Search

he purpose of the article is to discuss pedagogical preconditions for the role of the school as a democratic institution, in connection with the renewal of the Norwegian curriculum. Democratic citizenship is something that is learned, and the curriculum alignment can tell a lot about what kind of democracy the school is going to help build for citizens of the future. In this article, we argue that four preconditions are particularly important. Firstly, the school’s mission as a democracy-forming institution should be understood in a youth perspective. Secondly, democratic citizenship is something that is learned, and the youth perspective must therefore be based on learning theoretical presuppositions. Third, we argue that the school can be seen as an institution mediating between children and the greater communities. Fourth, we argue that the school should build on democracy as a way of life, and not limited to democracy as a political regime.

The context of this article is the on-going renewal of the Norwegian curriculum. Our point of departure is the challenges that arise when implementing policy into practice. One of the traditional aspirations and goals of the Norwegian education system is to foster democratic citizens. How to implement democratic practices into the classroom is a challenge faced by politicians, academics as well as practitioners. One obstacle might be the lack of theoretical resources that can help translate policy in to practice. We argue that theory can be used for contextualising pedagogically grounded ethics on what goes on in the classroom. Theory can be used for translating policy into pedagogy. In this article, we propose transformative learning theory (TLT) as a possible resource for negotiating the gap between policy and practice.

After the introduction of The Knowledge Promotion (Kunnskapsløftet) in 2006, different forms of criticism have been leveled against the Norwegian Curriculum. Some main points in the critique have been; that the number and scope of the competence aims is too comprehensive; too little emphasis on democratic education; a lack of connection between the general part of the curriculum and subject-specific curricula. In this article, we examine social studies teachers’ narratives about how they utilize different parts of the curriculum from the perspective of democratic education. That means, in essence, that we explore if and how teachers plan their instruction in order for students to acquire knowledge, skills, and values they can utilize in their role as democratic citizens, in addition to the practical ability to act that students derive from experiencing and practicing democracy both in and outside the classroom. A main argument is that most social studies teachers plan their instruction based on the subject-specific competence aims. The general part of the curriculum, where democratic education is highlighted, does not constitute an articulated part of instruction. Against this background it can be argued, from the perspective of democratic education, that it is problematic if the goal-centered rationality underpinning the competence aims is too dominant for the way teaching is practiced, and that this might prevent students from experiencing and practicing democracy in school.

In this article, we explore teachers’ ideas about teaching for democratic citizenship. In short, we want to understand “what kind of citizen” teachers aim to educate. We ground our study in three ideal types that represent different ways of understanding what education for democratic citizenship education revolves around: politically informed citizenship (politisk informert medborgerskap), rational autonomous citizenship (rasjonelt autonomt medborgerskap), and socially intelligent citizenship (sosialt intelligent medborgerskap). A first finding is that teacher emphasize that students should acquire knowledge that they can make use of as democratic citizens. Teachers are preoccupied with making students politically informed. A second finding is, however, that teachers understand democratic citizenship education as something more than just knowledge acquisition. One purpose that holds high priority with the teachers is that students should learn how to think critically; to become rationally autonomous. The pedagogical implication of this view is that students should acquire knowledge, skills, and attitudes that helps realize this ambition. This interpretation of what democratic citizenship is moves beyond being able to make an informed choice between different alternatives or representatives. In the last part of the article education for democratic citizenship is discussed in light of the third category; the socially intelligent citizen. We find that while teachers put much emphasis on knowledge and critical thinking, there is little emphasis on participation in democratic practices. We thus conclude that teachers talk about schooling as a tool for democracy much more than they talk about democracy as an ideal or model for schooling.

The purpose of this article is to discuss how the capacities of reflection and judgement are developed through dialogic instruction. We begin this study with discussing the concepts of critical reflection and political judgement. Then, building on relevant literature and contributions by Mezirow, Arendt, Englund, Pappas and others, we explore approaches to democracy and citizenship. Based on this, we argue that the teacher plays an important role in facilitating constructive dialogues that contribute to the development of students’ ability for reflection and judgement.