Civic Competences: Some Critical Reflections

Germ Janmaat, Institute of Education, London

Introduction

Civic competences are generally seen as critical for democracy and social cohesion.

Equally widespread is the assumption that schools have an important role to play in

fostering these competences. The Council of Europe (2011a) for instance believes that

Education plays an essential role in the promotion of the core values of the

Council of Europe: democracy, human rights and the rule of law, as well as in

the prevention of human rights violations. More generally, education is

increasingly seen as a defence against the rise of violence, racism, extremism,

xenophobia, discrimination and intolerance.

However, this paper will argue that the notion of civic competences is problematic in

a number of ways. The advocates of citizenship education need to address these

problems in order to make a convincing case for the introduction or continuation of

such education. The paper will identify four major problems and offer suggestions as

to how these challenges might be taken up by supporters of citizenship education. The

problems will be discussed one by one and concern the following: (1) the contested

nature of the concept; (2) the diversity of qualities it refers to; (3) the relevance of

civic competences for democracy and social cohesion; (4) the impact of citizenship

education on civic competences.

Civic competences: a contested concept

Many scholars agree that citizens should have certain competences in order to

function well in a liberal democratic society (Verba, Scholzman and Brady 1995;

Galston 2001). There is also broad consensus on the idea that a substantial part of the

1

citizenry needs to have these qualities for democracy itself to operate effectively and

survive (Putnam 1993; Inglehart and Welzel 2005). In other words, democracy is not

sustainable if it has to rely on a disengaged and politically alienated population.

Disagreement starts however when it comes to identifying and defining these

competences. Some scholars attach great value to conventional ways of political and

civic participation, such as voting and active membership of a political party, a union

or a religious community. In their view, these forms of participation act as a kind of

training ground for democracy, fostering qualities like trust, moderation, conflict

resolution, solidarity, cooperation and public spiritedness (e.g. Putnam, 1993). They

are also seen as crucial for politicians to come to know the policy preferences of the

people and act as their true representatives. It is argued that from the 1960s these

traditional forms of participation have declined dramatically, primarily as a result of

individualization, secularization and the privatization of forms of entertainment

(Bellah et al, 1985; Putnam, 2000). According to Crozier, Huntington and Watanuki

(1975), this process has had destabilizing effects for democracy.

Others, however, have argued that this gradual fall in traditional ways of

participation has been compensated by the rise of new, more informal and egalitarian

forms of collective action, which, as an alternative to voting and party membership,

rely on strategies like petitions, demonstrations, boycotts and occupations

(Lichterman, 1996). The new social movements of the 1960s and 1970s, campaigning

for gender and racial equality, human rights, the protection of the environment and

global peace, are seen as the typical representatives of these new forms of civic

associations, improving democratic systems by making them more responsive to their

electorates, not less (Inglehart, 1990). The advocates of these new forms of

participation often point to civic equality and tolerance as key virtues supporting

democracy. In their view, a democracy needs a citizenry believing in civic equality

and willing to act on the matter to ensure that democracy does not degenerate into a

system privileging a certain ethnic or religious group and excluding other groups.

Tolerance is held to be crucial for democracy in that it is difficult to see how conflicts

can be resolved peacefully if citizens cannot tolerate people with different ideas,

lifestyles, interests and/or ethnic backgrounds.

Yet again others see critical engagement as a key civic virtue, as that enables

citizens to scrutinize public policy and to hold politicians accountable (Kymlicka,

2002). In this regard, Gamson (1968) noted that not trust but a healthy dose of

2

scepticism towards politicians contributes to the quality of democracy. Again others

propose that political knowledge and skills and not so much attitudes and behaviour

are the key civic competences (Galston 2001). Summing up all these different

qualities suggested by the aforementioned scholars and others we arrive at a motley

collection of competences which includes a cognitive component (political knowledge

and skills), an affective or values component (tolerance, civic equality, trust,

solidarity, public spiritedness, sense of belonging) and a behavioural component

(cooperation, conventional and alternative forms of participation).

Policy makers are equally divided on this issue. While the political left often

mentions critical engagement, civic equality and alternative forms of participation as

critical civic competences, conservative politicians tend to emphasize a feeling of

belonging, respect for authority, trust and a sense of duty. The need to arrive at a

compromise between these opposing views on good citizenship has invariably led to

the adoption of very elaborate understandings of civic competence which include

many of the aforementioned qualities. For instance, according to the Council of

Europe (2011b), “democratic citizenship” is:

a skill that everyone needs. In its most practical form, it is the knowledge

about how a country and society works - why government functions as it does,

where to get information and how to vote. But democratic citizenship is more

than just the ballot box - it is also the skill we need to live well in a family and

community. It shows us how to resolve disputes in a friendly and fair way,

how to negotiate and find common ground, and how to make sure that our

rights are respected. A democratic citizen knows about the ground rules of the

society they live in and the personal responsibilities they need to respect.

Likewise, Eurydice (2005, 14), the information service on education systems of the

European Commission, sees “responsible citizenship” as:

embodying issues relating to the knowledge and exercise of civic rights and

responsibilities. All countries also link the concept to certain values closely

associated with the role of a responsible citizen. They include democracy,

human dignity, freedom, respect for human rights, tolerance, equality, respect

3

for law, social justice, solidarity, responsibility, loyalty, cooperation,

participation, and spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development.

In a similar vein, the CRELL Research Centre of the European Commission considers

civic competences to be “a complex mix of knowledge, skills, understanding, values

and attitudes and dispositions, which requires a sense of identity and agency”

(Hoskins and Crick 2008, 8).

Though understandable from a political point of view, these elaborate

approaches are problematic for educational practitioners seeking to promote civic

competences among youngsters. They as a rule do not prioritize competences leaving

practitioners guessing which competence to address most urgently and intensively.

More seriously, their contested nature makes practitioners vulnerable to the criticism

that they pursue a hidden political agenda in case they make a clear choice for some

competences. Schools putting a great emphasis on volunteering, a sense of

responsibility, and common identities and values are likely to be branded as right-

wing, while schools fostering equality, tolerance and critical thinking will be accused

of promoting a left-wing ideology.

Civic competences: a diverse lot

The contested nature of civic competences also raises the question whether they can

be fostered simultaneously. If some competences are unrelated to one another, or

worse, mutually exclude each other, it is unlikely that pedagogical approaches can be

developed which benefit these competences all equally.

On the basis of common sense one can already suspect tension between some

competences. How can critical thinking and trust in institutions for instance be

reconciled when the former must rely on a detached posture towards the object under

scrutiny? Similarly, is it possible to combine strong national solidarities, which are

likely to involve the privileging of one own nation over others, with ethnic tolerance

and civic equality? Lastly, is it not problematic to foster respect for politicians and

democratic institutions on the one hand and civic equality on the other when the

former inevitably involves the recognition of hierarchical relations and inequalities of

power? Research has indeed confirmed that some competences are unrelated to one

4

another and that others rule each other out – e.g. national pride and ethnic tolerance

(Green et al 2006; Jackman and Miller 2005; Janmaat, 2006, 2008).

Furthermore, observers have found marked intra- and inter-regional variations

in strength of civic competences. Hoskins et al (2008), for instance, found that while

Eastern and Southern Europe did relatively well on participatory attitudes and views

on good citizenship, Western Europe and Southern Europe scored higher on social

justice values. They moreover found large differences within each region: while

Poland did well on all four dimensions of citizenship competences, Estonia had below

average scores on these dimensions. These differences suggest that educational

programmes tailored to the strengths and weaknesses of a distinct country or region

are more effective than some uniform pan-European programme. Yet, it is precisely

the last-named programmes that are often adopted and promoted (e.g. the Council of

Europe’s Education for Democratic Citizenship programme).

Adding to the complexity is that civic competences may not only vary in

aggregate levels across time and space but also in how they are interrelated. I

illustrate this with an analysis of survey data from the 1999 IEA Civic Education

Study. This study collected data on the civic knowledge, skills and attitudes of 14 year

olds in 28 countries with national samples of as many as 3000 students. I correlated

expected future political participation to a number of other concepts seen as core civic

virtues (institutional trust, patriotism, gender equality, ethnic tolerance) in countries

representing various regions in Europe (see Table 1).

Table 1. Correlations of expected future political participation with other civic virtues.

Institutional

trust

Patriotism Gender

equality

Ethnic

tolerance

Denmark .13** -.03 .02 .14**

England .21** .02 .00 .06**

Germany .14** .05** -.02 .06**

Greece .09** -.14** -.12** -.09**

Slovakia .11** .02 .09** .01

** significant at the .01 level

NB: the correlations are based on samples between 2600 and 3500 respondents

Source: Survey data of the 1999 IEA Civic Education Study.

5

Results show that expected future political participation is positively correlated with

institutional trust across the board but is related differently to the other concepts.

While it is positively related to gender equality in Slovakia, it shows a negative link

with gender equality in Greece. Similarly, while expected future political participation

goes together with ethnic tolerance in Denmark, England and Germany, it is again in

Greece that the two are negatively related. While participation is positively linked to

patriotism in Germany, it is unrelated to patriotism in England and it is negatively

related to patriotism once again in Greece. More generally, the correlations between

the concepts are not particularly strong indicating that civic competences are a very

loose collection of qualities and certainly don’t “travel as a package” as is suggested

by some scholars (Rice and Feldman 1997: 1150). Of course the attitudes at age 14

are still quite volatile, which means that it cannot be ruled out that civic competences

form a more coherent set of values when youngsters become adults. It is interesting,

however, to see that broadly the same pattern of correlations emerges when analysing

data of the 2009 International Civics and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS – the

successor to Cived), which suggests a high degree of inter-generational stability in

how civic competences are interrelated.1

The possible tension between some civic competences, their different

strengths across Europe and geographical variations in their interrelationships all have

serious policy implications. They suggest that it is next to impossible to develop a

teaching programme that benefits all civic competences equally. A programme, for

instance, that aims to foster political participation may well contribute to institutional

trust, but it is unlikely to affect gender attitudes much or ethnic tolerance. Moreover,

such a programme is likely to have differential side effects across countries (positive

ones in some; negative ones in others).

Civic competences: relevance for democracy and social cohesion

Advocates of citizenship education often ignore the question whether the promotion

of civic competences is at all relevant as they deem it to be patently obvious that

democracy and social cohesion crucially depend on civic competences. This

particularly applies for the link with democracy, as is illustrated by the 1 The results of these analyses can be obtained from the author.

6

aforementioned ‘Education for Democratic Citizenship’ initiative of the Council of

Europe. To be sure, these advocates have good reasons to assume a link with

democracy given the theoretical case that can be made for it (as highlighted in the first

section) and the empirical support that several scholars have found for this idea (e.g.

Almond and Verba 1963; Inglehart 1990; Putnam 1993). Inglehart (1990) for instance

found that countries with high average levels of political efficacy, political trust and

interpersonal trust have longer histories of stable democratic rule than countries with

low levels of these civic culture attitudes.

However, a close link between civic competences and democracy does not

necessarily imply that the former caused the latter. Indeed, some scholars have argued

that causality runs in the opposite direction: democracy shaping civic competences

rather than the other way around (e.g. Barry 1978; Schmitter and Karl 1991). They

contend that the institution of democracy was the outcome of a power struggle

between interest groups and that its persistence has given rise to civic attitudes and

behaviour as rational, learned responses to the experience of living in a democracy.

There would certainly not seem to be more empirical support for the civic culture

shaping democracy argument than for its counterpart. Testing a number of civic

attitudes and controlling for a number of macrosocial factors such as economic

development, income inequality and ethnic heterogeneity, Muller and Seligson

(1994), for instance, found that only support for gradual reform, as key civic attitude,

had a positive impact on democratic change. However, the strength of this effect

paled by comparison to that of income inequality. Moreover, while having no effect

on democratic change, interpersonal trust in its turn was influenced by democratic

tradition. The authors thus concluded that their findings “are not supportive of the

thesis that civic culture attitudes are the principle or even major cause of democracy”

(Muller and Seligson 1994: 647). Obviously, if civic competences are the product

rather than the cause of democracy, and it cannot be demonstrated that they have

positive effects on other desirable outcomes either, it can legitimately be asked why

they should be promoted at all.

Civic competences: the impact of citizenship education

7

Another problematic issue is the widespread assumption, particularly in policy circles,

that particular education programs help to enhance civic competences. Proceeding

from this assumption both international agencies and national governments have

advocated, adopted and expanded citizenship education programs since the mid

1990s. However, the research literature is far from conclusive about the effectiveness

of citizenship education. Not only is there disagreement about what kind of

citizenship education would be most beneficial, some scholars would argue that

citizenship education hardly makes a difference at all (e.g. Hagendoorn 1999).

Complicating this diversity of opinions is the fact that scholars are usually talking

about different competences when assessing the impact of citizenship education.

The impact of citizenship education (and education more generally) has

broadly been investigated with regards to three main civic competences – (1) civic

knowledge and skills, (2) participation and the intention to participate, and (3) ethnic

tolerance and intercultural understanding. Scholars focussing on civic knowledge and

skills have disagreed on the kind of citizenship education that is most effective. While

some have argued that formal civics lessons (both in terms of content and volume)

greatly enhance the civic knowledge of disadvantaged groups such as African

Americans (Langton and Jennings 1968) or civic knowledge in general (Niemi and

Junn 1998), others have argued that civic knowledge and skills can best be learned in

environments stimulating discussion, interaction and participation. Among the latter

Torney-Purta (2002), for instance, found that an open climate for classroom

discussion on social and political issues and participation in school parliaments

showed strong positive relationships with civic knowledge and skills in a study based

on the 1999 CIVED data. Similarly, Hoskins et al (2011), making use of the same

data, found that talking about politics and societal matters with parents and friends

positively impacted on civic knowledge and skills in a variety of national contexts.

Dialogue, interaction and learning by doing have certainly been advanced as

the main ways in which youngsters develop an intention and commitment to

participate. For the US, Kahne and Sporte (2008) for instance found that volunteering,

extra curricular activities, exposure to civic role models and open debates were the

best predictors of the intention to participate in the community. A positive impact of

volunteering on participation levels in later life was also found in other US studies

(Verba, Schlozman and Bardy, 1995; Campbell, 2006). In Britain too, participatory

teaching styles and out of school participation have been found to be positive

8

predictors of a willingness to participate (Benton 2008). Finally, Hoskins et al (2011)

found that discussions about politics and societal matters with parents, friends and

teachers and participation in a school council showed strong positive links with

participatory attitudes across the board in five very different European countries,

which suggests that the positive effect of dialogue and learning by doing on

participation is universal.

However, there seems to be little evidence for the idea that specific education

programs can also help foster ethnic tolerance and intercultural understanding. As

Hagendoorn (1999: 5) wryly remarks: “Although there is no empirical evidence that

education programmes on racial tolerance have been counterproductive, there is no

evidence that they have been especially effective either. Moreover, in spite of such

programmes data from the US shows that recently educated youth are no more

racially tolerant than their post-war peers.”

Instead, most educational research on ethnic tolerance has examined the

effects of mixed schooling and of educational attainment in general. Based on the

premise of contact theory that frequent and intensive cross-cultural interaction among

peers on the basis of equality should enhance positive feelings towards the ‘ethnic

other’ and diminish prejudice (Allport 1954; Pettigrew and Tropp 2006), most

research examining the impact of mixed schooling has indeed found a positive

relation between diversity on the one hand (which may be assumed to lead to more

cross-cultural contact) and intercultural understanding and tolerance on the other.

Recent studies in the US by Frankenberg et al (2003) and Holme et al (2005), for

instance, found that the experience of racially mixed schools left graduates with a

better understanding of different cultures and an “increased sense of comfort in

interracial settings” (ibid, p. 14). Research by Ellison and Powers (1994) and

Sigelman et al (1996), moreover, shows that the tolerant attitudes and interracial

friendships developed in racially integrated schools persist into adulthood. Holme et

al (2005) further claim that the daily experience of interracial schooling is much more

effective in this regard than multicultural curricula or student exchange programs.

Studies in the United Kingdom have also found support for the contact

perspective. For instance, Bruegel (2006), investigating inter-ethnic friendships

among pupils of 12 primary schools in London and Birmingham, reaches conclusions

similar to Holme et al. In her view, “the day-to-day contact between children has far

more chance of breaking down barriers between communities, than school twinning

9

and sporting encounters” (ibid., p. 2), which supports the notion that it is through

contact rather than specific programs that tolerance can be enhanced.

Yet not all studies inspired by contact theory have found positive effects of

cross-cultural interaction. In a review study on the topic, Ray (1983), for instance,

found remarkable differences across English-speaking countries. While studies

conducted in America and Canada produced evidence in support of the notion that

inter-racial contact helps to break down stereotypes, the evidence from Britain and

Australia pointed in the reverse direction (contact with blacks leading to more

prejudice among whites). Similarly, Janmaat (2010, 2011) did not find a relation

between the ethnic diversity of classrooms and the ethnic tolerance levels of

individual pupils in England, controlling for many other individual- and classroom-

level conditions. Moreover, he found that in diverse classrooms the better ethnic

minority students performed on average in terms of civic knowledge and skills, the

lower the tolerance levels of their white classmates appeared to be. However, in

Germany and Sweden classroom diversity and ethnic tolerance were positively related

and no relation could be observed between the average performance of ethnic

minority students and the tolerance levels of their native classmates. Janmaat’s results

suggest that in environments where students experience competition and rivalry

diversity does not contribute to tolerance but actually undermines it. Together with

Ray’s findings they more broadly indicate that there is not a standard formula for

promoting ethnic tolerance that works everywhere under any kind of condition.

Lastly, many studies have noted the strong link between educational

attainment and tolerance in the sense that more highly educated people express more

tolerant attitudes (Putnam 2000; Emler and Frazer 1999; Haegel 1999). According to

Hagendoorn (1999), this positive effect is understandable as education may be

assumed to improve the knowledge and cognitive skills of people, allowing them to

grasp new phenomena, such as immigration, and not interpret them as unpredictable

and dangerous. Education further may be said to enhance tolerance by “transmitting

ideas about desired states of the world” (ibid, p. 2), in other words by promoting

certain norms and values – the acceptance and positive appreciation of immigrants

being one of them. Thus, the shorter the period people have been exposed to formal

education (as expressed in a lower education levels), the less they are able to make

sense of changes in their environment and the less they have been socialized in the

value of tolerance and therefore the more intolerant their attitudes are likely to be.

10

However, despite these sound theoretical reasons to expect a close link

between education and tolerance, the effect of educational attainment on tolerance has

been found to vary significantly across time and space (Green et al 2006). In Italy, for

instance, this effect has been found to be remarkably small (Peri 1999). Thus, similar

to the effect of diversity, the effect of educational attainment appears to be highly

context-specific. Moreover, at the societal level, there is no correlation between

education and tolerance (Green et al 2006). In other words, societies with high

aggregate levels of education do not show higher mean levels of tolerance than poorly

educated societies. This implies that raising the education level of the population is

not likely to be an effective strategy to enhance overall tolerance levels.

In sum, there is not a single citizenship education program, nor any other

aspect of education, that benefits all civic competences simultaneously everywhere.

Interaction and learning through practice would seem to be effective strategies to

promote a commitment to participate but they do not necessarily contribute to

tolerance. Ethnic mixing and educational attainment are usually positively related to

tolerance but they do not show a positive effect in all contexts or under all

circumstances. Designers of citizenship education programs need to take these

limitations into account in developing programs intended to foster civic competences.

A particularly striking omission in the body of research on education and civic

competences is the paucity of studies examining the effects of citizenship education

on disparities of civic competences. It may be argued that inequalities of civic

competences are at least as important for policy makers, particularly if they coincide

with ethnic and social divisions, as overall levels of civic competences. If there are

large gaps between ethnic and social groups in civic engagement, tolerance and trust,

and if these are expressed geographically as severely deprived “no go” areas, social

cohesion is likely to be as much at risk as under conditions of low mean levels of

civic competence. Examining disparities of civic competences is all the more urgent

in view of the increasing popularity of programs relying on interaction and

participation as means to promote civic competences. These new teaching strategies

may well exacerbate inequalities as they rely on pre-existing knowledge and an

intrinsic motivation to learn, qualities which youngsters of deprived backgrounds are

unlikely to have. They may thus only benefit youngsters of middle and upper class

backgrounds, who have grown up in families where education and the acquisition of

knowledge is valued. In addition, the voluntary nature of interaction and participation

11

means that youngsters of deprived backgrounds can easily opt out and thus not

acquire the competences that come with these strategies. In this regard, traditional

teaching and assessment styles, relying on mild forms of coercion and imposing a

uniform pace and body of knowledge on students, may well be more effective in

fostering civic competences among this group. Perhaps it is the politically incorrect

nature of such forms of pedagogy that has discouraged researchers from exploring this

intriguing proposition.

Suggestions for advocates of citizenship education

How can the supporters of citizenship education address the four problems discussed

above? To begin with the problem of social relevance (i.e. the third problem), there

are two ways in which advocates of citizenship education could seek to demonstrate

the importance of civic competences. First, if their necessity for the establishment and

preservation of democracy cannot be demonstrated, advocates could explore whether

they are essential for enhancing other desirable macro-social outcomes, such as social

cohesion or economic growth. Research has demonstrated that social capital, an

important civic quality in some understandings of civic competences, is strongly

related to longevity (Kennedy et al 1998), economic growth (Knack and Keefer 1997)

and juridical efficiency (LaPorta et al 1997). Advocates of citizenship education could

refer to this and other research showing the functionality of civic competences.

However, rather than focussing on civic competences as a means to achieve

some other end to demonstrate their importance, it may well be equally productive to

argue that civic competences constitute a desirable social outcome in and of

themselves, just like democracy, social cohesion, prosperity etc. Given the conceptual

overlap with democracy and social cohesion, there is every reason to do so

(participation is considered an essential element of democracy in many definitions of

democracy, just as are trust, tolerance and participation are seen as key components of

social cohesion in many understandings of that concept). More simply, it could be

argued that a society composed of intolerant, distrustful and disengaged people is not

a very pleasant place to live in and that for this reason alone civic competences need

to be fostered.

12

The politically contested nature of civic competences, i.e. the first problem

discussed above, means that advocates of citizenship education have to be sensitive to

and open about the political agenda(s) behind citizenship education initiatives. A

critical analysis of who proposes a new programme, for what reasons, what outcomes

it is intended to achieve and in whose interests it is needs to accompany any new

initiative in the field of citizenship education. Indeed, it is difficult to image how

citizenship education can promote critical thinking skills if its architects have not been

trained in and applied this key civic virtue themselves.

Finally, regarding the second and fourth problem discussed above, advocates

of citizenship education should abandon the assumption that a single citizenship

education program can foster all civic competences simultaneously and is equally

effective in all geographical contexts. Citizenship education needs to be tailored to

local needs, which vary from context to context. To do so, advocates of citizenship

education would do well to first make an inventory of civic competences and their

interrelations for each context and then develop a citizenship education program

targeting the competences found wanting in this inventory. Such a program needs to

take local conditions impinging on efforts to foster civic competences into account. In

any case, it should not be assumed that good practices tried and tested elsewhere will

be equally effective in one’s own country. In addition to fostering overall levels of

civic competence, advocates of citizenship education should aim to diminish

disparities of civic competences across social and ethnic groups.

Literature

Allport, G. (1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Almond, G. A. and Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.

Barry, B. (1978). Sociologists, Economists and Democracy. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

13

Bellah, R, Madon, R., Sullivan, W.M., Swindler, A. and Tipton, S.M. (1985). Habits

of the Heart. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Benton, T., Cleaver, E., Featherstone, G., Kerr, D., Lopes J., and Whitby K., (2008)

Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS): Sixth Annual Report

Young People’s Civic Participation In and Beyond School: Attitudes, Intentions

and Influences. (London: DCSF).

Bruegel, I. (2006) ‘Social Capital, Diversity and Education Policy,’ (paper prepared

for Families and Social Capital ESRC Research Group),

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/families/-publications/SCDiversityEdu28.8.06.pdf,

accessed on 3 June 2008.

Campbell, D. 2006. “What Is Education’s Impact on Civic and Social Engagement?”

In Measuring the Effects of Education on Health and Civic Engagement

Proceedings of the Copenhagen Symposium, ed. R. Desjardins and T.

Schuller. (Paris: CERI, OECD).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2011a). Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship

and Human Rights Education (http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?-

action=ajoutepdf&idaction=2552&valueaction=101548&quantite=1&PAGEID=3

6&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2552).

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2011b). Education for Democratic Citizenship,

(http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/edc/)

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (2011a). Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship

and Human Rights Education (http://book.coe.int/EN/ficheouvrage.php?-

action=ajoutepdf&idaction=2552&valueaction=101548&quantite=1&PAGEID=3

6&lang=EN&produit_aliasid=2552).

Crozier, M., Huntington, S., and Watanuki, J. (1975). The Crisis of Democracy. New

York UP, New York.

EURYDICE (2005). Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Eurydice, Brussels.

Ellison, C.G. and Powers, D.A. (1994) ‘The Contact Hypothesis and Racial Attitudes

among Black Americans,’ Social Science Quarterly, 75, 2, pp. 385-400.

Emler, N. and Frazer, E. (1999). ‘Politics: the Education Effect,’ Oxford Review of

Education, 25 (1 and 2), 271-2.

14

Frankenberg, E., Lee, C. and Orfield, G. (2003) A Multiracial Society with Segregated

Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? The Civil Rights Project, Harvard

University, Cambridge MA.

Galston, W. (2001). ‘Political Knowledge, Political Engagement and Civic

Education,’ Annual Review of Political Science, 4, pp. 217-234.

Gamson, W.A. (1968). Power and Discontent. Dorsey, Homewood, IL.

Green, A., Preston J. and Janmaat, J.G. (2006). Education, Equality and Social

Cohesion: A Comparative Analysis. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

Haegel, F. (1999). ‘The Effect of Education on the Expression of Negative Views

Towards Immigrants in France: the Influence of the Republican Model Put to the

Test’, in L. Hagendoorn and S. Nekuee (eds), Education and Racism: A Cross-

National Inventory of Positive Effects of Education on Racial Tolerance.

Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 33-46.

Hagendoorn, L. (1999). ‘Introduction: a Model of the Effects of Education on

Prejudice and Racism’, in L. Hagendoorn and S. Nekuee (eds), Education and

Racism: A Cross-National Inventory of Positive Effects of Education on Racial

Tolerance. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 1-20.

Holme, J., Wells, A., and Revilla, A. (2005) ‘Learning through Experience: What

Graduates Gained by Attending Desegregated High Schools,’ Equity and

Excellence in Education, 38, 1, pp. 14-25.

Hoskins, B. and R. D. Crick (2008). Learning to Learn and Civic Competences:

different currencies or two sides of the same coin? European Communities,

Luxembourg.

Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., van Nijlen, D., and Barber, C. (2008). Measuring Civic

Competence in Europe: A Composite Indicator Based on the IEA Civic Education

Study 1999 for 14 years old in School. European Communities, Luxembourg.

Hoskins, B., Janmaat, J.G. and Villalba, E. (2011). ‘Learning Citizenship through

Social Participation Outside and Inside School: An international, Multilevel Study

of Young People’s Learning of Citizenship,’ British Educational Research

Journal,

Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Societies. Princeton UP,

Princeton.

15

Inglehart, R. and Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, Cultural Change, and

Democracy: The Human Development Sequence. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.

Jackman R. W. and Miller, R. A. (2005). Before Norms. Institutions and Civic

Culture. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Janmaat, J. G. (2006). ‘Civic Culture in Western and Eastern Europe,’ European

Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 47, pp. 363-393.

Janmaat, J. G. (2008) ‘The Civic Attitudes of Ethnic Minority Youth and the Impact

of Citizenship Education,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34, 1, pp. 27-

54.

Janmaat, J. G. (2010). ‘Classroom Diversity and its Relation to Tolerance, Trust and

Participation in England, Sweden and Germany’. LLAKES Research Paper 4.

Available at: http://www.llakes.org/Home/llakes-research-papers

Janmaat, J. G. (2011). ‘Diversiteit in de Klas: Kweekvijver voor Verdraagzaamheid

Onder Alle Omstandigheden?’ Mens en Maatschappij.

Kahne, J. and Sporte, S. 2008 “Developing Citizens: The impact of Civic Learning

opportunities on students’ Commitment of Civic Participation.” American

Educational Research Journal. 45 (3), 738-766.

Kennedy, B., Kawachi, I. and Brainerd, E. (1998). ‘The Role of Social Capital in the

Russian Mortality Crisis,’ World Development, 26, 11, pp 2029-43.

Knack, S. and Keefer, P. (1997). ‘Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A

Cross-Country Investigation’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, CXII, 1251-

88.

Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford

UP, Oxford.

Langton, K. P. and Jennings, M. K. (1968) Political socialisation in the high school

civic curriculum in the United States. American political science review. 62 852-

67.

LaPorta, R., Lopez de Silanes, F., Shleifer, A. And Vishny, R. (1997). ‘Trust in Large

Organizations’, American Economic Review, 87, pp. 333-8.

Lichterman, P. (1996). The Search for Political Community: American Activists

Reinventing Commitment. Cambridge UP, Cambridge.

Muller, E. N. and Seligson, M. A. (1994). ‘Civic Culture and Democracy: The

Question of Causal Relationships,’ The American Political Science Review, 88, 3,

pp 635-652.

16

Niemi, R. and Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. (Yale:

Yale university press).

Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp, L.R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of inter-group contact

theory, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 90, No. 5, 751–783.

Peri, P. (1999). ‘Education and Prejudice against Immigrants’, in L. Hagendoorn and

S. Nekuee (eds), Education and Racism: A Cross-National Inventory of Positive

Effects of Education on Racial Tolerance. Aldershot: Ashgate, pp. 21-32.

Putnam, R. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.:

Princeton UP, Princeton, NJ.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Ray, J. J. (1983) ‘Racial Attitudes and the Contact Hypothesis,’ The Journal of Social

Psychology, 119, pp. 3-10.

Rice, T. W. and Feldman, J. L. (1997) ‘Civic culture and democracy from Europe to

America’, The Journal of Politics, 59 (4): 1143-72.

Schmitter, P. C. and Karl, T. L. (1991). ‘What Democracy is … and is Not’, Journal

of Democracy, 2: 75-88.

Sigelman, L. and Bledsoe, T., Welch, S. and Combs, M.W. (1996) ‘Making Contact?

Black-White Social Interaction in an Urban Setting,’ American Journal of

Sociology, 101, pp. 1306-32.

Torney-Purta, J., (2002) Patterns in the Civic Knowledge, Engagement, and Attitudes

of European Adolescents: The IEA Civic Education Study. European Journal

of Education. 37 (2) 129 – 141.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. and Brady, H. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism

in American Politics. (London, Harvard University press).

17