KATHOLIEKE UNIVERSITEIT LEUVEN

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CENTRE FOR POLITICAL RESEARCH

Citizenship Education: A Comparative Perspective

Paper prepared for presentation on the

Research Day of the Faculty of Social Sciences

Leuven, October 27, 2008

Chair: Prof. dr. M. SWYNGEDOUW Supervisor: Prof. dr. M. HOOGHE Ellen CLAES Centre for Political Research Discussants: Dr. L. HUSTINX Parkstraat 45 Dra. E. QUINTELIER B- 3000 LEUVEN Ellen.Claes@soc.kuleuven.be

Abstract Looking into educational, social and political science literature about citizenship education, it is clear that citizenship education is a concept that covers an overabundant amount of practices and theoretical reflections. For comparative and curricula evaluative purposes it is primordial to look into this concept theoretically and empirically to distinguish what specific curricula prescribe, if these prescriptions are theoretically sound and if they indeed exist in real life educational situations. In this article we will compare the citizenship education policy in three West-European countries: Belgium, the Netherlands and France. Furthermore we establish if the policies are theoretically sound. Finally -in an attempt to finalize our investigation of the equilateral triangle between policy, theory and practice- the BYS 2006, will be used to give us a first insight into the empirical validity of a theoretical concept.

Introduction Insight into citizenship education policy, theory and practice from a Northern American perspective can be thought of as an ongoing effort from the 1950s onward. European research efforts in this domain on the other hand took a longer period of time to get on the policy agenda of separate European countries. Although the year 2005 was declared the ‘European Year of Citizenship through Education’, the education for democratic citizenship still appears to vary a lot between European countries and even between European communities and regions. This hotchpotch of different policy measures in Europe - when citizenship education is concerned - makes it difficult to portray a cohesive European story. It can not be ignored, however, that several Western European countries have learned from each other’s policy practices and from research into citizenship education. The Western European context therefore seems an excellent setting for a comparative perspective on citizenship education outside the USA. This paper will therefore look into citizenship education policy practices in three different Western European countries, namely the Netherlands, Belgium and France, and will try to place the practises in a theoretically sound framework that can be used for empirical quantitative comparative research in the citizenship education domain. First, this article will therefore give an insight in the policy measures in the citizenship education domain of the three countries, starting with Belgium. While federalism in Belgium led to transference of responsibility for educational issues to the communities, the insight in the policy will be discussed for the Dutch and the French speaking part of Belgium separately. For each of these communities there will first be an inquiry into the reasons why citizenship education became a policy issue. After establishing this historical background, the measures themselves will be discussed. For the discussion of the Netherlands and France this structure will also be used. Secondly this paper will expound on the links that can be made between the existing policy and citizenship educational theories, relying on concepts derived from political, educational science and psychology. To check if the link between citizenship education policy and citizenship education theory is empirically sound, confirmatory factor analysis will be used on the Belgian Youth Survey (BYS 2006).

1. Policy insights: Citizenship Education in an ‘ever changing’ Europe

Citizenship education in an ever changing entity like the European Union is no sinecure. Nevertheless the European Union seems to aspire after the formation of something as ‘the European citizen’. This pursuit is said to be primordial because educational institutions are expected to play an important role in the development of civic attitudes and the elevation of the quality of civic and political participation in a democratic society (Council of Europe, 2005). The year 2005 was therefore proclaimed the ‘European Year of Citizenship through Education’. This year primordially aimed at encouraging member states to take into account the recommendation on education for democratic citizenship which was recorded in 2002 by the Committee of Ministers. Whilst the suggestions originated from a supranational entity and the European Union can only get beneficial effects from a transversal idea of European citizenship among its inhabitants, the emphasis of the project was mainly directed to a strictly state/community- wise ‘consideration’ of the recommendations (Council of Europe, 2005). Therefore each European country went on with already existing citizenship education efforts, now only referring to the European year as an extra appreciation of the projects they were doing or planning to start up in the future. The merits of this kind of reinforcement are not to be underestimated; nevertheless one can conclude that it did not effectively contribute to the formation of a strong European identity (Dejaeghere and Quintelier, 2008). Because citizenship education is still in the grace of each country or community individually we can not see citizenship education efforts as separate from a country or even community based perspective. While the European Union seems to be constantly confronted with decentralisation in several member states, policy efforts regarding citizenship education also appear really diffuse. One of the best examples of this segmentation of citizenship education policies in Europe is found in a country like Belgium, where the federal state structure brings about different citizenship education approaches in the two distinct communities.

1.1. Citizenship Education Policies in Belgium

Putting citizenship education policies of Belgium under a microscope seems highly interesting because of the spectacular transformation the country went through after federalisation led to policy divergence between the Flemish community and the French language community (Swenden & Brans, 2006). Also on the educational domain, this centrifugal logic of the Belgian state let to a high potential for policy divergence, especially after the 1988 reforms enormously increased the powers of both communities in this particular field. In general the policies of the Flemish and the French community regarding education differed somewhat from that point onward. While the Flemish government moved towards more local flexibility, through for example the creation of the Autonomous Council for Community

Education and by the establishment of school associations, the French community tended to stand by to past traditions of centralisation. Also when quality control was concerned the Flemish community took the lead in imposing minimum standards through the definition of performance targets. The French Community did this too, only six years later. Unlike in the Flemish Community the link between the targets and governmental educational inspection of schools was absent (De Rynck & Dezeure, 2006). This different approach in educational ‘culture’ and ‘structure’ will most likely have its effect on the global Flemish and French educational policy and hence also on citizenship education policy. That is why we will discuss them separately in the following enunciation.

1.1.1. Background of citizenship education in the Flemish community

1.1.1.1. Curriculum specifications

As stated before, developments in Belgian society led to the almost constant redefinition and specification of the role of education in Flanders. On the one hand education had to take up the competition with the so-called new knowledge and information providers like the new media, and it seemed that in this field they were losing the battle. On the other hand Flemish society expected a higher engagement from schools to find a solution for all kinds of new societal problems like: democratic deficit, substance abuse, racism and environmental issues. With this societal agenda of the schools in mind, the Flemish parliament in 1991 decided to introduce final attainment goals as one of the cornerstones of the quality control in Flemish education. These goals bore upon a societal consensus and were developed by the Flemish government assisted by the Flemish Department of Educational Development (DED) (Flemish Parliament, 2001). The objectives also specified the development of so-called cross curricular themes like health education, environmental education and education for citizenship (DED, 2001). According to the DED the significance of these cross-curricular specifications in the first place lays with a kind of basic formation of pupils. While specific courses like mathematics and history provide a really specific cognitive focus, the cross-curricular themes are able the stress the contents that are not normally present in the basic core curriculum. In the second place they provide a broadening of the basic formation through the extra attention that has been given to several cultural components together with attention for some behavioural aspects which are not easily attained through the traditional courses, where the main focus rests on cognitive training. Finally the cross curricular goals are meant to draw the attention to the school as a training area for democracy or even as a society within the society (DED, 2001).

Looking at this explanation of the thought importance of the cross-curricular themes, education for citizenship specifications follow naturally. This policy view on the key concepts of citizenship education is moreover legalised in the decree of 24 July 1996 for the first stage of secondary education (age 12 to 14) and in the decree of 18 January 2002 on the core curriculum for the second (age 14 to 16) and the third stage of secondary education (Dejaeghere, 2005). In these decrees and in the Dutch publications of the DED, there is opted for the specific term ‘burgerzin’, which can be translated as ‘citizenship’. The choice of the concept citizenship education over the term civic education seems to imply a more active form of education. This interpretation appears to be correct while the same publications also claim citizenship education to ‘help young people to become active citizens who participate in social life in a constructive and critical manner.’ The DED moreover states that young people are not only ‘future’ citizens, but that they - even when they are not eligible to vote - are a part of society as a whole and of the school in specific. In school and therefore also in society, pupils have to be encouraged to experience things and form opinions about these experiences. Citizenship education in Flanders will be based on these ‘life lessons’ and will attempt to install a kind of citizenship status and the integration of the Flemish societal system (De Coninck, et al., 2002). This kind of ‘introduction into the Flemish society’ through education for citizenship is approached from several angles (Siongers, 2001). A first viewpoint focuses on the legal domain. This domain is meant to give pupils the insight into universal democratic laws like freedom of speech, religion and property. The second dimension is the more political dimension of citizenship. This dimension focuses on political rights citizens possess and especially emphasizes the participatory rights of the citizens - as in taking part in exercise of power - and the duties each individual has in relation to the political system- as in obeying the democratic laws of the country. A third dimension draws attention to the social domain and consists of social relations between individuals in society, solidarity and loyalty. This dimension aims at emphasizing how social laws and duties make it possible to live a civilised democratic life adjusting for the needs the community or the country is confronted with at a particular moment in time. A fourth facet can be categorized as cultural citizenship and entails the knowledge pupils should amass about the common cultural background and identity of their own but also of other cultures. More specifically this domain inscribes respect for equality and for the collective identity of cultures other than one’s own. The last domain pays attention to the economic reality present in each society. It wants to make pupils aware of the connection of each individual to the labour and consumption market. It also entails that pupils will be made aware of their economical rights and duties (De Coninck, et al., 2002). Next to these five dimensions, other ideas (ecological, race-neutral, gender-neutral) are present in the cross-curricular themes, though they are not specifically mentioned as ‘line of force’ in the framework the DED provides when talking about citizenship education.

Next to this overall framework, the Flemish government also provides schools with more specific interpretations of citizenship education in secondary school (age 12 to 18) through the formulation of specific goals for citizenship education which fit in with the five dimensions described above. These specific goals range from describing school rules to notions about global citizenship. The form and content of these specific goals caused a lot of debate from their introduction onward. In 2006 the Flemish government hence decided to revise them and to make them more concise and more suitable for schools to work with. These final revised cross-curricular goals are expected by the end of 2008. While there will be less specific goals, the DED seems to stay true to the citizenship education framework they installed in their 2001 policy report, whilst the focus is still on the five domains described above.

1.1.1.2. Project driven approach

In the publications of the Flemish government and the DED (Departement Onderwijs, 1997; De Coninck, et al., 2002) examples are provided also on how one can implement the cross-curricular goals. These examples show how the goals can be used in the classroom but do not take the form of sophisticated didactical materials teachers can easily work with. This ‘creative’ input is left up to each school in particular and hence varies a lot between schools. Although a lot of freedom is left with each school in particular, the Department of Education and the Flemish government promote several initiatives that take the actualisation of the citizenship education goals to heart in a more ‘project driven’ way. The Flemish government for example gives financial support to valuable and unique school projects that deal with themes that are situated in the democratic domain (Canon: http://64.78.63.10/web/canon/dynamo/home.html). Only a few projects get funded however, while a jury applies stringent criteria before funding a project. Nonetheless this support stimulates teachers’ creativity and tries to generate bottom-up support for the cross-curricular citizenship education goals. A second project that needs to be mentioned when citizenship education is concerned is a project that started out as a form of democratic education that is designed to introduce young people to the Flemish parliament (Vlaams Parlement, 2003). The project provides clear-cut educational material, games and guided parliamentary tours. It is clear that this project uses a top-down approach for introducing citizenship in the classroom. This approach definitely asks for less creativity of each school or each teacher in particular and thus makes citizenship education more accessible, also for schools who are struggling with making the cross-curricular citizenship education goals operational. Apart from these two initiatives, there are also other nonprofit organizations, like Toemeka and the centre for democracy, who offer didactical material and workshops, especially designed for highschool students.

1.1.1.3. Critical reflection on citizenship education policies in Flanders

Although a specific Flemish citizenship education policy took a late start especially comparing to other European countries like the Netherlands, one can say that the DED put a lot of thought into the formulation of the cross-curricular goals for citizenship education. The fact that the DED is open for criticism on the cross-curricular goals and is currently revising the goals is certainly showing the firm conviction of the Flemish government concerning the importance of citizenship education for the Flemish youth. Nevertheless we would still like to point out a few possible flaws in the Flemish cross-curricular approach. In the beginning of the review of the Flemish citizenship education policy, we stressed the importance the Flemish government seemed to give to the ‘active’ interpretation of citizenship education. While the intention of an active approach is present in the overall framework, it is conspicuously absent in the formulation of the specific citizenship education goals. Flanders does not seem to opt for an approach that invites service learning and community service practices. Looking at citizenship education practices in several schools, this active citizenship education part indeed is not applied and the link with real life situations or the interaction between schools and community is minimal. Secondly we want to point to the fact that there has not been put enough stress on attitudes in the current citizenship education goals. While studies about the cross-curricular themes point at the importance of well-balanced citizenship education goals focussing on cognitive elements as well as skills and attitudes (Siongers, 2001), the formulation of the goals does not reflect this concern. Most of the goals focus on cognition while little attention goes to attitudes. While specific studies into the necessity of citizenship education ask for a more attitude-based content of the goals, this should be taken into consideration in the formulation of the adjusted goals. Thirdly it must be mentioned that there are no special requirements for those who teach citizenship, other than having a teaching degree. One can suspect that teachers’ insecurity with cross-curricular work derives from the lack of training in this particular domain. It seems only logical that teacher training programs will have to give more attention to citizenship education to ensure good citizenship education practices in the future. A final demerit of Flemish citizenship education policy is the lack of an explicit European dimension. The EDC coordinator also mentions this in the overview of EDC in the Flemish community. She recommends making the European dimension more explicit (Dejaeghere, 2005), implying that citizenship education can not only be focused very stringently on a community level, but should also introduce high school students to supranational levels and institutions. Like we implied before, ‘European citizenship’ is not really installed through the Flemish cross-curricular themes.

1.1.2. Background of citizenship education in the French Community of Belgium

In the introduction we mentioned that the centrifugal federalist powers that made way for the existence of two separate communities, led to a divergence in educational policy. This was also the case when citizenship education is concerned.

1.1.2.1. Citizenship education as a multifaceted project

Just like the Flemish community the French community did not go for a proper citizenship education course. After a long debate the community opted for an active approach of citizenship education through the use of projects to engage pupils and teachers. For the coordination of these projects the French community decided to call a coordination cell ‘Démocratie ou barbarie’ (DOB) into being from 1994 onwards (www.enseignement.be/dob). The mission of this cell in the first place is to make teachers and pupils aware of the content of citizenship and human rights. DOB also aims at opening the school to the world and that way creating a world that is characterised by more pacifism, justice and solidarity. Working from this goal onwards the French Community ordained specific decrees to help with the construction of an educational theory entailing democratic citizenship education (Sénat de Belgique, 2007). In the decree of 24 July 1997, the most important missions of citizenship education in de French community were entrenched. It confirmed that citizenship education in secondary school has to ‘prepare young people to become responsible citizens who are capable to contribute to a democratic, sociable, pluralistic and open society.’(Article 6§3). Subsequently the decree of 12 January 2007 prescribed a reinforcement of citizenship education through interdisciplinary activities that help pupils to understand the evolution of the democratic institutions, the responsibility they have towards others in society and towards the environment in which they live. The decree also refers to the democratic school structures, like student councils, as important for the development of citizenship notions among adolescents. The two decrees clearly show that the French community, like the Flemish community, supports the idea of the necessity of citizenship education for adolescents. Although the official texts about citizenship education in both Belgian communities seem to aim at the same idea of an active kind of citizenship focussing on democracy and equality, the specific content and form of the framework differs. More than in the Flemish community, the French community’s focus is citizenship education through ‘projects’. The website the French Community of Belgium devoted to citizenship education is in itself a good example of this approach. By splitting up citizenship education in 6 ways – i.e. justice, international institutions, electoral and political system in Belgium and Europe, human rights, projects and competitions about citizenship and finally DOB – the website shows links to all relevant national and international

organisations, which can provide information and didactical materials to use for citizenship education purposes. With DOB functioning as coordinating unit, education for citizenship in practice takes form in projects about human rights, equality, the battle against extreme right thoughts and finally about electoral/institutional powers.

1.1.2.2. Critical reflection on citizenship education policies in the French community

Overall we can say that the approach of the French community in Belgium has some good features. Through a very ordered way of presenting information on the website of the department of education and on the website of the coordination DOB unit, one easily sees the link with national and international organisations which fit the active citizenship education approach the French community stands for. On the other hand it must be noted that the top down framework the community provides is rather limited. Schools are able to decide themselves how they go about teaching all the aspects of citizenship to the students, which leads to a rather diffuse project approach: some schools will put a lot of effort into citizenship education, others will not. The government -just like in Flanders- has no real ‘leverage’ to make schools invest in this kind of education. This way the efforts already made by the French community, especially keeping the decree of 2007 in mind, might be in vain. Looking at international research results of 1999 it was already clear that citizenship education in the French community was not reaching the predestined goals (Torney-Purta, et al. 1999). At first sight the decree of 2007 does not existentially improves the situation while it again seems too ‘permissive’.

1.2. Citizenship Education Policies in the Netherlands

A totally different approach of citizenship education for secondary school students can be found in one of Belgium’s neighbouring countries, namely the Netherlands. The case of citizenship education policy in the Netherlands is interesting in several ways. First of all the country has a rather extended tradition when citizenship education is concerned. As opposed to the two Belgian communities, the Netherlands already started with a political and societal education program in the sixties. Second of all the Netherlands opt for a very different approach of citizenship education, providing for a specific citizenship education course (‘maatschappijleer’) with a distinct curriculum. These diverse features of citizenship education policy in the Netherlands will be discussed focussing on the place the citizenship education course has (and had) in the overall curriculum from 1963 onwards.

1.2.1. A distinct course with a tumultuous past (and future)?

Before 1963 education in the Netherlands can be characterised by proliferation. There was no uniform and solid foundation present to build citizenship education policy on, while the educational system itself was build on four different laws (Lauwers, 1981). This situation changes in 1963 when a new law on education comes through. This law not only provides the Dutch educational system with a firm framework, it also installs a societal course for secondary school pupils (Nederlandse staat, 1963). Although the law brings about the introduction of a specific course that focuses on citizenship issues, there is no clear-cut content present for the course at that time (Hooghoff, 1990). Teachers, teacher trainers and textbook authors have ‘carte blanche’ to interpret the law and fill out the subject as they see fit. This way the subject threatens to become a mixed bag lacking consistency. That is why two years after the introduction of the subject the minister of education calls a committee for curriculum development into being. This committee develops a model for the subject that can be described as a kind of ‘social education’. However in the years after the set up of the committee teachers and textbook authors alike develop their own models and concepts (Dekker, 1999). At the end of the seventies policy practices aim at combining these different models and concepts by providing a core goal for the subject, namely: social and political education (Vis, 1989). Moreover this social and political education gets subdivided in several topics, namely education and development, social environment, work and spare time, technology and society, state and society and finally society and international relations. The government also prescribes that these topics should be dealt with in four distinctive perspectives: are political-judicial, socio-economical, socio-cultural and international comparative perspectives (Dekker, 1999). This way the goal of ‘social and political’ education is getting more and more coherent. In the mean time the teachers of the social and political course officially group together in the Dutch association for teachers in social studies (NVLM). This group works together with the Dutch foundation from curriculum development (SLO) to create a proper extensive curriculum for the course. This curriculum is ready in 1981 and inspires ministerial study groups to generate a report that has to pave the way for ‘social and political’ finals (Hooghoff, 1990). After a successful experiment in schools with these finals, the subject is introduced as regular A-level subject at the first of August 1990. From this date onward the subject is part of the compulsory education of high school students (Dekker, 1999). After 1990 this position of the citizenship education course is under constant debate. Some politicians are afraid that the amount of subjects in the core curriculum becomes too large and even propose the cancellation of the subject altogether. Until 1997 one can say that the position of the citizenship education within the Dutch educational system is at the very least precarious (SLO, 2003).

In 1997 the position of the citizenship education course is once again reviewed. The assistant secretary of the Netherlands commissions a special team (the committee de Wit) to put history and citizenship education under the microscope and to give advice about a possible reform in that field. After the necessary inquiries in the domain, the team recommends to bring into being one course that combines education in history and citizenship. The house of representatives of the Netherlands gives a go to this project and installs another committee (The committee de Rooy) that is responsible for the implementation this history-citizenship education course (NVLM, 2001). This team publishes a final report on the implementation on the 22nd of February 2001. By now this idea of a combined subject is already abandoned for once again a separate citizenship education course. This ‘new’ citizenship education course for secondary school students in the Netherlands gets a domain specific interpretation. The A level course for example consists of a domain that focuses on skills, a domain that gives more insight in the constitutional state, a domain that looks into parliamentary democracy and finally a domain that deals with the welfare state and multiform society. Today citizenship education is not only a compulsory subject, it is also available as optional subject (CEVO, 2007). This makes it possible for adolescents to broaden their knowledge about society and is hence recognition of that fact that citizenship education is taken fairly serious by the Dutch government.

1.2.2. Critical reflections on citizenship education policies in the Netherlands

We must stress that the Dutch approach opting for a separate obligatory course in citizenship education, appears quite successful in several ways. In the first place we conclude that citizenship education in the Netherlands has its own professional status. This especially shows when looking at the debates concerning the place of citizenship education in the overall curriculum. A lot of times the existence of the subject has been questioned, but it does not seem possible to just change the status of the subject without further ado: abolishing the citizenship education course in the Netherlands seems to equate hurting the democratic foundation of Dutch society (NVLM, 2005). In the second place the course specific approach allowed for the existence of several groups who are concerned about the form and content of the subject, like the association for social and cultural sciences (NVMC), the Dutch association for political sciences (NKWP) and the Dutch association for teachers in social studies (NVLM) (SLO, 2003). These associations stick closely to all the developments of the subject and are therefore critical investigators of the Dutch citizenship education policy, so that there is constant quality control. We can say that this bottom-up protection of citizenship education is typical for the course specific Dutch approach that brings about special interests of the several associations– like job security for the teachers with a citizenship education teachers degree.

This symbiosis of the top down policy decisions and the bottom up control trough the different associations, on the other hand also has a few down sights. The decision making process seems ever lasting and it seems that after a lot of work from special committee for the reform of citizenship education, changes are to the policy are minor and thus too time consuming.

1.3. Citizenship Education Policies in France

1.3.1. A distinct course based on a strong citizenship concept.

When thinking about citizenship education in the French republic, one expects a clear cut citizenship education curriculum following the ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité motto. Although the government indeed opted for one hour of non compulsory ‘instruction civique’ already in 1948, most schools paid no attention to it at all. In 1985, after the French high schools had gone through a process of democratisation, the subject got renewed for primary school and the first years of secondary school. In 1995 the government tried out a new line of approach by opting for a ‘whole school’ approach with education civique which implied the cross curricular work (Rexwinkel & Veldhuis, 2007). In the summer of 1999, the subject was introduced in the rest of secondary school as Education Civique Juridique et Social (ECJS). The official texts defining ECJS in secondary school were reviewed in August 2001 and supplemented by texts that also prescribe a curriculum of citizenship education for vocational schools (Tutiaux-Guillon, 2002). In 2002 the French ministry of Education also provide clear guide lines and specific goals (Rexwinkel & Veldhuis, 2007). Opting for a specific course the French government chose for a kind of citizenship education that puts the democratic values of French society first. In two hours a week adolescents get more information about for example democratic institutions, civic procedures, war and piece (Bergounioux, 2007). Thinking about the content of the citizenship education course one can say that is not comparable to the traditional courses like mathematics. The stress is not on cognitive labour (this is supposed to be taught in the history and geography classes) but more on learning debating skills, looking for information and critical reflection (Rexwinkel & Veldhuis, 2007).

1.3.2. Does a strong citizenship concept implies, good citizenship education?

The fact that the specific citizenship education course has a firm embedment in a strong French citizenship concept is a definite plus for the French citizenship education approach. The specific curriculum with its attention for the development of societal skills and values is well developed. Nevertheless there are a few downsides concerning French citizenship education. As opposed to citizenship education in the Netherlands, France has no specific teachers training to prepare teachers

for teaching EC(JS). A lot of teachers hence do not feel prepared teaching the subject (Rexwinkel & Veldhuis, 2007). In France the specific course approach clearly misses the bottom up support of teachers, this is problematic in the sense that a good citizenship education course mainly depends on the motivation of the specific school or teacher.

2. Citizenship Education Theory

Now that we discussed the citizenship education policy in the three countries, we are subsequently looking into the theory with which we can best link these policy measures. We realize that by doing this we probably make an uncommon move- because the opposite: from theory to policy is still the most logical one- . We only opt for this approach because we want to show that indeed governments and scholars can ‘learn’ from each other, and hence we are interested in similarities, not implying any causality. Despite the national differences with regard to citizenship education policies, we can observe that in most educational systems a rather broad concept of citizenship education is used. In the theoretical literature on moral development and character education, this broad concept is subdivided in two different forms of citizenship education (Solomon, Watson & Battistich 2001). Traditional or direct citizenship education is mainly based on ‘the transfer’ of democratic abilities. This idea can be brought back to the policy choice of the Netherlands and France to use a separate subject to make pupils acquainted with democratic norms and principles. In the citizenship education curriculum of the French and the Dutch community we can also find references to this direct teaching of pupils (for example direct teaching of the structure of the Belgian state). In an educational science point of view this approach can be traced back to the classic ideas of Emile Durkheim (1961). He argued that in order to reinforce social solidarity, schools should offer classes in democracy. Schools should moreover ‘train’ pupils for the social roles they would have to take up in later life. To facilitate this process, schools should preferably have the same hierarchical structure and expectation as society does (Durkheim 1961). These direct forms of citizenship education can have an effect on the development of civic attitudes. Kahne, Chi & Middaugh (2006) found that the direct civics curriculum could increase dispositions and capacities that support the development of social engagement and social capital. Niemi and Junn (1998, p145), too, demonstrated that the civic curriculum has an “impact of a size and resilience that makes it a significant

part of political learning”. Following Morin (2006) one can argue that the more people know about politics and democracy the easier they will find it to acquire various political and participation skills. Halpern and Morris (2002), too, are quite optimistic about the potential impact of these direct forms of civic education.

An alternative method of citizenship education is the indirect approach paying attention to the development of moral reasoning and democratic values through experiencing democracy (Solomon, Watson & Battistich, 2001; Torney-Purta, 2002). This indirect theory can be linked with the active approach of the Flemish and French community curriculum, described before. The direct approach can be traced back to the views of John Dewey (1936) and Lawrence Kohlberg (1958). The central point in these theories is the school as an experimental garden for democracy: the school thus should not have to ‘teach’ children democratic skills and values; it should be democratic itself and in that way it will socialize children. So in order to be credible and successful, democracy must not only be the aim of education but also its means (Dewey 1936; Kohlberg 1958). In the classical research, Hartshorne and May (1928) found little indication for the success of traditional teaching on prosocial outcomes, but found profound support for the overall positive effects of school and classroom environment. More recently Torney-Purta (2002) reported that pupils experiencing a climate in the classroom that encourages discussions of civic and political issues, stimulates the sense of engagement these pupils have. The distinction between direct and indirect forms of citizenship education is well-known in the literature. More recently however, various education practices have aimed to connect both approaches. Group projects, community service and participation in a school club have features of the direct approach (often teachers show how it has to be done or directly introduce pupils to a project) and the indirect approach (pupils operating together, discussing in a democratic manner). It has moreover been established that these kinds of service learning - that connect experience with academic study - may contribute to a deeper understanding of social problems (Batchelder & Root 1994) and will lead to increased community involvement (Niemi et al. 1974). It is expected that the experience with engagement will lead to higher participation levels in later life (Eyler 2002). It is clear that al three countries also point to this mixture of approaches: the debating and critical reflection put forward in the French policy is an excellent example of this mixed category/concept. By applying the distinctions between the direct, indirect and mixed concepts of citizenship education on the policy measures of Belgium, France and the Netherlands, it becomes clear that all three countries inscribe themselves in the three citizenship education traditions. On the other hand it can not be ignored that the three specific countries adhere foremost one concept: the Belgian communities base their curricula particularly on the indirect approach, the Netherlands give a good policy example for the more direct approach and the French citizenship education policy seems the best example for the mixed approach.

3. Linking Policy, Theory and Practice.

Now that policy and theory are linked, we briefly want to show that we are able to find the concepts that we defined above, in practice. In other words, we would like to establish if the categories used in citizenship education policy and theory are also applicable to school practices. To be able to do this we will conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the Belgian youth survey 20061 (BYS 2006). While the Belgian case can be seen as a good example of the indirect approach of citizenship education, we will only represent this CFA analysis (other CFA analysis for the Netherlands on the IEA CIVED data are available upon request). The indirect approach can be measured in schools by assessing the democratic character of the school culture and by assessing the classroom climate (open or closed) (Torney-Purta et al. 2001). The questions that are used for this purpose in the BYS are represented in the following figure. Classroom Climate Indicators

Overall one can state that most of these questions were already used in other surveys, like the IEA CIVED survey (Torney-Purta et al. 2001) and tested with CFA models. But on the other hand we have to point to the fact that we could not exactly replicate all matrices and hence some questions in this matrix 1 The Belgian Youth Survey 2006 was a research that intended to capture the political and societal

attitudes of young people in Belgium (ie the French and Dutch community). More specifically a multiple

choice questionnaire containing questions that were designed in order to tap issues of political

interest, participation and democratic values was conducted in 2006 in Belgium (N= 6.330)

actually are indicators for another attribute then the attribute we are interested in: Classroom Climate. We can however, even without quantitative test, point out a few caveats in this matrix. The following questions are hence not used in the CFA:

• The possibility of socially undesirable answers: Q9 ‘Ik voel me vaak alleen op school’: when we assess the distribution almost nobody states that they ‘feel like they are alone’ at school

• The nonsens of Q6: ‘Franstaligen en Nederlandstaligen komen niet overeen op mijn school’ for schools that are not mixed (or not located in Brussels)

• Question 10 & 11 which point more to the mixed approach and factual knowledge gained through the direct approach

Final Model

Assessing the modification indices it was immediately clear that Q7 and Q4 had to be deleted. The final model, which is represented above in a path diagram, has no really good fit (χ2/df >3), but it is the best model we could specify. Through the interpretation of the modification indices we also introduced a path between item Q8 and item Q2. This even makes sense theoretically while a teacher that is fair is probably also someone who can present several sides of a story without being fixated on his/her own opinion. With this factoranalysis we have shown that the latent trait ‘classroom climate’, which is an empirical representation of the indirect citizenship education approach concept, indeed exists in practise.

Conclusion Citizenship education in Europe is quite diverse in content but also in form. While the Flemish community of Belgium swears to stick with a cross curricular approach, the Netherlands and France opt for a course specific interpretation. Even within the same approach there are a lot of differences to be discovered. The Netherlands can count on an interaction between a top down and a bottom up approach that on the one hand slows down changes to the course but on the other hand is the insurance for quality control. The French citizenship education course misses the bottom up control and hence it seems more difficult for teachers to go about the teaching of values and skills. In the Dutch and the French part of Belgium the approach puts a lot of responsibility with the teacher and the schools separately. While schools can choose in which subject or through which project they offer citizenship education, the content can differ between each school in each community. In general we can state that this lack of coherence does not bring about the ideal setting for educating pupils to become ‘good’ citizens. Nevertheless we also have to be optimistic about the efforts that are taken by the three countries, because of the excellent fit with the theory regarding citizenship education. The indirect, direct and mixed approach, are found in each country, but each country obviously has its own specific approach preference too. Moreover, by the use of CFA, it has been showed that the indirect concept also ‘exists empirically’. And that we therefore can conclude that we seem to teach what we preach.

References

Batchelder, T.H. & Root, S. (1994), ‘Effects of an undergraduate program to integrate academic learning and service: cognitive, prosocial cognitive and identity outcomes.’, Journal of Adolescence, 17, 341-356. Bergounioux, A. (2007), ‘L’education civique au collège et au lycée’, Education & Formations, 76, 85-89. Canon, home, Brussel, Departement Onderwijs, http://64.78.63.10/web/canon/dynamo/home.html, 25/03/2008. Centrale Examencommissie Vastelling Opgaven vwo, havo, vmbo (CEVO). (2007), Maatschappijleer/Maatschappijwetenschappen HAVO 2008, Utrecht, CEVO. Council of Europe, ECD, Brussel, Council of Europe, http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/Files/Themes/ECD, 25/03/2008. De Coninck, C., Maes, B., Sleurs, W. & Van Moensel C. (2002), Over de Grenzen, Vakoverschrijdende Eindtermen in de tweede en de derde graad van het secundaire onderwijs, Brussel, Roger Standaert. Décret du 24 juillet 1997 définissant les missions prioritairs de l’enseignement fondamental et de l’enseignement sécondaire et organisant les structures propres à les atteindre, M.B. 2 3 septembre 1997. Décret du 12 janvier 2007 au renforcement de l’éducation à la citoyenneté responsable et active au sein des établissements organisés ou subventionnés par la Communauté française, M.B., 20 mars 2007. Department for Educational Development (DED),Aims and goals, Brussels, 2001, DED,http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/dvo/english/index.htm, 25/03/2008. Dejaeghere, A., Learning and Living Democracy: Flemish Community of Belgium, Brussels, Council of Europe, 2005, www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/country_profiles/profile_flemishcombelgium.

Dejaeghere, Y. & Quintelier, E. (2008), ‘Does European Citizenship Increase Tolerance in Young People?’, European Union Politics, 9(3), 339-362.

Dekker, H. (1999), “Citizenship Conceptions and competencies in the Subject Matter ‘Society’ in Dutch Schools”, J.Torney-Purta, Schwille, J. & Amadeo, J. A., Civic education across countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project, Amsterdam, IEA, 448-449 De Rynck, S. & Dezeure, K. (2006), ‘Policy Convergence and Divergence in Belgium: Education and Health Care’, West European Politics, 29 (5), 1018-1033. Dewey John (1936), The School and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Durkheim, E. (1961), Moral Education. A Study in the theory and applications of the Sociology of education. New York: Free Press. Eyler, J. (2002), ‘Reflection : Linking Service and Learning- Linking Students and Communities.’, Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 517-534.

Halpern, J.P.D. & Morris, Z. (2002), “Acquiring Political Knowledge through School Curricula and Practices.” Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions,Turin, April. Hartshorne, H. & May, M.A. (1928). Studies in the nature of character. I. Studies in deceit. Book one: General methods and results. Book two: Statistical methods and results: Vol 1. New York: Macmillan. Hooghoff, H. (1990), Toward a Curriculum for Social and Political Education in the Netherlands, In: Educational Leadership. Kohlberg, L. (1958), The development of modes of moral thinking and choice in the years ten to sixteen. Doctoral dissertation, Chicago,IL: University of Chicago. Lauwers, H. (1981), Staatsburgerlijke opvoeding en maatschappijleer versus mondiale politieke vorming: ontwikkeling van een pedagogisch thema, Leuven, KUL. L’enseignement en Communauté française de Belgique, Démocratie ou Barbarie, Bruxelles, http://www.enseignement.be/dob. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap Departement Onderwijs. (1997), Doelen voor heel de school, Brussel: Daniël Vandenberghe. Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenshap (OCW), (2001), Samenvatting van het advies ‘Verleden, Heden en Toekomst’, 25 (02/03/2008, OCW, http://www.minocw.nl/geschiedenis/rapport-herzien.doc) Morin, R. (1996), ‘Who is in Control?” Many Don’t know or Care.” The Washington Post, January 29:1-6. Nederlandse Vereniging van leerkrachten maatschappijleer (NVLM) (2001), Nieuws: Advies van de Commissie historische en maatschappelijke vorming, Amsterdam, NVLM, 9 (02/03/2008, NVLM, http://www.nvlm.nl/verantwoording_combivak.html) Nederlandse Vereniging van leerkrachten maatschappijleer (NVLM) (2001), Nieuws: 7 april, NVLM, Amsterdam. Wet van 14 februari 1963 tot regeling van het voorgezet onderwijs, Nederlandse Overheid, 26 februari 1963. Niemi, R. et al. (1974). The Politics of future citizens. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Niemi, R. & Junn, J. (1998), Civic Education. What Makes Students Learn. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rexwinkel, R. & Veldhuis, R. (2007), Maatschappijleer over de Grens, Amsterdam, Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, 62. Sénat de Belgique (2007), Platforme Démocratie & Citoyenneté, Bruxelles, www.cfwb.be

Siongers, J. (2001), Vakoverschrijdende thema’s in het secundair onderwijs: Op zoek naar een maatschappelijke consensus, Brussel, TOR, 311. Solomon, D., Watson, M. & Battistich, V.A. (2001), “Teaching and Schooling Effects on Moral/Prosocial Development”, V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, Washington, D.C., American Educational Research Association, 566-603. Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling (SLO). (2003), Vakdossier 2003: Maatschappijleer, SLO, Enschede, 7. Swenden, W. & Brans, M. (2006), ‘The Politics of Belgium: Institutions and Policy under Bipolar and Centrifugal Federalism’, West European Politics, 29 (5), 863-873. Torney-Purta, J., Schwille, J. & Amadeo, J. A. (1999), Civic education across countries: twenty-four national case studies from the IEA Civic Education Project, Amsterdam, IEA, 448-449 Torney-Purta, J. (2002), ‘The school's role in developing civic engagement. A study of adolescents in twenty-eight countries’, Applied Developmental Science, 6, 203-212. Tutiaux-Guillon, N. (2002), ‘Civic, Legal and Social Education in French Secondary School: Questions About a New Subject’, sowi online, 2 (www.sowi-onlinejournal.de/2002-2/france_Tutiaux.htm. Vlaams Parlement, De Kracht van je Stem, Brussel, Vlaams parlement ,2003, http://www.dekrachtvanjestem.be/KVJS/, het project, 05/02/2008 Vis, C.P.M. (1989), ‘Uit de Nederlandse Kring voor Wetenschap en Politiek’, Acta Politica, 1, 113-124.