Within education, citizenship is clearly represented as an active participation in society, encompassing the preparation of young people for their roles and responsibilities as future citizens (Kerr, 1999, p.2). Ross (2004) supports the view that education gives young people the knowledge, skills and values necessary for an active participation in society as citizens (Ross 2004, p.249). Kennedy (2000, 2003) talks about the need to develop ‘civic capacity’ in young people, producing citizens who are capable of “thinking and acting appropriately in the public interest” (Kennedy, 2003, p.59). The task of the education system in engendering ‘active citizenship’ is to promote what all citizens have in common, including values, political structures and a willingness to participate actively in the democratic processes of society (Kennedy, 2003, p.58).
According to Marginson (1997), education was expected to contribute to economic and political growth and development of the nation. It was also expected to broaden the character and reach of modern citizenship, to increase the standards of living and produce greater opportunities, equality and social reform (Marginson, 1997, p.42). For much of the 20th century, the formation of citizens with economic and vocational attributes thus became a theme of education and economic policy (Marginson, 1997, p.6). “Schools help prepare young people to enter fully into the life of their society. This education for active citizenship requires… the skills necessary to participate effectively, a growing capacity to exercise self-discipline and moral judgement and an increasing commitment to democratic values and fair processes; and concern for the common good” (Directorate of School Education 1992, cited in (Lewis, 1999, p.15)). Kennedy (2003) also supports these educational goals, asserting that the goals of citizenship and education in the 20th century should include: building social cohesion, inclusion and trust; developing tolerance and respect for diversity; and developing critical thinking and problem solving skills (Kennedy, 2003, p.11).
The Martin Report of 1964 (Martin, 1964) states “it is both beneficial and realistic to regard education as a form of national investment in human capital” (Mrtin 1964, pp.1-2). The economic growth of the nation was thus linked directly to education. Peter Karmel, a member of the Martin Committee used the link between education and economic growth to justify the extension of citizenship via education: “I believe democracy implies making educational opportunities as equal as possible and that the working of democracy depends on increasing the numbers of citizens with the capacity for clear and informed thought on political and social issues” (Karmel 1962, cited in (Marginson, 1997, p.36)). Although citizenship was clearly a primary goal of education throughout the 20th century, it becomes apparent that various groups are positioned differentially in respect to the achievement of this goal.
Disability is an issue that has largely been ignored in 20th century citizenship discourse. Early definitions of disability included terms such as impairment and handicap – a handicap being a “disadvantage for a given individual, resulting from an impairment or a disability that limits or prevents the fulfilment of a role that is normal for that individual” (Madden & Hogan, 1997, p.14). In the latter part of the 20th century however, the term handicap was renamed and reconceptualized as ‘participation’. (Madden & Hogan, 1997, p.22). This shift reflects the growing emphasis that was placed on the rights and needs of people with disabilities – an emphasis grounded in the assumption that people with disabilities have the same rights to the same opportunities (including a full education) as the rest of the community (Madden & Hogan, 1997, p.22). Again, it can be seen that in associating participation with opportunity, it is implied that ‘the disabled’ have limited access to opportunities due to their limited abilities to participate.
Thus, the education of students with disabilities sits uneasily in the context of ‘active citizenship’. Marshall (1997) represents citizenship as “a status bestowed on those who are full members of the community” (Olssen, 2001, p.78). Davies, Gregory and Riley (1999) take the view that within the education system, citizenship is designed to “promote and encourage individuals with the wherewithal to better play a part in our democracy” (Riley, I. et.al. 1999, p.301). It can be seen that the concept of citizenship as an action implies differential access to citizenship – it is both inclusionary and exclusionary. Certain groups are included as ‘full members of the community’ and certain groups are excluded from this membership as they may not have the ‘wherewithal’ required for access to citizenship (Gordon et al., 2000, p.307).
Prior to the establishment of the first ‘special school’ in 1927, the education of children with disabilities was hardly a concern. This group in society was simply deemed us ineducable, and thus totally excluded from the benefits of education, including access to citizenship rights and opportunities. Gradually through the latter part of the 20th century, greater provisions were made for these children, as it became more generally recognised that persons with disabilities are entitled to the same basic rights as other members of Australian society (McRae, 1996, p.33). Following the introduction of ‘special schools’, there was subsequent move to have students with disabilities educated in regular classroom settings. Such a change was motivated, according to Meekosha & Dowse (1997) , by the belief that placing children with disabilities in ‘special schools’ effectively negated their citizenship status - “forced to claim ‘special rights’, their status as citizens with existing rights is negated” (Meekosha & Dowse 1997, p.50).
As such, from the early 1960s there was a growing trend towards placement within regular schools settings for these children (refer to 1964 Charter for the Education of Children with Disabilities; Karmel Report; Warnock Report of 1978; Commonwealth Schools Commission Report 1978; Schonell Study 1979; The Doherty Report (1982) and the Report of the Working Party on Special Education (1985)). In summary, the prevailing policy by the late 20th century was “people with disabilities should be able to live in and be educated within their own communities” (McRae, 1996, p.i).
Following the Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act 1992, it became unlawful for schools to discriminate against a person on grounds of disability (McRae, 1996, p.34).
Changes in provisions and policy for the education of children with disabilities reflect concurrent changes in social attitudes during the 20th century. From viewing children with disabilities as being ineducable in the early 1900s; the provision of ‘special schools’ 1927 onwards; to a policy of full integration where possible after 1960 – reflects the growing recognition of the citizenship rights of the disabled – specifically the right to ‘equality of opportunity’ regarding educational provision. At the same time, citizenship was clearly a focus of educational policy, with the Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers of education proclaiming in 1989 that the purpose of education was “to develop knowledge, skills, attitudes and values which will enable students to participate as active and informed citizens in our democratic Australian society within an international context” (Marginson, 1997, p.249). The Liberals declared in 1996 - “The Coalition is committed to ensuring that students leave school with an understanding of, and pride in, what it means to be an Australian citizen: with a knowledge of our system of government and democracy; with the knowledge and skills to enable them to participate as active citizens in the community” ("Schools and tafe: Election policy", 1996).
The link between citizenship and education has remained constant throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. However, in relation to children with disabilities, it can be seen that the nature of this link has changed. According to popular discourse, a primary purpose of education in the late 20th century was the promotion of a more inclusive society, with all individuals participating in an active role. The reality however, is that in any society, different groups of individuals are positioned differentially in relation to ‘active’ citizenship: by race, by class, by gender and by ability or disability (L. Davies, 2001, p.301). There are now greater attempts to include this previously excluded group of children, and by opening up educational opportunities, this group is thus more able to ‘participate’ in an active form of citizenship. This change is evidenced by the establishment of special schools specifically for children with disabilities and further by the integration policies of the late 20th century As Keating argued in 1995 -“education is a foundation of the nation’s culture and strength” (Keating 1995, cited in (Marginson, 1997, pp.89-90)). Education is society’s chosen agency for citizenship – an active citizenship, but different groups are positioned differentially to participate in such an active role, as has been shown in the case of children with disabilities.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barcan, A. (1980). A history of Australian education. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Crittenden, B. (1995). The revival of civics in the school curriculum: Comments on the report of the civics expert group. Melbourne Studies in Education, 36(2), pp. 21-30.
Davies, I., Gregory, I., & Riley, S. (1999). Good citizenship and educational provision. London: Falmer Publishing.
Davies, L. (2001). Citizenship, education and contradiction. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(2).
Gordon, T., Holland, J., & Lahelma, E. (2000). Making spaces: Citizenship and difference in schools. Basingstoke: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Hill, B. (1996). Civics and citizenship and the teaching of values. Unicorn, 22(1), pp. 34-43.
Kennedy, K. J. (1995). Conflicting conceptions of citizenship and their relevance for the school curriculum. In M. Print (Ed.), Civics and citizenship education: Issues from practice and research (pp. 13-18). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Kennedy, K. J. (2000). Building civic capacity for a new century: Engaging young people in civic institutions and civil society. Asia Pacific Education Review, 1(1), 23-30.
Kennedy, K. J. (2003). Preparing young Australians for an uncertain future: New thinking about citizenship education. Teaching Education, 14(1), 53-67.
Kerr, D. (1999). Citizenship education in the curriculum: An international review, The School Field (pp. 5-32): National Foundation for Educational Research.
Lewis, R. (1999). Preparing students for democratic citizenship: Codes of conduct in Victoria's 'schools of the future'. Educational Research and Evaluation, 5(1), 41-61.
Macintyre, S. (1996). Diversity, citizenship and the curriculum. In K. Kennedy (Ed.), New challenges for citizenship education (pp. 23-38). Canberra: Australian Curriculum Studies Association.
Madden, R., & Hogan, T. (1997). The definition of disability in Australia: Moving towards national consistency. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (Vol. 5). Canberra.
Marginson, S. (1997). Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since 1960. University of Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, A. (1997). Citizenship and social class. In R. E. Goodin & P. Petitt (Eds.), Contemporary political philosophy (pp. 291-319). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Martin, L. (1964). Tertiary Education in Australia. Report of the Committee on the Future of Tertiary Education in Australia to the Australian Universities Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
McRae, D. (1996). The integration/inclusion feasibility study. Prepared for the Minister of Education and Training, NSW. NSW Department of School Education, Special Education Directorate
Meekosha, H., & Dowse, L. (1997). Enabling citizenship: Gender, disability and citizenship in Australia. Feminist Review, 57(Autumn), pp. 49-72.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. (1996). Retrieved July 22nd, 2005, from
Olssen, M. (2001). Citizenship and education: From Alfred Marshall to Iris Marion Young. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 33(1), pp.77-118.
Ross, E. W. (2004). Negotiating the politics of citizenship education. Political Science and Politics, April 2004, pp. 249-254.
Schools and TAFE: Election policy. (1996). Liberal and National Parties Policy Documents.
