Barriers to Teaching Citizenship and/or Global Education in Schools - Literature review Example

Barriers to Teaching Citizenship and/or Global Education in Schools Introduction Citizenship education which is undertaken by governmental and non-governmental with an aim of preparing non-citizens to become legally as well as socially accepted as citizens in a foreign country. There is a restricted view of citizenship education where it has been noted that it is increasingly becoming important in equipping young people with knowledge in their country’s democracy, law, politics, economy among other issues (Kymlicka, 2009). Being members of a nation or country implies that young people, through their citizenship, have a responsibility to participate in societal affairs. This is because they help in ensuring that there is fairness and equity with various issues that include justice, healthcare, and facilitating promotion of democracy. Citizenship education is aimed at equipping young people with knowledge and skills that will enable them participate effectively in decision-making processes. For this reason, the parameters of citizenship education have been expanded to include aspects that promote national identity. Global education, on the other hand, is a learning process aimed at teaching universal values of non-violence, inclusion, tolerance, solidarity and justice to young people; in order to shape a better world for the future (Andrews & Mycock, 2008). Citizenship and global education are important subjects that should be given more attention as they are valuable concerning promoting all aspects of democracy and universal values. Specifically, the paper will provide an overview of citizenship and global education as well as the barriers associated with teaching such aspects. Overview of citizenship and global education Citizenship education comprises of education for new citizens in becoming legal members of a particular country. It can also refer to educating children in schools in becoming knowledgeable citizens so as to meaningfully participate in decision making process in the society (McLlaughlin, 1992). This type of education is taught as a separate academic subject in schools. In preparation of new citizens as part of the immigration process, the education criteria considered for such a course depends on the alien’s r countries. In the context of U.S, the government has since the 19th century ran programs aimed at preparing non-citizens conform to the countries expectations. There are also organizations, which offer these services to their employees and family members from foreign states. Furthermore, there are charities, which offer citizenship education services to foreign immigrants. Even at present, immigrants who wish to become U.S citizens have to undergo a naturalization test. Unless they are qualified for exemption or waiver, they also have to take an English and civic test (Carr, 1991). In U.S, citizenship education for learners is part of an academic program that is aimed at enlightening them and making them participatory members of in their societies. The programs may include knowledge and awareness of good citizenship from a moral and ethical perspective. Other programs include respect for other people, respect for human rights and tolerance of race, gender and religion. These qualities establish a foundation for the expected behaviour of the citizens with regard to their rights as citizens and their rights as human beings. The presupposition is that educating children citizenship will make them more informed and participatory members of society (Bowles, and Gintis, 2006). Global education, on the other hand, is a learning process aimed at teaching universal values of non-violence, inclusion, tolerance, solidarity and justice to young people; in order to shape a better world for the future (Andrews & Mycock, 2008). In U.S perspective, global education has significantly increased in prominence and importance in the K-12 education over the recent past. Students are required to learn about the world through the new technologies and by interacting with it (Cogan, and Derricott, 2009). Global education is developed in k-12 schools to teach young people on their globally connected world. Such education is aimed at focusing at teaching these learners in seeing the world through multiple perspectives of various groups of people as well as addressing the various stereotypes. This global education is also cantered on the principle of connectedness, identifying both global and local connections, the understanding of how the national borders have become irrelevant for many global actors, the commonalities which all humans share, multi- national corporations, pollution, terrorism, and many other global issues. The education is also focused on the development of globalization over space and time (Ayers, 2005). Barriers to citizenship and global education The many longstanding features associated with citizenship training system including the exam requirement, oriented nature, undesirable features of pedagogy, perceived decline of language proficiency, and other problems associated with implementing the curriculum have been considered to be the faulty of teachers and policy makes (Morris, 2004). Teachers and those responsible for such programs need to be thoroughly trained on handling such programs. At this period of declining demand for teachers owing to demographic changes, concerns are being raised that any disagreements with the government agenda and guidelines many be used in making decisions concerning promotions, redundancies, contract renewals, and the status of the educational institutions (Print, and Smith, 2002). With the increasing wave of public criticisms, there is pressure to implement reforms on citizenship education and a focus in training more educators. In addition, the existing educators do not have sufficient resources and the motivation to exercise their autonomy relative to the issues that include the definition of citizenship and citizenship education. Many also lack the capability or competency in designing alternative curricula and teaching materials in diversification of the interpretations of the national identity in their today to day teaching programs (Sachs, 2005). As at 90s, globalization was still considered a foreign concept and as such global education was not yet highlighted. The world is continually evolving into a small village where countries must learn how to be interdependent. Because of this, it becomes necessary to advance citizenship education to include a wider view of globalization so that young citizens can learn universal values. There exists an entrenchment of inequalities, which have subsequently undermined social inclusion and deter development of social capital (Lawson, 2001). This aspect has led to the weaknesses of the initiatives aimed at promoting citizenship education. Hence, this becomes the main barrier in teaching citizenship and global education that is an ingrained practice of undermining social inclusion and dissuading efforts of social capital development (Kisby, 2007). The entrenchment of inequalities is a responsibility of governments to abolish where this is evidenced by the fact that schools and colleges teaching citizenship education have lacked support from the government, which has devolved the responsibility of citizenship education to them (Ennals et al, 2009). Consistent government support is essential as political developments are expressly linked to policies that promote citizenship education. In the same way, these political developments have become responsible for differences in citizenship across states in U.S. Inculcating global education in the existing citizenship becomes challenging, as efforts to promote national values alone require political patronage. Thereby, it can be said that barriers experienced in citizenship and global education have to do with political issues where political figures may be unwilling to vocally support equality, justice and social inclusion because of the unwanted perception it may bring. Instead, political figures have been seen to support these principles in non-statutory subjects for example, as is the case in America with their program for Education for Mutual Understanding. In addition, political issues prevent the curriculum of citizenship education from having adequate content that covers values, virtues and all components of democracy (Carter, 2002). Prejudice towards children or citizens from particular regions are common phenomena among American authorities and education figures. This aspect has stood to the way of change among citizenship education in the country. It is apparent that some of the programs for citizenship education to some specific groups of citizens are not out of the good will by these policy makers (Cresswell, 1998). Practically, not all educators have the skills and knowledge in being sensitive to political function of education and political values. Law and Ho (2004) explains that many educators in U.S do not understand issues related to political legitimacy and authority of America in producing a national and political education in this modern era. The author goes on to postulate that the reason the reason why many educators are not comfortable teaching civic or political topics is chiefly related to lack of learning, and teaching resources . Another reason according to Law and Ho (2004) is their insensitivity to political matter and having no adequate knowledge on teaching this aspect. Wong and Shums (2006) also noted that some learners and immigrants are passive and apathetic while being taught this topic. He points out that some of these people do harbour insufficient attitudes, values and political knowledge. The dynamic patterns in educational priorities that are inherent within the citizenship agenda has perhaps developed from the effect of the wider developments and changes in the political ideology. According to Thomas and Loxley (2011), the development of the new human rights as the dominant political force during 1970s and 1980 with a focus on individualism and meritocratic set of principles have led to new perspectives in citizenship education. The authors have examined the dual strands that were inherent within these politics namely the new conservatism and new liberalism. This focus on the acquisitive and assertive individualism within the former strand coupled with the nationhood accent, tradition and family within the latter have created a juxtaposition of ideas which need to be incorporating in the citizenship education curriculum. This aspect has been one of the key drives of the new labour polices in grafting inclusive and outcomes that are socially oriented on the new rights ideology (Loxley and Thomas, 2011). Communitarianism has represented an attempt of creating a route between old socialist ideas with the more recent neo-liberal individualism concerning community members as possessing the rights as individuals as well as the obligations for society (Lawson, 2001).Potter (2002) has traced the departure of the neo-liberalism into the new labour programs which is described as a “third way”. He points out various underlying democratic values within the third way politics which serves in uniting a commitment to equality and inclusion within the individual autonomy. Such values include autonomy of rights, no rights without obligations, no authority without democracy, philosophical conservatism and cosmopolitan pluralism. Thomas and Loxley (2011) discusses the complex roles of education in its attempt of reflecting these conflicting values and shift towards the duals goals of economic restoration combined with moral and cultural regeneration. Reflecting on the recent political development and the general dynamic nature of the political environment in U.S and their effect on citizenship education, it would be easy to see how shift ideologies have influenced this practice and policy. The perspective of new right of individualism alongside the tradition and duty have emerged into the ideology of the new left of collective values and communitarians. The concept of the Third Way politics appears to encourage previous themes such as rights authority and community to continue, autonomy, and attachment of social values. Autonomy must now be mixed with actions, authority with democracy, rights with obligations, cultural and cosmopolitan perspectives. These and many other political changes also make it necessary to consistently change the curriculum to suit these changing needs (CCLA, 2002). Official attitudes to education for citizenship have been featured by certain ambiguity. Bayliss, (2009), observes that there is an obvious mismatch between the formal syllabus and the guide for citizenship education. The structure of the formal syllabus on citizenship education implied a vision of citizenship education which involved accumulating knowledge concerning various state institutions and organizations. Many learners and educators also see this education as boring, dull and conformist. The other document which is a guide for citizenship education in contrast with its insistence for instance that the teaching approach that is in use ought to be essentially an active one is both empowering and liberating. One may not be quite sure on who believes which emphasis although the pamphlet or guide used for citizenship education has remained to be a set of poorly duplicated pages (Naval, et al, 2002). It appears to be generally accepted that the syllabus for the old civic education has been a disappointment for many people. Davies, and Evans, (2002) observes that in many schools, civic education is not seriously taken into account. Martin (1997), argued that the subjects on citizenship education were not only a token but also an inconvenient add ons. Against such a backdrop, the citizenship education syllabus with its focus on key concepts, an active participation and on a comprehensive exploration of the social, civic dimensions of learners offers hope and scope Traditionally, politicians have been wary of citizenship education. Loxley, and Thomas, (2011) describes the American citizenship education syllabus as being timid in relation to its political component. The author goes on to articulate that such a syllabus ought to be written by exceptionally cautious people. Therefore, effective citizenship education and diversity necessitates that educators and policy makers develop further not just the potential for action projects but of the total syllabus. Redmond and Bulter (2003), discovered that a large number of educators do not choose to teach citizenship education. In most cases, they find themselves as uninvited guests when they are required to teach the topic. If such an educator was set to deliberately undermine the subject, this would seem like a good starting strategy. The Nexus report for instance found out that many principals in schools were finding it difficult in finding staff who were willing to teach citizenship education. The NCCA (2003) observes that the high turnover of educators was a significant indicator of the problematic state of the current provision. Studies have found that in U.S, many educators are constrained in implementing citizenship education. This constraint is partly attributed to lack of grounding in issues related to democracy and human rights. More importantly, they have arisen from the fear of victimization, which is a product of their experiences as well as observed experiences of other’s discourse. According to Nieuweinhuis (2007), citizenship education should emphasize on both the social and political issues of the day. However, the problem is that educators are regularly not very certain concerning its boundaries around engaging learners owing to the political nature of the subject at hand. Additionally, the consistent message from the school head, education officials and policy makers in their approach to citizenship education with caution is an indication of the need for an average educator to conform. This necessity of conforming is implied by the presidential reports definition of citizenship education as one which enables children or foreigners to become good citizens and conform to specific acceptable practices and training them to hold such beliefs. However, this has stifled the element of rational disputation which is ought to be the seal of citizenship education programs. Additionally, the remonstration from officials also sends mixed messages to educators concerning the place of the discourse on the curriculum and hindering its effective implementation (Davies, et al, 2011). Print et al (2002) identifies three dimensional of citizenship education, which includes moral and social responsibility, political literacy and community involvement. However, the current citizenship education initiatives in America have tended to focus more on political literacy and neglecting community involvement. This is an implication that they are not using a holistic approach. This becomes a problem since the level of an individual’s political literacy may not be necessarily an indication of one’s level of participation and obligation although knowledge and participation ought to be interrelated. In spite of the benefits of citizenship education, it has turned out that the sceptics have already gotten their ways in many respects. Until late in 1960s, it was common for students in high schools to take a minimum three courses in government, democracy and civics. Presently, most learners only take government related course. The Carnegie report indicates that the study of social studies has significantly declined. Meanwhile, the single focus on high stakes testing on basic subjects such as language, mathematics and reading scores have largely ignored citizenship or civic knowledge in general. In addition, lack of serious assessment on this subject has sent a signal that citizenship education has a very little impact (Macedo, 2004). If many public schools have not been effective in teaching citizenship education, part of the reason is because they are disinterested in doing so. Moreover, they have also been critics who argue that even if citizenship education worked in the end, this is not a role which the state should engage in, more especially in a free and diverse society where there are variations in moral or political values. The critics further points to some serious flaws in the guidelines for citizenship education in teaching of this subject. According to them, most of such guidelines are not focused in instilling on students the basic knowledge on civics and history rather than encouraging students develop an individual perspective so as to enable them make choices. In short, the critics are arguing that most standards for citizenship education are wanting and need to be improved. These constant criticisms therefore, become a barrier as they hamper the whole education process by affecting the attitudes of both teachers and students (Macedo, 2004). Barriers in Teaching Global Education An understanding of the challenges faced by students according to studies indicate that the major barriers to their effective incorporation of global education into their classrooms are not only complex but multiple. Numerous studies have reported lack of support from their teachers, lack or little confidence in the pedagogical demands of effectively learning these types of issues, a difficulty by teachers in inserting global education in the education curriculum and so on. Also in most cases, students in practical feel disempowered by the new structures which they find it difficult to comprehend by their palpable pedagogical development as well as the personality of their teachers who are tasked to supervise their professional development. Thus, when an educator displays a lack of interest and enthusiasm concerning global education topics, or cautioned against teaching certain aspects of these topics, students may find it difficult to advance their case (Barber 2000). Another barrier for many students lies in the pedagogical demands of teaching global and peace education in schools. In most cases, concern has been raised on the complexity of global education and peace topics, the required level of knowledge, which will present them in a fair way, and with a sense of hope. Additionally, educators have also been worried that in teaching learners on issues, these students may develop a feeling that the problems which give rise to inequity are so ingrained and so huge that they not be able to find away to involve themselves as global citizens. Moreover, many students as well as teachers are not comfortable with the simple statistics being provided that touch on global matters. Global and peace education are also considered by many as “extras”, when they are supposed to tackle questions of basic planning and classroom management, leave alone increasing the demand on their time with issues related to global and peace matters (Barber 2000). The social studies curriculum in most parts of the world has its basis in characters, values and morals (Ellis, 2002). Values, which have been traditionally taught through indoctrination in different cultures, have now become a challenge to modern educators through ways of tackling issues to do with values in the classroom through either value clarification or reflective approach. For example, values may be easily taught in a homogenous society but may not be easily taught in a pluralistic or heterogeneous setting where the issues of such values a teacher is teaching may emerge. Stated differently, cultural values may go across boundaries; however, their acceptance in a heterogeneous community may not be easy. This can relate to the saying that one man’s meat may be another’s poison. Due to cultural limitations, learners may not have opportunities to communicate with other students around the country, leave alone on the world perspective. Stated differently, these learners may suffer from lack of exposure to other cultures. With no such connections, knowledge sharing may not be effective. With many schools in America being more segregated than they were before the civil rights movements, American learners may easily get caught in their own “world view” and ignore other world views that are different from their own. There is a need to provide these learners more opportunities in stretching outside their own realm and learn about the larger global picture. This may be as a simple as providing global service learning activities where learners could become more educated or learn by themselves about specific issues. In this way, they could work with others towards realizing solutions and be able to see how their actions and behaviour have an impact on the world (Dewey, 2006). In many states, there is a lack of sufficient teacher training and skills. In some cases, some teachers do not know how to use proper teaching approaches, which are most appropriate with regard to global education. Again, it is found that a number of teachers do not care on global issues to be bothered. The training programs for global education are not very adequate in the country. This is more particular in the pre-service level, which is specifically directed at developing global education teachers. Lack of resources is also another barrier to global education in many states. This is chiefly in form of lack of sufficient money (Schwarz, 2008). In many states, global education is not recognized as a separate curriculum area. Rather, global perspectives, which are included in the curriculum, are fitted in the existing subjects such as geography, history, literature, social studies, arts, foreign languages and so forth. Since the education systems in most states is examination driven, it may be difficult for teachers to change the “regular curriculum” to include global aspects because this will take time away from teaching the skills and topics that will be tested in the final examinations (Paludan, and Prinds, 2009). Many educators and schools are reluctant in adding the new curriculum area since the society members were used to what used to be there and might not be comfortable with new things. In essence, the, national curricular which standard and compulsory was very slow with regard in incorporating changes of overall perspective, or rather symmetrically, the scarce leeway which is left to individual schools in establishing, managing and implementing innovative curricular (Robson, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Policy and other similar laws have been practically and impediment to the teaching and learning global education. Since students are made to move towards a more standardised testing, terms such as global citizenship are falling by the wayside. Qualities of global education may not be tested with a paper and testing, and global education is deemed to be less important by many schools. Owing to these aspects, schools and educators may find it difficult to deviate from the curriculum which will finally be tested (Ehman etal, 2006). Politics in one way or another appears to be a problem barrier to implementing global education. Some members of religious fundamentalists and religious rights have been known for being opponents of global education. Such groups or individuals have a mistaken fear that provision of global education may promote some form of a “one world” philosophy which contradicts a nationalist dogma or some form of humanism which opposes some religious fundamentals (Ehman et al, 2006). Inequity in technology distribution is another obvious challenge to knowledge sharing in global education. For instance, many learners in United States and other parts of the world have no access to technology. The internet and the World Wide Web could be a wonderful source of sharing all forms of information (Print et al, 2002). However, this can only be possible if all the learners have access to technology. When they do not have such an access, it is obvious that they would fall behind the curve of information sharing on global matters. There is a need for the government and any other stakeholders to strive in providing technology to all schools so that the students may be able to access the wealth of information on global issues. The education process is itself a great barrier to global education. If educations are not knowledgeable on what is going on in the world, they may not be able to effectively teach on those events. Many educators are not knowledgeable about the crucial concepts of global education including the fact that the global resources are unevenly distributed and are not sustainable for indefinite period (Farris, 2001). In essence, not all educators have an understanding of the effect of poverty, and how it has cut across many life aspects. Just taking an example, learners whose parents do not earn much are obviously more vulnerable to sicknesses and other medical issues due to lack of health access and proper nutrition. On the other hand, leaner’s whose parents are poor may score behind their colleagues on standardized tests, meaning that they may less likely graduate from high school and eventual college or university education (Bloom, 2008). Conclusion As revealed in this paper, the goal of balanced citizenship education in fostering an informed citizenry in the modern perspective has been constrained by education practices and the nationalism of the curriculum, inadequacy of the appropriate professional agency and the pressure of limiting the autonomy of educators. Additionally educational practices have been increasingly coupled with economic and political considerations instead of the ethical and moral concerns. In conclusion, I do argue that the balance between the effective and cognitive goals of the citizenship education is crucial to the building of balanced citizens. With the absence of strong government support and limited resources preparation of civic educators ought to be as a minimum adopt a proper mix of educational approaches including but not limited to problem based learning, civic participatory approaches and self motivated learning. This way, citizenship education may effectively contribute to the development of open-minded national education in not only America but also other countries. There needs to be more effort placed on furthering citizenship education, particularly with a global view, as it is clear that globalization along with technological changes have made our lives get impacted by events taking place beyond our borders. This has implied that there is interdependence among nations in the world where in order to achieve a sustainable future it has become imperative to have improved levels of mutual understanding and participation in global citizenship. Subsequently, global citizenship becomes a key priority and not merely an option for all countries. Recommendation This report has suggested that three main points of action need to be considered by police makers and schools in relations to citizenship education. There is a need for schools to re evaluate their existing strategies in implementing citizenship education to the typology of schools and the main factors which underlie the provision of the most successful citizenship education. There is a need for schools and other education canters to established more coherent and holistic approaches to citizenship education which are based around the curriculum, the community and the nation at large. Such an approach should also encompass not only social and moral dimensions but also political literacy and concern with issues related t public policy. There is a need for public policy makers to incorporate a broad developmental perspective of citizenship education, which highlights the growing signs of progress alongside other deficiencies. This offers a realistic and strong evidence base upon which the approaches that support the sharing and development of good practices are based. There is also the requirement for recognizing the need for training the staff and educators for citizenship education. Such an education is essential in building confidence, addressing the gaps in the educator’s knowledge, skills and understanding as well as improving the learning and teaching strategies. References Ayers, William. (2005). Teaching Toward Freedom, Boston. Beacon Press. Andrews, R., &Mycock, A. (2008), Dilemmas of devolution: The politics of britishness and citizenship education. British Politics, 3(2), 139-155. Bloom, B. S. (2008), Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook 1, Cognitive domain (pp. 1953-1959). New York: Kckay Conference of the Ministers on African Education Barber, B.R (2000), Challenges to the Common Good in the Age of Globalization, Social Education 64 (1) 8-13. Bayliss, V. (2009), Opening Minds, Education for the 21st century, London: Royal Society of Arts. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2006) Schooling In Capitalist America. London: Routledge. Carr, W. (1991), Education For Democracy? A Philosophical Analysis Of The National Curriculum, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol.25, No.2, pp 183-190. Carter, C. (2002), Schools Ethos And The Construction of Identity: Do Schools Create, Condone and Sustain Aggresssion? Educational Review, Vol.54, No. 1, pp 27-36. Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) (2002), Website. Available from www.ccla.org/schools Cogan, J.J. and Derricott, R. (2009), Citizenship For The 21st Century. London: Kogan Page. .Cresswell, J.W. (1998), Qualitative Inquiry And Research Design. London: Sage. Davies, I. and Evans, M. (2002), Encouraging Active Citizenship, Educational Review, Vol 54, No.1, pp 69-78. Davies, I., Fulop, M., Hutchings, M., Ross, A. and Vari-Szilagyi, I. (2011), Enterprising Citizens? Perceptions Of Citizenship Education And Enterprise Education In England And Hungary, Educational Review, Vo.53, No.3, pp 261-269. Dewey, J. (2006), Democracy And Education. England: MacMillan. Ellis, A. K. (2002), Teaching and learning elementary social studies, 7th Edition. Boston: Allyn & Bacon  Ehman, L., Mehlinger, H., & Patrick, J. (2006). Toward effective instruction in secondary social Studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ehman, L., Mehlinger, H., & Patrick, J. (2006), Toward effective instruction in secondary social Studies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Ennals, R., Stratton, L., Moujahid, N., &Kovela, S. (2009), Global information technology and global citizenship education.  AI & Society, 23(1), 61-68.  Farris, P. J. (2001), Elementary and middle school social studies, New York: McGraw-Hill Kymlicka, W (2009), Education for Citizenship in J.M Halstead. and T.H. McLaughlin (eds), Education for Morality, London: Routledge, 79-102. Kisby, B. (2007), New labor and citizenship education. Parliamentary Affairs, 60(1), 84-101. Loxley, A. and Thomas, G. (2001), Neo-Conservatives, Neo-Liberals, The New Left And Inclusion: Stirring The Pot, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 31, No.3, pp 291-301. Lawson, H. (2001), Active Citizenship In schools And The Community, Curriculum Journal, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp 163-178 .Law, W. W., & Ho, W. C. (2004). Values education in Hong Kong school music education: A sociological critique.British Journal of Educational Studies , 52 (1), 65 -82 Lee, W. &Fouts, J. (2005), Education for Social Citizenship: Perception of Teachers in the USA, England, Russia and China. Hong Kong University Press: Hong Kong Morris, P., P.,Kan, F, &Morris, E. (2004), Education, civic participation and identity.Cambridge Journal of Education , 30 (2), 243 – 262 Macedo, S (2004), Civic Education: can public schools teach good citizenship? Available from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Civic+Education%3a+can+public+schools+teach+good+citizenship%3f-a0114479059 Martin, P. (2004), Teaching in Hong Kong: Professionalisation, accountability and the state. Research Papers in Education , 19 (1), 105 – 12 McLlaughlin, T. H. (1992), Citizenship, diversity and education: a philosophical perspective, Journal of Moral Education, 21 (3), 235-50.  Naval, C., Print, M., Veldhuis, R (2002), Education for democratic citizenship in the new Europe: context and reform’ European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 107-28. NCCA (2003), Civic, Social and Political Education, NCCA response to NEXUS report on survey of principals and CSPE teachers, Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. NCCA (2007) ,Senior Cycle Developments, Report on Consultation on ‘Social and Political Education at Senior Cycle, a background paper’, Dublin: NCCA. Nieuweinhuis, J. (Ed.) (2007),. Growing human rights and values in education. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers  Paludan, P. and Prinds, E. (2009) Evaluation of Education in Citizenship and Global Education Danish Ministry of Education. Print, M., Ornstrom, S., Nielson, H., (2002), Education for Democratic Processes in Schools and Classrooms European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 193-210. Print, M. and Smith, A (2002), Editorial, European Journal of Education, 37 (2), 103-5. Potter, J. (2002), Active Citizenship In Schools. London: Kogan Page. Redmond, D and Bulter, P. (2003), Civic, Social and Politic al Education, Reports on Survey of Teachers and Principals to NCCA. Dublin: NEXUS Research Co-Operative Robson, C. (2003), Real World Research. Oxford: Blackwell. Sachs, A. (2005). Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: WorldWatch Institute, p. 1-2. Schwarz, W. (2008), The New Disssenters - The Nonconformists Conscience In The Age Of Thatcher. London: Bedford Square Press. Wong, K. Y. & Shum, K. C. (2006), The national awareness of Hong Kong youth. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia and Pacific Studies, Chinese University of Hong Kong Read More