Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
This article was downloaded by: [York University Libraries]On: 15 October 2014, At: 09:42Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Curriculum StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcus20
Nationalizing the post‐national:reframing European citizenship for thecivics curriculum in IrelandAvril Keating aa National Foundation for Educational Research , The Mere, UptonPark, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2DQ, UKPublished online: 20 Mar 2009.
To cite this article: Avril Keating (2009) Nationalizing the post‐national: reframing Europeancitizenship for the civics curriculum in Ireland, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41:2, 159-178, DOI:10.1080/00220270802467475
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220270802467475
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
J. CURRICULUM STUDIES, 2009, VOL. 41, NO. 2, 159–178
Journal of Curriculum Studies ISSN 0022–0272 print/ISSN 1366–5839 online ©2009 Taylor & Francis http://www.informaworld.com
DOI: 10.1080/00220270802467475
Nationalizing the post-national: reframing European citizenship for the civics curriculum in Ireland
AVRIL KEATING
Taylor and FrancisTCUS_A_346915.sgm10.1080/00220270802467475Journal of Curriculum Studies0022-0272 (print)/1366-5839 (online)Original Article2008Taylor & [email protected] The EU and other European institutions have launched a wide range of educationalinitiatives over the past 50 years in order to foster European citizenship and bring Europe‘closer to the people’. However, the efficacy of these efforts is questionable. In the EU,education policy (and in particular, curriculum policy) is governed by subsidiarity: citizen-ship education curricula are designed at the national level, with limited input from Europeaninstitutions. This paper examines whether European citizenship education initiatives haveimpact upon national-level curricula and, moreover, how the concept of European citizen-ship has been defined and constructed in national citizenship education programmes. Thesequestions are explored here using qualitative, socio-historical methods through a case studyof curricular reform in the Republic of Ireland. This case illustrates that there has been agradual deepening and broadening of the way in which European citizenship is conceptual-ized in the Irish curriculum. However, this remains a narrow conception of European citi-zenship, and one which ultimately limits both the impact on national citizenship and theprospects of European citizenship.
Keywords: citizenship education; education policy; European citizenship; Ireland
Introduction
The emergence of pan-European supranational institutions has had aprofound and unprecedented effect on relationships between and within thestates of Europe. Since their inception in the post-World War II period,European institutions have gradually engendered a political arena that nowstretches from Ireland to the Urals, and touches upon almost all facets ofgovernance and policy-making. This is especially apparent in the EuropeanUnion (EU), which is the most prominent and integrated of the Europeaninstitutions—and from which a unique political entity has emerged, one thatis no longer a purely intergovernmental system but rather an emergent polity(Chryssochoou 2002: 757–758), albeit one that still ‘hovers between politicsand diplomacy, between states and markets, and between government andgovernance’ (Laffan 1998: 236). As the powers and scope of the EU haveexpanded, so too has its need for legitimacy and, ultimately, its need for ademos over which it can exercise authoritative decision-making. Over time,
Avril Keating is a Senior Research Officer at the National Foundation for EducationalResearch, The Mere, Upton Park, Slough, Berkshire SL1 2DQ, UK, e-mail: [email protected] She is also currently working on a longitudinal survey of citizenship education inEngland, as well as projects on citizenship education assessment policies, and the impact ofmulti-level governance on education policy and practice in England.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
160 A. KEATING
therefore, the EU has attempted to establish a European citizenship withlegal, affective, and pragmatic dimensions to bring Europe ‘closer to thepeople’ (Adonnino 1985).
To meet this ambitious goal, the EU has attempted a range of initiativesover the past 5 decades, including legal changes (EU citizenship status),institutional reforms (transforming the European Parliament into a directlyelected chamber with universal suffrage), and creating supposedly unifyingsymbols (a European anthem, common passports, and border exit signs) (cf.Adonnino 1985, Shore 2004). Amidst the various proposals, the need forcivics and/or citizenship education about Europe and European integrationhas remained a persistent theme.1 These efforts have also often beencomplemented (or prefigured) by similar initiatives from the Council ofEurope (CoE). As early as 1949, the Council of Europe was concerned withthe teaching of civic education in the new Europe (Council of Europe,Council for Cultural Co-operation 1963: 15), and indeed in the 1960sit published a textbook for teachers, Introducing Europe to Senior Pupils(Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation 1966). Morerecently, the CoE has undertaken a large-scale project on Education forDemocratic Citizenship (EDC), while the EU has set about promoting activecitizenship (European Commission 1998), the ‘European dimension’ toeducation, and the basic civic competences that education systems shouldpromote and measure (Education Council 2006, Hoskins et al. 2008).
Regardless of whether such efforts are desirable, the European institu-tions have only limited control over national education policies. Even in theEU, which has managed to develop strong governance instruments in somepolicy areas, education continues to be a sensitive policy area and educationpolicy continues to be governed by the principle of subsidiarity (cf. Pépin2007). In particular, member states retain firm control over the form andcontent of school curricula, and the EU cannot issue prescriptive policies onhow national education systems teach about Europe or about (European)citizenship in schools. Instead, the European institutions can merely issuebroad policy proposals and guidelines that member states can interpret andimplement as they see fit.
The complex mode of governance raises a number of key questions,three of which are explored in this paper:
● Have European citizenship initiatives and attendant education poli-cies had any impact upon education policies at the national level?
● If so, how has European citizenship been interpreted in and for thecitizenship education curricula in member states?
● What are the implications of this conceptualization for officialdiscourses of citizenship at the European and national level?
These questions are explored here through an in-depth, qualitative, andsocio-historical case study of curricular reform of citizenship education inthe Republic of Ireland. This small state offers a useful and insightful case ofthe impact of supranational citizenship on national education policy. First,as a member of the Council of Europe since 1949, and a member of theEU since 1973, this case allows for a longitudinal analysis. Second, Irelandhas consistently supported European integration, and has long been reliant
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 161
on external factors such as research and funding, particularly in the educa-tional arena (Gleeson 2000, Sugrue 2006). These factors suggest that aEuropeanization of its citizenship and/or education policies is at least possi-ble (although still not guaranteed), making it a good case for theory-building. This is not to suggest, however, that Irish education policiesuniversally or uniformly accommodate European influences. Indeed, Iargue that although the Irish citizenship education curriculum has placedincreasing significance on European issues over time, the curriculumreframes European integration to reflect national agendas and presents aconception of European citizenship that is limited in scope and, by exten-sion, potential efficacy. In other words, I suggest that the limitations of thisconceptualization are such that they ultimately lessen the impact on nationalcitizenship and the prospects of fostering European citizenship amongyoung people in Ireland.
To illustrate how I arrive at this conclusion, in the first section I describehow I have conceptualized and analysed the ‘European dimension’ tonational citizenship education programmes.
Researching the European dimension to citizenship education
Despite the long-standing efforts of European institutions to promotecitizenship education, there is as yet no consensus on how to analyse Euro-pean policies, much less measure the impact of such efforts in the nationalarena.2 Theories of citizenship education have historically been based on, orassumed that schools are educating for citizenship of a nation-state, a tradi-tion which reflects the close relationship between citizenship, schooling, andthe emergence of the modern-nation state in the 18th and 19th centuries (cf.Gellner 1983, Hobsbawm 1987, Green 1997). Civics education in nation-states has typically featured a strong emphasis on patriotism, a celebrationof the culture and history of the ‘nation’, and a mythologizing of nationalheroes and events. The curriculum also tended to be ethnocentric, and reli-ant on establishing an ‘in’-group and an ‘Other’ (Soysal 2002).
Some have employed these insights to consider European educationpolicies, and argued that EU policies in particular have adopted some ofthese nation-building techniques to suit their own purposes (cf. Sultana1995, Hansen 1998). Others have attempted to adapt these assumptions toexamine the relationship between the national and the European arenas. Forexample, in a cross-national comparison of national identities in history andcivics education in European states, Soysal (2002, Soysal et al. 2005: 14)suggests that we examine not only national-level factors such as nationalhero- and myth-making, but also the extent to which syllabi and textbooksinclude a transnational focus and/or celebrate Europe.3 For instance, toexplore the latter she suggested we should consider the ‘coverage andemphasis given to values attributed to Europe, such as progress, environ-ment, and human rights’ (Soysal et al. 2005: 14).
This approach can give us an insight into the extent to which Europeanaffairs are discussed in educational texts, and even the ‘status’ of European
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
162 A. KEATING
affairs in the national civics curriculum. However, previous research alsosuggests that we should examine how the relationship between national andEuropean identities is presented in the curriculum in order to gain importantinsights into citizenships and how they (or at least the identity component)are evolving. National identities have historically been inextricably bound upwith citizenship, and, like citizenship status, exclusive and exclusionary(Turner 2006: 225). Proposals to create (or acknowledge) a European iden-tity have thus been politically sensitive. For example, it has been suggestedthat European identity may pose a threat to national identity (replacing allnational ties with supranational attachments), or may prompt a backlashthat rejuvenates nationalism and (at worst) extreme xenophobia. Yet it hasalso been suggested that the national and European identities can co-existand complement one another (cf. Cederman 2001, Delanty and O’Mahony2002), a hypothesis that resonates with the notion of individuals holdingmultiple identities (and one that tends to assume that both identities arecompatible in a positive sense, rather than equally exclusionary, althoughthis may also arise). However, while the concept of multiple identities is nowwidely accepted in academic research, the practice of juggling multiple-identities is not necessarily devoid of tensions or conflict. National curriculamay acknowledge, and even at times promote, the co-existence of Europeanidentities and national identities, but such efforts may be contradicted orundermined elsewhere in the texts. Alternatively, perhaps this approach(and the very concept of Europe) has been used to strengthen national iden-tities rather than contribute to creating a European one? Careful analysis ofthe way in which the relationship between national and European identitiesis constructed in educational texts is therefore required.
Moreover, while identities are a key element of how citizenship is createdand maintained, citizenship cannot be reduced to identity. Citizenship isa multifaceted concept, one which (at least theoretically) entails not only anaffective dimension, but also legal, economic, participatory, and cognitivedimensions (Heater 2004, Osler and Starkey 2006: 441). Therefore, Isuggest that we examine not only the identities that are being constructed,but also whether the civics education curriculum discusses issues thattouch upon most or all of these bases, and teaches not only about Europeanidentities but also the status and opportunities for civic political participationthat European citizenship bestows. To take a few simple examples, anational citizenship curriculum could include European rights (i.e. thelegal citizenship status), voting in EU Parliament elections (participatorydimension), and information about European affairs and institutions (acognitive dimension). The affective dimension might be covered throughdiscussions about European identity or solidarity. Texts that included eachof the dimensions of this nature would suggest that a multi-faceted concep-tualization of European citizenship is presented in and through the curricu-lum. In contrast, if the curriculum merely teaches about EU rights, thisimplies a rights-based and ‘thin’ version of European citizenship is beingtransmitted. This is significant because it has been argued that ‘thin’ modelsof citizenship focus on citizens’ status rather than their participation and, asa result, do not engender the active participation and social solidarity thatare believed to be necessary for effective and democratic citizenship in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 163
contemporary societies (Calhoun 2002, Kennedy et al. 2008: 53–54). Acurriculum that focuses exclusively or predominantly on rights thus raisesquestions about the strength and feasibility of fostering European citizenshipthrough the curriculum.
Equally, the citizenship model employed in the curriculum may belimited in other significant ways. For example, if the curriculum adopts anarrow approach to European affairs and focuses on providing descriptiveinformation about European institutions, this too points to limited ambi-tions (both educational and political). Merely providing information aboutsocio-political structures and institutions (often described as the ‘educationabout citizenship’ model) is no longer considered adequate for promotingeffective citizenship. Instead, academics and policy-makers now recommendeducating through citizenship (which encourages students to also ‘learn bydoing’ through active participation in their communities) or, even better,educating for citizenship. The latter model aims to provide students with theknowledge, values, attitudes, and skills to participate effectively in the civicsphere (Kerr 1999: 12). Citizenship education must include each of thesedimensions in order to facilitate the emergence of an active, critical, andknowledgeable citizenry.4 If we adapt these contentions to the discussionsabout teaching about Europe, this suggests that merely transmitting informa-tion about European institutions does not necessarily foster European citi-zenship (or, for that matter, even intend to); this is merely education aboutEurope. Therefore, if seeking to educate for European citizenship, nationalcurricula should adopt a multi-faceted (and critical) approach to teachingabout Europe, and highlight that citizenship of Europe involves not onlyknowledge about European institutions but also rights, duties, identities,skills, and opportunities for participation.
Finally, we might also examine whether the civics curriculum continuesthe traditional ‘national’ model of citizenship education or has adopted amore ‘post-national’ or cosmopolitan model. As noted above, the traditional‘national’ model tends to glorify national socio-cultural characteristics andpolitical institutions, and exclude information about and ties to othersources of citizenship (see also table 1). The post-national model of civicseducation, in contrast, draws on cosmopolitan understandings of citizenshipand, by extension, is supposed to assume that citizenship transcends thenation-state (Delanty 2000: 64–65). For example, in post-national modelsof citizenship, citizenship is to be fluid rather than territorially-bounded, andto be granted on the basis of universal personhood rather than nationality.In addition, rights are derived not only from national law, but are also fromcivic principles and international frameworks such as the UN Convention onHuman Rights (which, even if non-binding in legal terms, encourage statecompliance through their ability to establish norms, frame discourses, anddefine competence and goals) (cf. Habermas 1992, Soysal 1994). However,identities can remain particularistic and territorially-defined, which allowsspace for the expression (and persistence of) national identities. What issignificant is that national identities no longer necessarily engender rightsand privileges. Instead, citizenship rights and national identity are decoupledand citizenship identities are instead to be based on civic and abstractprinciples such as respect for democracy, diversity and human rights.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
164 A. KEATING
Citizenship education in this vein should thus reflect many or all of thesefeatures. Rauner (1998) and others have attempted to map more specificallywhat form this might take in the curriculum. Table 1 lists the key featuresthat they have suggested, as well as those of the comparative ‘national’model. A comparison of these two models highlights the different ways inwhich European (or other) modes of citizenship can be featured in and/orexcluded from citizenship-related curricula. However, this frameworkincludes only a limited number of variables, and requires further develop-ment in order to fully conceptualize the different dimensions of the citizen-ship education curricula that are emerging in the context of global andregional integration.
Theoretical, analytical, and methodological frameworks
For the purposes of this study, I devised an analytical framework thatencompassed the key insights of the literature reviewed above. Drawing onthis literature, I identified five variables that appeared to be particularlysignificant for the task at hand, namely:
Table 1. Models of civics education in national and post-national models ofsociety.
Features of civics education National model of society Post-national model of society
Geographical focus and affiliation of curricular content
Patriotic (national seal, anthem, flag)Internal (history, structure, and function of local and national government)
Focus on the region/the world
Focus on regional and international organizations (nationalism remains)
Citizenship Citizen of a nation Citizen of a region and the world (citizen of a nation remains)
Human rights Rights and obligations are based on national-level definitions of membership
Nature of rights and obligations are based on national-level issues
Human rights and obligations are based on regional and global-level definitions of membership (national-level definitions remain)Nature of rights and obligations are based on regional and global issues (national-level issues remain)
Values Those espoused by the nation-state and national culture
Civic, ‘universal’ values, e.g. accepting personal responsibility; recognizing the importance of civic commitment; respect for diversity; respecting cultural heritage and the environment; promoting solidarity and equity
Skills Participation in national institutions; often promotes uncritical and passive view of national institutions
e.g. working collaboratively; awareness of social construction of knowledge and culture; critical thinking
Derived from Heater (1999: 165), Osler and Vincent (2002), Rauner (1998), Soysal (1994).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 165
● the status of European issues in national civic education curriculum;● the relationship between national and European identities;● the type and quality of the European citizenship model presented in
the national citizenship education curriculum;● the type and quality of citizenship education model adopted in
national curriculum; and● whether the curriculum is based on a national or post-national model
of citizenship.
This literature also gave some indication of the possible indicators of thesevariables (see table 2). However, given that this is still a nascent area, it wasnot assumed that this was an exhaustive list and that these were the onlypossible indicators. In recognition of this fact, I employed analytical tech-niques (such as inductive coding) that would enable me to identifyand incorporate unanticipated indicators and findings (discussed furtherbelow).
Table 2. Analytical framework for the European dimension for civic education (CE).
National-level variable Possible indicators
Status of European issues in national civic education (CE) curriculum
•e.g. Is fostering European citizenship a curricular goal? Are European issues cross-curricular or a stand-alone topic? What portion of the curriculum is devoted to European issues?
•Are citizens portrayed as members of local, national, European and/or global communities?
•Do citizens’ rights and responsibilities stem from European and/or international institutions or exclusively from national institutions?
Relationship to national identities?
•Does (CE) conform to the national model and emphasize patriotism, or the national culture and history of the ‘nation’? Does it mythologize national heroes and events, or establish an ‘in’-group and an ‘Other’? Is the curriculum ethnocentric or Eurocentric?
•Does European citizenship replace, co-exist with, supplement, or become overshadowed by national citizenship?
Type + quality of European citizenship model presented in national CE curriculum
•Is European citizenship based on a holistic model that entails rights, participation, identity, and/or cognitive dimensions?
•Is European identity based on history and culture or common civic values?
Type + quality of education for European citizenship
•Does the curriculum education for, about/or through European citizenship, or educate about Europeaninstitutions?
•Does the curriculum include a holistic version of educating for European citizenship that includes cognitive, pragmatic, and affective dimensions and skills?
National or post-national view of CE?
•Does civics education conform to the national model and emphasize patriotism, or the national culture and history of the ‘nation’? Does it mythologize national heroes and events, or establish an ‘in’-group and an ‘Other’? Is the curriculum ethnocentric or Eurocentric?
•Does the curriculum adopt a post-national view of citizenship, including a civic view of citizenship culture, values, and identities?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
166 A. KEATING
How these conceptions have changed over time was a key factor in thisanalysis. Research to date has tended to present a snap-shot view of theEuropean dimension to national curricula at a particular time or phase. Thisapproach obscures the fact that citizenship is a social construction, andneither static nor necessarily coherent. A socio-historical analysis, incontrast, can bring these features to the fore. A comprehensive data searchfor citizenship-related policy documents was therefore conducted for theperiod 1922 (when Ireland gained independence) to 2006 (when the curric-ulum materials were last revised). This produced a large, rich, and highlyrepresentative corpus of data that included official syllabi and curricula, text-books and teaching materials, teaching guidance notes, political speeches,and internal minutes from the policy planning meetings in the 1990s.5
These documents were analysed from a constructivist perspective usingqualitative analytical methods. These methods include both thematic anddiscourse analytical techniques, organized into a series of five readings oranalytical stages. Reading 1 focused on inductive coding; Reading 2 ondeductive coding; Reading 3 on examining the rhetorical context (that is,identifying the devices used to justify, legitimate, and normalize the docu-ments contents and proposals); Reading 4 considered the interpretivecontext of the documents (that is, relating the document and the analysis tothe socio-political context); Reading 5 tied these readings together andrelated their common findings back to the original theoretical framework(cf. Keating 2007). The multiple readings facilitated a rich and rigorousinvestigation of this subject, and highlighted the shifting conceptualizationsof citizenship embedded in the Irish civics curricula that are describedbelow.
Including a European dimension to national(ist) education of Irish citizens
Upon gaining independence from Britain in 1922, the ‘European dimen-sion’ to Irish education appears to have been limited, and of limited concernto Irish policy-makers.6 Much like other nation-states of the period, Irishelites were concerned with using the education system to create nationalcitizens and, by extension, to legitimize the nation-state. At this juncture,Irish citizenship was equated with Catholicism, irredentism, and a ‘tradi-tional’ Gaelic culture and language, and these values were thus reflected inand reinforced by the contents and ideological basis of the curriculum(Hyland 1992: 58). Indeed, a 1963 report by the CoE (Council of Europe,Council for Cultural Co-operation 1963) concluded that there was little orno civics education in Ireland, much less teaching about Europe. However,the report did find that some teaching materials about European affairsand institutions were beginning to appear and that Irish officials hadexpressed willingness to participate in and learn from European co-operation (pp. 94–99).
The first inklings that this shift had become official policy became appar-ent in the civic education curriculum that was introduced at post-primarylevel education in the late 1960s. Echoing the wider socio-political changes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 167
taking place at the time (cf. Girvan 2002), the new civics programmereflected a more pluralist, inclusive, and civic conception of citizenship andcitizenship education, and appeared to be in the process of moving awayfrom the theocentric paradigm that had dominated thus far. For example,teaching materials from this period focus on rights and participation morethan morality and religion, and the Department of Education guidelines forteachers, Notes on the Teaching of Civics, noted the importance of teachingreligious toleration, active citizenship, and critical thinking (Government ofIreland 1966: 1–5). Moreover, the new civics syllabus stipulated thatstudents be educated not only about national social, political, and civic insti-tutions, but also about ‘Ireland’s international connections’, namely ‘thediaspora and participation in international organizations including the[European Economic Community]’ (Government of Ireland 1968–1969:111–112). The new civics syllabus, in other words, introduced a clear‘European dimension’ to the curriculum.
Yet the syllabus and associated teaching materials indicate that Irishpolicy-makers had an ambivalent attitude to teaching about Europe and,indeed, to this new approach to educating citizens. On the one hand, thecivics syllabus noted that young citizens were members of a wider commu-nity that extends beyond national ties or state borders, and discussedIreland’s connections with and commitments to international organizationsand communities (Government of Ireland 1968–1969: 112). Indeed, theteaching guidelines, Notes on the Teaching of Civics (Government of Ireland1966), went even further and envisaged multiple sites of citizenship, as thefollowing extract illustrates:
Our object here will be to widen the mental perspective of our pupils so thattheir approach to local situations and problems will be as well-informed and asobjective as possible, and also to give them from the start the habit of thinkingas members both of the local and national community and of the European and worldcommunity. (p. 7; emphasis added)
In the guidance Notes, this goal appears as more than mere rhetoric, as aninternational dimension is integrated into various aspects of the syllabus. Forinstance, the Notes suggest that teachers refer to local and national participa-tion in UN peace-keeping operations when addressing the issue of lawenforcement (p. 6), and that students should conduct projects on interna-tional issues, and not just local or national issues (p. 13). In addition, teach-ers were urged to examine Irish institutions from a comparative perspective(p. 7). Some of the teaching materials also reflect this goal. The civics maga-zine (Young Citizen) covered international and European issues regularly,and highlighted some ways in which young people could get involved inEuropean activities, such as the European Schools Day competition, theEuropean Youth Parliament (October 1972), and the European Schools’Soccer Tournament (November–December 1972).
At the same time, however, the potential of these efforts to educate aboutEurope, much less European citizenship, appears to have been underminedby a range of factors. For one, despite the efforts of the teaching guidelinesto promote multi-level and active citizenship, the official syllabus continuedto focus overwhelmingly on national institutions and events, and to maintain
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
168 A. KEATING
the traditional (and nationalist) approach to educating citizens (cf. Keating2007).7 For example, the introduction to the Civics syllabus stated that oneof the key functions of education was to ensure that future citizens: ‘willacquire the civic virtues of integrity, fortitude, independence of mind, loyaltyto this country and diligence’ (Government of Ireland 1968–1969: 111;emphasis added). The civics syllabus was to contribute to the fulfilment ofthis goal by ‘inculcat[ing]… an understanding of true patriotism and itsdemands’ and teaching young citizens ‘to be ready to defend the nationalterritory should the need arise’. This approach is reminiscent of the tradi-tional ‘national’ model of citizenship education, which leaves little room foralternative sites of citizenship.
Some of the corresponding teaching materials appear to reflect a simi-larly ambivalent attitude towards, and narrow understanding of, Europeanand international affairs. A key exemplar of this tendency can be found inBrophy’s (1972) textbook, Living: An Approach to Civics. In line with therequirements of the syllabus, Brophy’s textbook devoted three chapters toIreland’s links with the wider world. The first, ‘The Irish abroad’, focuses onthe contribution of Irish people to other cultures and societies (throughemigration, missionary work, cultural endeavours, and military activities),yet the contribution of others to Ireland’s development is not acknowledged.Instead, in the course of this unit, students were informed that:
The size of our contribution to the development of other countries is out ofproportion to the size of our country and our population. It’s rather likesaying ‘There are good goods in small parcels’… Without these Irish people,many of the less prosperous peoples of the world would be much worse off.(p. 24)
This statement encapsulates a still-current strand of Irish nationalistrhetoric, namely that the Irish nation has made a significant and worthwhilecontribution not only at home, but across the globe, despite the manychallenges it has faced (O’Mahony and Delanty 1998). Even attempts toillustrate that Ireland shares common traditions with Europe emphasizedIreland’s contribution to Europe’s development:
Although we are the most westerly part of Europe, we have strong traditionallinks with the Continent (for example, our monks brought Christianity back toEurope in the times of St. Colubanus). Joining the [European Community]strengthens the bonds which link us to Europe. (p. 91)
This excerpt, taken from a chapter devoted exclusively to addressingIreland’s relationship with the EU (then known as the European Commu-nity or EC), illustrates its significance in the curriculum and socio-politicalarena (all other international organizations are dealt with briefly within onechapter). While this excerpt could be seen as an attempt to inspire affectivecitizenship ties by emphasizing Ireland’s historical links with Europe, it isnotable that Ireland was portrayed as only linked with, but not part of or tiedto, Europe. Instead, the introduction to this chapter suggested that Irelandonly became part of Europe on entry to the EU: ‘the huge majority vote forentry [to the European Community] showed that the Irish people weredetermined to become part of Europe’ (Brophy 1972: 91; emphasis added).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 169
Furthermore, the vast majority of the material presented in this chapterfocused on describing the economic regulations and attendant benefitsaccrued through EU membership, political and geographical knowledge ofother EU members, and the institutions of the EU. Membership wasconferred on states, not its peoples, and no reference to rights or responsi-bilities was made. In other words, the EU was principally portrayed as aneconomic and political institution that had little bearing on the status,identity, or participation options of ordinary citizens.
Educating about Europe or for European citizenship?
On balance, therefore, it is difficult to argue that the Irish civics educationconveyed, or constructed, a European citizenship during this period. Thereis some evidence of a superficial effort to inculcate feelings of belonging to aEuropean community through rhetoric such as ‘the bonds that link us’(Brophy 1972: 91). However, on the whole, the 1960s civics curriculumappears to have merely provided additional information about Europeanpolitical institutions, that is, to have educated about European institutionsbut not for European integration or citizenship. Indeed, it is arguable that theEuropean dimension was used to further legitimate nationalist discoursesgiven, for example, that a typical textbook of the 1970s was keen to highlightIreland’s contribution to Europe’s development rather than the reverse(Brophy 1972). From this it can be inferred that, although the Irish civicscurriculum has adapted to European integration and included a Europeandimension, the nationalist locus of Irish civics education was retained, andthe fundamental political logic and identities of Irish citizenship remainedunchanged.
Nonetheless, this curriculum must be seen in its context. In this regard,the very inclusion of international relations and linkages in the syllabus andtextbook of this period could be seen as an opening up of citizenship andidentity that mirrors the parallel shifts taking place in Irish society, themove away from an inward-looking nationalism in the late-1950s andtowards an outward-looking participation in and membership of Europeanand international affairs. In addition, Ireland’s approach to educating aboutEuropean affairs could be seen as merely reflecting the structure of theEuropean institutions at this juncture, which did not grant individuals a rolein European integration or any substantial (citizenship) rights (see Wiener1998).
This argument is lent weight by the fact that once European integrationintensified, and Ireland’s relations with the EU became more institutional-ized in the 1980s, the teaching materials in Ireland began to discuss thenotion of European citizenship, and how to place greater emphasis on howstudents could participate in European affairs. For example, a special issueon European affairs was published in the Young Citizen in 1984 to heraldthe introduction of a common EU passport format: students were informedthat ‘we are citizens, not only of Ireland, but of Europe as well’ (YoungCitizen December 1984). Considerable attention was also devoted to politi-cal participation, and in particular to the functioning and elections of the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
170 A. KEATING
European Parliament—‘the voice of Europe’s citizens’ and ‘Your voice inEurope’ (Young Citizen January 1986).
However, while the editor of the Young Citizen argued that ‘most [teach-ers] know that that important topic [of European integration] deserves a lotof attention in the classroom’ (Jeffers 1984), official state policy and class-room practice continued to lag behind. Although still officially compulsory,by the early 1970s most schools had begun to remove civics education fromthe school timetable (Hyland 1993), and by the early 1980s, few schoolstaught civic education in any form (Fitzgerald 1996: 1). The (ultimatelyunsuccessful) efforts to revise the civics education curriculum in the mid-1980s made scant reference to Europe or European institutions, save tonote that Ireland was ‘an independent country playing its part in theEuropean Community, the United Nations and other international bodies’(Curriculum and Examinations Board 1987: 2).8 It was not until the 1990sthat a new civics education programme was introduced for Irish secondaryschools, and a new approach towards educating about Europe and Europeancitizenship was adopted.
Towards a multi-dimensional model of educating for European citizenship
A new citizenship education curriculum (entitled Civics, Society andPolitics Education (CSPE)), was introduced in 1996 as a mandatory subjectin the compulsory cycle of secondary education (the Junior Cycle9)(Hammond and Looney 2004: 178). The new syllabus differs from itspredecessor in several key and salient ways (cf. Keating 2007). The mostsignificant and salient change, however, is that the CSPE curriculum haseschewed the traditional ‘national’ model that Ireland had employed in thepast, and is instead based on a model of citizenship education that is morein keeping with the post-national–cosmopolitan approach (Rauner 1998,Soysal 1994). For example, instead of inculcating nationality and patrio-tism, the syllabus states that its core values are the abstract and supposedlyuniversal principles of democracy, human rights, and interdependence(Department of Education 1996: 9–10). Indeed, according to Hammondand Looney (2004: 9), who played a key role in the reform process, thefoundational values and concepts of the programme were drawn frominternational human rights instruments, namely the UN Declaration ofHuman Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Similarly, thecurriculum constructs citizenship as a holistic concept that entails multipleroles and is experienced at multiple levels and in multiple communities(cf. Keating 2007).
Given this starting point for the CPSE curriculum, a European (andglobal) dimension to the curriculum could be easily accommodated. Indeed,the new curriculum explicitly includes both a European and a global dimen-sion. However, below I argue that, once again, the official policy documentsadopt a somewhat inconsistent and ambivalent approach to European citi-zenship and educating for European citizenship. The official syllabus, forexample, delineates a rather narrow conceptualization of European (and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 171
global) citizenship, despite adopting a multi-faceted approach to Irishcitizenship in the texts. European issues are addressed in Unit 4 of thecurriculum (entitled ‘Ireland and the world’), the aims and rationale forwhich are set out in table 3.
Based on this description, ‘Europe’ appears to have been depicted as aset of political institutions, and an arena for states, rather than citizens. ThisUnit focuses on the rationale and functioning of international institutions,and makes no reference to ‘citizens’ or how individuals may be members ofor participate in European and international affairs. The syllabus does referto European Parliament elections in another section of the curriculum,10 butthese references are made in passing and are not explicitly linked to, orexplored in, Unit 4. As a result, the syllabus suggests that it is states, notindividuals, who are ‘citizens’.
Interestingly, however, the teaching materials have adopted an alterna-tive, and broader, approach. In much of the teaching materials (whetherproduced commercially or by government-affiliated agencies), Europeancitizenship is constructed as a multi-faceted concept with legal, affective,and pragmatic dimensions, as well as a cognitive dimension that incorpo-rates the acquisition of knowledge about the EU institutions and memberstates. For instance, the teaching materials highlight that EU citizenshipconfers a legal status on citizens, and the associated rights are clearly delin-eated for students, as are the means through which the individual citizencan influence EU affairs (cf. Department of Education and Science n.d.,Barrett and Richardson 2003 : 153). However, where the teaching materialscould focus merely on the legal rights of membership, the texts also attemptto promote a sense of belonging, and the idea that students are members ofa European community (or at least members of the EU).
One technique that is frequently employed in CSPE teaching materialsto achieve this is a case study or ‘day in the life’ of a young person who ‘expe-riences’ Europe many times over the course of this day by applying for apassport, travelling on EU-funded roads, receiving agricultural subsidies orfinancial assistance for training schemes (Quinn 1998).11 Exercises such asthis highlight the personal impact of European integration, and suggest thatEurope concerns not merely states, as the syllabus implies, but also citizensand individuals. Moreover, both in these case studies and elsewhere in thetexts, ‘Europe’ is no longer merely an economic and political institution ora geographical entity, but is also concerned with sport, culture, languages,participation, and identity.
Table 3. Course description for Unit 4 ‘Ireland and the world’.
States seldom exist in isolation from other states. Why do they group? How do states group? Through study of Ireland’s membership of international groupings—e.g. the European Union, the Council of Europe and the United Nations—these questions can be explored. Through participation in larger groupings, countries such as Ireland have potential influence and responsibilities beyond their borders. Important world development issues can be influenced by Ireland directly, and through the state groupings of which it is a member. The concepts of ‘Development’ and ‘Interdependence’ are closely associated with the content of this unit.
Source: Department of Education (1996: 18).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
172 A. KEATING
Yet what it means to be ‘European’ is not defined for students by theteaching materials or syllabus. Instead it is something is to be explored anddefined through classroom discussions (table 4 is an example of the teachingactivities that were designed to facilitate this goal). A similar approach isadopted towards the conception of Irish identity, indicating that the curric-ulum is not attempting to impose a rigid, hegemonic, and ethno-culturalview of Irish or European identity on citizens, which, as argued above, hasbeen attempted in the past. In contrast, identity is constructed as a fluid,flexible, and ultimately personal choice.
This excerpt also illustrates that the CSPE teaching materials make noattempt to create a common history or heritage for Europeans, an approachwhich some have critiqued (see above), or that European citizenship is toreplace national citizenship. Rather, European citizenship is supplementaryto national citizenship, as the introduction to this exercise makes clear: ‘Youare a citizen of Ireland, but you are also a citizen of EUROPE’ (Departmentof Education and Science n.d.). A European identity is neither assumed,considered inherently positive nor non-contentious. For example, studentsare asked to consider whether they ‘think the idea of a European superstateis a good one?’, and to discuss the possibility of compulsory national servicefor all European citizens or EU-wide teams for international sporting events(Department of Education and Science n.d.: 11).
Testing the boundaries of the community
Nonetheless, the conceptualization of European citizenship that has beenadopted in both the curriculum and textbooks since the 1990s is limited inseveral key ways. For one, ‘Europe’ tends to be conflated with the EU, andboth legal and affective citizenship are restricted to the EU. Students aretherefore only examined on their knowledge of EU countries, and little or noreference is made to non-EU member states. While perhaps understandablein the legal context, in essence the exclusion of non-EU members from‘Europe’ and European citizenship identity replicates the exclusionarytendencies of earlier times. This possibility is potentially counteracted by theinclusion of the concept of global citizenship, but this section focuses onnon-European countries and development issues, an approach which seems
Table 4. Sample teaching exercise on exploring European and Irish identity.
Activity 1 Activity 2
Working on your own and using the boxes below, tick the one that best describes how you feel:
(a) I am European and Irish.(b) I am Irish.(c) I am Irish and European.(d) I am European.(e) I am neither Irish nor European.
But what does it mean to be Irish? What does it mean to be European? Working on your own complete the exercise that follows and think about what being Irish means to you.
Source: Extract from Department of Education and Science (n.d.: 2).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 173
to further reinforce the boundaries between Europe and the ‘developing’world.
Second, although Unit 4 of the official syllabus (Department ofEducation 1996) highlights that states have international responsibilities,the issue of citizens’ duties or responsibilities towards Europe are skirtedover. This is a surprising omission given the emphasis on citizens’ responsi-bilities elsewhere in the CSPE curriculum and the current trend in citizen-ship education for rights to be closely linked to the subject of responsibilities.Third, EU issues are primarily explored in relation to their implications forIreland and Irish people, and while this approach brings the EU ‘closer tothe [Irish] people’ and facilitates understanding of complex issues, theimpact of the EU on the wider world (e.g. developing countries) or othermember states is overlooked. Overall, therefore, one does not get a sense ofthe EU as a community of peoples (or even of nation-states) or an actor withsignificance beyond Irish borders. The absence of a ‘community’ (or anysimilar unifying discourse) is then further underlined by the fact that there islittle attempt in the CSPE syllabus, or associated documents, to deploy theidea of common heritage, symbols, or history as a foundation for Europe.Although this approach is problematic and contentious (cf. Sultana 1995,Hansen 1998), history and culture can provide a sense of context andbelonging that can, in turn, contribute to fostering the affective ties that canbind citizens; its absence is therefore noteworthy.
However, it is also notable that the CSPE curriculum also avoidshistorical and cultural issues in discussions of Irish citizenship. In contrastto the policies of previous decades (and perhaps even contemporary politi-cal rhetoric in Ireland about citizenship), the CSPE curriculum insteadappears to place greater emphasis on the civic republican principle ofparticipation, and on post-national–cosmopolitan notions of multiple citi-zenships and civic values (Keating 2007). As a result, it is arguable thatthis ahistorical and acultural vision of European citizenship is a reflectionof what Irish understandings of citizenship can or should entail. This isperhaps not surprising, given the absence of clear definitions of what Euro-pean citizenship, and education for this citizenship, involves. Lacking suchclarification, Irish policy-makers have only been able to conceptualize andunderstand the concept with reference to indigenous (and national) under-standings of citizenship (cf. Keating 2007). Yet it also underlines the wayin which European citizenship is reframed by, and interwoven with,national conceptions of citizenship, which continue to predominate,despite the emergence of new sites of citizenship.
Further evidence of this is found in the fact that, despite acknowledg-ing and endorsing the concept of multi-level citizenship, the principalconcern of the civic curriculum essentially remains unchanged. Europeancitizenship has been accommodated within the Irish citizenship education,but it remains supplementary, and an adjunct to the goal of educatingfor citizenship in Ireland. In contemporary Ireland, this now requiressome knowledge of European integration and the rights that this hasbestowed, but, as noted above, teaching about Europe integration andinstitutions should not necessarily be equated with educating for Europeancitizenship.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
174 A. KEATING
Conclusion: nationalizing the post-national?
This socio-historical analysis of the European dimension to civics educationin Ireland illustrates that there have been significant developments in how‘Europe’ has been construed in the Irish secondary curriculum since the1960s and 1970s. This Europeanization extends beyond a mere increase inreferences to or the treatment of European affairs, and there appears to havebeen a notable and marked evolution in the conceptualization of Europeancitizenship. In the 1960s syllabus, ‘Europe’ was viewed primarily as a set ofinstitutions, and limited attention was devoted to this subject. Moreover,when first introduced into the civics curriculum, its European dimensionappears to have merely served to update or slightly modify the traditionaldiscourses of nationalism and nationalist citizenship. However, this narrowconceptualization of European citizenship has evolved over time, and by the1990s, ‘Europe’ was constructed as a site of citizenship identity, status, andparticipation.
Yet, while a broader view educating for European citizenship has beenadopted in the current civics curriculum, I have argued that it remainsproblematic and still some distance from the ideal models of citizenshipeducation proposed by educationalists and citizenship theorists. For one,the curriculum’s limited discussion of individual participation in Europeanintegration indicates that a passive mode of European citizenship may beengendered in Ireland’s students and future citizens. This contrasts starklywith the European and Irish goals of promoting active, participatory citizen-ship. Also problematic is the limited view of the European community thatis presented in the CSPE curriculum. In addition to excluding non-‘Europeans’ or third-country nationals, the curriculum gives little sense ofbelonging to a community that extends beyond Ireland’s borders. As such,it appears to offer only weak affective ties to Europe, which, as Calhoun(2002) has suggested, may not provide a sufficiently strong basis for bindingdiverse communities.
Also significant are the implications of my findings that the curriculumdefinitions of European citizenship are reframed by and interwoven withnational understandings of citizenship. This raises questions as to whetherEuropean citizenship has any meaning independent of national citizenship;that is, whether it can exist without being re-imagined in, and for, nationalframes of reference. Policy is continuously re-interpreted in its various sitesof implementation (Ball 1990, 1994), and, indeed, we must assume that thecontents of the CSPE curriculum are recast again in the classroom by teach-ers and students. However, the clear persistence of the national conceptionsof citizenship, and the absence of clear definitions of European citizenship,suggests that there is a real risk that the latter has no autonomous meaningand, by extension, little significance for students and citizens.
What then are the implications for national citizenship? The analysisstrongly indicates that the link between Irish citizenship and the nation-statehas endured in the face of this supra-national challenge. This interpretationechoes the contention that the nation-state will not be replaced by suprana-tional institutions, but will instead adapt its policies and mechanisms toensure its survival (Cederman 2001: 146, 150–152). This does not imply,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 175
however, that national citizenship remains unchanged. Indeed, the findingspresented here suggest that the resultant modifications at the national levelhave not been insignificant. Even if European citizenship and educationpolicies do not appear to have replaced or removed the salience of nationalcitizenship in member state education policies, the ‘national’ dimension tocitizenship education is nonetheless being reframed and the relationshipbetween the state, citizenship, and education does appear to be changing. Inparticular, the national dimension to citizenship education is no longerconstructed in terms of unswerving patriotism to the nation-state or mythsabout national history and heroes, as Soysal (2002) and Rauner (1998)suggest has previously been the case.
Yet national frames of reference remain as pertinent as ever; and ratherthan disappearing, the ‘national’ focus of citizenship education insteadappears to be being re-imagined for the contemporary context. Ultimately,therefore, these findings suggest that we require not only new tools forconceptualizing and analysing the features of supranational citizenshipeducation, but also for this new ‘national’ dimension to the education ofcitizens.
Acknowledgements
This research was sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council,UK. I would like to thank Madeleine Arnot, Gerard Delanty, and JackyBrine for their insightful comments along the way.
Notes
1. Citizenship education is still a nebulous term that can encompasses (or be conflatedwith) civics or civic education, social studies, political education, and even historyeducation (Kerr 1999: 2). Here civic and citizenship education are used interchange-ably, as in the case under review (Ireland), citizenship education is delivered throughsubject curricula that are entitled ‘Civics education’ or, more recently, ‘Civic, socialand political education’.
2. However, the EU recently devised a set of indicators for measuring citizenship educationcompetences and outcomes at the individual level (Hoskins et al. 2008).
3. For an overview of Soysal’s project parameters, see Soysal (2002).4. Alternatively, one can differentiate between minimal and maximal approaches to civic
education (see McLaughlin 1992).5. While I was able to collect and analyse all publically available documents for this study,
access to internal documents and informal political texts (such as political speeches) wasmore fortuitous and limited. The sample (and indeed the records kept by officials) ofthese document types, therefore, cannot be considered complete or exhaustive.
6. See Hyland (1992) on the impact of European developments on the Irish educationsystem in the 19th century.
7. Hyland (1993: 2–3) suggests that the Department of Education had an ambivalent atti-tude towards the methodology and approach espoused by the Notes, and the guidelinesdo not appear to have been widely circulated, much less implemented.
8. In an effort to revive the subject, draft proposals were produced in 1987 for a new subjectentitled ‘Social, political and environmental education’ (SPEE) (CEB 1987). However,these proposals were hampered by political upheaval, a lack of political will and financial
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
176 A. KEATING
resources, and a persistent ambivalence and sensitivity about political education (Hyland1993: 4–5).
9. In Ireland, 2nd-level education is sub-divided into two cycles: the Junior Cycle, a 3-yearprogramme of compulsory education culminating in a state examination and certifica-tion; and the Senior Cycle, a 2–3-year programme that is not compulsory but widelytaken up. The Senior Cycle also culminates in examination and certification, but, inrecent years, this level has been reformed to include a wider range of educational optionsand certificates.
10. For example, in course descriptions for Unit 3 (The State–Ireland) and the teachingguidelines action projects on democracy (Department of Education 1996, 2005).
11. This technique first featured in the exemplar materials that were produced in the 1990sto assist teachers. It has since been replicated in many of the CSPE textbooks.
References
Adonnino, P. (1985) A people’s Europe: reports from the ad hoc committee. Bulletin of theEuropean Economic Community, Supplement 7/85 (Brussels: European Commission).Available online at: http://aei.pitt.edu/992, accessed 2 September 2008.
Ball, S. J. (1990) Politics and Policy Making in Education: Explorations in Policy Sociology(London: Routledge).
Ball, S. J. (1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-structural Approach (Buckingham,UK: Open University Press).
Barrett, J. and Richardson, F. (2003) Impact: CSPE for Junior Certificate (Dublin: Gill andMacmillan).
Brophy, K. (1972) Living: An Approach to Civics (Dublin: School and College Services).Calhoun, C. J. (2002) Imagining solidarity: cosmopolitanism, constitutional patriotism, and
the public sphere. Public Culture, 14(1), 147–171.Cederman, L. E. (2001) Nationalism and bounded integration: what it would take to
construct a European demos? European Journal of International Relations, 7(2), 139–174.Chryssochoou, D. N. (2002) Civic competence and the challenge to EU polity-building.
Journal of European Public Policy, 9(5), 756–773.Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation (1963) Civics and European Education
at the Primary and Secondary Level (Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Coopera-tion).
Council of Europe, Council for Cultural Co-operation (1966) Introducing Europe to SeniorPupils (Strasbourg, France: Council for Cultural Co-operation).
Curriculum and Examinations Board (1987) Report of the Board of Studies for Social, Politicaland Environmental Education (Dublin: Curriculum and Examinations Board).
Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a Global Age: Society, Culture and Politics (Buckingham,UK: Open University Press).
Delanty, G. and O’Mahony, P. (2002) Nationalism and Social Theory (London: Sage).Department of Education (1996) Junior Certificate: Civic, Social and Political Education:
Syllabus (Dublin: Department of Education). Available online at: http://cspe.slss.ie/downloads/DATA/ENGLISH/CSPEsyllabus.PDF, accessed 1 September 2008.
Department of Education and Science (n.d.) Exemplar Resource Material for the Junior Certif-icate Course in Civic, Social and Political Education (Dublin: Department of Educationand Science). Available online at: http://cspe.slss.ie/publications.html, accessed 1September 2008.
Department of Education and Science/National Council for Curriculum and Assessment(NCCA) (2005) Junior Certificate: Civic, Social and Political Education: Guidelines forTeachers (Dublin: The Stationery Office). Available online at: http://82.195.132.34/uploadedfiles/PDF/CSPE_Guidelines.pdf. accessed 1 September 2008.
Education Council (2006) Recommendation of the European Parliament and the Council of18 December 2006 on Key Competencies for Lifelong Learning 2006/962/EC (Brussels:Official Journal of the European Union). Available online at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_394/l_39420061230en00100018.pdf,accessed 1 September 2008.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIP FOR THE CIVICS CURRICULUM IN IRELAND 177
European Commission (1998) Learning for Active Citizenship: A Significant Challenge in Build-ing a Europe of Knowledge (Brussels: European Commission). Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/archive/citizen/citiz_en.html, accessed 1 September2008.
Fitzgerald, D. (1996) CSPE briefing for Minister for Education, Mrs Niamh Breathnach[November 1996]. Internal document from Ministers’ archive (National University ofIreland, Maynooth Library).
Gellner, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).Girvan, B. (2002) From Union to Union: Nationalism, Democracy and Religion in Ireland—Act
of Union to EU (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan).Gleeson, J. (2000) Sectoral interest versus the common good? Legitimation, fragmentation
and contestation in Irish post-primary curriculum policy and practice. Irish EducationalStudies, 19(1), 16–34.
Government of Ireland (1966) Notes on the Teaching of Civics (Dublin: The StationeryOffice).
Government of Ireland (1968–1969) Rules and Programme for Secondary Schools 1968–1969(Dublin: The Stationery Office).
Green, A. (1997) Education, Globalization and the Nation State (Basingstoke, UK:Macmillan).
Habermas, J. (1992) Citizenship and national identity: some reflections on the future ofEurope. Praxis International, 12(1), 1–19.
Hammond, J. and Looney, A. (2004) Revisioning citizenship education: the Irish experi-ence. In D. Lawton, J. Cairns and R. Gardner (eds), Education for Citizenship(London: Continuum), 175–182.
Hansen, P. (1998) Schooling a European identity: ethno-cultural exclusion and nationalistresonance within the EU policy of ‘The European dimension of education’. EuropeanJournal of Intercultural Studies, 9(1), 5–23.
Heater, D. (1999) What is Citizenship? (Cambridge: Polity Press).Heater, D. (2004) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and Education, 3rd edn
(Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press).Hobsbawm, E. (1987) The Age of Empire: 1875–1914 (New York: Vintage).Hoskins, B., Villalba, E., Van Nijlen, D. and Barber, C. (2008) Measuring Civic Competence
in Europe: A Composite Indicator Based on IEA Civic Education Study 1999 for 14 YearsOld in School. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports 23210 EN (Ispra, Italy: JointResearch Centre of the European Commission, Centre for Research on LifelongLearning). Available online at: http://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Publications/CRELL%20Research%20Papers/BryonyCCI_JRC42904_final.pdf, accessed 1 September2008.
Hyland, A. (1992) European influences on Irish education in the 19th and 20th centuries. InM. Whitehead (ed.), Education and Europe: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives(Hull, UK: University of Hull Institute of Education), 50–67.
Hyland, A. (1993) Address to the first meeting of the teachers involved in the pilot schemefor the introduction of civic, social and political education at junior cycle level. Paperdelivered to the joint NCCA/Department of Education In-Service Course, DublinCastle, December 1993.
Jeffers, G. (1984) Letter from the editor. In Framework: For Teachers Using ‘Young Citizen’,Summer (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration).
Keating, A. (2007) The Europeanisation of Citizenship Education: Politics and Policy-making in Europe and Ireland. Doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge.
Kennedy, K. J., Hahn, C. L. and Lee, W.-O. (2008) Constructing citizenship: comparingthe views of students in Australia, Hong Kong, and the United States. ComparativeEducation Review, 52(1), 53–92.
Kerr, D. (1999) Citizenship Education: An International Comparison. International Review ofCurriculum and Assessment Frameworks Archive (London: Qualifications andCurriculum Authority). Available online at: http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/citizenship_no_intro.pdf, accessed 1 September 2008.
Laffan, B. (1998) The European Union: a distinctive model of internationalization. Journalof European Public Policy, 5(2), 235–253.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
178 A. KEATING
McLaughlin, T. H. (1992) Citizenship, diversity and education: a philosophical perspective.Journal of Moral Education, 21(3), 235–246.
O’Mahony, P. and Delanty, G. (2001) Rethinking Irish History: Nationalism, Identity andIdeology (New York: St. Martin’s Press).
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2006) Education for democratic citizenship: a review of research,policy and practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21(4), 433–466.
Osler, A. and Vincent, K. (2002) Citizenship and the Challenge of Global Education (Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books).
Pépin, L. (2007) The history of EU cooperation in the field of education and training: howlifelong learning became a strategic objective. European Journal of Education, 42(1),121–131.
Quinn, R. (1998) Taking Action: CSPE for Junior Certificate (Dublin: C.J. Fallon).Rauner, M. (1998) Citizenship in the curriculum: the globalization of civics education in
Anglophone Africa, 1955–1995. In C. L. McNeely (ed.), Public Rights, Public Rules:Constituting Citizens in the World Policy and National Policy (New York: GarlandPublishing), 107–124.
Shore, C. (2004) Whither European citizenship? Eros and civilization revisited. EuropeanJournal of Social Theory, 7(1), 27–44.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe(Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Soysal, Y. N. (2002) Rethinking nation-state identities in the new Europe: a cross-nationalstudy of school curricula and textbooks. Society Today: Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC). Available online at: http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/ViewAwardPage.aspx?AwardId=599, accessed 2 September 2008.
Soysal, Y. N., Bertilotti, T. and Mannitz, S. (2005) Projections of identity in French andGerman history and civics textbooks. In H. Schissler and Y. N. Soysal (eds), TheNation, Europe and the World: Textbooks and Curricula in Transition (New York andOxford: Berghahn Books), 13–34.
Sugrue, C. (2006) A critical appraisal of the impact of international agencies on educationalreforms and teachers’ lives and work: the case of Ireland? European EducationalResearch Journal, 5(3/4), 181–195.
Sultana, R. G. (1995) A uniting Europe, a dividing education? Supranationalism,Euro-centrism and the curriculum. International Studies in Sociology of Education,5(2), 115–144.
Turner, B. S. (2006) Citizenship, nationalism and nation-building. In G. Delanty and K.Kumar (eds), Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism (London: Sage), 225–236.
Wiener, A. (1998) ‘European’ Citizenship Practice: Building Institutions of a Non-State(Boulder, CO: Westview Press).
Young Citizen (1967–1986) (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Yor
k U
nive
rsity
Lib
rari
es]
at 0
9:42
15
Oct
ober
201
4
