Short paper: Civics and Citizenship Education:
what pedagogy? what possibilities?
Monday November 30th 1998
Abstract:
Civics and citizenship education at the national level and in New South Wales has received considerable interest since the publication of the Civic Expert Group's report Whereas the people ... (1994). 'Developments' in the area of civics since then have ranged from resource development, curriculum development, professional development and the creation of benchmarks. The literature base, in an Australian context, has considerably grown, mirroring the equal development of discussion, and in some cases, disagreement among academics and practitioners. This paper explores the nature of civics and citizenship education, curriculum, and the associated pedagogical possibilities. These inter-related components are informed by the works of Michael Apple, Basil Bernstein, and Henry Giroux, among others. The theory surrounding pedagogy and civics education will be examined, focussing on the models of constructivism, conflict, and critical theory.
Currently the challenge for civics education appears to present itself as how to construct a thoughtful pedagogy that can both affirm and extend the possibility for self and social empowerment so as to create conditions for meaningful and effective democracy in Australia. By making civics education a 'polyvocal' conversation between teachers, students, parents, theorists, policy-makers, and academics, the possibility exists to create confidence that the entire community has a stake in the democratic arrangements of Australian society. The paper aims to promote continuing discussion and debate, in the hope of furthering the much needed conversation on pedagogy and civics education.
Presenters: Jane Hunter and Simon Jimenez
University of Sydney
Faculty of Education
Rm. 449, Building A35
Phone: 02 9351-6282
Email: j.hunter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
s.jimenez@edfac.usyd.edu.au
Introduction
Recently, a 'civics conversation', both internationally and locally, has been noticeable by its highly audible voice. It is our intention that by using the metaphor of conversation, a multiplicity of possibilities for civics education is enhanced. This paper seeks to 'eavesdrop' on some of those conversations and examine the resulting discussions in light of pedagogical considerations. These conversations require a 'polyvocal' consideration in order to be heard in various educational settings. What is meant by the terms 'civics' and 'citizenship'? Whose interests are being promoted by civics education? Who is knowledge of civics and citizenship for? These issues must be deliberated and debated and are indeed provocative questions when trying to sort through the issue of civics and citizenship education in the context of Australian democracy.
There is a current intensification within the literature concerning the theoretical considerations of civics and citizenship education. This situation reflects the increasing interest by the Commonwealth in school curriculum (Kennedy, 1993; Lingard, 1993; Luke, 1997). Other commentators suggest that the move to introduce civics education has arisen from the federal government's determination to create a device to better augment social cohesion among the populace (Habermas, 1976; Hogan, 1995; O'Connor, 1973; Reid, 1996). There is no resiling from the conversation that civics and citizenship is a concept open to considerable debate, contest, and critical analysis. Calls for education for citizenship - in and beyond compulsory schooling - only serve to widen the debate about what citizenship means, to whom, and how it is attainable and maintainable. Whether it is both achievable and meaningful as we approach the end of this century remains to be seen.
The conceptions and definitions of civics, or citizenship, or civics and citizenship education are problematic at present. Through attention to the many possible voices within this conversation, a definition can emerge that embodies multiple social relations in order to expand the emancipatory possibilities of education. For reader ease, we use the term civics education in light of the features we identify as critical and to simplify the term civics and citizenship education, which is used in the literature.
The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the thinking about pedagogical possibilities for civics education in Australian classrooms. We do recognise that there are many pedagogical possibilities for civics education in our schools. Our intention here is to continue civics conversations so that more powerful pedagogical options might be realised. Initially we examine the current context of civics education, in both Australia and in New South Wales (NSW). The notion of a 'civics deficit' is then discussed prior to a theoretical conceptualisation of the term civics education. This framework enables us to briefly examine constructivism, conflict, and critical pedagogy, three pedagogical possibilities for civics education in Australian schools.
The present context of civics education in Australia and New South Wales
Civics education has received considerable attention, both at the federal level and in NSW, following the report of Civics Expert Group (CEG) Whereas the people ... in 1994. The report, commissioned by the Keating government, had a legacy of two previous attempts to assess and recommend strategies for incorporating civics education nationally - Education for Active Citizenship (1989) and Active Citizenship Revisited (1991). The latter document served as an updating report on the recommendations and suggestions of the former, which attempted to enact 'measures' in civics education, to overcome "'a crisis which Australians cannot afford to ignore'" (cited in Phillips, 1995, p19). Active Citizenship Revisited (1991) followed on the heels of the unanimous acceptance of the national goals for Australian education; Goal 7 of these called for the development of knowledge, skills, and values which would enable students to participate in an 'active' and 'informed' manner (Pascoe, 1996). The inclusion of this goal is so often cited in the literature that it now seems a critical step in the re-development and re-shaping of civics education, particularly as this inclusion provides legitimacy for a federal hand in this re-development and shaping. In addition to this national interest in civics education, Active Citizenship Revisited (1991) also found a "dearth of research in political and civics education and recommended that active citizenship education be pursued by institutions with that capacity" (Phillips, 1995, p19). Following their own recommendation, the federal government assembled a CEG, which was given the following mandate:
To recommend a non-partisan program to enable all Australians to participate more fully and effectively in the civic life of our country, and thereby promote good citizenship (CEG, 1994b, p2).
These recommendations would include a "strategic plan of ... public education and information on the Australian system of government, the Australian Constitution, Australian Citizenship, and other civic issues" (Phillips, 1995, p20). With the help of a national survey, "which assessed the current level of relevant knowledge in the Australian community" (CEG, 1994b, p3), the report of the CEG identified a 'civic deficit' as existing amongst the Australian population, particularly amongst its youth. The deficit was defined in terms of a limited understanding and knowledge about principles of responsible government, the division of powers, and the relationship between legislature, executive, and judiciary (CEG, 1994a).
The change of government in 1996 from Labour to Liberal saw a temporary freeze on all recommendations and program development in the area of civics education. In 1997, Discovering Democracy was launched, representing the current government's civic response to the findings of the CEG report. Largely consistent with the previous government's intended course of action, Discovering Democracy intends to develop in students the "capacities to participate as informed, reflective citizens in their civic community" and to "recognise the relevance of their political and legal institutions to everyday life" (Kemp, 1997, p1). These goals are founded on the following beliefs:
Effective citizenship requires an understanding of the history and operations of Australia's system of government and institutions and the principles that support Australian democracy. Students should be able to identify and explain the essential characteristics of representative democracy and the nature, role and purpose of the Australian Constitution. They should be able to describe the operations of Commonwealth and State and Territory parliaments and understand the relationship between parliament and government. They should be knowledgeable about Australia's history and the role of leading Australian political figures who have shaped the direction of Australia's civic life (Kemp, 1997, p2).
This lengthy excerpt provides insight into the rationale driving the current federal civics program. It pays some attention to the idea of active and informed citizens, but is largely concerned with knowledge about the political and legal institutions of Australian society. Again, this reinforces the government's concern with social cohesion in a time of tremendous social, political, and economic change. Discovering Democracy also has a noticeable emphasis on the history of Australia; it allocated $17.5 million dollars towards the development of a national civics curriculum; $4.6 million of this is toward the professional development of teachers across Australia, and $10.6 million to be used for resources developed by the Curriculum Corporation.
This background provides, at least at the government level, the direction and assumed conceptualisations that civics education will have at the national level; this national action also has a more local effect, based on the shaping of state level policy and how teachers, as the 'implementers' of policy and therefore the most affected agents, might teach civics education in Australian schools. In order to explore some theoretical conceptualisations of civics education and the associated theories of pedagogy, the notion of the 'civics deficit' requires elaboration and discussion.
The 'Civics Deficit'
The 'civics deficit' identified by the CEG (1994) poses a curious problem. The figures from the national survey indicate that indeed knowledge and understanding about political and legal institutions and processes is limited across the sampled population. As evidenced above, the government considers such knowledge as essential in the development of an 'effective' citizenry. Therefore, civics education, at the federal level, is largely driven by remedying this perceived deficit in knowledge, with some attention on developing active, informed, and reflective citizens. The government literature suggests a causal link between effective citizenship, knowledge, and the ability to be active, informed and reflective. That is, by developing the knowledge base, one approaches effectiveness as a citizen. However, according to Shermis and Barth (1982), who write from an American perspective almost two decades ago, it is for this very emphasis on knowledge and passivity within the social studies that they are critical:
The argument that study of governmental structure is good preparation for the future is not based upon an analysis of either citizenship or what is required to function as a citizen in a democratic and pluralistic society (p26).
They concluded at that time, that what was driving social studies in the 1980s, in a potentially negative direction, was the following assumption:
by passively storing up information about historical events, decisions, governmental structure and unrelated details of geography, 'social problems', etc., students are held to be disciplining themselves and thereby acquiring the knowledge and attitudes essential for citizenship at a later time (Shermis & Barth, 1982, p27).
Heed should be taken of this criticism in an Australian context, so that the same tired conversation is not repeated during this most critical time in the re-development and re-shaping of possibilities for civics education. Australian writers like O'Loughlin (1997) and Kennedy (1997), acknowledge this and are equally critical. They suggest that the label 'civics deficit', over-simplifies the problem facing civics education. For Kennedy, civics requires a more broad conceptualisation, making use of 'civic megatrends' and 'civic realties'; these are not simply an elaboration of the knowledge base, but rather, point to the necessity of values and relevance of knowledge. A civic megatrend "has the potential to define who citizens are at the end of the twentieth century", according to Kennedy (1997, p3). 'Civic realties' are defined as "the things that matter to young people, the things that can help them understand their reality and give them a stake in the future that rightly belongs to them" (Kennedy, 1997, p3). Kennedy's conception of civics warns of excessive inward looking, both from an Australian perspective and individual perspective, and suggests that civics must incorporate ideas about responsibilities and global relations (Kennedy, 1995; Kennedy, 1997).
Both Kennedy and O'Loughlin (1997) cite the work of Macintyre (1995), in which he further developed the type of knowledge students should learn in civics education - multiculturalism, reconciliation, and republicanism - which point beyond a knowledge of government institutions and processes. However, O'Loughlin contends that these subject areas, however useful, will do little unless the manner in which "knowing about" versus a "knowing that involves going beyond our given identities in a leap of consciousness that brings about a condition of negotiated partnership with others" is understood and to which attention is paid (1997, p26). Such consideration, states O'Loughlin, is absent both from the 'discourse of citizenship', and education in general. These criticisms of the civics deficit provide for what O'Loughlin suggests as the necessary 'problematisation' of what civics, or citizenship or both, means, and provides room for the discussion of pedagogical possibilities, which might address such issues of knowledge and learning, and their possible application to civics education. We can now turn to possible definitions of civics.
Towards a definition of civics?
A multiplicity of definitions, conceptions and suggestions for civics education are found within the literature from Australia, the UK, and the United States. Our aim here is to draw upon some of those conceptions of civics which provide for an elaboration and inclusion of pedagogy, beyond that of transmitting knowledge. Our intent is not to argue 'process' (i.e., pedagogy) over content, as this is futile and both are equally important; however, we assert that by focussing more attention to the process side, perhaps content might be better addressed.
First, a look at what Apple and Beane (1995) referred to as a democratic curriculum, within which we can then couch a notion for civics. They suggest the following definition:
A democratic curriculum invites young people to shed the passive role of knowledge consumers and assume the active role of 'meaning makers'. It recognises that people acquire knowledge by both studying external sources and engaging in complex activities that require them to construct their own knowledge (1995, p16).
Again, we see the assertion of losing the passive role and adopting an active approach - but is this simply paying 'lip service' to the rhetoric surrounding civics and citizenship? In this case, no, because they refer not only to being an active citizen, but also to being active in knowledge construction and in the sources of knowledge. But how? Some suggest, like Dewey (1916) and Kennedy (1995), that in order for students to become engaged in knowledge it must be meaningful to them. This questions the very nature of the curriculum, and points to the recognition of individual or student interests over the collective good (i.e., society in this case, who are assumed to benefit from the students acquiring a body of knowledge about government institutions and processes, for example). This is fairly unremarkable - that relevant subject matter might be of more interest to students. It is, however, indicative of a larger issue in civics education, and that is of public and private interests. Mabe (1993) suggested that one goal for civics is for individuals to "become conscious of his/her relation to political reality and political possibility", resulting in the common good being put ahead of personal interests. Woods (1984) suggested that a paradox facing schools in instruction is this public/private debate - "on one hand, schooling is to make children fit the system, on the other it is to help children remake the system to fit them" (cited in Fien, 1991, p241).
Hogan, Fearnley-Sander, and Lamb (1996), writing from an Australian perspective, offer three models of civics education: education for virtue, a utilitarian approach, and a liberal democratic approach. Of these three, the liberal democratic approach offers relevancy to the discussion of pedagogical possibilities. This model suggests that civics must provide students with "educational opportunities, resources and experiences that permit [them] to develop the capacities 'deliberative rationality' necessary to the pursuit of their 'highest order' or fundamental interests" (Hogan et al., 1996, p38). Their view of civics has both public and private interests in mind, as they feel students should be given "ample opportunity to define and promote their own interests as interdependent members of a liberal democratic society" (p39). Perhaps the development of individual interests within the context of the larger society, and student exposure to the possible contribution they can make is a direction for public and private interests to be equally served.
An example of a civics conversation internationally was highlighted recently by the stabbing of a headmaster at a school in the UK. After this incident prominent religious leaders suggested that such events should perhaps serve as a catalyst for public debate about how society might best anchor and sustain its moral or spiritual values. Floating the idea that acquainting schoolchildren with the responsibilities and duties of citizenship might be one way of furthering this general aim. This debate coincided with the publication of a National Forum document suggesting "the concrete specification of the moral and political capacities required of any and all citizens in a liberal democracy" (Mulhall 1998, p162). Mulhall (1998) asserts that the idea of teaching children in schools about citizenship could usefully focus this debate only if the notion of citizenship it transmits is one upon which members of the political community can broadly agree; it would seem from the degree of passionate controversy already provoked in these debates that any hope of establishing such a consensus at any useful level of concrete detail is extremely unrealistic. Further, we must not assume that the conception of citizenship to which we can all happily assent is either available in the public political culture or the only concept suitable for the task at hand. Such an overlapping consensus would certainly make life easier for teachers and for parents, in both a pragmatic and moral sense; but the flaws in the argument of political liberalism suggest that any conception of citizenship substantial enough to be of any practical help at the chalk face would also incorporate elements of comprehensive doctrines or 'visions of good'. Only by engaging in serious explorations of complex and subtle arguments that dominate comprehensive issues, rather than looking for ways to avoid them can we hope to realise the very real possibility of reasonable agreement in a genuinely pluralist society.
Developing from these various conceptions of civics is the idea that civics is more than content, but representative of an approach to content and the role of students toward this content. We can now turn to some of the pedagogical possibilities with these conceptions of civics in mind.
What pedagogy?
Civics education in the twenty first century will need take into account present day realities and future needs, and what is reality for adults is not necessarily so for young people. It seems wrong, argues Kennedy (1997), to leave young people to cope with issues like personal identity in the hope of constructing some collective national identity. Civics education "could act as bridge between personal and national identities so that young people develop a sense of themselves and how they ought to relate to their peers and others with whom they share the planet" (Kennedy, 1997, p9). His view also stresses the role of responsibilities, in particular the role of service learning, as a means to enable young people to become actively involved in 'worthwhile activities'. Indeed the whole school community offers opportunity for democratic living - through SRC's, mock parliaments, and senior school elections - democracy should be about lived experience in a multitude of contexts.
However, Hall (1998) urges caution in such approaches. While there is obvious merit in enabling young people to gain practical experience of community involvement there is ambiguity as to what exactly 'active' entails (p312). To be avoided here is the notion of 'the have a go' citizen, which obscures full engagement and understanding of citizenship. This rests upon a set of questions surrounding the responsibilities of citizenship over the issue of citizen rights, the unbalancing of whose experience may lead to an unthinking subordinated subject. A possibility for this is the option of a 'dynamic citizenship curriculum' which might involve cooperative practice, experiential learning, dialogue, negotiation and encounter skills. Useful here would be to look at the way in which transitions to different adult identities can skew young people's experience of and even access to citizenship. This brings into focus the important distinction between the normative and material dimensions of citizenship and the need to recognise and stress the differential nature of citizenship experiences (e.g., growing up black, female, Aboriginal in a remote Australian community).
Figure 1.1 - Theoretical/methodical possibilities for civics education.
Extending these ideas, the conceptual map in figure 1.1 offers theories and methods accessible for civics education in Australia. While there exist multiple possibilities for civics education, the map focuses on constructivism, conflict, and critical pedagogy. These concepts are discussed below.
Constructivism
Constructivism in education is essentially the belief that the mind is active in the construction of knowledge (Stake, 1994). In terms of pedagogy, a constructivist approach incorporates the student's existing knowledge and prior experiences as a necessary component in the process of learning. Newmann, Marks, and Gamoran (1996) discuss learning, regardless of its relative complexity, as a process which incorporates "the student's prior knowledge ... the social context of values, expectations, rewards, and sanctions in which the information is initially communicated and later expressed by the student; and the student's self-monitoring in the process of learning" (p285). Learning that involves the construction of knowledge, a disciplined inquiry, and value beyond school is defined by Newmann et al. (1996) as 'authentic'. The construction of knowledge involves the production and construction of knowledge, rather than its reproduction. Disciplined inquiry makes use of the prior knowledge base of the student in order to build upon this, rather than the transmission of prior knowledge to the student . These two components are constructivist in their approach, given their heavy reliance upon student knowledge and experience. In relation to civics education, 'authentic pedagogy' is appropriate given the consideration of 'value beyond school', where emphasis is placed on the practicality of learning outside of a school context. That is, if civics education should strive to develop individuals who can function purposefully as citizens within their society, then such an emphasis on value beyond an academic setting is a necessary consideration for pedagogy and civics. Furthermore, a consideration of the 'social context of values' broadens the perspective of the individual, and places their developing values in the wider context of their own society.
The notion of 'authentic civic values', as proposed by Levitt and Longstreet (1993), extends the applicability of constructivism. Authentic civic values are defined as "values that have real meaning for today's world", and are taught in order to reflect the reality beyond school (Levitt and Longstreet, 1993, 142). The authors stress the need for teachers to incorporate the teaching of values and issues into their classrooms that are consistent and relevant to the student's life. Dewey (1916) similarly wrote that: "schooling must provide genuine situations in which personal participation brings home the import of the material and the problems which it conveys" (p233). For Dewey (1916), it is the experience within the classroom situation or discussion that must be relevant to the student if teaching is to "safely enter upon conveying facts and ideas" (p233). This is consistent with our original emphasis on process in view of content: if facts or idea are going to be conveyed, attention must be paid to who it is being conveyed to, how it is conveyed and therefore, what is going to be conveyed.
Remembering Apple and Beane's (1995) democratic curriculum, and Shermis and Barth's (1982) critical view of social studies, we need to consider passivity in the classroom, in light of constructivism. Passivity delivers a conflicting message to students. If they are passive during the formative stages of learning about citizenship, the precedence this sets for their future lives as active citizens is questionable. Grant and VanSledright (1991) are similarly critical of those who view knowledge, or 'citizen knowledge' as static, or something that students should accept as a given. Educators who assume that students should accept knowledge without question, are guilty of characterising students as 'passive':
students become engaged only to the extent that they agree to embrace the knowledge and values provided them ... convinced that authority rests in knowledge and that control over knowledge lies outside their domain, little impetus exists for students to do other than acquiesce (Grant & VanSledright, 1991, p27).
A further characterisation is that as students try to find the 'right answer', they "may find no reason to demonstrate concern toward anyone but themselves" (Grant & VanSledright, 1991, p27). Such an embodiment of knowledge and its neglect of student experience and understanding is contrary to much of the writing concerning pedagogy and citizenship. Conversely, those who advocate active citizenship suggest that participation will "enhance understanding of the common interest", among other things (Pateman, 1970, in Sears & Hughes, 1996, p125). Participation in this sense can refer to both classroom activities as well as activities outside of a school context.
Sears and Hughes (1996) offer a continuum of civics education that range from passive (or elitist) to activist. An activist conception of civics education comes closer, in theory, to achieving the 'determined' goals of civics education than does a passive role. Grant and VanSledright (1991) offer an articulate summary of the fate that civics education might suffer if a passive, or strictly knowledge-based approach to civics education is followed:
If we assert that citizen knowledge, derived from the sisters of social studies, represents a tool - and nothing more - to assist us in claiming the future we want, then perhaps the action and participatory elements of citizenship can re-emerge. Otherwise, we submit, social studies might as well as jettison the active citizenship education goal, and throw its tired hat in with the disciplinary communities of history and social science (p31).
Houser (1995) in a paper examining the influence of everyday social interaction on education for citizenship has as its basic assumption that education conducive to societal improvement involves more than the mere learning of information. Baldwin (1988) noted that no society can adequately advance democratic principles, promote equitable relationships, or understand the frustration and resistance of the oppressed until individual members acknowledge and confront their personal and collective histories and identities. Subsequently, any person who sees the world at least partially from the perspective of others will find it increasingly difficult to maintain an insensitive, unreflective and unyielding orientation towards others. Houser (1995) states civics education can be promoted through formal, academic instruction as well as informal social interactions occurring throughout the day. In either case the process involves both having and discussing, and then reflecting upon, a variety of substantive socio-cultural experiences. Rather than the mere learning of information, education of the greater good within pluralistic and democratic societies involves fundamental self-development. This includes developing a greater sense of caring and community, an increased capacity for social and personal criticism, identification with a broader range of others, and commitment to acting on the basis of one's knowledge and convictions. In addition to formal academic instruction, such education involves utilising informal student interaction as a means of developing more equitable selves.
Conflict
The role of conflict in pedagogy is not a new concept, as dialectics can be traced to Socrates and the Ancient Greeks. Conflict refers to a student or teacher's experience with values, understandings, and/or beliefs that are in opposition to their own. The usefulness of conflict within pedagogy is found in its ability to "increase the scope and complexity of students' cognitive schematas" (Torney-Purta, 1989, in Bickmore, 1993, p345). Bickmore (1993) identifies the value of conflict in terms of civics education:
Individuals who are able to speak up and be heard in this type of discussion practice important skills and rehearse citizenship roles that differ from those learned by the listeners (p345).
For Bickmore, the classroom teacher who encourages discussion of 'competing' viewpoints and who exposes students to a variety of points of view, "may teach students the skills and inclination to manage conflict in their democratic society" (1993, p346). Similarly, Engle and Ochoa (1988) indicate the inclusion of 'discrepant points of view' as a strategy to encourage countersocialisation1 for teachers of social studies and civics education. Dewey (1916) discusses conflict, but in a slightly different vein. For Dewey, the student who has "worked through some confused intellectual situation and fought his [sic] way to clearing up obscurities in a definite outcome" can appreciate the value of the experience and has a clearer definition of the situation, idea, or concept (p235). Such intellectual conflict is similar to cognitive dissonance - a condition that arises when an individual discovers that his or her beliefs are 'logically inconsistent', or that actions taken are contrary to the individual's beliefs (Bickmore, 1993). It is argued that, when such conflict occurs, the individual pursues internal harmony, which "can stimulate thinking and sometimes learning" (Bickmore, 1993, p345). Related to Dewey, such conflict has little meaning unless "it somehow comes home to him at some point as an appreciation of his own" (Dewey, 1916, p235). Simpson's (1995) argument extends the usefulness of conflict, and includes the practice of introducing conflicting morals. The rationale for Simpson is that
if we are to live in harmony in our global society and pluralistic communities, then we must teach our children to identify and confront moral dilemmas, analyze them, and reach a consensus with the diverse members of the community (Simpson, 1995, p72).
In Bickmore's study of classrooms practicing conflict, she identified two models that demonstrated conflict and teaching: learning inclusion and inclusion in learning. Learning inclusion placed value on diversity, dissent, and debate in the classroom, while inclusion in learning involved the students in face-to-face confrontation of conflicting ideologies and viewpoints (Bickmore, 1993). The teacher practicing learning inclusion viewed knowledge as 'incontestable fact'; the curriculum in this classroom was 'tightly structured' and had little classroom discussion. The teacher practicing inclusion in learning employed "a strategy that included student voices in the production as well as in the evaluation of knowledge" (Bickmore, 1993, p373). Unlike, the classroom practicing learning inclusion, the inclusion in learning classroom relied heavily upon classroom discussion on topical issues (Bickmore, 1993). Hahn (1996) offers similar support for the use of controversial or conflicting issues in classrooms, which provide students the opportunity to voice their opinions through discussion in a 'supportive' atmosphere. Such classrooms, according to Hahn, "develop political attitudes associated with participatory citizenship" (1996, p348).
Within each of these views of conflict lies potential applicability and appropriateness in a civics education context. The most obvious application is found in the opportunity to practice 'citizenship roles', by voicing and defending a particular position (Bickmore, 1993). In a critical view of conflict in the classroom, Apple (1990) maintained that there are 'few serious attempts' in the area of conflict in teaching. Instead, in his view, inquiries are made "that bear little resemblance to the complex nexus and contradictions surrounding the control and organisation of social life (Apple, 1990, p7). Cherryholmes (1991) reiterated this belief stating that while conflict was a "crucial and inescapable part of social life" it is 'marginalised' in social studies education (p45).
Critical
A critical pedagogy views existing curriculum with criticism, because it is foreign to the student and is remote from their experiences and expertise; it is something that is imposed upon them, rather than done with them (Osborne, 1991). From a critical perspective, student's experiences are therefore cited as a 'starting point' for meaningful instruction. This incorporates aspects of constructivism, but goes beyond it, as what a student values or knows is questioned and may be considered 'unacceptable'. As such, it is the job of teachers to go "beyond students' experience at some point in order to introduce students to a wider world of ideas and knowledge" (Osborne, 1991, p53). The student 'voice' is an essential part of the classroom, and through the recognition of student experiences, part of this 'voice' is considered (Osborne, 1991).
Giroux defines voice as "the various measures by which students and teachers actively participate in dialogue" (1989, p199). A reasonable question to ask of civics education nationally and locally in NSW, is whether it will allow for such voices to be developed. If Giroux's definition of the role of a teacher is accepted, then such consideration to voice must be given:
teachers are active community participants whose function is to establish public spaces where students can debate, appropriate, and learn the knowledge and skills necessary to live in a critical democracy (1989, p201).
That is, teachers operating in a critical perspective will provide such 'spaces' for the development of the student voice. According to Young (1981, 1992), based on his research of teacher epistemologies, a 'critical' teacher is identified as one who views knowledge as a "collective product of a history of inquiry" and whose methods in the classroom "went beyond method to a sharing of experience and the construction of meanings and argument" (Young, 1992, pp.19-20). A pedagogy that is 'critically oriented' provides room for the student to enter into the conversation, to find their 'voice'. Critical theory then suggests that without this inclusive process in the construction and development of an argument, a student may never approach understanding:
Habermas insists that when one understands a reason one cannot avoid taking a position on it, because to understand a reason is to be far enough immersed in the community concerned already to have a great deal of experience, commitment and evidence about the bases of the reasoning of that community (Young, 1992, p37).
Again, the process or pedagogy can inform what a student comes to understand and know. And there is a suggested causal link between the development of an argument, and its eventual position, and the surrounding community of the individual. Such a link seems self-perpetuating: that is, the greater the opportunity to articulate one's own belief or position in relation to one's own community, the greater the knowledge becomes of that community and the ability to voice this position.
Teaching that incorporates a critical perspective has similar elements of conflict and pedagogy, as previously discussed by both Dewey and Bickmore - that is, through the role of skeptical participation. Young (1992), in describing some of the research on concept acquisition, suggested the importance of skeptical voices in the classroom and its applicability to 'critical' learning:
children may well learn more quickly when they have room, as Habermas would say, for agreeing, disagreeing or seeking more information about the claims advanced by others, including teachers (p26).
Here, a critical pedagogy might allow for the development of a voice and an argument, and for that argument to be challenged - mirroring the reality of everyday life facing a citizen, at least outside most classrooms. Critical pedagogy has applicability to civics education because it strives to develop within students the ability to question their society and their role within it. Aside from the potential issue of classroom management with this approach, such practice will develop decision-making and critical reasoning skills, which are essential characteristics of citizenship in a democratic society.
Pedagogy - what possibilities?
Within the notion of civics education there implicitly exists the idea of teaching students to act democratically, so as to promote the process of democracy. At the root of this approach is a conception of democracy that pertains to a developmental conception that is described as 'maximal' which has associations with the political thought of Rousseau, Mills, Marx and Dewey. This contrasts with what Reid describes as a 'minimalist' view and is "consistent with an 'elite' democratic theory wherein elites formulate and exercise policy that translates to knowledge content that is carefully laid out in centrally developed and prescribed curriculum" (1996, p10). The federal government's current commitment to producing Discovering Democracy curriculum materials suggests we have cut short the possibilities for widespread conversation to articulate the stake people feel they have in creating conditions for an effective democracy. When individuals prepare to receive something, be it in the form of ideas, documents or policy, they are also concerned with giving something in return or contributing. So if the stake is terminated, they may seek to cancel the agreement.
In terms of maintaining this stake, Bernstein (1996) suggests that the school must ensure it has institutionalised three interrelated rights of individual enhancement (meaning the right to critical understanding and to new possibilities). This leads to a condition of confidence which operates at an individual level. The second right is to be included, socially, intellectually, culturally and personally - this also requires a right to be autonomous. This ties in with the value of autonomy, initiated originally by Rousseau, that as human beings we generally yearn to live a life that is authentically our own. Further here is inclusion in society, which according to Bernstein (1996), is a condition for 'communitas' and operates at the level of the social. The third right he identifies is participation, not only in terms of discourse but about practice in procedures whereby order is constructed, maintained and changed. Participation would in this context enable civic practice and be visible operationally at the level of politics. In spite of the simplicity of this model (as stated by Bernstein himself) if we are serious about democracy, culture and education then we must consider the constraints and grip of class-regulated realities. Further, the serious question is one of what limitation of pedagogic democratic rights is a society prepared to tolerate at any one time. Much of Bernstein's theoretical work concerns itself with general questions of pedagogic communication as a crucial medium of symbolic control (i.e., how power relations are transformed into discourse and discourse into power relations). He expresses it as "to know whose voice is speaking is the beginning of one's own voice" (Bernstein, 1996, p12). The devices of symbolic control like those mandated in the form of curriculum documents or educational policy in Australian schools are increasingly state regulated and monitored through 'decentered centralisation' (Bernstein, 1996). What follows from this then is that by controlling the Discovering Democracy materials, in spite of stated widespread consultation, the state can exercise its influence over what types of citizen it wishes to foster or indeed, create.
What is revealed in much of the current educational literature on appropriate content for civics education at the school level is that there is no widespread agreement. Indeed this should be the position, in order that what constitutes 'legitimate knowledge' as defined by Apple (1996), does not go uncontested, as curriculum is never simply a neutral assemblage of knowledge. Then, whose knowledge is of most worth? This is raised in the context of textbooks where the text becomes a door into nearly all of the power relations involved in education. The recent example in NSW not of 'textbook' but of other 'official text' in the form of agreement over the content and orientation of the new Year 7-10 History syllabus. The various stakeholders in this debate have often found themselves engaged in conflict over whose symbols should be transmitted and whose principles should organise this transmission (Bernstein, 1975; Hogan, 1995).
At the centre of this conflict sits the state, represented in NSW by the Board of Studies, with its official sanctioning metered out by the NSW Department of Education and Training. Apple (1982) contests that knowledge in various curricula are rooted in differential power, in a set of social relationships that ultimately play a large part in determining whose cultural capital is made available and 'relocated' in our schools. In NSW, recent changes to the Year 10 School Certificate Test demonstrates such influence. The introduction of a trial Australian History, Geography, and Civics test2 seeks to evaluate pre-determined knowledge of issues that pertain to Australian democracy. Unfortunately, the culture of testing knowledge in the form of a mandated test undermines the broader possibilities for civics education in schools. Teachers are forced instead to adopt a narrower conception of knowledge related to civics, which sets itself ahead of much more powerful pedagogical possibilities for civics education. Inhibited by state controlled top-down curriculum change, like the case of civics, teachers are forced into the position of rational adopters, and as such they are de-professionalised.
Conclusion
Debate on civics education seems to have acquired an urgency in recent years. There is a strong connection between these debates and the question of what should be included in civics education, whose interests are being served, and who is knowledge of civics education for. Attempts have been made here to perhaps irrigate the 'contested wasteland' - that of a deficit and transmission of knowledge approaches - with ideas from compatible pedagogies. If civics education maintains a fluid state, it remains contestable and debatable, open to input from all individuals and community groups interested in contributing to the conversation. An emphasis on examining the pedagogical possibilities allows for the emergence of a seamless notion of civics, one that is unrestricted by subject matter, and more importantly has immediacy and relevance to the lives of young people. Let us not amble down well-worn tracks while having this conversation, but seek new paths as we stride out ready to both voice and embrace thoughtful possibilities for meaningful democracy in Australia.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Judyth Sachs, Catherine Harris, and John Currie for their comments on various drafts of this paper.
References
Apple, M.W. (1982). Education and Power. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Apple, M.W. (1990). Ideology and Curriculum. New York: Routledge.
Apple, M.W. (1996). Cultural Politics and Education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Apple, M.W. and Beane, J.A. (1995) (Eds). Democratic Schools. Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Baldwin, J. (1988). A talk to teachers, in Simonson, R. and Walker, S. (Eds.), The Graywolf Annual Five: Multicultural Literacy. St. Paul: Graywolf Press.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class codes and control, Volume 3. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bernstein, B. (1996). Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity. London: Taylor & Francis.
Bickmore, K. (1993). Learning Inclusion/Inclusion in Learning: Citizenship Education for a Pluralistic Society, Theory and Research in Social Education, 21, 4, 341-384.
Cherryholmes, C.H. (1991). Critical Research and Social Studies Education. In Shaver, J. (1991) (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Social Studies Teaching and Learning. New York: Macmillan.
Civics Expert Group (1994a). Whereas the people...: Civics and Citizenship Education. Canberra: AGPS.
Civics Expert Group (1994b). Whereas the people ... executive summary. Canberra: AGPS.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Toronto: Free Press.
Engle, S. and Ochoa, S. (1988). Education for Democratic Citizenship: Decision Making in the Social Studies. New York: Teachers College Press.
Fien, J. (1991). Ideology, political education and teacher education: matching paradigms and models, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 23,3, 239-256.
Giroux, H. (1989). Schooling for Democracy. London: Routledge.
Grant, S.G. and VanSledright, B.A. (1991). From Citizen Knowledge to Civic Virtue: The Paradoxical Journey from Here to There, Social Science Record, 28, 2, 23-34.
Hahn, C. (1996). Investigating Controversial Issues at Election Time: Political Socialisation Research, Social Education, 60, 6, 348-350.
Hall, T., Williamson, H., and Coffey, A. (1998). Conceptualising citizenship: young people and transition to adulthood, Journal of Educational Policy, 13,3, 301-315.
Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann.
Hogan, D. (1995). Before virtue: a study in the theory of interests and civics education, Australian Educational Researcher, 22, 3, 45-70.
Hogan, D., Fearnley-Sander, M., and Lamb, S. (1996). From Civics to Citizenship: Whereas the people ... and Civic Education. In Kennedy, K.J. (Ed.), New Challenges for Civics and Citizenship Education. Canberra: ACSA, Teaching Resource Number 10.
Houser, N. (1995). The Influence of Social Interaction on Education for Citizenship, Curriculum and Teaching, 10, 2, 15-30.
Kemp, D. (1997). Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education. A ministerial statement by the Honourable Dr. David Kemp, Minister for Schools, Vocational Education and Training, 8 May 1997.
Kennedy, K.J. (1995). Conflicting conceptions of citizenship and their relevance for the school curriculum. In Print, M. (Ed), Civics and Citizenship Education: Issues from Practice and Research. Canberra: ACSA.
Kennedy, K.J. (1997). Citizenship Education and the Modern State. London: Falmer Press.
Levitt, G.A. and Longstreet, W.S. (1993). Controversy and the Teaching of Authentic Civic Values, The Social Studies, July/August, 142-148.
Lingard, B., Knight, J., and Porter, P. (Eds.) (1993). Schooling Reform in Hard Times. London: Falmer Press.
Luke, A. (1997). New narratives of human capital: recent redirections in Australian educational policy, Australian Educational Researcher, 24, 2, 1-21.
Mabe, A.R. (1993). Moral and Practical Foundations for Civic Education, The Social Studies, July/August, 153-157.
Macintyre, S. (1995). Diversity, citizenship, and the curriculum. Keynote address, Biennial Conference of the Australian Curriculum Studies Association, The University of Melbourne, 13 July 1995.
Mulhall, S. (1998). Political Liberalism and Civic Education: the liberal state and its future citizens, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 32,2, 161-176.
Newmann, F.M., Marks, H. M., and Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic Pedagogy and Student Performance, American Journal of Education, 104, 278-312.
O'Connor, J. (1973). The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St Martins Press.
O'Loughlin, M. (1997). Education for Citizenship: Integrating Knowledge, Imagination, and Democratic Dispositions, Forum of Education, 52,2, 24-33.
Osborne, K. (1991). Teaching for democratic citizenship. Toronto: Our Schools/ Our Selves.
Pascoe, S. (1996). Civics and citizenship education: the Australian context, Unicorn, 22, 1, 18-29.
Phillips, H.C.J. (1995). The ideals of citizenship: perceptions of Western Australian youth. In Print, M. (Ed.), Civics and Citizenship Education: Issues from practice and research, 19-24. Canberra: ACSA.
Reid, A. (1996). Selling Civics: The curriculum development process in a national project, Social Educator, April, 9-16.
Sears, A. and Hughes, A. (1996). Citizenship Education and Current Educational Reform, Canadian Journal of Education, 21,2, 123-142.
Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1989). Education for Active Citizenship in Australian schools and youth organisations. Canberra: AGPS.
Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training (1991). Active Citizenship Revisited. Canberra: AGPS.
Shermis, S.S. and Barth, J.L. (1982). Teaching for Passive Citizenship: A Critique of Philosophical Assumptions, Theory and Research in Social Education, 10, 4, 17-37.
Simpson, N. (1996). Directions and priorities, Unicorn, 22,1, 89-91.
Stake, R.E. (1994). Case Studies. In Denzim, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Young, R.E. (1981). A Study of Teacher Epistemologies, Australian Journal of Education, 25, 2, 194-208.
Young, R.E. (1992). Critical Theory and Classroom Talk. Adelaide: Multilingual Matters.