Beyond Us Vs. Them: Citizenship Education with Hard to Reach Learners in Europe Schriftenreihe Band Xxxx Autor

Beyond Us vs. Them: Citizenship education with hard to reach learners in Europe Schriftenreihe Band xxxx Autor Beyond Us vs. Them: Citizenship education with hard to reach learners in Europe This publication does not constitute an expression of the views of the Federal Agency for Civic Education. Responsibility for the content lies with the authors. Bonn 2016 © Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung Adenauerallee 86, 53113 Bonn Editors: Alistair Ross, Michalis Kakos, Christoph Müller-Hofstede Manuscript editors: Caroline Davis (Edinburgh), Patrick Charles (Berlin) Production editors: Christoph Müller-Hofstede (bpb), Sascha Scheier (bpb) Cover design and typesetting: Naumilkat – Agentur für Kommunikation und Design, Düsseldorf Cover Image: xxxx Print: Druck und Verlagshaus Zarbock GmbH & Co. KG, Frankfurt / Main ISBN: 978-3-8389-xxxx-x www.bpb.de Inhalt Alistair Ross, Michalis Kakos and Christoph Müller-Hofstede Introduction 10 Michalis Kakos and Josef Ploner (Im)mobility and hard to reach communities: The practice of citizenship educa tion 34 Dennis Beach Nordic citizenship values in education: Myth and reality – a Swedish example 49 Terezie Vávrová, Milan Hrubeš and Petr Čáp Civic initiation through public libraries in the Czech Republic 67 Ana Gonçalves Matos and Mota Lopes Sprache der Vögel – citizenship education through literary texts in Portugal 92 Despina Karakatsani and Theodora Katsamori Citizenship learning in prison education: Student and teacher views from Greece 112 Ivo Pertijs Media, education and controversial issues in times of terrorism: Issues and strategies from the etherlands 132 5 Anja Hirsch Emancipatory? Critical reflec tions on promoting self-efficacy among marginalized youth 158 Siamak Ahmadi, Max Behrendt and Christoph Müller-Hofstede Dialogue at School: Reaching out to the hard to reach in German schools 179 Adam Newman Turner Complementary schools and state schools cooperating in England: Benefits for ethnic minority children 205 Maria Pagoni Participatory citizenship initiatives to address dropping-out in French schools 234 Alistair Ross ‘Them versus Us’ – Constructing mindsets in citizenship education: A European survey 253 Mick Carpenter and Marti Taru Asking the questions the right way round? Young people’s political participa tion in Europe: Reflec tions on the MYPLACE study 276 Kamel Remache Integral citizenship: Concepts and tools 296 6 ––––– Inhalt Alistair Ross, Michalis Kakos and Christoph Müller-Hofstede Introduction Hard to reach: a troubling concept in citizenship education This volume brings together a collection of papers written by people actively engaged in the study and practice of citizenship education in Europe. All are concerned with the perception that some young people are seen by many citizenship educators as being ‘hard to reach’, in the sense that they do not respond to or engage with citizenship education programmes. This category is said to include various groups that are often marginalised in various ways, such as those of migrant or Roma origin, or those in socio-eco- nomically deprived categories, who exhibit ‘delinquent’ behaviours, or who are considered to be at risk of being radicalised. We seek to question and investigate the way in which such groups are categorised as ‘hard to reach’, and to explore various approaches and tactics citizenship educators are using to engage with them. The authors of the various chapters have for the most part been engaged in the discussions and workings of the ‘Hard to reach learners’ focus group as part of the Networking European Citizenship Education (NECE) initiative, which was launched and is sponsored by the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (bpb: The German Federal Agency for Civic Education)1 and partners in The Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic. NECE was established in 2004 as an initiative by and for educators in Europe. NECE promotes exchanges and learning about approaches and stakeholders in citizenship education, as well as fostering co-operation. By choice, NECE is a forum rather than an institutionalized body. The big- ger idea is to help create a space for a European debate on citizenship education and to contribute to the Europeanization of the field. In its annual conferences, NECE brings together up to 300 participants from more than 30 countries to discuss challenges in citizenship education. 1 For more information on the bpb, its history and mission: http://www.bpb.de/die- bpb/147828/history-of-the-bpb 7 The idea of putting the issue of hard to reach learners on the agenda of citizenship education goes back to the NECE 2011 conference on ‘Clos- ing the empowerment gap through citizenship education. How to address educationally disadvantaged groups’ in Warsaw, Poland.2 In order to explore the issue further, a focus group (one amongst many) on ‘Hard to reach learners’ was established in November 2012, when a group came together at the Cor- doba NECE Conference, and defined the concept of hard-to-reach learners in broad terms: it basically includes educationally and socially disadvantaged people who are often ‘forgotten’ by the mainstream of citizenship education or left behind in schools or other educational facilities. Young people, especially immigrants, are particularly affected. In times of multiple cri- ses and a growing social divide in Europe we feel it to be important to focus on this specific group.3 As the group met and discussed its role, there was a growing realisation that the term ‘hard to reach’ covered a multitude of interpretations and poten- tial contradictions. In many ways, the chapters in this volume reflect the way in which these discussions and viewpoints have developed over the past four years. In this introduction we examine some of the problems of definition and construction which we consider problematic, and point out the implica- tions this has, both for the concepts and political contexts/philosophy of citizenship education and for practitioners working in this field. Problematizing ‘hard to reach’ as a category At first sight, the idea of a group being ‘hard to reach’ seems straightfor- ward. Many social practitioners have used the term since the early twen- tieth century, having apparently borrowed it from the field of social mar- 2 For information about the conceptual context of NECE 2011 please refer to the doc- umentation of the keynote speech by political theorist Benjamin Barber in Warsaw: Teaching Civic Education in a World of Radical Inequality, Digital Technology and Global Interdependence (http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/netzwerke/ nece/66270/conference-closing-the-empowerment-gap-through-citizenship-education) 3 For more information on the focus group ‘Hard to Reach learners’ and its work: http://www.bpb.de/veranstaltungen/netzwerke/nece/155654/hard-to-reach-learners 8 ––––– Alistair Ross, Michalis Kakos and Christoph Müller-Hofstede keting (Beder 1980). In the early era of advertising for mass-consumption goods there had been discussion about how to reach the emerging group of female purchasers of household items: for example, an article in the Jour- nal of Political Economy referred to the work of ‘the efficient and the igno- rant housewife alike [as] … seldom done … this woman is hard to reach’ (Fogg-Meade 1901: 228fn). The construct was initially taken up by pol- icy-makers in public health (for example concerning immunisation and public hygiene issues) and by social scientists. Such groups of people were seen as being resistant to awareness of public health issues, such as sanita- tion and inoculation, and targeted groups were characterised as having low levels of education (e. g. Bergner and Yerby 1968). By the 1970s the hard to reach categories were extended to encompass drug users and by the 1980s HIV positive individuals were included, both groups being characterised by their illicit activities or by behaviour seen to be socially unaccepted by authorities (e. g. Kendal 1975). In the social sciences, the term first becomes common in the 1940s: for example, Lundberg and Larsen’s (1949) article in Political Opinion Quarterly was titled ‘Characteristics of Hard-to-Reach Individuals in Field Surveys’. One such study inadvertently revealed a significant element in these con- structions of the category: Rodman asked ‘how well can a middle-class person understand lower-class life?’ in an article about those whom he described as ‘“hard-to-reach”, “hard-core” and “multi-problem families (or individual or gangs) … being ”resistive”’ (Rodman 1959: 441). Social work practitioners and academics adopted the term: many studies characterised particular groups of clients as ‘hard to reach’ who refused to accept or were oblivious to social intervention programmes (e. g. Lindberg 1958; Tinker 1959; Malone 1966). At much the same time, psychiatric counsel- ling began to use the phrase, and this usage continues today (e. g. Perl 1963; Kalathil 2003). In the field of education, the term seems to have been used with refer- ence to adult education, which did not have a captive audience (as in mainstream schooling) and was possessed of a sense of outreach and the desire to be inclusive, common to some of those other earlier disciplines. Con- tributions such as those of Beder (1980) and Darkenwald (1980) both made very explicit links to the fields of marketing, in particular social marketing. In a survey of adult education’s target audience, Kerka (1986) identi- fied ‘deterrence factors’ inhibiting hard to reach

Load more