Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in Democracy

This article was downloaded by: [Corporacion CINCEL]On: 21 November 2012, At: 12:34Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

British Journal of EducationalStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION ANDYOUTH PARTICIPATION INDEMOCRACYMurray Print aa University of SydneyVersion of record first published: 05 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Murray Print (2007): CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION AND YOUTHPARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY, British Journal of Educational Studies, 55:3, 325-345

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00382.x

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liablefor any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith or arising out of the use of this material.

British Journal of Educational Studies, ISSN

0007-1005

DOI

number: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00382.x

Vol.

55

, No.

3

,

S

eptember

2007

, pp

325345

325

2007 The AuthorJournal compilation 2007 SES. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKBJESBritish Journal of Educational Studies0007-1005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2007XXX

ORIGINAL ARTICLES

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACYYOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION AND YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

by

Murray

Print

,

University of Sydney

ABSTRACT: Citizenship education in established democracies ischallenged by declining youth participation in democracy. Youthdisenchantment and disengagement in democracy is primarily evidentin formal political behaviour, especially through voting, decliningmembership of political parties, assisting at elections, contactingpoliticians, and the like. If citizenship education is to play a major rolein addressing these concerns it will need to review the impact it ismaking on young people in schools.

This paper reviews a major national project on youth participationin democracy in Australia set in the context of a national citizenshipeducation programme. The Youth Electoral Study found that citizenshipeducation in Australian schools has at best been marginally successfuland substantially more is required to raise levels of democratic engagement.The paper explores many opportunities available to education systemsand schools to address these issues through reconceptualising aspects ofthe formal and the informal curriculum.

Keywords: citizenship education, democracy, participation, youth,formal curriculum, informal curriculum

1.

Introduction

1

Established democracies face a conundrum that challenges theirvery legitimacy. The international literature is rich with exhortationsof the vital importance for citizens to be engaged in modern, formaldemocracy (Crick, 2002, 2007; Dalton, 2004; Forbrig, 2005; Galston,2004; Macedo, 2005; Power Inquiry, 2006; Print and Saha, 2006;Print, 2006b). Such engagement, it is argued, is necessary to avoidweakening the legitimacy of elected governments as they strugglewith falling election turnouts as well as to counter the rise of undemo-cratic political forces and the growth of quiet authoritarianismand presidential prime ministers within government.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2

YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN DEMOCRACY

326

2007 The AuthorJournal compilation 2007 SES

Yet these same democracies are now characterised by decliningcitizen participation of many forms. In reviewing the erosion ofpolitical support in advanced industrial democracies Dalton (2004)reminds us that Contemporary democracies are facing a challengetoday. This challenge does not come from enemies within or outsidethe nation. Instead, the challenge comes from democracys owncitizens, who have grown distrustful of politicians, sceptical aboutdemocratic institutions, and disillusioned about how the democraticprocess functions (p. 1). Hence the conundrum. Over the past twodecades citizenship education has been introduced, reviewed orconsolidated in most established democracies in regions such asEurope and Britain, North America and the Pacific, to engage citizensin their democracy. Yet democratic participation has declined.

It may be argued that in modern societies all students need toexperience citizenship education in schools so they may become acompetent citizen in a representative democracy (Crick, 1998). Ithas become abundantly clear that the family does not, or cannot,provide this educative experience, even though research indicatesthat parents and television are influential sources of politicalinformation for young people (Print

et al.

, 2004; Torney-Purta

et al.

,2001). That leaves the school as the most logical source for conductingcitizenship education.

Yet, paradoxically, as demand for education for democraticcitizenship grows, youth participation in formal democracy isdeclining, a decline which is particularly evident in the establisheddemocracies. Growing concern has been directed towards thephenomenon of non-participation of youth in democracy, especiallythe declining levels of youth voting in general or national elections.In the United States, for example, since the introduction of the 18-year-old voting age in 1972 the percentage of young people (1824years) voting in presidential and non-presidential elections hassteadily declined in every Presidential election (CIRCLE, 2002) until2004 (CIRCLE, 2004). A similar pattern is evident in related westerndemocracies such as Britain and France, while youth turnout atelections is even worse in Canada (Pammett, while LeDuc, 2003)

However, declining democratic participation is more widespreadthan voting in elections. Research on youth engagement in theUnited States, the various CIRCLE funded projects (CIRCLE, 2002),supported by the general findings from Putnams substantial study

Bowling Alone

(2000), found evidence of decline across three broadcategories of democratic indicators, namely civic indicators such asmembership of groups/associations and volunteering; electoralindicators including voting and assisting candidates with campaigns;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


327


and political engagement indicators such as contacting media,signing petitions and boycotting products.

While disenchantment and disengagement of youth in democracyis primarily evident in formal political behaviour and indicators suchas joining political parties, substantial evidence exists that youngpeople do have political views and participate in alternative politicalbehaviour (Norris, 2002; OToole, 2003; OToole

et al.

, 2003). IndeedNorris has argued that In sum, indicators point more stronglytoward the evolution, transformation, and reinvention of civicengagement than to its premature death (2002, p. 4). Yet despiteheightened interest in political matters in recent years, flamedby acts of terrorism, the longer-term trend in youth voting has continuedin a declining trend.

Hence, emphasising alternative participation of youth must betempered with caution for several reasons. Even if young people dohold political views, by not being engaged through formalisedactivities such as voting they have little ability to influence or changepolitical decisions. Second, should they participate in alternative politicalactivities, these are frequently episodic or idiosyncratic in naturearound a single/limited issue rather than sustained; and third, suchparticipation demonstrates little evidence of sustainability in politicalterms, being driven by the immediacy mantra of this generation ...we want it now. So such alternative approaches to democratic par-ticipation by young people must be treated with considerable caution.

Meanwhile, is there a solution to this conundrum and to thechallenge of declining participation in democracy by young people?What influences youth civic engagement and encourages them toparticipate in democracy and political life more specifically?

2.

Participation in Democracy

Democracy is well grounded in the concept of public participationin political matters. Indeed, citizen participation is the very raisondetre of democracy. As Dalton (2004) contends, Democracy is aprocess and a set of political expectations that elevate democracyabove other political forms ... Otherwise, we should praise authori-tarian regimes ... but we do not ... (2004, p. 10). Not surprisinglywidespread support exists for the argument that participation ofcitizens is essential if democracies are to be viable, sustainable andhealthy (Crick, 1998, 2002; International IDEA, 1999, 2002; Norris,2002; Power, 2006; Putnam, 2000).

Political, and more broadly civic, participation occurs whencitizens become part of the body politic/polity as an engaged member.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


328


Participation in a democracy may take many forms but it can beidentified in terms of three sets of engagement indicators:

Civic indicators active membership of groups/associations;volunteering; fundraising for charities, community participation/problem solving.

Electoral indicators regular voting; persuading others; contributionsto political parties; assisting candidates with campaigns.

Political engagement indicators contacting officials; contactingprint and broadcast media; protest; written petitions; boycottingand boycotting activists, email petitions and internet engagement.(CIRCLE, 2002)

The need for greater and more active participation in moderndemocracy has been strongly endorsed by the recent report from thePower Commission (2006) which sought to re-engage citizens withBritish democracy. The report identified the need to engage peoplewith formal democracy for several reasons, including strengtheningthe mandate of elected governments whose legitimacy is threateneddue to turnouts plummeting at elections; emphasising politicalequality where whole sections of the community feel estranged frompolitics; strengthening effective dialogue between the governed andthose who govern; and opposing the increasing influence of un-democratic political forces (The Power Inquiry, 2006). While politicalparticipation may take many forms, as the International IDEA (2002)contend, it is argued that the least problematic, requiring the leastresources and what is potentially the most powerful for most people,is voting.

Voting in Democracies

Voting is a significant indicator of democratic engagement, aminimal sign of an individuals democratic participation as a citizenand, as Franklin (2004) notes, a useful indicator of the health of ademocracy. Though there is some debate about the importance ofvoting in a democracy, there exists widespread support for voting asa valuable expression of ones participation in a political entity(International IDEA, 2002). If these arguments are accepted, then itis clear that young people need to participate in their democracyand to vote.

International studies in youth voting show, in most establisheddemocracies, clear declines over the past two decades. In the UnitedStates the decline of youth voting has been well documented. In the2000 Presidential Elections only 32 per cent of young people (1824

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


329


years) voted, a record low turnout (CIRCLE, 2002; Putnam, 2000).A concentrated effort to increase the youth turnout, particularly bythe major political parties, produced an increased vote in the 2004election to 47 per cent of that youth group (CIRCLE, 2004).However, it is too early to say if the downward turnout trendhas been reversed, or temporarily suspended and will continue todecline in the future.

Participation of young people in UK elections presents a similarpattern. Over the past two decades there has been a noticeable declinein young people voting in general elections as well as local and Euro-pean Union elections. The 2001 UK general election showed the youthvote had declined to 39 per cent of the age cohort (The Electoral Com-mission, 2002). While voter turnout in the 2005 UK election increasedmarginally overall, the youth vote dropped to an all time low of 37per cent (The Electoral Commission, 2005). In Canada the situationis worse. Pammett and LeDuc (2003) found that in the 2000 Canadianelections youth turnout (1820 year olds) was barely 22 per centcompared with in excess of 80 per cent for those over 58 years of age.

In European Union elections voter turn-out among young peopleis also declining, though the decline varies considerably acrosscountries (International IDEA, 1999; 2002). European youth tend tovote moderately highly at national elections, with a lower turn-out atprovincial, state or local levels. But the lowest level of voter turn-outis clearly the European Union elections.

As a country with both compulsory voting and a high level ofapplied sanctions to enhance compliance on non-voters, Australiawould be expected to demonstrate exceptionally high levels of youthvoting. And in large measure that is the case. Yet there is persuasiveevidence that young people aged 18 to 25 years of age are increasinglydisengaging from their electoral responsibilities by avoidingenrolment and not voting in elections (Hallett, in press; Print

et al.

,2004; Saha

et al.

, 2005). To a large extent this disengagement is maskedby compulsory voting, but, as Hallett (in press) demonstrates, there isample evidence of non-compliance and non-voting by upwards of400,000 Australian youth. What do these data mean for the futureof Australian democracy, or any other democracy where evidence ofdeclining youth turnout has been found?

3.

Schooling and Education for Democratic Citizenship in Australia

Extensive research on political socialisation over many years (Delli-Carpini and Keeter, 1996; Hooghe, 2004; Patrick, 1999; Print, 2006a;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


330


Saha, 2000; Verba

et al.

, 1995; Youniss

et al.

, 1997) shows three primarysources of influence on young peoples learning about politics anddemocracy the family, through role modelling, discussion, andmedia use; the media, mostly television and newspapers; and third,school experience providing knowledge, skills and values fromnon-partisan educators. Other sources such as peers, the extendedfamily, community and church, count for little.

Of these sources it has been widely argued that the school offersthe best chance of building an informed, balanced sense of democraticworth, political knowledge and democratic values and skills (Forbrig,2005; Nie

et al.

, 1996; Niemi and Junn, 1998; Patrick, 1999; Print

et al.

,2002; Saha, 2000; Torney-Purta

et al.

, 2001). Indeed, research showsthat the best predictor of adult voting and democratic engagementavailable is the course taken in civics or citizenship education (Niemiand Junn, 1998).

In modern democracies citizenship education may be translatedas meaning programmes in education for democratic citizenship,that is, learning about being a citizen in a democracy througheducational programmes in schools (Crick, 1998; Patrick, 1999).Education for democratic citizenship, or civics and citizenshipeducation (CCE) as it is known in Australia, may be defined as theopportunity to learn about our system of government, democracy,rule of law, rights and responsibilities, democratic values, and theknowledge, skills and values associated with political issues (CEG,1994; Kemp, 1997; Print, 2006a). It is clearly the direct intention ofcitizenship education in Australia (Curriculum Corporation, 1998;Howard and Patten, 2006; Kemp, 1997) to prepare young people foractive citizenship, which implies democratic participation.

The work of Niemi and Junn (1998) as well as Finkel (2003)demonstrates that studying civic education can make a difference tostudent civic knowledge, student civic values and student civicparticipation. McAllister (1998) noted that education produced higherlevels of political knowledge that, in turn, made a person a betterdemocratic citizen. More broadly, citizenship education, whichencourages students to acquire civic knowledge, civic skills and civicvalues, is more likely to produce engaged citizens (Niemi and Junn,1998; Saha, 2000; Torney-Purta

et al.

, 2001) as well as to assist withthe formation of social capital (Print and Coleman, 2003).

Given that healthy democracies are those where citizens participate,Australia has been curiously complacent about educating its futurecitizens about democracy, despite the imperative of compulsoryvoting. Competing forces impacting on the school curriculum havebeen more successful in gaining resources and curriculum time.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


331


Australia has relied upon some vague, benign expectation that itsyoung would learn about their democracy through exposure toschooling and society. The reality is quite different.

4.

The Discovering Democracy Programme

From the report of the Civics Expert Group (1994) which identifieda civics deficit to the creation of

Discovering Democracy

(Kemp, 1997)and the recent report on student civic understanding (MCEEETYA,2006), it has been evident that young Australians know little abouttheir democracy. The


programme offered anopportunity to address that need. It provided several sets of curriculumresources, over the period 19972003, to Australias 10,000 schools.Substantial teacher professional development was funded by theprogramme, but managed by the states, to familiarise teachers withthe programme and the materials (Erebus, 2003).

For the past decade what constitutes citizenship education inAustralian schools has effectively been drawn from these non-compulsory


resources. Each of the states andterritory education systems interpreted and applied the programmemarginally differently. Schools and teachers, however, the evaluatorsfound (Erebus, 2003), selected differentially from within theprogrammes offerings. The outcome of such choice is that it isdifficult to identify nationally a picture of what is being taught inschools about citizenship education.

Outcomes of Discovering Democracy

If there are differences in the way citizenship education is imple-mented across Australian education jurisdictions and schools, thereare also some strong similarities on matters of principle. All Stateand Territory authorities argue the need for students to be activecitizens, critically informed, socially just and knowledgeable. Thereis also a strong commitment to those civic values (tolerance, balancingrights and responsibilities, respect for the common good, equity andsocial justice and being inclusive) that underpin Australian democracy(Erebus, 2003; Howard and Patten, 2006).

Extensive and well-prepared curriculum materials available to allAustralian schools were a feature of the programme. The evaluatorsfound teachers consistently highlighted the currency and relevanceof topics for students, as well as the range of print, audiovisual andelectronic resources, and the enduring nature of the materials.Nevertheless, teacher use of the resources was characterised as sparing

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


332


and limited to specific subject matter or to personal pedagogicalpreferences (Erebus, 2003). In terms of adoption, by 2003 some12 per cent of teachers had not used the materials at all and afurther 43 per cent only limited application. After at least six years ofavailability, the materials were a well established part of the curriculumfor only seven per cent of teachers (Erebus, 2003).

From the Australian Governments perspective its policy goals for


, and for citizenship education more broadly,may have been minimally met, yet the same cannot be said for schools.Although citizenship education is clearly recognised within theNational Goals for Schooling, and manifests a presence in all stateand territory curricula, its practice in schools is clearly more prob-lematic (Erebus, 2003; MCEETYA, 2006; Print and Saha, 2006). Withsuch a base in citizenship education and Australian democracy, wemight expect high levels of youth participation in Australian democ-racy. And given the overlay of compulsory voting we would expectthat young Australians are enrolled and voting at extraordinarily highlevels. But is this the case?

5.

Youth Electoral Study

Examining youth participation in democracy through the lens ofvoting provides a deep insight into young peoples political anddemocratic thinking and behaviour. The purpose of the on-goingYouth Electoral Study (YES), a national project funded by theAustralian Research Council, is to investigate the declining particip-ation and increasing disengagement of young people in Australiandemocracy and elections. The study sought to understand theprocess by which young adults become politically informed andengaged in Australian democracy, understand youth behaviourand attitudes towards voting and identify why so many fail to vote(see Appendix).

Using a mixed-method approach over a four-year period, datahave been collected through in-depth group and individual interviewswith young people aged 1725 in school and non-school sites toidentify democratic and electoral behaviour. Two linked nationalcross-sectional surveys of 4,700 Year 12 senior secondary schools in2004 and 2007 investigated student behaviour and attitudes towardsdemocracy and voting and identified school type, enrolments andcitizenship education programmes.

A necessary initial step was to identify who these young peopleare. Combining evidence from the 2001 Australian Census,CIRCLE, the Electoral Commission and YES, these young people

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


333


appear to constitute a distinct generation (CIRCLE, 2002, 2004;Electoral Commission, 2002; Galston, 2004; Print, 2006a, 2006b).The synthesised data about this generation characterises the DotNets, sometimes called the click & go generation, as:

Technology-oriented and internet dependentNetworked amongst peers, particularly through technologyTemporally impatient, wanting services/goods immediatelyCivically disengaged from politics and political partiesInattentive to traditional public affairsSocially tolerant, especially ethnicallyMild consumer activists who both boycott and buycottConsumption-oriented, credit users and in debtWell travelled both domestically and internationallyFormally educated, and more than any previous generationCasual work is commonplace as is volunteeringDemographically constitute 1/7 of total population and growing.Australian born, urban dwellers, who frequently live with parentsHighly mobile, indeed,

the

most mobile group.(ABS, 2001 Census; CIRCLE, 2002; Electoral Commission, 2002)

6.

Youth Participation

It could be expected after several years of the


programme in schools that the Dot Nets would be actively engagedin democracy. Is that the case? The Dot Nets know that voting iscompulsory, voting commences at 18 and that there are fines / sanctionsfor not voting. The YES research found that most young people willinitially register on the electoral roll, mainly because they believe itis the right thing to do, because they know it is compulsory or theywish to avoid being fined (Print

et al.

, 2004). Yet many others are notenrolled and do not vote.

Recently, using Australian Electoral Commission data, Hallett (inpress) demonstrated a low initial enrolment rate of young Australiansat aged 18 years, with a substantial increase a year later (see Appen-dix). Yet by aged 20, when young Australians have experiencedat least one federal or state election, less than 82 per cent wereenrolled. A year later enrolment plateaus at around 86 per cent andsubsequent increases are slight. More disconcerting is the totalfigure of some 380,000 young Australians aged 1825 years who werenot on the electoral roll. Something is clearly amiss.

Females were more likely to enrol and more likely to vote thanmales and more females would vote than males if it was not compulsory.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


334


Only a half of all those students surveyed across the country wouldvote if it was not compulsory (Print

et al.

, 2004). Despite strongendorsement of the importance of vote, there were significantdetractions with some two-thirds of students claiming that the act ofvoting itself was boring and for about half it was a waste of a Saturday(Print

et al.

, 2004). Clearly the power of compulsory voting masksthe reality of democratic participation by young Australians, thoughthere is little political interest in trying to remove the compulsionfrom voting in elections.

Half the students feel they lack the fundamental knowledge tounderstand the political parties and the key issues, as well as to makedecisions about voting, and in general, to vote. This raises majorquestions about the effectiveness of existing formal educationprogrammes in preparing young citizens. More generally, civicknowledge amongst young Australians is very limited, and depletesearly. A civics and citizenship study as part of the national assessmentprogramme (MCEETYA, 2006) identified modest levels of civicknowledge by students at Years 6 and 10. Yet, by Year 12, studentsbelieve they lack knowledge to understand politics and to actuallyvote (Print

et al.

, 2004).

7.

Engagement

The YES data identified amongst young people a lack of connectednessbetween voting and democratic participation with everyday politics.Young people do not perceive voting as an important componentof their life. These activities lack status and are largely ignored byyoung people in their transition to adulthood.

What might engage students more in democracy? Could voting beseen as more important to young people? Students were asked toindicate how they identified with several rite-of-passage events thattypically take place in late adolescence. Significantly, voting is notseen as an important part of the transition process to adult citizen.Turning 18, obtaining a drivers licence and school graduation areall far more important rites of passage to adulthood.

How might students learn about democracy and political mattersso they may become more engaged? While parents are the mostimportant source of information about voting and political matters,as commonly found (Torney-Purta

et al.

, 2001; Verba

et al.

, 1995), tel-evision and newspapers were ranked second and third with teachersin fourth position in the YES data (Print

et al.

, 2004). This offersopportunities for schools and media to perform a more prominentrole in preparing youth to be engaged citizens.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


335


8. Trust in Government and Politicians

A major disincentive for young people to participate in Australiandemocracy is the lack of trust in political leaders. Young peoplewidely characterised politicians as liars and highly untrustworthy.Only half agreed that parliamentarians could be trusted to do whatis right for the country, while barely a quarter agreed that politiciansare honest. About one-third of the students agreed that the parlia-mentarians are smart and know what they are doing in running thegovernment (Print

et al.

, 2004). It appears students differentiatedbetween political trust and honesty. While politicians might besomewhat trusted to govern, they were not perceived as honest.Even with this distinction, the levels of trust, and the levels of attribut-ing honesty to parliamentarians are low.

In all, the YES data reveal a disconnected youth, aware of democracyand voting, but reluctant to commit to participate in political matters.Mostly they felt a lack of civic knowledge about politics, democracyand voting which made them unprepared to participate. What rolethen can citizenship education play in Australian schools to addressthese concerns?

9.

Citizenship Education in Schools

Of all the options available for young people to learn about partici-pation in democracy the most strongly favoured and advocated is theschool. Specifically it is argued that the school should provide theopportunities for students to become familiar with democracy andhow to participate within it (Crick, 1998; Galston, 2004; Patrick,1999; Torney-Purta, 2001). Yet even the most ardent of advocates forcitizenship education comment that, at least in the United States inrecent years, it has largely failed (Galston, 2004). Further, Galstonnotes that while general levels of schooling have increased in theUnited States, civic education in schools has declined, potentiallyaccounting for low levels of civic knowledge and low levels of democraticparticipation.

As seen in recent reviews of research in citizenship education suchas the EPPI review (Deakin Crick

et al.

, 2005) and Osler and Starkey(2005) most of what passes as research has long been either descriptiveor ideological in nature. More recently a few correlational studieshave been conducted which connect citizenship education with studentoutcomes such as civic knowledge and democratic participation(Kerr

et al.

, 2004; McAllister, 1998; Niemi and Junn, 1998; Print

et al.

,2004; Torney-Purta

et al.

, 2001). From these, two promising areas for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


336


building democratic citizens, through democratic engagement byyoung people, are found in the curricula of schools.

Within the formal curriculum, citizenship education may beconceptualised as specific school subjects such as citizenship, civics,government or history. A broader perspective of citizenship educationin schools includes elements of the informal curriculum such asparticipating in student government, voting in school elections,volunteering, raising funds for charities and the like. Consideringthese studies in the light of the YES research outcomes, the school,and the school curriculum in particular, offer the greatest opportunityfor engaging young people with democracy. In the context of buildingeducation for democratic citizenship designed to engage young peoplemore substantially in democracy, through education systems andschools, the options with the greatest potential are found in theformal and the informal curriculum.

10.

Formal Curriculum

If schools are to play a meaningful role in developing political andcivic engagement within young people a necessary prerequisite forstudents is an opportunity to learn about democracy, governmentand citizenship. The formal curriculum is both a logical and essentialplace to provide that opportunity (Torney-Purta, 2002). This viewcontends that students can acquire civic knowledge, skills and valuesthrough the formal curriculum by studying subjects in much thesame way they would learn literacy through subjects such as English.

Second, the formal curriculum through school subjects providesstudents with opportunities to learn civic knowledge, skills andvalues. This rationale is based upon the significance of studentsacquiring civic knowledge. The importance of knowledge to citizensin a democracy has been well developed over many years (DelliCarpini and Keeter, 1996; McAllister, 1998; Nie

et al

., 1996; Niemiand Junn, 1998; Torney-Purta

et al

., 2001), and in the context ofAustralia, clearly identified by McAllister. One of the most importantrequirements for the functioning of representative democracy is theexistence of informed and knowledgeable citizens (1998, p. 7).

Evidence from other countries indicates that learning civics andcitizenship enhances political knowledge and probably politicalengagement. From the 1988 NAEP Civics Study, for example, Niemiand Junn found that for Years 4 and 8 a correlation existed betweenlevels of student civic knowledge and the amount and frequency ofcivics studies in subjects such as Social Studies, American Governmentand Civics. Clearly, they contend, ... the school civics curriculum

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


337


does indeed enhance what and how much they [students] knowabout American government and politics (1998, p. 147). Similarly,from a multi-national IEA study, Torney-Purta and her colleaguesfound that students who had studied civics-related topics at schoolhad higher levels of civic knowledge and engagement (2001; Torney-Purta, 2002).

In England, a substantial study of 1516 year olds by John, Morrisand Halpern (2003) found that citizenship education programmespositively influenced political knowledge and efficacy, though notpolitical interest or political activity. This reflected the newly developedprogrammes on citizenship education for English schools. Further-more, they found that citizenship education had positive effectsupon student trust, political efficacy, willingness to vote and volun-teering. While the effects are not strong, the influence of citizenshipeducation programmes are positive even when controlling for SES,parental and background variables. The YES data, however, showedclearly that Australian students did not feel knowledgeable aboutpolitical matters, elections or voting and from the qualitative data itwas equally clear that students did not identify with citizenshipeducation in schools (Print

et al

., 2004).Further American research by Finkel (2003) and Niemi and

Finkel (2006) shows that studying civic education can make a positivedifference to student civic knowledge, student civic values and tostudent civic participation. In general, therefore, the evidencesuggests that young people who take citizenship education typecourses in school also demonstrate higher levels of civic knowledgeand skills than those who have not studied such courses. In Australia,however, this opportunity has been remarkably limited until recentyears, especially in secondary schools. The


programme addressed this need in part, though with varyinglevels of success (Erebus, 2003). If the outcome measure of studentperformance is evidenced through knowledge acquired, as used byMCEETYA (2006), Australian students have either had littleopportunity to learn about democracy and government or they havelearnt little.

However, the school can make a difference. Through the formalcurriculum it can build levels of civic and political knowledge whichcan positively influence engagement and participation. Schoolsubjects which address civics and political issues are a necessary firststep, but they are not sufficient to ensure political engagement (Hart

et al

., 2007; Patrick, 1999; Print

et al

., 2003; Youniss

et al

., 1997). Thereare, however, three important qualifications to consider which, ifnot addressed through the formal curriculum, will undermine school

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


338


attempts to engage young people with democracy. First, researchshows that participatory pedagogy is weak in schools. Rather,instruction in citizenship education is characterised by textbooks,rote learning and non-participatory, non-critical strategies, aswell as inadequate teacher preparation (Hahn, 1998; Niemi andJunn, 1998; Torney-Purta

et al

., 2001).Second, substantial research from the United States and interna-

tionally shows that participatory approaches, such as class voting,group inquiry, simulations, fieldwork and co-operative learning, aremore likely to engage learners in experiential learning and aspectsof democratic values and practice (Hahn, 1998; Niemi and Junn,1998; Print and Smith, 2001; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Youniss et al.,1997). The EPPI review showed that engaged pedagogy can enhancestudent learning and achievement, especially when characterised bya facilitative, conversational pedagogy (Deakin Crick et al., 2005).Such pedagogy can increase student participation, improve commu-nication skills and empower students to become more engaged.

Finally, open, informed, meaningful and critical discussion withnon/bi-partisan teachers is highly significant in engaging students(Deakin Crick et al., 2005; Hahn, 1998; Niemi and Junn, 1998;Torney-Purta, 2002; Torney-Purta et al., 2001; Youniss et al., 1997).These approaches offer opportunities for learning about democracy,politics and government in any country, but given the context ofcompulsory voting are particularly appropriate to Australia.

11. Informal Curriculum

The informal curriculum includes learning from activities notacquired through school subjects as part of the formal curriculum.These activities are informal in that while they are recognised by theschool they are characterised as non-subjects, low status and lowvalue. Potentially, however, these activities constitute powerful meansfor educating about democracy and engaging the young actively indemocratic citizenship. As Patrick claims, Participation in demo-cratically run student organizations, and especially in studentgovernment activities, provides opportunities to practice the habitsand skills of democracy (1999, p. 53).

The informal curriculum consists of two sets of related activities.Instrumental activities, which develop civic engagement, include stu-dent governance, newspapers, debating, student elections, fundrais-ing and political clubs (Kirlin, 2002, 2003; Print et al., 2002). Theseare real, meaningful activities which encourage active participationby students, are positively correlated with later civic engagement and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2


339 2007 The AuthorJournal compilation 2007 SES

are, potentially, the best predictor of adult political engagement(Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002; Verba et al., 1995). Second, expressiveactivities, such as sports, clubs, bands and social activities, are perceivedas contributing less to building civic engagement, though they do fallalong the same participation continuum (Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin,2002, 2003; Print and Coleman, 2003).

Volunteering and service learning are problematic as they arelocated at the crossroads between the formal curriculum (may be arequired subject in schools), the informal curriculum (within-school volunteering on approved activities) and the extra-curricular(volunteering outside the school), and there is debate as to howmuch they constitute volunteering or school compulsory requirements(Hart et al., 2007). Volunteering drops sharply once young peopleenter the paid workforce and it is often characterised by youngpeople as an alternative to formal politics (Galston, 2004). In hisoverview of participation by the young, Galston noted the problematicrelationship between volunteering and political engagement. Theyhave confidence in personalized acts with consequences they cansee for themselves; they have less confidence in collective actions ...whose consequences they see as remote, opaque, and impossible tocontrol (p. 263). Nevertheless, community service seems to assist civicengagement, generates pro-civic attitudes and is linked withcivic knowledge (Hart et al., 2007; Keeter et al., 2002; Kirlin, 2002;Zukin et al., 2006).

A growing body of literature claims that student participation inthe informal curriculum is positively related to engaging youngpeople in later political and civic life (Niemi and Chapman, 1999;Patrick, 1999; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al., 1997). Over the pastdecade American research has demonstrated that participation inboth student government and school interest groups is stronglyrelated to adult engagement in political and civic life as voters,members of voluntary associations and as contributors to thecommon good (Putnam, 2000; Verba et al., 1995; Youniss et al.,1997). Verba and his colleagues (1995) argued that institutions inwhich individuals have an opportunity to practice democratic gov-ernance are schools of democracy. In their study, adults havingparticipated in student government while in high school was themost important school variable in predicting adult political activity(Verba et al., 1995). More recently, Hart and his colleagues (2007)found that participation in the informal curriculum was associatedwith higher rates of voting in presidential elections in early adulthood.

International research using the IEA Civics Study shows that theculture of the school is indeed significant in engaging young people

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



(Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Schools, she suggests, are effective placesfor developing student engagement through ... supporting effectiveparticipation opportunities such as school councils (2002, p. 210).Yet these findings need qualification from the perspective of youngAustralians. The YES project found that while students appreciatethese activities, they do not value them highly, largely because theschool appears not to value them. In particular student government,for most students, and for the same reasons, was perceived as incon-sequential. The most common student comment on student govern-ment was that the results were manipulated by teachers and couldnot be taken seriously (Saha et al., 2005). Students perceived theyhad little influence over important decisions, their opinions werenot valued and student government had no or negligible power,unlike the case in Scandinavian countries (Print et al., 2002).

Equally problematic was that participating in student elections wasunconnected to voting and democratic participation. School elec-tioneering, voting, counting the vote, and reporting results werelargely perfunctory tasks which had little meaning for the world ofadult citizenship. Given the schools role in duty of care the applicationof democratic participation is clearly restrained, yet compromisescan be found. Mostly schools do not seek such compromises andstudents miss valuable opportunities to develop political and civicengagement.

Yet the YES data show students who have voted in school electionsare significantly more likely to vote, while those who have stood fora student election are even more likely to say they would vote as anadult (Saha et al., 2005). A similar difference exists when students wereasked if they had stood for office in school elections. These findingsreinforce the argument that young peoples democratic and electoralbehaviour is likely to be significantly influenced by prior experiencewith student elections, even if they do not recognise the association.

There are, however, several reservations to consider. First, studentgovernance is clearly undervalued by schools and students as sourcesfor building student civic and political engagement. Until its statusis raised and it is treated as a worthwhile learning activity, it willcontinue to underperform in building democratic engagement.Second, instrumental activities, rather than expressive activities,need to be encouraged in order to build democratic participation.Third, volunteering and service learning need to be treated withcaution. Seemingly they assist civic engagement but their problem-atic application (episodic, event-related) and required status inmany school contexts may diminish their positive impact as a contributorto democratic engagement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



12. Conclusions

Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) contend that informed citizens aredemonstrably better citizens, as judged by the standards of democratictheory and practice underpinning the American system. They aremore likely to participate in politics, more likely to have meaningful,stable attitudes on issues, better able to link their interests with theirattitudes, more likely to choose candidates who are consistent withtheir own attitudes, and more likely to support democratic norms,such as extending basic civil liberties to members of unpopular groups.Furthermore, The differences between best- and least-informedcitizens on all of these dimensions are dramatic (1996, p. 272).

The Australian experience has lessons for other establisheddemocracies. The Youth Electoral Study sought to understand theprocess by which young adults become politically informed andengaged citizens in Australian democracy, as well as to understandyouth behaviour and attitudes towards enrolment and voting. Itfound that Australian students in the final year of school lackedknowledge of political and electoral matters, yet most intended tovote when they reached the voting age. If voting was not compulsorybarely half would vote. This was attributed to their lack of knowledgeabout political issues, political parties and voting, to the lack ofidentification with gaining the vote as a significant milestone in lifeand to their substantial mistrust of politicians and political parties.

On the basis of the YES findings, there are measures that can beintroduced to improve the awareness and participation of youngpeople in Australian democracy. While there is no single or simplestrategy that will instantly improve the democratic participation ofyoung people, schools are very important, and indeed essential,agents in this process.

Through both the formal and informal curricula, schools offer anopportunity for young people to become more knowledgeable andactively engaged in democracy. The Australian evidence suggeststhat most schools have far to go in helping students achieve such agoal. Therefore, there is a clear need to encourage and lobbygovernments, policy makers and educational authorities to ensurethe presence of specific courses in citizenship education taught bydedicated, prepared teachers.

Furthermore, research has demonstrated that where studentshave experienced elections, either as a candidate or a voter, they aremore likely to vote and engage in democracy in the future. Similarlystudents were likely to be more engaged when they participatedin instrumental activities such as school-based newspapers, debating

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



and fundraising. Therefore, greater encouragement of theseelements of the informal curriculum is needed to offer students,schools and education systems an enhanced opportunity for demo-cratic participation by young people.

13. Acknowledgement

The author wishes to acknowledge the funding support for theYouth Electoral Study from the Australian Research Council and theAustralian Electoral Commission and the support of his co-researcherProfessor Larry Saha, Australian National University.

14. Note1 This paper is based on a keynote address delivered at the Second CitizED Inter-

national Conference, Oxford University, July 2006.

15. References

CENTRE FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH ON CIVIC LEARNING ANDENGAGEMENT (CIRCLE) (2002) Youth Civic Engagement: Facts and Trends(Maryland, CIRCLE).

CENTRE FOR INFORMATION AND RESEARCH ON CIVIC LEARNING ANDENGAGEMENT (CIRCLE) (2004) The Youth Vote in 2004 (Maryland, CIRCLE).

CIVICS EXPERT GROUP (1994) Whereas the People: Civic and Citizenship Education(Canberra, Australian Government Printing Service).

CRICK, B. (1998) (Chair) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy inSchools (London, Qualifications and Curriculum Authority).

CRICK, B. (2002) Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press).CRICK, B. (2007) Citizenship, the political and the democratic. Keynote address, 3rd

International Citized Conference, University of Sydney.DALTON, R. (2004) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: the Erosion of Political

support in Advanced Industrial Democracies (Oxford, Oxford University Press).DEAKIN CRICK, R., TAYLOR, M., TEW, M., SAMUEL, E., DURANT, K. and

RITCHIE, S. (2005) A systematic review of the impact of citizenship educationon student learning and achievement. In: Research Evidence in Education Library(London, EPPI-Centre, Institute of Education).

DELLI CARPINI, M. and KEETER, S. (1996) What Americans Know About Politics andWhy It Matters (New Haven, Yale University Press).

ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2002) Voter Engagement and Young People (London,The Electoral Commission).

ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2005) Young People and Political Participation inNorthern Ireland (London, The Electoral Commission).

ELECTORAL COMMISSION (2005) Election 2005: Turnout (London, The ElectoralCommission).

EREBUS CONSULTING (2003) Evaluation of the Discovering Democracy Programmeme(Canberra, Department of Education, Science and Training).

FINKEL, S. (2003) Can democracy be taught? Journal of Democracy, 14 (4), 137151.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



FORBRIG, J. (Ed.) (2005) Revisiting Youth Political Participation (Strasbourg, Councilof Europe).

FRANKLIN, M. (2004) Voter Turnout and the Dynamics of Electoral Competition inEstablished Democracies since 1945 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).

GALSTON, W. (2004) Civic education and political participation, PS: Political Scienceand Politics, April, 263266.

HAHN, C. (1998) Becoming Political (Albany, State University of New York).HALLET, B. (in press) Legislation on youth enrolment and voting. In: L. SAHA, M.

PRINT and K. EDWARDS (Eds) Youth and Political Participation (Amsterdam,Sense Publishers).

HART, D., DONNELLY, T., YOIUNESS, J. and ATKINS, R. (2007) High schoolcommunity service as a predictor of adult voting and volunteering, AmericanEducational Research Journal, 44 (1), 197219.

HOOGHE, M. (2004) Political socialization and the future of politics, Acta Politica,39, 331341.

HOWARD, C. and PATTEN, S. (2006) Valuing civics: political commitment andthe new citizenship education in Australia, Canadian Journal of Education, 29 (2),454475.

INTERNATIONAL IDEA (1999) Youth Voter Participation (Stockholm, InternationalInstitute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).

INTERNATIONAL IDEA (2002) Voter Turnout Since 1945 (Stockholm, InternationalInstitute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).

JOHN, P., MORRIS, Z. and HALPERN, D. (2003) Social capital and causal role ofsocialisation. Paper presented at ESRC Democracy and Participation conference,University of Essex.

JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON ELECTORAL MATTERS (JSCEM) (2006)Inquiry into Civic and Electoral Education (Canberra, Parliament of Australia).

KEETER, S., ZUKIN, C., ANDOLINA, M. and JENKINS, K. (2002) The Civic andPolitical Health of a Nation: a Generational Portrait (Maryland, CIRCLE).

KEMP, D. (1997) Discovering Democracy: Civics and Citizenship Education (Canberra,Ministerial Statement).

KERR, D., IRELAND, E., LOPES, J. and CRAIG, R. (2004) Making Citizenship EducationReal: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Second Annual Report (London, DfES).

KIRLIN, M. (2002) Civic skill building: the missing component in service learning?PS: Political Science and Politics, 3 (35), 571575.

KIRLIN, M. (2003) The Role of Adolescent Extracurricular Activities in Adult PoliticalEngagement (Maryland, CIRCLE).

MCALLISTER, I. (1998) Civic education and political knowledge in Australia,Australian Journal of Political Science, 33 (2), 723.

MACEDO, S. et al. (2005) Democracy at Risk (Washington, DC, Brookings Institute).MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING AND

YOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (1999) National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-first Century (Adelaide, MCEETYA).

MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING ANDYOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (2003) A Measurement Framework for National KeyPerformance Measures (Canberra, MCEETYA).

MINISTERIAL COUNCIL FOR EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, TRAINING ANDYOUTH AFFAIRS (MCEETYA) (2006) National Assessment Programme Civics andCitizenship Education, Years 6 and10 Report (Canberra, MCEETYA).

NIE, N., JUNN, J. and STEHLIK-BARRY, K. (1996) Education and Democratic Citizen-ship in America (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



NIEMI, R. and JUNN, J. (1998) Civic Education: What makes Students Learn (NewHaven, CT, Yale University Press).

NIEMI, R. and CHAPMAN, C. (1999) The Civic Development of 9th through 12th GradeStudents in the United States (Washington, DC, U.S. Department of Education).

NIEMI, R.G. and FINKEL, S.E. (2006) Civic education and the development ofcivic knowledge and attitudes. In: L. HARRISON and J. KAGEN (Eds) Essayson Cultural Change (London, Routledge).

NORRIS, P. (2002) Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press).

OSLER, A. and STARKEY, H. (2005) Education for democratic citizenship, ResearchPapers in Education, 21 (4), 433466.

OTOOLE, T. (2003) Engaging with young peoples conceptions of the political,Childrens Geographies, 1 (1), 7190.

OTOOLE, T., LISTER, M., MARSH, D., JONES, S. and McDONAGH, J. (2003)Tuning out or left out? Participation and non-partiicpation among young people,Contemporary Politics, 9 (1), 4561.

PAMMETT, J. and LeDUC, L. (2003) Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian FederalElections: a New Survey of Non-Voters (Ottawa, Elections Canada).

PATRICK, J. (1999) Education for constructive engagement of citizens in democraticcivil society. In C. BAHMUELLER and J. PATRICK (Eds) Principles and Practices ofEducation for Democratic Citizenship (Bloomington, IN, ERIC Clearinghouse).

POWER INQUIRY (2006) Power to the People (York, York Publishing Distribution).PRINT, M. (1995) Political Understanding and Attitudes of Secondary Students

(Canberra, Department of the Senate, Australian Parliament).PRINT, M. (2006a) Socializing young Australians to participate in compulsory voting.

Paper presented at the triennial meeting of the International Political ScienceAssociation, Fukuoka, Japan, July.

PRINT, M. (2006b) Youth participation in democracy and elections. Keynote address,Citized International Conference, Oriel College, Oxford University, July.

PRINT, M. and COLEMAN, D. (2003) Towards understanding social capital andcitizenship education, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (1), 123149.

PRINT, M. and SAHA, L. (2006) Adequacy of Civics and Electoral Education in Australia.Invited submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters(Canberra, Parliament of Australia).

PRINT, M., ORNSTROM, S. and NIELSEN, H. (2002) Education for democraticprocesses in schools and classrooms, European Journal of Education, 37 (2),193210.

PRINT, M., SAHA, L. and EDWARDS, K. (2004) Youth Electoral Study: Report 1(Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission).

PUTNAM, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: the Collapse and Revival of American Community(New York, Simon and Schuster).

SAHA, L. (2000) Political activism and civic education among Australian secondaryschool students, Australian Journal of Education, 44 (2), 155174.

SAHA, L., PRINT, M. and EDWARDS, K. (2005) Youth, Political Engagement andVoting. Report 2 (Canberra, Australian Electoral Commission).

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAIN-ING (SSCEET) (1989) Education for Active Citizenship Education in AustralianSchools and Youth Organizations (Canberra, Parliament of Australia).

TORNEY-PURTA, J. (2002) The schools role in developing civic engagement: astudy of adolescents in twenty-eight countries, Applied Developmental Science, 5 (4),203212.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2



TORNEY-PURTA, J., LEHAMAN, R., OSWALD, H. and SCHULZ, W. (2001)Citizenship and Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge and Engagementat Age Fourteen (Amsterdam, International Association for the Evaluation ofEducational Achievement).

VERBA, S., SCHOLZMAN, K. and BRADY, H. (1995) Voice and Equality: CivicVoluntarism in American Politics (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).

YOUNISS, J., MCLELLAN, A. and YATES, M. (1997) What we know about engen-dering civic identity, American Behavioral Scientist, 40, March, 620631.

ZUKIN, C., KEETER, S., ANDOLINA, M., JENKINS, K. and DELLI CARPINI, M.(2006) A New Engagement? Political Participation, Civic Life, and the ChangingAmerican Citizen (New York, Oxford University Press).

CorrespondenceProfessor Murray PrintCentre for Research and Teaching in CivicsFaculty of EducationUniversity of SydneyNSW 2006AustraliaE-mail: [email protected]

Appendix: Participation Rates of Young Australians in Elections*

Age

Revised ABS estimate of eligible

populationActual federal

enrolment

Participation rate as percentage of

ABS Estimate

18 year olds 261,927 152,687 58.2919 year olds 261,373 194,559 74.4420 year olds 256,903 209,751 81.6521 year olds 256,157 220,421 86.0522 year olds 249,831 213,768 85.5723 year olds 243,892 212,112 86.9724 year olds 236,210 209,773 88.8125 year olds 232,427 207,042 89.08Overall 1825 year old cohort

1,998,720 1,620,113 81.06

Source: Hallett (in press)* Participation based upon adjusted Australian Bureau of Statistics demographic data (2004) compared with the electoral roll at 30 June, 2004.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [C

orpo

racion

CIN

CEL]

at 12

:34 21

Nov

embe

r 201

2

Documents

Citizenship Education and Youth Participation in Democracy