Creating Good Citizenship Should be a Central Aim of State Schooling
Introduction
This paper explores the rationale for the inclusion of good citizenship as a crucial objective of state schooling. It critically examines the arguments for proponents and opposers of the notion that good citizenship is a core purpose of education. However, much importance is given to good citizenship as a crucial aspect of the academic course. This discussion will start with an overview of the motivating factors for educationists and policymakers to introduce citizenship education in schools. An in-depth account of the elements that render such education significant for young individuals will be discussed. Both political socialization and the establishment of knowledge and skills for democratic contributions are central to citizenship education. Besides these, there are substantial contentions by some curricular designers about the form that political and citizenship education should take as well as whether it should be adopted as a subject in learning institutions.
Citizenship education
It is widely thought that personal autonomy is the quality of character that educators need to focus on (Hedge and Mackenzie, 2016). However, there is a need to change the narrative by agreeing to the fact that good citizenship, just like personal autonomy, should be the central aims of state schooling. According to Hand (2014), the core objective of the curriculum is encapsulated within four capacities to enable learners to become confident individuals, successful learners, effective contributors, and effective communicators. Education should exhibit the concept of purpose, which entails the intention to attain something that has meaning to self as well as an intended consequence to the world beyond the self. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
I firmly believe that education has a crucial role in preparing young people to participate in their societies actively. Civic education encompasses both legal obligations and rights and how individuals coexist within nations, communities, and the global world (Nussbaum, 2002). Indeed, people often have distinct ideas regarding what constitutes a good citizen and the best ways of staying together. Besides, there is a difference in the ideas about the contribution of education towards good citizenship (Westheimer and Kahne, 2002). It is, therefore, vital to approach the element of citizenship and citizenship education in policy, theory, and practice to understand its value to learners.
The Concept of Good Citizenship
Several authors have expounded on the idea of good citizenship and how it can be achieved via education. Citizenship education has been central in the research, theory, practice, and policy of education, and it is essential in supporting learners to develop their identity. Swalwell, (2015) points out that the concept of citizenship has been expanded and deepened to not only connect with the national state abut also link with the regional arrangements such as the European citizenship as well as with the entire world via the global citizenship concept (Nussbaum, 2002). This form of education, therefore, needs encompasses political, cultural, and social aspects and hence an essential part of the curriculum. Besides, it concerns living together within a given society, and thus deepening citizenship has enhanced its link with moral development (White, 2017). As a result of this, citizenship is the core concept in research and policy whenever the role of education is examined in the context of a student’s identity development.
There has been a consensus at the most abstract level of discourse that the principal aim of citizenship education is to develop good democratic citizens (Schugurensky and Myers, 2003). However, this particular purpose is expressed in distinct ways in its implementation via educational policies, pedagogical strategies, and curriculum development. Similar to other educational areas, citizenship education comprises both a progressive and conservative orientations. It is a useful tool to maintain the status quo and empower learners and other groups to strive for emancipatory change. Despite educations practices being located somewhere along the continuum in the tow orientations, they often gravitate towards each other.
Motivating Factors Towards Citizenship Education
Westheimer and Kahne (2002) contend that citizenship education needs to focus on the development of public skills, the public good, and democratic values. Despite civic education scholars and researchers not being in total agreement about the ideal outcomes of citizenship education, there is a significant consensus about the meaning and desirability of various outcomes. Democratic values are core outcomes of this process. Prepared cities have knowledge, understanding, and commitment to the values enshrined in the constitution, including equality, freedom, due process, authority, human rights, mutual assistance, and civic responsibility, among others (Swalwell, 2015). Another factor is the common good. Citizens are required to act concerning the common good. Also, they are expected to possess compassion, social responsibility, ethical commitment, and some level of interdependence between people and their environment and among people themselves. Incorporating citizenship in education, therefore, equips the learners an informed approach to common good through their actions such as volunteerism, voting, and petitioning the government for change.
I agree with the fact that competent citizens require expertise in higher-level thinking processes, including problem-solving, critical reasoning, perspective-taking, decision making, and divergent thinking (Swalwell, 2015). They should be able to evaluate evidence and construct hypotheses. Thinking skills are, therefore, an essential fact that prompts a need for citizenship in education. Also, social process skills such as conflict management, communication, working in cooperative endeavours, and consensus-building are vital for high-functioning citizens. According to Simenc, (2009), these essential skills form part of citizen education that influences the leaners in such a manner that they appreciate the efficacy of civic participation, feeling of obligation to participate, and interest in participating.
According to Hand (2014), society is established upon basic institutions, and the accessibilities of such institutions are impacted by the willingness to accommodate other people’s differences by citizens of that particular society. Education in school is required to enable citizens to learn the strategies to accommodate these differences. Among the first fundamental things a person needs to learn is to enable the cultivation of an open mind as well as the value to it. In the libertarian society, open-mindedness is core due to the increased multiculturalism. Therefore, orienting the goal of education towards good citizenships would increase the awareness of the differences in religious views, opinions, values, and morals among that other people possess. Also, an open mind helps in understanding one another and instilling the value of tolerance that ultimately results in acceptance.
Education versus Indoctrination
Levine and Kawashima-Ginsberg (2015) argue that all education should focus on instilling only intellectual and academic virtues, including the critical pursuit of truth, which differs from the inculcating particular convictions such as good citizenship. This notion is based on the assumption that civic education will ultimately devolve into indoctrination. Contrary to this White, (2017) makes a distinction between genuine education and propaganda by demonstrating the role civic education that includes teaching learners about the workings of the political process, the structure of the government, and issues frequently debated within the public sphere. Therefore, the notion that schooling should only enhance intellectual virtues, and not political virtues or moral values is defective. I am convinced that civic education and the general purpose of education are inseparable, and no learning institutions can function effectively without taking a stand on the broad range of political and moral virtues as well as civic values. The purpose education will, therefore, be missed if schools confine themselves to enhancing only intellectual or academic virtues and foregoing democratic virtues such as respect and concern all people because political and moral values shape the manner people conceive and develop the intellectual enterprise.
Education and Socio-Economic Order
The alignment of citizenship education to the conservative orientation results in the reproduction of the existing socio-economic order (Simenc, 2009). Democracy and capitalism, from this point of view, are the perfect complements, and it is difficult to conceive at the expense of the other (Westheimer and Kahne, 2002). Education instils national loyalty, voluntary service, obedience to authority, and the assimilation of immigrants. Conservative citizenship education, in terms of content, focuses mainly on national narratives, geographical facts, historical facts, and how government institutions function. It is from this perspective that I believe citizenship education needs to recognize the existing social structures, ensure social cohesion, and develop moral character. It is beyond doubt that good citizenship through education is the strategy for modelling good consumers, good producers, and good patriots and that placing citizenship education as one of the significant aims of education. On the other hand, the progressive alignment to the physical education privileges social justice and societal transformations. This particular tradition reveals the tensions existing between democracy and capitalism, whereby capitalism creates exclusion and inequalities while democracy strives to minimize them. It is thus vital to orient the education curriculum towards citizenship because it will ultimately nurture cosmopolitanism, political engagement, critical analysis, and cross-cultural understanding and respect. Also, it develops informed, critical, and active citizens that effectively contribute to the civic life and other state affairs.
White (2016) argues that universities are responsible for shaping future citizens in the era of increasing internationalization and cultural diversity. Every modern democracy is inescapably plural, and citizens within such countries are often called upon making vital decisions that demand some understanding of the ethnic, racial, and religious groups within that particular nation. Also, there is a need to understand the situation of women and the sexual minorities present in such regions. Most often, citizens are required to take part in matters than concern agriculture, ecology, human rights, industry, and business, which brings people together from multiple nations. Therefore, failure by the state schools to create a healthy network of social connections means that dealing with one another is likely to be guided by the norms of market exchange that is often defective. Such systems cannot emerge independently and thus a need to involve citizenship education in learning institutions to contribute towards the attainment of this goal (Westheimer and Kahne, 2002).
Active Learning and Critical Thinking
Among the most incisive criticisms of citizenship in education is its tendency to position learners in passive learning roles. According to Schugurensky and Myers (2003), researchers and other scholars emphasize that citizenship is one of the most active roles, and therefore, preparation for this particular role should also be active. Learners should be provided with means for applying their knowledge and understanding of democracy. Students learn best via participating, and therefore the principles of democracy can be well taught in such a manner that they can be easily practices, which means that it should be part of the curriculum. In the exploration of the ideal civic education curriculum, Garratt and Piper, (2012), demonstrates some essential suggestions concerning active learning. He rejects the passive transfer of facts, terming it an inadequate strategy for teaching and therefore needs modification to favour the proactive strategy of learning. Change of this strategy offers learners an opportunity to participate in reading, observation, writing, debating, simulations, and role-playing as well as utilization of statistical data to learn essential skills in critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision making. Anchoring the curriculum on the concept of citizenship would, therefore, ensure collaborative and cooperative types of learning.
Despite most writers including Hedge and MacKenzie, (2016), categorizing critical thinking as a form of active learning, I am putting special attention here due to the enormous emphasis that experts and researchers of citizenship education place on it. Among the reasons for this particular emphasis is the low level of critical thinking ability demonstrated by the research of the civic preparedness of most countries. Also, there is a low incidence of critical thinking practice and instruction in most state schools. The study by Garratt and Piper, 2012), has established a direct link between high-functioning citizenship and critical thinking skills. Being able to gather and evaluate evidence, generate a hypothesis, remain open-minded to change, and understand competing positions within a controversy are some of the vital features of the democratic deliberation. Therefore, there is no room for abandoning them from the curriculum.
Criticism for Citizenship Education
Even though the need for moulding “good citizenship” is growing within the education sector, there has been an increase in opposition to this particular trend. Questions whether state schooling could carry out what liberal theorists expect them to do with regards to citizenship have arisen from this course. Banks, (2017), claims that the principles invoked to substantiate the role of citizenship education are not tenable within public schooling space. Also, he argues that the ideals of both non-discrimination and non-repression are often not realized in state schools across the world. Swalwell (2015) argues that the introduction of citizenship in the curriculum adds an extra burden to the learners, and both exam and study stress would undermine the actual purpose of citizenship earning. Many opposers argue that enlightened and participative citizenship, as well as the ethical and principle values which enhance its progress, can be nest served through democratic and classless ethos to ensure justice and social attachment in both education and the broader society. Lastly, the concern about the modalities for teaching this subject has grown due to its highly sensitive nature and primarily when handled with a biased specialist (Biesta, 2009). Such approaches would ultimately transfer extreme or negative beliefs regarding immigrants and other individuals of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Even with these criticisms, the opposers to the citizenship education still bear the belief that citizenship education may turn unsuccessful if it is devoid of morality within the context of continuous such for educational equality and social justice.
Conclusion
Throughout the paper, I have defended the notion that good citizenship is a core aim of education, and this particular aim is tenable via state schooling. Despite the opposing arguments and misunderstandings, the aspect of “good citizenship” cannot be ignored in the school curriculum, and this objective has been supported by practitioners and theorists who argue that citizenship education ensures enhanced learning as well as a proper understanding of the rights and duties of citizens. These perspectives are a pointer to the fact that citizenship classrooms are the best platforms to shift individuals from users and choosers to becoming shapes and creators of a fundamentally democratic society. Therefore, education for citizenship in learning institutions not empower students through creating awareness of their rights but also encourages them to serve an active role at the society, national, and global levels.
References
Banks, J.A., 2017. Failed citizenship and transformative civic education. Educational Researcher, 46(7), pp.366-377.
Biesta, G., 2009. Good education in an age of measurement: on the need to reconnect with the question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), pp.33-46.
Delibovi, D., 2016. Four volumes in the philosophy of education. Teaching Philosophy, 39(3), pp.347-358.
Garratt, D., and Piper, H., 2012. Citizenship education and philosophical enquiry: Putting thinking back into practice.Education, Citizenship, and Social Justice, 7(1), pp.71-84.
Hand, M., 2014. Towards a theory of moral education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 48(4), pp.519-532.
Hedge, N., and MacKenzie, A., 2016. Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: a defence of autonomy and personhood. Oxford Review of Education, 42(1), pp.1-15.
Levine, P., and Kawashima-Ginsberg, K., 2015. Civic education and deeper learning. Deeper learning research series.London: Jobs for the Future.
Nussbaum, M., 2002. Education for citizenship in an era of global connection. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(4-5), pp.289-303.
Schugurensky, D., and Myers, J.P., 2003. Citizenship education: theory, research, and practice. Encounters in Theory and History of Education, 4(1), pp.10-12.
Simenc, M., 2009. Citizenship education, philosophy for children, and the issue of participation. Journal of Contemporary Educational Studies, 5(1), pp.10-26.
Swalwell, K., 2015. Mind the civic empowerment gap: economically elite students and critical civic education. Curriculum Inquiry, 45(5), pp.491-512.
Westheimer, J., and Kahne, J., 2002. Educating the” Good” citizen: the politics of school-based civic education programs. Boston: Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.
White, J., 2016. Moral education and education in altruism: two replies to Michael Hand. Journal of Philosophy of Education,50(3), pp.448-460.
White, J., 2017. Moral education and the limits of rationality: a reply to John Tillson. Theory and Research in Education,15(3), pp.339-345.