Rationale
- The definition of Active Citizenship as a core concept is problematic. It doesn’t make a great deal of sense – e.g. you can’t be entitled to a responsibility. It is also a very limited definition fo citizenship, limited to political status – which is then further confused by the global citizenship core concept later. I would suggest that the National Academy of Education definition is a better approach:
Students should learn different ways of thinking about citizens and citizenship. Sometimes, these words define the legal status and rights of the members of a given political entity. Students should learn who has had legal citizenship rights and consider the fairness of such arrangements. Citizenship also refers to active, responsive,
and critical participation in any community in which people find themselves. The latter, more aspirational meaning informs this report and its recommendations.
- But even this is difficult – because the Alice Springs Mparntwe Declaration has actually removed most of the references to citizens within the document and instead talks about members of the community, which I think is more inclusive. In fact, the only reference to citizens in the Declaration is in reference to ‘global citizens’.
- The rationale uses the term First Nations Australians instead of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Is that the right term? How does that fit with the CCP – is that going to change its name?
- the rational also removes the section on an ‘appreciation of diverse perspectives, empathy, collaboration, negotiation, self-awareness and intercultural understanding.’ This seems important to me. Why would we remove it?
Aims
- This seems a bit disjointed. Christian heritage remains in the Rationale, but has been removed from bullet point 1 in the Aims? Why?
- We’ve also added a lot more references to responsibility. This makes me uncomfortable. Who determines what is reponsible participation? Some might argue climate marches are not.
- There are also more references to participating as an individual – to me this seems nonsensical. We participate in society collectively.
Strands
- I have lots of concerns over the skills substrands:
- Asking questions about civics and citizenship – this doesn’t make sense. The purpose is not not really asking questions about civics and citizenship – it’s more asking questions about contemporary society.
- Is investigating analogous to researching? Interpreting? Why the change here?
- Participating – brings back the idea of responsibly – this troubles me. Who determines what is responsible? Also only about identifying ways to participate – not to actually participate.
- Evaluating – the only possible answer is that it enahcnes/ fosters – that’s not evaluation. Seems a bit one-sided if we can’t critique our systems of government too.