![]() ![]() All in all, it is an area of integration policy that is more purely about the national community and democracy, and less mixed up with economics, political and social rights, and migration. Third, it cannot also be used as a tool for migration control and, finally, it involves children who unlike adult immigrants are not potential welfare recipients. Second, it is not tied to the achievement of rights and thus less likely to come into conflict with notions of social justice and fairness. First, it does not single out immigrants but is focused on creating good citizens out of all children. Yet, citizenship education is a quite different kind of integration policy area than permanent residence and naturalization. All key issues when the national community discusses whether and how to change in response to increasing cultural diversity. To this end, a strong sense of national belonging and understanding of the national culture is often perceived as crucial. Simply put, the objective of the latter is to prepare children for a life as able and self-sustaining employees on the labor market, while the objective of the former is to integrate them into the national community by making them responsible, engaged, and politically literate participants in society. This may involve a wide range of policies, from strict and carefully crafted entry requirements for newcomers to softer forms of value and knowledge transmittance to pupils in schools.Ĭitizenship education is usually distinguished from the vocational and professional ends of education. ![]() West European politics has generally demonstrated an intensified concern with producing and re-producing a national citizenry with the skills and virtues required to sustain a well-functioning liberal democracy and social welfare state (cf. This increased focus on bridging ethno-cultural diversity and conveying societal values and knowledge to coming generations of citizens could be viewed as part of a broader civic integrationist turn. Yet, increasing cultural diversity in schools has also created a push, especially from the EU, to reconsider whether current practices of citizenship education produce good liberal-democratic citizens (Faas, Hajisoteriou, & Angelides, 2014). Instead, they have mainly focused on the increasing use of formalized language, knowledge, and employment requirements for permanent residence and citizenship since the late 1990s (Goodman, 2014 Joppke, 2007). Scholars studying the West European civic integrationist turn only rarely extend their analyses to include school policies. Despite claims to the contrary, the analysis shows that Sweden too has experienced a civic turn. Citizenship education in Denmark concentrates on reproducing a historically derived core of cultural values and knowledge to which minorities are expected to assimilate, while the Swedish model subscribes to a pluralist view that stresses mutual adaptation and intercultural tolerance. The analysis shows a growing concern with citizenship education in both countries, yet with different styles and content. But what of other policy spheres that are essential for the formation of citizens? Is there a civic turn in school policy? And does it follow the pattern of residence and citizenship? This article addresses these questions through a comparative study of the EU’s allegedly strictest and most liberal immigration regimes, Denmark and Sweden, respectively. ![]() The civic integrationist turn usually refers to the stricter requirements for residence and citizenship that many states have implemented since the late 1990’s. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |