Citizenship Education – Between Social Inequality and the Promises of Modernity

For several reasons citizenship and democracy has moved into political and research focus. Socio-cultural tensions and inequalities created by globalisation processes boosted by neo-liberal modes of government seem to inspire a concern with “social cohesion”, and the European Community assigns a key role to education in engendering European democratic citizenship. It can be questioned whether it is within the scope of educational programmes to ensure social integration and democracy. However, to clarify the perspectives of the educational issue, the article discusses the conflicts and relationships between cultural identity and democracy within a framework of modernity before returning to the issue of education for democratic citizenship. It is shown on the basis of empirical studies that family background interacts with school factors in the reproduction of democratic inequalities. It is also indicated, however, that this must not be considered an unchangeable pedagogical fact, and the article briefly sketches a set of pedagogical and research challenges concerned with educating for democratic empowerment at different levels of school practice. Although this paper focuses on education and the educational system, the arguments and findings presented can also claim relevance for social pedagogy and social work, esp. in respect of recent developments that stress the educational dimensions of social work.

Die Erziehung zu einer aktiven Bürgerschaft

Trying to give a definition of Citizenship Education is a challenging operation: it is characterized by a variety of meanings flowing from Civic Education (related to knowledge and practice about the system of laws, rules, conventions referring to a particular civil community) to Socio-political education (related to the awareness of being part of the system of cultural elements, values, traditions historically produced by the community itself). It would be not be correct identifying Citizenship Education only with elements of Civic Education, as it would restrict its range to formal level of rules and laws, rights and duties. Otherwise, limiting its understanding only on elements of Sociopolitical Education, would offer the risk of investing in cultural similarities, common roots, values homogeneity, that are strong in giving hold on identity, membership, participation, but so exposed to acts of fanaticism, exclusion of diversity, hostility towards minorities. Therefore, it is necessary to assume that Citizenship Education has to be established on problematic integration of the two presented perspectives, thus founding knowledge and practice about the rules of civil society on the system of values and cultural aspects that every single micro-community (and every single individual) recognizes to be source of the rules: a complex system of various elements made of homogeneity and inhomogeneity, similarities and differences in constant modification an dynamic intercommunication.

Childrens Participation and Citizenship in a Global Age. Empowerment, Tokenism or Discriminatory Disciplining?

This article explores children’s participation and citizenship, taking its point of departure in the empirical observation of a paradox: On the hand there is a general participatory climate and a growing commitment to empowerment of children, and on the other hand some children’s experience of discrimination, disciplining and distrust. The analysis is structured into three main parts: 1) Participation, approached from Hart’s Ladder of Participation and Bourdieu’s theorizing of power dynamics; 2) Rights, using Marshall’s tripartite conceptualization, namely civil rights, political rights and social rights, supplemented by a discussion of the right to care and cultural rights; and 3) Identity, theorized using Delanty’s conceptualization of citizenship as a learning process The article concludes that children’s citizenship, and the initiatives that are accounted for as facilitating their well being and participation though social work, too often tend towards tokenism if not discriminatory disciplining and exclusion, rather than empowerment, due to political, organisational and discursively shaped power relations.

Turkey. A Generalist Approach in Social Work Education

A global review of social work education reveals considerable similarity among countries as well as significant differences. Historically, programs of social work education are informed by humanistic values and encompass knowledge of social problems, an understanding of individuals and their environment in interaction, and method of intervention into social and human difficulties. At the same time, structure of social work within the educational system and the length of training vary considerably from country to country. There is no serious international standards' setting for social work education, programs, educators and students around the world. Education programs exist at differing levels of education and for differing periods of time. There are no worldwide data on the number and qualifications of teachers of social work, the number and characteristics of social work students, variations in curricula and type of practicum (Hokeenstad and Kendall, 2001; Hokenstad, Midgley, 1998). North American and European models have had a major influence on social work educational programs in most parts of the world, especially developing countries. Still, the amount of western influence on social work education in developing countries is an issue that continues to be discussed (Hockenstad, Khinduka and Midgley, 1992; Frumkin, Lloyd, 2001). The programs in practice in Europe and North America have influenced the implementation of social work education programs. In recent years this influence has had a big part in the acceptance of the generalist approach. It is very important that social work education programs must be planned in accordance with the social structure and the development process of the society. Because of this, information on the social indicators and social welfare services will be given first then social work education will be stressed upon.

Efforts and Models of Education for Parents: the Danish Approach

The report examines the relationship between day care institutions, schools and so called “parents unfamiliar to education” as well as the relationship between the institutions. With in Danish public and professional discourse concepts like parents unfamiliar to education are usually referring to environments, parents or families with either no or just very restricted experience of education except for the basic school (folkeskole). The “grand old man” of Danish educational research, Prof. Em. Erik Jørgen Hansen, defines the concept as follows: Parents who are distant from or not familiar with education, are parents without tradition of education and by that fact they are not able to contribute constructively in order to back up their own children during their education. Many teachers and pedagogues are not used to that term; they rather prefer concepts like “socially exposed” or “socially disadvantaged” parents or social classes or strata. The report does not only focus on parents who are not capable to support the school achievements of their children, since a low level of education is usually connected with social disadvantage. Such parents are often not capable of understanding and meeting the demands from side of the school when sending their children to school. They lack the competencies or the necessary competence of action. For the moment being much attention is done from side of the Ministries of Education and Social Affairs (recently renamed Ministry of Welfare) in order to create equal possibilities for all children. Many kinds of expertise (directions, counsels, researchers, etc.) have been more than eager to promote recommendations aiming at achieving the ambitious goal: 2015 95% of all young people should complement a full education (classes 10.-12.). Research results are pointing out the importance of increased participation of parents. In other word the agenda is set for ‘parents’ education’. It seems necessary to underline that Danish welfare policy has been changing rather radical. The classic model was an understanding of welfare as social assurance and/or as social distribution – based on social solidarity. The modern model looks like welfare as social service and/or social investment. This means that citizens are changing role – from user and/or citizen to consumer and/or investor. The Danish state is in correspondence with decisions taken by the government investing in a national future shaped by global competition. The new models of welfare – “service” and “investment” – imply severe changes in hitherto known concepts of family life, relationship between parents and children etc. As an example the investment model points at a new implementation of the relationship between social rights and the rights of freedom. The service model has demonstrated that weakness that the access to qualified services in the field of health or education is becoming more and more dependent of the private purchasing power. The weakness of the investment model is that it represents a sort of “The Winner takes it all” – since a political majority is enabled to make agendas in societal fields former protected by the tripartite power and the rights of freedom of the citizens. The outcome of the Danish development seems to be an establishment of a political governed public service industry which on one side are capable of competing on market conditions and on the other are able being governed by contracts. This represents a new form of close linking of politics, economy and professional work. Attempts of controlling education, pedagogy and thereby the population are not a recent invention. In European history we could easily point at several such experiments. The real news is the linking between political priorities and exercise of public activities by economic incentives. By defining visible goals for the public servants, by introducing measurement of achievements and effects, and by implementing a new wage policy depending on achievements and/or effects a new system of accountability is manufactured. The consequences are already perceptible. The government decides to do some special interventions concerning parents, children or youngsters, the public servants on municipality level are instructed to carry out their services by following a manual, and the parents are no longer protected by privacy. Protection of privacy and minority is no longer a valuable argumentation to prevent further interventions in people’s life (health, food, school, etc.). The citizens are becoming objects of investment, also implying that people are investing in their own health, education, and family. This means that investments in changes of life style and development of competences go hand in hand. The below mentioned programmes are conditioned by this shift.

International cooperation in ambient computing education

Funded by the US-EU Atlantis Program, the International Cooperation in Ambient Computing Education Project is establishing an international knowledge-building community for developing a broader computer science curriculum aimed at preparing students for real-world problems in a multidisciplinary, global world. The project is collaboration among Troy University (USA), University of Sunderland (UK), FernUniversität in Hagen (Germany), Universidade do Algarve (Portugal), University of Arkansas at Little Rock (USA) and San Diego State University (USA). The curriculum will include aspects of social science, cognitive science, human-computer interaction, organizational studies, global studies, and particular application areas as well as core computer science subjects. Programs offered at partner institutions will form trajectories through the curriculum. A degree will be defined in terms of combinations of trajectories which will satisfy degree requirements set by accreditation organizations. This is expected to lead to joint- or dual-degree programs among the partner institutions in the future. This paper describes the goals and activities of the project and discusses implementation issues.

Open Data and Earth Observations The Case of Opening Up Access to and Use of Earth Observation Data Through the Global Earth Observation System of Systems

Earth observations (EO) represent a growing and valuable resource for many scientific, research and practical applications carried out by users around the world. Access to EO data for some applications or activities, like climate change research or emergency response activities, becomes indispensable for their success. However, often EO data or products made of them are (or are claimed to be) subject to intellectual property law protection and are licensed under specific conditions regarding access and use. Restrictive conditions on data use can be prohibitive for further work with the data. Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is an initiative led by the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) with the aim to provide coordinated, comprehensive, and sustained EO and information for making informed decisions in various areas beneficial to societies, their functioning and development. It seeks to share data with users world-wide with the fewest possible restrictions on their use by implementing GEOSS Data Sharing Principles adopted by GEO. The Principles proclaim full and open exchange of data shared within GEOSS, while recognising relevant international instruments and national policies and legislation through which restrictions on the use of data may be imposed.The paper focuses on the issue of the legal interoperability of data that are shared with varying restrictions on use with the aim to explore the options of making data interoperable. The main question it addresses is whether the public domain or its equivalents represent the best mechanism to ensure legal interoperability of data. To this end, the paper analyses legal protection regimes and their norms applicable to EO data. Based on the findings, it highlights the existing public law statutory, regulatory, and policy approaches, as well as private law instruments, such as waivers, licenses and contracts, that may be used to place the datasets in the public domain, or otherwise make them publicly available for use and re-use without restrictions. It uses GEOSS and the particular characteristics of it as a system to identify the ways to reconcile the vast possibilities it provides through sharing of data from various sources and jurisdictions on the one hand, and the restrictions on the use of the shared resources on the other. On a more general level the paper seeks to draw attention to the obstacles and potential regulatory solutions for sharing factual or research data for the purposes that go beyond research and education.