To be referenced as: Osler, Audrey (2012) Citizenship Education and Diversity, in: J.A.

Banks (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Diversity in Education. Vol. 1. Sage: London and Los Angeles,
CA, pp. 353-361.

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION AND DIVERSITY

Since the final decade of the twentieth century there has been increasing interest, both by
national policy-makers and by international organizations, in the position and status of
citizenship education (sometimes referred to as civics) within school curricula. At the same
time there has been increased debate about multiculturalism and multicultural citizenship, as
policy-makers have sought to address perceived tensions between the desire to promote social
cohesion and the need to recognize ethnic, cultural, social and linguistic diversity within the
nation-state. Such trends can be identified in education policy-making, both in societies
which have readily acknowledged their cultural diversity over a long period of time and in
those which had hitherto perceived themselves to be homogeneous in character. Interest in
citizenship education and diversity at the national scale has been driven on the one hand by a
positive recognition of diversity and dissent as essential elements in the development of a
healthy democratic climate and on the other by negative association made between diversity
and social cohesion, and latterly with terrorism, particularly since 2001.
Interest in citizenship education and diversity has also developed in response to a
growing awareness of the importance of learning to live together not only in nations
characterized by diversity, but also in local communities and a global community
characterized by diversity. Educators have increasingly given attention to intercultural skills
and to the concepts of cosmopolitan and global citizenship in an effort to address diversity at

different scales from the local to the global. International organizations such as UNESCO and
the Council of Europe have given attention to the global and regional (European) dimensions
of citizenship education, exploring ways in which learners might be encouraged to exercise
concern and loyalty towards fellow humanity beyond the borders of the nation-state. These
developments raise particular challenges for education policy-makers and curriculum
planners, as pressures to address questions relating to unequal power-relations both within
communities and nation-states, as well as in international relations, have come to the fore.

Citizenship education and the nation-state

Citizenship education which encourages or demands loyalty to the nation can be traced back
to the late nineteenth century and to the development of mass education. Indeed, John Dewey
has observed how in Europe the development of mass publicly-funded schooling occurred at
a time when nationalism was at its zenith, so that public schooling itself became part of the
nationalist project. The exclusive nationalism promoted across the curriculum, and
specifically through subjects such as history and civics, not only replaced an earlier tradition
of cosmopolitanism, or loyalty to fellow humanity, but also stressed national homogeneity by
denying or ignoring ethnic and linguistic diversity within the nation, and asserting that
specific inequalities, such as those relating to class, gender and race, were part of a natural
social hierarchy, divinely ordained.
Such fictions were upheld in schooling and through the curriculum throughout the
early twentieth century, although they were challenged, both by pacifists after World War One
and also by the developing anti-colonial struggles of this era. In the second half of the
twentieth century, the struggles of anti-colonial, civil rights and feminist movements
effectively pressed for changes to school curricula. These movements also raised public
awareness of the ways in which traditional approaches to the education of citizens
2

distinguished between learners from different social class background. The citizenship
education of established elitescontinues to prepare them for leadership roles, whereas the
masses often continue to learn that their role is, at best, to vote for their leaders, and then
accept their authority.
Migration patterns and the processes of globalization in late twentieth centurymeant
that across the school curriculum and especially within citizenship education the fiction of the
homogenous nation-state could no longer be maintained. The presence of migrants and
visible minorities, together with the struggles of such groups to realize equality within the
nation-state, continue to highlight other inequalities related to characteristicsand identities
such as gender, class, disability and sexuality, each of which needs to be considered when
educating for citizenship.
The nation state remains is key in citizenship education since a conception of the
world as a collection of nation-states is the basis for both national and international law. The
United Nations has grown from around 80 members in 1950 to 192 members in 2011, largely
as the result of the collapse of the European colonial empires and of federations such as the
Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. Nationality or citizenship status derives from the nation-state,
and it is the nation-state which is responsible for upholding both the citizenship rights of
nationals and also the human rights of all those living within its territory. Today, the most
common model of citizenship education within nation-states is, perhaps not surprisingly, that
which focuses on and tends to emphasis exclusive loyalty to, the nation. While a tension
exists between promoting unity and recognizing diversity, the tendency is to continue to
emphasis an exclusive loyalty to the nation, event at the risk of promoting an exclusive
nationalism.
Globalization, Migration and Citizenship

At the beginning of the twenty-first century, nations-states across the globe are experiencing
new challenges as the forces of globalization, new and intensifying international migration,
and the activities of transnational communities and corporations, promote increased crossborder movements and networks. These forces not only undermine the principle of the
nation-state as the predominant organizing framework for econcomic, social, cultural and
political life but call into question the very focus of citizenship education in this global age.
Migration patterns, coupled with complex and often lengthy naturalization processes
mean that while many students in school have multiple citizenships or are living in states
where they do not aspire to citizenship, others experience complex and uncertain processes of
naturalization. Some regions and some schools have numbers of learners who are asylumseekers; some students are stateless; and others live for shorter or longer periods as migrants
seeking citizenship rights. Among those who gain formal citizenship of the country to which
they migrate, many are in a weak position to claim their rights. The diverse citizenship status
of students poses additional challenges to educators, not least in contexts where the
curriculum assumes that all learners are nationals of the country in which they are studying.
Formal education policy and curricula rarely acknowledge these forms of diversity in the
citizenship education classroom.
Citizenship education carries the duty of enabling the young to develop their social
and political identities; acquire the skills to become active participants in society; and engage
with others on the basis of respect. These tasks are made more complex in contexts of
growing international migration. Immigration raises two broad types of question for
citizenship educators. The first relates to the need to respond to growing cultural diversity in
schools and schools mission of assuring equality of opportunity for all. This is a considerable
challenge in the context of asymmetrical power relations between established citizens and
newcomers. The second relates to the role of education in general and citizenship education
4

in particular in forming and extending the various social and political identities of learners
and equipping them with the tools they need to become engaged members of their
communities.

In otherwords, schools are tasked with role of supporting young people, both migrants
and established citizens, tobecome actively engaged in their communities, regardless of their
formal citizenship status and with the task of ensuring that newcomers integrate. In reality
these two tasks are clearly inter-related, for unequal access to educational and employment
opportunities (experiencing exclusion and discrimination), not only undermines the everyday
work of citizenship educators, but may adversely affect learners readiness to participate,
raising an additional barrier in enabling them to become active citizens.
Nation-states, in enacting education and wider social policies, often assume that
integration is a one way process, failing to anticipate that newcomers are likely to impact on
the majority culture or contribute to a broader process of social or cultural transformation.
Efforts by the nation-state to manage or control this process, particularly where assumptions
are made about the temporary presence of workers, mean that little or no attention is given to
the social needs of families, including the education of children. Consequently, citizenship
education programs are at best inappropriate, and risk alienating learners and undermining
the processes of social cohesion they purport to strengthen.
In such contexts ethno-cultural diversity may be seen by elites as a threat to the future
stability of the nation, This, in turn, may be a self-fulfilling prophecy, if the social rights and
in particular the educational rights of young people are neglected. The denial ofsuch social
rights as equal access to education can in itself lead to social conflicts, so undermining social
stability.
5

Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human

Rights Education
The Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights
Education, adopted by Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7 of the Committee of Ministers of
the member states of the Council of Europe is significant to those concerned with citizenship
education in contexts of diversity in a number of respects. First, this represents a key step by
aninternationalorganization to establish normative standards on citizenship education which
transcend national boundaries. Second, in seeking a common framework for educationfor
democratic citizenship across the 47 member states of the Council of Europe, based on
universal human rights( rather than exclusive citizenship rights), it exemplifies an alternative
concept of citizenship education in which the status of citizenship status is judged to be
secondary to the need to promote a feeling of citizenship and engaged acts of citizenship.
Finally, the model represented by the Council of Europe Charter is potentially a challenge to
the dominant nationalist model of citizenship education.Each of these features is relevant to
the question of diversity, since a conception of citizenship education which relies on the
assumption that all learners have citizenship status is problematic, as discussed above. A
vision of the citizenship classroom where all learners are equal holders of human rights and
which draws on this inclusive status as human rights holder provides an alternative model in
twenty-first classrooms characterised by diversity.
The definition of education for democratic citizenship (EDC) presented in this
normative Council of Europe document makes direct reference to diversity, stressing that the
activities which comprise EDC must necessarily aim to empower learners to exercise and
defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an
active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and
the rule of law (emphasis added). This statement is then is extended to stress that valuing
6

diversity is at the heart of the purpose of citizenship learning. It explains that intercultural
dialogue and the valuing of diversity and equality, including gender equality; ... [and the
development of ] knowledge, personal and social skills and understanding that reduce
conflict, increase appreciation and understanding of the differences between faith and ethnic
groups, build mutual respect for human dignity and shared values. This EDC model is not
based solely on knowledge and skills but also on action to strengthen a society based on
universal human rights. Nevertheless, the actions required by learners to engage fully in
citizenship learning require them to demonstrate solidarity with others rather than to engage
in any direct or personal struggle for rights. There is little, if any, recognition that the
realization of justice and equality may require learners to engage in struggle or conflict. In
this sense this model seemsto assume the leaner belongs to a privilegedmajority rather than to
any disadvantaged group vulnerable to discrimination. The model fails to engage fully with
the historical reality that demonstrates that human rights have rarely, if ever, been conceded
by the powerful to the powerless, without a struggle.

Multicultural Citizenship and Intercultural Learning

In an article discussing multicultural states and intercultural citizens, Will Kymlickaraises
some central dilemmas relating to citizenship education policies in contexts of diversity. He
interrogates the image of the state and questions what changes need to take place to enable or
realize a genuinely multicultural state. He asks the reader to imagine what it would mean for
the state to change so that the constitution, institutions and the laws of the state were
multicultural. He then develops his argument to focus on the citizens of a genuine
multicultural state. Citizenship generally refers to membership of a political community and
therefore implies a relationship between the individual and the state. What qualities does the
multicultural state require of individual citizen? Kymlicka draws on the concept of

interculturalismto discuss the types of knowledge, beliefs, virtues and dispositions that an
intercultural citizen would possess. Ideally, the multicultural state needs its citizens to enage
with each other and with teh apparatus and institutions of the state so as to enable and sustain
the state and create a workable interaction between citizens. In other words, there needs to be
a good fit between the model of the multicultural state and the competencies of intercultural
citizen. Kymlickaidentifies a number of tensionsbetween promoting desirable forms of
multiculturalism within state institutions and promoting desired forms of interculturalism
within individual citizens.
Education plays a key role in enabling this good fit. Unfortunately, it can also work to
upset the balance between creating a just society based on multicultural ideals, by focusing
too strongly on the interactions between citizens, and failing to expose the unequal systems of
a state which is a de facto multicultural society (by nature of its diverse population). Some
proposals to promoteincreased intercultural skills and knowledge within individual citizens
((that is efforts to address diversity within citizenship education) are enacted precisely to
avoid greater institutional changes within the state. Effectively, citizenship education may
work to prevent genuine political reform which would guarantee the equal life chances of all
within a multicultural state. This happens when citizenship education avoids developing
learnersskills of critical analysis and over-emphasises learners duties to accept the authority
of the state. This dilemma is lies at the heart of citizenship education as taught in state
institutions. It is hard to imagine public education policies promoted by the state which call
into question the power of the authorities from which these policies originate.
Recognition of the multicultural state, and the ways in which it differs from the
traditional concept of the nation-state require first that the state is seen as belonging to (and
including) all citizens on the basis of equality. Effectively, this means challenging all those
nation-building policies and practices, including all the aspects of education in general and

learning for citizenship in particular which are designed to assimilate or exclude all members
of minority groups and marginalized communities. This is in effect a repudiation of the
former concept of the state as belonging to a particular group. All individuals should be able
to access all state institutions, including the institution of the school, on the basis of equality,
without having to deny or hide aspects of their identity.

Within most conceptions of multiculturalism, education in general, and education for

citizenship in particular, must accord the histories, languages and cultures of minorities due
recognition and ensure that they are given a place alongside the histories, language and
culture of the dominant group. This implies a recognition of historical injustices and the
impact which such injustices are likely to continue to have on the everyday interactions of
citizens in the present day society. Included in this process is the recognition of the
disadvantage which past polices of assimilation and exclusion continue to exercise today
together with processes for addressing these injustices. Minimally this implies for citizenship
education, not a one-size-fits-all approach but careful consideration of the group and
individual needs of learners so that past injustices are not perpetuated through the evry
processes of citizenship education.
Schools, alongside other state institutions, have a key role in preparing for equal
citizenship in a multicultural state. Schools and other public institutions have as a central
aspect of their mission, the key role of challenging discrimination, working to accommodate
diversity, promote integration, and to enable all learners to imagine a more inclusive image of
the nation. In a very real sense, citizenship education policies and practices need to be
enacted within a set of broader social, economic and political policies and legal frameworks
which reinforce, rather than undermine, the position of minorities and historically
disadvantaged groups. .

Minimally,the focus of citizenship education within a multicultural state will be to

encourage the development of intercultural citizens who wish to develop and sustain the
multicultural state In this sense the explicit political nature of citizenship education is
recognised. Schooling will also need to address the inclusion of specific vulnerable
newcomers in multicultural settings, including those of asylum seeks and refugees. This
implies not simply a citizenship curriculum which is open to diversity, but a reform of the
whole school curriculum to accommodate the education of young citizens within a
multicultural society. Education for citizenship in contexts of diversity must necessarily
promote positive attitudes to diversity, but it also needs to address the real contexts and
experiences which learners encounter, and support them in critically analysing these. As long
as the curriculum serves to disadvantage minorities or migrants, it can be said to be
miseducating all young citizens, since learners from mainstream groups are also presented
with an inaccurate and damaging picture of the society. The education of citizens needs to
challenge feelings of superiority and encourage openness and a willingness to interrogate
different perspectives. No group can live in isolation from others, so education for citizenship
it must inevitably involve learning to live together and working together to enact justice for
all.

Principles for Citizenship Education

An international panel of researchers, convened by James A. Banks at the University of
Washington worked from 2003-04 to examine the research evidence on citizenship education
and diversity in a global age. The resulting report Democracy and diversity; principles and
concepts for educating citizens in a global age, identified four key principles which should
underpin citizenship education in contexts of diversity. These are as follows:

10

students should learn about the complex relationships between unity and diversity in

their local communities, the nation, and the world.

students should learn about the ways in which people in their community, nation, and
region are increasingly interdependent with other people around the world and are
connected to the economic, political, cultural, environmental and technological

changes taking place across the planet;

students should be taught knowledge about democracy and democratic institutions

and provided opportunities to practice democracy;

the teaching of human rights should underpin citizenship education courses and
programmes in multicultural nation-states.

The Banks report provides a model which is inclusive and which sees diversity as a
strength but which also looks beyond the boundaries of the nation-state, acknowledges the
forces of globalization, and addresses tensions between unity and diversity at all levels, not
just at the local level (establishing community cohesion) or the national level (re-imagining
the nation as cosmopolitan) but at the global level. At all these levels the report recognises
issues of power and considers structural inequalities. These four key principles are
complemented in the report by a list of ten concepts which educators might consider for
inclusion in a citizenship curriculum which addresses the needs of students in multicultural
settings: democracy; diversity; globalization; sustainable development; empire, imperialism,
power; prejudice, discrimination, racism; migration; identity and diversity; multiple
perspectives; and patriotism and cosmopolitanism. These principles and concepts are
complemented by a checklist for educators that raises practical issues in developing an
appropriate curriculum for a particular social context.

Tensions between Unity and Diversity

11

A number of researchers have highlighted the tensionsin education for citizenship

between promoting diversity and unity, as highlighted in the Banks report. At the national
level and local levels there is a desire, on the one hand, to promote respect and tolerance
between different groups, while at the same time recognizing the role of education, and often
specifically of citizenship education, in promoting social cohesion. This tension has also been
emphasized by a number of political figures, notably in the wake of 9/11 and subsequent
attacks in Europe. Indeed, in England, the 2006 London bombings were the trigger for a
review of the curriculum, which resulted in a stronger emphasis on addressing diversity
through the teaching of history and citizenship. Although the Ajegbo review called for a
stronger multicultural element to citizenship learning, the review itself did not espouse a
critical multiculturalism, and neglected to discuss the on-going inequalities of outcome which
exist between ethnic groups in Britain, both in education and in other areas of social policy,
including housing and access to employment opportunities. Those who claim
multiculturalism in Europe has failed, such as British Prime Minster Cameron and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, appear to employ political rhetoric without reference to actual
social policy. While Britain and Germany are both de facto multicultural societies, with
diverse populations, neither has seriously pursued multicultural policies. Germany has never
embraced such policies and Britain has only pursued them in a partial way, never as a
national strategy. It is difficult to claim something has failed if it has not been tried. It would
seem that in Britain, Muslim communities have become the limiting case for multiculturalism
following concerns about the threat of international terrorism. .
Local, National and Global Citizenship
As discussed above, citizenship education typically focuses on the nation and citizens
supposed natural affinity to the nation-state. In our global age, this is challenged by
cosmopolitans who propose a form of education which encourages a primary commitment to

12

our fellow humanity and/or planet Earth, but re-emphasised by those who assert that in a
globalized world and nation-states characterised by diversity, we require a primary
commitment to the nation-state. The latter group proposes a renewed focus on civic education
which promotes national belonging and loyalty, often targeting, either explicitly or implicitly,
students from minority or migration backgrounds. Within European Union member-states,
this binary between education for national and global citizenship is troubled by the issue of
European citizenship and belonging, since those who hold citizenship of an EU member-state
also have the status of European citizen, which guarantees some rights and privileges in terms
of residence, access to medical services, employment and travel across all member states,
generally on the bias of equality with nationals.
Cosmopolitan discourses, which find their origins in Enlightenment philosophy,
notably that of Immanuel Kant, have been gaining ground within the field of citizenship
education since the 1990s. Following Nussbaums call for civic education to be extended
beyond national boundaries so as to acknowledge a shared common humanity and a
commitment to the wider global community, scholars have begun to explore frameworks of
education for democratic citizenship which are tied directly to learners shared status as
holders of inalienable human rights, rather than their presumed status as citizens or aspirant
citizens of the nation-state in which they are being schooled.
Although the term cosmopolitan is most readily associated with those who identify
with transnational commonalities, there is a growing body of theoretical work on education
for cosmopolitan citizenship (for example, by Banks and Osler and Starkey) which does not
equate cosmopolitan citizenship with global citizenship. Osler and Starkey follow John
Dewey and others in preferring the term cosmopolitan citizenship, a concept that links the
local, the national, and the global. As they argue, it allows us to conceive of citizenship as a
status, a feeling, and a practice at all levels, from the local to the global. The term
13

cosmopolitan citizenship does not imply a demands for world government, a criticism which
has been made concerning the term global citizenship and global citizenship education.
In emphasising our common humanity and human solidarity, cosmopolitanism does
not seek to deny local or regional identifications. As a number of educators have noted, local
identities remain important for cosmopolitans. It is at the local level that we have the
opportunity to practise our citizenship on a day-to-day basis. Demonstrating solidarity with
others in the global community has limited value, if we are not ready and able to stand up for
justice and defend the rights of others in our own locality. Global solidarity is insufficient if
we cannot establish a sense of solidarity with others in our own communities, especially
those others whom we perceive to be different from ourselves. The challenge is to accept
shared responsibility for our common future and for solving our common problems.
Cosmopolitanism does not imply a rejection of other identifications, related, for
example, to ethnicity, faith, or sexuality, but seeks to build upon them and extend them. Such
identifications often develop out of a struggle for justice and equality, and such struggles are,
for many people, a starting point in recognising solidarities across boundaries and
differences. Members of privileged groups, no less than the disadvantaged or oppressed, need
first to recognise a common humanity before specific injustices can be addressed. As the US
civil rights leader Malcolm X observed in the 1960s, the realization of civil rights for African
Americans depended on the wider recognition of the humanity of African Americans by their
fellow Americans, and on recognition of their basic human rights.
As discussed above, citizenship education has traditionally focused on the nation and
has often assumed that learner-citizens will have a natural affinity to the nation-state. In our
globalized world, and in nation-states characterised by diversity, there have been calls for a
renewed focus on forms of civic education which promote national belonging and loyalty;
14

such calls often target, either explicitly or implicitly, students from minority or migration
backgrounds. An apparent binary is established, between those who see the primary purpose
of citizenship education as nation-building, and those who want to promote global solidarity.
Within European Union member-states, this binary between education for national and global
citizenship is troubled by the issue of European citizenship and belonging. In Europe and
across the West more generally, an Islamophobia discourse has developed, which links
minorities in general and Muslims in particular to the threat of international terrorism.
While education for cosmopolitan citizenship does not necessarily imply a tension
with education for national citizenship, it does require a different approach to national
citizenship and a critical, rather than unthinking, patriotism. Since cosmopolitan citizenship is
based on feelings of solidarity with human beings wherever they are situated and acceptance
of diversity, it necessarily challenges ethno-nationalist and other exclusive definitions of the
nation. Education for cosmopolitan citizenship implies a broader understanding of national
identity; it requires recognition that any national identitymay be experienced differently by
different people.
Across Europe, in different nation-states, education for European citizenship may be
perceived in many different ways. Just as there is not an inevitable tension between education
for cosmopolitan citizenship and education for national citizenship, so there is no reason why
there should necessarily be a tension between education for cosmopolitan citizenship and
education for European citizenship. Citizens of EU member-states enjoy the benefits of
European citizenship, and these citizens need to learn about their rights and obligations as
European citizens. Beyond the EU, yet encompassing all EU member-states, is the wider
Europe, embodied in the Council of Europe. Founded in 1949, the Council of Europe is itself
a cosmopolitan project, now covering virtually the entire European continent, with its
member-states ranging from Portugal in the west, to Turkey and the countries of the former
15

Soviet Union in the east. The Council of Europe exists to promote and develop throughout
Europe common and democratic principles based on the European Convention on Human
Rights, derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which protects all within its
jurisdiction, whether citizens or non-citizens. A conception of education for European
citizenship based on the mission of the Council of Europe and its ideals is necessarily
cosmopolitan, promoting human solidarity.
The local dimension of citizenship education can support an understanding of
diversity at the local level. It is within the local community that most individuals first engage
as citizens. Teachers may be only to conscious of this and much of citizenship education in
schools will well focus on the local, addressing and examining diversity at a local level.
Given the focus on active learning and on service learning in many citizenship education
policy documents, it is perhaps not surprising that teachers may give weight to the local
dimension of citizenship. The pedagogical choices they make, related to student engagement
and often a commitment to student participation and democratic learning, reinforce this
emphasis on the local.
In teaching for citizenship, teachers committed to cosmopolitan perspectives are
imagining allegiances that are multiple and flexible, while at the same time recognising that
such allegiances are contingent on local and national climates of inclusion or exclusion and
on local, national, and global political contexts. Teachers may encourage
cosmopolitanperspectives and respect for diversity at all these levels. They may equally
interpret policies in an exclusive way, and present exclusive notions of belonging.
Audrey Osler

16

See alsoCitizenship Education in Europe; Gender Equity; Human Rights and Education;
Intercultural Education; Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Education; Xenophobia
and Anti-Discrimination in Europe

FURTHER READINGS
Banks, J.A. (2004) Diversity and citizenship education: global perspectives. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Banks, J.A. (2008) Diversity, global identity, and citizenship education in a global
age.Educational Researcher, 37 (3), 129-139.
Banks, J. A., McGee Banks, C. A., Cortes, C. E., Hahn, C., Merryfield, M., Moodley,
K. A., Murphy-Shigematsu, S., Osler, A., Park, C. & Parker, W. C. (2005). Democracy and
diversity: Principles and concepts for educating citizens in a global age. Seattle, WA: Center
for Multicultural Education, University of Washington.
Council of Europe (2010) Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and
Human Rights Education Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7 and explanatory memorandum.
Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.
Kymlicka, W. (2003) Multicultural States and Intercultural Citizens.Theory and
Research in Education, 1 ( 2): 147-169
Nussbaum, M. (1996) For Love of Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism (with
respondents) (ed) J. Cohen. Boston: Beacon Press.
Osler, A., (ed.) (2000) Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: diversity, identity,
equality. Stoke: Trentham.
Osler, A. (2008) Human rights education: the foundation of education for democratic
citizenship in our global age, in: J. Arthur, I. Davies and C. Hahn (eds.) Handbook of
education for citizenship and democracy. London: Sage, pp. 455-467.
17

Osler, A. (2011) Teacher perceptions of learner-citizens in a global age: cosmopolitan

commitments, local identities and political realities. Journal of Curriculum Studies
Osler, A. and Starkey, H. (2005) Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion in
education. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.
Ratcliffe, P. and Newman, I. (eds) (2011) Promoting social cohesion; implications for
policy and practice.Bristol , UK: Policy Press.
Reid, A., Gill, J. and Sears, A. (2009) (eds.) Globalisation, the Nation-State and the
Citizen: dilemmas and directions for civics and citizenship education. London and New York:
Routledge.

18