divisive nature of national identities. In some contexts citizenship education is also
expected to contribute to the promotion of social justice, social reconstruction and
democracy.
Further demands have been placed on citizenship curricula around the world by the
expectation that they encourage citizens to be “critical”. The promotion of forms of
critical citizenship reflects the longstanding attempts by societies to address what Tyack
and Cuban (1995) describe as one of the perennial dilemmas of schooling, namely the
desire on the one hand to ensure an obedient populace and on the other hand to ensure that
citizens are creative and critical. The importance of achieving the latter dimension has
been reinforced greatly by the instrumental desire of states to strengthen their
competitiveness in the global economy, which is seen to require a more innovative,
independent, creative and reflective workforce.
Documents defining the nature of citizenship curricula use the word “critical”
within a variety of forms including for example ‘critical thinking’ and ‘critical skills’ in
England (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 2007); and, in France, ‘critical spirit’
(Ministere de l'Education Nationale 2004). Despite the similarity in terminology, these
descriptors mask very diverse expectations about what and how pupils will/should learn
and reflect Edelsky and Cherland’s (2006, p. 18) observation that the term ‘critical’ is in
very common use and has essentially ‘become a buzzword’, a ‘currently popular term or
slogan that lacks precise meaning’.
From the citizenship educator’s perspective, this ambiguity opens up the space for
the term “critical” to be interpreted from the standpoint of critical pedagogy, which stresses
the need for political engagement. Whilst citizenship education in England is often linked
to the work of Paulo Freire by scholars who promote more active forms of citizenship (for
example, Arthur and Davies 2008; Lawson 2005), such connections are rarely made