Question: Respond on your blog in a post (not on a page) to the following: [What kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy]: What examples of citizenship education do you remember from your K-12 schooling? What types of citizenship (e.g. which of the three types mentioned in the article) were the focus? Explore what this approach to the curriculum made (im)possible in regards to citizenship. What does the approach we take to citizenship instruction in any given place tell us about that place? About what the curriculum makers value? About what kinds of citizens they want to produce?
What examples of citizenship education do you remember from your K-12 schooling? What types of citizenship (e.g. which of the three types mentioned in the article) were the focus?
The examples of citizenship I was introduced to in K-12 were broad as I knew about citizenship in Europe before I knew anything about Canadian citizenship. I knew that in Canada you were able to express your interests mainly only through voting. Whereas in Europe, it was not a stressful situation or option for people to make. Back to Canadian citizenship, when I began learning about Canadian citizenship the idea was interesting I just never thought that maybe I would get the option to vote or express my newfound rights because my background is from a different country. So I never focused on what my teachers would tell me. I had never learnt about the types of citizenship; which are personally responsible, participatory, and/or justice-oriented. Those three types are specified in Westheimer and Kahne’s article (2004, pp. 238).
Explore what this approach to the curriculum made (im)possible in regards to citizenship.
Many teachers I had throughout my 13 years of education I was mainly introduced to teachers that were justice-oriented citizens. Generally, my teacher strictly followed a set lesson plan she had made, whether she got the time to discuss the expectations needed for not. She was very focused on what she wanted done and how she wanted it to finish, which generally was through tests, or a project. This overwhelmed me because I had just been entering into high school and she was a social/history teacher, so the pressure was encouraged.
What does the approach we take to citizenship instruction in any given place tell us about that place? About what the curriculum makers value? About what kinds of citizens they want to produce?
I believe that society has changed so drastically that teaching any specific form of citizenship will change again and again. Meaning that each type of citizenship is always under constant attacks to change or gets challenged by the following types of citizenship. However, the influence of politics onto an individual’s life will always lead to a certain degree of citizen replicating and/or recreating, which is heavily characterized by the traditional; ways of citizenship teaching. Moreover, the belief that there is a productive and non-oppressive way to approach citizenship education/ teaching is incredibly naive, and to further the discussion the belief that it may be the best option for citizenship education to be scrapped or fundamentally reworked is also a naive gesture or decision.
The terminology of citizenship is hereditarily and “othering” term. Furthermore, in order to define “citizen” someone must begin to define what they believe a “non-citizen” is. By using this teaching method for teaching about citizenship, you as a teacher will be introduced to a variety of new methods and approaches. These methods and approaches will lead to further division and potential oppression of a variety of ways of knowing, as well as have potentially furthered the ways of addressing fluctuating social challenges or issues.