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

1

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

3

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 cross-

border 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 asylum-

seekers; 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

4

education 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

7

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

learners‘skills 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

8

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. .

9

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.

11

Tensions between Unity and Diversity

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

12

cosmopolitans who propose a form of education which encourages a primary commitment to

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 Nussbaum’s 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

13

status, a feeling, and a practice at all levels, from the local to the global. The term

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