Page 44 - Šolsko polje, XXX, 2019, št. 5-6: Civic, citizenship and rhetorical education in a rapidly changing world, eds. Janja Žmavc and Plamen Mirazchiyski
P. 44
šolsko polje, letnik xxx, številka 5–6
the premise that individuals lack the proper and sufficient knowledge to
participate in public life. Because every individual pupil seems to be inad-
equately educated, they do not only lack knowledge, but also the corre-
sponding skills and democratic values. This “individualizes the problem
of young people’s citizenship” (Biesta, 2008) which has, as a consequence,
the underlying idea of citizenship education that individuals are them-
selves responsible for their indifference for political matters and social
malfunctioning in general. As a response to this, citizenship education is
commonly organized and practiced from the perspective of an individu-
al acquiring a necessary set of knowledge, skills and values that will trans-
form their political literacy and political behaviour, comportment and
conduct. This does not mean that community and groups are totally ne-
glected or dismissed in entirety within citizenship education. However,
they are predominantly understood and thought of in relation to an indi-
vidual where it is the latter that precedes them (see Quicke, 1992).
Another detectable problem related to citizenship education con-
cerns the role of citizenship education as a tool for the production of citi-
zenship and (good) citizens. As Olson et al. (2015) succinctly capture, citi-
zenship practice is still predominantly viewed and treated as the outcome
of particular educational trajectories.
The idea of citizenship-as-outcome reveals a strong instrumental orien-
tation in the idea of citizenship education. The focus is mainly on the ef-
fective means to bring about ‘good citizenship’ rather on the question
what ‘good citizenship’ actually is or might be (Biesta, 2011, p. 13).
The discourse of instrumentalism presented in citizenship education pro-
grammes in schools treats education processes, the relevant curriculum
and knowledge as a means to a particular end while the framework of cit-
izenship education as an end in itself is quite often neglected. With regard
to political participation as a topic within citizenship education, this in-
strumental discourse leads to contemporary education experts and poli-
cy-maker discussions on how a more participation-inclined youth is to be
achieved instead of critically reflecting on what participation in current
democratic societies mean.
In relation to the above, another contested facet of citizenship edu-
cation is worth mentioning. Namely, citizenship education predominant-
ly takes citizenship as a status that is comprised of specific legal rights and
duties (see Osler and Starkey, 2006). Of course, there are a number of dif-
ferent approaches and understandings within citizenship education what
these two mean and how they should be addressed and taught properly.
Some would argue, for example, that rights come first and responsibilities
42
the premise that individuals lack the proper and sufficient knowledge to
participate in public life. Because every individual pupil seems to be inad-
equately educated, they do not only lack knowledge, but also the corre-
sponding skills and democratic values. This “individualizes the problem
of young people’s citizenship” (Biesta, 2008) which has, as a consequence,
the underlying idea of citizenship education that individuals are them-
selves responsible for their indifference for political matters and social
malfunctioning in general. As a response to this, citizenship education is
commonly organized and practiced from the perspective of an individu-
al acquiring a necessary set of knowledge, skills and values that will trans-
form their political literacy and political behaviour, comportment and
conduct. This does not mean that community and groups are totally ne-
glected or dismissed in entirety within citizenship education. However,
they are predominantly understood and thought of in relation to an indi-
vidual where it is the latter that precedes them (see Quicke, 1992).
Another detectable problem related to citizenship education con-
cerns the role of citizenship education as a tool for the production of citi-
zenship and (good) citizens. As Olson et al. (2015) succinctly capture, citi-
zenship practice is still predominantly viewed and treated as the outcome
of particular educational trajectories.
The idea of citizenship-as-outcome reveals a strong instrumental orien-
tation in the idea of citizenship education. The focus is mainly on the ef-
fective means to bring about ‘good citizenship’ rather on the question
what ‘good citizenship’ actually is or might be (Biesta, 2011, p. 13).
The discourse of instrumentalism presented in citizenship education pro-
grammes in schools treats education processes, the relevant curriculum
and knowledge as a means to a particular end while the framework of cit-
izenship education as an end in itself is quite often neglected. With regard
to political participation as a topic within citizenship education, this in-
strumental discourse leads to contemporary education experts and poli-
cy-maker discussions on how a more participation-inclined youth is to be
achieved instead of critically reflecting on what participation in current
democratic societies mean.
In relation to the above, another contested facet of citizenship edu-
cation is worth mentioning. Namely, citizenship education predominant-
ly takes citizenship as a status that is comprised of specific legal rights and
duties (see Osler and Starkey, 2006). Of course, there are a number of dif-
ferent approaches and understandings within citizenship education what
these two mean and how they should be addressed and taught properly.
Some would argue, for example, that rights come first and responsibilities
42
