Summary:
In this chapter, Westheimer (2008)
discusses what schools should do to teach students how to be democratic,
politically-engaged, and ethical citizens. Writing this chapter, Westheimer
(2008) reflects on research in which he has examined with two of his
colleagues, namely Fritz Oser and Wiel Veugelers, school programs that are
deliberately designed to foster 'good citizenship' in both young and adult
students. Westheimer (2008) is particularly concerned with the relationship
between political engagement and the principles of moral citizens.
Westheimer (2008) argues that
although moral education is one of the most important programs in schools, he
disagrees with certain elements of this type of education. He believes that
some components of moral education unintentionally prevent students from becoming
independent thinkers. He adds that moral education, which is now called
character education, "reinforce[s] commonly accepted (but not necessarily
just) social practices" (Westheimer, 2008, p. 17). Additionally,
Westheimer (2008) emphasizes that some moral educators highlight the notion of
obedience in a way that not only discourages critical thinking, but also pushes
students to blindly obey the rules. Despite of Westheimer's (2008) concern
about the over-emphasis on obedience and good deeds in moral education, he
thinks that this kind of education has to be an essential program in schools.
Westheimer (2008) agrees with the literary theorist Amanda Anderson on the
subject that people working in the field of education have to address the
question "[h]ow should I live?" as it is fundamental to education
reform (p. 18). In this chapter, Westheimer (2008) is interested in examining
the role schools play in nurturing democratic behaviors among students. Westheimer
(2008) points that despite of the general consensus on the importance of
fostering democratic habits of citizenship in students, there is a disagreement
between teachers, policy makers, politicians and students about what good democratic
citizenship means. Westheimer (2008) and his colleague Joseph Kahne studied
different programs which are designed to teach good citizenship skills. They concluded
that "the kinds of goals and practices commonly represented in curricula
that hope to foster democratic citizenship usually have more to do with
voluntarism, charity, and obedience than with democracy" (Westheimer,
2008, p. 18). Based on their studies of various programs, they came up with
three kinds of good citizens, namely the personally responsible citizen, the
participatory citizen and the social-justice oriented citizen (Westheimer, 2008).
Nowadays, most of citizenship programs, as Westheimer (2008) argues, focus on teaching
either good manners (the personally responsible citizen) or how government and
other institutions work (the participatory citizen). However, these programs
rarely teach student to think independently about the causes of injustice in
different social, economic and political issues people face in the society
(Westheimer, 2008). Westheimer (2008) points out that for schools to nurture good
democratic citizens, these institutions have to emphasize all three kinds of
citizens in their programs.
Westheimer (2008) argues that moral
citizenship education does not always guarantee fostering democratic citizens.
He states that "it is not at all clear that character education, for
example, will solve deep-seated social problems unless accompanied by important
lessons in critical analysis and ethical reasoning" (p. 22). Westheimer
(2008) provides some examples of policies that diminish critical analysis and
independent thinking although such skills help students become
ethically-engaged moral individuals. By way of example, Florida established a
policy which forbade multiple interpretations of history in public schools,
thus it banned critical thinking (Westheimer, 2008). As schools restrict
discussion, debate and role-playing exercises which encourage independent and
critical thinking, democratic education cannot become a reality (Westheimer,
2008). In addition, Westheimer (2008) gives a few examples of the type of
programs that implement politically-engaged moral education. For instance, while
Brian Schultz encouraged his 5th grade students to do research which aimed to enhance
the conditions of their own neighborhood, Bob Peterson asked his students to
look at and reflect on the event of September 11, 2001 and the policies that followed
it (Westheimer, 2008). Examining such curricula, Westheimer (2008) concludes
that "approaches to political engagement [have to] force students and
teachers to grapple with profoundly moral questions of justice, equality, and
community" (pp. 24-25). Moreover, Westheimer (2008) is convinced by John
Dewey's (1916) argument that "the school becomes itself a form of social
life, a miniature community, and one in close interaction with other modes of
associated experience beyond school walls ... All education which develops
power to share effectively in [such a] social life is moral" (as cited in
Westheimer, 2008, p. 24). Westheimer (2008) believes that creating a school
environment which nurtures ethical citizens, who can critically evaluate public
policies and take actions, is one of the challenges facing moral educators. These
teachers find themselves in such a dilemma, because they seek "not to
instill and reinforce specific virtues but to engage in the skills of
democratic citizenship: deliberation, problem solving, and participation in
governance of the group" (Westheimer, 2008, p. 25). Westheimer (2008)
states that he is not against fostering a sense of personally responsible
citizenship in students as long as it does not conflict with critical thinking.
Finally, Westheimer (2008) emphasizes that for moral educators who want to
develop both ethical and democratic citizenship in their students, these teachers
have to advance at least the three aspects of citizenship discussed in this
chapter.
Assessment,
critique and questions:
I personally found Westheimer's
(2008) chapter a very interesting read as it discusses one of the most pressing
issues in our societies nowadays. His point that the majority of schools
teaching citizenship programs emphasize obedience over independent thinking
resonates with me because it makes me think about how citizens are raised in
Oman. Both schools and societies nurture Omani citizens to be, what Westheimer
(2008) calls, the personally responsible citizens who are in complete conformity
with the government's rules and exhibit good behavior. I personally believe
that not only schools but also the society as a whole have to foster the three
dimensions of citizenship, Westheimer (2008) has discussed in this chapter, in
youth and young adults.
Westheimer (2008) accurately
identifies the three kinds of citizens and clearly explains the differences
between them. He also emphasizes that for schools to develop good democratic
citizens, they have to effectively implement these different elements of
citizenship in their programs. However, Westheimer (2008) overemphasizes the
role of schools in preparing good democratic citizens and neglects the vital
role societies play in reinforcing whatever taught in schools. In this chapter,
Westheimer (2008) does not discuss how the society as a whole can both
encourage and prevent the development of good democratic citizens. Reading Westheimer's
(2008) chapter, the following questions came to my mind:
1.
Are
schools the only institutions responsible for developing good democratic
citizens?
2.
How can
societies nurture good democratic citizenship among youth and young adults?
3.
How can
societies prevent the development of good democratic citizens?
4.
What
types of exercises can schools use to teach good citizenship skills?
Reference:
Westheimer, J. (2008). On the relationship between political
and moral engagement. In F. Oser & W. Veugelers (Eds.), Getting involved: Global citizenship
development and the sources of moral values (pp.17-30). Rotterdam: Sense.
I really like your second and third questions, and I think the answer to both of them is school. Depending on what is being taught inside the classrooms can have a huge effect on how students will evolve into citizens. As discussed in Citizenship Education and Diversity by Banks, teachers need to help develop clarified cultural and national identifications aiding students identify who they are a citizens within their countries.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked your critique of the article and the way you have highlighted that scholars in the education discipline have placed schools at the very centre of the work of citizenship as it ties together political and moral engagement. Should it be? We might well ask that, as you suggest. It is true that, flawed as it sometimes is, no other institution has such direct contact with the State through the medium of the public school system and curriculum. As you point out, the school environment can foster ethical citizenship but it also reflects the larger injustices in society. To the extent that it fosters conformity, it may not be preparing youth to recognize and fight those injustices.
ReplyDeleteA fundamental paradox for the coming years also occurs to me. While youth do develop question-asking behaviours in schools -- and they are very sensitive to moral issues at a micro level and a world level, this apparently has not translated into nurturing active voters. Voter apathy may even have its roots in the schools. By their twenties and thirties, there's appetite to become politically engaged, just not in the sense of engaging with government and voting, the (key) parts of our democratic system from which they feel most disconnected.