Citizenship: a matter of schooling? An educational inquiry into the normativity of citizenship education

Full text

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
RESEARCH UNIT EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SOCIETY
Citizenship:
a matter of
schooling?
An educational inquiry
into the normativity of citizenship education
Margot Joris
Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of Doctor of Educational
Sciences (PhD)
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Orhan Agirdag
Co-supervisor: Prof. Dr. Maarten Simons
2022

FACULTY OF PSYCHOLOGY AND
EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
Citizenship: a matter of
schooling?
An educational inquiry into the normativity of
citizenship education
2022
Doctoral thesis offered to obtain the degree of
Doctor of Educational Sciences (PhD)
Margot Joris
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Orhan Agirdag
RESEARCH UNIT EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SOCIETY
Co- supervisor: Prof. Dr. Maarten Simons

i

ii
SUMMARY
Over the last three decades, the promotion of citizenship education (CE) in schools has received
renewed and abundant attention on national and international educational agendas. This importance
accorded to CE in schools is often paired with a rather self-evident manner of approaching the role of
schools in CE and the relationship between education and citizenship. Descriptions or justifications of
the choices made in the use of the concepts and their underlying normativity are mostly limited to
descriptions of what good citizenship is and should be. What good education is, and how it relates to
citizenship, is less frequently made explicit or defined. This dissertation research therefore explores
the normativity of currently dominant approaches to CE in research and policy and develops an
educational approach towards this normativity, turning to classroom practices and educational theory
to expand and broaden this current language of citizenship education. The first chapter deals with
the normativity of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) of 2009, the largest
international comparative study of citizenship education, which significantly influences the language
of citizenship education. The chapter illustrates how all aspects of the ICCS appear to mainly
emphasize predictable and established aims of citizenship education. This analysis demonstrates a
tension between the content and criteria included in the study on the one hand, and the study’s
proclaimed aim of CE as helping pupils to become autonomous, active and independent democratic
citizens on the other hand. The second chapter explores the European-level policy texts concerning
CE. The chapter indicates how, while collective and democratic purposes are accorded to CE on a
European level, the policy texts’ language actually tends to promote rather narrow, individualistic and
arguably limited conceptions of democratic citizenship and CE in schools. Chapter three turns its
attention towards actual classroom practices, presenting an ethnographic exploration of how CE can
be seen to take place in the classroom. Building on the hypothesis that political aims accorded to
citizenship education first assume pedagogical aims, it discusses how a relational account of CE that
takes into account teachers, pupils and school material, can significantly expand and reshuffle
prevailing notions of the responsibility of schools in CE as contributing directly or primarily to young
people’s individual political competence and action. The fourth and final chapter concerns the
initiation of a theoretical perspective to citizenship education in schools that reconciles both external,
societal expectations to CE, and an educational perspective on the school as intrinsically worthwhile.
The chapter explores how in both approaches, the democratic principles of freedom, equality and
fraternity can be thought of as fundamental for thinking about the relationship between education in
schools, citizenship and democracy. It thus develops a position that embodies trust in schools as a
primarily pedagogical context, but equally acknowledges that both schools and their pupils are always
already part of political and societal life as well. Finally, in the conclusion, we offer some implications
of the conducted studies for expanding current lines of thinking and speaking about CE in educational
research, policy, practice and theory.

iii

iv
SAMENVATTING
In de voorbije drie decennia is burgerschapsvorming (BV) op school een prioriteit geworden op
nationale en internationale onderwijsagenda’s. Het belang dat aan BV gehecht wordt, gaat vaak
gepaard met een denken en spreken over de relatie tussen burgerschap en onderwijs (vorming) op
school als een evidentie. Beschrijvingen of verantwoordingen van het gebruik van de centrale, complexe
concepten van BV zijn vaak schaars of beperkt tot beschrijvingen van goed burgerschap. Wat goede
vorming is en hoe dit relateert aan burgerschap in de context van scholen, wordt minder vaak expliciet
gemaakt of gedefinieerd. Dit doctoraatsonderzoek beschouwt echter al deze elementen als essentieel
om het te hebben over BV. Het doel van dit onderzoek is daarom tweeledig: het verkent de
normativiteit van huidige, dominante benaderingen van BV in onderzoek en beleid én richt
de aandacht op klaspraktijken en pedagogische theorie, om een educatieve benadering van BV te
ontwikkelen en de huidige taal van burgerschapsvorming open te trekken. Het eerste
hoofdstuk bekijkt de normativiteit van de grootste internationale, vergelijkende studie naar BV, die
grote invloed heeft op de taal hierrond: de ICCS studie. Dit hoofdstuk illustreert hoe alle aspecten van
deze studie voornamelijk voorspelbare en gevestigde doelen van BV promoten en toont een spanning
aan tussen enerzijds de inhoud en de criteria van de studie, en anderzijds de vooropgestelde doelen van
het onderzoek om beleid en praktijken van BV, die erop gericht zijn jongeren te helpen om autonome
actieve en onafhankelijke democratische burgers te worden, te inspireren en verbeteren. Het tweede
hoofdstuk verkent beleidsteksten rond burgerschapsvorming op Europees niveau. Hoewel er
collectieve en democratische doelen worden toegekend aan BV op Europees niveau, lijken de
beleidsteksten zelf vooral nauwe, individualistische en beperkte concepten van democratisch BV op
school te promoten. In het derde hoofdstuk richten we de blik op een etnografische exploratie van
klaspraktijken en hoe burgerschapsvorming plaatsvindt in de klas. Bouwend op de hypothese dat de
politieke doelen die worden toegekend aan burgerschapsvorming eerst en vooral pedagogische doelen
en processen veronderstellen, beschrijft dit hoofdstuk hoe een relationeel begrip dat zowel leraren,
leerlingen als schoolmateriaal in beschouwing neemt, het huidige dominante denken over de rol die
onderwijs en scholen spelen in burgerschapsvorming kan verbreden en herdenken. Het vierde en
laatste hoofdstuk initieert een theoretisch perspectief op BV, dat externe verwachtingen en
perspectieven t.a.v. de school en een pedagogisch perspectief op de intrinsieke waarde van schoolse
vorming voor BV tracht te verzoenen. Dit hoofdstuk geeft aan hoe beide benaderingen in essentie
voortbouwen op dezelfde democratische principes van vrijheid gelijkheid en broederlijkheid. We
ontwikkelen een theoretische positie die vooral het vertrouwen in scholen als primair pedagogische
context benadrukt, maar ook erkent dat zowel scholen als hun leerlingen altijd al deel uitmaken van
het politieke en sociale leven. Ten slotte beschrijven we in de conclusie de implicaties van deze studies
om de huidige lijnen van denken en spreken in onderzoek, beleid, praktijk en theorie van
burgerschapsvorming te kunnen verbreden.

v

vi
Acknowledgments
It may be said, and many already know: the writing of this dissertation has been an ordeal and often
a submission: to long days, short nights and a restless head. Searching, rooting, toiling with the
subject, but also with myself. Especially in these last two years, during which this submission was
extended to unprecedented restrictions on being able to be, think, work and live together while
writing this dissertation, my trust that I would eventually be able to "tame" this subject was shaken
on several occasions. But, and this must be said: being allowed to submit myself to this dissertation
has also been an absolute pleasure, privilege and the ride of my life. To be(come) absorbed in this
subject and to be able to form myself throughout the process. To be allowed to search, and to
discover so much. And this I attribute to the people who have accompanied and supported me in this
quest.
Orhan and Maarten, thank you for the freedom and the trust that have enabled me to search, but also
to let myself get lost on occasion. But also for the ways in which, through questions and
encouragement, and a little push now and then, you have given me direction. Orhan: for repeatedly
asking me that terrible question 'where is Margot? What do you want to say? You have always
challenged me to find my own position and have expressed confidence, from the very beginning, that
I was able and entitled to say something. For letting me dare to speak and write as myself, and for
the way in which you always do so yourself: thank you. And now I can finally say it: my PhD is not a
horse. Maarten, for the way in which you have been involved with this subject and with my quest to
bring this to a good end; by making me search for the right words, and asking all those difficult
questions: thank you. Your perspective on this thesis has challenged me over and over to get it
"right" and to actually dare to commit myself to this process and my research.
To the members of my midterm committee, Joke, Ellen, and Mathias, thank you for redirecting and
challenging my focus at an important time, making me see beyond what and how I saw myself at the
time.
To the examination committee, Ellen Claes, Michael Merry and Joke Vandenabeele: thank you for
the attention with which you read this dissertation and challenged me. Your comments and
questions have made this thesis grow so much in a short time and up until the very last moment.
Sometimes, it does indeed take some distance and a different perspective to be able to see the essence
again yourself.
For all the past years of thinking, working and speaking together, first as a student and then as a
colleague: a very warm thank you to the inhabitants of the unique micro-cosmos on the corridor of the
third floor of the PI, my colleagues. Being allowed to be part of the courses, discussions, seminars and

vii
forums in and around ECS has inspired and shaped me enormously over the past thirteen years. To
Samira, Mieke, Benedikte and Anouk: thank you for your support, strength and warmth, making these
past years of daily PhD and assistant life an absolute pleasure, both in- and outside of the university
walls. You give me confidence that the future is indeed female: come the revolution!
To the schools, teachers and students who have participated in my research, inspired me and showed
me the value of small gestures and moments: thank you for feeding my optimism. Also to all the
students with whom I have had the privilege to collaborate over the past years, through all the hours
filled with project meeting, public experiments, seminars, etc: I have learned a lot, thank you.
To my nest, the Joris-Van der Elst family. Mom and Dad, Jasper and Elise. Thank you for all your
support, your patience with me, and for continuing to provide the finest and warmest environment
anyone could wish for. Mom, for your incredible, inspiring goodness and the care you give to
everything and everyone around you. Now it's your turn. Dad, for how you so beautifully embody
what it means to be able to build on someone, and for all you have done over the past few years to
help me build my own nest. Elise, for continuing to inspire me as a little sister with what you, as a
big sister, can and dare to do. Jasper, because in and through you I will always know at least one
absolute certainty: that we are never completely alone.
To who has become my second home and family: the beautiful people who surround me every day,
who give me energy and inspire me. To the Brussels gang, for being there and here and for all your
help. What a pleasure to be able to spend my days with such passionate, warm people. In particular
Louize and Soraya: the fiercest forces in the most beautiful softness. Being seen, supported and
trusted by you is my anchor. To my favorite collective of women: Astrid, Alisia, Jos, Asje and Stien.
Thank you for your energy, each so different but so complementary. For all your support, for getting
me out of the house from time to time; and for calling me out when I disappeared for too long. I am
so looking forward to catch up on quality up time with you. To Valerie: thank you for who you are
and for always being there. To Samira and Kristof: for all of the moments shared, your extraordinary
kindness and brightness: thank you.
And then, the person who single-handedly makes everything worthwhile. Jesse, because of you, the
searching has become finding. Your presence, support and being able to share everything with you
has made the toughest, most intense period of my life the most beautiful and soothing one at the
same time. For everything you are, how you think, what you do and say; and for everything we are
and have together: thank you. It means everything and has brought me home. This must be the
place.
Margot, April 29, 2022.

viii
Dankwoord
Het mag gezegd worden, en het is door velen ook al geweten: het schrijven van dit proefschrift is een
beproeving en vaak ook een onderwerping geweest. Aan lange dagen, korte nachten en een rusteloos
hoofd. Zoeken, wroeten, zwoegen, naar en met het onderwerp, maar ook mezelf. Zeker in de laatste
twee jaar van deze doctoraatsperiode, waarin deze onderwerping werd uitgebreid naar nooit geziene
inperkingen op samen kunnen zijn, denken, -werken en -leven, is mijn geloof dat ik dit onderwerp
uiteindelijk zou kunnen gaan ‘temmen’ meermaals aan het wankelen gebracht. Maar, en dit moet
gezegd worden: het mij mogen onderwerpen aan dit proefschrift is ook een absoluut plezier,
privilege en de rit van mijn leven geweest. Om in dit onderwerp op te gaan en daarbij ook mezelf te
vormen. Om te mogen zoeken, en zo ontzettend veel te ontdekken. En dat schrijf ik toe aan de
mensen die me in deze zoektocht vergezeld en gesteund hebben.
Orhan en Maarten, bedankt voor de vrijheid en het vertrouwen die jullie mij hebben gegeven om te
mogen en kunnen zoeken, en ook regelmatig stevig te verdwalen. Maar ook voor de manier waarop
jullie, met vragen en aanmoedigingen, en af en toe een duwtje in de rug, me ook weer richting
hebben gegeven. Orhan: om mij telkens weer die verschrikkelijke vraag te stellen ‘waar zit Margot?
Wat wil jij zeggen?’. Je hebt mij telkens uitgedaagd om mijn eigen positie te zoeken en hebt van bij
het begin het vertrouwen uitgesproken dat ik iets kon en mocht zeggen. Om mij te laten durven
spreken en schrijven als mezelf, en voor de manier waarop je dat ook zelf doet: dankjewel. En nu mag
het eindelijk: my PhD is not a horse. Maarten, voor de betrokkenheid die jij hebt getoond bij dit
onderwerp en bij mijn zoeken om dit tot een goed einde te brengen; door mij telkens naar de juiste
woorden te doen zoeken, en al die lastige vragen te stellen: bedankt. Jouw blik op dit proefschrift
heeft mij telkens uitgedaagd om het ‘juist’ te krijgen en om mij ook echt te durven onderwerpen aan
mijn onderzoek.
Aan de leden van mijn halftijdse commissie, Joke, Ellen en Mathias, bedankt om mij halfweg bij te
sturen, uit te dagen en verder te doen kijken dan wat en hoe ik op dat moment zelf zag.
Aan de juryleden, Ellen Claes, Michael Merry en Joke Vandenabeele: bedankt voor de aandacht
waarmee jullie dit proefschrift hebben gelezen en mij hebben uitgedaagd. Jullie opmerkingen en
vragen hebben dit proefschrift, op korte tijd en tot het laatste moment, nog zo doen groeien. Soms
vraagt het inderdaad even wat afstand en een ander perspectief om zelf weer de essentie te kunnen
zien.
Voor alle voorbije jaren van samen denken, werken en spreken, eerst als student en dan als collega:
een heel warm dankjewel aan de bewoners van de unieke microkosmos op de gang van de derde
verdieping van het PI, mijn collega’s. Deel mogen uitmaken van de vakken, discussies, seminaries en

ix
fora in en rond ECS heeft mij doorheen de voorbije dertien jaar enorm geïnspireerd en gevormd. To
Samira, Mieke, Benedikte and Anouk: thank you for your support, strength and warmth, making
these past years of daily PhD and assistant life an absolute pleasure, both in- and outside of the
university walls. You give me trust that the future is indeed female: come the revolution!
Aan de scholen, leraren en leerlingen die hebben meegewerkt aan mijn onderzoek, mij geïnspireerd
hebben en die mij de waarde van kleine gebaren en momenten hebben laten zien: bedankt om mijn
optimisme te voeden. Ook aan alle studenten met wie ik de voorbije jaren, doorheen alle uren gevuld
met projectonderwijs, publieke experimenten, lees- en werkcolleges, heb mogen samen werken: ik
heb ontzettend veel geleerd, bedankt.
Aan mijn nest, de familie Joris-Van der Elst. Mama en Papa, Jasper en Elise. Bedankt voor al jullie
steun, jullie geduld met mij, en om de fijnste en warmste uit- en terugvalbasis te blijven bieden die
iemand zich kan wensen. Mama, voor jouw ongelooflijke, inspirerende goedheid en de zorg die je aan
alles en iedereen rondom je besteedt. Nu is het aan jou. Papa, voor hoe jij zo mooi belichaamt wat het
betekent om op iemand te kunnen bouwen, en voor alles wat jij de voorbije jaren hebt gedaan om mij
doorheen deze zoektocht ook mijn eigen nest te helpen bouwen. Elise, om mij als kleine zus nog
steeds te inspireren met wat jij, als grote zus, allemaal kan en durft. Jasper, omdat ik in en door jou
altijd minstens één absolute zekerheid mag kennen: dat wij er nooit helemaal alleen voorstaan.
Aan wie mijn tweede thuis en familie is geworden: de schone mensen door wie ik mij dagelijks
omringd weet, die mij energie geven en inspireren. Aan de Brusselse bende, om er en hier te zijn en
voor alle hulp en steun: bedankt. Wat een plezier om mijn dagen te mogen spenderen met zo’n
gepassioneerde, warme mensen. In het bijzonder Louize en Soraya: de grootste krachten liggen in de
schoonste zachtheid. Door jullie gezien, gesteund en vertrouwd worden is mijn anker. Aan mijn
favoriete collectief van topvrouwen: Astrid, Alisia, Jos, Asje en Stien. Bedankt voor jullie energie, elk
zo anders maar zo aanvullend. Voor al jullie steun, mij op tijd en stond uit mijn kot te halen en mij er
op aan te spreken als ik te lang van het toneel verdween. Ik kijk er zo naar uit om tijd met jullie in te
halen. Valerie: bedankt voor wie je bent en om er altijd te zijn. And to Samira and Kristof: for all of
the moments shared, your extraordinary kindness and brightness: thank you.
En dan, de persoon die eigenhandig alles de moeite waard maakt. Jesse, jij hebt het zoeken omgezet
in vinden. Jouw aanwezigheid, steun en alles met jou mogen delen heeft van de zwaarste, meest
intense periode van mijn leven tegelijkertijd de mooiste en meest geruststellende gemaakt. Voor
alles aan wie je bent, hoe je denkt, wat je doet en zegt; en voor alles wat wij samen zijn en hebben:
bedankt. Het betekent alles en bracht mij thuis. This must be the place.
Margot , 29 april 2022

x
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1
Citizenship education in times of
crisis
......................................................................................... 4
Citizenship education as a
normative
matter ................................................................................ 7
Positioning the study in existing research on CE......................................................................... 8
CE in between critical and post-critical educational theory ..................................................... 13
Research interest ............................................................................................................................. 16
Overview........................................................................................................................................... 16
CHAPTER I. IN SEARCH OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION: A NORMATIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIC AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION STUDY
(ICCS)…………………………………………………………………………………………………20
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Aims of citizenship education ........................................................................................................... 23
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 24
Analysis ................................................................................................................................................ 25
Purpose statement ................................................................................................................................ 25
Framework ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Instruments: design ............................................................................................................................... 28
Instruments: content .............................................................................................................................. 29
Cognitive Test ................................................................................................................................. 30
Questionnaires ................................................................................................................................. 31
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 33
CHAPTER II. CITIZENSHIP-AS-COMPETENCE,
WHAT ELSE
? WHY EUROPEAN
CITIZENSHIP
EDUCATION POLICY THREATENS TO FALL SHORT OF ITS AIMS. .... 37
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Citizenship and education: more equivalent than ever? ................................................................ 39

xi
Moving beyond equivalence: what education for what citizenship? ............................................ 40
Conceptual framework ....................................................................................................................... 42
What is citizenship? ............................................................................................................................. 42
What is education, and its relation to citizenship? .................................................................................. 43
Method ................................................................................................................................................. 46
Citizenship-as-competence: competent citizens and their toolkit ............................................................... 48
All-purpose education? Learning about, through and for democracy........................................................ 51
Discussion and implications .............................................................................................................. 55
Limitations and suggestions for further research .................................................................................... 55
Implications of a competence-based approach to CE................................................................................ 56
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER III. PUTTING INTO PRACTICE: WHAT CLASSROOM PRACTICES CAN
TEACH ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S ROLE IN CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION ............................ 59
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 60
Setting the scene: CE in Flanders ..................................................................................................... 61
Expanding notions of CE: theoretical framework .......................................................................... 63
Biesta’s ‘3D’ vision of education ........................................................................................................... 63
Separating the pedagogical from the political ........................................................................................ 65
Putting into practice: methodology ................................................................................................. 67
Research design .................................................................................................................................... 67
Analytical approach ............................................................................................................................. 70
Analysis: classroom episodes ............................................................................................................. 73
“Hey, school is child labour!”: the pedagogical as framework for the political ........................................... 73
“You don’t do that!”: negotiating ‘good’ behaviour and the limits of socialisation .................................... 76
“You need all kinds of permission”: limits of the political in the classroom ......................................... 80
Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 84
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 87
CHAPTER IV. TOWARDS A TRUSTING THEORY OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION . 89

xii
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 90
School and democracy: an external vs. an internal perspective .................................................... 92
Towards a ‘trusting’ educational theory of citizenship education ............................................... 94
Dewey ................................................................................................................................................. 94
Arendt ................................................................................................................................................. 96
Towards a common ground: Pull up a seat ..................................................................................... 99
Citizenship education: a matter of principle(s) ............................................................................. 100
Freedom ............................................................................................................................................ 101
Equality ............................................................................................................................................ 104
Citizenship education: a matter of fraternity?....................................................................................... 106
Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 109
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 111
Citizenship-as-competence .............................................................................................................. 111
The pedagogical and the political in CE ....................................................................................... 115
Seamless enactment .......................................................................................................................... 120
(Citizenship) education as threefold: qualification, socialization and subjectification ........... 123
Closing thoughts ............................................................................................................................... 126
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 130

1
INTRODUCTION
In democratic societies, questions about democracy have always been closely intertwined with
questions about education: asking what kind of education would best prepare the people (demos) for
their participation in the ruling (kratos) of their society (Biesta, 2007). Today, a healthy and thriving
democratic society is seen to require the active, effective and competent participation and involvement
of its citizens, promoting a notion of citizenship that goes far beyond a legal relationship between
people and the state. However, citizens do not become informed, active and engaged by themselves:
we all need to learn how to become a citizen, and this requires specific societal and political knowledge,
skills, attitudes (Sampermans, Maurissen, Louw, Hooghe and Claes, 2017), as well as opportunities
and conditions to act and participate (Council of Europe, 2018).
Over the last three decades such perceptions of democracy, in combination with an overall sense that
citizens (and specifically young people) are increasingly less inclined and interested to participate in
society or to engage politically, has led to renewed and abundant interest in the promotion of
citizenship education (CE) in research, policy and programme development. Given the centrality of
‘active participation’ to current notions of democracy and citizenship in Europe (European
Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2017; Schulz et al., 2018), the acknowledgement that no one is born
with the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary for active participation and learning how to exercise
influence on decision making (Sampermans et al., 2017) has caught on. In this context, citizenship and
citizenship education have essentially come to be seen as developing citizenship competence(s) (Council
of Europe, 2016; Keating, 2014, Schulz et al., 2018). Citizenship competence or competent citizenship
behaviour is generally defined as the ability to mobilise and deploy the values, attitudes, skills,
knowledge and/or forms of understanding (described as specific citizenship competences) that are
needed in responding effectively to the ever changing demands, challenges and opportunities posed by
democratic situations to citizens and their engagement (Council of Europe, 2018). This notion entails
the idea that young people should be equipped with a set of knowledge and understandings (of for instance
political and societal systems and institutions, modes of participation and democratic decision making),
skills (critical thinking, communication and co-operation and conflict resolution); learn to respect,
adhere to and live by democratic values and principles (such as human rights, democracy, justice,
fairness, equality, solidarity and the rule of law); and acquire the necessary attitudes, dispositions,
intentions and behaviours to participate as effective citizens in democratic society (such as being open to
and accepting of otherness and other views, valuing diversity, being respectful and empathetic, having
a feeling of belonging and commitment to the (civic) communities one is part of, etc).
This interest in CE appears to have been mainly focused on the context of schools. The competence-
based approach to citizenship and CE appears to have heightened the expectations towards education
in general for young people to become informed, active citizens: a more educated, competent subject

2
is expected to make a better citizen (Fischman & Haas, 2014), to take more active part in politics and
have more clearly defined political identities (Emler & Frazer, 1999). Schools are accorded a vital role
in preparing children and young people for their future: their further education and position on the
labour market, but also for their (future) democratic citizenship in diverse democratic societies.
While acquiring democratic or citizenship competences is considered a lifelong process, spreading
across all contexts of formal, in- and non-formal contexts and stages of education (Council of Europe,
2018); the school is considered especially important for CE. This has, on the one hand, to do with the
fact that states and governments can influence and fund formal, compulsory education most directly
(Council of Europe, 2010). On the other hand schools are considered the institutions par excellence that
are able to bring together children and young people of all backgrounds, for a fair amount of their
time, over a fair amount of years, and that first introduce them to the public realm (Council of Europe,
2018). Schools are thus seen to offer pupils from different backgrounds and groups in society the most
diverse environment at their disposal, by bringing them together in one shared time and space.
Reversely, these facts and beliefs about schools are, however, also the focal point of fundamental
criticism of the notion of CE in/and schools. Veugelers & De Groot (2019, p.15), for instance, note
that: “It is a paradox that in an era dominated by neo-liberal policy with a strong market orientation
and limited government interference, education policy now focuses so strongly on citizenship
education. The identity development of a person is not left to the autonomy of the free individual, but
is made the target of a direct socialisation effort by schools, coordinated by the national government”.
In the case of CE, this can even be extended to coordinated efforts and programmes on a European
level (see Chapter II). Such efforts have therefore been criticized for being indoctrinating, rather than
educating: pushing single perspectives, ideas and views as universally accepted through teaching,
rather than opening these up for alternative understandings, critique, argument and acting on (other)
possibilities (Sears & Hughes, 2006). Moreover, the assumption or argument that schools offer
children and young people a more or the most diverse environment, often conflicts with research and
statistics on ethnic and socio-economic school composition and the phenomenon of school segregation
or ‘concentration schools’. This is certainly the case in Flanders (Agirdag & Van Houtte, 2011), the
context in which the empirical part of this PhD research has been conducted (see chapter III). But also
in Europe at large, the separation of different groups of pupils into specific schools and classes, appears
to continue to grow in the current context of increasing migration flows (Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2017). In some schools, diversity is therefore rather limited in
comparison to society itself, as opposed to offering the most diverse environment and opportunities
for bringing together groups of youth from different backgrounds. This is mainly influenced, among
other things, by the importance attached to parental preferences and their free choice in schools; as
well as tracking mechanisms in the school system according to ‘ability’, which often interact with
pupils’ social and ethnic backgrounds (Agirdag, Van Avermaet & Van Houtte, 2013). Pressure
exercised on national and local authorities by different actors, such as school administrations,

3
teachers and other professionals, also play a role (Council of Europe Commissioner for Human
Rights, 2017).
However, in general, the idea pervades in research and policy on CE, that schools do offer a crucial
environment for pupils to develop a sense of being a member of a wider community (Ainley, Schulz &
Friedman, 2013) and function as a unique miniature society or microcosm (Print, ØrnstrØm &
Nielsen, 2002; European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), or as a playing ground for practicing
democracy (Eidhof, 2016). This idea of the school is often linked to relatively ‘new’ forms of organising
teaching and learning introduced in schools, providing pupils with opportunities for active
participation in a democratic classroom or school climate (Maurissen, Claes & Barber, 2018; Geboers
et al., 2013). By letting pupils participate actively in processes of decision-making at school level, or
installing a climate in classrooms that allows pupils to engage in open discussion and debate, it is
believed that schools offer a crucial and essential contribution to young people’s citizenship learning
and competence development. The central belief is that, by letting them ‘do’ or practice the same things
they are expected to be able to do as competent, adult citizens in democratic society in school, they
can best and most effectively learn to become citizens.
The initial curiosity and interest from which this research project originated, can be summed up as a
sense of unease with this image of the school, and the ease with which (formal) education and schools
are called upon to help solve or tackle societal issues through citizenship education as competence
development. While it is generally accepted that concepts of citizenship continue to shift as a response
to societal and political developments, and that this leads to changing and increasing focus(es) on
citizenship education in schools (Schulz et al., 2008), the relationship between citizenship and
education in schools is often self-evidently assumed to just ‘be there’. The more we call for citizenship
in and through citizenship education in schools, the less this relationship seems to be made explicit or
be defined. Descriptions or justifications of the choices made in the use of the concepts and their
underlying normativity, are scarce. So what is meant by citizenship? Education? And how is the relationship
between both understood and conceptualised? These are questions that appear to deserve more explicit
attention when we accord a vital function for the health and wellbeing of democratic societies to our
schools; and have been the main subject of this dissertation.
In order to investigate these questions, this dissertation also takes a different stance from more
common approaches to the topic of citizenship education in schools, which is often investigated and/or
criticized from either a sociological or a political point of view. We position this research project in
line with educational research, and its character of a fundamentally normative endeavour (Tyson, 2016):
as never just examining what is, but always already including thoughts or indications about what
could or should be ‘good’ (in this case: citizenship) education, its processes, aims and outcomes.

4
Citizenship education in times of
crisis
In general, calls for new, more effective or better citizenship education often appear to be grounded in
a general sense of crisis (Hodgson, 2016): the idea that democratic society and its fundamental
principles and values are under serious threat, at both local, national and international levels. These
threats can be thought of as consisting of both sudden, unexpected happenings and more slowly
evolving cultural and political patterns (Strandbrink, 2017). For instance, within the time span of about
six years since the start of this PhD project, three main shifts or developments have stood out for
inspiring changing notions of citizenship and CE in schools, but also for indicating some essential
issues or focus points for thinking about the role of the school in educating young people as (future)
citizens today.
The first major shift was initiated by the series of terroristic attacks that struck Copenhagen, Paris
and Brussels in 2015 and 2016, and their aftermath. As a direct effect, outcries from all sides of the
political spectrum have stressed the urgency and importance of passing down and protecting the
fundamental democratic norms and values in our superdiverse society/societies in Europe: freedom,
tolerance, non-discrimination (European Commission, 2015), respect for human rights, the rule of law,
diversity, etc all became focal points for policy and initiatives of CE as a response to these attacks.
‘Learning what it means to be European’ (Van Bempt, 2016), ‘battling extremism from kindergarten on’
(Torfs, 2016), these are just a few examples of newspaper headlines announcing new policy or
programmes for CE in Flanders following these events, and illustrating the shift in expectations
society formulated towards schools and pupils in terms of citizenship and CE (Joris, 2021). For
instance, as a result and an answer to these attacks, a European Framework of competences for democratic
culture was developed and tested throughout European member states (Council of Europe, 2018),
explicitly presenting and promoting the notion of citizenship-as-competence and education as a vital
investment in a democratic culture for healthy, open, tolerant and diverse democratic societies.
A second major development that has inspired this PhD research project, was a demonstration of how
issues and developments of changing citizenship and CE not only mobilise experts and policymakers,
but also youth and pupils themselves. It is young people who today appear to be challenged in
extraordinary ways by a myriad of ‘crises’ and issues (Riddle & Apple, 2019). Globally, we have seen
youth, pupils and students leading several important social and protest movements over the past few
years: the School Strike for Climate or Youth for Climate movements, high school pupils in the U.S.
leading rallies to protest gun violence, demand racial equality and justice; pupils leading protests
against outdated and discriminatory gender (sartorial) rules in schools, etc. The list of examples of
young people claiming their say in society, taking a stand and demanding their right to do things
differently for their future, goes on. While developing citizenship competences that would allow youth
to deal with complex issues such as sustainable development, combatting climate change, and

5
promoting peaceful co-existence, justice and equality are generally conceived of as a learning
trajectory that pupils have not yet completed, this does not keep them from actually acting politically.
However, while these protests arguably display pupils’ political and social knowledge, engagement
with these social and political issues and their ability to act as (future) citizens, they have often been
met with paradoxical responses on the part of policy makers, politicians, and the adult generation in
general: urging young people to ‘remain in school’ until they are considered qualified and old enough
to actually participate in the debate and political action. In fact, depending on the issue and the context
in which it was denounced, as well as the ‘identity’ or characteristics of the youth involved, they have
not only been met with adult and political disdain or belittlement, but sometimes even by
criminalisation, violence and force. These events indicate a deficit model to citizenship and CE, and the
youth involved (Arvanitakis and Hodge, 2012 in Heggart, Flowers & Burridge, 2018). There appears
to be a paradoxical relation between the goal of achieving political agency as the proclaimed ‘end’ or
outcome of CE for all youth in schools, and the treatment of pupils and young people as part of
programmes and processes of CE as always still ‘citizens in waiting’ (Heggart et al., 2018), as not-yet
citizens who lack the necessary competences, who are in preparation, but not legitimately or ‘really’
acting; even when they are claiming the streets and taking action for the issues they want to see
changed. Youth are thus expected to be or becoming competent as the ‘key’ to citizenship and political
agency, yet when they actually exert such agency, they appear to not be recognised as competent
citizens in the political world of democracy and citizenship in which they are being introduced through
CE.
The third event, which at the time of the final writing of this dissertation is still confronting the world
with the unpredictability of its course and consequences, has had the most significant impact on both
expectations of, as well as the daily realities of education and schools: the COVID-19 pandemic. The
sudden and sometimes prolonged closure of schools has, throughout the past two years, compelled
policymakers, schools, teachers, students and parents all over the globe to repeatedly re-think and
practice education radically differently, answering to constantly changing situations, challenges and
expectations. In these (for our and the young generation) unprecedented times of faltering (mental)
health and stability, isolation and what appears to be a massive polarization and crumbling of faith and
belief in traditional political institutions, media and even one’s fellow citizens; citizenship education is
again being promoted as a key instrument to restore faith and secure a better future. By fostering well-
being, solidarity and the empowerment of excluded and vulnerable groups, the importance of CE for
the global recovery from the enduring pandemic is promoted (Unesco Institute for lifelong learning,
2021).
While launching yet a new set of expectations towards schools in terms of CE, the experiences and
findings related to the closing of schools due to the pandemic, and the ensuing priority that has been
given to re-opening schools or keeping them open as long as possible, have touched upon a more

6
fundamental aspect of these events that are of interest to the studies that make out this dissertation.
Namely, how these have seemingly brought to the surface the crucial role and position we still hold
for schools and educational practices and relations in the classroom for a ‘good' education of children
and youth, including as citizens. Arguably, the priority of re-opening schools has often been backed
up mainly by economically-driven arguments and considerations on the part of parents and the
economic ‘health’ of countries and states. However, educational or pedagogical concerns have (in what
from a pedagogical point of view might appear as a ‘first’ in a long time) also gained attention and
consideration by themselves. The impossibility for pupils and teachers to come together in the
classroom, to teach and be taught, appears to have been experienced by pupils, teachers, parents alike
as a grave deprivation, as well as having (had) demonstrable devastating effects on already glaring
forms of educational inequality and achievement gaps between students (Stantcheva, 2022; Human
Rights Watch, 2021; Grewenig, et al., 2020; Dorn et al., 2020). While often schools themselves are
attributed a large responsibility for reproducing and reinforcing existing forms of injustice and
inequality through their institutional design (Giroux, 1980; Friedrich, Jaastad & Popkewitz, 2010;
Meijer, 2013; Merry, 2020a and 2020b) it thus appears that there must also be something that schools
still ‘do good’ or right by bringing pupils, teachers and content or school material together in
classrooms. We thus believe that this ‘crisis’ might perhaps indicate an essential worth or contribution
of education in schools, or schooling in general, which could be built on in striving for a ‘better future’
through CE.
For all the effects such events have had on how we approach citizenship and CE, this is not just caused
or influenced by these sudden, striking and visible shifts or events , but also (and rather) by deeper
and more slowly evolving social, cultural and ideological patterns (Strandbrink, 2017). These operate
next to, or better: underneath the more visible and topical issues that tend to grasp our attention and
define the agenda’s for citizenship education rather instantaneously. For example, a general sense of
decline in the health and stability of democracy and ‘established’ democratic societies has been linked
to a loss of social cohesion and sense of community, increasing individualism, intolerance, racism,
xenophobia, populism over the past four decades. More generally, problems related to increasing
globalisation and migration have been deplored in social and political scientific research and policy as
indicating a general crisis in the fabric of society, democracy and citizenship (Council of Europe, 2010).
Moreover, citizens, and mostly young people, are seen to be losing interest in and becoming
increasingly apathetic to political and societal affairs (Brooks & Holford, 2009; Holford, 2008;
Nordensvärd, 2014). These gradual and enduring evolutions underly the idea that more citizenship
and citizenship education could serve as an antidote to this deepening crisis in our democracies
(Nordensvärd, 2014).
This dissertation project has attempted to take a different approach to the topic of CE in schools, and
how crises are often seized as ‘vehicles’ for educational reforms (Sears & Hyslop-Marison, 2007). First,

7
a crisis, in its original meaning, does not automatically refer to a negative event as we have come to
perceive and define it, but rather as a decisive moment or a point at which a choice must be made,
before events can move on (The Vocabularist, 2015). A crisis, by ‘tearing away façades and obliterating
prejudice’ even provides the opportunity “to explore and inquire into whatever has been laid bare of
the essence of the matter” (Arendt, 2006/1961, p.171, emphasis added). Because the answers on which
we normally rely are lost, a crisis requires our ‘direct judgement’. In the specific case of CE, we believe
that the events and evolutions indicated above not only deliver indications of the social and political
‘essence’ of CE, but also of its pedagogical essence.
Citizenship education as a
normative
matter
To further investigate this essence of the matter of CE, this dissertation is first of all a study of how
citizenship education is framed and approached today, by turning towards the normativity of its central
concepts of citizenship, education and their relationship. Normativity is considered here as a property
of concepts: it is a reasoning-guiding role that concepts possess, based on established norms that act
as general principles prescribing how people ought to think or act (Wedgwood, 2007). We believe that,
in thinking and speaking about CE, both the concepts of citizenship and education used imply specific
choices and understandings of what is ‘good’, that should be made explicit.
When existing literature, research and policy concerning CE tackle or address underlying concepts
and considerations, most are limited to normative theories of citizenship: descriptions or discussions
of expected good citizenship (Eidhof, et al., 2016; Schulz et al., 2008). Generally, these acknowledge the
contested nature of citizenship: different notions of good citizenship, or ‘citizenship agenda’s’ (De
Koning, Jaffe & Koster, 2015) are seen to co-exist, compete with, and influence each other as normative
framings of citizenship; prescribing what norms, values, and behaviour are appropriate for good
citizenship (for a more detailed account of these framings, see Chapter II, p. 41-42). The apparent
consensus in citizenship literature nowadays seems to be that citizenship is a fluid, complex and multi-
layered concept, that can mean many different things to different people, in different contexts (Joppke,
2007) and therefore, that there is no general consensus about what good citizenship is (Topolski, 2008).
This thus implies that every manner of speaking about citizenship (and citizenship education)
presupposes a specific choice of words and of using one concept of citizenship above others.
In general, an evolution in concepts of citizenship can be discussed as moving from more traditional
views of citizenship, mainly based on a set of different rights and duties (connected to a legal status of
citizenship), such as T.H. Marshall’s (1950) seminal distinction between civil, political and social rights
and duties for those claiming full membership of a political community; to a dynamic and multi-layered
concept of citizenship consisting of different dimensions (Siim, 2013, Banks, 2004, Schugurensky,
2005). These dimensions generally include the status of citizenship and its entailing rights and duties,

8
a sense of membership, belonging or citizenship identity, and participation or action. This current
understanding of citizenship as consisting of different dimensions appears to pair well with the idea
that good citizenship is a matter of competence(s) that should enable one to participate actively, pursue
social justice and promote human rights as a member of democratic society (Schulz et al., 2018).
Less common and ‘popular’ are normative inquiries into the assumed nature and aims of good
education in schools, or into the understanding of the relationship between education and citizenship
(Topolski, 2008). Often, this relationship is often just assumed to ‘be there’, as a natural given or an
inherent relation that cannot or should not be addressed explicitly (Hodgson, 2008). The social and
political discourses associated with citizenship tend to be taken to also indicate the function and ends
of the ‘education’ involved in CE. This common lack of attention to the normative choices implied in
speaking about citizenship education appears to result in a commonplace belief in a ‘historically untested
symbolic equivalence’ between education and citizenship (Fischman & Haas, 2014): the assumption that
more formal education expands and improves young people’s (future) citizenship and that a better
educated subject makes a better citizen. We recognize this, for instance, in the series of CE initiatives
launched in response to terrorist attacks in Europe: new or better educational programmes in schools
being called into life to assure young people become better, peaceful and tolerant democratic citizens.
However, concrete justifications for these expectations, or ‘proof’ where this strong association of
education with citizenship comes from, are often less clear (Emler & Frazer, 1999). Therefore, a
educational inquiry of the matter, which aims to bring to an understanding what assumptions of good
education are implied in accounts of CE, appears as a timely and necessary contribution to current
studies and accounts of CE. Such an inquiry can, perhaps, help broaden and deepen the current
thinking and speaking about CE, as an exercise in rethinking the role of the school for today’s and the
future world (Masschelein & Simons, 2015).
Positioning the study in existing research on CE
Veugelers and De Groot (2019) provide an overview of the different domains (and key scholars) of
study on CE, within which such an educational inquiry can be situated. They describe how citizenship
education studies have evolved as an academic subdiscipline throughout the past five decades,
identifying its key transitions. Originating in the post-war period, with theorist as f.i. T.H. Marshall
(1950, see above), citizenship education research was originally part of political science, mainly focusing
on political systems, institutions and citizens’ rights and duties. In the 1970’s, the connection between
the political and society gained in interest with sociology of education and scholars like Bourdieu entering
the field, turning its focus predominantly on the reproduction of society and power relations in and
through education. The late ‘80’s introduced the more dynamic and transformation-oriented critical
pedagogy, turning its lens mostly towards ‘democratic schools’ and building (more, better) democracy
through education. Seminal work in this field has been done by scholars such as Apple, Beane and

9
McLaren. Also originating in the late ‘80’s, but mainly establishing itself as a study field of CE
throughout the 90’s and early ‘00, came political psychological work on CE, with Torney-Purta as one
of its main proponents and a new focus on the social and political development of children and youth
and its underlying cognitive and affective factors and processes. Veugelers & De Groot (2019) also
mention (political) philosophical work such as Crick’s or Mouffes, on the meaning(s) of citizenship,
democracy, and how education can or cannot contribute to these. Most recently, it seems that CE has
also become a topic of interest in several adjacent disciplines such as moral education, social and
curriculum studies, or studies focusing on particular classroom activities and learning methods
(classroom deliberation or discussing controversial issues), etc.
While these different contributions to the development of CE research as a ‘solid academic
subdiscipline’ (Veugelers & De Groot, 2019), they also illustrate the (pre)dominance referred to in the
previous paragraph, namely: that attention is mainly paid to the social and political concepts,
theorizing and discourses associated with citizenship, which tend to be taken to also indicate the
function and ends of the ‘education’ involved in CE. This is for instance also the case for what appears
to have become one of the most dominant domains of study concerning CE today, comparative studies.
Not unlike other fields or subject areas in education, the main source(s) of proof concerning CE, or the
most broadly accepted evidence base for CE, currently consists of the measurement and comparison of
international data (Ioannidou, 2007). The main providers of these data are comparative, standardized
studies that measure and compare students’ citizenship knowledge, attitudes and activities across
countries, following the design and aims of international studies in other educational fields, such as
the OECD's Programme for the International Assessment of Student Achievement (PISA) and the
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Other studies provide an overview
of existing policies and approaches of CE, including the curriculum structure, content and different
means of delivering of citizenship education to all stakeholders involved (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017).
For CE, the largest comparative study on practices and effects of CE (Veugelers & De Groot, 2019) is
the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), aiming to offer “a response to the
challenge of educating young people in changed contexts of democracy and civic participation”, by
providing (updates of) the empirical evidence of this new environment in CE (Schulz et al., 2018, p.2).
The ICCS study, conducted in 2009 and for a second time in 2016, mainly aims to contribute to
educational expertise on CE, policy making and practice, as well as inspire media, parents and students
(Torney-Purta & Amadeo, 2013). This type of research focuses on young people’s civic knowledge,
engagement and attitudes (Schulz et al., 2018) and the importance of learning citizenship by doing or
experience, through for instance democratic school governance and the creation of a democratic school
climate (Maurissen et al., 2018). It offers abundant and rich information on the state and effects of CE
in different forms in different countries, as an evidence base for policymaking and curriculum

10
development. However, by focussing on defining and measuring certain outcomes, aspects and traits
of expected good citizenship, this kind of research is criticised for favouring this over paying attention
to the (educational) theoretical or normative assumptions underlying the included content and criteria
for measuring CE outcomes, leaving educational theorists wondering whether we are measuring what
we value about (citizenship) education, or rather starting to value what we (can) measure? (Biesta,
2008, Joris & Agirdag, 2019).
A particular logic of CE appears to underly many common approaches of citizenship education
nowadays, in studies like the ICCS, as well as in policy and educational research promoting citizenship
competences in the classroom. Tristan McCowan (2008 and 2009) has coined and developed this logic
and its corresponding theoretical framework of CE as curricular transposition, and its underlying
normative ideal as seamless enactment. It was developed for understanding and discussing how the
normative task of realizing ideals of citizenship through education can be achieved. Four stages are
identified in this framework: the ideals and aspirations underlying an initiative; the curricular programme
(s) designed to achieve them; its/their implementation in practice; and the effects on students (McCowan,
2008, see Figure 1). Every stage of this transposition implies certain ‘leaps’, between ends and means
and between ideal and real, which present challenges to the realisation of the aims accorded to CE
(McCowan, 2009). According to the ideal of seamless enactment, a harmonious movement between
ends and means and aims and processes of citizenship education is an important criterium for making
curricular choices: “if a democratic society is the aim, it might be seen as appropriate to conduct one’s
educational activities in a democratic manner” (McCowan, 2009, p.88). Citizenship education for
democratic citizenship should thus establish a relationship of ‘harmony’ in all its steps, and in its
underlying politico-pedagogical principles. For McCowan, when harmony is taken to its fullest extent,
it can evolve into unification: ends and means of CE becoming one, and citizenship learning coinciding
with exercising citizenship. For instance, the current focus on CE in schools as providing a democratic
or open climate for debate and participation in decision making, is a translation of this ideal of
harmonization: learning citizenship and democracy by doing it in school.
Figure 1. Curricular transposition (McCowan, 2008)

11
While this framework pays extensive attention to the normativity of citizenship and how it should be
translated to the different stages of CE, the ‘education’ aspect and its relationship are simply presented
as a “necessary context to develop knowledge, skills and values relating to collective political action”
(McCowan, 2009, p. 88). This conceptualization of citizenship education adheres to the commonplace
interpretation of citizenship education as a matter of passing on and instilling children and youth with
citizenship competence(s), as well as the common tendency to consider the meaning of ‘education ’ a
natural given or as having an inherent relation to citizenship that cannot or should not be addressed
explicitly (Hodgson, 2008). Along these same lines, the ICCS study we discussed above describes its
main purpose of studying CE in schools as investigating “the ways in which young people are prepared
and consequently ready and able to undertake their roles as citizens” (Schulz et al., 2008, p. 7). The
part of ‘good’ CE therefore appears to simply produce or ‘prepare’ ready and able citizens, preferable
by implementing democratic means and processes of CE in schools, in which the pedagogical aspects
of CE coincide with the political aims it promotes. But, if we maintain that schools offer a specifically
crucial context in children’s and young people’s CE, then why do we tend to leave out or neutralize
the character of schools and education themselves in this process? Throughout this dissertation, I will
argue that it is the specific pedagogical character of processes and practices in the classroom between
teachers, pupils and content or classroom material that provides the most important contribution of
schools to young people’s CE. These should then not just be considered in terms of how they can be
modelled on or deployed for the political aims accorded to CE, but rather be acknowledged in their
own character and importance.
The purposes and domains of ‘good’ CE
It is therefore part of the central endeavour of this dissertation to rethink and to broaden this common
language of CE, by explicitly looking for the pedagogical dimensions of citizenship education (the
teaching, learning and interrelations between pupils, teachers and content or subject matter in
classroom practices), and by developing a logic of ‘good’ citizenship education from an educational
perspective. The starting point of this endeavour has been the threefold framework by Gert Biesta
(2008, 2020) of qualification, socialisation and subjectification as the functions or aims of education.
This framework was originally developed as an attempt to formulate the purpose of education in a
‘precise manner’, become able to ‘grapple’ questions of purpose, content and relations in education, and
to overcome limited or reductive thinking about education in terms of learning outcomes (Biesta,
2010b).
The first aim, qualification, has to do with the transmission or making available of knowledge, skills,
values, dispositions (Biesta, 2020) that allow someone to do/be something (Biesta, 2008). In the case
of CE: a democratic citizen. This also implies a (re)presentation of the world and what is important or

12
of value to be passed on, and therefore has to do with socialisation (Biesta, 2020). Socialisation is about
the ways in which, through education, we represent and initiate young people in existing traditions,
cultures and practices (Biesta, 2020) which mainly aims for the continuation of existing social, political,
and cultural orders (Biesta, 2008). In the case of CE, this aligns with how most approaches to CE
emphasize that young people need to become part and member of social and political communities,
become acquainted with ways of democratic decision-making such as voting, etc. Finally, subjectification
has to do with “the interest of education in the subjectivity or “subject-ness of those we educate”
(Biesta, 2013, p.4), with emancipation, freedom and encountering the world through acting or speaking
(Biesta, 2020) or ways of becoming autonomous and independent in one’s thinking and acting, bringing
new ways of being and doing into being. It has to do with personal development and self-realisation
and can thus be considered the opposite of socialisation (Biesta, 2010).
Following Biesta’s (2008) own stance that questions about good’ education are always composite and
overlapping, he does consider it impossible to (fully) separate qualification, socialisation and
subjectification from one another. Discussions of, or impact on one of these purposes or domains, thus
always have to do with the other two as well. Originally, Biesta therefore suggested that the framework
could be depicted as a Venn-diagram, in which the domains partially overlap (Figure 2). Over time
however, he has re-interpreted the framework as rather presenting three concentric circles, with
subjectification either functioning as the inner circle because it is the core (most essential) or as the
outer ring that encompasses the other two domains (Biesta, 2020) because “any education worthy of
its name should always contribute to processes of subjectification that allow those educated to become
more autonomous and independent in their thinking and acting” (Biesta, 2010, p.21).
Figure 2: Possible depictions of Biesta’ framework of qualification, socialisation and subjectification.

13
Biesta’s triad, as an accessible manner of representing the nature and aims of education, has become
popular and heavily built and relied on in educational thinking, both in theoretical and more practice-
oriented pedagogical undertakings, also in relation to citizenship learning and citizenship education
(Biesta, 2010b; Carter, 2019; Schuermans et al., 2017). For example, the framework currently serves
as a groundwork for discussions on the development of a new national curriculum in the Netherlands.
Biesta himself described the framework to serve as both programmatic and analytical: both as a way to
discuss the purposes and aims of (citizenship) education, what it is supposed to ‘bring about’ (Biesta,
2010), as well as the domains or areas in which the practices and processes of education function
(Biesta, 2013). However, while Biesta himself (2020) has indicated the difficulty as well as the
importance to really and concretely ‘grasp’ the idea of subjectification in thinking and speaking about
good education, it appears his framework in itself does not meet these challenge (as will be indicated
throughout the following chapters). While qualification and socialisation are described more
specifically and ‘realistically’, processes and aims of subjectification remain notably more vague and
abstract. In order to use the framework for investigating questions of ‘good’ education and its relation
to citizenship, both analytically and programmatically, it has therefore been gradually adapted and
broadened throughout the different chapters of this dissertation.
CE in between critical and post-critical educational theory
The nature of questions about good education and its relationship with citizenship are essentially
characterized by a fundamental tension and discussion: can and should (citizenship) education at school
mainly be considered an essential means for preparing young people for societal and political democratic ends?
Or should it rather be valued an appraised in terms of its intrinsic, educational aims and processes? This study
deals with these questions in a manner that can be thought of as an attempt to find common ground
between a critical and a post-critical educational perspective of citizenship education. Critical pedagogy
was introduced earlier as one of the main strands of citizenship education studies (see p.9), but here I
add post-critical pedagogy as another point of reference on which this dissertation has built.
Both critical and post-critical perspectives of education criticize a functionalist view of (citizenship)
education, which treats education purely as a means to external ends or to something else
(Hodgson,Vlieghe & Zamojski, 2018). Such instrumental or functionalist approaches are considered to
conceptualise and evaluate (citizenship) education in terms of its efficiency of conveying a specific,
static conception of citizenship (Giroux, 1980) and reproducing existing (and often unequal and unjust)
societal or political orders and relations. This is considered to deny the true and intrinsic worth of
education as creating possibilities for change and renewal. The ends-means thinking about citizenship
education, as for instance proposed in the seamless enactment logic, is seen to link increased demands
for more or new forms of schooling, to a de-schooling of the school (Meijer, 2013): the tendency to
assign more tasks and social and political importance to schools in the form of extra responsibilities

14
or new ‘kinds’ of (citizenship, moral, environmental, etc.) education, simultaneously undermines and
denies its own, inherent value. This value implies, among other things, a certain critical distance and
singularity with regard to the world and suspending and freeing up existing, inequal economic and
political orders and positions (Masschelein & Simons, 2015), in line with Biesta’s description of
subjectification as the core of ‘good’ education. The school is therefore losing more and more of its
own significance, while more and more is expected of it. Or, as John Dewey puts it: "in the multitude
of educations education is forgotten" (Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 190).
Critical educational research concerning CE has mostly promoted this inherent worth of education as
promoting self-determination, autonomy and emancipation, in a general strive towards social change.
Critical theory stresses the need to analyse the relations between knowledge, power, ideology and
class, as they are present in both larger social and political institutions and orders, and in schools and
educational practices themselves. This includes assessments of schools’ present and historical
character as mainly reproducing existing power balances, inequalities, forms of exclusion and the
status quo, rather than promoting equality, diversity and solidarity (or democracy) through
(citizenship) education (Giroux, 1980; Friedrich et al., 2010; Meijer, 2013; Merry, 2020a and 2020b).
In this view, the idea that (citizenship) education in schools is currently the ultimate means to
strengthen or improve democracy can (at best) be seen as naïve (Meijer, 2013), given the
incommensurable nature of ideals of democracy and citizenship on the one hand, and the institutional
reality and nature of schools/schooling on the other hand. A truly emancipatory mode of CE in schools
should therefore commit to building a better society by raising pupils’ consciousness and build their
‘civic courage’: by investigating the role of knowledge, values and structures or powers that influence
their own lives, including in schools, students should be “taught to think and act in ways that speak to
different societal possibilities and ways of living” (Giroux, 1980, p. 358).
Post-critical approaches to (citizenship) education on the other hand, go even further in focusing on
the intrinsic value of education, by presenting it as auto-telic (Hodgson et al., 2018): as inherently
worthwhile and to be performed for its own sake, denouncing all externally imposed ends on education,
such as education for citizenship. Moreover, post-critical theorists indicate how critical pedagogy can
itself be seen as working against possible transformation through education, by endlessly pursuing
imaginary political goals: “there will always be inequality, oppression, and injustice. If critique is an
endless task, then the desired future is just a fairy tale, and the only reality we will ever face is the one
we need to negate. There is only critique and the criticized status quo - nothing else is possible”
(Hodgson et al., 2018, p. 10). Ending inequalities and subverting the current order of things can thus
become “the finish line to a never-ending race” (Friedrich et al., 2010, p.573-574). In this line of
thinking, expectations and appeals to citizenship education in schools could and probably will continue
to change and potentially even intensify endlessly. A central question with which post-critical
pedagogy concerns itself, is therefore how education can find its starting point, not in deploring what

15
not-yet is or what is feared and condemned about the present state of the world, but rather in orienting
itself toward the good that is there, and the things that we cherish and value (Hodgson et al., 2018). It
sees value in assumptions, rather than in imagined outcomes of education: what if we explore the
consequences of what would be possible if we assumed pupils were equal, free and able to think, speak
and act, instead of having to be ‘made’ so through education? What if equality were the starting point
instead of the finish line? (Friedrich et al., 2010, 575). In relation to citizenship education, this approach
can be the foundation for rethinking CE from striving for something, to what the point of departure
for any educational strive can and should be. Rather than placing democratic principles and values at
the end of a citizenship learning trajectory (Lawy and Biesta, 2006), they can then also function as the
assumptions on which we build approaches to education, schools, and their relation to citizenship; as
the conditions which these should aspire to provide by affirming them in practice.
Throughout the chapters that follow, CE in schools will be re-thought according to elements of both
critical and post-critical pedagogy. First of all, in a way that aims to acknowledge that schools have a
responsibility and a role to play in striving for a more equal and just democratic society and in
educating young people to take part in that society, for instance through CE. This includes facing the
(painful) reality of how schools and educational systems themselves contribute to and create specific
forms of inequality and injustice. However, from an educational stance, we also aim to respect and
acknowledge the specific and unique position and character of schools and education in schools as
inherently worthwhile: as something to be appreciated and protected. This entails acknowledging
what already exists, and building on certain assumptions instead of only focussing on projected
outcomes. If we maintain that schools have a crucial role to play in tackling societal and political issues
through CE, then such a belief should be founded on the actual character of schools and education
themselves. An additional guiding principle here is John Dewey’s (2006/1916) belief that any ideal, if
it is to have any real orienting or practical value, should be grounded in facts: in what actually exists.
He also links this logic to the aims of education, which should always be an “outgrowth of existing
conditions” (Dewey, 2006/1916, p. 82) and should never be imposed from without. That is, if we do
not want education to be “preparation for a remote future and (…) rendering the work of both teacher
and pupil mechanical and slavish” (Dewey, 2006/1916, p.88).
This research project can therefore be seen as aiming to construct a ‘middle’ position: between critical
and post-critical notions of what CE can or should be. CE in and through schooling should be
committed to a strive for a better society, in which young people can enact their political agency and
potential. However, the contribution schooling can make to such an endeavour, should not be rooted
in purely negative accounts of what lacks or ‘not-yet’ is, but rather build on the good that is already
there and being done in pedagogical practices in schools. It also aims to find a middle ground between
existing comparative, evidence-based and oriented approaches to CE on the one hand, and

16
fundamental, theoretical accounts of CE on the other. Lastly, this dissertation endeavours to put
pedagogical questions and assumptions about good education on an equal footing with political and
social assumptions about good citizenship, claiming both are equally important in discourses, research,
policies and practices of CE.
Research interest
Concretely, this dissertation presents a multi-method exploration of citizenship education in four
chapters that each correspond to one context or ‘step’ in the translation of normative ideals to
citizenship education in schools: research, policy, practices and theory of CE. The choice for these four
contexts mainly originated from common depictions of the ‘policy cycle’ or ways in which policies form
processes in which specific values and images of an ideal society are translated through different steps
and contexts, in order to establish practices and results in accordance with those values (Bîrzéa et al.,
2004; Simons, 2009). It can for instance be seen as loosely representing contexts of influence (of
constructing the language and discourse of citizenship education), of policy text production (representing
policies in texts, including tensions and contradictions) and context(s) of practice (interpretations and
recreations of policy) (Bowe, Ball & Gold, 1992 in Simons, 2009). The fourfold exploration of research,
policy, practices and theory of CE also corresponds to the four main stages or ‘leaps’ of curricular
transposition that McCowan (2008, 2009) discusses along the logic of seamless enactment: from ideals
to programmes or curricula, to their implementation and, finally, their effects on pupils. However, for
all of these stages, our focus lies on the particular nature and normativity of the education involved in
citizenship education, contradicting the idea that ideally, the effects of CE “ would no longer be
external or separated from the educational act itself. There would be an integrated and spontaneous
expression of educational and citizenship practice.” (McCowan, 2009, p.93).
While every chapter stands on its own and several chapters have already been published as separate
articles, all revolve around exploring the normativity of CE from a pedagogical perspective, and build
on the others in an effort to expand contemporary thinking and speaking about CE in school. Biesta’s
threefold framework has been the theoretical foundation from which all of these studies developed.
However, as indicated earlier, this framework has been gradually adapted and broadened throughout
the following chapters.
Overview
The first chapter of this dissertation deals with the normativity of international research on citizenship
education as a context of influence, constructing the language and discourse of citizenship education
(Simons, 2009). Following Olson’s (2012) argument that the content and criteria that are chosen and

17
included in an educational study point at what it characterises as educationally desirable (citizenship),
we look into the normative underpinnings of the ICCS research design and test items. Specifically, it
presents a content analysis of the main framework, research design and instruments of the International
Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) of 2009, for investigating what it promotes as the aims
of CE.
The ICCS study was chosen as the topic of this study because it presents itself as the largest
comparative international study on CE and as the main evidence base for improving CE policies and
practices. To specifically find out what the ICCS promotes as good citizenship education, we examined
its normative assumptions building on Gert Biesta’s (2008, 2020) framework of the aims of education
as qualification, socialisation and subjectification. The chapter illustrates how all aspects of the ICCS
appear to mainly emphasize conservative and reproductive aims of citizenship education, closing down
potential openings for subjectification in its set‐up and methodology, which could be said to relate the
most strongly to the overall policy aim of CE as creating autonomous, active and critical democratic
citizens. We therefore argue that, in order to truly offer inspiration or “evidence” for citizenship
education policies and practices, the study’s existing framework and design should be broadened (Joris
& Agirdag, 2019).
The second major focus of this research is on the normativity of policy initiatives and of CE in Europe.
The second chapter explores the European level of policymaking on CE as a context of policy text
production (Simons, 2009), analysing European policy texts as instruments that produce specific effects
and display specific notions of social control and governing (Lascoumes and Le Gales, 2007), which
can be said to be especially relevant in the context of educating young people to become democratic
citizens. The choice for this context followed partially from the strong influence of this supranational,
European level on policies, practices and curricula of CE in the past decades (Ioannidou, 2007,
Hummrich, 2018), and on it being one of the contexts international research on CE, including the
ICCS study, aims to inspire. It can be considered a contribution to the field of critical policy studies,
aimed at a re-reading and de-familiarisation of the current ways in which key policy texts set CE
agendas for schools, the problems they aim to tackle, and the solutions they present (Simons et al.,
2009). Concretely, six ‘key’ policy texts on citizenship education by EU bodies and the Council of
Europe were studied for their use of the concepts of citizenship, education and their assumed
relationship. The analysis again builds on the theoretical framework provided by Biesta’s purposes of
education, expanded by introducing Schugurensky’s (2005) dimensions of citizenship. The chapter
illustrates how the goals accorded to CE today tend to take the form of core competences for democratic
citizenship that young people throughout Europe are expected to acquire, in order to function as good,
active citizens. While according collective and democratic purposes to CE, the policy texts themselves
actually tend to promote rather narrow, individualistic and arguably limited conceptions of democratic
citizenship and CE as ‘competences’. Identifying the policy’s apparent underlying logic of embedding
fundamental democratic values in every step of their translation into policies, curricula, pedagogical

18
relations and processes of CE in schools (McCowan, 2009), we indicate how this context of policy text
production shows tensions with this very logic and therefore threatens to fall short of its own aims of
emancipating young people in Europe to become autonomous, engaged and critical democratic
citizens.
The third chapter turns its lens on the observation of concrete classroom practices, in order to describe
the role of schools in educating young people to become citizens from an internal, pedagogical
perspective (Masschelein & Simons, 2013). Investigating the next ‘step’ of translating norms, values
and expectations concerning young people’s (future) citizenship to education in the practice context of
schools, the chapter aims to bring to life, or give words to, observed sayings, doings and relatings in
classrooms (Kemmis et al., 2014) in terms of citizenship education. The focus on classroom practices
adheres to Apple’s (1979) assumption that, in order to understand the educational reality of schooling,
it is necessary to study it in actual classroom settings. The chapter therefore builds on a small-scale
study of classroom practices using ethnographic methods. Classroom observations were conducted in
two class groups of the first grade of two secondary schools in Flanders and Brussels between October
2019 and January 2020. Both of the observed class groups belonged to the ‘target audience’ of renewed
attainment goals concerning citizenship, launched at the start of the school year in September 2019 as
a translation of the latest European competence framework for CE. We included two schools that
belong to two different ‘strands’ who have each implemented these attainment goals according to their
own philosophy and pedagogy, in order to maximize the (possibility of) diversity in observations.
The theoretical framework for this study expanded the educational domains and aims of Biesta by
including a distinction between political and pedagogical qualification, socialization and subjectivation,
building on Simons’ and Masschelein’s (2010) distinction between pedagogical and political subjectivation
and their hypothesis that political aims of (citizenship) education assume or build on the pedagogical.
These distinctions were then translated to an ethnographic exploration of observed sayings, doings
and relatings in three classroom episodes, building on educational practice theory (Kemmis et al., 2014).
The chapter illustrates how citizenship comes into ‘play’ as a subject area in the classroom: as
something that invokes study, attention, critique and discussion, but not as an actual area or place for
political action (in) itself. It discusses how a relational account of citizenship education, which
prioritises actual classroom practices of teachers, pupils and school material, can significantly expand
and reshuffle prevailing notions about ‘seamless’ citizenship education as development of individual
competences or political action; and what schools can and should do in terms of ‘delivering’ democratic
citizens.
The fourth and final chapter and study area of this research project concerns the initiation of a
educational theoretical perspective to citizenship education. It can be considered an optimistic and
trusting attempt to contribute to a different way of thinking and speaking to theory and research as a
context of influence in citizenship education. The perspective that is developed can be considered

19
trusting in the sense of acknowledging schools as primarily a pedagogical context with its own intrinsic
value, that introduces pupils to citizenship and democracy as subject matter but is not to be considered
the main instrument for political outcomes or an arena for pupils to demonstrate their political agency.
It is trusting as well in the sense of acknowledging that both schools and their pupils always already
are political, and form part of and partake in social and political issues and relations. As a foundation
for this perspective, the chapter identifies and builds on a synthesis between an external approach to
CE that considers schools and pupils part of a broader (societal) democratic logic and mission; and one
that promotes the notion of a school-internal democracy by discussing the writings of John Dewey and
Hannah Arendt on the relationship between schools and society.
It will be indicated how in both approaches, the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity can be
thought of as fundamental for thinking about the relationship between education in schools, citizenship
and democracy. Considering these democratic principles as the assumptions and conditions on which
to build citizenship education, rather than its outcomes, does not aim to deliver an alternative version
of a seamless enactment logic of CE. Rather: it focuses on the deliberate efforts and enactments that
weave together the pedagogical and the political processes and aims of citizenship, tracing these seams
with respect for the material and texture of both.

20
CHAPTER I. IN SEARCH OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION: A NORMATIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE INTERNATIONAL CIVIC AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION STUDY
(ICCS).
1
Abstract
In the last two to three decades, calls to place citizenship education (CE) at the top of national and
European educational policy and research agendas have been gaining in prominence. Large-scale
comparative studies, such as the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), are often
considered as providing the main evidence base for setting these agendas and improving CE policies
and practices. This chapter therefore considers the ICCS study as an inherent part of the process of
translating general, educational aims into curricular policies and practices of CE. While critical voices
about such comparative educational studies have become paramount, a detailed analysis of their
contents, of what and how they measure and promote as the aims of education, is often lacking. This
study aims to fill this gap by thoroughly analysing the main research documents, design and items of
the 2009 ICCS study. To find out what the ICCS promotes as the goals of citizenship education, we
examined its normative assumptions in terms of Gert Biesta’s (2008) distinction between qualification,
socialisation and subjectification as the purposes of good education. Our analysis shows that the
qualification and socialisation functions are dominantly validated in all aspects of the study, while only
marginal attention is paid to subjectification. This implies that ICCS misses an important potential to
document and/or promote pupils becoming autonomous and critical democratic citizens, while this is
often considered a central aim of CE by the policymakers, practitioners and teachers it aims to inspire.
Keywords:
citizenship education, normativity, qualification, socialisation, subjectification, ICCS
1
This chapter was first published as: Joris, M. and Agirdag, O. (2019). In search of good citizenship education:
A normative analysis of the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS). European Journal of
Education 54(2), 287-298.

21
Introduction
Calls for citizenship education (CE) in schools have been (re)gaining the interest of national and
European policymakers and researchers, focusing on the contribution of schools in helping young
people to become active, democratic citizens. These calls, coming from all sides of the political and
societal spectrum (Brooks & Holford, 2009), are often grounded in a ‘crisis’ discourse, proposing active
citizenship and CE as universal antidotes to diverse societal issues which are seen to constitute a
deepening crisis in our democracies. These issues include terrorist threats and extremism, loss of social
cohesion, increasing individualism, intolerance, racism, populism, etc. Moreover, citizens, and mostly
young people, are seen to be losing interest in and becoming increasingly apathetic to political and
societal affairs (Brooks & Holford, 2009; Holford, 2008; Nordensvärd, 2014).
CE is then promoted as an answer to such crises, by equipping young people with the right set of
knowledge, competencies, attitudes and values to become active democratic citizens (Council of
Europe, 2010; Naval, Print & Veldhuis, 2002; Toots, De Groof & Kavadias, 2012). The school is often
seen as the ideal place for such a ‘revitalisation’ of democratic citizenship through education because it
provides a common space and time for young people to learn how to live together, or a sort of miniature
society (Print, ØrnstrØm, & Nielsen, 2002). This has led to a focus on democratic school governance
and the creation of a democratic climate in school and classrooms by educational research and policy,
reflecting what McCowan (2009) describes as the idea (l) of ‘seamless enactment’: stressing the need
for harmony between political ends and pedagogical means in CE; or for the embodiment of democratic
aims in the curriculum, pedagogical relations and processes in school. In other words, it aims at
avoiding tensions between democratic aims and undemocratic practices throughout the different
stages of creating and enacting CE curricula.
At a national or local level, countries have (re)introduced this central belief in CE in schools as part of
educational policies and curricula which increasingly include, next to national or local priorities,
translations and implementations of supranational, European CE policy initiatives (Ioannidou, 2007;
Naval et al., 2002; Eurydice Belgium, 2020). For instance, in 2016, the Council of Europe launched its
framework of Competences for Democratic Culture to inform educational planning and decision making
on CE, and to be tested and implemented in CE curricula and practices throughout Europe (Council
of Europe, 2016). In Flanders (the Flemish community in Belgium), this framework was the main
source of inspiration for the renewed attainment goals developed for CE since 2019 (Eurydice Belgium,
2020). It encompasses a model of the competences to be acquired by European learners to become
‘effective participatory citizens’, live together peacefully and prepare them for life as ‘competent
democratic citizens’ (Council of Europe, 2016, p.9).

22
These policy initiatives, both national and inter- or supranational, often refer to an empirical ‘evidence
base’ consisting of the measurement and comparison of international CE data (Ioannidou, 2007). These
data are mainly provided by comparative, standardised studies that measure and compare students’
citizenship knowledge, attitudes and activities across countries following the design and aims of
international studies in other educational fields, such as the OECD's PISA study or the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) (Olson, 2012).The International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) has been a main contributor to the study of the
subject area of citizenship education for decades, developing measuring instruments and a rich
collection of data and information worldwide (Torney-Purta, 2002). Its most recent study, the
International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS), compared the outcomes of CE of over 140,
000 students in 38 countries in 2009 and was organised a second time in 2016, building on the data
and framework of the 2009 edition. ICCS claims to offer reliable, comparative evidence and data that
will enable participating countries and regions to evaluate the strengths of their educational policies
and measure progress in achieving their set goals of CE (Schulz et al., 2016).
This article focuses on a specific lacuna in the secondary research spurred by the ICCS study of 2009,
which we broadly divide here into two strands. The first focuses on a further empirical analysis of
ICCS data, researching specific relations between variables or indicators and student CE outcomes,
comparing results with other studies or countries, or connecting them to specific national contexts
(Knowles & Di Stefano, 2015). This strand of secondary research embodies trust in the standardised
collection and analysis of data to improve CE practices and policies. It builds on, but does not further
investigate the content and criteria of the ICCS study. The second strand of research offers a critical
approach to ICCS, scrutinising its ability to depict young people’s civic engagement (Olson, 2012), or
analysing its lack of a theoretical and empirical framework and its methodological and test-ethical
problems (Zurstrassen, 2011). It focuses on the flaws and limits of measuring the educational aims of
CE through the comparative, standardised approach to CE, drawing on the extensive body of research
that critically deals with comparative, international education studies in general, for instance as a
political tool influencing and creating educational policy (No’voa & Yariv-Mashal, 2003) or
questioning the consistency of standardised methodology with democratic educational practices and
principles (Mason & Delandshere, 2010), its adequateness for making recommendations for
educational practices (Hyslop-Margison, Hamalian, & Anderson, 2006) or even portraying large-scale
studies as counterproductive to promoting democracy in and through education (Ydesen, 2014).
Although these critical voices differ from the first strand because they question the general usefulness
of the ICCS for (citizenship) educational policymaking and practice, a detailed analysis of its framework
and contents is often still missing (for one important exception, see Olson, 2012). Hence, what the
study aims to measure and promote and the normative assumptions beneath its assessments remain a
black box. This article attempts to fill this ‘gap’ by answering what we believe is a more fundamental,
normative question: what does the ICCS promote and measure as the goals and aims of citizenship education?

23
Following Olson’s (2012) argument that the content and criteria that are chosen and included in an
educational study point at what it characterises as educationally desirable (ccitizenship), we look into
the normative underpinnings of the ICCS research design and test items.
By investigating all steps and documents of ICCS for the aims attributed to CE, this chapter illustrates
how the study (and educational research more broadly) can be considered an important stage or actor
in what McCowan (2009) describes as the four stages of ‘curricular transposition’ of overarching aims
to curricular programmes in CE: first, the envisioning of the ideal citizen/polity and the knowledge,
skills and values that are seen to comprise them, second the creation of curricular programmes, third
the implementation of curricula and last their effects on students. We consider the ICCS, as an example
of comparative, large-scale educational research, an important contribution to the first stage since it
defines, constructs and measures the types of knowledge, attitudes, values and beliefs that are
considered important for the preparation of young people for their roles as citizens (Schulz et al., 2008).
Given the study’s purpose to offer an evidence base for curricular policies and practices of CE in the
participating countries and regions, it can also be considered as contributing to the second stage.
According to McCowan, the process of curricular transposition is accompanied by the idea(l) of
seamless enactment, mentioned earlier, as a corresponding normative framework underlying the
different stages of CE curriculum passage and envisioning a harmonious movement between ends and
means and ideal and real, both in terms of underlying principles and the human agents involved
(McCowan, 2009). Following the importance attached to promoting active and critical participation of
students in school governance, a democratic school culture and open classroom climate by the ICCS
research, in line with other research and policies of CE (Schulz et al., 2008; Print et al., 2002, Torney-
Purta, 2002; Naval et al., 2002; Knowles & Di Stefano, 2015), we consider it to generally adopt this
normative logic of seamless enactment. In what follows, we therefore investigate more closely if ICCS
can be said to also adopt this principle of seamless enactment in its own logic, set-up and methodology
of promoting CE.
Aims of citizenship education
In order to answer questions about aims, purposes and what constitutes good (citizenship) education,
Gert Biesta (2008, 2011) argues that we should begin with what he identifies as its three interrelating
functions: qualification, socialisation and subjectification (see Introduction, p.11). Education, according
to this view, should always entail providing young people with the knowledge, skills, understandings,
dispositions and forms of judgement that allow someone to do/be something; help them to become
members and part of existing social, cultural and political ‘orders’ by passing on norms and values, and

24
contribute to them becoming autonomous and independent, and make new ways of being and doing
possible. This framework is based on both classical and critical pedagogical works and views, mainly
inspired by Klaus Mollenhauers' Erziehung und Emanzipation (Biesta, 2015), proposing that ’good’
upbringing and education can never be limited to forms of learning that solely contribute to
reproducing existing socio-political orders; or to the adaptation or insertion of individuals into these
orders (qualification and socialisation).
This view on the aims of education as both reproducing and preserving the existing and making change
possible is still present in current educational research and policymaking on CE (Nordensvärd, 2014).
For instance, the framework of Competences for Democratic Culture by the Council of Europe, which
refers to the ICCS study as inspiring its competence model, also appears to aspire to these three aims
of good (citizenship) education:
Education has many purposes, including preparing individuals for the labour market, supporting
personal development and providing a broad advanced knowledge base within society. However, in
addition, education has a vital role to play in preparing individuals for life as active democratic citizens,
and education is in a unique position to guide and support learners in acquiring the competences which
they require to participate effectively in democratic processes and intercultural dialogue. An education
system which equips people with such competences empowers them (…). It also endows them with the
ability to function as autonomous social agents capable of choosing and pursuing their own goals in life.
(Council of Europe, 2016, p. 16)
This chapter therefore takes this distinction between qualification, socialisation and subjectification as
its point of departure to investigate the normative underpinnings of the ICCS research. While, in
comparison to qualification and socialisation, Biesta’s notion of subjectification as presented above is
said to be rather complex and ‘difficult to grasp’ (Biesta, 2020, p.93) and deserves further theoretical
elaboration in relation to CE (see Chapter III and Simons & Masschelein, 2010), we do believe it can
and should be included in a normative analysis of ICCS. In order for ICCS to deliver the evidence to
measure, evaluate and improve policies and practices of CE that envision these purposes, we could
therefore expect it, following the logic of seamless enactment, to reflect this threefold description of
educational aims itself.
Methodology
In what follows, the concepts of qualification, socialisation and subjectification are used to analyse the
normativity of the 2009 ICCS study by applying them to some of its main documents. Since the
framework and design of the study have remained largely the same in the 2016 ICCS edition, we believe

25
that our normative analysis can also be applied to this second, most recent edition and thus also
contributes to current debates on CE research and policy.
The first document included in our analysis is a paper called Concept and design of the International Civic
and Citizenship Education Study (Fraillon & Schulz, 2008) which describes the fundamental
underpinnings of the study. The second is the ICCS Assessment framework, or the ‘blueprint’ for the
assessment of CE outcomes in the study (Schulz et al., 2008), describing the aspects to be
operationalised and measured. Finally, we refer to findings from the ICCS 2009 International Report:
Civic knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries (Schulz et
al., 2010) which summarises the results of the study and provides examples of test items from the
study’s cognitive test and student questionnaire. By analysing these documents, we explore the
importance that is attributed to qualification, socialisation and subjectification in the ICCS purpose
statement, framework, design, and instruments.
Analysis
Purpose statement
The ICCS Assessment Framework opens by stating the main purpose of the ICCS: to investigate the
ways in which young people are prepared and consequently ready and able to play their roles as citizens
in a range of countries (Schulz et al., 2008). This consisted in measuring and reporting on young
people's citizenship and civic knowledge, understandings, competencies, activities, dispositions and
attitudes and collecting contextual data to help to explain variations in these outcome variables; as a
“response to the challenge of educating young people in changed contexts of democracy and civic
participation”. (Schulz et al, 2008, p. 7). This purpose statement and overview expresses a firm belief
in the ability of ICCS to offer evidence for the improvement of CE policy and practice. However, it
does not explicitly address the question of what good CE is/ought to be. We identify the central idea
that young people have a certain (learning) trajectory to follow in order to become ‘ready and able’
citizens, i.e., acquiring the right forms of knowledge and understanding, forming positive attitudes to
being a citizen, and having the opportunities to engage and participate in activities related to civic and
citizenship learning (Schulz et al., 2010).
We relate this first of all to Biesta's qualification function of education: providing young people with
the knowledge, skills, understandings, dispositions and forms of judgement that allow someone to
do/be something (Biesta, 2008), in this case a competent citizen. Digging a little deeper, we can also
connect the idea of a citizenship learning trajectory to the socialisation function of education: it is
considered a prerequisite for young people to become 'ready and able' citizens, or to be introduced as
part and member of the existing citizenship order. A more emancipating or subjectification function of
young people becoming independent, unique and autonomous (political) subjects is not listed explicitly

26
as an important purpose of this CE trajectory. The purpose statement of ICCS 2009 therefore seems
to leave open the possibility of subjectification as a function of CE, but prioritises qualification and
socialisation.
Framework
The Civic and Citizenship Framework of ICCS 2009 describes the aspects that were to be operationalised
and measured throughout the study. The civic and citizenship framework was organised around three
outcome dimensions of CE: the content dimension or subject matter associated with CE, the
affective/behavioural dimension or types of student perceptions and activities and the cognitive
dimension or thinking processes. The most straightforward of these dimensions to analyse and discuss
is the cognitive dimension. In its two domains, knowledge and cognitive skills are considered the main
'outcomes' of CE in need of measurement and they therefore seem to put qualification forward as the
main goal of CE:
• Knowing: civic and citizenship information students are expected to demonstrate knowledge
of, or students’ ability to define, describe, and illustrate with examples.
• Reasoning and analysing: students’ use of civic and citizenship information to reach
conclusions that are broader than any single concept: to interpret, relate, justify, integrate;
generalise, solve problems, hypothesise, evaluate, etc.
The second dimension, the content dimension, consisted of 4 domains, specifying subject matter
related to:
• Civic society and systems: mechanisms, systems and organisations that underpin societies:
citizens, state institutions and civil institutions.
• Civic principles: shared ethical foundations of society or support, protection, and promotion
of: equity, freedom and social cohesion.
• Civic participation: manifestations of individuals’ actions in their communities (active
citizenship): decision making, influencing and community participation.
• Civic identities: personal sense of being an agent of civic action, testing individuals’ civic roles
and the perceptions of these roles: civic self-image and civic connectedness
The first content domain can be considered to focus on both qualification and socialisation as functions
of CE by testing students’ knowledge and perceptions of civic society and its systems, or the existing
‘orders’. The civic principles and civic participation domains align with the idea of a socialisation
function of CE, focusing on the degree to which students (have) become members of the established
social, cultural and political orders, or support and comply with existing norms, values and ways of
being, such as community participation.

27
The civic identities domain can be seen to hint at subjectification as an aim of CE. It includes the attitude
of internal political efficacy: individuals' confidence in their ability to understand politics and act
politically (Schulz et al., 2008). The authors consider this as one of the two aspects of general political
efficacy: the feeling that political change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in
bringing it about (Schulz et al., 2008). This concept seems to be related to the function of
subjectification as described by Biesta (2008). The civic participation subdomain of decision making and
influencing can also be seen to be related to subjectification as instances of autonomous thinking and
acting. The content dimension therefore seems to offer a balanced view of qualification, socialisation
and subjectification, all being an aim or function of CE.
The affective-behavioural dimension consisted of the following (sub)domains:
• Value beliefs: beliefs about the worth of concepts, institutions, people, and ideas: democratic
values citizenship values
• Attitudes: states of mind or feelings about ideas, persons, objects, events, situations and/or
relationships: self-cognitions related to civics and citizenship, attitudes towards rights and
responsibilities and attitudes towards institutions
• Behavioural intentions: expectations of future action, readiness to
participate in forms of civic protest, anticipated future political
participation as adults and anticipated future participation in citizenship
activities
• Behaviours: past or present participation in civic-related activities. At
school: school councils, parliaments, student debates. In the wider
community: human rights groups, religious associations, youth clubs.
The value beliefs, attitudes, behavioural intentions and behaviours that are measured mostly seem to
imply an introduction to existing social and political conventions, traditions and values; or to
socialisation as the main aim of CE. The subdomains of behavioural intentions and behaviours of
(expected) participation, however, also leave room for subjectification as an aim of CE: taking action,
participating in protest and in human rights groups, etc. can indicate new or critical ways of thinking
and acting or becoming independent from the existing socio-political orders.
In general, the three dimensions of the ICCS civic and citizenship framework can be seen to encompass
and propose all three functions of qualification, socialisation and subjectification, thus complying with
the current focus of European policy on all three aims of ‘good’ CE.

28
Instruments: design
The three dimensions of the ICCS assessment framework were translated into the two main, universal
instruments which were administered to all participating students: an international cognitive test
(measuring pupils’ knowledge, analysis and reasoning) and a student questionnaire (investigating
student’s civic and citizenship perceptions).
Other instruments that were used in the study are: a national context survey for every participating
country (filled in by national experts), a regional module or instrument for students in Europe, Asia and
Latin America, a school questionnaire for participating principals, and a teacher questionnaire. These other
instruments, together with the student background questionnaire that was part of the international
student questionnaire, mainly aimed to chart the different variables and contexts that influence young
people’s citizenship learning outcomes and their engagement included in the study’s contextual
framework (Schulz et al., 2008). These are: home, school, classrooms, and the wider community (on a
local, regional, nation and supra-national level). Moreover, the study identifies contextual influences
on civic and citizenship education as acting as either antecedents or processes (Schulz et al., 2008).
Antecedents refer to the historical factors and policies background affecting how CE is provided, and
processes to factors relating to the learning and acquisition of knowledge, competences, dispositions,
etc. that are in a reciprocal relationship with pupils’ outcomes. This indicates how students’ outcomes
of CE can influence the ways in which it is provided to them (Schulz et al., 2010). The other contextual
influences are described as exercising a unidirectional influence on young people’s citizenship learning
and its outcomes.
In the design of the study’s main instruments, the development of knowledge and understanding of
civics and citizenship was seen by ICCS researchers as fundamental for effective civic participation and
as a major emphasis of CE programmes across countries (Schulz et al., 2010), confirming qualification
as a main function of CE. To assess this knowledge, the ICCS international cognitive test was developed.
It consisted of 80 items measuring students' civic and citizenship knowledge, analysing, and reasoning
related to the four content and two cognitive domains specified above. The test mainly consisted of
multiple choice questions, each with one correct answer. Six constructed-response items were also
included for which students were asked to develop their own response(s) which were evaluated and
scored against a predefined number of correct categories (Schulz et al., 2010). The cognitive test thus
mainly focused on qualification as an important goal of CE by measuring civic and citizenship
knowledge, cognitive or analytical skills and forms of reasoning (Schulz et al., 2010). Through its use
of multiple choice questions in relation to civic and citizenship topics and predefined categories of
correct answers to open-ended items, we see it as leaving little or no room for students to express true
critical or independent thinking (as expressions or instances of subjectification), but rather as

29
expecting them to reason and decide on an option according to (what the IEA researchers consider)
established, accepted forms of citizenship reasoning or action, or outcomes of socialisation.
The international student questionnaire was developed to measure student perceptions, dispositions and
(expected) activities concerning civics and citizenship, as well as collect information about students’
background (the influences of pupils’ home environment on their CE). It measured the affective-
behavioural dimension of the assessment framework and consisted mainly of Likert-type items,
requiring students to indicate scales of frequency of certain activities, or levels of attributed
importance. It can be seen to mainly address CE as socialising young people into existing ways of
being and doing and testing their adherence to existing citizenship values and traditions. However, it
is also inclined to approach CE as instilling forms of qualification, since it pays significant attention to
the dispositions and forms of judgement (elements of qualification according to Biesta) related to
citizenship that young people have acquired. Identifying items or questions relating to processes or
moments of subjectification was far less clear-cut. The questionnaire, like the cognitive test, presented
young people with few opportunities for bringing new or unexpected ways of thinking or doing to the
study. By offering students a limited number of responses or response categories in the design of both
instruments, it therefore seems that developing one’s own critical or new way of thinking and acting
is a less important aim of citizenship education than fitting in with predefined categories of desirable
citizenship knowledge and behaviour.
In general, whereas the (sub)domains and concepts that were adopted in the ICCS assessment
framework reflected the three functions of education as more or less equally important goals of CE,
these were subsequently included and translated in the study’s design to be measured across all
students in all countries and therefore reduced to predefined, universal categorical answers. This
leaves very little room for something completely 'new' to come to the fore, since all possible forms of
civic action, participation, attitudes and thinking are reduced to forms of qualification and socialisation
as the goals of CE, leaving out the educational aim of subjectification.
Instruments: content
In this section, we take the content and some of the universal items and response categories of the
ICCS 2009 research to point out how the study characterises qualification, socialisation and
subjectification as goals of CE. Following the structure provided by the framework and design of ICCS,
we also distinguished a tendency at the content level to mainly equate ‘good CE’ outcomes with the
educational purposes of qualification and socialisation and a lack of attention to potential instances and
forms of subjectification.

30
Cognitive Test
Examining the coverage of the different content domains by the items on the cognitive test and linking
these to the three functions of education, we found that roughly 68 % of the items were related to the
educational aim of qualification, going into students' knowledge, understanding and analytical skills.
Some 10% were related to socialisation, testing students' knowledge and compliance with democratic
norms and values and existing ways of being and doing. Some 22% of the items can be seen as relating
to both qualification and socialisation, for instance by measuring students’ knowledge of or their
adherence to citizenship values or principles. Items directly or explicitly related to subjectification
were not included, although some of the issues or situations presented in the items could be seen as
providing potential for the recognition of instances or forms of independent, new thinking or acting.
We argue, however, that inherent in the cognitive items is a reduction of these instances of
subjectification to measurable forms of qualification and socialisation in what are considered good or
desirable citizenship (education) outcomes.
Illustrative of this reduction are two cognitive test items, providing students with a context and an
example of ethical consumerism defined by the IEA as the 'selective purchasing of products according to ethical
beliefs about the way they were produced ' and considered a form of civic action (Schulz et al., 2008, p.20).
At first glimpse, it could therefore be seen as testing students’ autonomous or critical thinking and
acting, or a potential instance of subjectification. The item presents the example of a male character
who has bought new shoes, but then learns that they were made in a factory which employed young
children and paid them very little. In a first question, students are asked why the man would refuse to
wear his shoes. The options they were offered were:
• He thinks that shoes made by children will not last very long.
• He does not want to show support for the company that made them.
• He does not want to support the children that made them.
• He is angry that he paid more for the shoes than they are actually worth.
The second answer is considered the only correct answer, as it relates to a ‘familiar example of unfair
treatment of individuals in the international context’ (Schulz et al., 2010). This justification by the IEA
experts presupposes that this example of unfair treatment should indeed be familiar knowledge
(qualification) to the 14-year-old students participating in all countries. Moreover, it presupposes that
there is only one correct fundamental motivation leading to the one correct form of civic action:
refusing to wear the shoes (socialisation). This not only reduces the immense ethical complexity of
issues related to child labour (Bourdillon et al., 2010; Zurstrassen, 2011), but also excludes the
possibility of students developing different, new arguments or forms of civic action in response to this
issue (subjectification). One might, for instance, also argue that it would be unethical from a

31
sustainability point of view to decide not to wear these shoes and that it would be a waste of valuable
natural resources and the labour that went into their production.
The second item asked students to ‘evaluate the relative effectiveness of alternative ways of
encouraging others to take action in support of a cause and different methods of persuasion’ (Schulz
et al., 2010, p.65) by indicating the best possible way for the man to make other people refuse to
buy the shoes:
• Buy all of the shoes himself so no one else can buy them.
• Return the shoes to the shop and ask for his money back.
• Block the entrance to the shop so people cannot enter it.
• Inform other people about how the shoes are made.
The only correct answer was the last option because providing others with information to persuade
them to adopt one's own point of view is a familiar principle and the alternative methods of persuasion
are seen as impractical (Schulz et al., 2010). Once again, the IEA experts presume that students are
familiar with their line of thought, in which refusing to buy the shoes is the one desirable civic action
for others and informing them of the one good way to achieve this. However, one could make a case
for other actions as possible ways to inform or influence others: ‘block the entrance’, for instance, could
be seen as an instance of protest which could have an effect of persuasion or encouragement for others
to take action. The correct form of civic action is however presented as a rational choice, only asking
for the application of the correct knowledge (qualification) or conventional, established mode of
conduct (socialisation), leaving out possibilities or openings for young people to come up with new or
unexpected ways of acting or thinking (subjectification).
Questionnaires
In our analysis of the items on the international student questionnaire, we found that some 57%
investigate students’ acceptance of or support for existing norms, values and established citizenship
behaviours, or their socialisation as a goal of CE. 35% can be seen as testing or referring to forms of
qualification: knowledge, reasoning, dispositions, etc. Some 20% of the items in the questionnaire
potentially referred to moments or processes of subjectification, for instance students’ confidence in
expressing opinions that differ from others, or believing that their political opinions are worth
listening to. For most of these items referring to (future) citizenship behaviour or activities, however,
it is difficult to determine whether they relate to socialisation, express potential instances of
subjectification, or both. One set of items, for instance, asked students to rate the importance of
different types of behaviours for being a good adult citizen (Schulz et al., 2010):

32
1. Voting in every national election
2. Joining a political party
3. Learning about the country's history
4. Following political issues in the newspaper, on the radio, on tv or on the Internet
5. Showing respect for government representatives
6. Engaging in political discussions
7. Participating in peaceful protests against laws believed to be unjust
8. Participating in activities to benefit people in the local community
9. Taking part in activities promoting human rights
10. Taking part in activities to protect the environment
This question can be seen on the one hand as testing students' adherence to what are considered
established, accepted activities and behaviours (socialisation). On the other hand, students’ indications
of finding protesting, protecting the environment and promoting human rights important could reflect
their disagreeing with the current 'order' of things and new ways of thinking and acting
(subjectification). These in themselves are however hard to identify through the questionnaire, since
it left no room for own, free responses or elaborations by students outside the predefined categories.
Once again, this reflects a vision of good CE as primarily qualifying and socialising young people into
existing ways of being and doing.
One further ICCS question on the teacher and principal questionnaire explicitly addressed the possible
aims of CE. It asked teachers and school principals to identify what they considered to be the three
most important aims of CE (Schulz et al., 2010) and thus offers an answer as to what is valued by ICCS
as possible aims and functions of CE. These were:
1. Promoting knowledge of social, political and civil institutions, of citizens’ rights and
responsibilities
2. Promoting respect for and safeguard of the environment
3. Promoting the capacity to defend one’s own point of view
4. Developing skills and competencies in conflict resolution

33
5. Promoting students’ participation in the local community and in school life
6. Promoting students’ critical and independent thinking
7. Supporting the development of effective strategies for the fight against racism and xenophobia
8. Preparing students for future political participation
Several of these aims adhere to a qualification function of CE: 1, 3, and 4. They focus on students’
acquisition of knowledge, skills and forms of understanding to prepare them for being/becoming a
citizen. The other aims of CE (2,5,7,8) mainly relate to socialisation outcomes, as they all represent
goals of introducing young people into existing, shared values and norms (2,7) and established social
and political practices (5, 8). Only aim 6, the promotion of critical and independent thinking, and
possibly aim 3, defending one’s own point of view, can explicitly be seen as promoting autonomous
and ‘new’ ways of independent thinking and doing and therefore of subjectification through CE. In our
view, this distribution of possible aims adequately follows the underlying normativity of the study,
mainly reducing the three goals of young people’s CE that were present in the theoretical framework
to measurable and predictable forms of qualification and socialisation, without paying much attention
to emancipatory, critical, subjectifying processes and goals. This conclusion is illustrated by the fact
that the question of what they consider to be the most important aims of CE is only posed to teachers
and principals and not to the students participating in the study themselves.
Discussion
The central endeavour of this article was to analyse the normativity of the large scale, standardised
ICCS study and to investigate if what it proposes as the aims of good citizenship education is in
accordance with the ‘seamless enactment’ of the overarching aims of CE that seem to be supported by
policy and research. By analysing the importance attached to the three functions of education described
by Gert Biesta (2008) as qualification, socialisation and subjectification in the different steps and
instruments of the 2009 study, we aimed to clarify what the study, as an ‘evidence base’ for CE policies
and practice that aim to respond to the challenge of educating young people as citizens in changed and
changing contexts of democracy and participation (Schulz et al., 2008), prescribes as the aims of good
CE.
First, in the screening of the ICCS purpose statement, qualification and socialisation are mainly put
forward as the aims and functions of CE. The question as to what constitutes good citizenship
education, or what it should be, was not explicitly addressed, nor was the third educational aim of
subjectification. The study’s theoretical (assessment) framework, design, instruments and items did

34
occasionally include issues, questions and response categories that created openings for subjectification
as a desirable aim of CE (for instance in referring to critical and independent thinking, (future)
participation in protests and other 'critical' activities), but the adopted items and categorical answers
narrowed these down to predictable, established forms of knowing, thinking and doing. This leads us
to believe that the study, in its current form, does not adhere to the idea(l) of seamless enactment. By
not recognising or promoting the aim of subjectification in its own set-up and methodology, which
could be said to relate the most strongly to notion of democracy and democratic society being subject
to change, and to the aim of creating autonomous, active and critical citizens through CE, the study’s
potential to act as an ‘evidence base’ for CE policy and practice in Europe can be seen as limited since,
as discussed in the introduction, all three functions tend to be emphasised.
While we base these findings on careful examination of the framework, design and items of the ICCS
study, it should be noted that it was not possible within the scope of this contribution to deal in detail
with the study’s contextual framework
2
and its other research instruments based on this framework.
A more detailed study of these could therefore add other elements and findings to our analysis.
However, we do believe, following Olson (2012), that the content and criteria included in the study’s
elements that we discussed, point at what it characterises as educationally desirable. This would lead
us to conclude that, through its fixed-design methodology, with a lack of opportunity for active
contribution, dialogue and participation by young people (including in questions or issues concerning
the main contextual influences on their CE apart from their classroom and home environment), and
by considering ‘deviant’ answers as wrong or by not allowing to differ from the limited options offered,
ICCS can be said to approach them as governable research subjects (Graham & Neu, 2004) and as
passive or not-yet citizens (Mason & Delandshere, 2010) rather than as autonomous, critical and active
democratic citizens and participants (in the making). Considering educational research, and in this case
the ICCS study, as an important contribution to the process of curricular transposition under the
normative idea(l) of seamless enactment, we therefore conclude that ICCS forms a disjuncture
(McCowan, 2009) by closing down potential openings for enacting the educational aims of
subjectification in its set‐up and methodology, which could be said to relate the most strongly to the
overall policy aim of creating autonomous, active and critical democratic citizens through citizenship
education.
Through its fixed‐design methodology, with a lack of opportunity for active contribution, diverting
thoughts or actual participation by young people, and by considering “deviant” answers as wrong or
by not allowing to differ from the limited options that are offered, the ICCS’s potential to act as an
“evidence base” for CE policy and practice in Europe can be seen as limited. We do not deny the
importance and merits of the ICCS research in contributing to the improvement of citizenship
education policies and practices. However, we do believe that a more fruitful approach to the issue of
2
the contextual framework was included in the revision of the original article on which this chapter is based
(paragraph III.3)

35
offering inspiration or “evidence” for citizenship education policies and practices could be to expand
the existing framework and design. Insights from critical and fundamental educational inquiries can
broaden the design and methodology with other, qualitative, research instruments and approaches
that could be more capable of capturing and promoting young people’s critical ways of thinking and
acting, such as observations, focus groups or interviews. In order to improve educational policies,
practices and the actual citizenship of young people in line with the aims and values accorded to them,
we thus believe it is time for this strand of research to include diverse, new and even conflicting ways
of thinking, speaking and acting, beginning with those of young people themselves.

36

37
CHAPTER II. CITIZENSHIP-AS-COMPETENCE,
WHAT ELSE
? WHY EUROPEAN
CITIZENSHIP
EDUCATION POLICY THREATENS TO FALL SHORT OF ITS AIMS
3
.
Abstract
The topic of citizenship education and the promotion of democratic citizenship in schools has risen to
the top of educational policy agendas, with an increasing influence of policymaking at a European level.
This rise in attention to CE, however, appears to be accompanied by an apparent lack of attention to
the specific manner in which citizenship, education and the assumed relationship between both are
currently conceptualised and understood in this policy context. The currently dominant notions of
citizenship education centre around a concept of citizenship-as-competence, illustrating a certain
assumption of equivalence between citizenship and formal education in schools, without further
elaborating on this assumption. By means of a critical re-reading of key European educational policy
texts referring to citizenship education, and their use of the key concepts of citizenship and education,
our analysis shows how the competence-based approach to citizenship education in European
educational policymaking entails tensions with its own assumptions, therefore falling short of its own
proclaimed purpose of emancipating young people in Europe to become autonomous, engaged and
critical democratic citizens.
Keywords
Citizenship education, Europe, policy, competences, subjectification
3
This chapter was first published as: Joris, M., Simons, M., & Agirdag, O. (2021). Citizenship-as-
competence,what else? Why European citizenship education policy threatens to fall short of its
aims. European educational research journal EERJ. doi:10.1177/1474904121989470

38
Introduction
Citizenship education (CE) in schools has been receiving increased attention and has gained a priority
status on the educational policy agendas in Europe over the last three decades. Throughout Western
history, the school has always been considered as one of the main contexts where young people learn
to become citizens (Heater, 2002). In recent years, a renewed surge in educational programmes and
policy initiatives promoting European citizenship by the European Union (EU) institutions and
Council of Europe has placed CE in schools at the top of educational agendas, also on local and national
levels.
Often, these calls for CE refer to a certain sense and discourse of crisis (Hodgson, 2016), identifying
major social and political upheavals and threats to the security, stability and growth of our democratic
societies at local, national and European levels. CE is thus promoted as a key contribution to ‘building’
Europe by safeguarding and promoting fundamental democratic values and social cohesion in Europe.
This building metaphor of CE, however, also extends to an economically driven goal of making Europe
a/the strong(est) competitor in the global knowledge economy (Hummrich, 2018). In this context, CE
is presented as a solution to both societal and economic concerns, displaying a conviction by
policymakers that the health and stability of the European democratic project depend to a large extent
on the civic engagement and capacity of European citizens (Bîrzéa et al., 2004) and specifically
identifying young people in schools as in need of such education (Naval et al., 2002).
Citizenship and CE, in this context, are increasingly viewed in terms of developing young people’s
civic competences: knowledge, skills and attitudes, values and dispositions (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017; Keating, 2014). Citizenship, and CE as a ‘means’ to acquire
citizenship, is not (only) considered a status, but also a competence or even a lifestyle (Naval et al.,
2002). This lifestyle seems to be constituted mainly by a particular attitude to learning, as entailing
the acquisition of numerous competences. This competence-based approach to education focuses on
common ‘educational abilities’ for the development of good citizenship in young Europeans, which
need to be pursued and adopted by member states’ formal education systems. More specifically,
compulsory schooling and schools are appointed a crucial part in creating a competent citizenry, next
to the family and broader society, since “states will understandably put more resources into the form
(of education) they can most influence and fund, that is, formal education” (Council of Europe, 2010,
p. 28).
The rise of a competence-based approach to CE in policy language is in itself no new finding (Keating,
2014; Simons & Hodgson, 2012). It has long been promoted as part of a strategy for the harmonisation
of educational outputs with standardisation and labour market demands at the EU level (Telling and
Serapioni, 2019), which originally seems to have been mainly oriented towards higher education but
has gradually permeated compulsory education as well. Citizenship, in this approach, seems to be more

39
than ever closely linked to (formal) education, suggesting it is now education that equips young people
with the required ‘toolkit’ of competences and thus governs the access to citizenship in our
contemporary knowledge society (Keating, 2014). However, since ‘competence(s)’ is a ubiquitous but,
by nature, nebulous and context-dependent concept (Telling & Serapioni, 2019), this abundant
attention to CE as promoting competence acquisition appears as ambiguous: the more policy calls for
citizenship competence(s) in and through education in schools, the less it seems to pay attention to
making explicit what is meant by these concepts.
This contribution therefore presents a critical re-reading of a selection of recent ‘key’ European CE
policy texts that build on this competence-based approach, and their use of the concepts of citizenship,
education and their relationship. What implications does this policy language have on how young
people, their education and their citizenship are being portrayed and promoted?
Citizenship and education: more equivalent than ever?
Whereas both education and citizenship have, traditionally, been considered as matters related to and
under the authority of the nation-state, policy on these matters has increasingly been shifting towards
supranational policy formation at the level of the EU and its (related) institutions (Ioannidou, 2007),
now considering European-level policymaking as complementing, influencing and co-existing with
national policies (Keating, 2009; Walkenhorst, 2008).
This evolution is often perceived as a shift of scale, linked to the broad category of effects of
globalisation, internationalisation and Europeanisation (Hummrich, 2018) that surmount and blur
national boundaries and identities in a seemingly ever more interconnected Europe and, by extension,
world. In this context established, national concepts of democracy, citizenship and CE have been
challenged as being limited or narrow-minded (Hummrich, 2018) since they no longer meet the
demands of the current global order (Lödén et al., 2014). Education, and specifically citizenship
education at a European level is now considered of crucial importance for building Europe by helping
young people to become active, engaged, informed and responsible citizens. Recent (educational)
policies have therefore been embracing supranational, cosmopolitan and global concepts of democratic
citizenship, embracing multiple, multi-level and fluid sources of identity and citizenship. Both
citizenship discourses and related (educational) policies are therefore not necessarily coherent,
consistent, nor static (Keating, 2014). According to Dimitrov and Boyadjieva (2009), neither
citizenship nor education can thus be taken for granted in any given society.
What seems consistent, however, is how, throughout Western history, education in schools has always
been considered one of the main contexts where young people learn to become democratic citizens

40
(Heater, 2002). The role of schools in promoting citizenship is never questioned, but the specific
approaches, curricula and programmes of CE are considered in need of seemingly constant change and
evolution (Naval et al., 2002). In recent years, the predominant focus has been on ‘learning by doing
or experience’ through democratic school governance and the creation of a democratic school climate
(Maurissen et al., 2018) in policies and research of CE. This contemporary ideal of democratic school
organisation in the context of CE reflects what McCowan (2009) describes as seamless enactment: an
ideal of harmony and unification between the ends and means of CE, arguing for the embodiment of
democratic values in every step of their translation into policies, curricula, pedagogical relations and
processes of CE in schools.
This idea of seamless enactment seems to build on and add to what Fischman and Haas (2014) call a
‘historically untested symbolic equivalence’ of education and citizenship: the coupling of schooling and
citizenship, building on the assumption that more formal education (automatically) expands and
improves young people’s (future) citizenship. They elaborate on how this implies a belief that no one
is born with what it takes to be a good citizen: we all need to learn how to become one. The association
of education with citizenship is long since assumed, but where its ‘proof’ comes from is made less clear
(Emler and Frazer, 1999). In other words: this belief in the relationship between citizenship and
education and the stressing of their importance in policy language seems to be paired with a self-
evident manner of using the concepts. The more calls are being made for citizenship in and through
CE, the less the concepts and their implied relationship seem to be made explicit or be defined. Analysis
of the ways in which the terms are used seems to have been ‘squeezed out’ (Pykett et al., 2010). Given
that educational initiatives at a European level can indeed be considered as increasingly steering and
influencing national policymaking towards European politico-economic goals (Walkenhorst, 2008),
this article therefore re-turns the attention to the terms used in European policymaking by analysing
a selection of key policy texts referring to CE. In what follows, ‘European policy’ will refer to policy
documents from both EU and non-EU institutions (Council of Europe). While the topic of European
citizenship is mainly connected to the EU, since this is the new ‘level’ of community membership that
has been called into life with the Maastricht Treaty, we also include policy from the non- (but closely
related to) EU Council of Europe, given the calls for more cooperation and ‘synergies’ between both
bodies and other European institutions on CE in recent years (Council of the European Union, 2018;
European Commission, 2015, Schulz et al., 2010).
Moving beyond equivalence: what education for what citizenship?
Rather than accepting and adopting a self-evident manner of speaking of CE, this chapter
centres around the questions: what is meant by citizenship? Education? And how is the relationship between
both understood and conceptualised in recent CE policy at a European level? By explicitly moving beyond an
assumed equivalence between citizenship and education in European policy documents, investigating

41
this relationship, and focusing on the specific context of compulsory schooling, we consider this paper
a contribution to the field of critical educational policy studies or policy instrumentation analysis
(Lascoume and Le Gales, 2007). It builds on the idea that policies are always normative, intended to
codify certain values, project images of an ideal society and establish practices in accordance with those
values (Bîrzéa et al., 2004). Translated to the context of EU-level policymaking on CE, this means we
start from the assumption that policymaking always implies normative choices and selections about
what (not) to include when talking about CE, its goals and purposes, even though these may be
presented as ‘obvious’, without making these choices explicit. We thus analyse European policy texts
as instruments that produce specific effects and imply specific notions or theories of social control and
governing (Lascoumes and Le Gales, 2007), which can be said to be especially relevant in the context
of educating young people to become democratic citizens.
Investigating (the assumptions of) CE policy is in itself not new. Existing educational research has
often, and in different manners, focused on the conceptualisation of citizenship and education in the
context of CE policy. Historical studies, for instance, have sketched the evolutions and different ways in
which states have defined citizenship and, accordingly, have established programmes of civic or
citizenship education (Heater, 2002). Specifically within the European context, there has also been a
focus on how the fostering of citizenship through education has been conceptualised differently
throughout time in the policies of EU institutions (Keating, 2009, 2014). Within this historical
approach, we see an adherence to the ‘symbolic equivalence’ between citizenship and education:
changes in understandings of citizenship and their translation to CE are traced, but the relationship
in itself is not conceptualized or further explored. Current, empirically oriented, comparative and cross-
national CE research is rather focused on the operationalisation, monitoring, measuring and comparing
of CE in both national and regional (policy) contexts of CE. Research in this approach, such as the
International Civic and Citizenship Education Study, offers abundant and rich information on the state
and effects of CE as an evidence base to policymakers, but rarely addresses the underlying assumptions
in its concepts of citizenship, education and their relationship (see Chapter I or Joris & Agirdag, 2019).
Finally, recent critical studies, often inspired by critical social and educational theories, aim to make
explicit what such large-scale, comparative studies measure and present as important in CE (Olson,
2012; Zurstrassen, 2011); or the ways in which the measurements are intertwined with EU policy on
CE as combining ‘hard measures with soft power’ (Rutkowksi & Engel, 2010). This critical research
is embedded in a broader, critical strand that discusses the contemporary discourses of CE in
policymaking: exploring their limitedness and attempting to open up these discourses, and entailing
practices of civic engagement (Nicoll et al., 2013); or discussing the way education policies frame
European citizenship as a specific form of subjectivity in the current European ‘learning society’
(Hodgson, 2016; Simons & Hodgson, 2012). These studies mainly pay explicit and elaborate attention
to the ways in which citizenship is conceptualised, or what is considered citizenship for young people
as an ‘outcome’ of education (Lawy & Biesta, 2006), but little to the way(s) in which the relationship

42
between education and citizenship in schools is conceptualised. Moreover, existing critical studies have
often focussed on the context of higher education (Biesta, 2009; Biesta & Simons, 2009; Gifford et al.,
2010; Lock & Martins, 2009; Masschelein & Simons, 2009; Wihlborg, 2019).
This contribution, however, focuses on the context of CE in compulsory education in schools, which
now seems to be taking centre stage in EU education policy. Whereas institutions of, for instance,
higher education are more explicitly recognised as having academic freedom (Council of Europe, 2010)
and being more autonomous from government steering (while also being more closely connected to
the economic sphere and labour market), schools appear to be considered as more designable and
adaptable to societal needs and policy steering. Connecting this to the notions of seamless enactment
and symbolic equivalence of citizenship and education, we believe further exploration of the role of the
competence-based approach to CE in this specific context is called for, starting with a
conceptualisation of citizenship and education.
Conceptual framework
What is citizenship?
The normative discussion on concepts and models of citizenship in political theory has a long history
and is constantly evolving, with different conceptualisations and agendas of citizenship coexisting,
competing with and influencing each other (Pykett et al., 2010). Nowadays, the apparent consensus
seems to be that citizenship is a fluid, complex and multi-layered concept that can mean many different
things to different people, in different contexts (Joppke, 2007). Following the aforementioned
commonplace belief that more formal education (automatically) expands and improves citizenship, or
the ‘symbolic equivalence’ as described by Fischman and Haas (2014), Schugurensky (2005) therefore
claims it is pertinent to ask the question ‘what is citizenship?’.
Given this multiplicity of the concept of citizenship, its specific use in European policy texts
implies certain normative choices connected to what is considered ‘good’ citizenship. In order to
discuss these normative choices, we take into account the distinction between national models and
post-national concepts of citizenship. The main classical, national models of citizenship can be summed
up as (political) liberalism, communitarianism and (neo)republicanism (Delanty, 1998; Heater, 1999;
Keating, 2014). These theoretical traditions of citizenship, and many variations in between, accord
certain general characteristics to ‘good’ citizenship at a national (state) level, mainly based on a set of
different rights and duties, such as T.H. Marshall’s (1950) seminal distinction between civil, political
and social rights and duties for those claiming full membership of a political community. However,
recent, upcoming concepts of supra- or post-national, cosmopolitan or global citizenship consider
citizenship as not to be conceived in terms of either of these models, because of new (global) conditions

43
for citizenship that transcend the boundaries of the national. Specifically regarding European
citizenship, it has been argued that its specific character as a complementary citizenship, depending on
the mainly regulatory character of EU-level governing and policies, makes it fall beyond traditional,
national models of citizenship (Delanty, 1998) or falling short of them, as not being able to establish
the same strong ties between individual citizens and their citizenship-assigning state (Bellamy, 2008).
Rather than clinging to traditional, national models of citizenship, scholars are therefore increasingly
describing citizenship as a dynamic and multi-layered concept consisting of different dimensions (Siim,
2013, Banks, 2004, Schugurensky, 2005). These dimensions generally include rights and duties,
identities, a sense of membership or belonging, and participation or action. Along the lines of these
analytical dimensions, Schugurensky (2005) identifies the dimensions of citizenship as status, identity,
virtues and agency. Citizenship as status or legal citizenship is equated with the (formal, legal)
membership of a nation-state, and increasingly of supranational political entities, such as the EU,
which is accompanied by a particular set of rights and duties or obligations. Citizenship as identity refers
to issues of belonging and meaning, feeling like a member of a community. This identity is rooted in
such factors as a common history, language, religion, values, traditions and culture. Citizenship as civic
virtues encompasses the values, attitudes and behaviours that are expected of ‘good’ citizens. Citizenship
as agency, finally, refers to citizens’ state of being in action or exerting power, their willingness to ask
difficult questions, and confidence in one’s own and the collective capacity of people to influence
changes by confronting power structures. Agency deals with citizens as social actors in concrete,
power-mediated, relations and power structures: the actions of citizens are always occurring in an
interplay of autonomy and domination, of liberating or equalising and controlling forces, possibilities
and limits, but always leaving people with the possibility and power to establish change
(Schugurensky, 2005).
What is education, and its relation to citizenship?
Given this fluid and multidimensional nature of citizenship, and the ways in which it is often self-
evidently linked to education, we believe that, in the context of CE, the question: what is education? is
equally pertinent. Here, we limit the description of the concept to education in the formal context of
primary and secondary education. That is, education taking place in the specific context of schools.
Keating (2014) describes how schools and educational policies play a dual role in what she calls
citizenship-formation: schools should function both as a provider of political information, cognitive
capacities, resources, qualifications and human capital, and as a ‘key site of socialisation’: ‘through
participation in the formal education system, students are expected to be inculcated with the values,
attitudes and behaviours that are expected of “good” citizens in their community” (Keating, 2014,

44
p.147). We link this description of education to Biesta’s (2008) theoretical approach to the different
‘ultimate values’, or the aims and purposes of education (see Introduction and chapter I). This dual
function of schools in CE according to Keating, aligns with Biesta’s conception of qualification:
providing young people with the knowledge, skills, understandings, dispositions and forms of
judgement that allow someone to do/be something; as well as his description of socialisation as
introducing young people into existing ways of knowing and doing (Biesta, 2008). However, it does
not take into account what Biesta describes as the third and most essential educational purpose, namely
the purpose of subjectification as education’s role of helping young people in becoming an autonomous
subject, becoming emancipated and independent from the existing socio-political order(s), as a process
through which new ways of being and doing can come into existence. This subjectification is an
existential, reflective event (Rømer, 2020) through which young people appear as unique subjects in
relation to others and otherness.
Starting from the foundations laid out by this framework, we believe, however, that answering
the question ‘what is education?’ asks for more than only the purposes or domains of education, since
these already seem to imply specific characterisations of education from without, from a societal stance
and its expectations. Solely describing education in terms of its purposes might thus be too narrow to
encompass all important and inherent characteristics of education. We include the different purposes
of education described above as an indication of the way(s) in which the relationship between
citizenship and education can be conceptualised (‘what for’) (see Figure 3). Next to the purposes, we
also look at the processes that make up education itself (‘what’), its objectives or what is being taught
and learned (‘for what’ of educational processes), and practices (‘how’, or specific approaches and
methods of educational processes).
Following Biesta’s description of qualification, we would describe its main accompanying processes of
teaching and learning as equipping and acquiring. The discourse of knowledge, skills and competence(s)
reflects the ‘what’ of this educational function, since what young people are expected to acquire or
develop mainly covers both general dispositions (for instance, nowadays, towards lifelong learning)
and concrete knowledge and skills for performing certain tasks and roles in life. Practices or
approaches in schools coupled to this idea of qualification and the acquisition competences and skills
are for instance working with training modules or teaching and learning trajectories: instructional units
that cover both content or knowledge and specific training activities, aimed at gradually mastering
a certain subject or topic and consisting of concrete steps, formal learning objectives (Avery &
Wihlborg, 2013), and points of assessment.
Socialisation is reflected in a focus on school education as providing young people with opportunities
for processes of participation and internalisation. In accordance with the purpose of helping young people
(students) in becoming a member and part of particular social, cultural and political ‘orders’, education

45
in schools is considered a time and space for the transmission of norms and values, which need to be
internalised and embodied by students. Coupled to this purpose of socialisation as introducing young
people into existing ways of knowing and doing are practices that enable young people to learn by
doing, by participating in practising or exercises of later, societal life that mimic adult behaviours and
activities. For instance, the installing of school parliaments, student councils, an open climate in
classrooms, leaving room for debate and discussions, etc. are seen as practices that help young people
to learn by participating (Maurissen et al., 2018). Schools are thus approached as a sort of ‘rehearsal
societies’ that introduce young people to attitudes and behaviours deemed important in adult life.
In Biesta’s (2008) understanding, subjectification indicates bringing something new into the world,
making new ways of being and doing possible. However, we argue that his description of this third
purpose or domain, while it is considered the most essential for ‘good’ education (Biesta, 2020) is in
itself described considerably more vaguely and complex than qualification and socialization, as
‘processes of becoming a subject’ (Biesta, 2008) and is therefore also harder to translate to
accompanying processes, objectives and practices
4
.
Education does not, however, only contribute to qualification and socialisation but also impacts on what
we might refer to as processes of individuation or, as I prefer to call it, processes of subjectification – of
becoming a subject. The subjectification function might perhaps be best understood as the opposite of the
socialisation function. It is precisely not about the insertion of newcomers into existing orders, but about
ways of being that hint at independence from such orders (. . .). (Biesta, 2008, p. 40)
Biesta refers here to processes of subjectification or individuation, of becoming a (unique) subject. We
interpret ‘becoming a subject’ through education as encompassing processes that shape the way(s) in
which young relate to the world and themselves, with them becoming independent also implying that
they are able to question the world and its existing orders, divisions and positions and possibly change
these. In view of the objective of pupils gaining autonomy and independence, the processes associated
with the purpose of subjectification are coupled with educational practices where aspects of the world
and society become topics for study and exploration, for instance through open-ended project work in
schools that introduces a certain theme, topic or problem to students, which they can explore, question
and learn to relate to in their own, new way.
4
In the text on which this chapter is based (Joris et al., 2021), we therefore originally rep laced subjectification
with the term emancipation as an aspect of freedom and of confirming one’s equality (Säfström, 2011). However,
eventually, ‘subjectification’ was preferred here for reasons of conceptual and analytical clarity and consistency
throughout the different chapters.

46
Figure 3 below summarises these different dimensions of citizenship, education and their relationship,
which the following sections use to explore recent European policy texts on CE.
Figure 3. Conceptual framework based on Schugurensky (2005) and Biesta (2008).
Method
By focussing on the specific context of a competence-based approach to CE in schools, this study aims
to complement the existing body of critical research on European-level policy of CE described above.
Explicitly moving beyond an assumed equivalence between citizenship and education in EU and
Council of Europe policy documents, and by focusing on the specific context of compulsory schooling,
we consider it a contribution to the field of critical policy studies: a re-reading and de-familiarisation
of the current ways in which key policy texts set CE agendas for schools, the problems they aim to
tackle, and the solutions they present (Simons, 2009). We thus analyse European policy texts as
instruments that produce specific effects and imply specific notions (Lascoume and Le Gales, 2007).

47
Through this rereading, and bringing to attention the specific conceptions of citizenship and education
these policy texts present, we aim to open up this current language of CE by investigating the specific
use of the concepts of citizenship, education and their assumed relationship. We support our analysis
with references to specific elements of the policy texts.
This analysis considers a selection of six European (EU and non-EU) policy texts related to the topic
of CE in schools, spanning the timeframe between 2010 and 2018. The selection of texts was oriented
at including key policy texts and the programmes, viewpoints and agendas that they set and promote
(Simons, 2009). We consider ‘recent’ policy as (approximately) spanning the last decade; thus the
decision was made to only include texts dating from 2010 or more recently. A second point was to
attempt to include the key policy actors in the context of European (citizenship) educational
policymaking, namely the EU bodies concerned with education, and the Council of Europe. We did
not limit our scope to solely EU institutions, since the Council of Europe has a significant role to play
when it comes to European educational policy, and the EU and Council of Europe have pledged to
significantly increase their cooperation concerning education and culture over recent years (Council
of the European Union, 2018; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice, 2017).
The first included text is the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers (2010) Charter on Education
for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. The Charter was adopted by all member states
of the EU, thereby appointing this text the status of a key ‘symbolic’ policy text, which has
considerably influenced or set the agenda concerning CE. The next text included in our analysis, for
instance, the European Commission’s Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
(EACEA) 2012 Citizenship Education in Europe Report, refers to its own role of giving impetus to the
Charter’s process, supporting its implementation and offering valuable and comparable European data
by reviewing national policies and strategies for (reforming) citizenship curricula (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012). The third text concerns a declaration made by the Education
Ministers of the EU and the Commissioner for Education, Culture, Youth and Sport (European
Commission, 2015), also referred to as the Paris Declaration, on ‘Promoting citizenship and the common
values of freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination through education’. This declaration was published as a
direct response to the terrorist attacks in France and Denmark earlier that same year, and stresses the
need to support and safeguard the fundamental values of the EU by passing them on to future
generations through teaching and education. It presents key action points and indicates how EU-level
cooperation is key in addressing the common challenges Europe faces. As one element in this
cooperation, the declaration mentions the need to explore ‘synergies’ with the work done in the
Council of Europe in the area of civic (citizenship) education. Part of this work is presented in the
Council of Europe’s report (2017) on the state of citizenship and human rights education in Europe,
titled ‘Learning to live together’. This report opens by referring to the 2010 Charter and its status as a

48
focus and catalyst for action, and presents the achievements, gaps and priorities for action in the area
of citizenship and human rights education at the European level as a result of a survey that received
responses from 40 countries. It presents education as a tool for successful integration and tackling
radicalisation and disenchantment with democracy and the rise of populism throughout Europe. The
fifth text included in the analysis concerns the 2017 Eurydice Report, which refers amongst others to
both the Paris Declaration and the Council of Europe’s reference framework, and which presents
qualitative data on official regulations and recommendations on CE at school in Europe, collected
through interviews with key actors, combined with academic literature (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). Finally, referring to the context of recent extremist and
terrorist acts committed by young Europeans, and to the importance of the Charter published in 2010,
the Council of Europe published a Reference framework of competences needed for a democratic culture
(2018). The text describes the competence model, its context and concepts, expected to be acquired by
European learners to learn how to live together in diverse, democratic societies.
The selected texts are treated as a whole in the sense that we believe they can indicate the manner in
which the key terms related to CE are conceptualised in recent European-level policy, while
acknowledging the specific origins and agendas of the different institutions (EU and non-EU), the
differences between the documents in terms of their context, objectives and status and possible ensuing
conceptual differences. The central aim is to make explicit what concepts of citizenship, education and
their implied relationship are being promoted in these texts; and what implications this policy
language has on how young people, their education and their citizenship are being portrayed and
promoted.
Analysis
Citizenship-as-competence: competent citizens and their toolkit
In general, the selected CE policy documents all present a similar concept of citizenship. All documents
consider the active or effective participation of citizens as essential to citizenship in Europe, based on
the notion that effective or responsible participation depends on the competence(s) of citizens (Council
of Europe, 2010, 2018; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012,
2017). The central notions of competence(s) and participation, while not included as (a) separate
dimension(s) in the model of Schugurensky (2005) described above, appear to link the citizenship
dimensions of status, identity, virtue, and, partially, agency. The European Commission defines
citizenship as “that set of practices (juridical, political, economic and cultural) which define a person as
a competent member of society” (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017, p. 19). Inspired by
the definitions used by the Council of Europe in earlier CE initiatives, the Commission advocates the

49
need for an ‘evolved conception’ of active citizenship that goes far beyond the simple legal relationship
between people and the state. This conception of citizenship, which extends to citizens’ participation
in the political, social and civil life of society, is based on respect for a common set of values at the
heart of democratic societies. (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012,p. 8). The texts present
similar notions of competences as central to citizenship, as the equipping of young people with or them
acquiring a cluster or even ‘toolkit’ of knowledge, skills and attitudes for participating in life in
democratic societies (Council of Europe, 2010), focusing on practical skills and (complex) learning
outcomes (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012).
The framework developed by the Council of Europe (2018) distinguishes ‘competence’ from
‘competences’. Competence is defined as the general ability to mobilise and deploy relevant
psychological resources, or competences, such as values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and/or
understanding, in order to respond appropriately and effectively to the demands, challenges and
opportunities presented by democratic situations. Competences are thus the building blocks that make
out the competent behaviour or competence (in the singular) for actively exercising citizenship
(European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) or as enabling the effective engagement of citizens
(Council of Europe, 2018). Connecting this notion of participation or active citizenship to the different
citizenship dimensions described above, this participation appears to mainly include status when the
texts refer to the need for young people, and citizens in general, to become informed about and know
their rights and duties connected to their citizenship status, and be able to claim and exercise them
effectively and responsibly. Citizenship understood as legal status, as mentioned above, is thus no
longer considered as ‘full citizenship’. This knowledge and ability are part of the competence(s) young
people are expected to acquire in order to become active, democratic citizens (Council of Europe, 2018;
European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012 and Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017).
A second central element of the concept of citizenship in the policy documents under study is
the importance they attach to the aspect of values. These values are described both as the foundation
of citizenship (European Commission, 2015) and as a crucial part of citizenship competence(s): as the
moral beliefs guiding citizens’ action (Council of Europe, 2018). References are made to a set of
‘common democratic values’ such as freedom, tolerance and non-discrimination (European
Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012); to the ‘core mission’ of building
Europe by promoting the principles of democracy, human rights and rule of law in Europe (Council of
Europe, 2010); or to the central values of democratic culture: respect for human rights, rule of law,
diversity, etc. (Council of Europe, 2018). The importance attached to shared values in the texts can be
related to the dimension of civic virtues that Schugurensky (2005) describes as the values, attitudes
and behaviours expected of good citizens. These values are described in the texts as in need of
understanding, promotion and protection by European citizens in their ideas, knowledge and actions;
thus: of translation to citizens’ virtues and their ways of participating.

50
The European policy texts attach great importance to helping young people realise that they are part
of a set of communities (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017) in which they are expected
to participate. These communities encompass different spheres of society: the political, social, economic
and civil spheres (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) or, even more elaborate: the civic,
political, social, economic, legal and cultural spheres of society (Council of Europe, 2010). Participation
is also seen as taking place at different levels: local, national, European and international (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). Citizenship is furthermore considered not only as
participating in these communities, but also as developing a sense of belonging to these communities
(Council of Europe, 2018). This can be connected to Schugurensky’s citizenship dimension of identity,
or citizenship as a sense of belonging and membership of a (political) community. Both Schugurensky
(2005) and Keating (2009) relate this dimension to factors such as (references to) a common history,
language, religion, traditions, culture and values. While the policy documents refer to these elements,
the (foundation of a) sense of belonging is now increasingly seen as constructed by citizens themselves,
as part of their civic/citizenship competences (Council of Europe, 2018; European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), rather than solely based on an existing or imagined shared
heritage.
These competences are also presented as necessary to empower young people, to exercise and
defend their rights and responsibilities (Council of Europe, 2010) and to equip them with the readiness
to take (appropriate) action in society, in defence of human rights, democracy and the rule of law
(Council of Europe, 2010). Amongst these competences, the importance of critical thinking (Council
of Europe, 2018; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) and
the willingness to participate actively and constructively (European Commission, 2015; European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, 2017) are emphasised. The European Commission recognises
that “children and young people represent the future and must have the opportunity to shape that
future” (European Commission, 2015, p. 2) and that we must build on young people’s sense of initiative
and their contributions through their participation. These elements connect to Schugurensky’s
description of agency as the willingness of citizens to ask difficult questions and
as having confidence in one’s capacity to influence change.
However, when it comes to, arguably, the most active, critical and change-oriented elements of the
dimension of agency, and citizenship in general, there is a significant difference between the texts in
the way these are mentioned or promoted as important aspects of democratic citizenship in Europe.
Concretely, while critical thinking skills, active participation and ‘appropriate’ action are generally
emphasised as crucial elements of competent citizenship by most texts, only the two most recent texts
by the Council of Europe (2017, 2018) seem to recognise explicitly how citizens’ competences are
interdependent with power relations and structures, and how these can both enable and impede

51
citizens to actually practise their competences and establish change. The Council claims that
competences, democratic institutions and actions against structural inequalities and disadvantages are
all essential for a culture of democracy (Council of Europe, 2018) and that the broader environment
always has an impact on citizens’ attitudes and beliefs (Council of Europe, 2017). Moreover, the
Council recognises that it takes time, political commitment and governments taking their
responsibility to create consistency between what we say about democracy and what we put into
practice (Council of Europe, 2017). If this is not the case, citizens are entitled to make use of ‘alternative
democratic action’ to make their voices heard when these structures do not provide them with the
necessary possibilities to do so (Council of Europe, 2018). This is a significant difference in tone to the
other texts, which do take notice of existing power relations, inequalities and patterns of
discrimination, violence and disadvantage that must be addressed or combatted (Council of Europe,
2010; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) but rarely refer
explicitly to the importance and responsibility of political, structural and institutional contexts in
doing so, thus leaving out how these enable or impede citizens to actively and critically participate and
establish these changes.
Even so, although the latter Council of Europe texts stress the importance of structures and
power relations, they still adhere to a definition of competence(s) as the tools or ‘psychological
resources’ that need to be acquired and deployed dynamically by citizens in order to meet the needs
and opportunities of specific situations, for instance to promote social cohesion (Council of Europe,
2017, 2018). This aligns with the EACEA’s idea (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017)
that the ‘right’ competences vary according to time and space, and thus that the understanding of what
(good) citizenship is, and what competences are expected from citizens to enact, may change rather
rapidly. Although acknowledging this tendency for change, in effect, the European competence-based
language of citizenship thus tends to conceptualise citizenship as predefined and clearly delineated: it
focuses on ‘equipping’ young people with a specified set of psychological tools consisting of the ‘right’
values, knowledge, skills and attitudes that are considered crucial for appropriate participation and
action, which subsequently will spur socially and politically desired and envisioned outcomes of peace,
democracy and welfare. The individual citizen (to be) thus seems to be held responsible for collective,
social outcomes, while his/her actual opportunities for agency, change and action are being left out of
the picture. This tension, we believe, builds on a specific understanding of education taking place in
schools, its relation to society as a whole, and more specifically: to citizenship.
All-purpose education? Learning about, through and for democracy
Connected to their concept of citizenship-as-competence, the selected CE policy documents all
presented (a) similar idea(s) of what education is and should do, discussed here in relation to the

52
dimensions of education described above: its purposes, processes, objectives and practices. In general,
education is described as consisting of teaching, learning and assessment processes (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012) that aim at developing young people’s knowledge, skills,
attitudes and values, and take place in formal, non-formal and informal educational contexts
throughout the lifespan (Council of Europe, 2010, 2018). While acknowledging the different contexts
in which education takes place, the policy texts focus on the formal context of education (systems) and
the importance of school and classroom practices (Council of Europe, 2010, 2017, 2018; European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, 2017). The central notions of education seemingly encompass
the different purposes of qualification, socialisation and subjectification by emphasising, for example,
that ‘the outcome of such [citizenship] education being not simply knowledge (qualification) but
empowerment (subjectification), leading to appropriate action’ (socialisation) (Council of Europe, 2010,
p. 26).
Screening the European policy texts for their understanding of the purposes of education, and how
they portray the relationship between citizenship and education, the Council of Europe (2018, p.18)
sums up the central elements all texts seem to support and promote as learning about, through and for
democracy as the most important dimensions “to prepare and empower young people for their lives as
active citizens in democratic societies”. Learning about democracy aligns with one central element that
all texts include, namely the idea that education in schools has a crucial role to play in equipping young
people with, or ensuring they acquire the knowledge, understandings, skills, and values they need to
participate actively in and contribute to society (Council of Europe, 2010, 2018; European Commission,
2015; European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012, 2017). In other words: the competences
needed to become qualified active, democratic citizens. This qualification consists, amongst others, of
political literacy (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), developing ‘sound’ knowledge and
understanding of democratic concepts, processes and structures, skills and attitudes concerning
communication, dialogue and critical thinking, and respect for democratic values (Council of Europe,
2010, 2018; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017).
This qualification purpose promotes CE as a subject area (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice,
2017), albeit different from other, more traditional subjects (Council of Europe, 2010). It is seen as a
lifelong learning trajectory that is dynamic and consists of gradual levels of proficiency. The
competence-based approach to CE thus adheres to the idea of educational practices consisting of
‘modules’ or trajectories: the gradual acquiring of citizenship knowledge and skills in stages, according
to different criteria. The most illustrating example of this line of thinking is presented in the Council
of Europe’s (2018) competence framework for democratic culture. Informally referred to as the
‘butterfly’ or ‘four-leaf clover’ model, it consists of 20 competences, categorised as three sets of values,
six attitudes, eight skills and three bodies of knowledge and critical understanding. The model
identifies three levels of proficiency for these competences: basic, intermediate and advanced, and

53
includes sets of descriptors for each of the competences, according to level of proficiency, described in
terms of learning outcomes (Council of Europe, 2018). The EACEA (European Commission/
EACEA/Eurydice, 2017) also distinguishes between competences promoted mostly in primary
schools (creativity and personal development), at lower secondary education (critical thinking) and
upper secondary level (learning how to act democratically).
Increasing the level of student participation by level of education is also promoted (European
Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012). This notion of increasing participation connects to the idea of
learning through democracy, which we believe links to the purpose of socialisation. All texts stress the
importance of instilling in young people a set of attitudes and norms, in order to pass on and safeguard
democratic values at the heart of the EU (European Commission, 2015). Also, education is expected
to prepare young people to become engaged citizens who participate actively in political and social life
and practices (European Commission, 2015; European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), further
alluding to the purpose of introducing young people into existing ways of knowing and doing.
Furthermore, all texts included in the analysis expressed the expectation that education should lay the
foundations for more inclusive societies (European Commission, 2015), counter or remedy societal and
political problems such as conflicts, violence, discrimination and apathy, and promote positive values
such as equity, social cohesion and tolerance. Education is thus seen to have an impact on both
individuals and their social contexts, at all levels: their communities and society as a whole (Council
of Europe, 2017; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017).
This purpose is further promoted by stressing the need for schools to introduce young people to
democratic practices and opportunities for participation in and beyond the classroom. Schools are
considered a microcosm where young people learn how to be active and responsible citizens through
their daily experiences (European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice, 2012). The texts stress that
schools are young people’s first introduction to the public realm (Council of Europe, 2018) and how,
because of their function as a ‘passage’, it ‘makes no sense for educational institutions on the one hand
to teach respect for democratic principles and human rights and on the other to be run in a totally
undemocratic way’ (Council of Europe, 2010,p. 28). All texts also stress that young people should learn
to behave democratically by participating in democratic situations: learning by doing is a central idea to
what education should do. The class and school are considered the first communities students are
active members of, and they should reflect the democratic process and provide young people with the
skills and abilities for ‘real’ community life (European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012). In other
words: schools should practice what they preach concerning democracy and citizenship by letting
young people participate. We relate this to the educational process of internalising. Classroom practices,
the broader classroom climate and school culture should embody and reproduce democratic values and
procedures, allowing students to experience and participate in them through democratic governance, for
instance in practices such as class or student councils, or a classroom climate that allows room for

54
debate (Council of Europe, 2010; European Commission, 2015; European Commission/EACEA/
Eurydice, 2012, 2017). This focus on learning citizenship by doing aligns with the idea of schools as
miniature or practice societies (Print et al., 2002) and the seamless enactment of political ends and
educational means in CE (McCowan, 2009), as discussed in the introduction.
Another central aspect of education according to CE policy, in line with the reference to learning for
democracy, is the promotion of the idea that young people, by acquiring the necessary competences,
will be empowered, become autonomous, think critically and take action in order to contribute to
democratic society and principles by respecting the rule of law (Council of Europe, 2010), combat
injustice, inequalities and intolerance (European Commission, 2015) and protect or strengthen
democracy (Council of Europe, 2010, 2018; European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), social
cohesion (Council of Europe, 2017) and a spirit of freedom (European Commission, 2015). Education
systems should empower young people, so they can function as ‘autonomous social agents capable of
choosing and pursuing their own goals in life’ (Council of Europe, 2018, p. 65). This appears to promote
the educational purpose of subjectification, and the objectives of autonomy and independence. References
to educational processes or practices of young people developing their own ways of relating to others,
the world or otherness in general; to questioning existing orders; or to open-ended educational or
classroom practices such as projects, are, however, rather scarce.
The European Commission (2015) and Council of Europe (2018) do refer to the importance of
promoting critical thinking, specifically in reference to media literacy and strengthening young people
against indoctrination, propaganda and hate speech (for instance towards refugees on the internet),
but without giving concrete examples of practices or methods. The Council also emphasises the
importance of experience-based learning for enhancing young people’s critical thinking ‘by opportunities
and encouragement to engage with the different aspects of a subject matter and different
interpretations’ (Council of Europe, 2018: 15). The European Commission (2017) delivers the most
concrete elements, by mentioning ‘maximal’ approaches to CE in its framework , covering methods
that are activist, process led, interpretative and participatory (Kerr, 1999) but without giving concrete
examples; and by including non-formal learning aspects in schools, such as volunteering, arts projects
and sports events.
All three educational purposes of qualifying, socialising and subjectifying thus seem to be addressed
when it comes to describing how young people can and should become democratic citizens who have
the possibilities of deciding on new directions and transformations in society through education.
However, we believe that, as with the concept of citizenship, the concept of education in the European
competence-based language of CE only superficially emphasises the importance of subjectification, and
of emancipating and making young people critical and autonomous. By describing the future in terms
of the world we want to prepare for the generations to come or young people’s ‘positive contributions’

55
such as their participation within arts, community involvement, or sports projects in schools, the
openness for change is solely interpreted in terms of adding to the blueprint that has already been laid
out for them by the existing political powers-that-be and orders of society, and takes no further notice
of actual institutional contexts’ opportunities for democracy outside of education. Specifically, adding
adjectives such as ‘appropriate’ action (Council of Europe, 2010) and ‘harmonious’ development or
‘effective’ participation (European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2017) suggests a certain
immunisation of the transformative potential that comes with the concept of subjectification. The
changes expected from education are thus in service of the protection of democracy and society, coming
from the lifelong learning processes of competence development that (future) citizens engage in, and
not in relation to broader contexts and institutions, or in pursuit of change, (more) equality or justice.
This aligns with Lascoumes and Le Gales’ (2007) policy instrumentation view: the European policy
texts of CE appear to function as instruments producing specific effects and imply specific notions or
theories of education as leaning towards social control and governing. Indeed, learning about, for and
through democracy, still all focus on ‘preparing’ young people for a specific and predetermined notion
of a ‘good’ citizen, and the ‘right’ knowledge, skills and dispositions and forms of action that make such
a citizen (Biesta, 2006).
As with citizenship, the concept of education as it is deployed in European CE policy therefore contains
a tension: societal, emancipatory and change-oriented purposes are attributed to education at first
glance, while at the same time reducing it to individual, conservative and continuity aims in the actual
language of the policy documents.
Discussion and implications
Limitations and suggestions for further research
While the foregoing re-reading is the result of a thorough analysis of CE policy documents according
to the different dimensions of citizenship and education as presented in the conceptual framework, few
references to and suggestions for concrete processes, objectives and practices of CE were discussed.
Because of the limited number of documents included in the analysis, and because statements about
concrete practices are rather limited in these documents, we cannot conclude from the foregoing
whether the focus on competences is also dominant at more practical levels of (national or regional)
implementation, curriculum development and educational practices of CE. Further research should be
done on the national, regional and local translations, interpretations and ‘enactment’ inspired by these
policy documents and their specific understandings of citizenship, education and their relationship in
CE. The framework presented in Figure 3 could provide a lens for such future analysis.

56
Furthermore, it could be argued we have only scraped the surface in our effort to analyse and
understand the use of the concepts of citizenship and education in the context of CE. In order to deepen
our understanding, we believe it would be meaningful to ‘dig deeper’ and also investigate the
underlying concept(s) of democracy from which the concepts of CE are derived in Europe. Lastly, we
believe a reverse approach to the ideal of seamless enactment (McCowan, 2009) can be a very valuable
contribution of further research into CE policy and its normativity. We believe taking schools’ daily
realities as a point of departure might be the ultimate ‘check’ to see if the assumptions and values of
democratic CE are (and can) truly be translated in all steps of policymaking and educational practices.
Future research could, for instance, start from the current gap between general and vocational
education concerning the attention that is awarded to curricula and practices of CE (Council of Europe,
2017, European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). More generally, the ways in which schools
and curricula of CE seem to function as confirming inequalities, disadvantages and the existing ‘status
quo’, rather than promoting equality, dissent, or emancipation (Merry, 2020), deserve further
investigation in order to improve policymaking concerning CE.
Implications of a competence-based approach to CE
A specific form of equivalence between citizenship and education seems to be assumed in the
studied policy texts’ competence-based approach to CE. Both the concepts of citizenship and (its
relation to) education are presented in these texts, specifically the most recent texts by Council of
Europe (2017, 2018), as including dimensions and elements that leave room for critical, autonomous
action, subjectification and societal change to achieve the proclaimed goal of helping young people to
become active, critical and engaged democratic citizens. However, a closer re-reading indicates how
this competence-based approach to CE in EU policy might actually be short-circuiting its own
potential to achieve this goal, losing sight of the importance of context and change in the translation
to these same policy texts’ language of reproducing, enforcing and sustaining existing citizenship and
society in terms of competences. This framing of citizenship as an individual ‘toolkit’ obfuscates the
interdependency of structures and institutions, and the individuals that act within them.
This also extends to the Council of Europe’s (2018) ‘innocent’ CE imagery of change and hope by
presenting the required competences as a ‘four-leaf clover’ or ‘butterfly, and literally leaving
relationships to contexts or institutional arrangements out of the picture: one could argue that a
butterfly only furnished with wings will surely fly, but will be unable to navigate and thrive in its
surroundings without antennae. Similarly, a four-leaf clover will only ever be viable when it has a stem
and roots in the soil to provide it with nutrition.
Likewise, a closer look at the texts’ citizenship-as-competence language shows how the promoted
processes and practices of (citizenship) education actually mainly promote conformity and support for

57
the societal and political status quo (Merry, 2020), by describing (citizenship) education in terms of
qualification and socialisation. The subjectivating, emancipatory, questioning and change-oriented
potential of CE thus seems to be tamed, and a depoliticised and privatised idea(l) of citizenship is
promoted, oriented at preserving the existing order (Biesta, 2009; Lawy & Biesta, 2006).
Conclusion
Our analysis indicates how this competence-based approach to CE, while campaigning for political,
collective and democratic purposes, actually tends to promote rather narrow, individualistic and
arguably limited conceptions of democratic citizenship and CE. If embedding fundamental democratic
values in every step of their translation into policies, curricula, pedagogical relations and processes of
CE in schools (McCowan, 2009) or creating consistency between what is said about citizenship and
democracy and what is put into practice (Council of Europe, 2017); are truly guiding principles for CE
policy in Europe; then the current competence-based approach to CE thus shows room for
improvement in the very first step(s) it itself promotes. In and by itself, this finding that the proclaimed
purposes and actual effects or prescriptions of CE policymaking do not align is not new. However, by
explicitly investigating the concepts of citizenship and CE in this set of recent European policy texts,
we hope to have offered a clearer insight into this ‘gap’, and how a self-evident use of the terms loses
sight of how not only the individual pupil and his/her competence development in schools matter, but
also the broader societal and institutional contexts and openness for change matter in order for young
people to truly be able to become independent, active and engaged citizens outside of schools. While
this is being explicitly acknowledged and addressed in the most recent Council of Europe texts,
apparently indicating a shift in tone in comparison to the other texts, it is still not translated
accordingly to a further conceptualization of the European institutions’ own role in citizenship and
CE processes and practices.
The main conclusion drawn from our reading of the current language of CE in European policy is then
how, instead of ‘just’ assuming equivalence between citizenship and education or the seamless
enactment of citizenship values in CE in schools, policy concerning CE might do better by leaving
room for the nature of citizenship, education and their relationship as including inequivalence and
disruptions. Acknowledging that CE cannot be fully captured in terms of citizenship competences, and
allowing room for both citizenship and education to be and achieve more than the existing, is what we
might want to think and talk about, when we talk about the importance of democratic CE in schools.
That is, if we take both the aims of contributing to societal change and of young people becoming
active and critical democratic citizens, seriously.

58

59
CHAPTER III. PUTTING INTO PRACTICE: WHAT CLASSROOM PRACTICES CAN
TEACH ABOUT THE SCHOOL’S ROLE IN CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
Abstract
This chapter describes the role of schools in educating young people to become democratic citizens
from an internal pedagogical perspective: based on sayings, doings and relatings between pupils,
teachers and school material in actual classroom practices. In this way, it aims to ‘flip the script’ of
common approaches to citizenship education (CE) that translate external expectations concerning
young people’s (future) citizenship to the development of competences as individual learning outcomes
in schools and classrooms. Drawing on a distinction between pedagogical and political aims of school
education and ethnographic accounts of classroom observations in two secondary schools in Flanders
and Brussels, the analysis shows how differentiating between pedagogical and political aims of school
education, and giving priority to the first when speaking about the role of the school and its potential
in CE; can significantly expand and reshuffle prevailing notions about ‘seamless’ citizenship education
and what schools can and should do in terms of delivering competent democratic citizens.
Keywords:
citizenship education, classroom practices, competences, political and pedagogical subjectivation

60
Introduction
Policy initiatives, international comparative research and programmes and curricula have steadily
lifted citizenship education (CE) in schools to a priority status on both national (in this case, Flemish)
and inter- or supranational educational agendas over the previous decades. As we have discussed in
the previous chapters, in this current context CE is conceptualised and promoted as acquiring a set of
democratic citizenship competences that will enable young people to participate in political, social and
cultural communities in an active and responsible manner (Council of Europe, 2016), as a response to
different societal ills and threats our democratic societies face, as well as current ‘undesired modes of
social interaction’ (Strandbrink, 2017, p.3). Currently dominant approaches to educational
policymaking and research on CE thus tend to focus on its envisioned effects and (learning) outcomes.
Often, a self-evident way of speaking and thinking about citizenship, education and their assumed
relationship is adopted, in which it is assumed that more or better education or schooling will (swiftly)
produce more and better citizenship in young people (Fischman and Haas, 2014). Along the lines of
what Tristan McCowan (2009) describes as the ideal of seamless enactment, these approaches seem to
follow a logic of starting from general political or social norms, values, and ideals which, ideally, should
be embodied and enacted in the different steps of policymaking, curricular development and classroom
practices of CE. The general tenet of this logic is that educational means (school and classroom
environments and practices) have to be modelled on and adapted to the envisioned political and social
goals of democratic citizenship education effectively and efficiently. Here, the school is often portrayed
as a miniature or practice society, where pupils can learn democratic participation, negotiation and
living in diversity by ‘doing’.
Overall, this approach to CE seems to build on a specific way of thinking about citizenship education and
the character of schools, that has been criticized from multiple angles in educational research and
theory. First, because the notion that CE in schools can or should seamlessly translate and promote
democratic norms and values (such as participation, tolerance, respect for diversity, etc.), appears to
rely on a perfectionist and selectivist argument (Strandbrink, 2017): an assumption that schools are
able to filter the ambiguity, tensions and complexity of the political and societal world ‘outside’ into
the desirable values and attitudes assumed to be compatible with an idealised (liberal) democratic
culture.
Second, because CE is most often considered as something that always needs to be ‘added’ to the
curriculum and school culture, to be consciously and top-down installed in extra or new programmes,
curricula and school practices rather than embedded in ‘sound education’, inseparable from the content
and subject matter dealt with in schools (Van der Ploeg, 2016). Thirdly, because such approaches
promote the school as the time and place par excellence for acquiring a ‘toolkit’ of citizenship
competences; which individualises citizenship as a learning outcome rather than considering the whole
of all experiences, contexts and practices in which young people take part as constantly influencing in

61
an unpredictable manner how they learn what citizenship in a democratic society is (Lawy & Biesta,
2006).
This chapter presents an attempt to avoid these pitfalls by describing the role of schools in educating
young people to become citizens from an internal, pedagogical perspective on school and classroom
practices (Masschelein & Simons, 2013). Reversing the logic of seamless enactment described above
and ‘flipping the script’ of translating external, societal (or political, economic, etc.) norms, values and
expectations concerning young people’s (future) citizenship to education in schools to see how well
schools do; we aim to specify and start from the daily classroom practices themselves. The aim is to
bring to life, or give words to, observed sayings, doings and relatings in classroom practices (Kemmis
et al, 2014) in terms of citizenship education: How can we describe what happens in classrooms in terms of
citizenship education, but in a pedagogical language and on its own intrinsic terms?
First, we discuss the specific policy context and attainment targets developed for citizenship education
at school in Flanders in light of the elements described above. Next, the theoretical framework for
studying classroom practices in terms of citizenship education ‘from the ground up’ is developed,
connecting the educational domains and aims of qualification, socialization and subjectification (Biesta,
2015 and 2020) to Simons’ and Masschelein’s (2010) distinction between the pedagogical and the
political. The following section builds on this theoretical groundwork and educational practice theory
(Kemmis, et al., 2014) to describe the analytical approach and concrete design of the study conducted:
an ethnographic exploration of political and pedagogical aims and processes in classroom practices.
This exploration itself presents three classroom episodes that illustrate the differences and
interrelations between pedagogical and the political aims of education in relation to the attainment
goals accorded to CE. We conclude that an account of citizenship education which starts from or
prioritises actual classroom practices and their relational and pedagogical nature, can significantly
expand and reshuffle prevailing notions about ‘seamless’ citizenship education and what schools can
and should do in terms of delivering competent democratic citizens.
Setting the scene: CE in Flanders
In educational policy concerning CE in Flanders, the latest renewal of the official attainment targets
for secondary education has (next to substantial debate about its legitimacy) brought about a new
approach to CE in (secondary) schools. In September 2019, the new attainment targets for the first
grade (the first two years) of secondary education were launched, presenting the minimal learning
outcomes or goals for pupils in terms of 16 key competences (Eurydice Belgium, 2020). This renewal
was presented as offering an ambitious and clear update of the expectations that society has of pupils’
schooling, in line with 21st century needs (Agentschap voor Hoger Onderwijs, Volwassenenonderwijs,

62
Kwalificaties en Studietoelagen (AVOHOKS), n.d.). Civic and citizenship education
5
, formerly treated
as a cross-curricular theme, now appeared as one of 16 key competences that were formulated in a
broader move away from subject-oriented or -specific targets and learning outcomes, reflecting the
increased priority accorded to the theme as a ‘clear response to today’s challenges’ (Eurydice Belgium,
2020). This citizenship competence consists of different building blocks or components (AVOHOKS,
n.d.). Most are formulated as transversal key competences that only gain their meaning in relation to
or depending on their connection to other substantive, ‘content-driven’ (key) competences. To what
other competences, subject areas or subject clusters they are linked, and how, is considered to be the
domain of schoolboards, didactic teams and teachers, according to their respective pedagogical and
didactic approaches (AVOHOKS, n.d.). These competences present the minimal requirements at
population level for pupils at the end of the first two years of secondary education as knowing and
being able to:
• Articulate the dynamics and layers of (own) identities and the consequences for relating to
others
• Deal with diverse others constructively and respectfully; recognize and resist prejudice,
stereotyping, abuse of power and group pressure
• Building one’s own opinion: knowing fact from opinion and reality from fiction
• learning to see the importance of engagement, both one-off and structural action, individually
and in group; learning how to apply participation in school situations
• act sustainably within school context, gain insight in complexity of sustainability issues,
impact of global challenges on local level, mutual influences between societal domains and
developments and the impact thereof on (global) society and the individual
• basic insight into modes of participation and democratic decision making
• basic insight into human and children’s rights and the democratic society, appreciating the
values and principles of Flemish democratic society
The conceptualization of the key competence and its building blocks or goals related to citizenship as
‘citizenship competences including competences pertaining to living together’, was inspired by both the
UNESCO framework on global citizenship education and the European ‘key’ citizenship competence
(for lifelong learning) (AHOVOKS, n.d.). It describes the key competence as “the ability to act as a
responsible citizen and participate fully in civic and societal life, based on understanding of social,
economic, juridical and political concepts and structures, as well as in global developments and
sustainability” (Council of Europe, 2018, p.10). Another influence to the revisiting of the attainment
5
The distinction made between ‘civic(s)’ and ‘citizenship’ has no real equivalent in Dutch, resulting in the term
‘citizenship’ being used as an umbrella concept, referring both to aspects of knowledge and understanding, and
more ‘active’ aspects referring to possibilities for engagement and participation (Schulz et al., 2010).

63
goals relating to citizenship, was a pilot study organised by the Council of Europe (CoE) to test the
competence framework for democratic culture and citizenship (described earlier as the butterfly or
clover of four model for citizenship competences, see chapter II or Joris, Simons & Agirdag, 2021), in
which a small group of Flemish teachers and teacher educators participated (Crevits, 2016).
Apart from European policy, (international) studies are also referred to as an influence to reconsider
the place and attention for citizenship in the targets for Flemish education. Flanders participated in
both the 2009 and 2016 ICCS studies, testing the knowledge, understandings and attitudes of
(approximately) 14 year olds. The ‘traditionally poor’ results of Flemish youngsters (Amkreutz, 2017),
while showing some improvement in the 2016 study (Sampermans et al., 2017), have been linked by
research, media and policymakers alike to the fact that CE has previously not been embedded as a
standalone subject in secondary education in Flanders. Pupils in Flanders are considered to be lagging
behind (or at best, performing averagely) when it comes to their civic and citizenship knowledge, skills,
attitudes and engagement/participation at school level, the latter of which is generally considered the
main indicator for how schools function as a ‘practice ground’ for democratic citizenship (Sampermans
et al., 2017).
By formulating the educational goals related to citizenship as a key competence, the Flemish policy
sketched above appears to adopt the prevailing notions of citizenship and CE as we discussed them in
the context of European policy (chapter II or Joris, Simons and Agirdag, 2021) and the ICCS research
(see chapter I or Joris and Agirdag, 2019). In the list of ‘building blocks’ that are required of students
by the end of the first two years of secondary school, we recognize elements that can be subjected to
the criticisms described above in the introduction: First, complex and ambiguous aspects of political
and societal membership and participation appear to be presented as clear, single-sentence, ideal values
and attitudes to be gained through citizenship education in schools. Second, the ‘building blocks’ that
make out this CE are conceptualized by policymakers as needed to be added to the curriculum, or
reinventing it in order to answer to current and/or future societal and political needs. They thus seem
(mainly) to be considered separated from existing targets and practices of CE practices. Third, the
citizenship competence is presented as a minimal requirement of pupils at the end of their first grade,
or: as a learning outcome after the first two years of secondary school.
Expanding notions of CE: theoretical framework
Biesta’s ‘3D’ vision of education
In order to investigate how these expectations and depictions of schools’ contribution to CE relate to
day-to-day classroom practices, we (re)turn to an educational perspective on the aims of education. In

64
the previous chapters, Biesta’s (2008, 2020) threefold framework of qualification, socialisation and
subjectification has been the point of departure for investigating the aims of CE in policy and research.
The framework is presented as both analytical and programmatic: both as a way to discuss the
purposes and aims of (citizenship) education, what it is supposed to ‘bring about’ (Biesta, 2010), as well
as the domains or areas in which the practices and processes of education function (Biesta, 2013).
Following Biesta’s (2008) own stance that “any education worthy of its name should always contribute
to processes of subjectification that allow those educated to become more autonomous and independent
in their thinking and acting” (Biesta, 2010, p.21), he has indicated the importance of asking questions
pertaining to the kind of subjectivities, or the quality of subjectification, made possible in and through
educational arrangements and configurations (Biesta, 2008). Specifically referring to the ‘curricular
area’ of citizenship education and civic learning, the notion of political subjectification indicates for Biesta
(2010a, p.24): “the promotion of a kind of citizenship that is not merely about the reproduction of a
predefined template but takes political agency seriously”, or explicitly political ways of being and doing
or promoting democratic subjectivity (Biesta, 2011). Biesta discusses this political subjectification
alongside forms or processes of political qualification (gaining political knowledge, skills and
dispositions for citizenship), and socialisation (transmitting norms, values, and views about the ‘good’
citizen, introducing pupils to a particular citizenship order) (Biesta, 2008).
Education is explicitly treated as a composite question in Biesta’s triad, and thus always concerns all
three domains as overlapping and intersecting. Therefore, one could argue this calls for an equally
‘realistic’ language to be able to discern and describe processes and practices of all three domains, if
the framework wants to fulfil both its proclaimed analytic and programmatic functions. However, the
processes and practices Biesta introduces to illustrate the domain of (political) subjectification, appear
to remain significantly more vague and difficult to imagine than its qualifiying and socialising
counterparts (see Chapter II, III.2). Biesta himself (2020) has indicated the difficulty to ‘grasp’ the idea
of subjectification, and has also warned for the possible consequences of not being able to deal with
this complexity in our thinking and speaking about education, as running the risk of allowing
restricted and measurable concepts of education to do the decision making for us. This appears as a
concrete threat in current language and policy on CE in which, on the surface, all three of these
domains and aims tend to be promoted: including independence, autonomous thinking, political action
and active participation on the part of pupils as (future) citizens as aims for CE. On closer inspection
however, aims and processes that can be considered as belonging to the domain of subjectivation are
often neglected in favour of predictable, predetermined and measurable notions of citizenship learning
and its outcomes. In effect, it is mainly forms of (political) qualification and socialisation that are being
promoted as CE (Joris & Agirdag, 2019; Joris, Simons & Agirdag, 2021). One could therefore argue
that the vague terminology of subjectification Biesta presents his framework, which he considers as
an ‘aid’ to broaden the current reduction of thinking about education, might actually be working to
confirm, rather than eliminate this current risk of reducing education to only its measurable and

65
‘predictable’ functions. From a pedagogical perspective on the nature and aims of education, and
citizenship education, it is therefore pertinent to further investigate: what does subjectification actually
consist of?
Separating the pedagogical from the political
Drawing a further distinction between political and pedagogic
6
subjectification (Simons and
Masschelein, 2010), while adding yet a further theoretical or conceptual layer, might offer a possible
lead out of this educational conundrum, by specifying processes or experiences of subjectification that
can aid in articulating the contribution of classroom practices to CE. In line with Biesta’s notion of
political subjectification as independence from existing political and social orders, Simons and
Masschelein describe political subjectivation as a democratic moment, based on the work of Jacques
Rancière, as a ‘paradoxical identification with the existing distribution of positions in society’ (Simons
& Masschelein, 2010, p.601). It is an event, an intervention in what is visible, sayable and doable in the
existing state of things, that reconfigures and questions this state. Such an intervention assumes a
demonstration or a verification of equality: a democratic moment is where the limits of existing orders
are questioned and interrupted and where a wrong or a dissensus is demonstrated in the existing
ordering, by making something visible, doable, sayable, that ‘had no business’ being seen, said, heard,
or done before (Simons & Masschelein, 2010). While political subjectivation in this sense implies a
demonstration of equality, and a certain disengagement with the ordering and divisions of existing social
and political conditions; pedagogical subjectivation involves the demonstration of an ability or potentiality
through an engagement, more specifically: with school material. It is described as the experience of
students, in dealing or engaging with texts, books, or certain topics in school, that they are ‘able’ “to
do something, to know something, to speak about something” (Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p. 601).
In pedagogical subjectivation, school material functions as a ‘thing-in-common’ (or is turned into it by
teachers), which exposes students as equals in relation to this material: as having an equal ability to
engage with it and to learn something new, something different (Meijer, 2013).
A recent example that can illustrate both forms of subjectivation, are the School Strikes for the Climate
or Youth for Climate initiatives. In and through these strikes, pupils and students, who had no official
‘business’, say or place in public debate or decision making on climate change, because they are
considered ‘unqualified’ or not-yet-citizens because they do not meet the legal age limit for voting,
took to the streets. Once a week, for months in a row, they were skipping school while being urged by
6
While the original text deals with three forms of subjectivation, namely: governmental, political and
pedagogic, this chapter focuses on political and pedagogic subjectivation for this study of CE. ‘Subjectivation’
is used by Simons and Masschelein (2010), based on the work of Michel Foucault, while the authors indicate
how ‘subjectification’ (as in Biesta’s use) refers to the writings of Jacques Rancière.

66
politicians and policymakers to ‘stay in school’, learn and become qualified in order to then be able to
participate and be heard. In doing this, and also by actively participating in peaceful protest and debate,
activities considered to be acceptable forms of participation for citizens (socialisation), these pupils
demonstrated their knowledge and understanding of the challenges that face them (qualification), and
regardless of their being considered ‘unqualified’, they spoke up and claimed their equality
(subjectivation). Two frontrunners of this movement in Belgium, two girls attending secondary school
at the time, explicitly referred to their own experiences in school as the foundation for their protest
and ‘speaking up’ in an open letter (De Wever, Gantois & Olyslaegers, 2019). In this letter, they
repeatedly refer to the relationships between their activism, citizenship and the school, describing how
their political actions actually aligned with the attainment target pertaining to citizenship education
of “daring to show courageous citizenship” (De Wever et al., 2019). They explicitly referred to the
school as having formed them as critical people, who are not afraid of wanting to change the world
and of addressing how the older generations have failed to take care of the world (Masschelein & Pols,
2019). They thus appear to indicate how their experience(s) of pedagogical subjectivation, of having
experienced an ability to engage with the topic of climate change in schools, which has formed their
own knowledge, judgement, and willingness to act; inspired their political subjectivation: their
interventions or ‘civil disobedience’, as demonstrations of being equally able to speak, think and act
about the subject on public platforms (De Wever et al., 2019).
Political and pedagogic subjectification thus conceptualised (and here lies the central point on which
this chapter builds for looking at citizenship education in classroom practices), relate in a specific
manner, but are considered to be different ‘events’. According to Simons and Masschelein (2010,
p.595), the political verification of equality (as a speaking, acting human being) or the subjectification
that consists in the demonstration of a wrong through speaking or acting, assumes the verification of
one’s potentiality: “by intervening one verifies one’s equality as a being that is able to speak and act”.
In other words: intervening or taking action as political subjectivation, assumes having (had) the
experience of pedagogic subjectivation that one (the student) is able to do, know, or speak (Simons and
Masschelein, 2010).
Returning to the triad of qualification, socialisation, and subjectification/subjectivation, the
assumption that education always concerns an overlap between all three, in combination with this
assumption that political subjectivation assumes or builds on pedagogical subjectivation, it appears such
a distinction should then also be extended to identifying both political and pedagogical forms of
qualification and socialisation. Biesta (2008) already referred to such political forms, with political
qualification indicating forms or processes of acquiring (political) knowledge, skills and dispositions for
citizenship, such as knowledge of democratic constellations and government, learning how to form
and express opinions, or becoming acquainted with democratic values. Political socialisation in this
view, refers to values and views about the ‘good’ citizen and being introduced to a particular citizenship

67
order, including notions about accepted and illicit forms of participation and political action. It should
be noted here that the notion of the political (subjectification, qualification and socialisation) employed
by Biesta, does not refer to a ‘strong’ conception of the political, as a necessary preparation for a
democracy that has yet to come, but rather a ‘weak’ one: as participation in a community involving
common action and imagination, that is not the outcome of but is enacted as the starting point of
education (Charles, 2016). This notion of the political aligns with the endeavour of rethinking
citizenship education from an educational or pedagogical perspective, as opposed to belonging to
political theory, science or philosophy.
According to Simons’ and Masschelein’s (2010) depiction of the pedagogical, we can then complete
this distinction between the pedagogical and the political with pedagogical qualification, as providing
young people with the knowledge, skills, understandings, etc. that allow them to be a pupil or student,
or (do) study(ing): knowledge and skills of reading and writing, processing and studying knowledge
and information, books or school material. Pedagogical socialisation can be characterized as being
introduced or initiated in/to the norms and values of the school or classroom. It can also be traced in
activities or processes that concern or carry references to or norms for being a ‘good’ student or pupil:
being attentive, present, follow instructions and classroom rules and cooperate. In what follows, we
turn to classroom practices to help us answer the question of, indeed, the political aims of (citizenship)
education can be said to build on or assume pedagogical aims and processes. The distinctions drawn
above thus serve as the basis to answer the question: what can an exploration of classroom practices in
terms of political and pedagogical aims teach us for better understanding and conceptualising citizenship
education?
Putting into practice: methodology
Research design
The focus on classroom practices in this study adheres to Apple’s (1979) assumption that, in order to
understand the educational reality of schooling, it is necessary to study it in actual classroom settings
and interactions. Apple argues that in such settings, all concepts, roles and objects are social creations,
bound to the situation in which they are produced. Therefore, the meanings of classroom interactions
cannot just be assumed; they must be discovered (Apple, 1979). In the case of Apple this meant
studying them in schools as institutions that are themselves the product of particular (social and
economic ideologies, as well as aiming to reproduce these. He therefore mainly focuses on the
production of meanings and knowledge in schools. In the case of this study however, the focus is not
on schools as institutions as such, but rather on gaining a pedagogical understanding of actual
classroom practices and interactions and what these can tell us about citizenship education. This means

68
we also assume that pedagogical relations and roles are created or enacted within such classroom
practices, whose meaning must be discovered. However, we do so in light of pedagogical aims and
processes that can be accorded to interactions between teachers, pupils and content in the classroom.
Given the emphasis on classroom practices and processes, ethnographic methods of observation and
notetaking were adopted for studying two class groups between October 2019 and January 2020.
Concretely, the classroom practices of two class groups of the first grade of secondary school, one
located in Flanders and one in Brussels. The first school that participated in the study, which we will
refer to as Saint’s or the Saint school, is a Catholic school in Brussels which takes pride in its long and
rich history. The school consists of both an elementary (pre-school and primary) and secondary school.
The school profiles itself as a firm and proud representative of Flemish identity in Brussels, strongly
building on its Catholic heritage and foundation, though in touch with its now very diverse and
multilingual public of pupils and parents. The student population is representative of the ‘melting pot’
of ethnic, linguistic, and religious diversity that makes up Brussels. In this school, a class of the first
year of a STEM-oriented track, consisting of 21 pupils aged 12 or 13, was followed and observed
during a three-week trajectory in October-November 2019.
The second school is located in the less-densely populated and green surroundings of a smaller city in
the proximity of Brussels. The Green school belongs to the Flemish Federation of Steiner (Waldorf)
schools, was founded 30 years ago on and is organized by the anthroposophical principles of Rudolph
Steiner. Its campus also offers the entire trajectory from pre-school to the end of secondary education.
The school promotes its artistic, small-scale character and focuses on the development of creative
thinking in its pupils. Its public is much smaller and less diverse than the Brussels-based school. In
this school, a class of 21 pupils from the second year of (general) secondary education, aged 13 to 14,
was followed for the first three weeks of school in January 2020.
Both class groups were selected because they belonged to the same age group that is also targeted by
the ICCS study, as discussed in Chapter I; and to the ‘target audience’ of the renewed attainment goals
discussed above (see paragraph ‘Setting the scene’). As indicated earlier, these targets or attainment
goals were formulated in a ‘minimal’ way by the Flemish government, so as to leave as much room as
possible for school boards, school teams and teachers to practice their pedagogical freedom and
interpret and translate these to their curricula and school practices, according to their own didactic
philosophies and approaches. It can thus allow to gain a glimpse of how actual pedagogical practices
in the classroom relate to these official targets. We included two schools that belong to two different
‘strands’ of compulsory education in Flanders, who have each implemented these attainment goals
according to their own philosophy and pedagogy, in order to maximize the (possibility of) diversity in
observed teaching and learning activities and, accordingly, possible diversity in forms of pedagogic
and political qualification, socialisation and subjectivation. Given the explorational nature of this
study, which only includes two schools, the aim was to include and ‘capture’ this diversity for as far as

69
possible, but not to compare different educational strands in respect to their intentions, practices or
results of citizenship education. It should be noted here that, because of this same aim of including
diversity, the original intent of the study was to also include a class group from the vocational track
of the first grade of secondary education (b-stroom), given that the attainment goals for this track are
formulated separately and with some minor differences to the general track (AVOHOKS, n.d.). It was
also the intent to see if there are then also differences in pedagogical classroom relations and practices
in such a class group.
However, due to a lack of timely response from contacted schools, and because of the restrictions on
both the functioning of schools themselves and on conducting research in schools following the
COVID-19 pandemic which started in March 2020, this was in the end not possible within the foreseen
timespan of this PhD research.
Given the fact that only two schools participated in this study, it should not be considered to (attempt
to) present the actual diversity of schools in Flanders and Brussels, or to be representative for
classroom practices and processes in other schools (or for that matter: for the schools involved). It
simply constitutes as exploration of the small sample of classroom practices that have been observed
in the two class groups that took part, in an effort to see what these can contribute to a better
understanding and conceptualising citizenship education from a pedagogical perspective.
Research activities
In both schools, the researcher was present in the classroom for a period of three weeks’ time, mostly
during full school days. Observation periods were organised so the researcher could attend and observe
all of the groups’ different subjects/classes (and therefore also teachers) that were part of the classes’
curriculum. The study consisted of unstructured, open-ended observations, not making use of a set of
predefined observation rules or coding schemes. However, specific choices were still made concerning
the focus, timing, duration and location of the observations (Schubotz, 2019).
Concerning timing and duration, arrangements were made with the school principals and teachers
involved with both class groups to decide on a suitable period for observation. In both schools, the
possibility of attending a maximum of different classes/subjects was the guiding idea. The duration of
3 weeks was set in advance by the researcher and supervisory team, assuming this would deliver a
sufficient amount of observations. Moreover, it was hoped (and experienced) that being present during
a period of 3 weeks was also sufficient for diminishing the effects on pupils’ and teachers’ behaviours
of having a researcher-observer present in their classrooms. Choices concerning the location of
observations were dependant on the nature of the activities conducted during the class hours in which
the researcher was present. For most of the time, in both schools, the researcher was seated at a
designated desk or ‘observation post’ in the back of the classroom. However, during other school
activities during observation hours, for instance pupils attending a plenary sensitizing session about

70
bullying in the school hall, conducting a biology biotope study in a nature reserve outside the school
grounds, or attending a school play put up by older pupils in the school theatre; the researcher was
moving among or in proximity to the pupils and teachers in order to conduct the observations.
Finally, the focus of the observations evolved during both periods of observation along
a similar cycle of moving from descriptive to focused and then selective observations (Kawulich, 2005
in Schubotz, 2019). At first, when entering ‘the field’ of both class groups and getting acquainted with
them, observations and recordings were as broad as possible, attempting to including the whole of the
class group, and all what was said and done both between pupils and between pupils and teacher, and
in their mutual engagement with class materials and content. In a second phase, more focused
observations were, more focused on following the teacher, to take note of what exactly was said and
done between teachers and pupils, about specific contents and how. All of these observations were
accompanied by and elaborated on by means of extensive fieldnotes and audio recordings of all the
attended classes, which were later on combined to create detailed transcripts of a selection of these.
Analytical approach
Similar to the shifting foci of attention during the observations, the process of selecting, transcribing,
coding and analysing these observations and accompanying recordings consisted of different cycles or
phases. These reflect a similar movement from an open, inductive and broad exploration of the
available research data, towards a focused and detailed analysis in line with the specific research
questions for this study: How can we describe what happens in classrooms in terms of citizenship education,
but in a pedagogical language and on its own intrinsic terms? A first phase of analysis was to explore these
intrinsic terms of classroom practices, while the second translated the theoretical framework described
above to an analytical framework for detecting pedagogical and political aims and processes of
(citizenship) education.
First, an initial, broad inductive exploration was conducted on the transcripts of two classes (one from
each school), enriched with information from the fieldnotes, to get acquainted with the collected
material. Two fragments were chosen which appeared the most ‘rich’ in pedagogical texture: with the
most pupil-teacher actions and interactions, and a strong engagement with the content or school
material of the class. This exploration was meant to get acquainted with the research material, as well
as developing a pedagogical lens to study it. In this first step of exploratory coding, every action,
interaction, material, activity, etc. was noted down in the margins of the transcripts (paper-and-pencil
coding). These were then ordered codes according to the actor that was initiating or central to the
activity or (inter)action (teacher, pupil(s) and/or the material involved), without creating overarching
categories or higher-order concepts. Starting from this basis, the two fragments were then introduced
to the programme NVivo12, in order to better elaborate on, organize and relate the codes that were
developed. Two other transcripts were added to this analysis until coding saturation was reached. This

71
phase of coding delivered an exhaustive codebook of 25 categories, encompassing a total of 183 codes.
A second phase of coding was then initiated in order to identify the key themes and patterns in these
codes and transcripts (Esterberg, 2002).This first phase of coding, while providing very detailed list
of pedagogical actions, interactions and others happenings in classroom practises, led to a sterile and
fragmentary image of these practices and to little insight in terms of describing them or bringing to
life what occurred. This phase had appeared to only steer away from seeing more clearly ‘what happens’
in classroom practices. Moreover, it did not yet engage with the study’s purpose of describing what
happens in classroom practices in terms of citizenship education; or with the theoretical framework of
pedagogical and political aims and processes of citizenship education described above.
After trying out all sorts of ‘knots and bolts’ (Esterberg, 2002) during the initial coding, the practice
theory account of education of Kemmis et al. (2014) functioned as a bridge between the theoretical
framework described above, and the (initial) analysis of the actual classroom practices and activities in
the collected data. In the beginning of this methodology section, we referred to Apple’s argument that
in classroom settings all concepts, roles and objects are social creations, bound to the situation in which
they are produced. In line with this thought, Kemmis et al. argue that in educational practices (like all
social practices), the relationship between a practice and its participants can be thought of as one in
which its participants speak a language (sayings), engage in activities (doings) and enter into
relationships with other people and objects (relatings) that are arranged and organized specifically in
the time and space of the educational practice. Educational practices are thus composed of these three
activities that “hang together in the project of the practice” (Kemmis et al., 2014, p. 121). This idea of
classroom practices being made up from sayings, doings and relating between participants, aligned
well with the initially used codes of actions, interactions and activities involving teachers, pupils and
materials. Also central to this practice theory of education, is the notion of site ontology: practices are
composed in and by the sites where they occur and, in their turn, shape these sites. In this study then,
classrooms are the particular sites under study, where practices and processes of teaching and learning
occur, that shape and are shaped by doings, sayings and relatings. These sayings, doing and relatings can
then be described and/or ‘read’ in terms of objectives, processes and practices of pedagogic and political
qualification, socialization, and subjectivation. Figure 4 below represents the resulting analytical
framework of this study.
The reliability and validity of the analysis were promoted by means of regular deliberation with the
supervisory team about the selection of fragments, development of the coding and the thematic
analysis. Due to the exploratory nature of this study and its focus on practices, as well as the
extraordinary circumstances that started to unfold because of the Covid-19 crisis just weeks after
finishing the observations, no member checks were conducted with teachers or pupils. Because the
focus of the observations and analysis was not on results or outcomes or the study of intentions, but
rather on unfolding practices, this was not considered problematic.

72
The following section presents the analysis of a selection of three fragments or ‘episodes’ from 3
different classes. These three episodes were included because they present classroom practices of
which the theme or content was in line with (some of) the attainment goals developed for CE in
Flanders (see p.65): basic insight into human and children’s rights, building one’s own opinion, gain
insight in complexity of sustainability issues, and presenting values and principles of Flemish
(democratic) society. By focusing on classroom sayings (both in the content and what is actually said),
doings (teaching and learning activities and teacher and/or student actions), and relatings (between
teachers, pupils, content and/or material) (Kemmis et al., 2014), we aimed to closer investigate and
describe what these episodes can tell about pedagogic and political qualification, socialization, and
subjectivation, and how they relate, in order to develop a language for CE ‘from the ground up’.
Figure 4. Analytical framework based on Biesta (2009,2020) , Masschelein & Simons (2010) and Kemmis et
al. (2014)

73
Analysis: classroom episodes
“Hey, school is child labour!”: the pedagogical as framework for the political
The first excerpt comes from a History lesson in the Green school. This class group started every day
of the three weeks of observations with a long period of head education: an entire morning period
focused on one subject area (in this case History), until the morning break. During this period, the
class was dealing with the time period of the Industrial Revolution, its onset, implications and its
drawbacks. In this particular lesson, the class had first finished a short test and a check and collective
appraisal of the pupils’ homework: every pupil had to make a summary of the previous class of their
own choice by making a cartoon, drawing or write a short text. In this particular excerpt, the teacher
and pupils are collectively constructing a summary (scheme) of a text about the problems of the
‘working man’ on the blackboard and in the pupils’ notebooks.
Teacher: Ssssh (urges for silence) (.) Now, in general: what are the problems of the, quote,
little man or the poor working man? And actually, everything is on your sheet
of paper, and we will just (.) I will tell you about it, together, and poor it into
a scheme. Ssssssh. So. A lot of people and machines that are running and all
the people working in the factories (.) (The turmoil in the classroom continues:
talking , giggling, …). Do you think that these people come from the
countryside to the city and say: “Hey, this tiny, rundown house, I quite fancy
that?”
Pupils: No.
Teacher: No. Actually these houses are being built, little by little, more and more, but
actually, because the circumstances in which these people live are so poor and
dire, the houses all become run-down too. The owners of these tiny houses, the
big rich bosses, they all plant down these little houses and tell their workers:
“look, this here is an area, it’s close to my factory, go and live there”. That’s
not a good deal, you know. Maybe sometimes, yes, but often (.) (teacher is
interrupted by a girl, M.)
M: Isn’t that what’s happening to refugees nowadays? With the mold and
everything? (…)
Teacher: Yes, mold on the walls, yes, maybe yes. (.) People who are trying to live like
humans, a humane life . But that’s not easy when you have to live with so many
people in small spaces, yes? (pauses). (Pupils are still talking, some are laughing.
The banging sound of a cupboard door rings through the classroom. In the left back

74
corner of the classroom, one boy, J. is leaning backwards in his chair, balancing, and
repeatedly slamming the door and opening it again).
Teacher: (.) So, one problem is (.) living, dire circumstances, yes? (the teacher writes on the
blackboard, then turns to the class to check if the pupils are still on track) (.) Sssssssssh.
but so, also (.) (She peeks at her preparations in her notebook) The children had to
go to work too. That’s part of (.) I have dealt with that extensively. Children
had to go to work too. So that’s another problem for the little man: child
labour. Yes? This you write down in your scheme, too. (She turns and writes
down ‘child labour’on the blackboard. The pupils react while copying, they are
discussing the topic of child labour. One boy, F., exclaims out loud:)
F: But I think, if children get paid like they do now, that it’s not child labour. If
my dad would tell me now, ‘F., can you come do some chores at my work to
make some money?’, I wouldn’t mind. (Many other pupils react, they are talking
out loud and all together)
Pupil: But that’s something completely different!
Pupil: (.) If you had to crawl through a dark hole in the mines (.)
Pupil: You weren’t asked to do that.
Teacher: Ssssssh. boys and girls (.) (turmoil continues). YOOHOO (exclaims). (The pupils
continue talking, reacting to each other’s comments loudly, all at the same time. Then
F. exclaims)
F: Hey, school is child labour! (A few other students look up to the teacher and react to
this comment in fake, playfully exaggerated indignation)
Pupils: Yes!
(in chorus)
Pupil: Officially!
Pupil: Actually, it is! (One girl seated in the front adds, ‘dramatically’)
M: We don’t even want to do this and we have to. We even have to pay for it! (The
teacher tries to respond to this comment)
Teacher: Yes but M., M. // (Another girl interrupts her and responds out loud)
Pupil: So we could earn more money later on // (Another boy addresses M.)
Pupil: M, what would you // (At this point, the pupils are all talking at the same time. The
teacher intervenes)
Teacher: Boys and girls (addresses the class), if it doesn’t interest you, if history doesn’t
interest you, you could also look for a school (.) you could choose to do
homeschooling, you have that freedom. This is not an obligation at all (.) so
there is no obligation to go to school. If you say: ‘I do not want to go to school
at all’, then you do homeschooling or whatever.
F: But then you would still have to learn history (.)

75
M: There is no compulsory schooling?! [in a tone of surprise] (The teacher repeats)
Teacher: There is no compulsory schooling (.) (She adds, in chorus with a few pupils):
Teacher
and Pupils
(in chorus): Compulsory learning
Teacher: (.) So then you go to A. [the school principal], and you say: ‘I don’t want to be
here anymore’. And then someone else will come to take your place, someone
who might stay here to study. (.) it’s true, it’s free. You don’t have to be here.
I mean it.
M: But I’m perfectly fine here. I just think school should only start at 10 [AM]
Pupils: Yes! (shouting in agreement. Another girl responds)
Pupil: But then school would go on until later?
Teacher: ’til 8 at night?
M: No, just until 3 [PM]! (laughing)
Important qualifying elements can be identified in this episode, both with a pedagogical and political
character. The classroom discussion between the teacher and pupils on child labour and compulsory
schooling/learning illustrates how political qualification can be seen to build on or assume pedagogical
qualification. The pedagogical knowledge, skills and attitudes that pupils need to ‘be able to be
pupils’(in this case: of history), function as the basis for a classroom discussion on political and societal
topics. By collectively reading and summarizing a text, answering the teacher’s questions and making
a scheme in their notes; pupils are processing, displaying and sharing their knowledge and
understanding of the text content, and their skills of formulating and sharing their opinions or
arguments on the topics that are addressed. This collective dealing with the class material, indicating
pupils’ pedagogic qualification as being (becoming) students of history, appears as the foundation for
the ensuing discussion about child labour and pupils’ rights and obligations to learning/schooling; in
which both the teacher and the pupils display their knowledge and insights concerning political and
societal themes. Such politically qualifiying sayings, doing and relatings appear in the way the teacher
and pupils are relating to this topic: knowledge about pupils’ rights and obligations is shared and
discussed, which can be seen as equipping the pupils with the necessary information to become
knowledgeable participants in the existing societal and political order.
Moreover, this class discussion on child labour and (home)schooling can also be considered as a
politically socialising event, where the teacher is introducing or initiating the pupils (in)to the values
and tradition of freedom of education in Belgium. However, this still unfolds within classroom rules:
the teacher is repeatedly reminding the pupils to be silent (“sssssht”), she breaks up a discussion when
it gets out of hand (“YOOHOO!”) and returns the pupils’ attention to her by calling upon the class
(“boys and girls”). Elements and processes of pedagogic socialisation indicating how to be a ‘good’

76
pupil, thus operate as the framework (or the boundaries) within which politically socialising elements
appear and play out in this classroom.
The pupils in this classroom do appear as actively engaged in thinking and speaking about the topics
at hand. Pedagogically subjectivating sayings, doings and relatings in this episode mainly relate to the
pupils presenting themselves as being ‘able’ to enter into a discussion with the teacher and each other:
the pupils of this class are freely and confidently sharing their thoughts, comments, and knowledge on
the class material and content, and open up the discussion themselves. In general, the class appears as
very engaged with the topics and material, not relying on the teacher’s ‘permission’, but enacting a
sense of equality and ability to speak or know something about the topics at hand. This, in turn, appears
to enable a politically subjectifying potential: pupils voice their dissent with existing distributions in
society in connection to the class content and related topics, and do so in a humorous and ‘provoking’
manner: “hey, school is child labour!”. F’s exclaim could be considered an example of a paradoxical
identification with the existing distribution of positions in society: F. identifies the pupils with child
labourers, a group they ‘cannot identify with’ (Simons and Masschelein, 2010), thereby shaking up the
existing distribution of positions in society. His statement seems to say that, by having to be in school
we, as pupils, are actually forced to ‘labour’. This is supported by the other pupils, who respond in a
jokingly and playful ‘uprising’ or defiant way towards the teacher. However, while the pupils seem to
rely on an open and ‘equal’ relation between the teacher and pupils, where they feel able to speak and
think equally about the subject at hand, the humorous and joking style of relating to the teacher and
the topic of child labour rather seems to indicate an instance of pedagogical than of political
subjectivation. More than an actual intervention in existing distributions of positions in social or
political orders, or a ‘radical’ demonstration of equality that shakes up these orders, the reactions of
the pupils suggest an ability to engage, question and ‘play’ with serious political and societal topics,
thus expressing their ability and equality, without mounting to actual (serious) protest or a democratic
moment of changing positions and identities.
“You don’t do that!”: negotiating ‘good’ behaviour and the limits of socialisation
The second excerpt also touches upon the topic of child labour, though in a different manner and
context. This excerpt comes from a Man and Society class in the Saint school, a two-hour a week subject
area introduced by the Catholic network in Flanders to deal with media literacy, entrepreneurship,
economic and financial literacy, and citizenship (Katholiek Onderwijs Vlaanderen, n.d.). In this class,
the teacher and pupils are reprising a set of exercises they were working on during the previous lesson,
concerning the different means of different fictional characters more or less their own age to gain an
income (such as doing chores, allowance, student jobs, babysitting, etc.). The teacher is projecting the
digital version of the workbook on a white screen above the blackboard, discussing the exercises and

77
letting the pupils solve them, and then clicking to make the correct answers appear, while the students
write along and copy these answers in their own workbooks. The pupils are asked to calculate and
sum up different means for the different fictional characters of the exercise to gain money: money for
birthdays, allowances, doing chores, etc. They come to an exercise about Marieke, a girl who is said to
earn €48 on a monthly basis by babysitting.
Teacher: (.) that’s a lot of money, right? But then again, she puts a lot of time into it. Every
Saturday, she babysits for 4 hours. She get €3 per hour. 4 times 3 is 12, that makes €12
every week. 4 times 12 is 48, €48 every month. That, together with her allowance,
makes €68. So she will be able to save a pretty amount of money every month.”
Pupils: That’s a lot!
Teacher: That is a lot, but that €48, she earns it herself by going babysitting every Saturday. So
she loses half a day of her own free time every Saturday. (One boy, W., responds out loud)
W: Madam I do that too, but I don’t do it for money.
Other pupils: Me too!
Teacher: Ah, but that’s not smart! (laughs)
W: But I do it for my aunt!
Pupil: I also do it for my aunt!
T: Yes, but she also does it for her aunt. Only €3 an hour, that’s not so much, you should
be able to try and negotiate that with your aunt. (By now, several pupils are responding,
in a protesting tone, all talking at the same time. One boy, M, raises his hand. The teacher gives
him permission to speak)
M: But come one, [if] it’s a friend of my dad, they ask: can you babysit my child, you’re
not going to say: ‘okay, for €5 an hour’.
Pupils: No
Teacher: And why not?
M: You don’t do that! (indignant)
Pupils: I think so (.) (several pupils are protesting, reacting in agreement with W. and M.)
Teacher: I used to go babysitting a lot, and I asked a lot more than €3 an hour (.) I was older
though.
W: Madam, and that was (.) your aunt or someone you don’t know? Who did you babysit
for?
Teacher: People I didn’t know.
Pupils: Yeah well, Madam (murmuring)

78
W: Ah (.) if it’s for someone you know, you don’t ask for money.
Teacher: Yes well (.) if you’re babysitting, you should be allowed to ask for some money.
M: My old teacher said that, if you’re younger than 16 and you ask for money, that it’s (.)
uhm (.) child labour.
Teacher: (.) those €3 an hour (.) actually, that’s not a problem. (One girl raises her hand and is
appointed by the teacher)
Pupil: Madam, I know someone who babysits a cat
Teacher: So is that babysitting or catsitting?
Pupil: (laughs) Catsitting. And, uhm (.) she gets €10 an hour.
Teacher: Wow, that’s a cat with golden fur!” (laughing) (.) that’s a lot, well negotiated.
The class moves on to another example in the workbook and discuss the example of a boy who’s income varies
according to the chores he does. One boy raises his hand. The teacher gives the floor to him.
M: but (.) uhm, we can go babysitting, but can we also (.) how do you say it (.) [speaks in
French] une entreprise (.)?
Teacher: Start a company (.)
M: yes. Of (.) if you’re 12 (.)
Teacher: well//
M: (interrupts) or if you’re good at cooking, a cooking company
Teacher: Well M., you’re 12 years old so actually, you can’t work yet. If you go babysitting and
you ask €3 for it an hour, then you don’t have to declare that to the tax office. When I
get my wages, half of it has to be ceded. (a pupil exclaims a tone of surprise)
Pupil: why?
Teacher: (.) so that is handed in, and with that [money] we pay for our streets, pensions, people
that don’t have an income get a living wage, all of that is paid with that (.) (pupils
respond, murmur). So everyone who works has to hand in a piece. If you, as a 12 year
old, go babysitting and you get €3, then you don’t have to count that in. Then you only
have €1.5 left. (.) of course, you don’t do that every day, for 7 hours straight. If you go
babysitting once in a while, it’s not a big deal. But if you decide, M., I’m going to sell
ice cream on the street, I put my stall there, in front of my home. And I’m going to sell
ice cream every day, for 7 hours, and you make €5000 a month doing that /

79
Pupils: huh?!
Teacher: (.) then you should declare that. Do you understand? And you can’t do that, because
you are only 12.
M: and if they don’t know? (.) (pauses) dirty money?
Teacher: so (.) (in a strict tone) that is not okay (.) dirty money, that is not okay, that’s money you
don’t pay taxes for.” (addresses the class) (.) so, that’s what our key characters earn (.)
Now let’s look at (…)
Here, we see an intricate connection between pedagogically and politically qualifying elements. The
pedagogically qualifying elements in this excerpt mainly centre on pupils’ knowledge and ability to
calculate (out loud, together with the teacher, and in their notes), discuss different means of income
and copy projected answers to their workbooks. The episode does not deal with ‘pure’ mathematical
calculating skills or knowledge, but concerns exercises applied to the topic of income and different
means for young people (like the pupils) to make money: babysitting, chores, student jobs, etc. The
lesson content and material that is discussed, as well as what is said about it, has a direct link with the
world ‘outside’ of the school. It concerns knowledge, skills and attitudes that pupils (will) require to
become citizens and thus politically qualifying elements, for instance knowledge of the tax system.
The discussions that arise between the teacher and the pupils following these exercises can be read in
mainly politically socialising terms. In these discussions, the teacher appears to confer existing ‘political’
positions and traditions upon pupils, such as the differences between adults and children in terms of
rights and duties; or in terms of characteristics of ‘good’ citizenship like paying your taxes. In this
fragment, we see how the ways in which teacher and pupils relate to each other and these topics in the
classroom, as well as what is said and done, mainly adhere to these categories: the pupils are asking
questions, both as children that do not yet take part in these roles and tasks in society, as well as pupils
in the classroom that take part in the class. Similarly, the teacher is answering their questions and
explaining them things, both as an adult who already knows, understands and bears these rights and
duties; as well as the teacher who is providing her pupils with correct knowledge and answers, who is
determining the pace of the class, who has permission to speak, etc. Here, we see how pedagogically
socialising sayings, doings and relatings (teacher as providing and citing the correct answers, repeating
them, asking pupils to copy them and appointing pupils to speak) work as a ‘model’ or groundwork for
how politically socialising events enter the classroom: the teacher presents herself as (re) presenting
what are politically or socially ‘correct’ things to know, say and do, and encouraging pupils to accept
and copy these.

80
However, the ways in which some of the pupils react defiantly to and discuss the example of Marieke,
also indicate the boundaries of political socialisation. In what they are saying, and how they are relating
to the topic and the teacher, the pupils are indicating how they have a different understanding about
the norm for ‘good’ behaviour in this case. One boy even comments: “you don’t do that!” when the
teacher tells them to negotiate or ask for money from family members. What this scene displays is
how, on the one hand, pupils are clearly able to know and speak about
the topic of earning money, by
studying it in the classroom as ‘school material’. They clearly demonstrate an engagement and sense
of potentiality, of being able to speak up about it, and thus of pedagogical subjectivation. We could also
potentially see this speaking out (“you don’t do that!”) as an element of questioning the existing
distribution of roles and positions in society: adults as the ones that can represent and dictate what is
good or bad (economic) behaviour and children having ‘no say’. However, rather than an actual
disengagement from existing roles, or a demonstration of equality and redistribution (political
subjectivation), the episode seems to indicate how the pupils disagree with a specific norm the teacher
proposes. The existing roles and positions, both pedagogically as teacher and pupils in the classroom,
and politically as adult with rights and duties vs. children without, appear to be followed and respected.
“You need all kinds of permission”: limits of the political in the classroom
In the third episode, we find ourselves in a natural science class in the Saint school. The class has been
working on a set of exercises about food chains, consumers (herbivores, carnivores and omnivores)
and producers, ecosystems and ecological balance. Here, again, teacher and pupils are simultaneously
looking at and working on the same pages in their workbook, of which the teacher is projecting the
digital version on the screen above the blackboard; while the students are writing along and copying
the correct answers in their own workbooks. The teacher then introduces a new topic to the class:
biodiversity and the effects and influences (positive and negative) of mankind on biodiversity.
Teacher: That’s a difficult word right? You can see two words here: bio and diversity. (She turns
to the blackboard and writes down ‘bio’ and ‘diversity’. Then she asks the class) What could
bio mean?” (A few pupils raise their hands to answer. The teacher nods or point to who can
speak:
Pupil: nature
Pupil: (.) uhm (.) they don’t use (.) products (.) just from nature.
Pupil: food from nature
Teacher: Yes, we will generalize, nature, because animals are also part of it. Actually it just
means: life. Bio means life: plants, animals, nature (.) diversity (knocks on blackboard.

81
Then she adds, interrogatively): there is diversity in this class right now. Pupils raise
their hands. The teacher nods or point to who can speak)
Pupil: Different.
Pupil: Cultures .
Teacher: Cultures, what do you mean by that?
Pupil: Everyone is different.
Teacher: (repeats) Everybody is different, yes. So diversity means: different or, in the book they
speak about variety, but difference is okay (.) note down these words, make sure you
know them. (She tells the pupils to highlight the definition of biodiversity in their workbooks
and repeats the definition in her own words)
Teacher: So bio- diversity (.) life, different, so: different forms of life (…) Now we just said, there
is diversity in the class. In what do we differ? How are you all different from one
another? Or how can you be different? You have a picture there [in the workbook] to
help you. In what aspects can we be different? (Pupils raise their hands to sum up different
aspects, the teacher replies or repeats).
Pupil: Religion.
Pupil: We don’t look like each other.
Teacher: Can you specify?
Pupil: Skin tone.
Pupil: Character.
Teacher: Yes, some have a gentle character, others a harsh. We noticed that during our school
trip. (The class took part in a two day trip for the first year pupils the week before, called the
‘reflection’)
Pupil: Body forms.
Teacher: yes, height, that you’re fat or slim, not everybody (.)
Pupil: Boys and girls
Teacher: Gender, yes
Pupil: Culture
Pupil: Clothing
Teacher: Yes. I think we have reached our amount (.) we differ in so much (more), we wouldn’t
have any elements left (.) now we’re going to look at biodiversity, not between people,
I think that will be handled in Religion (.)
After letting the pupils solve another set of exercises in pairs and discussing the answers collectively, the teacher
announces a new topic to the class: the negative influences of mankind on biodiversity. She asks the class to turn
to the correct page in their workbooks and discuss the pictures that are printed. She asks the class what the first
picture represents.

82
Pupil: uhm (.) the people (.) uhm (.) they are fishing.”
Teacher: Fishing. And do they have a lot of fish in their nets, or little?
Pupil: A lot
Teacher: A lot. Imagine (.) I’m going to exaggerate, image there’s 20 salmons in the sea. That’s
too little, there’s a lot more, we’re just going to say 20. There are 20 swimming in the
sea, and boat 1 captures 19 with its nets. And only one fish remains. Can there still be
baby fish?
Pupils
(in chorus): No.
Teacher: So what will the law say (.) because we eat a lot of salmon, we have to make sure salmon
can still be bred. So they will say: you can only catch this many salmons, cod, mussels,
etc. Will everyone obey this?”
Pupils
(in chorus): No
Teacher: No. So some will still fish too much, they will still capture too much salmon (.) Does
anyone have an idea what we call this, with a difficult word, when you capture too
much fish, more than is allowed? (…) (A few pupils start whispering. The teacher asks one
boy, W. to answer)
W: They want to make money (another girl answers, out loud)
M: Someone selfish. (The other pupils and the teacher giggle at her response. Then the teacher
gives the correct answer: overfishing. She asks the pupils to note it in their workbooks)
Pupil: Why are there so many difficult words?
Teacher: this is natural sciences, there will be a lot more of difficult words to follow. (The teacher
asks the class to name what is depicted in the other pictures. It are all examples of man’s negative
influences on the planet and ecosystems: deforestation, exhaustion fumes, exotes (…).
Teacher: Instead of bad things, we can also do positive things. In what ways do humans promote
biodiversity? (.) So that’s positive, it actually means: what do we do that’s positive? (.)
(She again discusses the pictures in the workbook with the class. One picture shows a Greenpeace
flag)
Teacher: Greenpeace, what is that? (Pupils raise their hands. The teacher asks M to answer)
M: actually that’s (.) taking care of the earth because (.) the earth is sick”.
Teacher: Yes (.) Greenpeace is an example, how do we call it in general?”
Pupil: To make the earth better.
Pupil: An organization.
Teacher: An organization, yes, and what do they stand up for?
Pupil: To protect animals.

83
Teacher: To protect animals etc. We are now going to call that: environmental organisations (.)
Greenpeace is one example, but there are a lot of things happening (.) (One boy raises
his hand and asks the teacher)
Pupil: Madam, can we go protest? [referring to the School Strikes for the Climate]
Teacher: (strictly) They don’t do that anymore, that was last year. And you needed all kinds of
permission to do that.
In this episode, we see how most of the sayings, doing and relatings between the teacher, the pupils,
and the class content and material display a focus on pedagogically qualifying processes: on the
knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to study natural sciences. The teacher meticulously explains
the ‘difficult words’ of natural sciences to the pupils, tells them what they need to write down and
highlight to remember. She focuses on the content of the workbook, projecting the right answers on
the screen and making sure the pupils note down correct definitions of concepts, explains and repeats
them to make sure the pupils grasp them. The teacher relates the class content and material to what
pupils already know: she indicates the Greek etymology of biodiversity, asks pupils to link this concept
to elements of diversity they themselves know and experience (“there is diversity in this class right
now”). The pupils, on their part, actively display their knowledge and insights by answering the
teacher’s questions and showing their knowledge and understanding. The topics that are being
discussed have to do with the (natural) world ‘outside’, but also with social and political issues and
effects. For instance, when discussing the topic of overfishing, the teacher asks the pupils to think about
what ‘the law’ will say, testing pupils’ knowledge and insight about political and legal restrictions on
negative human influences on the environment. This can be regarded as instances with a politically
qualifying potential.
Politically socialising sayings, doings and relatings in this episode again appear to hinge on the
elements of pedagogical socialisation. The teacher in this fragment runs a ‘tight ship’: she expects
pupils to keep pace with the exercises and her explanation, highlight the sections she tells them to,
note down what she dictates, raise their hands if they would like to answer a question, etc. There thus
appears to be a clear notion of what the teacher expects of ‘good’ pupils. This classroom practice also
appears to delineate the extent to which politically socialising sayings, doings and relatings enter the
classroom: the teacher can be seen as introducing the pupils to existing practices and habits of harming
or protecting the environment, or to conceptions of diversity, but discusses these only briefly and
within the context of the workbook exercises. The teacher clearly indicates what (or how many)
elements can be talked about, and what the pupils should remember or note down. The intricate
relation between pedagogically and politically socialising processes also appears in an explicit and
interesting manner when the boy asks the teacher if they can participate in protests. First of all because
the boy is asking the teacher, and she is responding to him from her pedagogical position as the teacher,

84
if they can participate in a form of political action happening outside of the classroom or school. On
the one hand, this can be discussed in terms of pedagogical socialisation. Since the ‘school strikes’ entailed
thousands of pupils skipping school, they had a strong impact on the practices, ‘order’ and rules of
schools in Belgium. From this angle, the teacher’s response can be seen as pedagogically socialising:
expecting pupils to act according to the norms and rules concerning absence from class or school,
which is only allowed when given permission (by the teacher or school, maybe parents). However, it
can also be considered a politically socialising event: while the teacher presents environmental
organisations such as Greenpeace as a form of protecting the environment, she quickly dismisses the
boy’s question about protesting as a possible or acceptable form of participation for the pupils. This
could either mean that protesting is not accepted when there is no official permission to march, or that
pupils, as children, are not allowed (yet) to decide for themselves to go and protest, something ‘adult’
citizens are allowed to do. This then refers to elements of political tradition and ‘good’ citizenship
behaviour, or to political socialisation.
Finally, pertaining to the domain of pedagogical subjectivation, this excerpt illustrates how pupils
‘engage’ in/with the class material and content: showing how they are able to think, speak and know
something about them. For instance, when the teacher touches upon the topic of diversity in the
classroom, the pupils immediately start describing to her how they interpret and experience diversity.
The pupils also show their ability to speak and think about complex concepts and issues, not
necessarily in the complex and ‘difficult words’ of science, but rather in their own simple (even funny),
but in a sense accurate wording (overfishing is ‘selfish’). However, this being able does not entail
politically subjectifying events or processes. Rather: the only discernible reference to political
subjectivation is one indicating its absence. In the short exchange between the teacher and one boy
about the protesting the question “Can we go protest?”, as well as the teacher’s response, can be seen
as sayings and ways of relating that indicate an identification and compliance with the existing
ordering and positions in society. Both the boy himself and the teacher confirm existing positions: of
the pupils as children who need permission from adults, and are thus not equal to claim their stake,
take action or a different position or role in the political or social order.
Discussion
Biesta (2010a) has argued that any citizenship education or civic learning worthy of its name should
promote political subjectivation and create opportunities for political agency. While all three
fragments above include processes and instances of pedagogic subjectivation and contain references to
pupils’ political subjectivities (as potential protesters, as having rights and duties, as living together in
diversity, etc) we have not observed, according to this ‘3D’ vision of CE, political subjectivation.
However, the absence of explicit political action or agency in these classroom episodes does not

85
necessarily indicate, in our view, flawed or ‘unworthy’ citizenship education practices. Elements of
political qualification and socialisation did appear in all three episodes, as closely related to instances
of pedagogic qualification and socialisation. In these domains, the presented episodes do appear to
confirm the idea that the political builds on or assumes the pedagogical. By zooming in on distinctions
between the pedagogical and the political in CE, and on interrelations between the purposes of
qualification, socialization and subjectivation, we can thus think of citizenship education as more than
schools contributing directly or primarily to young people’s political functioning and citizenship; and
rather as opening up possibilities for young people to be introduced to, gain knowledge of and relate to
the political and social orders in new and engaging ways first. In other words: pedagogical
subjectivation (and qualification and socisalisation) comes before the political, also in the context of
citizenship and CE.
What we have seen in the classroom episodes above, can be thought of as citizenship coming into ‘play’
as a subject area: subjected to study, attention, critique, discussion, but not as an actual area or place
for political action (in) itself. Citizenship education as a subject area in classrooms/schools can then be
considered a ‘playground’ of democratic society (Masschelein & Simons, 2013), rather than a miniature
or practice society. Citizenship, and political and social orders can become something to be studied,
experimented with, and related to; creating moments of being able to engage with, think and talk about
citizenship, political and social orders, but not necessarily undertake political action.
These findings offer some material for future thought and research on the pedagogical in CE.
For instance, based on these episodes, we can reinterpret the formulation of the Flemish CE attainment
goals mentioned in the introduction. Instead of thinking of such goals as engaging in dialogue in an
informed and well-argued manner, dealing with diversity or building one’s own opinion in terms of ‘minimal
requirements’ of what pupils need to be able to do, know, etc. at the end of the first grade; we can see
these goals in terms of pupils’ relational classroom experiences and opportunities of being able “to do
something, to know something, to speak about something” (Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p. 601). Such
experiences appear as always and essentially developing and unfolding in relation to school material,
other pupils, and the teacher. What all three episodes do show is how pedagogically or politically
qualifiying, socializing and subjectifying sayings, doings and relatings interrelate and always equally
include teachers and school material. Additionally, this implies a possible alternative interpretation of
the transversality of CE goals: perhaps they only gain their meaning in the interrelations between the
political and the pedagogical, and in the intersections of pedagogically and politically qualifying,
socialising and subjectifying purposes and processes. Locating citizenship education in these
intersections, as depicted in the episodes above, can thus provide a perspective on CE that leaves more
room for ambiguity, complexity, and CE as a relational practice rather than an individual outcome.
The findings also show how the classroom in these episodes mainly functioned as place and time where
citizenship as a subject area coming into ‘play’: subjected to study, attention, critique, discussion, but

86
not as an actual area or place for political action (in) itself. This indicates how, perhaps, introducing
citizenship (education) into schools and classrooms should be treated more like other subject areas:
since mathematics in schools does not aim to form/educate pupils to become mathematicians, or
physical education to produce athletes, language education linguists, etc., maybe we should be more
hesitant to equate the aim of CE in schools to creating citizens?
Finally, given the assumption that worthy citizenship education should provide in opportunities for
subjectivation, which in our interpretation would mean first of all pedagogical subjectivation, a further
exploration of this assumption should be conducted by also including more and other classroom
contexts than the ones discussed here. What about classroom practices in schools and contexts that
are ‘notorious’ for how they seem to enact reduced notions of both political and pedagogical aims for
their pupils, for instance in vocationally oriented programmes (Werfhorst, 2007), or that remain
tarnished with issues of inequality, stratification, racism and discrimination, as for instance in heavily
segregated ‘concentration’ schools? What experiences of being able and equal are made possible or
impossible in such classroom practices, and how do these impact on political aims of (citizenship)
education? And: how can, perhaps, pedagogical subjectivation provide possibilities to re-imagine or
reconstruct classroom practices and school that provide opportunities for all pupils to develop their
political agency through CE?
Given the explorational and limited character of this study, we refrain from further general statements
or claims about the (im)possibility or desirability of political subjectivation or action in and through
classroom practices. We can, however, formulate additional hypotheses regarding the pedagogical and
the political, as leads for a further ‘practical’ understanding of the school’s role in citizenship education.
The first hypothesis is that the foregoing analysis might indicate how ‘true’ political subjectivation as
agency through CE in schools is difficult, because of the ways in which the pedagogical and political
are related to and influencing each other, also outside of schools. Perhaps the episodes above indicate
how (possibilities for) political subjectivation tend to be ‘defused’ or integrated into pedagogically
qualifying and socializing processes and practices. Perhaps they even hint at the age of these pupils as
a factor, and how at lower levels of secondary education, CE is still more oriented towards personal
development and learning to think critically, while only in the higher/higher grades active debate
(speaking politically) and learning to participate (acting politically) are emphasized (European
Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2017). Lastly, legal, political age restrictions to citizenship can also
play a role in how ‘true’ political subjectivation of pupils is seen and can play out, also in the classroom,
for youth below the legal (voting) limit of 18.

87
Conclusion
The goal of this chapter was to develop a pedagogical language to describe what happens in classrooms
or classroom practices, in terms of citizenship education. To do so, we relied on a pedagogical
theoretical framework differentiating between pedagogical and political aims of education, and an
educational practice theory account to study sayings, doings and relating in the classroom. The
classroom episodes we introduced indicate how goals accorded to ‘good’ CE should first and foremost
be thought of as creating opportunities for pedagogical qualification, socialisation and subjectivation,
on which political aims can then build. However, for multiple reasons, political agency or action cannot
be expected to seamlessly follow from classroom practices of CE. The specific nature of pedagogical
aims and processes identified here, can therefore be built on to question and deepen dominant ‘seamless’
thinking in CE, which considers pedagogical processes and practices as mere instruments in achieving
political goals.

88

89
CHAPTER IV. TOWARDS A TRUSTING THEORY OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
7
Abstract
This chapter aims to initiate a theoretical perspective on citizenship education in schools that
reconciles an educational perspective on the intrinsic worth and logic of the school with an external
perspective on the school as answering to societal and political expectations, as part of the
arrangements that influence the political subjectivity and role of pupils in a democratic society. The
theoretical underpinnings of such an approach are situated in the intersections between two theoretical
perspectives on the role and aims of the school in relation to the political and society: the school as
part of an external, societal logic of democracy in John Dewey’s writings and the school as a non- or
pre-political sphere in Hannah Arendt. The chapter discusses and illustrates how both externally
driven and school-internal approaches to CE can essentially be thought of as building on the same
democratic principles of freedom, equality and fraternity. By linking these principles to the distinctions
between political and pedagogic aims of education drawn in Chapter III, we indicate how the school-
internal, pedagogical meaning of these principles, understood as assumptions to be enacted rather than
outcomes to be pursued, can be considered a prerequisite or model for all stages and actors involved
in helping young people becoming active and engaged citizens.
Keywords:
Citizenship education, schools, freedom, equality, fraternity
7
This chapter is partly based on: Joris, M. (2021). Burgers in de maak? Burgerschapsvorming op
school anders bekeken. Pedagogische Studiën 98(3), 221-235

90
Introduction
In this chapter, we aim to further elaborate on the role and position of schools in citizenship education,
and what schools can or should do in connection to the issue of political agency and subjectivity of
pupils. Over the past few years, we have witnessed young people as the frontrunners of movements
and actions calling for societal and political change in what appear to be unprecedented ‘dangerous’
times of uncertainty and collapsing systems previously considered to be the backbone of Western
liberal democracies: capitalism, (neo)liberalism and institutionalized democracy (Riddle & Apple,
2019), as well as the climate crisis, decolonisation and issues related to gender equality. Greta
Thunberg and other young girls as the leaders of the Youth for Climate movement and its school
strikes, pupils in the U.S. leading rallies to protest gun violence or participating in the Black Lives
Matter movement, pupils leading protests against outdated and discriminatory (sartorial) rules in
schools, etc.: examples of how the new generation of youth is directly confronting the world with calls
for (more) justice, freedom, solidarity, equality and their right to pursue the possibility of a different
future, are abundant.
While CE at school is often promoted as the primary context for equipping young people with the
competences for active, critical and responsible political action in defence of democratic principles such
as freedom, equality, justice, solidarity, etc.; these examples have also shown how youth, when actually
acting politically and showing their political agency, are often delegitimized, silenced (or worse:
ridiculed) by politicians and other adults who consider them not yet ‘qualified’ to actually participate
as citizens or to take part in societal and political debate. Even when demonstrating the ‘ideal’
outcomes of their CE, they are thus urged to remain in school, continue to learn, and leave the issues
that bear heavily on their lives and future to others until they are out of school, which is when they
are considered ‘competent’ or ‘qualified’ to speak up and participate. On the one hand, schools are thus
supposed to adapt their educational practices to political aspirations while on the other hand, a sharp
distinction is being drawn between pupils’ educational trajectory of CE and their actual political
subjectivity and agency.
Two Belgian girls, who acted as the spokespersons of the Youth for Climate or School Strike
movement in Belgium (see chapter III, II.2) , condemned such reactions of politicians and other adults
to their actions in a ‘manifest’ or open letter to everyone. In this letter, they describe how citizenship
has been instilled in them at school and how their actions actually align with the attainment targets
pertaining to citizenship education of “daring to show courageous citizenship” (De Wever et al., 2019,
p. 23). This aligns with Giroux’ (critical) claim (1980, p. 357) that “students should be educated to
display civic courage, i.e., the willingness to act as if they were living in a democratic society”. They
explicitly refer to the school as having formed them as critical people, who have constructed their own
judgements and willingness to act, who are not afraid of wanting to change the world, and who

91
confront the older generations with how they have failed to take care of that world (Masschelein &
Pols, 2019). The girls thus indicate how these ‘disqualifying’ reactions of adults display a lack of trust,
“not only in the judgement and willingness for action on the part of young people, but also on the part
of the education that has formed us” (De Wever et al., 2019, p. 24).
In connection to the analytical distinctions between pedagogical and political aims of education in the
previous chapter, we read this statement as indicating how the girls consider their current political
subjectivity as depending on their education; and thus as confirming that/how their political
subjectivity assumes of builds on their pedagogical subjectivity as pupils. The previous chapter can
therefore be read as an attempt to address this second ‘trust issue’ which the girls signal (a lack of trust
in education), by portraying the intricate relations between the pedagogical and the political in day-
to-day classroom practices. However, the way(s) in which we have (not) dealt with the first trust issue
(a lack of political trust in young people) by stressing that school is not the main arena for youth to
demonstrate their political abilities, subjectivation or agency, risks to confirm this distrusting position
towards youth as not yet able or qualified to act as political subjects. Therefore, this could suggest a
view that places a lot of trust in education and the forming of pupils at school as inherently political,
while at the same time overlooking or denying the fact that both pupils and schools are political actors,
in the sense that they are always already part of a common world in which power dynamics and
relations, and social and political issues are at play (Snir, 2016). Or: promoting a ‘weak’ conception of
the political through CE as participation in a community involving common action and imagination,
runs the risk of overlooking the ‘strong’ political realities of which pupils, teachers, school content and
schools as institutions, are part (Charles, 2016).
In this chapter, we therefore aim to construct an approach to CE that restores trust in both: trust in
schools as primarily pedagogical contexts that introduce pupils to citizenship and democracy, as well
as acknowledging that both schools and their pupils always (already) are political. A ‘trusting’ theory
of CE in schools is developed in different steps. First, its theoretical underpinnings are addressed by
situating such an approach in the overlapping areas or intersections between two theoretical
perspectives on the role and aims of the school in relation to democracy and the political and society
at large. The first discusses the school as following and promoting an external, societal logic of
democracy, the second as having its own, intrinsically democratic logic (Snir, 2016). First, the seminal
work of John Dewey is discussed, which serves as a theoretical basis for the seamless enactment
approach of CE which aims to apply an external, political finality and logic to the pedagogical means
developed to attain them in CE (McCowan, 2009). I contrast and relate this approach to what at first
sight can be thought of as a diametrically opposed account of the relations between the school and the
political world: Hannah Arendt’s (2006/1961) portrayal of the school as a non- or pre-political sphere,
which has inspired a scholastic perspective on an inherent democratic role of the school or inner-school
democracy (Masschelein & Simons, 2015; Berding, 2009).

92
This chapter illustrates how both perspectives can essentially be seen as building on the same
fundamental democratic principles as assumptions that need to be confirmed or enacted both in- and
outside of schools: freedom and equality. Therefore, these principles will be linked to the distinctions
and interrelations drawn between political and pedagogic aims of education in Chapter III. By doing
so, we will argue that a trusting theory of CE requires a third fundamental principle in order to
reconcile the externally oriented and intrinsic political role of the school, as well as acknowledge youth
both as pedagogical subjects, pupils, and as political subjects: fraternity.
School and democracy: an external vs. an internal perspective
Today, CE in schools is mainly promoted in terms of achieving political, societal ideals and aims by
equipping young people in schools with the knowledge, skills, attitudes etc. to become responsible,
active democratic citizens. The relationship between schools, citizenship education and democracy
tends to be conceptualised in an external manner: schools should contribute to the promotion and
strengthening of democratic skills and values for the health of democratic society. In the previous
chapters, we have focused on the normative underpinnings of such prevalent approaches to CE as the
principle or ideal of seamless enactment (McCowan, 2009): an ideal of harmony between the ends and
means in CE, arguing for the embodiment of values associated with the ideal democratic society and
citizen in every step of their translation into the policies, curricula, and to school practices and effects
on students. Ideally, the 'complete' seamless translation will ensure that the effects of CE are no longer
distinguishable from the pedagogical actions, but would be an “integrated and spontaneous expression
of educational and citizenship practice”(McCowan, 2009, p.93). In other words: if we would tackle CE
correctly, pedagogical or educational practices and political or social ideals can merge. Such
approaches to CE at school describe and promote the relationship between schools and democracy as
an external one, in which schools (should) adopt a larger democratic societal and political logic, in
order to improve society: schools/education should be modelled on the democratic principles (for
instance: participation in decision making and influence) that society in general and its policymakers
aims to protect and promote, adopting its ‘means’ and practices to these principles (for instance by
installing decision making bodies in the school and classroom in which pupils can partake). But, if we
maintain that schools are crucial in order to tackle societal and political issues through CE, then why
do we tend to put all the focus on how schools should adopt and adapt to these political aims and
principles in this process?
Profound critique of approaches to the school that describe and promote the relationship between
schools and democracy as an external one, in which schools (should) adopt the larger societal and
political logic; can be found in educational theory and philosophy referring to the origins of the school

93
as an intrinsically democratic invention with its own unique logic (Snir, 2016, Masschelein & Simons,
2013; Säfström, 2018; Todd, 2011). The general tenet of this criticism is that describing the relation
between citizenship, democracy and education externally, with a focus on social change through or by
means of the school, makes the school itself appear as an empty box, devoid of its own characteristics
(Simons & Masschelein, 2017). This critique often builds on the ancient Greek origins or invention of
the school, which offered a direct parallel between education and democracy, since both present the
‘scandalous’ idea that anyone could be anything, contribute to and direct the future of society
(Säfström, 2018). However, school and education do not do so by building on, continuing or improving
a larger societal logic, but exactly by installing a temporary suspension of societal, political or
economic logics: the school is a time and space of its own logic of free time, that is time detached from
the unequal positions in society at large, and is therefore a ‘democratisation’ of free time (Masschelein
& Simons, 2013). It is this position and role of school, as making (pupils) equal and making things in
the world available and free to pupils, that is considered in these theories to be under permanent threat
and the subject of attempts to ‘tame’ this democratic potential of the school, for instance by making it
an instrument for political or social change in programmes for citizenship education in schools
(Hodgson et al., 2018).
Along the lines of an analysis of the school presented by Snir (2016), we can discuss both accounts of
the relationship between schools and democracy, and their implications for citizenship education, along
two relational axes. The first concerns assumptions about relation(s) between society and the school,
and the second of relations between (young people as) pupils and (as) political subjects. The seamless
enactment approach promotes a relation between schools and society in which schools should adopt
and improvement the logic of larger society and democratic outcomes; while the scholastic approach
stresses the unique and school-internal democratic logic of the school as an interruption of the larger
societal logic.
When it comes to the second dimension, both accounts appear to position the school at other ends of
the axe, either equating or disconnecting the political subjectivity of young people and their being
pupils or students (pedagogical subjectivity). The seamless enactment approach promotes the adoption
of democratic means in the education going on at schools, and of pedagogical actions coinciding with
or dissolving into political effects, in order to achieve democratic societal ends (McCowan, 2009). We
could thus say that ideally, pupils being political subjects is the outcome of their educational process.
In practice however, this now mainly appears to result in a thinking of children and young people as
not-yet citizens, since they have not yet completed their (compulsory) educational and developmental
trajectory (Lawy & Biesta, 2006).
Educational theory and philosophy focusing on the ‘scholastic logic’ tend to separate pupils from their
social and political subjectivity from the onset: “orienting students towards the world as it is present
in the subject matter implies suspending the self with the various limitations imposed by everyday
concerns, ethnic origin, socioeconomic status, etc.” (Snir, 2016, p.123). So while the seamless

94
enactment approach would suggest we need to neutralise the educational to gain democratic effects; a
scholastic approach would rather claim the political needs to be (temporarily) neutralised or suspended
for schools to realise their democratic potential. However, this (theoretical) pedagogical argument has
been indicated to clash with actual realities in schools and classrooms: the thought that pupils (and
parents, teachers, etc.) are able (and perhaps, willing) to not bring politics into schools can in itself be
considered naïve (Berding, 2018) given the incommensurable nature of on the one hand ideals of
democracy and citizenship, and the institutional reality and nature of schools/schooling on the other
hand (Meijer, 2013). The reality in schools and CE in schools today have shown how these often tend
to serve the perpetuation of the status quo concerning existing inequalities, forms of exclusion and
other issues related to ethnic, socioeconomic and other characteristics of pupils (Merry, 2020a and
2020b); rather than to promote equality, diversity and solidarity (or democracy) through education
(Friedrich et al., 2010; Meijer, 2013). Given this reality, it becomes tenuous to maintain that the
school’s political significance of creating a democratic reality for pupils lies in a (temporary) de-
politicisation of the school and of pupils (Snir, 2016).
Towards a ‘trusting’ educational theory of citizenship education
Ideally, a realistic and trusting take on the issue of citizenship education in schools would acknowledge
both the distinct nature and logic of the school within society, as well as the fact that excluding or
separating pupils from struggles they experience and denying their political subjectivity in schools,
undermines the school’s character and political potential (Snir, 2016). We therefore aim to explore a
synthesis between an approach to CE that considers schools and pupils as part of a broader democratic
logic and mission; and one that promotes school-internal democracy. Working towards a theoretical
perspective to CE that recognises and trusts both the political subjectivity of pupils and the political
character of schools, as well as the intrinsic worth and importance of education in schools, should
therefore endeavour to explore the intersections or the overlapping area of these approaches and
explore how these are nested in actual schools and classroom practices. In order to do so, we first
explore the theoretical underpinnings of both approaches.
Dewey
The seminal work of John Dewey, especially his Democracy and Education (2009/1916), continues to
serve as a source of inspiration for current perspectives on citizenship education in schools, including
the seamless enactment approach to CE (McCowan, 2009). Dewey argued that citizenship education
should always be embedded in ‘sound’ education, and that pupils’ elements or experiences of the political
and social world should enter the school, in order to improve them in the ‘real’ world. Often, references
to Dewey focus on his notions of experience and experiential learning for democracy and citizenship

95
education (Print et al., 2002; Wood et al., 2018; Maurissen et al., 2018). The theoretical assumptions
of Dewey have often been translated to a notion of schools as miniature societies or ‘practice’
democracies in educational research and policy of CE, where young people learn to be democratic by
doing: by participating in democratic practices such as decision making and deliberation in school
councils, classroom debate, service learning, etc. (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2012;
Council of Europe, 2010; Maurissen et al, 2018; Van der Ploeg, 2016). While these approaches tend to
promote citizenship education as something to be added to the curriculum, rather than as coinciding
with learning subject matter like Dewey argued (Van der Ploeg, 2016), these interpretations of CE as
‘learning by doing’ in schools often do rely on Dewey’s notions of democracy and experience. More
fundamentally, on Dewey’s (2009/1916) specific understanding of democracy as a process and the
nature of aims and ends in education (McCowan, 2009).
Dewey (2009/1916) sees democracy as a mode of living together (associated living) or ‘communicated
experience’. A democratically constituted society is characterized by two main traits: the recognition
and sharing of numerous mutual interests of different groups, in opposition to hierarchy, and a
constant readjustment for meeting new situations. Democracy is thus socially inclusive and socially
innovative (Van der Ploeg, 2020). In this undertaking, education plays a crucial role. Overall, Dewey
describes an organic relationship between both: education needs democracy and democracy needs
education, since the open self-realisation and development of individuals goes hand in hand with the
renewal of society (Van der Ploeg, 2020).
“A society which makes provision for participation in its good of all its members on equal terms and
which secures flexible readjustment of its institutions through interaction of the different forms of
associated life is in so far democratic. Such a society must have a type of education which gives
individuals a personal interest in social relationships and control, and the habits of mind which secure
social changes without introducing disorder” (Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 79).
Here, we recognize the pattern of according the logic of society at large to education, in order to
improve society (without introducing disorder). For Dewey, the aim of school education is to make the
improvement of democratic society possible by stimulating in young people ‘powers that insure
growth’ and the continuance of their education (Dewey, 2009/1916, p.43). This entails a specific vision
of the place and role of the school in (the logic of) society and how the world should be brought into
the school in order for children to be educated in citizenship. Dewey considers the school a specific
‘social organ’ that holds three important tasks or offices. The first is offering a simplified environment
to youth that selects fundamental features of the world in a progressively complicated order for pupils
to respond to. Second, is the school functioning as a purified medium of action: “it is the business of the
school environment to eliminate, so far as possible, the unworthy features of the existing environment
from influence upon mental habitudes” (Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 20). It is the school’s task to filter out

96
undesirable, bad or trivial traits of society for the young, in order to counteract these in the ‘ordinary
social environment’. Lastly, schools should offer a homogeneous and balancing social environment for
youth of any social, racial or religious background: by offering youth contact with a broader context
than the social group(s) they are born into, it can help them escape the limitations of these groups by
intermingling, and offer all a broader and new environment.
School should do so by targeting young people’s experiences, and the ability to think about and inquire
one’s experiences. For Dewey, experiences constitute both the means and the aims of education:
“Education is the continuous reconstruction and reorganization of experience which adds to the
meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience”
(Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 62). Schools should therefore provide in activities and learning processes that
speak to young people’s experiences and in which they actively take part, so they “may acquire a social
sense of their own powers and of the materials and appliances used” (Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 35). For
Dewey, this includes developing effective citizenship: a democratic society requires a type of education
which implies forming or educating young people as citizens, based on their present experiences and
how these are translated into subject matter. However, this is not a forming in light or pursuit of a
fixed ideal of the good citizen. The ends or aims of education can or should not be dictated from the
outside. For Dewey, any ideal accorded to (citizenship) education, if it is to have any real orienting or
practical value, should be grounded in facts, in what actually exists. Aims of education should always
be an “outgrowth of existing conditions” (Dewey, 2006/1916, p. 82) and should never be imposed from
without. That is, if we do not want education to be “preparation for a remote future and (…) rendering
the work of both teacher and pupil mechanical and slavish” (Dewey, 2006/1916, p.88). Here, Dewey’s
original approach differs from the ideal of seamlessness and harmonization it inspired, which promotes
the adaptation of the means of (citizenship) education to the nature of its overarching aims, rather than
to the specific context(s) in which it is enacted (McCowan, 2009).
Arendt
A different, and in certain aspects diametrically opposed approach to the school’s role in citizenship
education, can be found in Hannah Arendt’s writings on education and the school. Arendt’s
(2006/1961) seminal account of education and its position vis à vis change and renewal in her essay
The Crisis of Education, as well as her controversial Reflections on Little Rock
8
(Arendt, 1959), offer a
severely sceptical notion of the very idea of citizenship education in schools and of establishing societal
or political change by educating children. Her perspective on the role and position of the school as
non- or pre-political, as well as having a double responsibility towards the new generation and the
8
A timely and important critique of Arendt’s blindness to race and racism in her Reflections on Little Rock is
offered by Burroughs (2015).

97
world, has inspired school-internal notions of the relationship between school and democracy or inner-
school democracy by making things free of their normal meanings and use (Masschelein & Simons,
2015; Berding, 2009). Arendt would agree with Dewey that education is a crucial function for a human
world that depends on constant renewal through birth for its very survival. However, Arendt
(1961/2006) considers the function of education a double and possibly conflicting responsibility: a
responsibility for the life and development of children, to ensure that the new generation actually gets
its opportunity to renew this common world, but equally a responsibility for the continuance of the
world, to protect it from the possible destruction that comes with the new generation. Since the young
child needs to be protected from the world, his traditional place is in the realm of private, family life.
The educational task of introducing young people as newcomers to an existing world which they do
not (yet) know, lies with the school. Arendt therefore positions the school as “the institution (…)
between the private domain of home and the world in order to make the transition from the family to
the world possible at all. Attendance there is required not by the family but the state, that is by the
public world, and so, in relation to the child, school in a sense represents the world, although it is not
yet actually the world” (Arendt, 2006/1961, p.185). This aligns with Dewey’s notion of the school as
a ‘simplified’ environment.
The school, as a place of relations between grown-ups and children, where adults (teachers) assume
the responsibility for developing the characteristic qualities, talents and the uniqueness of children, as
well as for representing and conserving the world; is not a place for political action or speech for
Arendt. This is reserved for adults and (as) equals in the political realm: the sphere of appearance,
where everyone hears, speaks and acts from a different position, as equals, and reveal themselves as
distinctly unique. Children are no political actors, or should not be treated as political subjects. This
is why pragmatism and progressive education, for which Dewey continues to serve as one of the most
prominent thinkers, are ‘ruinous’ in Arendt’s eyes: by focusing on the experiences of children, and by
substituting doing for learning: “under the pretext of respecting the child’s independence, he is
debarred from the world of grown-ups” (Arendt, 2006/1961, p.180). By treating children as if they are
already political and equal actors, they are thus deprived of the opportunity to enter, share and renew
the world as newcomers.
The task of the school as representing of the world as it exists and introducing children to this world,
has been linked in educational theory and philosophy to the metaphor Arendt develops of the common
world as a table (Masschelein & Simons, 2013 and 2015; Pols, 2016, Pols & Berding, 2018): “to live
together in the world means essentially that a world of things is between those who have it in common,
as a table is located between those who sit around it; the world, like every in-between, relates and
separates men at the same time” (Arendt, 1998/1958, p.52). This metaphor has served as the
theoretical basis to describe an internally democratic role of the school, or a school-internal democracy
(Berding, 2009), by extending it to indicate how in schools, things from the world are being put on the
table by teachers, for pupils to get acquainted with and learn to relate to. This putting on the table

98
transforms these objects or things from the world into common things, freely available and
disconnected from the meaning and usages of the older generation, which means that “the young
generation is offered the opportunity to experience itself as a new generation” (Masschelein & Simons,
2015, p.88). This metaphor of the table can be linked to how we have discussed and presented examples
of pedagogical subjectivation in the previous chapter. The role of (teachers in) the school, according to
this metaphor, is “to teach children what the world is like and not to instruct them in the art of living”
(Arendt, 2006/1961, p.192). Therefore, prescribing to children and youth what a good, ‘competent’
lifestyle as a democratic citizen is, would for Arendt (and, for that matter, for Dewey) surpass the valid
authority of (citizenship) education.
For Arendt, the state has the right and the stakes “to prepare children to fulfil their future duties as
citizens” in compulsory education to ensure the survival of the common world, as well as “to prescribe
minimal requirements for future citizenship and (…) subjects and professions which are felt to be
desirable and necessary to the nation as a whole”. However, this involves “only the content of the
child's education, not “the context of association and social life which invariably develops out of his
attendance at school” (Arendt, 1959, p.55). This view of the school’s role in CE can be seen to align
with Dewey’s notion of the school as selecting and passing on fundamental features of the world as a
valid form of citizenship education in schools, as well as to integrate it into subject matter in schools
(Van der Ploeg, 2020). However, Dewey can be said to also rely on and promote pupils’ political
subjectivity, as well as the role of the school as offering a ‘purifying and balanced’ environment to
pupils from different backgrounds, where they can overcome the limitations of these groups and be
integrated in a common broader environment.
Arendt would disagree with both of these claims. For Arendt, the school adheres to the social sphere.
In this sphere, the right of free association should prevail, which is where the differences appear that
make out identities, and people form groups and associations based on these differences (such as class,
race, education, income, etc.). Parents should therefore be left the choice to decide with who they (and
their children) associate or group with, also in schools. In other words: who is brought together around
the table in a school, is of no business of the state or, for that matter, the school itself. Moreover,
according a role to the school for ‘purifying and balancing’, for Arendt means to burden pupils or
children with conflicts that are ‘common in adult life’ but which children should not be exposed to or
asked to handle. Children should not be expected to deal, in schools, with “the working out of a problem
which adults for generations have confessed themselves unable to solve” (Arendt, 1959, p. 50).
According this role to education in/and schools, as the means or the instrument to create new political
or social conditions, “encourages the illusion that a new world is being built through the education of
children” (Arendt, 1961/2006, p. 174). This denies to the new generation their own chance at the new
and takes away their opportunities for change, of undertaking something new and unforeseen, because
the idea of what the ‘new’ should be is already proposed and to a certain extent determined by the
older generation (Zakin, 2017). Arendt (1959, p. 50) therefore asks: “have we now come to the point where

99
it is the children who are being asked to change or improve the world? And do we intend to have our political
battles fought out in the school yards?”.
It is this final question by Arendt that indicates the urgency of a trusting theory for citizenship
education and schools in today’s world. For what the examples of youth protests and actions in the
introduction precisely indicate, is how the question for changing or improving the world today is not
(necessarily) being asked of or from, but by children and youth themselves because they feel the adult
generation is ignoring the question and not taking their political responsibility. Moreover, since these
questions have not been posed in the classroom or in the schoolyard but in the public sphere, they
illustrate Arendt’s own belief that what we consider as the distinction or line between adults and
children or youth should not grow into a wall that excludes them from the adult community ‘as though
they were not living in the same world’ (2006/1961, p. 192).
Towards a common ground: Pull up a seat
Building on Arendt’s metaphor of the table as the basic structure of the school, where cultural, political
and social elements of the common world are being put on, it now appears that imagining the school’s
pedagogic role in citizenship education as this ‘putting things on the table’ cannot go without
addressing who is actually taking a seat at that table (pupils), who is assembling around or bringing
things to the table (teachers) and what is put on it (school material or subject matter). Dewey’s account
of the school and CE offers elements that concern this issue of who is assembled at the table and how.
However, this is not to be considered a plea for putting all existing forms of social, economic, political
or cultural inequalities and differences that enter the classroom on the table, in order to raise awareness
about existing (or essentially insurmountable) differences (Hodgson et al., 2018). This could lead to
everyone being pinned down to one specific position or perspective at the table, according to those
differences, without having the possibility to engage with, think or speak about something that is
considered to be a thing ‘in common’ in the classroom.
Rather, it is an attempt to formulate how citizenship education in schools can affirm or create
commonality in practice, and provide “a space of thought, a way of speaking, an attitude that enables
the existing and the new generation to meet, talk with each other, and act together and in doing so to
(re)establish a relation with the world” (Hodgson et al., 2018, p.13). It is oriented towards what is put
on the table, as something to think and speak about, and relate to as a thing in common. This
commonality can be considered to be brought about by the act of putting something on the table in
itself: by concentrating on what is on the table and sharing it, existing differences between pupils (and,
we would add, teachers) are rendered inoperative or are temporarily suspended (Masschelein &

100
Simons, 2013) because the (shared) attention and interest is turned to what is on the table, not who is
seated around it. However, both Arendt and Dewey appear to indicate how pupils in schools never just
leave their own positions and experiences at the school gate or the classroom doors: this is never a
neutral or apolitical endeavour. Pupils are always encountering subject matter or elements of the world
in school, and responding to or interacting with it according to their own identities and place in larger-
scale power relation and positions (Snir, 2016). Depending on what is presented, discussed, and
brought into the classroom, pupils can relate differently to the subject matter and approach what is on
the table from a different position. Here, Dewey’s focus on the importance of inquiring and expanding
ones’ own experiences in school, comes into play. In other words: pupils should be able to introduce
their experiences with what is on the table, and how they already relate to it (or not). Which
characteristics are relevant to encounters with what is put on the table, cannot be determined
beforehand (Snir, 2016) and should therefore always be part of the assembling that is done around the
table.
This can thus help to develop a theoretical perspective on CE which also takes into account the seat
that pupils (can) take around the table as pupils, not which seat they would be expected to take because
of who they are at home or in society.
Citizenship education: a matter of principle(s)
In general, the two different approaches discussed above can be said to essentially build on democratic
principles, be it in different manners. The logic that describes CE mainly in terms of contributing to
democratic outcomes, positions these principles at the end of the learning process, or as the aims that
are striven for in CE. Schools should contribute to young people becoming citizens that embody and
defend freedom, equality, justice, solidarity, etc. and, in doing so, contribute to more or better
democracy. From a philosophical, pedagogical point of view, this is considered as a paradoxical,
somewhat ironic reality of citizenship formation in today's society: initiatives for CE, which want to
promote democracy in and through education, often have the effect of denying or neutralizing democracy
and the true democratic, intrinsic character of school and education as (Masschelein & Simons, 2010
and 2015). In this perspective, the democratic aspects of education are discussed following Rancière’s
description of a democratic moment (see Chapter III, p.65). A democratic moment is where the limits of
existing orders are questioned and interrupted and where a wrong or a dissensus is demonstrated in
the existing ordering, by making something visible, doable, sayable, that ‘had no business’ being seen,
said, heard, or done before. Such a moment involves a process of political subjectivation: a verification of
one’s of equality as a speaking acting human being (Simons & Masschelein, 2010). As we have
discussed in chapter III, this builds on or assumes another demonstration or verification of equality,

101
or an experience of potentiality, of being ‘able’: “to do something, to know something, to speak about
something” (Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p. 601), which was coined pedagogical subjectivation. For
Rancière, however, this equality (both in pedagogical and political sense) is not a goal or a destination,
but rather an assumption or opinion: a point of departure which can be affirmed, rather than achieved.
This is, for him, a logic of democracy: assuming the possibility of acting as if all are able to intervene,
act, speak and understand (Simons & Masschelein, 2010).
Applying this line of thought to the matter of CE, the common logic of pursuing democratic principles
as aims of CE, for example as forming citizens that ideally should learn to defend, promote and embody
equality, freedom, and equity; can be rethought by considering these principles as the starting points or
assumptions necessary for ‘good’ citizenship education, rather than its outcomes or results (Friedrich et
al., 2010; Masschelein & Simons, 2013; Hodgson et al., 2018). Rather than placing democratic
principles and values at the end of a citizenship learning trajectory (Lawy and Biesta, 2006), they can
then also function as the assumptions on which to build a truly democratic education, and as the
conditions which the school should aspire to provide: assuming that every pupil can think, speak, act
and learn (in this case: about citizenship).
Generally, two other principles are put forward in educational theory and philosophy as essential to
the intrinsic democracy of education, next to equality: freedom and education (formation) (Simons &
Masschelein, 2017; Meijer, 2013). The following sections indicate how, essentially, freedom and equality
serve as fundamental democratic principles that can be said to underly and reconcile external and
intrinsic approaches to the relationship between schools and democracy described above. The key to
developing a trusting theory of CE at school might then be provided by this common ground. This
perspective is further developed and illustrated, based on the distinctions and interrelations between
the pedagogical and the political discussed in chapter III and by further linking it to elements from
the manifest of the organisers of the school strikes for the climate discussed in the introduction of this
chapter. However, and based on these elements, I will add a third fundamental principle: fraternity,
which might be the most forgotten and underestimated (Puyol, 2019), but could actually function as
the most essential principle to think of CE. Building on all of these elements, it will be indicated how
external approaches and expectations to CE in terms of promoting democracy, can essentially be seen
to assume and rely on its school-internal workings and conditions.
Freedom
Based on the descriptions above, the principle of freedom can be considered essential both within a
school-internal democracy and as an outcome of CE for general life as a citizen in a democratic society:
both inside and outside the school, a person's origins and past should not determine his/her

102
opportunities and future. Freedom, from a pedagogic, theoretical perspective, is considered essential
to the educational process that aims to open up possibilities for (radical) change (Giroux, 1980;
Säfström, 2019) and the open self-realisation and co-determination of people (Dewey, 2009/1916).
Freedom in this sense is linked to Arendt’s idea of an open future, which Meijer (2013, p.123) sees as
the 'fundamental pedagogical idea': that everyone (and every new generation) has the right to choose
their own future freely and to give destination to one's own life. Freedom in this case thus means
freedom from hierarchy and forces of power (Säfström, 2018). Simons and Masschelein (2013) specify
this principle of freedom in their concept of scholè or free time, depicting the school as providing a time
and space where existing economic, cultural, social, political appropriations and usages are suspended
or temporally prevented from ‘working’, so the matter that is put on the table is set free and pupils can
have the experience that they can start anew with them (Masschelein & Simons, 2015). 'Free' in this
understanding entails both a positive and a negative meaning: free or detached from and free for. This
time is on the one hand detached from economic or social 'benefits' or meanings, and on the other hand
not to be limited or determined by origin or nature. Forces such as background, history, etc. do not
just disappear or are ignored, they are rather temporally prevented from ‘working’ or having an effect
(Masschelein & Simons, 2015) or determining in advance what pupils can or should learn. Freedom is
also central to Dewey’s notion of school education as an environment for escaping the limits of one’s
own group(s) and the ‘unworthy’ features of existing influences, so pupils can acquire a sense of their
own powers by studying issues or concerns “as a pupil, not as a human being” (Dewey, 2009/1916, p.
122). For Dewey, however, this means that the influences and positions that pupils know and
experience as a human being, are part of what is ‘put on the table’, studied and related to.
In the manifest cited in the introduction, Anuna De Wever and Kyra Gantois describe how what they
heard at school, what was instilled in them and how they were ‘prepared’, has led them to actually act
on what the attainment targets prescribe: ‘daring to show courageous citizenship’ (De Wever et al.,
2019) and how it was this education that has made them critical, willing and able to take the actions
they took. Here, the girls appear to indicate how their experiences with what has been ‘put on the
table’ in school, has made them experience they were able to start ‘anew’, and claim their right as
members of a new generation to choose their own future and destination freely. The freedom they
experienced in the classroom, thus appears to have made them believe in their political freedom to act
and demand for change, regardless of their position or background as minors who officially and legally
do not yet have a political claim or say. In this way, freedom appears to play a role in how the girls
describe that their political subjectivity assumes or builds on their pedagogical subjectivity as pupils.
However, and linked to the importance of taking into account who is seated at the table in schools,
they also indicate the importance of freedom as not having your opportunities and future determined
by your origins or past. Expressing how they view themselves as being privileged and white pupils in
educational tracks that will lead them to higher (academic) education, they share an anecdote in their

103
manifest about one of them engaging in a conversation with a teacher from a vocational education
school during a bus trip. The teacher, while talking to her, turns to her pupils to ask them if they have
heard about the climate protests. The pupils respond negatively, at which point the teacher turns back
to her and says that they (these pupils) are dealing with completely different things, a lot of them just
have financial difficulties at home. The climate is the least of their concerns (De Wever et al., 2019).
About this anecdote, the girls write why it ‘hit them hard’ and made them realise that they should take
their responsibility, also for ‘them’ (these pupils), because they experience so many chances and
opportunities. Here, we see how both the teacher in this anecdote, and the girls themselves, assume
that their own and these pupils’ backgrounds determine whether or not they are considered able and
willing to act politically for an open future or self-determination. The political subjectivation of pupils
thus seems to depend on whether you are assumed to be provided by your background with
opportunities for engaging and acting. Rather than making free, this thus seems to pin young people
to their origins, and pre-determine their possibilities for political subjectivation.
Moreover, when the teacher in this anecdote states, as a teacher, that these pupils are not concerned
with issues concerning climate because they are dealing with completely different things (such as
financial difficulties at home), this appears to indicate that pupils’ backgrounds also (pre)determine or
influence what is put on the table for them in school and what are considered matters that pupils can
engage with or learn. Here we see how the absence of freedom also appears to influence pupils’
possibilities for pedagogical subjectivation (as well as both pedagogical and political qualification and
socialisation). This is supported by research on CE, discussing for instance how the separation of pupils
into different ‘tracks’, which also largely happens along lines of socio-economic and ethnic
backgrounds, in schools continues to produce different educational experiences in CE for pupils in
more academically oriented and in vocational tracks (Merry, 2020a and 2020b, Sampermans et al.,
2017). This results in a situation where pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, who are often
overrepresented in ‘lower’ tracks, also ‘learn’ different notions of citizenship and are being
disproportionally and prematurely removed from the ranks of acknowledged (future) citizenship
(Merry, 2020a), because of differences in educational experiences and what is actually put on the table
for them in schools.
The principle of freedom (or its absence) therefore appears as crucial to the (im)possibility of both
pedagogical subjectivation and its foundation for political subjectivation. It also appears essential to a
trusting account of CE in school, that would prepare pupils for and acknowledge their ability to take
part in the renewal of a constantly changing common world, as well as recognize the vital importance
of allowing schools to be schools. Freedom holds a crucial importance in the distinct nature of the
school as bringing subject matter related to citizenship to the table and into play, making or setting it
free so pupils can engage and assemble around them, and become able to speak, think and engage with
it. It also indicates how excluding some pupils from this assembling denies them both opportunities

104
for their pedagogical subjectivation as; as well as having the political potentiality or being able to begin
something different as a new generation.
Equality
Freedom is therefore also strongly linked to a second fundamental principle: equality. According to
Meijer (2013), the idea of equality is central to what we call 'general education': the idea that everyone
has the opportunity and capacity to learn. Equality does not mean that differences do not exist, are
ignored or denied, but that everyone can learn something new, something different (Meijer, 2013).
This principle of equality goes back to what Mollenhauer (1983 in Meijer, 2013) presented as the
postulate of equality: in schools, young people should be treated according to the assumption of a
fundamental, human capacity for learning. Hodgson et al. (2018) broaden this notion to an assumption
of the possibility of speaking, thinking and acting together in education. According to Masschelein
and Simons (2015), this conviction that every student or pupil can be educated, establishes the school
as the ‘site of the symbolic visibility of equality’. This equality also appears as the central notion for
why Dewey considers education crucial for a democratic society, which must “make intellectual
opportunities accessible to all on equable and easy terms” (Dewey, 2009/1916, p. 70), in order for all
its members to be able to participate on equal terms.
In these descriptions, we again see an indication of how equality can be thought of as contributing to
both pedagogical and political subjectivation, and to how pedagogical subjectivation in school acts as
a condition for political subjectivation. This principle of equality applied to CE in schools can also be
linked to the open letter discussed above. As the girls indicate, at school, they have learned to inform
themselves, take advice and use discussing with other people as a touchstone for one’s ideas as part of
critical citizenship: they have experienced being treated according to an assumption that they can learn
to become ‘critical, courageous citizens’, and as part of that: think, speak and act about subject matter
related to citizenship. The school-internal notion of equality can be linked to how Dewey describes
the role of education a democratic society as making ‘intellectual opportunities’ accessible to all, in order
to make equal participation by all members of a democratic society possible. In this description, again,
political subjectivation is described as building on instances of pedagogical subjectivation in school.
The attainment target of CE the girls refer to (as well as how this has been described in the previous
chapter, see p.71), can be thought of as embodying a similar logic to equality: it is an expectation of
what all pupils (on population level per grade) are expected to learn, know and be able to do, and is
linked to their expected functioning as competent citizens outside the school. However, the letter also
indicates how equal ‘intellectual opportunities’ or being treated with the assumption that you can learn
citizenship in school, is not enough to actually be able to participate on equal terms as a citizen, or an

105
acknowledged member of society, on the contrary: the girls mainly denounce how politicians, policy
makers and other adults have ignored, ridiculed or denied the validity of the actual actions and claims
pupils have enacted based on the intellectual opportunities they received in school.
Moreover, the anecdote about the teacher and group of students from vocational education shared
above indicates how unequal opportunities or an assumption of inequality in schools disrupts the
possibility of being able to think, speak and act together about citizenship as subject matter. It can
even stop it from being put on the table altogether for some pupils, while the same (or similar) official
expectations or minimal requirements of every pupil needing to learn, know or be able to do certain
things, apply. This indicates how equality needs to be actively or consciously confirmed in concrete
practices, in situations where people are committed to it (Säfström, 2011), and not just be generally
assumed. For example, Agirdag (2020) describes colour blindness as a common way of how teachers deal
with diversity at school: ignoring ethnic differences (often between themselves and pupils) because
they are thought not to be relevant or not to matter in what is done in education. While this at first
sight could ‘pass’ as an assumption of equality, it has been found to not remedy but rather reinforce
and increase existing forms of inequality and prejudice in education and have (negative) effects on
pupils’ relationships and performance at school.
Concerning equality, a trusting theory of CE could then first of all build on the idea that actively
enacting or affirming equality is crucial in the relations between pupils, the teacher and citizenship as
subject matter on and around the table in schools. It also indicates how external democratic
expectations accorded to CE equally depend on such confirmations outside the classroom or school.
In both cases, this implies that existing differences and forms of inequality, both within and outside
the school, should not be ignored, nor be assumed to determine if and how pupils can be introduced to
citizenship and education in schools, or act politically as citizens in a democratic society. Rather, these
should be countered or suspended by actively committing to the assumption that all pupils can be
introduced to, and learn how to know, think, speak about citizenship in school; and receive equal
opportunities to act based on such education as actual citizens outside of the school.
Both in an inner-school democracy and democratic expectations accorded to education by society at
large, freedom and equality always tend to indicate a certain quality and assumption about how to relate
to one another. Moreover, as we have discussed above, they do not just happen and cannot just be
generally assumed ‘to be there’. The freedom and equality that we have described as being fundamental
for both pedagogical subjectivation and how it functions as a condition for political subjectivation,
appear to require conscious and deliberate effort, or commitment and confirmation (Säfström, 2011)
to be brought about. This applies then not only to the school, but also to the wider (democratic)
societies schools are part of, and in which freedom and equality operate as the main principles for the
free participation and sharing of mutual concerns of its members on equal terms (Dewey, 2009/1916).

106
Freedom and equality therefore appear to mean little outside of a community that acts on them
(Gonthier, 2000): be it a community of pupils who have nothing (yet) in common, created through
joint involvement with subject matter in the classroom and a shared experience of belonging to a new
generation (Masschelein & Simons, 2013); or democratic communities of citizens at large, assembled
around common interests. Perhaps we have learnt, both in political and pedagogical thinking, to
disregard a third fundamental principle, that can be considered as essential for both freedom and
equality to flourish in CE, as well as depending on them itself (Gonthier, 2000): fraternity.
Citizenship education: a matter of fraternity?
Fraternity is what determines and names the common around which a community assembles and
indicates the sharing of freedom in equality in relation to that common (Bergström, 2009). It describes
a relational bond between members of a community, which compels them to live as equals. It addresses
the reason(s) why people concern themselves with the freedom of others, or commit to treating each
other as equals (Puyol, 2019). Like siblings (we do not choose someone as a brother or sister) it
indicates how, in a democratic context, because of what is common, we treat others (in this case fellow
pupils or fellow citizens) with equality, show mutual commitment, responsibility and recognition and
provide help when needed, as if they are our siblings (but not in an affective or exclusive sense as would
be the case with actual siblings
9
) (Puyol, 2019). Building on the metaphor of brother- or sisterhood,
fraternity indicates not only a ‘horizontal’ relationship between (equal) siblings, but also how this has
an essentially intergenerational aspect to it: brothers and sisters have the same ancestors, so fraternity
“finds life in the desire of people to forge a relationship between the generations” (Gonthier, 2000, p.
573). Part of belonging to a community is to recognize a past (that connects the generations but is not
shared between them), and make a new future possible. It entails both a responsibility for the
community’s origins as well as going beyond its limits, breaking with traditions and initiating
something new (Bergström, 2009).
Here, we see a similarity between fraternity and Arendt’s notion of the double responsibility of
education underlying the idea of a school-internal democracy: a responsibility for the life and
development of children, to ensure that the new generation actually gets its opportunity to renew the
common world, but equally a responsibility for the continuance and preservation of that world. It also
resonates with Dewey’s reading of a democratic society as providing in the participation of all its
members on equal terms, and therefore recognizing and adjusting (its institutions) in answer to
numerous mutual interests and the open self-realisation of individuals, without introducing disorder
(Dewey, 1916/2009).
9
Puyol (2019) indicates the need to draw a distinction between fraternity as an essentially inclusive political
concept and fraternisation as depending on affective ties that, when implemented politically, risk leading to
authoritarianism, exclusion and violence.

107
In the open letter of the girls leading the School Strike protests, fraternity can be detected in how these
girls demonstrate, as a result of starting to engage with the climate as a common concern through
their (citizenship) education, a sense of being able (and invoked) to act in equality because of this
common. They appear to rely on a sense of fraternity (sorority?) that compels them to demonstrate
their disengagement with the existing social and political distributions (Masschelein & Simons, 2010),
and speak and act in reaction to traditions and conditions in society that consider them as unqualified
or not old enough to speak or act. By taking it upon themselves to call upon the new (and future)
generation, as well as the older generations (policymakers, (grand)parents and teachers), they appear
to call for mutual commitment to, responsibility for and recognition of this common interest: “we don’t
exclude anyone, we are the climate”. They refuse and reverse the traditional direction of the older
generation introducing the younger generation to an already existing world, by stating: “welcome to
our world, it is yours too” (De Wever et al., 2019). They also appeal to a sense of fraternity and a
relationship with the adults they address, as a basis to claim their right to start anew with the world:
“(…) because of power and interests that don’t have to do with us, but in the meantime decide our
future. We think we owe it to each other in this world to help each other, to think of just solutions” (De
Wever et al., 2019).
This intergenerational aspect of fraternity, the ‘forging’ of an intergenerational bond, appears to play
a fundamental role in the pedagogical subjectivation (and qualification and socialization) the girls have
experienced, and how this has contributed intricately to their political subjectivation. While they
address (and reprimand) politicians and policymakers for their lack of recognizing mutual interests or
responding to them by readjusting political efforts, they appear to experience the role and position of
teachers as members of the adult generation differently:
“Citizenship was instilled in us in school. (…) Policymakers like yourselves wanted to see us prepared
for what is coming. Interestingly enough, now a lot of open letters from teachers are appearing who also
see the link. We are just doing what the attainment goals prescribe us to do: showing courageous
citizenship. (De Wever, et al., 2019)
They indicate how teachers who wrote public statements in defence of their actions, ‘see the link’: that
young people experiencing an ability and entitlement to go beyond the existing traditions and limits
to make a new future possible (political subjectivation), is exactly ‘meeting the requirements’ of the
task of introducing pupils to the world of citizenship and democracy in schools. These teachers’ public
support for and confirmation of the pupils’ freedom and equality to act (politically) as a new generation,
shows how this apparent sense of political fraternity can be thought of as having roots in a pedagogical,
or scholastic, intergenerational link between pupils and teachers: the sharing and freeing up of a
common world (De Wever et al., 2019). Teachers’ role of putting something (subject matter or school
material) on the table in schools, is a pedagogical role of naming a common and assembling a

108
community of pupils around it that shares freedom in thinking, speaking and acting in equality in
relation to that common (Bergström, 2009).
The girls themselves appear to model their calls to adults to take their political responsibility and
commit to the common interest, as well as acting responsibly towards the new generation, on this
responsibility of teachers. For example, they compare the statesmen and -women of parliament, who
in their view refuse to act in the common interest because of entrenched disagreements and differences,
to ‘a squabbling class group in which teachers had given up’ (De Wever et al., 2019). This indicates
how they consider these adults incapable of thinking, speaking and acting because they refuse to relate
to the common world as equals, and hold on to their differences they bring to the table. In doing so,
they appear to the girls like pupils in need of a teacher-like figure: someone to install and share a thing-
in-common to relate to, which would enable them to start thinking, speaking and acting.
Fraternity can also be considered the underlying democratic principle needed both in education
(schools) and society at large to offer a response “oriented towards the actual persons we encounter
and the collective struggles they face” (Todd, 2011, p.509). When it is said that certain pupils ‘are
dealing with completely different things’, that ‘the climate is the least of their concerns’ because of
their background; or that pupils who are ‘privileged and white’ should take their responsibility, also
for these ‘underprivileged’ pupils; it appears distinctions are already being drawn between the pupils
that are and are not being counted as equal parts who can choose their own future or destination freely,
both as pedagogical subjects in the classroom and as political subjects or citizens in democratic society.
Their private backgrounds, what they are ‘at home’ appears to either in- or exclude pupils beforehand
as who they can show themselves to be (Todd, 2011), both as (part of) a new generation that assembles
around school matter; and as a part of the political community committed to common interests.
However, responding to actual persons and their collective struggles can open up our notions of
pedagogical and political subjectivation to also include the freedom and equality to refrain from
committing, thinking, speaking and acting (Biesta, 2020). Connected to the anecdote about pupils of
vocational education, their ‘dealing with different things’ or assumed disinterest, this could then also
be considered an example of how schools not only reproduce existing forms of inequality and
exclusion, but also other forms of being able to think, speak or act. In reference to Paul Willis’ famous
study of symbolic resistance of working class youth in schools, this opens up room for considering
how schools “reproduce forms of resistance too” (Johnson, 1979 in Giroux, 1980, p.356): or how pupils’
disengagement or disinterest may also be linked to pedagogical and political subjectivation, rather
than just a demonstration of disinterest or disengagement. This connects back to the issue of also
taking into account what seats pupils (can) take around the table, addressing the reason(s) why and
how the freedom of others, or treating each them as equals (Puyol, 2019) is enacted (or not). The
principle of fraternity may then be important for acknowledging these forms of subjectivation and
making them visible.

109
Discussion
In response to current lines of thinking about citizenship education in schools, this chapter presented
an attempt to rethink citizenship education in a way that respects and acknowledges the specific
pedagogical role and position of schools, as well as the political agency and subjectivity of pupils and
how both are always already part of a common world (shared with the adult generation) in which
power dynamics and relations are at play (Snir, 2016). This chapter therefore explored a synthesis
between approaches that promote a distinct school-internal democracy, and ones that consider schools
and pupils as part of a broader democratic logic and mission. We did so by looking for the common
ground between the theoretical accounts of Dewey and Arendt on the relationship between schools
and society.
In both approaches, the principles of freedom, equality and fraternity can be thought of as fundamental
for developing what was called a trusting theory of citizenship education: trust in schools as primarily
pedagogical contexts that introduce pupils to citizenship and democracy, as well as acknowledging
that both schools and their pupils always (already) are political. Throughout our argumentation, we
have indicated how the school-internal, pedagogical meaning and enactment of these principles can be
considered a prerequisite or foundation for thinking about the externally oriented role citizenship
education in schools can play and what expectations can or should be directed to other contexts and
actors involved in the opportunities provided to young people to actually develop and act as political
subjects. We illustrated how pupils’ pedagogical experiences of freedom to determine one’s own future,
suspending their background or origins by engaging with school material, influences how they enact
their freedom to pursue a new and different future for themselves (and their generation) outside of the
school. It was also indicated how pupils’ experiences of having the capacity or capability for learning,
thinking, speaking and acting about a thing-in-common in the classroom, ‘boosted’ their
demonstration of equality in the public, political domain, in relation to the adult generation. Lastly, we
illustrated how experiencing fraternity within the classroom, as feeling compelled to live as equals and
become concerned with the freedom of others, serves as a foundation for calling out adults in the public
sphere for not doing the same.
We have therefore indicated how, if we maintain that schools, through citizenship education, have a
crucial contribution to make to tackling societal and political issues (such as injustice or inequality or
a lack of commitment); then we should first of all appreciate and build on the logic and potential of
schools and education themselves to create an ‘inner’ democratic space. Such a space can be perceived
as a common ground that provides “a space of thought, a way of speaking, an attitude that enables the
existing and the new generation to meet, talk with each other, and act together and in doing so to
(re)establish a relation with the world (Hodgson et al., 2018, p.13). Based on this conclusion, the
tendency to simply see the school as an instrument that can be moulded and deployed in pursuit of

110
external expectations accorded to CE, can be considered as undermining the very conditions which
underly such expectations.
This text has mainly dealt with the context of the classroom, and the relations between teachers and
pupils and subject matter. However, the fundamental principles that are identified can be considered
to be important assumptions or starting points for making a difference in reality, for everyone involved
in processes and practices of CE. These should then certainly not be read as the sole responsibility of
teachers or pupils themselves. Rather, they could themselves be considered a common concern to be
put on the table around which all involved can assemble, and as assumptions to be committed to and
enacted: what if politicians, policymakers, researchers, curriculum designers, teachers, parents and
pupils themselves would consider democratic principles as the assumptions that need to be confirmed
and enacted throughout the different steps of CE, rather than its outcomes?

111
CONCLUSION
The central endeavour of this dissertation has been to rethink and to broaden the currently common
and dominant language of citizenship education (CE) in schools, as centred around the notion of
competence(s) or the development of young people’s civic and citizenship knowledge, skills,
understandings, attitudes, etc. We have indicated how, in this language, descriptions or justifications
of the choices made in the use of the concepts of citizenship, education, their relationship and
underlying normativity, are scarce or mostly limited to descriptions of what good citizenship is and
should be, founded in political thinking and research. What role the education in CE takes up, what is
considered good education, and how its relationship to citizenship is understood and conceptualised
from an educational or pedagogical point of view; is less frequently made explicit. Moreover, we have
indicated how this relates to a normative logic of seamless enactment in CE (McCowan, 2008 and
2009): promoting the harmonization of democratic citizenship aims, political outcomes and the
educational means to achieve them; but simultaneously ignoring, neutralising or instrumentalising the
specific pedagogical context and character of this happening though education in schools. However,
since a vital function for the health and wellbeing of democratic societies is accorded to our schools
through this CE, these pedagogical elements deserve more explicit attention. By focusing on the
educational aims and dimensions of citizenship education and by developing a logic of ‘good’
citizenship education from this perspective, we have aimed to contribute to the limited existing body
of (explicit) inquiry into the normative assumptions about the nature and aims of education in schools,
and its relationship with citizenship (Topolski, 2008).
In what follows, the different chapters will be compared and linked, in order to draw some conclusions
regarding the main question and title of this research project: is citizenship a matter of schooling? Four
central themes are identified, that span the contributions and main findings of the different studies:
thinking and speaking about CE as (developing) citizenship competences, the distinction between
pedagogical and political aims and principles of citizenship education, the threefold purpose of education
as qualification, socialisation and subjectification according to Biesta, and the logic of seamless enactment. I
will also indicate the main limitations of the conducted studies and make some suggestions for future
research, policy and practices in the field of citizenship education.
Citizenship-as-competence
Throughout this dissertation, it has been indicated and emphasized how the language of CE in schools
is currently constructed around the central notion of competence(s). This notion entails the idea that
young people should be equipped with a set of knowledge and understandings (for instance of political
and societal systems and institutions, modes of participation and democratic decision making), skills

112
(such as critical thinking, communication and co-operation and conflict resolution); learn to respect,
adhere to and live by democratic values and principles (such as human rights, democracy, justice,
fairness, equality, solidarity and the rule of law) and acquire the necessary attitudes, dispositions,
intentions and behaviours to participate as effective citizens in democratic society (such as being open to
and accepting of otherness and other views, valuing diversity, being respectful and empathetic, having
a feeling of belonging and commitment to the (civic) communities one is part of, etc).
The first two chapters have focused on how this concept of CE as developing competences is
constructed, measured and promoted in the texts and instruments of the ICCS study and in recent
European policy texts; and how this relates to underlying notions of good citizenship, good education
and their relationship. Our analysis of the ICCS study mainly demonstrated how its language and
methodology of measuring elements of citizenship and CE tend to reduce these to rather static aims
of preparing young people for their roles as citizens. This suggests that CE can be constructed and
measured as a rather straightforward learning trajectory, for instance by making use of predefined
answers and categories of ‘right’ forms of knowledge, skills, attitudes and existing or predictable forms
of good citizenship behaviour. In discussing the current competence-based approach to CE adopted in
recent European policy texts, we (similarly) found that the employed language of competence(s)
focuses on rather limited, predetermined and individualistic conceptions of democratic citizenship and
CE, for instance by presenting the main competences as a ‘toolkit’ of psychological resources that
young people should acquire (Council of Europe, 2018). Both contexts, as examples of policy and
research on CE, do emphasize that civic and citizenship learning is a lifelong process that unfolds in a
myriad of contexts and influences (peers, family, school, local communities and the larger political
context and climate of overarching norms and values), and that the ‘learner’ or citizen-to-be should
always be situated within these contexts, taking into account influences and ‘outcomes’ both in- and
outside of the school or classroom. However, we found that these aspects of CE receive less attention
in comparison to what young people are expected to do, learn and become for their democratic
citizenship through their schooling.
The final two chapters have mostly reinterpreted CE and developing citizenship competences as
educational processes. Based on the notion of pedagogical subjectification as being able “to do
something, to know something, to speak about something” (Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p. 601), I
have indicated how competences, often presented in terms of minimal requirements of what pupils
‘should be able’ to do, know, think, etc; (such as engaging in dialogue in an informed and well-argued
manner, or dealing with diversity and building one’s own opinions) (AVOHOKS, n.d.), are actually always
and essentially developing and unfolding in the relations between pupils, school material and the
teacher in classroom practices. I also indicated how, perhaps, the actual enactment of citizenship
competences as demonstrating political agency or taking political action, always requires a public,
political setting outside of the classroom. In chapter IV I have indicated how what pupils should be

113
made ‘ready and able’ to do as citizens (Schulz et al., 2008) or the contributions CE should make to a
better democratic society, are not only dependent on whether schools are doing their part by providing
time and space for pupils to experience the ability to think, speak, act and learn about something; but
also on what conditions and arrangements exist outside of the classroom for young people to actually act
and speak. Both in- and outside of the classroom, all contexts and actors involved in CE should assume,
confirm, enact and commit to (Säfström, 2011) essential democratic principles (such as equality,
freedom and fraternity) associated with ‘good’ citizenship and CE.
The final two chapters therefore provide insights that could contribute to a more extensive grounding
of citizenship competences as the main aims of ‘good’ CE, and broaden the self-reflectivity of the
contexts and actors involved in the different leaps or stages of CE. As we have discussed in the general
introduction, Dewey (2009/1916), p. 82) indicated how the aims we accord to education should always
be grounded in actual facts, as an “outgrowth of existing conditions”, if they are to have any practical
and orienting value. In the case of CE, this means that aims accorded to CE, such as preparing young
people to become ‘ready and able’ citizens in changed contexts of democracy and participation (Schulz
et al., 2008), or “ensuring that young people acquire the knowledge, values and capacity to be
responsible citizens in modern, diverse, democratic societies” (Council of Europe, 2018, p.5) should
therefore be paired with a reflection on the conditions that are (or should be) present in these societies
and contexts for achieving these aims. Future research and policymaking on CE could therefore pay
more attention to how they themselves are part of the (pedagogical and political) relational
arrangements in which young people develop and/or enact their citizenship (competences), and how
they contribute to the conditions and opportunities young people are offered for doing so. The actors
involved in different contexts can then, perhaps, pay more attention to the specific opportunities and
arrangements they provide for pupils to develop what they believe to be meaningful political projects
(or not).
Keeping in mind that contexts like the ICCS study (as a stage or leap in developing the language and
normativity connected to CE) are themselves part of the contexts and influences that young people
experience in the development and enactment of their citizenship (competences); can then assist in
broadening the lens and focus on competences to a more relational and embedded language of
citizenship education. For example, in sketching the changing contexts of civics and citizenship to
which the 2009 ICCS study aimed to help offer an answer by studying CE, it was acknowledged that
young people may increasingly be rejecting certain existing political practices, but also are becoming
engaged in alternative forms of political participation, such as social-movement related citizenship
(Schulz et al., 2008; Schulz et al., 2010). However, this insight was only limitedly translated to a larger
reflection on these contexts and influences to young people’s CE (or its relational unfolding), or to the
ways in which the study’s own criteria and content actually make room for pupils to express their
citizenship knowledge, inclinations and abilities (by means of the study’s assumptions and

114
arrangements). For instance, the shift towards participating in new, social movements appears to have
been translated in the study’s questionnaire to questions in which pupils had to indicate their
inclinations to participate in either conventional or ‘accepted’ formal forms of political participation
(such as voting or party membership), protest (participating in marches, collecting petitions) and
‘illegal’ actions or forms of participation (Schulz et al., 2010). However, how youth actually interpret
such social-movement related citizenship activities, or what would drive them in resorting to
‘alternative’ forms of participation and what political knowledge and understandings of society or
interpretation democratic principles, norms and values underly such participation; remains
unaddressed. With little room or attention for young people’s potentially different conceptions of
citizenship engagement and activity, developed in relation to their different contexts and experiences,
this can perhaps lead to a premature conclusion that youth are mainly disengaged or passive regarding
citizenship.
In fact, a recent reflection paper on future research projects for the ICCS study has indicated how this
critique has been taken up and translated to the intent to pay more attention to the importance and
relevance of including pupils’ own meanings and experiences of CE, by broadening the perspective and
methodology of the study (Veugelers, 2021). This paper indicated how the existing quantitative
research methods of the ICCS cannot catch the relevance of pupils’ own meanings, narratives and
possibly divergent interpretations and actions of citizenship (education), and concludes that more
open, qualitative methods need to be included. We therefore hope that the findings of this research
project can contribute to other such reflections in the future, perhaps also in other stages or contexts
of citizenship education.
This suggestion then simultaneously indicates some of the main limitations of this PhD research itself
and its own methodology. By only discussing and analysing policy and research texts and documents,
observations of classroom practices and educational theory, this dissertation did not actively provide
in conditions and arrangements for young people to develop and share their own conceptions and
experiences of citizenship education and acting politically. The only account of youth that was
included, was in the form of a written and ‘edited’ account of a published book/manifesto. This can be
considered a limitation to this research project and its focus on pupils’ (political and pedagogical)
subjectivation: perhaps all this talk about pupils’ opportunities and possibilities to act, think and speak
could have been accompanied, also in our own research endeavours, by more opportunities for pupils
to express their own views, perceptions and experiences. Speaking and thinking with pupils (and/or
teachers) through interviews or focus groups could have delivered much more information on how
pupils see their own development as citizens, how this relates to a competence-based model of
citizenship and CE, and what roles and conditions they experience in both schools and political and
public contexts and institutions for becoming active, participating democratic citizens.
Specifically in the third chapter on classroom practices, a more profound ethnographic methodology
could have been applied, avoiding some of the main pitfalls associated with (only) doing classroom

115
observations as the sole source of data, for instance the possible neglect of participants’ own
perspectives (Baker & Lee, 2011). However, because of the exploratory nature of this study and its
focus on unfolding practices, sayings, doings, and relatings, and on the overall normativity of
approaches of CE rather than on results, outcomes or the intentions, motivations or rationales of pupils
and teachers; the fact that no member checks were conducted was not considered problematic.
Moreover, this research project should be situated in the extraordinary circumstances that the covid-
19 pandemic has had on both the daily practices and routines of schools, as well as on doing research
in schools. Just weeks after finishing the observations, schools in Flanders went into lockdown and
contacting or visiting schools for additional or follow-up research activities became impossible for a
long period of time. Given the fact that this study formed only one part of the entire dissertation
research, and that doing ethnography is a very intensive and demanding undertaking, such an
investment of time was therefore not realistic or possible.
The pedagogical and the political in CE
The attention for the relational conditions of CE described above also has implications for a second
recurring theme: the relationship between the pedagogical and the political in CE. Throughout this
dissertation, the pedagogical has been used to refer to those aims, processes and practices having to do
with the education of young people in schools: the teaching, learning and interrelations between pupils,
teachers and content or subject matter in classroom practices. I have also emphasized the crucial
importance of pedagogical subjectivation for my understanding of the contribution of schooling to CE:
pupils’ experiences of an ability or potentiality, in dealing or engaging with topics or school material
in the classroom, that they can do something, know something or speak about something (Simons &
Masschelein, 2010). I have dealt with the political in a ‘weak’ understanding: as participation in a
community involving common action and imagination, that is not the outcome of but is enacted as the
starting point of education (Charles, 2016). The political in this sense has to do with the aims, practices
and processes of acting, speaking or intervening in the public (political) domain, in this case: in (a)
democratic society. These include: taking (part in) political action, influencing decision making and
demonstrating one’s equality to have a say, to act and participate. This understanding revolves around
the central notion of political subjectivation of young people or pupils in this dissertation, which I
understand as having to do with a ‘democratic moment’, as a ‘paradoxical identification with the
existing distribution of positions in society’ (Rancière in Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p.601).
In the first two chapters, I mainly analysed how current approaches of CE promote an instrumental
view of the pedagogical aspects of CE: as serving political ends and ideally being modelled on desired
forms of political participation. Young people’s learning or education in schools is considered an

116
important contribution to a ‘better’ democratic society by equipping them with the necessary
knowledge and understanding of society and of democracy, the skills to think, act and live together
with others constructively and peacefully, and instilling the main democratic values of equality,
solidarity, justice, freedom, etc. I have discussed how these approaches rely on a conception of schools
as ‘the place to be’ for such CE, because they are considered to function as miniature societies, where
young people learn to live together in diversity; and where young people can practice their citizenship
(Eidhof, 2016), by learning to participate in the classroom (for instance in classroom discussions and
debate) and at levels of school governance (by taking part in student councils). We have linked this
common approach to schools and CE to a logic of seamless enactment of ends and means in CE,
according to which, ideally, the pedagogical processes and practices involved in CE should be modelled
on and (ideally) coincide with the political aims it wants to promote (such as participation and
involvement in decision making).
In chapters III and IV I have, however, developed arguments for a different approach to CE: one that
emphasizes and builds on a distinction between the political and the pedagogical, rather than
promoting their ‘seamless’ coinciding. This approach considers the school as a playground of
democratic society (Masschelein & Simons, 2013) where citizenship, and political and social orders
become something to be studied, experimented with, and related to, rather than a miniature or practice
environment for democratic society. I have also argued that the pedagogical aims and processes of CE
in schools can (should) be prioritised and serve as a model for the political ends accorded to CE, rather
than vice versa.
First of all, our analysis of classroom episodes of CE in chapter III indicated how the political aims
associated with CE, namely: acquiring citizenship knowledge and skills, becoming a member of or
being introduced to existing political and citizenship traditions and institutions, and becoming willing
and able to take political action; assume or build on pedagogical processes and practices in the classroom:
on pupils’ knowledge, skills, understandings, etc. that allow them to be a pupil or student or to (do)
study(ing), notions of being a ‘good’ pupil or the norms and values of the school or classroom; and
experiencing an ability to know, to think and speak and learn something new, something different.
Based on this analysis, I indicated how not all political aims of CE were (and maybe can be)
demonstrated in classroom practices: the ‘ultimate aim’ of political subjectivation through CE,
understood as demonstrating political agency or the ability and willingness to take political action,
being able to speak, act and participate politically; appears to entail leaving the classroom and the
school and entering (or being allowed to enter) and speak or act in the public, political domain. For
instance, the pupils involved in organising the school strikes for the climate protests in Belgium
indicated how they, exactly because of what and how they learned in school about citizenship, political
action and democracy, felt compelled to take action outside of the school: in the streets, in political
debates, in the media, etc. (De Wever et al., 2019). Therefore, the pedagogical aspects of CE do not
appear as coinciding with the political, or as being purely instrumental to the political. Rather, they

117
appear as the foundation or condition for, and as distinct from their political ‘counterparts’. As I have
illustrated, citizenship education in schools should therefore be treated as a subject area that introduces
pupils to the world of citizenship and democracy and opens this up to be studied, discussed and related
to; but does not and should not aim to deliver ‘ready and able’ citizens (Schulz et al., 2008) just like
other school subjects do not aim to deliver athletes, mathematicians, linguists, historians, and so on.
In chapter IV, I further explored this role of the school in CE theoretically by developing what I coined
a ‘trusting’ account of CE: trusting and building on both a belief in the intrinsic, pedagogical worth
and democratic logic of the school, and a trust in the political abilities and potentiality of young people.
Here, I combined a school-internal theoretical perspective with an external perspective on the school
as mainly answering to societal and political expectations, and as part of the arrangements that
influence the political and societal roles and positions of pupils in a democratic society. Again, the
political in CE was shown to build on or assume the pedagogical, in this case by discussing how the
essential democratic principles of freedom, equality and fraternity serve as assumptions which should
be enacted, both pedagogically, within classroom practices of CE, as well as on political levels and in
practices of policy- and decision making concerning CE. It was even suggested that, perhaps, political
actors and contexts of CE should model their ways of dealing with pupils as citizens (in the making)
on the ways in which this is done in the school, by focussing on their commitment to or enactment of
freedom, equality and fraternity.
The distinctions drawn between the pedagogical and the political therefore offer a crucial contribution
to the central research endeavour of this project: rethinking the role of the school in CE today by
focussing first and more on the pedagogical aims and processes, instead of its political ends and
outcomes. Pupils can be ‘prepared for’ or introduced to citizenship in schools, but CE in schools does
not produce ‘ready and able’ citizens (Schulz et al., 2008) in and by itself.
Let’s return again, for example, to the goal of creating ‘courageous citizenship’ in Flemish CE policy,
as described and experienced by the frontrunners of the school strikes for the climate: they described
how their schooling formed them as critical people, with their own judgements and a willingness to
act, who are not afraid of wanting to change the world, and who confront the older generations with
how they have failed to take care of that world (Masschelein & Pols, 2019). Here, the girls appear to
indicate how their experiences with what has been ‘put on the table’ in school, has made them
experience they were able to start ‘anew’, and claim their right as members of a new generation to
choose their own future and destination freely. However, they also indicated how their experiences of
being able to actually enact their ‘courageous citizenship’ in the public domain, were entirely different:
meeting responses of different adults (politicians, policymakers, parents, etc.) that were often
dismissive, ridiculing or neutralizing their attempts to actually become involved politically, and to
enact the knowledge, skills and abilities they gained through their schooling.

118
Based on the post-critical notion that questions about ‘good’ education should be oriented toward the
good that is there, and toward the things that we cherish and value (Hodgson et al., 2018), we therefore
raise the hopeful (and perhaps optimistic) idea that these distinctions between pedagogical and political
contexts and processes can help us build realistic and ‘just’ expectations towards the school. Especially
in the field of CE, and the democratic hopes and expectations accorded to it; appreciating, prioritising
and building on the school-internal democratic character and logic of schools appears important.
The time, in any case, seems right for such a shift of focus. As we have indicated in the general
introduction, the current demands on CE as aiding in the global recovery from the enduring Covid-
19 pandemic (Unesco Institute for lifelong learning, 2021) not only displays new expectations towards
CE, but also indicate how we find ourselves in an exceptional situation today, in a positive sense. It
appears that the global school lockdowns have made us re-value the inherent worth and crucial
importance of (physically) bringing together pupils and teachers around the ‘table’ in classrooms. The
fact that the closing down of schools has shown an increase in inequality and achievement gaps
between students from different groups and backgrounds in society (Stantcheva, 2022; Human Rights
Watch, 2021; Grewenig et al., 2020; Dorn et al., 2020), perhaps indicates best how schools and
classroom practices still hold a potential for creating conditions of more equality, freedom and
fraternity. Therefore, if we truly want to take away lessons from this pandemic for our future
(citizenship) education, I would conclude that consciously investing in pupils’ pedagogical experiences
of freedom to determine one’s own future; having the capacity or capability for learning, thinking,
speaking and acting and feeling treated as an equal, as well as compelled to treat others as equals and
become concerned with the freedom of others; serves as a foundation for fostering well-being,
solidarity and the empowerment of excluded and vulnerable groups in democratic society (Unesco
Institute for lifelong learning, 2021).
Indeed, as indicated by Riddle and Apple (2019, p.2), such a conception of the importance of democratic
moments or experiences through education, aligns with a notion of thick democracy as what we might
strive for in our current times of seemingly omnipresent crises: “a view of participatory democracy as
based in daily practices in all parts of our lives as we interact to with other individuals to create a more responsive
and equal ‘we’”, including education as a crucial context for engaging with the ‘problem’ of democracy.
Undeniably, there is still a long road ahead for education itself in offering opportunities and
experiences responsive to all pupils and treating all as equals, not in the least in Flanders. The
democratic principles of freedom, equality and fraternity as I have described them, can in my view hold
important potential as touchstones for the arrangements and conditions provided in the different steps,
stages or ‘leaps’ of CE. Are all pupils and young people treated as if they can give form to their own
lives and future? Do they experience a trust or belief in their abilities to learn, think and speak about
citizenship matters in the classroom? And how does this relate to the ability they experience to act
publicly on these matters? On what basis are young people considered part of the community, both in-

119
and outside of the classroom (or not)? We think of touchstones here as “a source of inspiration or point
of reference in attempts to re-invent school practices” of CE (Masschelein & Simons, 2015, p.86), but
also research and policy practices of CE. These touchstones can then indicate the conditions which
actors in the different ‘leaps’ or stages of making citizenship education happen provide and how this is
a fundamentally relational given, in which every actor, political or pedagogical, has his/her part to
play.
Based on these distinctions and findings, rethinking the format of service learning can be a promising
lead for re-inventing school practices of CE. Service learning is mostly understood as a combination
of (theoretical) classroom learning and educational activities that take place outside of the classroom,
which simultaneously contribute to young people’s learning, reflection, and their social or political
engagement and participation. It is mainly based on the principle of ‘learning by doing’ (Van der Ploeg,
2016) and mostly done in collaboration with community partners, following the importance attached
to young people’s community participation as part of their citizenship and CE (Schulz et al., 2008;
CoE, 2018; Eurydice, 2017). Existing concepts of service learning often focus on forms of volunteering,
community service, etc., and thus imply a unidirectional ‘service’ of pupils and schools to the
community or context(s) outside of the school. However, we believe that service learning can also be
compatible with the idea of political subjectivation as political action, or a democratic intervention,
that builds on the pedagogical experiences of pupils happening in the classroom.
In such an approach to service learning as CE, the focus could be on contributing to pupils’ political
qualification and socialization in the classroom, building on their pedagogical qualification,
socialisation and subjectivation. Partnerships or collaborations can then be sought or set up outside of
the school, which offer pupils opportunities to undertake specific (political or public) actions in relation
to a specific interest or issue they have first studied and learned to relate to in the classroom.
Westheimer (2015) presents interesting examples of such collaborative projects that can be said to
offer pupils opportunities and openness to think, speak and act in relation to common concerns both
in the classroom and in the public domain. These projects generally involve pupils first choosing a
topic or issue that is of concern to their community or themselves (for instance, a group of pupils
choosing to study issues and illnesses related to poor air quality and pollution in their poverty stricken
community). Then, they are introduced to it, and study and approach it from different angles in the
different subject areas in school: for instance by studying the use of statistics in health research in
math classes, reading literature on urban poverty and the causes of economic inequality in language
classes and social studies, or studying how diseases are tracked epidemiologically in science classes.
Lastly, they collaborate with outside partners to establish some kind of action or change (for instance
publishing their findings in a peer-reviewed journal, or starting a petition in collaboration with a local
community centre to protest and prevent the building of a garbage incinerator). Projects along these
lines illustrate and confirm the distinctions and interrelations drawn between the political and the

120
pedagogical in CE. Moreover, they reflect a shared concern and responsibility for CE and the political
subjectivation of pupils by different actors, both inside and outside of the school. A crucial condition
for this concept of service learning as a model for CE is, however, to approach this ‘service’ aspect as
bidirectional: both from pupils and the school towards society and community, and vice versa.
Seamless enactment
The seamless enactment logic concerning CE has been discussed, illustrated and scrutinized as the
dominant logic underlying current approaches to CE, and has formed the main thread connecting all
the preceding chapters. Based on the findings and contributions of the different studies, some main
critical concerns and possible adjustments to this normative framework of CE (McCowan, 2009) can
be suggested.
First of all, our findings suggest that the focus on means and ends in this normative logic of CE might
better and more fruitfully be turned towards words and deeds: a ‘putting into practice’ or ‘walk the talk’
logic of enacting citizenship ideals, if you will. In general, all the levels of curricular transposition and
the policy cycle that we have discussed and studied, stress the importance of political institutions and
contexts in providing opportunities for youth to participate actively, become engaged and contribute
to societal and political change. However, through the logic of seamless enactment and its ideal of
achieving political aims through pedagogical means, in effect often only the responsibility of schools is
explicitly highlighted. The central underlying belief is that “it makes no sense for educational
institutions to on the one hand teach respect for democratic principles and human rights and on the
other to be run in a totally undemocratic way” (Council of Europe, 2010, p.28). But, if it would not
make sense for schools to be run in an undemocratic way, then why should the same not apply to the
other stages involved in the seamless enactment or transposition of citizenship education, which are
equally involved in this translation of democratic ideals and ends to means and the reality of CE? Little
options and openings appear in this line of thinking for holding other actors and institutions
accountable.
In the first two chapters, for instance, we have indicated how both the ICCS study and European policy
of CE tend to fall short of their own proclaimed aims or ends of CE, because they do not fully translate
these to their own language, set-up, methodology or frameworks. Chapter III has rather demonstrated
the importance of words and deeds by turning its lens towards sayings, doings and relatings in the
classroom, and has illustrated how political subjectivation as a goal of CE also requires words and
deeds in the public, political sphere. Chapter IV confirmed this, adding how pupils themselves can be
seen to call on the adult generation to practice what they preach concerning their citizenship and CE:
if they really want young people to show courageous citizenship, as it is translated towards schools
and pupils in the attainment goals accorded to CE (De Wever et al., 2019), they should also provide

121
in the opportunities for pupils to do so, as well as in appropriate political responses to the enactment
of young people of such citizenship. Connecting these findings back to the original framework of
curricular transposition of CE (McCowan, 2008, see general introduction), we believe that especially
this last aspect of young people demanding appropriate political responses from politicians and
policymakers, indicates how an additional pathway or relationship could be included between the
effects of CE (on pupils) and the ideals with which curricular transposition starts (see Figure 5 below
on p.123).
In order to establish coherence between words and deeds of CE, we believe that the contexts in which
ideals of CE are formulated (such as policy and research), should also take into account the effects and
the ‘real’ situations and conditions of CE they themselves call into life. After all, if McCowan’s own
belief is that “teachers and students are likely to perceive the contradiction between the democratic
aims (words) and the undemocratic nature of the educational undertaking (deeds)” (McCowan, 2009,
p. 88), then why shouldn’t this apply to the nature of the political undertakings involved in CE?
Therefore, adding this line to constitute the fourth side of the square of curricular transposition, should
not only be considered in the case of a high degree of integration of the four stages, as McCowan
suggests, but rather also in the case where this integration appears to be lacking.
More than seamlessness, striving for coherence and consistency between the different contexts and stages
of CE can then be considered as the main normative criterium for ‘good’ CE. ‘Seamlessness’ suggests
that educational efforts are simply means to achieve political or citizenship-related ends, which ideally
should dissolve in or coincide with the political altogether. ‘Consistent’ enactment rather suggests to
keep the character of these efforts in mind at all times, making them explicit and consciously
connecting them to political aims and ends, without having them coincide. This would reflect how
education in CE should, ideally, contribute to but not be held responsible for political and societal
outcomes. Coherence can also indicate how, in CE, the political and the pedagogical ideally can work
(together) according to the same democratic principles and towards the same aims, but each have a
different role and character in this process. Seeing CE like this can contribute to it being considered a
democratically shared concern, responsibility and a conscious effort of all educational and political
‘players’ or actors involved: not just schools, teachers and pupils themselves. This aligns with the idea
that educational practices (of CE) should not only influence, but also reflect the values of a society
(Tahirsylaj & Werler, 2021).
Truly ‘ambitious’ CE should therefore not just be treated as an issue of and for schools, but as an issue
for educational systems as a whole (Sampermans et al., 2017). This conviction is shared by the Council
of Europe (2017), indicating that “the key to making (…) citizenship education relevant in everyday
life is consistency between what we say about democracy and human rights and what we do to put this
into practice – be it at school, in politics or in society at large” (Council of Europe, 2017, p.25). The

122
assumptions and aims of CE should therefore be constantly questioned and tested, in a process that is
itself in line with the democratic aims it promotes and that does not shy away from ‘doing things
differently’. This suggests a possible new direction for formulating ‘minimal requirements’ for CE: as
dealing with the required opportunities and openness created for pupils through the commitment to
and enactment of democratic principles, rather than the results expected of pupils. This is not a plea
for an alternative version of a seamless enactment logic of CE: rather than promoting the image of a
seamless merging of the pedagogical and political aims of CE, such explicit attention to the principles
of CE would focus on the deliberate efforts and translations, and the conscious enactments of weaving
together the pedagogical and the political, without expecting them to merge harmoniously. Such an
approach rather traces and emphasizes these seams, with respect for the material and texture of both
the pedagogical and the political.
For example, CE at the Flemish level aims at pupils, amongst other competences, to become able to
“deal with diverse others constructively and respectfully; recognize and resist prejudice, stereotyping,
abuse of power and group pressure” (see Chapter IV, p. 64). This is something that is generally
considered important about democracy and democratic citizenship, and should therefore be put into
practice in CE. However, this putting into practice can be considered as important at many different
levels. The Flemish educational system, policymakers and other adults involved in CE can be
considered to carry a great political responsibility for achieving this aim themselves. Dealing with
diversity in a positive manner, fighting harmful stereotypes and prejudice in the classroom, can for
instance all be influenced by consciously investing in similar conditions at the level of teacher training
and recruitment, and by actively pursuing a teaching body that accepts and reflects the diversity of
classrooms and the general population in Flanders (Commissie Diversiteit Sociaal-Economische Raad
van Vlaanderen, 2020) or by allowing and providing in religious diversity in the organisation of for
instance Islamic schools. Recognizing and resisting prejudice and stereotypes can also be positively
influenced at the level of effects on pupils, when these are first of all recognized and combatted in the
school system’s own mechanisms of tracking and creating unequal opportunities and outcomes of
school education in general, and of CE, according to young people’s socio-economic and ethnic
background (Merry, 2020a; Agirdag, Van Avermaet & Van Houtte, 2013). This aligns with John
Dewey’s conviction that any ideal for (citizenship) education, if it is to have any real orienting or
practical value, should be grounded in facts, in what actually exists and as an “outgrowth of existing
conditions” (Dewey, 2006/1916, p. 82).
Finally then, a fruitful logic of enactment in CE could do with more attention for its own assumptions,
coupled to the ideals it aims to realise. Earlier, we have described the normative character of
educational research as including thoughts or indications about what could or should be ‘good’
(citizenship) education, its processes and its aims or outcomes (Tyson, 2016). Based on our findings in

123
the fourth and final chapter, we would, however, add that this all starts with the ways in which
democratic principles like freedom, equality and fraternity are included in both the ideal visions of CE
and, more importantly, committed to throughout the different stages of ‘making CE real’, both
politically and educationally. In this way, they form the assumptions that need to be enacted or
confirmed and thereby form the conditions on which citizenship education is built, rather than just its
hoped-for, ideal outcomes. What if politicians, policymakers, researchers, curriculum designers,
teachers, parents and pupils themselves would consider democratic principles as the assumptions and
conditions which they themselves need to enact in order to build ‘good’ citizenship education, rather
than its outcomes? These additional normative elements: principles and assumptions, should therefore
also be included in a representation of coherent enactment of CE (figure 5).
Figure 5. Adapted representation of curricular transposition based on McCowan, 2009
(Citizenship) education as threefold: qualification, socialization and subjectification
The analyses collected in this dissertation have the potential to contribute to (expanding) the existing
body of empirical ‘evidence’ of CE, which often builds on implicit theoretical and normative
assumptions about education and its relation to citizenship in schools. They also offer an (albeit
modest) empirical contribution to fundamental, theoretical accounts of citizenship education that often
remain rather abstract, unworkable or difficult to translate to educational practice and reality (Biesta,
2020; Hodgson et al., 2018). Both these theoretical and empirical contributions have largely built on
Gert Biesta’s famous triad or threefold framework of qualification, socialization and subjectification,
and its adoption and adaptations throughout the different chapters. Throughout the different chapters
we have, however, also encountered and indicated some of its main shortcomings.
First of all, we believe that the ways in which Biesta’s framework has been developed and ‘tested’
throughout the preceding chapters, can indeed offer a partial response to what Biesta himself deplores
as a currently dominant drive in educational research and policy: questions concerning measurements

124
and ‘evidence’ being prioritized over questions of what is actually educationally desirable (Biesta,
2010a). The framework provided by Biesta has proven itself to be insightful and having potential for
translating complex, normative questions about good education to an analysis of different contexts of
educational research and policymaking, as well as practices of CE. By adopting the framework, we
found clear references to all three aspects of qualification, socialization and subjectification in the
different contexts of citizenship education that were studied. Moreover, these always appear to be
interrelating and intersecting. The framework thus appears to ‘work’ as a pedagogical lens.
In general, we have seen how qualification is most dominantly stressed in CE, as equipping pupils with
the necessary information, understandings, knowledge, skills and dispositions to become good
democratic citizens: knowledge of democratic concepts, political, social and civil organisations and
institutions; of citizens’ rights and duties and critical thinking skills (Schulz et al., 2008), political
literacy (European Commission/EACEA/ Eurydice, 2012), and communication skills (Council of
Europe, 2010, 2018) are all considered essential to citizenship and CE. Socialisation is most directly
linked to societal issues such as the ones cited in the general introduction: CE as ‘battling extremism’
and instilling fundamental democratic principles in pupils as a response to terrorist attacks and threats:
equity, freedom, social cohesion (Schulz et al., 2008), tolerance and non-discrimination (European
Commission, 2015; European Commission/ EACEA/Eurydice, 2012), respect for human rights, rule
of law, diversity, etc. (Council of Europe, 2018). Moreover, socialisation through CE appears as the
crucial means for ensuring that young people feel part of different social and political communities
(European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2017), in which they should actively participate and
become engaged. As we have indicated throughout the different chapters, these aims of socialisation
are consistently connected to notions of ‘learning by doing’ or learning through democracy in the
classroom (Council of Europe, 2018) and democratic school governance in policy and research of CE.
Subjectification in CE is mostly described as empowering pupils to take action in pursuing
change (Council of Europe, 2018), promote their autonomous and critical thinking and learning to
take and defend one’s own point of view (Schulz et al., 2008) and their willingness and ability to
participate actively and take critical action when necessary (Council of Europe, 2018). As indicated
above, this aim was noticeably less emphasized in policy texts and the ICCS study on CE. The current
focus on citizenship and CE as competence(s) in educational language, thus does not give all three
purposes equal emphasis and even goes against Biesta’s conception of subjectification as the ‘core’ of
good education, with mostly this last purpose easily being ‘left out’ or subsumed under the purposes
of qualification and socialization.
In our analyses of classroom practices and developing a theoretical account of the role of schooling
through classroom practices in CE, however, subjectification was very much discussed and present.
This attention partially originated in the first two studies, through which we found that Biesta’s
descriptions fail to deliver an equally ‘realistic’ language of processes and practices of subjectification

125
in comparison to qualification and socialization, while all three domains are presented as always
overlapping and intersecting. Indeed, an interest in the subject-ness, emancipation and encountering
of the world is rather more difficult to picture than transmitting knowledge, skills, values, etc.; or than
introducing pupils to existing values or traditions (Biesta, 2013 and 2020). Arguably, this can be
ascribed to the domain of subjectification as being the most, and essentially, ambiguous and
contested/contesting domain. Biesta himself (2020) has warned for the risk of not being able to deal
with this complexity in our thinking and speaking about education as allowing restricted and
measurable concepts of education to do the educational decision making for us. In a way, the first two
studies of this research project confirm the validity of this warning (see Joris & Agirdag, 2019; Joris
et al., 2021).
However, Biesta himself simultaneously delivers little leads to work with for ‘dealing’ with this
complexity and developing a language of subjectification that is equally analytic and ‘realistic’ to be
able to discern and describe processes and practices of all three domains. Hence, the framework’s main
strengths of being accessible and enabling debate and alternative perceptions of what the aims and
purposes of good education should be, simultaneously appear to constitute its main weakness (as is
often the case): giving free rein to common approaches to CE to simultaneously adopt and adapt it to
their own interpretations and focus, without having to question these (Janssen, 2020). This
observation can be connected to both functions of the framework that Biesta proposes (Biesta, 2020;
Rømer, 2020): analytically, as an aid to discuss the domains or areas in which the practices and processes
of education function (Biesta, 2013), and as programmatic in the sense of discussing the purposes and
aims of (citizenship) education, or what it is supposed to ‘bring about’ (Biesta, 2010b).
Zooming in on the analytical applications of qualification, socialization and subjectification as domains
of educational practices and processes with equal educational value, I have tried to improve the analytical
strength of the concept of subjectification throughout chapters II and III (see Figure 3, p.48 and Figure
4, p. 75) by developing a language and ‘indicators’ for subjectification, which can allow it to be studied
or analysed on equal footing with qualification and socialization in future research projects.
Concerning both its programmatic and its analytical functions, all the advantages of having a ‘clear-
cut’ threefold framework, the analytical distinctions between the three practices, processes and aims
of education as presented by Biesta appear to suggest that these can be separated from one another,
and that subjectification is the essence of good education in and by itself. In chapter III, we have aimed
to indicate how all three domains of qualification, socialisation and subjectification rather interrelate
and build on one another, both in their pedagogical and political forms, but in the previous chapters (I
and II) we may have unwillingly ‘dismissed’ qualification and socialisation as equally essential to CE.
This was rightfully remarked by Ryen & Jøsok (2021) in response to the article on which chapter II
was based (Joris et al., 2021), indicating how our focus on subjectification cannot account for the crucial
role that knowledge (or qualification) also plays in taking us beyond the existing and its contribution

126
to critical citizenship, political action and societal renewal through CE. Indeed, subjectification cannot
be conceived of in abstraction of having knowledge and of existing relations to current social and
political orders and traditions.
In chapter IV, I have, encountered a limit of Biesta’s programmatic notion of subjectification as the
core of any education, thus including citizenship education, ‘worthy of its name’ (Biesta, 2010a). As
indicated before, I disagree with Biesta that in the case of CE as a subject area in schools, this should
always promote political subjectivation, political ways of being and doing or political agency.
Systematically pointing at political subjectivation as the ideal and only ‘good’ outcome of CE dismisses
of less visible forms of speaking and acting politically, including what I would consider essential
instances of pedagogical subjectivation in CE. Describing subjectification in CE in schools as processes
that “allow those educated to become more autonomous and independent in their thinking and acting”
(Biesta, 2010a, p.21), Biesta’s general definition of subjectification, is therefore more in line with our
approach to CE as contributing to pupils’ political subjectivation through citizenship education as
pedagogic subjectivation. Also because, in my view, a focus on political subjectivation through CE can
still bring thinking about CE back to the logic of seamless enactment, albeit via an educational
theoretical detour: in the end, what ‘good’ citizenship education in schools is supposed to bring about,
is still solely determined by political and not educational principles or aims and can therefore easily be
dictated on solely political terms, undermining the essential aim of this triad as making it possible and
easier to discuss about good education, from an educational perspective.
Closing thoughts
Is citizenship a matter of schooling? The different chapters of this dissertation have endeavoured to
illustrate how schools and schooling can and do play a crucial part in young people’s citizenship
education, by creating opportunities for pupils for experiencing the ability to engage with, think and
talk about matters related to citizenship, democracy and democratic society. This appears as a crucial
foundation for acting politically as citizens in the public, political domain, but cannot and should not
be seamlessly modelled on or deployed for political aims and ideals of ‘good’ citizenship. Rather, since
the essential processes and practices CE builds on are pedagogical, these offer an equally (if not more)
important point of departure for thinking about what schooling can do, and what are and remain
political responsibilities in offering citizens ample room and opportunity for genuine participation and
striving for democratic change.
The classroom is not the place for political action, nor should it be presented as such. This could, in
my view, only lead to a further demining of the political potential and engagement of youth who, when
actually entering the public political field, are met with the idea that they remain ‘citizens in waiting’

127
(Heggart et al., 2018). Moreover, the common presentation of schools and classrooms as the time and
space par excellence where (all) young people come together, and experience opportunities to think,
speak and act politically, as equals, contradicts sociological empirical evidence and accounts of how
schools remain institutions where pupils from different groups in society, with different backgrounds,
remain to be treated unequally and are being ‘tracked’ towards different future perspectives, both in
terms of their professional lives, citizenship conceptions and participation (Merry, 2020a).
However, where these accounts of the relationship between education and schools mainly (and
rightfully) focus on what CE fails to do or provide in relation to prescriptions and notions of good
citizenship education, this dissertation project has chosen to rather turn its lens towards what
education in schools can, is able to do and does enable or provide. This is founded on the post-critical
notion of starting educational inquiries not in deploring what not-yet is or what is feared and
condemned about the present state of the world (or education in schools), but rather in orienting itself
toward the good that is there, and the things that we cherish and value (Hodgson et al., 2018).
Additionally, a post-critical approach sees value in the assumptions, rather than in imagined outcomes
of education: what if we explore the consequences of what would be possible if we assumed democratic
principles and values associated with good citizenship (education), such as pupils being equal, free and
able to think, speak and act, instead of having to be ‘made’ so through education? What if pupils being
part of a community that shares freedom in thinking, speaking and acting as equals were the starting point
instead of the finish line? (Friedrich et al., 2010, 575). Rather than discussing citizenship education in
schools in terms of their institutional character and its outcomes, I have therefore directed my
attention towards how pedagogical practices and processes of schooling can and should enact such
principles in classrooms.
Such an exploration of assumptions can, in my view, make a pedagogical contribution to the existing
field of citizenship education studies, which I have positioned in the general introduction to this
dissertation between critical and post-critical pedagogy (p. 14-16). In line with critical pedagogy, such
a pedagogical approach should both strive to contribute to educational changes which are committed
to building a better society, by contributing to experiences for all youth of feeling able, accepted, and
free to think, speak, and act in pedagogical interactions in the classroom, and politically outside of the
school. In line with post-critical pedagogy, however, I firmly believe that such a contribution should
not be modelled beforehand on political aims and prescribed outcomes, but rather on pedagogical aims
and purposes in our thinking and speaking about CE.
How can such attention and prioritizing of the pedagogical be better established within existing
citizenship education research? Based on the different studies in this dissertation, their findings as well
as their limits, and the conclusions formulated across the different studies; several angles for possible
follow-up research can be formulated. First, I believe the central concepts of the conducted studies,

128
especially subjectivation and the distinction between pedagogical and political subjectivation, require
further elaboration and clarification. Whereas this dissertation has been an attempt study citizenship
education (CE) from a pedagogical normative perspective, and to introduce a pedagogical manner of
thinking and speaking about CE; the conceptual framework I have been working with has still
remained mostly abstract and complex. I therefore believe that there is still work to be done in order
to arrive at 'workable' forms of these concepts, which can actually play a role in thinking and speaking
about CE in (further) research and policy, and about the actions of teachers and pupils in the classroom.
To clarify these central notions of pedagogical and political subjectivation, and to move beyond
abstract and theoretical thinking, a phenomenological study of the nature or essence of subjectivating
experiences in school offers an interesting possible undertaking. What does it actually mean to
experience pedagogical subjectivation as a pupil? How does this relate to an experience of political
subjectivation, and what does such an experience consist of? What does it mean as a teacher to (want
to) make subjectivating experiences possible? Such a pedagogical study of everyday, lived experiences
of BV and subjectivation cannot, according to Van Manen (2016/1997), be separated from practical
(hermeneutic) writing about the meaning and significance of such experiences. The potential
contribution of this kind of research would therefore be twofold: investigating lived experiences of
subjectivation in/and pedagogical acts at school, and making them insightful and vivid (rather than
theoretical and abstract). This could be done by focusing exactly on what was missing so far in this
dissertation, as described earlier (p.117): conditions and arrangements for young people to develop
and share their own conceptions and experiences of citizenship education. Central to such an approach
would be, on the one hand, more and more focused observations of CE classroom practices, and
interviews and conversations with students and teachers on the other hand.
A second track, that was also mentioned earlier (p.122), is to further explore through empirical study
how service learning can be reimagined and practiced as a process of CE: one in which both learners put
themselves ‘in service' of a particular issue or theme that appeals to them or concerns them; and in
which (local) political and social partners simultaneously provide their services to these projects and
pupils. Here one can think of setting up or documenting projects in which pupils themselves choose a
particular issue to study and work on in school, and then also organize actions for in order to establish
some kind of change. Following, among others, Westheimer's (2015) existing, detailed descriptions of
such projects and their relationship to CE in the US, or Zygnier's (2007) in Australia, this line of
follow-up research could focus on how political subjectivation as acting or taking action through CE
can become possible in these kinds of projects, and how this may or may not build on or relate to what
and how students and their teachers (study) in the classroom, or their pedagogical experiences. Such
a study could then consist of observing, describing and analyzing such a complete process: classroom
observations, following students in meetings, visits, research activities and actions, etc. Additional
interviews with students, teachers, and the partners involved could then also provide more depth to
and a better understanding of political and pedagogical subjectivation.

129
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, this doctoral research can hopefully spark or ignite more
transdisciplinary work between the different strands of citizenship education research. As mentioned
on p.117, our analysis of the ICCS research was previously cited as contributing to the idea of
broadening the methods of this research in future projects, so that the opinions, narratives and
experiences of young people themselves can also be documented (Veugelers, 2021). This kind of cross-
fertilization between the developed school-pedagogical perspective of CE and what I have called
'dominant' research on CE, seems to me an important and possibly fruitful road to explore in follow-
up research. I firmly believe that more pedagogical versus political or sociological approaches to the
topic of CE can mutually complement and strengthen one another by means of the different ‘lenses’ or
outlooks they adopt. Rather than being mutually exclusive, different approaches can therefore (and
have) indicate the limits of the other lenses, or their blind spots. Reversely, by each having different
strengths, zooming in on different aspects or layers of the ‘essence’ of CE, they can cooperate to form
a more complete picture and identify possibilities for change and improvement. Whereas sociological
and political approaches to CE stress its political normativity, and how it is mainly a political
undertaking, I hope this dissertation can therefore contribute to the recognition that it is also, and
foremost, a pedagogical undertaking and that its pedagogical assumptions and aspects deserve at least
equal consideration. For, while undeniably also in need of change and improvement, it is through these
aspects that schools are able to deliver the best possible foundation for children and youth to become
active and engaged democratic citizens.

130
REFERENCES
Agentschap voor Hoger Onderwijs, Volwassenenonderwijs, Kwalificaties en Studietoelagen
[AVOHOKS], (n.d.). https://onderwijsdoelen.be/uitgangspunten/4647
Agirdag, O. (2020). Onderwijs in een gekleurde samenleving. Berchem: Epo.
Agirdag, O., Van Avermaet, P., & Van Houtte, M. (2013). School segregation and math
achievement: A mixed-method study on the role of self-fulfilling prophecies. Teachers College
record, 115(3), 1-50. doi:10.1177/016146811311500305
Agirdag, O. & Van Houtte, M. (2011). A tale of two cities: Bridging families and schools.
Educational Leadership, 68(8), 42–46.
Ainley, J., Schulz, W. & Friedman, T. (2013). ICCS 2009 Encyclopedia Approaches to civic and citizenship
education around the world. Amsterdam: IEA.
Amkreutz, R. (2017, August 30). Burgerschap wordt vak op school. De Morgen.
https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/burgerschap-wordt-vak-op-school~bc46d88d/
Apple, M.W. (1979). Ideology and curriculum. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Arendt, H. (1959). Reflections on Little Rock. Dissent, 6(1), 45-56.
Arendt, H. (1998). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work
published 1958)
Arendt, H. (2006). Between past and future. Eight exercises in political thought. Sabon: Penguin books.
(Original work published 1961)
Avery, H. & Wihlborg, M. (2013). Teachers’ Interpretation of Bildung in Practice: Examples from
Higher Education in Sweden and Denmark. Journal of Learning Development in Higher
Education, (5), 1-20. doi: 10.47408/jldhe.v0i5.152
Baker, A. A., & Lee, J. J. (2011). Mind the Gap: Unexpected Pitfalls in Doing Classroom Research.
The Qualitative Report, 16(5), 1435-1447. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2011.1307
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2004). Diversity and citizenship education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

131
Bellamy, R. (2008). Evaluating Union citizenship: Belonging, rights and participation within the EU.
Citizenship Studies, 12(6), 597–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020802450676
Berding, J. (2009). Het onmeetbare handelen. Hannah Arendt over de fragiliteit van de opvoeding.
Pedagogiek, 29(2), 140-154.
Berding, J. (2018). Hannah Arendt on education [online feature]. https://medium.com/quote-of-the-
week/hannah-arendt-on-education-29efe797fd0d
Bergstrom. (2009). The Universal Right to Education: Freedom, Equality and Fraternity. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 29(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-009-9174-y
Biesta. (2006). Beyond learning: democratic education for a human future. Paradigm.
Biesta, G. (2008). Good education in an age of measurement: On the need to reconnect with the
question of purpose in education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1),
33–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9064-9
Biesta, G. (2009). What kind of citizenship for European higher education? Beyond the competent
active citizen. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 8(2): 146–158.
https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.146
Biesta, G. (2010a). A new logic of emancipation: The methodology of Jacques Rancière. Educational
Theory, 60(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2009.00345.x
Biesta, G. (2010b). Good education in an age of measurement. Ethics, Politics, Democracy. Boulder:
Paradigm.
Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning, and the politics of
citizenship. Rotterdam: SensePublishers.
Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. (2015). Goed onderwijs, functioneel of disfunctioneel? Over de school als oefenplaats voor
volwassenheid. In R. In ’t Veld (Ed.), De Echte Dingen. Essays over de kwaliteit van het
onderwijs. Amsterdam: Gopher B.V. http://vlaamsemasterclassvoorlerarenopleiders.
weebly.com/uploads/6/1/9/5/61951699/de_echte_dingen_-_essays_over_de_kwaliteit_
van_onderwijs_e-book.pdf

132
Biesta, G. (2020). Risking Ourselves in Education: Qualification, Socialization, and Subjectification
Revisited. Educational theory, 70(1), 89-104. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/edth.12411
Biesta, G.J.J. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political understanding of
democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 740-769.
Biesta, G. & Simons, M. (2009). Higher education and European citizenship as a matter of public
concern. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 8(2), 142–145.
https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.142
Bîrzéa, C., Kerr, D., Mikkelsen, R., et al. (2004). All European study on education for democratic
citizenship policies. Strasbourg. Council of Europe Publishing.
Bourdillon, M., Levison, D., Myers, W., & White, B. (2010). Raising questions, questioning the
answers. In Rights and Wrongs of Children's Work. Rutgers University Press.
Brooks, R.. M.. & Holford, J. A. K. (2009). Citizenship, learning and education: Themes and issues.
Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 85-103. doi: 10.1080/13621020902749027
Burroughs. (2015). Hannah Arendt, “Reflections on Little Rock,” and White Ignorance. Critical
Philosophy of Race, 3(1), 52–78. https://doi.org/10.5325/critphilrace.3.1.0052
Carter, D. (2019). Restoring purpose: applying Biesta’s three functions to the Melbourne
Declaration. Curric Perspect, 39, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-019-00086-0
Charles, M. (2016). Being taught by Biesta. Pedagogy, Culture & Society 24(3), p.473-479.
Commissie Diversiteit Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen (2020). Advies. Diversiteit binnen het
onderwijzend personeel. Brussel. https://publicaties.vlaanderen.be/view-file/38452
Council of Europe (2010) Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human
Rights Education: Recommendation CM/rec (2010) adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe on 11 May 2010 and explanatory memorandum. Strasbourg: Council of Europe
Publishing.
Council of Europe (2016). Competences for democratic culture. Living together as equals in culturally diverse
democratic societies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.

133
Council of Europe (2017) Learning to live together. Council of Europe report on the state of citizenship and
human rights education in Europe. June. https://rm.coe.int/the-state-of-citizenship-ineurope-e-
publication/168072b3cd
Council of Europe (2018) Reference framework of competences for democratic culture. Volume 1: Context,
concepts and models. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights (2017). Fighting school segregation in Europe
through inclusive education: a position paper. https://rm.coe.int/fighting-school-segregationin-
europe-throughinclusive-education-a-posi/168073fb65
Council of the European Union (2018, January 22). EU priorities for cooperation with the Council of
Europe in 2018–2019. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/eu-priorities-
cooperation-coe-2018-2019_en.pdf
Crevits, H. (2016, April 11). Europees kader voor burgerschap en democratische waarden in het
onderwijs, van Reykjavik tot Athene. https://www.hildecrevits.be/nieuws/europees-kader-
voor-burgerschap-en-democratische-waarden-in-het-onderwijs-van-reykjavik-tot-athene/
De Koning, A., Jaffe, R., & Koster, M. (2015). Citizenship agendas in and beyond the nation-state:
(en)countering framings of the good citizen. Citizenship studies, 19(2), 121-127.
doi:10.1080/13621025.2015.1005940
De Wever, A., Gantois, K. & Olyslaegers, J. (2019). Wij zijn het klimaat: een brief aan iedereen.
Antwerpen: De Bezige Bij.
Delanty, R. (1998). Dilemmas of citizenship: Recent literature on citizenship and Europe. Citizenship
Studies, 2(2), 353–358. https://doi.org/10.1080/1362102980842068
Dewey, J. (2009). Democracy and education. Merchant Books. (Original work published 1916)
Dimitrov, G. & Boyadjieva, P. (2009). Citizenship education as an instrument for strengthening the
state’s supremacy: An apparent paradox? Citizenship Studies, 13(2): 153–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731165

134
Dorn, E., Hancock, B., Sarakatsannis, J. and Viruleg, E. (2020, June 1). COVID-19 and student learning
in the United States: The hurt could last a lifetime. https://www.mckinsey.com/ industries/
education/our-insights/covid-19-and-student-learning-in-the-united-states-the-hurt-could-
last-a-lifetime
Eidhof, B. (2016). Influencing youth citizenship. [Doctoral dissertation]
Eidhof, B. B. F., ten Dam, G. T. M., Dijkstra, A. B., & van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2016). Consensus
and contested citizenship education goals in Western Europe. Education, citizenship and social
justice, 11(2), 114-129. doi:10.1177/1746197915626084
Emler, N.& Frazer, E. (1999) Politics: The education effect. Oxford Review of Education, 25(1–2), 251–
273. https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104242
Esterberg, K.G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston: McGraw-Hill
European Commission (2015) Declaration on Promoting citizenship and the common values of freedom,
tolerance and non-discrimination through education. Paris. https://www. participation-
citoyenne.eu/sites/default/files/cck-files-official-documents/2015-3-10_declaration_en.pdf
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2012) Citizenship Education in Europe. Brussels:
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.
European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2017) Citizenship education at school in Europe – 2017.
Eurydice Report. October. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) (2021). Implementation of citizenship education
actions in the EU European Implementation Assessment. Brussels: European Union.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/694207/EPRS_STU(2021)
694207_EN.pdf
Eurydice Belgium (2020, January 17). Flanders introduces new attainment targets. https://eacea.ec.
europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/flanders-introduces-new-attainment-
targets_en

135
Fischman, G.E. & Haas, E. (2014) Moving beyond idealistically narrow discourses in citizenship
education. Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 387–402. https://doi.org/10.2304/
pfie.2014.12.3.387
Fraillon, J. & Schulz, W. (2008). Concept and design of the International Civic and Citizenship Education
Study [Presentation Paper]. https://iccs.acer.org/files/ICCSConcept--Design-
Paper(AERA2008).pdf.
Friedrich, D., Jaastad, B. & Popkewitz, T. S. (2010). Democratic Education: An (im)possibility that
yet remains to come. Educational Philosophy and theory, 42(5-6), 571-587.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00686.x
Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., & Dam, G. t. (2013). Review of the effects of citizenship
education. Educational research review, 9, 158-173. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2012.02.001
Gifford, C., Gonçalves, S., Wolodzko, E., & Gocsal, A. (2010). Post-national citizenship and higher
education in the European Union. European Political Science, 9(3): 341–357.
https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2010.14
Giroux, H.A. (1980). Critical theory and Rationality in Citizenship Education. Curriculum Inquiry,
10(4), 329-366. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1980.11075229
Gonthier. (2000). Liberty, equality, fraternity: the forgotten leg of the trilogy or fraternity, the
unspoken third pillar of democracy. McGill Law Journal, 45(3), 568.
Graham, C. & Neu, D. (2004). Standardized testing and the construction of governable persons.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 295-319. doi:10.1080/0022027032000167080
Grewenig, E., Lergetporer, P., Werner, K., Woessmann, L. and Zierow, L. (2020). Covid-19 and
Educational Inequality: How School Closures Affect Low- and High-Achieving Students. CESifo
working paper. Munich: CESifo. https://www.cesifo.org/en/publikationen/2020/ working-
paper/covid-19-and-educational-inequality-how-school-closures-affect-low
Heater, D. (2002). The history of citizenship education: A comparative outline. Parliamentary Affairs,
55(3): 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1093/parlij/55.3.457
Heater, D.B. (1999). What is Citizenship?. Cambridge: Polity Press.

136
Hodgson, N. (2008). Citizenship education, policy, and the educationalization of educational
research. Educational theory, 58(4), 417-434. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00297.x
Hodgson, N. (2016) Citizenship for the Learning Society. Europe, Subjectivity, and Educational Research.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Hodgson, N., Vlieghe, J., & Zamojski, P. (2018). Education and the love for the world: Articulating a
post-critical educational philosophy. Foro de educación, 16(24), 7-20. doi:10.14516/fde.576
Holford, J. (2008). Hard measures for soft stuff: Citizenship indicators and educational policy under
the Lisbon strategy. European Educational Research Journal, 7(3), 331-343.
doi:10.2304/eerj.2008.7.3.331
Human Rights Watch (2021, May 17). Years Don’t Wait for Them. Increased Inequalities in the Right to
Education Due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/05/17/ years-
dont-wait-them/increased-inequalities-childrens-right-education-due-covid
Hummrich, M. (2018). Education for Europe? Professionalization between effectiveness and
autonomy. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 17(6), 784–792.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117705502
Hyslop-Margison, E.J., Hamalian, A., & Anderson, G. (2006). A critical examination of empirical
research: the case of citizenship education. Theory and Research in Social Education, 34, 395-
407. doi: 10.1080/00933104.2006.10473314
Ioannidou, A. (2007) A comparative analysis of new governance in the transnational educational
space: A shift to knowledge-based instruments? European Educational Research Journal EERJ,
6(4), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.4.336
Ioannidou, A. (2007). A Comparative analysis of new governance in the transnational educational
space: A shift to knowledge-based instruments? European Educational Research Journal EERJ,
6, 336-347. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2007.6.4.336
Janssen, F. (2020, March 4). Biesta’s drieslag als een denkstopper. https://didactiefonline.nl/blog/
blonz/biestas-drieslag-als-denkstopper
Joppke, C. (2007) Beyond national models: Civic integration policies for immigrants in Western
Europe. West European Politics, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 01402380601019613

137
Joris, M. (2021). Burgers in de maak? Burgerschapsvorming op school anders bekeken. Pedagogische
Studiën, 98(3), 221-235
Joris, M. & Agirdag, O. (2019) In search of good citizenship education: A normative analysis of the
International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS). European Journal of Education,
54(2): 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12331
Joris, M., Simons, M., & Agirdag, O. (2021). Citizenship-as-competence, what else? Why European
citizenship education policy threatens to fall short of its aims. European educational research
journal EERJ. doi:10.1177/1474904121989470
Katholiek Onderwijs Vlaanderen (n.d.). Krachtlijnen. https://dvt.katholiekonderwijs.-vlaanderen/-
mens-en-samenleving
Keating, A. (2009). Educating Europe’s citizens: Moving from national to post-national models of
educating for European citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 13(2), 135–151.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020902731140
Keating A (2014). Education for Citizenship in Europe: European Policies, National Adaptations, and
Young People’s Attitudes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kemmis, S., Wilkinson, Edwards-Groves, J., Hardy, C., Grootenboer, P. and Bristol, L. (2014).
Changing practices, changing education. Singapore: Springer.
Kerr, D., 1999. Citizenship education in the curriculum: An international review. The School Field,
10(3/4), 5-32.
Knowles, R. T. & Di Stefano, M. (2015). International citizenship education research: An annotated
bibliography of research using the IEA ICSS and IEA CIVED datasets. Journal of
International Social Studies, 5, 86-118.
Lascoumes, P. and Le Gales, P. (2007). Introduction: Understanding Public Policy through Its
Instruments—From the Nature of Instruments to the Sociology of Public Policy
Instrumentation. Governance (Oxford), 20(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
0491.2007.00342.x

138
Lawy, R. & Biesta, G. (2006) Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implications of an inclusive and
relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies 54(1), 34–50.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00335.x
Lock, G. & Martins, H. (2009). The European universities, citizenship and its limits: What won’t
solve the problems of our time. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 8(2): 159–174.
https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.159
Lödén, H., McCallion, M.S. & Wall, P. (2014). Teaching citizenship: What if the EU is part of the
solution and not the problem? Journal of Political Science Education, 10(4): 386–399.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2014.950736
Marshall, T.H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Mason, T.C. & Delandshere, G. (2010). Citizens not research subjects: toward a more democratic
civic education inquiry methodology. Inter-American Journal of Education for Democracy, 3, 6-
26.
Masschelein, J. & Simons, M. (2009). From active citizenship to world citizenship: A proposal for a
world university. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 8(2): 236–248.
https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.2.236
Masschelein, J. & Simons, M. (2013). In defence of the school. A public issue.
Masschelein, J., & Simons, M. (2015). Education in times of fast learning: the future of the
school. Ethics and education, 10(1), 84-95. doi:10.1080/17449642.2014.998027
Masschelein, J., & Pols, W. (2019). Een pedagogisch perspectief : Inleiding op het
themanummer. Pedagogiek, 39(3), 269. doi:10.5117/PED2019.3.001.MASS
Maurissen, L., Claes, E. & Barber, C. (2018) Deliberation in citizenship education: How the school
context contributes to the development of an open classroom climate. Social Psychology of
Education, 21(4), 951–972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9449-7
McCowan, T. (2008). Curricular transposition in citizenship education. Theory and research in
education, 6(2), 153-172. doi:10.1177/1477878508091109

139
McCowan, T. (2009) A ‘seamless’ enactment of citizenship education. Journal of Philosophy of
Education 43(1): 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00669.x
Meijer, W.A.J. (2013). Onderwijs. Meer weten waarom. Amsterdam: SWP.
Merry M (2020a) Can schools teach citizenship? Discourse (Abingdon, England), 41(1): 124–138.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1488242
Merry, M. (2020b). Educational Justice: Liberal Ideals, Persistent Inequality, and the Constructive Uses of
Critique (1st ed. 2020.). Springer International Publishing : Imprint: Palgrave Macmillan.
Naval, C., Print, M., & Veldhuis, R. (2002). Education for democratic citizenship in the new Europe:
context and reform. European Journal of Education, 37, 107-128. doi: 10.1111/1467-
3435.00097
Nicoll, K., Fejes, A., Olson, M., Dahlstedt, M. & Biesta, G. (2013). Opening discourses of citizenship
education: A theorization with Foucault. Journal of Education Policy, 28(6): 828–846.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.823519
No’voa, A. & Yariv-Mashal, T. (2003). Comparative research in education: a mode of governance or a
historical journey? Comparative Education, 39, 423-438. doi: 10.1080/0305006032000162002
Nordensvärd, J. (2014). The politics of education: education from a political and citizenship discourse.
Policy Futures in Education, 12(3), 340-346. doi: 10.2304/PFIE.2014.12.3.340
Olson, M. (2012). To be or not to be a (properly educated) citizen. Comments on the ICCS 2009
study. Utbildning & Demokrati, 21, 17-27.
Pols, W. (2016). In de wereld komen. Een studie naar de pedagogische betekenissen van opvoeding, onderwijs
en het leraarschap. Antwerpen/Apeldoorn: Garant.
Pols, W. & Berding, J. (2018). “This is our world”. Hannah Arendt on education. In Smeyers, P. (ed.).
International Handbook of philosophy of Education (pp. 39-48). Springer International
Publishing.
Print, M., Ørnstrøm, S., & Nielsen, H. S. (2002). Education for democratic processes in schools and
classrooms. European Journal of Education, 37, 193-210. doi:10.1111/1467-3435.00102

140
Puyol, A. (2019). Political Fraternity. Democracy beyond Freedom and Equality. Routledge.
Pykett, J., Saward, M. & Schaefer, A. (2010). Framing the good citizen. British Journal of Politics &
International Relations, 12(4), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00424
Riddle, S. & Apple, M.W. (2019). Education and democracy in dangerous times. In Riddle, S. &
Apple, M.W. (eds.). Re-imagining education for democracy. Routledge.
Rømer, T.A. (2020). Gert Biesta – Education between Bildung and post-structuralism. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 53(1), 34–45.https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00131857.2020.1738216
Rutkowski, D. & Engel, L.C. (2010). Soft power and hard measures: Large-scale assessment,
citizenship and the European Union. European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 9(3), 381–
395. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2010.9.3.381
Ryen, & Jøsok, E. (2021). Citizenship-as-knowledge: How perspectives from Bildung-centred
Didaktik can contribute to European Citizenship Education beyond competence. European
Educational Research Journal EERJ. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904121104577
Säfström, C.A. (2011). Rethinking emancipation, rethinking education. Studies in Philosophy and
Education, 30(2): 199–209. DOI 10.1007/s11217-011-9227-x
Safström. (2018). Liveable life, educational theory and the imperative of constant change. European
Educational Research Journal EERJ, 17(5), 621–630. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1474904118784480
Safström. (2019). Paideia and the Search for Freedom in the Educational Formation of the Public of
Today. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 53(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9752.12385
Sampermans, D., Maurissen, L., Louw, G., Hooghe M. & Claes, E. (2017). ICCS 2016 Rapport
Vlaanderen. Een onderzoek naar burgerschapseducatie in Vlaanderen. Eindrapport november 2017.
Leuven: KU Leuven, Centrum voor Politicologie.
Schubotz, D. (2019). Participatory research. Why and how to involve people in research. London:
Sage Publications.

141
Schuermans, N., Oosterlynck, S., Swerts, T., Vandenabeele, J., & Jans, M. (2017). Solidariteit in
superdiversiteit. AGORA Magazine, 33(4), 16-19. doi:10.21825/agora.v33i4.9299
Schugurensky, D. (2005) Citizenship and citizenship education: Canada in an international context.
http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/lclp/c&ce.html
Schulz, W. Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., Agrusti, G. & Friedman, T. (2018). Becoming citizens in a
changing world. IEA International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2016 International
Report. Springer Open.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Kerr, D., & Losito, B. (2010). ICCS 2009 International Report: Civic
knowledge, attitudes, and engagement among lower-secondary school students in 38 countries.
Amsterdam: IEA.
Schulz, W., Ainley, J., Fraillon, J., Losito, B., &. Agrusti, G. (2016). IEA International Civic and
Citizenship Education Study 2016 Assessment Framework. Amsterdam: IEA.
Schulz, W., Fraillon, J., Ainley, J., Losito, B., & Kerr, D. (2008). International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study: Assessment framework. Amsterdam: IEA.
Siim, B. (2013) Citizenship. In Waylen, G., Celis, K., Kantola, J., & Weldon, S.L. (Eds.) The Oxford
Handbook of Gender and Politics. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/ 9780199751457.013.0030
Sears, A. & Hughes, A. (2006). Citizenship – Education or indoctrination ? Citizenship Teaching and
Learning, 2(1), 3-17.
Sears, A. & Hyslop-Marison, E.J. (2007). Crisis as a Vehicle for Educational Reform: The Case of
Citizenship Education. The Journal of Educational Thought, 41(1), 43-62.
Simons. (2009). Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21st
Century. Brill | Sense.
Simons, M. & Hodgson, N. (2012). Learned voices of European citizens: From governmental to
political subjectivation. Teoría de la educación. Revista Universitaria, 24(1), 19-40.
https://doi.org/10.14201/teri.10330

142
Simons, M. & Masschelein, J. (2010). Governmental, political and pedagogic subjectivation: Foucault
with Rancière. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 42, 588-605. doi :10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2010.00687
Simons, M. & Masschelein, J. (2017). De leerling centraal in het onderwijs, grenzen van personalisering.
Leuven: Acco.
Snir, I. (2016). Repoliticising the scholastic: school and schoolchildren between politicization and de-
politicization. Ethics and education, 11(2), p.117-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17449642.2016.1160522
Stantcheva, S. (2022). Inequalities in the times of a pandemic. National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29657/w29657.pdf
Strandbrink, P. (2017). Civic education & liberal democracy. Making post-normative citizens in normative
political spaces. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Tahirsylaj, A. & Werler, T.C. (2021). In Search of Dimensions of Bildung: A Quantitative Approach.
Nordic Studies in Education, 41(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v41.2130
Telling, K. & Serapioni, M. (2019) The rise and change of the competence strategy: Reflections on
twenty-five years of skills policies in the EU. European Educational Research Journal EERJ
18(4), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904119840558
The Vocabularist (2015, September 15). The Vocabularist: where did the word crisis come from?.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-34154767
Todd. (2011). Going to the Heart of the Matter. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 30(5), 507–512.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9252-9
Toots, A., De Groof, S., & Kavadias, D. (2012). New citizens for globalised societies? Citizenship
education from a comparative perspective. Journal of Social Science Education, 11, 3-6.
doi:10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v11-i1-1188
Topolski, A. (2008). Creating Citizens in the Classroom. Ethical perspectives, 15(2), 259-282.
doi:10.2143/EP.15.2.2032370
Torfs, M. (2016, April 11). Extremisme bestrijden vanaf de kleuterschool, van Reykjavik tot Athene.
VRT Nu. https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2016/04/11/extremisme_bestrijden
vanafkleuterschoolvanreykjaviktotathene-1-2626331/.

143
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, 129-
141.doi :10.1111/1467-3435.00098
Torney-Purta, J., & Amadeo, J.-A. (2013). International Large-Scale Assessments: Challenges in
Reporting and Potentials for Secondary Analysis. Research in comparative and international
education, 8(3), 248-258. doi:10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.248
Tyson, R. (2016). The didactics of vocational Bildung: how stories matter in VET research. Journal
of vocational education & training, 68(3), 359-377. doi:10.1080/13636820.2016.1213762
Unesco Institute for lifelong learning (2021, June 30). Citizenship education key to building sustainable
and healthy communities, finds workshop. https://uil.unesco.org/lifelong-learning/learning-
cities/citizenship-education-key-building-sustainable-and-healthy
Van Bempt, K. (2016, April 13). Onderwijs en democratisch burgerschap: leren wat het betekent
Europeaan te zijn. De Morgen. https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/ onderwijs-en-
democratisch-burgerschap-leren-wat-het- betekent- europeaan-te-zijn~b2f53e2f/.
Van der Ploeg, P. (2016). Dewey versus ‘Dewey’ on democracy and education. Education, citizenship
and social justice, 11(2), 145-159. doi:10.1177/1746197916648283
Van der Ploeg, P. (2020). Dewey and Citizenship Education: Schooling as Democratic Practice. In
Peterson, A., Stahl, G., & Soong, H. (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Citizenship and
Education (pp.113-125). Springer International Publishing AG.
Veugelers, W. & De Groot, I. (2019). Theory and practice of citizenship education. In Veugelers, W.
(ed.), Education for democratic intercultural citizenship (pp.14-41). Leiden Boston: Brill.
Walkenhorst, H. (2008). Explaining change in EU education policy. Journal of European Public
Policy 15(4), 567–587. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760801996741
Wedgwood, R. (2007). The nature of normativity. Oxford : Oxford university press.
Westheimer, J. (2015). What kind of citizen? Educating our children for the common good. Columbia
University : Teachers College Press.

144
Wihlborg, M. (2019). Critical viewpoints on the Bologna Process in Europe: Can we do otherwise?
European Educational Research Journal EERJ, 18(2), 135–157.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118824229
Wood, Taylor, R., Atkins, R., & Johnston, M. (2018). Pedagogies for active citizenship: Learning
through affective and cognitive domains for deeper democratic engagement. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 75, 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.07.007
Ydesen, C. (2014). High-stakes testing and democracy- antagonistic or symbiotic relationship?
Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 9, 97-113. doi:10.1177/1746197914520646
Zakin. (2017). Between Two Betweens: Hannah Arendt and the Politics of Education. The Journal of
Speculative Philosophy, 31(1), 119–134. https://doi.org/10.5325/jspecphil.31.1.0119
Zurstrassen, B. (2011). A sceptical look at the quantitative education research in civic and citizenship
education. Journal of Social Science Education, 10, 6-15. doi:10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v10-i3-11
Zyngier, D. (2007) Education through elegant subversion. Professional Voice 6(3): 51–56.