Skip to search form Skip to main content You are currently offline. Some features of the site may not work correctly. DOI: Their underlying beliefs, however, differ. This article calls attention to the spectrum of ideas about what good citizenship is and what good citizens do that are embodied in democratic education programs. It offers analyses of a 2-year study of educational programs in the United States that aimed to promote democracy. Drawing on democratic… Expand.
View on SAGE. Save to Library Save. Create Alert Alert. Share This Paper. Background Citations. Methods Citations. Results Citations. Citation Type. Has PDF. Publication Type. More Filters. Do our educational systems encourage, support, and cultivate a democratic experience for students? The debate over democracy in education could be characterized in terms of representative versus … Expand.
University of Ottawa Joseph Kahne, Mills College At the level of rhetoric, most educators, policymakers, and citizens agree that developing students' capacities and commitments for effective and … Expand.
Learning for democracy: The politics and practice of citizenship education. It is now two decades since the Advisory Group on Citizenship, commissioned by the newly elected Labour government, recommended the introduction of statutory citizenship education. On the twentieth … Expand.
This paper reports on research involving American College of Education students in relation to their impressions of, reactions to, and engagement with democracy. Authors: Advanced Search Include Citations. DMCA What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy Cached Download Links [files. Abstract The notion of democracy occupies a privileged place in our society.
For Westheimer, the barometer for citizenship is his ideal of democracy, and the question of how likely it is that schooling will enable or prevent someone from participating fully and equally in a democratic society.
From here Westheimer describes three "types" of citizens: the personally responsible citizen, the participatory citizen, and the social justice-oriented citizen. He notes in Chapter 6 that in his experience and research, programmes and pedagogies that focus on educating the personally responsible citizen are in the vast majority, valuing responsibility in the community, working and paying taxes, picking up litter, giving blood, recycling, helping those in need, giving to charity, volunteering, obeying laws, etc.
Westheimer points out that although developing positive character attributes, contributing to charity, and volunteering are laudable traits for any populace, there is nothing inherently democratic in them. In fact, uncritical conformity to behavioural norms can be characteristically undemocratic, and we should be suspicious of politicians who advocate volunteerism as an alternative to appropriate social policy and organisation. Meanwhile, "social justice-oriented" citizens critically assess structural and systemic causes of injustice, and strive to change established systems and structures that reproduce patterns of injustice over time.
It is clear from his analysis in Chapter 7 that, of the three "types" described, Westheimer considers them to represent a continuum with the "social justice-oriented" citizen the most suitable type for a democratic society, and the "personally responsible" citizen the most problematic in terms of serving to maintain the status quo at best, or in fact contributing to greater pedagogical and political authoritarianism at worst.
The concluding three chapters of the book apply Westheimer's analysis of the challenges of current citizenship education and his typology of possible approaches to the question of implementation. Chapter 8 therefore presents a series of brief case studies that Westheimer uses to showcase classroom experiences that aim to connect learning with civic goals. He complements these real-life examples with guides for teachers and for parents to engage students in critical thinking and community action.
Chapter 9 explores seven common "myths" that impede educators and policy makers from embracing critical thinking in education. In describing the first myth, Westheimer addresses the earlier-mentioned assumptions about equating national standards with quality assurance, while in the second he counters the rise in treating signs of dissent or rebellion against the standardisation regime with medication.
Myths three and four speak to challenges that educators might face in their intentions to promote critical thinking, in that democratic thinking can only be taught in a democratic school environment, and that knowledge must always precede action in community-based experiences.
Number five looks at the critiques that teachers who care about critical thinking supposedly do not care about facts or basic skills; number six counters the argument that politics should be kept out of schools as a "neutral" learning environment; and finally, number seven suggests that community-based experiences do not always have to be "successful" to be meaningful in the education of good citizens, since it is more important that experiences be authentic.
Westheimer believes that these myths have damaged the pursuit of democratic education, and must be eradicated in order for teachers to achieve different results in their practice. The final chapter in this book summarises the book's main theme that democratic societies place special requirements on teaching and learning to teach students how to question and think critically, in order to be able to promote the change that moves democracy forward. Westheimer's book undoubtedly provides a comprehensive, useful guide for educators to consider their own teaching practice, along with some of the short-and long-term efforts they can make to better align their teaching with the values of critical thinking for social justice.
Readers will benefit from the insightful, on-point analysis of the role that standardisation has played in the present regime of de-skilling the teaching profession to narrow curriculum provisions of the basics of literacy and mathematics. As a theoretical work, Westheimer's analysis and typology of "kinds" of citizens raises many questions.
Are these categories mutually exclusive, or would a social justice-oriented citizen also undertake "participatory" actions like give blood and organise a food drive? Westheimer's typology does not seem to account for these kinds of interrelationships among the three along with potentially other dimensions of democratic citizenship that may be more multifaceted, nuanced, and temporally shifting.
Could not first-hand personal experience through community service and project organisation deepen students' intrinsic motivation and insights for structural change and political engagement?
0コメント