There are a number of attempts to create a national curriculum or syllabus for civic education. These are developed within the prevailing education philosophy and terminology of particular education systems – establishing standards, specified outcomes, content based syllabi and text books, and, in some more limited cases, examination standards.
Those choosing to institutionalize civic education through determination of curriculum by the educational authority must consider the issues related to introduction of curriculum: the intended outcomes, the material to be taught, the teachers, the sites in which it is to be delivered, support materials and teacher and learner support, and evaluation.
They have to consider whether this curriculum is an incorporation into existing subject areas or whether it will stand alone, and if the latter, how it will relate to the various existing subject areas given the possible overlaps and duplications.
The major hindrances to the development of a national curriculum are not related to the subject, although there are a number of challenges in this regard outlined in other sections. They are rather to be found in finding time and space, in training and supporting educators, and in evaluation of learners.
Formal Education
There is a direct link between the extension of universal basic education and democratization. Some have argued that numerate, literate and generally educated people are drivers for increased democracy. Others have looked at the sustainability of democracy and have insisted that this can only happen if those who have achieved universal suffrage also receive a standardized basic education.
Historically, it has been assumed that, with the exception of a variety of optional subjects designed to induct pupils into the existing social and political structures, the very act of education is by definition civic education. In some highly publicized experimental schools, micro-societies were created to ensure that people learnt both from the classroom and the self-governing institution itself.
But in general as schools became more institutionalized, as the syllabus became fuller and more specialized and as society was perceived to be more complex, civic education or a variation on this term became a subject competing for space in the school day.
Most of these subjects have become degraded and discredited, not necessarily because of their content, although an increasing mismatch between this content and the student experience of life has an impact, but rather because such subjects are perceived by teachers and students alike as less important than the hard subjects at the centre of the curriculum – languages, mathematics and science, and other core subjects.
To counter this, civic education has been mainstreamed into the life of the school through extra-curricular activities such as student elections, self-management of extra-mural societies, and parent-teacher-student boards. Subject specialists have been encouraged to introduce civic education concepts into their subjects, identifying and introducing these through history, languages, arts and drama, sociology and economics, business management and life skills.
There is some controversy about the role of the school in civic education. It can be seen as too political and therefore likely to lead to conflict and partisanship. Alternatively communities may not want schools run by the state to interfere in the political formation of their children, fearing it will be a form of propaganda or socialization at odds with the values and commitments of that community.
In this regard civic education does have some parallels with the ongoing debates about the role of religion or religious education in schools. However, in democratic societies where citizens have established and fund through their taxes a national school system, there is an expectation that, as was originally envisioned when universal education was being promoted, schools develop responsible and responsive citizens.
Considerable work has been done in the United States of America recently in developing a standardized curriculum and in attempting to get it taught – sometimes as an alternative module to more general political science. In summary they have focused on three components and one methodological imperative:
- Essential civic knowledge, including the development of constitutional democracy and its principles
- Essential civic skills, including intellectual and participatory skills and their practice, and
- Essential civic virtues, such as the traits of responsibility and respect for others.
An imperative for this is the democratic teacher, imbued with a commitment to a classroom environment compatible with the theory and practice of democracy and freedom.
In South Africa, an extensive Values and Education Programme has been developed and institutionalized in the national department of education to preserve, promote and extend the constitutional democracy established in 1994.
In the transition of the Eastern European states to independence, democracy and, in many cases, accession to the European Union, civic education through the existing schooling system or through parallel non-formal processes and institutions was one of the early forms of democratic support by the international community.
Non-formal education
A number of countries have introduced national curricula for civic education which are delivered nationally using non-formal educational methods. Through a process of consultation or direction by an election management board or similar institution, a wide range of existing organisations and institutions have agreed to deliver a common curriculum.
Kenya is a particularly good example of this. Its published curriculum was prepared and delivered in the period prior to the national elections of 2002.
The curriculum was prepared after a national baseline study of citizen attitudes and educational needs. It was delivered by a coalition of some 70 non-governmental organisations co-ordinated by a small project management office, and funded by international development funds through a form of joint funding. Evaluations of this programme have encouraged its funders and participants to plan for a second round. Delays in the finalization of the reform constitution, whose drafting provided impetus to round one, has had an impact on this – and is a good example of how national civic education programmes can be trapped by exigencies outside their control.
Malawi has also operated a national curriculum driven, appropriately for Malawi, by a programme with the acronym, NICE – National Initiate for Civic Education. This programme has relied on community educators and community libraries organized by NICE itself rather than a coalition as in Kenya.
In both cases, the curriculum has received national and statutory support although it was established by a combined effort of the international donor community and the non-governmental community. It is hard to know whether a different curriculum would have been created, or whether the initiative would have been attempted at all, if money had merely been made available to the national education system.
Those developing such a non-formal nationally delivered curriculum face a number of problems in regard to programme development and programme ownership.
In Kenya these were overcome by the baseline study and the development of formally printed and published materials in advance of the roll out of the programme. In addition, the programme was delivered as a time bound campaign in a particularly propitious political climate, rather than being developed as a standardized curriculum which would stand over a period of time.
In Uganda such a curriculum was developed by the election management board in the early 1990’s and it was intended that any wanting to do civic education would follow this curriculum.
Some countries accredit agencies, making available materials. Others accredit agencies and allow them thereafter to develop their own materials merely following certain guidelines.
In Germany, the development of theoretical material and curriculum support materials, while not mandatory, acts as an informal regulator by encouraging others to make use of what already exists rather than do their own costly development.
Non-formal education is by its nature conducted in a range of settings (raising problems of language, adaptation of materials and audio-visual supports, timing and the levels of entrance and interest of the learners). It is delivered by a range of educators and facilitators, and, despite the possibility of short term cascade based training, it is inevitable that they will approach the programme with their own styles and teaching skills. And finally, non-formal education is often done at short notice, reducing the possibility that already prepared materials will be to hand.
The costs of nationally produced curricula, whether of the limited nature tried in some countries or the comprehensive nature used in Kenya, are high, and wastage can be considerable. The risk that materials will quickly lose their ‘fit’ and be replaced by locally produced courses adds to the possible wastage.
curriculum for citizenship education