, the endurance of its enstitutions, and the
fulfillment of its vision, rests squarely on the willingness and ability of its citizens to
face up to the responsibilities required of those who are to enjoy the rights of a free
society” (p.5).
A citizen is a legally recognized member of a state or nation (Engle & Ochoa,
1988). Within that context citizenship is, in a sense, the set of relationships between
individualandstateandtheserelationshipsbringoutcertainrightsandresponsibilities
as well. In the case of democracy the rights of individuals include the right to be
heard and to participate in their own governance, the right to equal protection of the
law, and the right to basic freedoms such as those of religion, speech, and the press.
The responsibilities of the citizen include respect for the law and the responsibility to

23
participate in the governance of the state by voting, holding office, joining political
parties and interest groups, and the like (Engle & Ochoa, 1988, p. 16).
In a good number of states, to have been born in the land of this particular nation
is sufficient to be a citizen. Citizenship is a naturally acquired right. However in a
democratic society the citizen is expected to possess certain qualities and receive the
necessary education. That is why in literature instead of citizen, a number of different
terms such as good citizen (Davies, Gregory & Riley, 1999), democratic citizen
(Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Birzea, 2000), active citizen (DG Education and Culture,
2007; Hoskins, Jesinghaus, Mascherini, Munda, Nardo, Saisana, Van Nijlen, Vidoni,
& Villalba, 2006), effective citizen (NCSS, 2001), critical citizen (Johnson & Morris,
2010; Veugelers, 2007) have been used. All these terms underline the fact that let
alone being a natural process, citizenship requires the possession of certain qualities.
Engle and Ochoa (1988) in their work Education for Democratic Citizenship state
that at the core of democratic citizenship lies the ability to make a decision. Whenever
individuals make a decision on something that affects others and make a move
accordingly that means they make an action as a citizen. Therefore the ability to make
knowledge-based and autonomous decision forms the center of democratic citizenship.
Another dimension of citizenship on the other hand stems from its relationship
with various groups. Aside from their natural citizenship of a state, individuals
are also members of several groups. In this sense individuals are citizens of their
families, their religious institutions, the workplace, the school, and of the world
(Engle & Ochoa, 1988, p. 17). In reality citizens are also members of a bigger group
which is humans. Hence we can argue that an individual is a local, a national as well
as a universal citizen.
Basic qualities of democratic citizen have been identified by several researchers.
Richard C. Remy (1979) was one of the first researchers who identified and described
basic competencies of a citizen. He identified seven qualities of citizenship as basic
compotencies. These were acquiring and using information, assessing involvement,
making decisions, making judgments, communication, cooperating, and promoting
interest. After Remy, another important study which stated basic qualities of
democratic citizen is Parker and Jarolimek’s study. Parker and Jarolimek (1984) in
their work Citizenship and the Role of the Social Studies describe democratic citizen
such “Democratic citizen is an informed person, skilled in the processes of a free
society, who is committed to the democratic values and is able, and feels obliged, to
participate in social, political and economic processes”(p. 6).
Positioned in the U.S.A., the NCSS (2001) describes effective citizen such: “as
one who has the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required to assume the “office of
citizen” in our democratic republic” and list the required qualities of an effective
citizen as given below:
• Embraces core democratic values and strives to live by them.
• Accepts responsibility for the well-being of oneself, one’s family, and the
community.

A. DOĞANAY
24
• Has knowledge of the people, history, and traditions that have shaped our local
communities, our nation, and the world.
• Has knowledge of our nation’s founding documents, civic institutions, and
political processes.
• Is aware of issues and events that have an impact on people at local, state, national,
and global levels.
• Seeks information from varied sources and perspectives to develop informed
opinions and creative solutions.
• Asks meaningful questions and is able to analyze and evaluate information and
ideas.
• Uses effective decision-making and problem-solving skills in public and private
life.
• Has the ability to collaborate effectively as a member of a group.
• Actively participates in civic and community life.
As stated by the NCSS (2001), citizens in the twenty-first century must be prepared
to deal with rapid change, complex local, national, and global issues, cultural
and religious conflicts, and the increasing interdependence of nations in a global
economy.
In 90’s, after the European Union emerges, studies on citizenship have increased.
In those studies [Veldhuis,1997; Crick Report (QSA,1998); Audigier, 2000] it
seems that knowledge, skills and attitudes/values are necessary components
for democratic citizenship however, active participation or in other words civic
engagement is the exposed face of the citizenship. Without acting, knowledge and
values are unfunctional. As stated by Ehrlich (2000, p. xxvi) a morally and civically
responsible individual recognizes himself/herself as a member of a larger social
fabric and therefore considers social problems to be at least partly his/her own; such
an individual is willing to see the moral and civic dimensions of issues, to make and
justify informed moral and civic judgments, and to take action when appropriate.
In addition to active participation, another major quality that is required from any
citizen in modern democratic societies is critical point of view. Critical citizenship
approach which originates from critical pedagogy argues that citizens must be raised
as individuals endowed with an ever-questioning, autonomous perspective.Veugelers
(2007) defines this approach which he terms as critical democratic citizenship such.
“The critical-democratic citizen attaches great importance to autonomy and social
awareness and relatively little to discipline”(p 107). According to McCowan (2009)
society will only maintain effective enstitutions if they are subjected to critical
assesstment, enabling them to be reformed if necessary. In addition, the quality of
governments is seen to be dependent on the political awareness of the voters and their
ability to evaluate the different candidates. Engle and Ochoa (1988) define critical
citizenship as countersocialization. According to Engle and Ochoa socialization
which is the process of learning the existing customs, traditions, rules, and
practices of society is not enough for a democratic society. It must be balanced with

25
countersocialization which emphasizes independent thinking and responsible social
critism. Countersocialization promotes active and vigorous reasoning. It includes
a reappraisal of what has been learned through the process of socialization so that
adolescents can independently and reflectively assess the worth of what they have
learned as young children (p. 31). Critical citizens refrain from blindly accepting any
tradition or authority. Endowed with a critical and creative perspective they always
try to explore new ways, they criticize anything, any information, value or tradition
that has been presented. The two most significant qualities of a critical citizen are
free and autonomous thinking. To summarize, what we need in a democratic society
is participative, active, free and autonomous citizens who can reevaluate from a
critical perspective the information, skill, values and attitudes of himself/herself, and
reach to a decision and act accordinly after recalculating the given information from
a critical point of view upon reasoning.
EDUCATION OF THE ACTIVE DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN:
THE ROLE OF THE SCHOOL
Education of the citizen we need in a democracy has been the major goal of the
educational systems over the years. Active democratic citizenship education is
expected to gain the citizenship qualities that were summarized above. In recent
years emphasis on teaching or instruction shifted to learning. Hence, using teaching
of citizenship is not enough, it is better to use learning of citizenship. As Duerr,
Spajic-Vrkas, and Martins (2000) pointed out;
The quest for learning for democratic citizenship changes schools from
formative (teaching-based) to constructive and transformative (learning-
based) educational institutions. The new task is not to impart knowledge and
create model behaviour in students according to preexisting expert/scientific
criteria but to bring about and facilitate learning. School can only manage this
task by creating opportunities for personal growth based on the respect for
individuality and dignity (p. 42).
Citizenship education must comprise not only knowledge, values and skills, it also
comprise application of those knowledge, values and skills in real life situation
by active participating them. As Naval, Print and Veldhuis (2002) pointed out,
democratic citizenship education aims to develop students’capability for thoughtful
and responsible participation as democratic citizens in political, economic, social and
cultural life. Birzea (2000) see the education for democratic citizenship as a lifelong
learning process. He pointed out that “education for democratic citizenship is the set
of practices and activities aimed at making young people and adults better equipped
to participate actively in democratic life by assuming and exercising their rights and
responsibilities in society” (p.18). According to Birzea this definition implies that
education for democratic citizenship requires empowerment, civic participation and
shared responsibility.

A. DOĞANAY
26
One of the important critical theorists Giroux (1983, cited in Veugelers, 2007, p.
112) lists five points that are essential to educational practice of critical citizenship:
active participation, critical thinking, developing an individual autobiography,
tracing values that are woven into human existence and learning about the structural
and ideological forces that obstruct opportunities for development, but also show
how to make collectively political structures that challenge the status quo.
Aset of different educational approaches have been suggested for active democratic
citizenship education. In this part, instead of analyzing all of these approaches, the
resources that affect active democratic citizenship education shall be focused on and
through emphasizing the position and significance of school within this process, a
curriculum framework for formal school education shall be presented. Kerr, Ireland,
Lopez, Craig and Cleaver (2004) suggest in their second annual report which
summarizes the results of Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study that “successful
implementation of citizenship education in schools requires a holistic and coherent
approach based around three interrelated components: citizenship education in the
curriculum, in the school as a community and in partnership with the wider community”
(p. 1). School offers service to citizenship education from two aspects, the first of
which is through formal curriculum and the second one is through hidden curriculum
that comprises school culture. Active democratic citizenship can be learnt through
school’s relationship with its wider community by bringing the community and civil
society into the school or by taking the school out into the community and civil society.
McCowan (2009) explains the effects of inside and outside school factors in
citizenship education as demonstrated in Table 1 where he states that citizenship
education within classrooms can be given in four methods. These are explanation,
investigation, discussion and simulation.
Explanation involves teachers, either orally or through texts, transmitting
knowledge to students about political institutions, current affairs and so forth.
Investigation involves the students researching issues themselves, extending
their knowledge of topic of interest and developing information gathering
skills. Discussion extends this by allowing discussion and debate to develop,
in which students can state their views and modify them in the light of those of
others. Lastly, by simulation schools can stage context for participation, such
as election, trials and parliament, in which the procedures are as close to reality
as possible, but with no real effect (p. 24).
Students do not learn citizenship only in the classroom but school structure and
relations which is referred as hidden curriculum also play an important role. Pupils
can learn to be active democratic citizen via participation in decision making about
school rules or through hierarchical teacher-student relations as well as through
classes on political institutions and national heroes (McCowan, 2009). In this sense,
school councils play an important role in practicing participation skills. In the Crick
Report (QCA, 1998) the significance of school culture was pointed this way. “There
is increasing recognition that the ethos, organizations, structures and daily practices

27
of schools, including whole-school activities and assemlies have a significant impact
on the effectiveness of citizenship education” (p. 36).
However citizenship education is not limited to the boundaries of school. Outside
school, it is possible to put citizenship knowledge, values and attitudes into real
life practices as well. Writing e-mails of protest or support, participating in a local
environmental campaign, or marching to oppose a policy of the national government
can be examples of important learning experineces in the outside of school. In the
Eurydice’s (2005) Citizenship Education at School in Europe work it is narrated that
below given activities can be performed with the society outside school.
Partnerships and pupil exchanges with schools from other countries, including
pen pal correspondence;
• Open (school) days or fetes at which the local community is invited to visit
schools to find out how they function and meet pupils;
• Visits to neighbourhood institutions or community groups, including the
police, fire brigade, museums, local or national authorities, special vocational
guidance centres for graduates, religious institutions, NGOs, homes for children
with special needs, elderly people or asylum seekers;
• Mock elections modelled on national or European Parliament elections and
games simulating the work of town councils or parliaments;
• Fund-raising to support charity or solidarity projects, especially for the benefit
of children who live in developing countries or are victims of natural disasters;
• Voluntary work, including help in old people’s homes, or with cleaning
playgrounds or the local forest;
• Short-term work placements for pupils in secondary education to introduce
them to working life and give them the opportunity to meet prospective employers
(p. 35-36).
In the 2009 IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS)
(Schulz, Ainley, Fraillon, Kerr, & Losito, 2010) factors that influence civic and
citizenship education outcomes are listed as family background, classrooms,
Activities Structure and relations
School A. Explanation
B. Investigation
C. Discussion
D. Simulation
E. Student councils
Pedagogical relations
Hidden curriculum
Ethos
Wider society A. Political participation
B. Volunteering
Social hierarchies, political
structures etc.
Source: McCowan, 2009, p. 26
Table 1. The Effects of Inside and Outside School Factors on Democratic Citizenship
Education

A. DOĞANAY
28
schools, and the wider community. At the school level, the following factors are
likely to be important: the instruction students receive, how teachers perceive civic
and citizenship education, the classroom climate for respectful discussion, the
school culture, and the general environment in which the school exists. The level
of the wider community includes the contexts within which schools and home
environments function. These contexts range from the local community context to
the national or even supranational context (Schulz, et all., p. 63).
Afterreviewingstudieshavebeendoneonpoliticalsocialisation,Print(2007,p.330)
conluded that there are three primary sources of influence on young people’s learning
about politics and democracy – the family, through role modelling, discussion, and
media use; the media, mostly television and newspapers; and third, school experience
providing knowledge, skills and values from non-partisan educators. Other sources
such as peers, the extended family, community and church, count for little. In
Davies, Gregory and Riley’s (1999) study that explores the factors influencing good
citizenship qualities, the most influential factors have been listed as parents, friends,
teachers, and extra-curricular activities while religious leaders, television, coaches,
and guardians have been categorized as the least influential factors.
Despite the many factors influence young people’s participation, knowledge,
values and dispositions, schools are still important institutions for developing
civic knowledge, skills, and attitudes among young people (CIRCLE & Carnegie
Corporation, 2003; Print, Ørnstørm, & Nielsen, 2002; Patrick, 1999; Duerr, Spajic-
Vrkas, & Martins, 2000; McCowan, 2009). CIRCLE and Carnegie Corporation
(2003)’s co-work Civic Mission of School explains this way the reasons why school
is still the most important institution in gaining civic knowledge, skills and attitudes;
Schools are the only institutions with the capacity and mandate to reach
virtually every young person in the country. Of all institutions, schools are the
most systematically and directly responsible for imparting citizen norms. Research
suggests that children start to develop social responsibility and interest in politics
before the age of 9. The way that they are taught about social issues, ethics, and
institutions in elementary school matters a great deal for their civic development.
Schools are best equipped to address the cognitive aspects of good citizenship civic
and political knowledge and related skills such as critical thinking and deliberation.
Schools are communities in which young people learn to interact, argue, and work
together with others, an important condition for future citizenship. Schools have the
capacity to bring together a heterogeneous population of young people with different
backgrounds, perspectives, and vocational ambitions to instruct them in common
lessons and values. They can also bring young people into significant relationships
with adult role models.
Several non-school institutions have lost the capacity or will to engage young
people civically. Today, many of the large organizations that used to provide venues
for young people to participate in civic and political affairs (such as political parties,
unions, nonprofit associations, and activist religious denominations) have grow
smaller or are no longer recruiting as many youth to their ranks (p. 12).

29
IntheirarticlethatsummarizessecondreportofCitizenshipEducationLongitudinal
Study for the DfES, Kerr and Ireland (2004) provide an action plan that comprises
three major suggestions for schools and policy makers. The first suggestion is that,
“schools need to review their existing approaches to implementing citizenship
education in relation to the typology of schools and the key factors underlying the
most successful citizenship education provision” and second one is “Schools need
to develop a more holistic and coherent approach to citizenship education based
around the three components of citizenship education: in the curriculum, in the
school community and in partnership with the wider community” (p. 27). Upon
identifying the position of school in the process of citizenship education, below is
given a curriculum framework for citizenship education based on Kerr and Ireland’s
suggestions as well.
A CURRICULUM FRAMEWORK
Oliva (1992) defined the curriculum as “ a plan or program for all the experiences
which the learner encounters under the direction of the school” (p.9). Curriculum
covers all kinds of intramural and extramural activities performed within the
responsibility of school in the direction of school’s aims. In practice, the curriculum
consists of a number of plans, in written form and of varying scope, that delineate
the desired learning experiences. Therefore, the curriculum may be a unit, a course, a
sequence of courses, the school’s entire program of studies. Four questions developed
by Tyler (1949) bear significance in the development of a curriculum:
• What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
• What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these
purposes?
• How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
• How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained? (p. 1).
Acitizenship curriculum in a school must involve the answers to four questions above.
What is meant by citizenship curriculum hereby is that parallel to the overall aims of
active democratic citizenship education, it must contain all the courses offered in any
school, the activities in other courses and all intramural and extramural citizenship
education activities conducted under the responsibility of school. Below, within the
framework of curriculum offered for active democratic citizenship education, the
general aims of active democratic citizenship education, scope of the curriculum and
sequence of the curriculum have been listed.
GENERAL AIMS OF THE CURRICULUM
Active democratic citizenship education should help young people acquire and
learn to use knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that will help them to be an
active and democratic citizens throughout their lives. In other terms, democratic

A. DOĞANAY
30
citizenship curriculum is supposed to raise citizens that we need in a democratic
society. Accordingly, a student that completes his/her formal school education is
expected to have acquired the basic aims listed below. At the end of the formal
education students should:
• understand and value basic principles and institutions of democracy
• understand rights and responsibilities of a citizen including political, social,
cultural, and economic
• understand and value political decision making processes on local, national, and
international levels.
• understand and value all kind of differences (cultural, racial, gender, and religious)
that exist in local regional, national, and global context
• understand function and work of voluntary groups and civil society
• understand the role of media in personal and social life
• have an understanding and awareness of public and community issues and current
events effecting national and global society
• have knowledge of forms of the participation
• value active participation in the society
• have democratic values and attitudes such as concern for the rights and welfare
of others, social responsibility, tolerance and respect for differences and human
rights, acceptance of the rule of the law, believing in democracy and peace.
• have an open and critique mind
• have the ability to get information from different sources, evaluate them critically,
think critically, make decision based on critical evaluation of information and
reasoning, solve problems, and enter into dialogue among others with different
perspectives
• act politically by using knowledge, skills, values/attitudes, and commitment to
accomplish public purposes such as group problem solving, public speaking,
petioning and protesting, and voting.
• participate actively in their communities and in wider communities through
membership in or contributions to organizations working to address an array of
cultural, social, political, economic, environmental, and religious interest and
beliefs.
• act to handle all kind of differences (cultural, racial, gender, and religious) in a
multicultural society and resolve all kind of conflicts in a peaceful way (Audiger,
2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York, 2003;
Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005; Engle & Ochoa, 1988; Veldhuis, 1997.
SCOPE OF THE CURRICULUM
Curriculum scope refers to the breadth of the curriculum at any level or any given time
(Henson, 2006). Scope determines which basic ideas, concepts, principles, skills and
affective qualities shall take place in a curriculum. From the perspective of citizenship

31
education it is the answer to the question which knowledge, skills, values and attitudes
of citizenship must be included in curriculum. Upon scanning the literature of
democratic citizenship education (Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Engle & Ochoa, 1988;
Veldhuis, 1997; Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation,
2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005) it has been concluded that curriculum scope
must be based on three main dimensions. The first dimension knowledge contains sub-
categories namely political, social, cultural, economical and forms of participation.
Second dimension that includes affective area is composed of sub- categories namely
values, attitudes and dispositions. The last dimension skills is made up of two sub-
categories namely general skills and participation skills. In Figure 1, ingredients of
democratic citizenship education have been schematically drawn.
The general dimensions and context of categories presented in Figure 1 have been
detailed below.
Attitudes
Political
Social
Cultural
Economic
Formsof
participation
Values
Dispositions
Participation
skills
Generalskills
Skils
Valu
es,attitudes,dispositions
Knowledge
Active
democratic
citizen
Figure 1. The main categories of democratic citizenship education curriculum
(Sources: Adapted from Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation,
2003; Cox, Jaramillo & Reimers, 2005; Duerr, Spajic-Vrakas & Martins, 2000; Engle &
Ochoa, 1988; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Parker & Jarolimek, 1984; Veldhuis, 1997).

A. DOĞANAY
32
Knowledge
What kind of knowledge does a democratic citizen need to make information and
reason-based decisions and to put these decisions into action? Or in other terms
what should constitute the knowledge dimension of active democratic citizenship
curriculum? In Table 1, the kind of knowledge that must be included in political,
social, cultural, economic, and forms of participation categories have been presented.
Table 2. Scope of Knowledge for Active Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum
Political Knowledge Social Knowledge
Poltical and legal system
Basic concept, principles and institutions of
democracy
Distribution of power and authority
throughout history
Concept of democratic citizenship
Citizens rights and responsibilities including
human rights
Political decision making on local, national
and international level
Current political issues
Main events, trends and change agents of
national, European and world history
Media literacy and the role of media in
personal and social life
National and international security
Social relations
Social rights
The function and work of voluntary groups
and civil society
Social differences (welfare, social security,
health etc.)
Cultural Knowledge Economic Knowledge
History and cultural heritage of own country
Predominance of certain dominant roles and
values
Different cultures in the local, regional,
national, and global context
Preservation of the environment
Economic rights
Economic principles and consequences of
economic development
Key financial matters and associated
economic literacy
Sustainable development locally and
internationally
Forms of Participation Knowledge
Knowledge of the forms of political, social, cultural, economic participation to the life.
Sources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).
Values, Attitudes and Dispositions
Below in Table 2 the values, attitudes and dispositions that form the core of active
democratic citizenship education curriculum have been listed

33
Table 3. Scope of Values, Attitudes and Dispositions for Active Democratic Citizenship
Education Curriculum
Values Attitudes Dispositions
• Acceptance of the rule
of law
• Respect for human dignity
• Respect for human rights
• Believing in democracy
• Believing in peace
• Believing in social
justice, equality and equal
treatment of citizens
• Rejection of prejudice,
racism and all kind of
discrimination
• Believing in solidarity
• Respect for tolerance and
toward differences
• Respect for reasoning
• Believing in preservation
of environment
• Believing in sustainable
development
• Valuing the freedom
• Valuing the fairnes
• Commitment to truth
• Open mindedness
• Commitment to peace and
constructive slutions to
problems
• Feeling confident to
engage politically
• Trusting in democratic
principles, institutions
and procedures as well as
importance of civil action
• Feeling responsible for
own decisions and actions
• Commitment to the value
of mutual understanding,
cooperation, trust and
solidarity
• Commitment to the
principles of sustainable
development
• Sense of belonging
• The intention to
participate in the political
community
• The intention to be active
in the community
• The intention to
participate in civil society
Sources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Crick, 1999; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications
and Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).
Skills
Scope of the skills for active democratic citizenship are presented in Table 3 in two
categories as general skills and participation skills.
SEQUENCE OF THE CURRICULUM
Following the determination of scope of the curriculum then comes the way how to
organize this scope. Curriculum sequence is concerned with the order of topics over
time (Henson, 2006). How should the scope that is determined for active democratic
citizenship education be organized in classroom and courses? What must be the
main principles for this organization? Upon analyzing civic or citizenship education
experiences in different countries, Cox, Jaramillo, and Reimers (2005) stated that
there is a transformation from civic education to citizenship education and in this
change three major points in citizenship curriculums attract even more attention.

A. DOĞANAY
34
• Moving from a single-subject focus on political institutions to a three-part focus
on: a) political institutions, b) current events in the society, and c) competencies
in conflict resolution,
• Moving from a curriculum predominantly taught in the last years of secondary
school to one expanded throughout the entire school cycle, and
• Shifting the focus from acquisition of knowledge (focus on content) to one aimed
at acquiring knowledge, abilities, and attitudes in contexts and practices based on
participatory democratic relations (p.35).
Below have been given main principles that have been formed upon synthesizing
experiences and relevant thoughts in different countries and how these principles
point to the way knowledge, skills, values, attitudes and dispositions for active
democratic citizenship curriculum should be included in the curriculum.
Democratic citizenship knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes should be taught
explicitly and systematically at every grade level and it should be integrated
throughout and across the curriculum. At school it is not logical and necessary to
wait for a specific grade or course to teach democratic citizenship skills, knowledge,
values and attitudes. Citizenship must be one of the main focal points in each grade
and course. Democratic citizenship can be integrated into other courses in two ways.
Firstly, general skills like critical thinking, decision making, problem solving can be
employed during courses. Secondly, topics related to citizenship in different courses
should be foregrounded in class. Citizenship is a cross-curricular subject. Almost all
courses have a potential context for citizenship education. For instance in science,
Table 4. Scope of Skills for Active Democratic Citizenship Education Curriculum
General skills Participation Skills
Critical thinking
Critical examination of information
Distinguishing statements of facts from an
opinion
Reaching a balanced judgement, decision
or point of view based on critical
examination of information and reasoning
Defending reached position
• Problem solving
• Decision making
• Creative thinking
• Inquiry skills
• Communication skills
• Using media in an active way
• Monitoring and influencing policies
and decisions including participating in
peaceful protesting
• Resolving conflicts in a peaceful way
• Participating voluntary-civil organizations
as a member or contrubition
• Building cooperation and coalitions
• Displaying democratic leadership
• Living in a multicultural environment
• Handling all kind of differences including
gender, social, cultural, racial, and
religious
• Engagement in protecting environment
• Ethical consumption and boycotting
unethical products
Sources: Audigier, 2000; Birzea, 2000; Johnson & Morris, 2010; Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA), 1998; Veldhuis, 1997).

35
the topics which have been lately termed as socio-scientific issues (Ratcliffe &
Grace, 2003) such as genetic modification, climate change, nuclear power stations,
are closely related to citizenship education. Discussion of these kind of issues in
science has a potential impact on gaining democratic citizenship competencies.
Similar to socio-scientific issues, integrating controversial issues in social studies
curriculum helps students to get skills such as critical argumentation which is an
important skill for active democratic citizenship. There are various resources in
the literature showing how to integrate citizenship knowledge, skills, values and
attitudes into different courses (Edwards & Fogelman, 1993; Bailey, 2000; Smith,
Nowacek, & Bernstein, 2010).
In addition to teaching citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes during
all grade levels and courses it is also beneficial to add this course into curriculum
as an separate course. As it can be seen in scope of the curriculum part too, there is
a knowledge store that can be deemed critical for citizenship issues. It may not be
possible to include all these knowledge into the program of other courses. Hence
it would be beneficial to add one citizenship, democracy or human rights course
separately in the final years of primary education and in secondary education.
Let it be as a separate course or a subject integrated into other courses cross
curricularly, democratic citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes must
be included in the curriculum not separately but integrated. As Reid (1986) stated
although knowledge, understanding and skills are distinguishable conceptually they
are inseparable existentially. A holistic view recognizes that it is not possible to
separate knowledge from skills or understanding within learning process. Based on
the assumption that in democratic citizenship education the primary aim is to make
reasoned decisions that reflect critical evaluation of knowledge and take action in
line with this reasoning, all knowledge, skills, values and attitudes must be arranged
in a way ensuring active participation. In this context, students should be provided
with opportunities to participate in simulations, service-learning projects, conflict
resolution programs, and other activities that encourage the application of civic
knowledge, skills, and values.
Students should be provided opportunities for active participation in class and
school. Co-preparing class rules, activities like school councils are examples of such
opportunities In addition students should be given opportunities to contribute opinions
about the governance of the school. School environment and classroom should be
structuredsothatstudentsareabletolivewhattheylearnaboutcitizenshipparticipation
and democracy. In short school should promote the democratic way of life.
Democratic citizenship curriculum must provide opportunities for students to
implement their citizenship knowledge, skills, values and attitudes outside school as
well. In this context, school should invite parents and the community to participate
and work with students in real life situations. For out of school participation,
service-learning can provide essential opportunities for students not only to develop
citizenship participation skills, values, and attitudes, but also to acquire first-hand
knowledge of the topics they are studying in the curriculum.

A. DOĞANAY
36
In addition to all items listed above, main mission of school must be clearly set as
instructing active democratic citizens and this mission must be shared with general
public.
CONCLUSIONS
The meaning attached to citizenship concept today differs greatly from the one
1000, 500, 100 or even 50 years earlier. The world is rapidly globalizing in a fast
transformation pace and cultural differences are inevitably becoming more visible
than ever. In the meantime knowledge is multiplying geometrically in a speed and
also changing while multiplying. In this age which is defined with globalization,
knowledge and multiculturalism, the qualities expected from citizens are also going
through a change. The age of knowledge and democracy we live in needs citizens
who can attain knowledge from different resources, evaluate the attained knowledge
from a critical perspective, make accurate and logical decisions upon reasoning and
put these decisions into action.
In the education of citizens endowed with these qualities there are a number of
influential resources, however the role and significance of school throughout this
process is not negligible. The school requires a comprehensive democratic citizenship
curriculum to execute this duty. Civic which was included in the programs as a single
course at most formerly abandoned its place to democratic citizenship education today.
In this chapter, the attempt has been to draw a basic framework of citizenship
curriculum for a democratic society. The main aims of democratic citizenship
curriculum comprise the competencies and qualities of the citizens that we need in a
democratic society. In order to realize these aims citizenship knowledge, skills, values
and attitudes must be offered as an integrated course with other relevant lessons
throughout a whole educational process. However the size and gravity of the context
and the likelihood of the failure to be completely present in other courses make it
a requisite to add the course as a separate course in the curriculum. Democratic
citizenship curriculum must provide opportunities for students to implement their
knowledge, skills, attitudes and values both in and out of school. Hence formal
curriculum at school must provide a comprehensive and integrated educational
opportunity in association with school community and wider community. Instead
of simply getting prepared to be the citizens of future, students must actually live as
citizens by implementing their citizenship knowledge and values with their active
participation skills.
Civic Learnin
REFERENCES
Audigier, F. (2000). Project “educatıon for democratıc cıtızenshıp”: Basic concepts and core competencies
for education for democratic citizenship. Strasbourg: Council for Cultural Co-operation.

37
Bailey, R. (Ed.). (2000). Teaching values and citizenship across the curriculum. London: Kogan Page
Limited.
Birzea, C. (2000). Education for democratic citizenship: A lifelong learning perspective. Strasbourg:
Council for Cultural Co-operation.
Carr, W. (1991). Education for citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 39(4), 373–385.
CIRCLE & Carnegie Corporation of New York. (2003). The civic mission of schools. New York: Carnegie
Corporation of New York.
Cox, C., Jaramillo, R., & Reimers, F. (2005). Education for citizenship and democracy in the Americas:
An agenda for action. Washington, DC: Inter-American Development Bank.
Council of Europe. (2000). Education for democratic citizenship: A lifelong learning perspective.
Retrieved from http://www.okm.gov.hu/letolt/nemzet/eu/Education%20for%20Democratic%20
Citizenship.pdf
Crick, B. (1999). The presuppositions of citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of Education,
33(3), 337–352.
Davies, I., Gregory, I., & Riley, S. C. (1999). Good citizenship and educational provision. London:
Falmer Press.
Delanty, G. (2003). Citizenship as learning process: Disciplinary citizenship versus cultural citizenship.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 22(6), 597–605.
DG Education and Culture. (2007). Study on active citizenship education. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.
eu/education/pdf/doc248en.pdf adresinden (14.04.2009)
Duerr, K., Spajic-Vrakas, V., & Martins, I. F. (2000). Strategies for learning democratic citizenship.
Council of Europe.
Edwards, J., & Fogelman, K. (Eds.). (1993). Developing citizenship in the curriculum. London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Ehrlich, T. (Ed.). (2000). Civic responsibility and higher education. Westport, CT: Oryx Press.
Engle, S. H., & Ochoa, A. S. (1988). Education for democratic citizenship: Decision making in the social
studies. New York: Teachers College Press.
Eurydice. (2005). Citizenship education at schools in Europe. Retrieved from http://www.moec.gov.cy/
programs/eurydice/publication.pdf
European Commission. (2005). Learning for active citizenship:Asignificant challenge in building a Europe
of Knowledge. Retrieved from http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/archive/citizen/citiz.en.html
European Commission. (2006). Measurıng actıve cıtızenshıp ın Europe. Retrieved from http://composite
indicators.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Document/EUR%2022530%20EN_Active_Citizenship.pd
Gifford, C. (2004). National and post-national dimensions of citizenship education in the UK. Citizenship
Studies, 8(2), 145–158.
Henson, K. T. (2006). Curriculum planning: Integrating multiculturalism, constructivism, and education
reform. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc.
Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a
composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459–488.
Hoskins, B. L., d’Hombres, B., & Campbell, J. (2008). Does formal education have an impact on active
citizenship behaviour? Europian Commission Joint Research Center, Instıtute for the Protection
and Security of the Citizen, Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning. Retrieved from http://crell.
jrc.ec.europa.eu/ActiveCitizenship/impact%20final%20final%20BH%20BD%20JC%20EU%20
reportsyslog.pdf
Hoskins, B., Jesinghaus, J., Mascherini, M., Munda, G., Nardo, M., Saisana, M., … Villalba, E. (2006).
Measuring active citizenship in Europe. Ispra: European Commission Institute for the Protection and
Security of the Citizen.
Ichilov, O., & Nave, N. (1981). The Good citizen as viewed by Israeli adolescents. Comparative Politics,
13(3), 361–376.
Johnson, L., & Morris, P. (2010). Toward a framework for critical citizenship education. The Curriculum
Journal, 21(1), 77–96.
Kadıoğlu, A. (2008). Vatandaşlığın dönüşümü: Üyelikten haklara [Transformation of citizenship: From
membership to the rights]. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları.

(Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012)

(Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012)

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Destacado

Destacado (20)

Similar a (Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012)

Similar a (Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012) (20)

Último

Último (20)

(Civic and political education 2) murray print, dirk lange (auth.), murray print, dirk lange (eds.) schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens-sense publishers (2012)