Teachers’ conceptions of citizenship in New

Zealand social studies education

ANDREA MILLIGAN, MIKE TAYLOR and BRONWYN WOOD, Victoria

University of Wellington, New Zealand

Citizenship Teaching and Learning 6 (2):287-302.

Introduction

The growth in citizenship education programmes and

associated research has been well documented in the last

decade (Evans, 2006; Kerr, Cleaver, Ireland, & Blenkinsop,

2003; Sears, 1996; Torney-Purta, Lehmann, Oswald, &

Schulz, 2001). This article supports a smaller but growing

body of research highlighting the importance of

considering not just citizenship curricula, but the

attitudes, perceptions and beliefs held by the teachers

who deliver such curricula (see for example Torney-Purta,

Klandl Richardson, & Henry Barber, 2005 ). In recent years

research into pre-service teachers’ perceptions of

citizenship has contributed to this body of literature

(Koutselini, 2009; Peterson & Knowles, 2009), particularly

1

as increased curricular attention to citizenship education

has placed concomitant demands on teacher training.

However, less research attends explicitly to the meanings

that teachers bring to the concept of citizenship itself.

In this paper we address this aspect of citizenship

research which has been under-served both in New Zealand

and internationally.

Citizenship is clearly a ‘contested concept’ (Collier,

Hidalgo, & Maciuceanu, 2006) and, just as many theoretical

conceptions of citizenship exist, so too do a range of

strongly held beliefs amongst teachers. However, whilst

citizenship curricula are characteristically politically

contentious, they are often delivered in a normative,

citizenship-transmission manner (Openshaw, 2004). As

Frazer cogently points out, “we are the inheritors of a

plurality of competing and contradictory philosophical

ideals and political models of citizenship” (2008, p. 282)

and the failure to acknowledge these contradictions

results in a narrow, uncritical approach to citizenship

education. The contested nature of citizenship is,

2

however, well-recognised by New Zealand social studies

academics; the inherent political, ideological,

philosophic and historical tensions that have

characterised the development of citizenship education in

successive national curriculum statements have been widely

canvassed (Aitken, 2005a, 2005b; Archer & Openshaw, 1992;

Barr, 2005; Beals, 2001; McGee, 1998a; Mutch, 2005a,

2005b; Openshaw, 2004). It is also recognised that New

Zealand has many new challenges which encompass issues of

identity and citizenship. In particular, and as an

increasingly diverse bicultural and multi-ethnic nation,

discussions about citizenship, cultural identities and

national identity are becoming both more problematic and

more significant (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999).

The existing research about in-service teachers’

conceptions of citizenship (Barr, 1996; Prior, 2005)

reveals considerable uncertainty about the concept and,

indeed, about the very nature of a ‘good citizen’ (Prior,

1999). Yet notably, aside from one small-scale study

(Barr, 1996), little empirical evidence exists about the

3

meanings that New Zealand social studies teachers

attribute to the concept of citizenship, despite the fact

that citizenship is central to social studies’ curricula

goals. Teachers are also under-represented contributors in

national debates about citizenship education. We therefore

consider this study to be a contribution that, in part,

addresses the imbalance between theoretical and

practitioner voices in debates about ‘citizenship’ in

social studies education. Because it is teachers who are

charged with representing curricular conceptions of

citizenship, this study aims to provide insight into the

meanings they may be grappling with. This is a critical

issue if teachers are to effectively navigate the

contested terrain of citizenship, “confront the conflicts

and dilemmas which are inherent in their own mediation

with society” (Wilkins, 1999, p. 229), and support their

learners to do so too.

What follows is, first, an outline of the under-explored

and unexplained nature of ‘citizenship’ in the New Zealand

social studies teaching community. We then report findings

4

from ten focus group discussions in which 42 primary and

secondary social studies teachers articulated their

understandings of citizenship. We conclude by considering

the implications of these findings for both social studies

education and, more broadly, citizenship education in New

Zealand.

Citizenship: an undercurrent in New Zealand social studies

teaching and learning

Citizenship has never been taught in New Zealand as a

separate curriculum. Instead, an integrated approach

across the whole curriculum and, more specifically,

through the social studies curriculum has been practised

over the years (Nelson & Kerr, 2006). Citizenship has been

named as a central aim of New Zealand social studies

curricula since its inception in the 1944 Thomas Report

(Archer & Openshaw, 1992; Barr, 1998). The revised New

Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007a) has

reasserted the social sciences’ pivotal role in expanding

learners’ conceptions of citizenship and enabling them to

consider their engagement in society. The curriculum

5

states that this learning area1 is about “how people can

participate as critical, active, informed and responsible

citizens” (Ministry of Education, 2007b, p. 30). Yet,

despite the citizenship thrust of successive curriculum

statements, the existing evidence indicates that 45% of

teachers do not recognise that citizenship is a goal of

social studies (Barr, 1996) and, moreover, many fail to

understand the nature and purpose of the learning area

(Barr, 1996; New Zealand Education Review Office, 2001,

2006). In Barr’s study, the majority of responses

associated citizenship with “relating to others as members

of a community” and “learning responsibility and

acceptable attitudes and values” (1996, p. 27). Aitken,

commenting on this study, states that “it is difficult

not to draw the conclusion that these teachers were giving

prominence to the inculcation of values but not

recognising this process in their own practice and

certainly not naming it as citizenship” (2005a, p. 127).

1 In which social studies, geography, history and economics are subjects

6

Two factors appear to contribute to New Zealand teachers’

apparent lack of familiarity with ‘citizenship’. First,

successive curriculum documentation has done little to

elucidate the concept (Aitken, 2005a). For example, the

New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007b) rather

vaguely equates citizenship with “exploring what it means

to be a citizen and to contribute to the well-being of

society” (p. 39). In addition, one of the key support

documents developed for this new curriculum, Building Social

Sciences Conceptual Understandings: Participating and belonging (Ministry

of Education, 2008) appears to step back from using the

term citizenship in the title, although it is elaborated

within the book. The second factor, for which the evidence

is largely anecdotal, is that teachers have regarded

‘citizenship’ with some suspicion (Archer & Openshaw,

1992; Keown, 1998; McGee, 1998). Using a political-

historical analysis, McGee suggests that the reason for

the “real fear which some teachers in particular hold

about citizenship education” (1998, p. 58) is the

propensity for this notion to be captured by various

political groups and used to serve their aims. The net

7

effect of teachers’ fears and suspicions, combined with

the failure of successive official curriculum documents to

make explicit the place and nature of citizenship in

social studies education has been “a muddled, tentative

and inconsistent approach to citizenship education through

social studies” (Wood, 2009).

Methodology

Focus group discussions were held with 42 primary and

secondary social studies teachers in ten schools in

Wellington, New Zealand. Focus groups were chosen as a

methodological approach because they enable naturalistic

and open conversation in a social setting (Grudens-Schuck,

Lundy Allen, & Larson, 2004) and illuminate local

perspectives in rich detail (Creswell, 2007). A purposive

sample based on contacts the research team had with

schools in the Wellington city area was drawn up. Teachers

from four primary schools and six secondary schools agreed

to participate in the research. The majority of schools

were state, urban, and co-educational; almost all

represented communities of higher economic status. A wide

range of ages and teaching experience were represented.

8

However, the sample was heavily weighted towards females

(n=29), those who identified as Pakeha/New Zealand

European (n=32), and those who did not report having a

management position within the school (n=28). This

demographic and locality may have influenced the results.

For example, a more culturally diverse focus group might

have explored conceptions of biculturalism and

multiculturalism further than is reported later in this

article.

The methodology we adopted to explore teachers’ thinking

about citizenship involved two introductory activities

followed by a substantive focus group discussion. In the

first activity each teacher wrote down initial words and

thoughts they associated with each of 18 supplied concepts

related to citizenship2; a list drawn up for a presentation

to teachers by Catt (2004) in order to demonstrate how

conceptions of citizenship have shifted over time. Whilst

the list was not exhaustive, its scope appeared

2 Passports, rights, responsibilities, warrior, patriotism, defender, rule of law, participation, collective decisions, democracy, being active, community, social capital, status/privilege, equality, subject, apathy, consumer.

9

sufficiently wide to permit an open discussion about

citizenship. We were particularly interested to see which

concepts teachers might add to those provided, and hence

included blank cards in the activity described next.

Following the first brief ‘warm up’ activity, the teachers

individually ranked the 18 concepts using a concentric

circle ‘target’ (see figure one), in response to the

question, “how significant are these terms to your ideas of citizenship?”.

Those concepts that were strongly associated with

citizenship by each teacher were placed on the inner

circle, those least associated on the outer circle – with

various ‘shades of grey’ in between. A few teachers

included additional concepts they thought were important

concepts associated with citizenship. Subsequent to this

individual task, the teachers collectively participated in

the same ranking exercise, talking about their

understanding of citizenship as they did so. This process

enabled debate to be recorded about the relative merits of

each concept in relation to their understandings of

citizenship.

10

This methodology presented some advantages and

constraints. Focus group discussions proved workable for

busy teachers and perhaps contributed to such numbers of

teachers agreeing to participate. It was possibly a less

threatening way to discuss a potentially tricky topic as

each focus group was free to take its own direction.

However, and though considerable discussion was generated,

both time constraints and the focus group methodology did

not permit each individual to deeply probe the concepts

discussed. Factors that may have contributed to this were

the large number of concepts included in the tasks and

that teachers may have been unused to this type of

conversation, given that social studies meeting times are

typically dedicated to administrative and technical

matters. In future research, the list of concepts could be

refined to draw out more contested conceptions of

citizenship, for example, by focussing on those that

teachers in our sample added or found contentious, or by

including concepts that readily imply controversy, such as

protest or civil disobedience.

11

Consensus and contention

In this section we summarise the results of this exercise

in two categories: (a) the concepts which teachers most

closely associated with citizenship and therefore readily

agreed to place in the centre and, (b) concepts that they

rejected or were viewed as being less significant for

their conception of citizenship. Using this data and the

conversations which surround the placement of these

concepts, we then outline a conception of citizenship that

can be inferred from these poles of response in teachers’

discussions: ‘citizenship as belonging’.

Figure 1 summarises where teachers generally positioned

the concepts in the collective exercise. A score of ten

indicates that every school placed the concept in this

location. Concepts are recorded in this figure only if

they appeared three or more times across all school

groups. Where one concept was recorded in more than one

place by teachers in different schools (e.g. democracy was

placed four times in the inner circle and three times in

12

the middle rings, once in the outer) the concept was

recorded at the site of highest frequency (in the inner

ring in the case of democracy). Concepts in the outer ring

also include those which were placed right outside the

diagram. Note that the concept being active appeared equally

in the central and middle rings and therefore appears

twice.

Figure 1: Concept Target Tool showing placement of concepts by ten teacher

groups in the most common (highest frequency) position

1. Teacher consensus

13

Participation (10)Responsibilities (10)

Com m unity (8)Rights (7)Equality (7)

Being active (4)Dem ocracy (4)Belonging (3)

Collective decisions (8)

Rule of law (6)

Passports (5)

Being active (4)

Patriotism (7)

W arrior (7)

Consum er (7) Status/privilege(5)

Subject (8)

Apathy (7)

Defender (6)

A number of concepts were regarded as central to

citizenship across most schools. Every school placed

participation (10) and responsibilities (10) in the centre of their

concentric circles, and most included community (8), rights

(7) and equality (7). These concepts were typically bound up

in each other, for example, strong links were made between

a sense of responsibility towards others and active participation

within communities. Similarly, rights and responsibilities were

closely tied:

F43: Until equality, rights and community take place,

democracy itself might not always be in your favour. As

I’ve got older I understand how important democracy is

because of what’s at stake.

A5: Democracy and rights/responsibility in the middle –

they balance each other out. With rights you must have

responsibility and with these come democracy. You

can’t have democracy without rights and

responsibilities.

3 F4: F= School F; 4 = participant 4.

14

Notably, the group decision-making about placing these

concepts in the centre of the concentric circle target

typically involved readily accepted suggestions and very

little debate. Similarly, a few additional terms suggested

by participants were quietly ignored, such as:

multiculturalism, biculturalism, feminism, tino

rangatiratanga4 and international relationships. Teacher

consensus appeared based on taken-for-granted assumptions

and, because these were not sufficiently probed, our data

provides very little information about the thinking behind

the placement of concepts most closely associated with

citizenship. In a sense, these concepts were ‘invisible

words’ in that the apparent consensus within focus groups

did not appear to rest on elaborated discussion.

2. Resisting restrictive conceptions of citizenship

Whilst the meaning and position of the central concepts

generated very little discussion, concepts placed in the

outer circles were extensively debated. Some concepts

appeared to strike discord with some of the participants,

4 Tino rangatiratanga (NZ Māori) term meaning Māori sovereignty and rule

15

causing groups to either immediately place such concepts

on outer circles, or, after reflection, move concepts away

from the centre of the concept target diagram. The idea of

patriotism was generally treated with mistrust and the fear

of what it could become: “I put patriotism on the outside

because of my fear of extreme patriotism and the potential

to divide communities” (E3). Several statements about

patriotism were contrasted with ‘what other countries do’,

with four schools making explicit reference to the USA and

associated symbols of patriotism such as flag saluting and

anthem singing. In the teachers’ minds, a New Zealand

identity doesn’t require or desire such actions to

demonstrate loyalty to the nation. In addition, patriotism

was commonly connected with conflict, although this was

framed by teachers using varied contexts, such as sport,

warfare, historic and current events. In these respects,

patriotism invoked a negative response to a perceived

narrow, uncritical form of citizenship:

D1: Having lived in Australia, they’re heaps

more patriotic there.

16

D2: Yeah – but especially young men hassling people who

don’t look Australian5

D1: I think about patriotism as the flag and your

country – not what you look like.

D3: We teach bad examples of patriotism as well. “We grew

here, you flew here” t- shirts. It troubles me.

D4: You associate it with nationalism? Be proud of who you

are and where you came from. The Pledge of Allegiance in

the USA is what I associate it with.

D2: Patriotism is a loaded word. I think about national

identity.

Suspicion about the nature of patriotism is further

illustrated in this discussion:

C4: Patriotism, ‘the last refuge of the scoundrel’?

C2: It’s not trendy, but aren’t we trying to install

national pride in our units [of learning]?

C1: It’s not trendy, but still valid.

C2: It’s a brilliant idea, but in realisation it’s

often corrupted to jingoism. In the past, patriotism

was tied to the idea of England as the mother country.

5 A reference to recent media reporting of ethnic tensions in Australia.

17

C4: In the 1960s it was a big deal but now we wouldn’t

want to go to war.

C3: If the enemy was at our gates perhaps we would. Far

away in Iraq and

Afghanistan not so. In fact, not going to Iraq is an

expression of patriotism as national

identity/independence.

Debates about warrior and defender similarly demonstrated

teachers’ fears about restrictive conceptions of

citizenship. Teachers in six schools wanted to expand these

concepts beyond “male-centric” (D3), physical aggression

that they associated with war: “I’m not so proud of the

military connotations anymore….it has dangerous meanings

these days” (C4). Though a few teachers felt violence was

sometimes necessary, they typically rejected narrow

expressions of these two concepts. Instead, ideas about

active participation in society, standing up for one’s

beliefs, and protest came to the fore:

B1: What’s this warrior business? Defender of the

realm?

18

B2: Warrior? Peculiar. Odd that it’s here.

B3: I thought of indigenous [people] - defending

rights.

B2: I think of strength and fighting for good, like

Sonja Davies, Kate Sheppard6.

Further critique of a narrow sense of citizenship took

place in discussions about the significance of rule of law,

although teachers were generally more circumspect about

this concept than patriotism, as indicated by the

following exchange between two teachers at one secondary

school:

B2: You need laws, but so often the law is an ass.

B3: Imagine if our country didn’t have laws!

B2: Rule of law isn’t critical. If you’ve got a lot of

dumb laws, such as homeland security that trampled on

the rights of many people.

B3: There are always rules that are bonkers. A citizen

is someone who doesn’t break laws. [Directed to B2] If you

6 Female historical leaders In New Zealand: Kate Sheppard fought for women’s suffrage and Sonja Davies for rights for women and children.

19

are teaching about democracy are you going to teach

that they act within the law and system?

B2: I teach them to work to change laws that are wrong.

Although some teachers focussed on particular laws (that

they felt were punitive) rather than the more substantive

concept of ‘rule of law’, others framed it as a social

contract between the state and citizens. Several teachers

were also keen to highlight the importance of participating

in democratic processes to register dissatisfaction with

legislation, suggesting that unswerving obedience to law

may not be a marker of quality citizenship.

If citizenship conceived as unquestioning civic obedience

was considered problematic by some teachers so too was

citizenship expressed as status, especially when tied to the

symbolism of a passport. Several teachers acknowledged that

passports, as symbols of status, confer belonging to a

nation state in ways that may be perceived as

advantageous: “For ethnic minorities coming here, getting

a passport is crucial. If the New Zealand government gives

you a passport they are accepting you as part of your

20

community” (F4). Yet, six groups moved ‘passports’ away

from the centre of the target circle. The rationale for

de-emphasising this concept appeared to be that while a

passport was a significant marker, it was an insufficient

measure of what citizenship might be:

C2: Passports are symbolic of our membership in

society, but not powerful things in themselves.

C4: Passports are important for overseas travel. In the

late 40s it was a big deal to move from British to NZ

passports. It may not be at the centre, but if you are

citizen-less you may gut stuck in a transit lounge.

C3: Passports are proof not substance. You can be a

citizen without having it reduced to print.

In sum, teachers showed signs of discomfort about

narrow definitions of identity, nationalism and

citizenship; appearing to resist conceptions of

citizenship being associated with enculturation and

exclusion. Such a fear was encapsulated in the words of

one teacher who suggested that citizenship could be

21

perceived as a mechanism for conserving a dominant

culture’s power in contexts of increasing diversity:

A4: I think citizenship can be perceived by some as

teaching to fit in. Some people say “if you bring in

new rules and ideas and don’t fit you should go back to

where you came from”. This is not what I think.

Citizenship is what makes a country and countries

change. Citizenship is the bones of a country.

3. Framing citizenship as ‘belonging’

Although belonging was not among the 18 concepts supplied to

teachers, three schools elected to add it to the centre of

their concentric circle target. Further, and

significantly, teachers from all schools raised issues of

belonging as part of the other concepts discussed. Belonging

and participating in local communities was considered an

important tenet of citizenship by many of our teachers,

while understandings of citizenship as a relationship

between the individual and the state were typically

treated with ambivalence. This was particularly evident in

relation to linked concepts such as inclusion and community:

22

H5: You don’t always identify with your country, but you

need to have a sense of community…For me, my family or my

friends would be more important, than the fact that I'm

from New Zealand...it is the networks around me, it

wouldn't matter which country I was in.

One teacher advocated that everyone in a community is a

citizen and therefore belongs: “A community exists to

include. It means at some level people feel they belong …

Citizenship is belonging even if you disagree…” (B2).

However, a colleague argued that being a member of a

community doesn’t necessarily mean that you feel a part of

it: “Community may be a neighbourhood, town or school. You

are there, but you may feel included or excluded” (B1).

The subtle difference these teachers were debating is

significant as the ‘belonging’ framework is broad enough

in scope to accommodate both conceptions of citizenship.

To the latter conception, Osler and Starkey (2005) argue

that citizenship must be experienced as a feeling of belonging

if citizens are to then participate in communities and

societies effectively.

23

The theme of belonging was also present in discussion

about different scales of citizenship. Several teachers

indicated multiple identities and citizenships, one

articulating the need to acknowledge “overlapping

intersections” (F4) of community, while others asserted

the significance of citizenship at local and/or

international scales:

H5: I’ve got community, church or neighbourhood, as part

of being a citizen...You don’t always identify with your

country, but you need to have a sense of community…

C3: Being part of a community, at a local level, is what

citizenship is all about…part of being a good citizenship

is participating and looking after your local

community...In 50 years time will Europeans consider

themselves citizens of Europe more so than

now?...Institutions, like the UN, are building up over

multi-states.

24

One school discussion advocated for a New Zealand-based

version of belonging, drawing on the concept of tino

rangatiratanga: it is “part of belonging to New Zealand…it

is very different than other countries” (J5). However,

apart from this school, specifically bi-cultural

dimensions of belonging were not a strong feature of group

discussions. This matter notwithstanding, some teachers

were acutely aware that minority and marginalised voices

were not being heard and underlying their concerns was the

desire for inclusion and belonging:

B2: By participating you have to recognise that process of

democracy, that your voice can be heard. And for some

disengaged citizens their voices have never been heard.

At School A, teachers connected ‘being heard’ with collective

decision-making. A teacher who later defined herself as a

“Samoan social studies teacher” stated that “democracy is

about the loudest voices being heard. Minority voices are

not heard” (A4). Her colleague, who also described herself

as a Pacific Islander, endorsed this: “collective decision

making allows for diversity” (A5). Their discussion

25

described how collective decision making allows for “a lot

of talking…without the talking, people’s voices do not get

heard” (A1).

26

Discussion

27

Teachers in this study appear to frame their understanding

of citizenship as belonging, closely associated with

concepts of community, inclusion and identity. This framing

was sufficiently malleable and open to embrace pluralism,

diversity, and local and global citizenries, while

attempting to maintain a sense of cohesiveness. In doing

so, it would seem that teachers were attempting to walk a

delicate balance between citizenship’s competing forces of

unity and diversity (Barr, 1998). Importantly, their use of

belonging does not exclude notions of unity or diversity;

rather, belonging captures both. It implies that there is

something to belong to or shared in a community and

embraces the differences that diversity adds to a

community. Such an encompassing framing may be appealing to

social studies teachers in part because it can easily be

employed and discussed in social studies classrooms. It

also appears to fit well with social studies’ aim to expand

learners’ understanding of their social worlds and

participation in society because it does not necessarily

preclude an open examination of social issues and diverse

perspectives associated with citizenship.

28

However, while a critical edge was detectable in some

teachers’ responses, such as calling for including the

voices of marginalised others, the discussions were

notable for their lack of alternative framings of

citizenship. Without naming it as such, teachers readily

agreed to ‘citizenship as belonging’. It is particularly

notable among our teachers’ focus groups that much greater

critical thinking was exercised around those conceptions

of citizenship that some teachers strongly rejected. We do

not suggest that the teachers’ thinking is somehow

unsophisticated; rather that some conceptions remained

untouched, critically speaking. As Prior stresses “a more

useful way of interpreting their views is as being more or

less elaborated and articulated” (2005, p. 284). However,

we surmise that teachers are yet to explore the tensions,

conflicts or citizenries that might be glossed over or

silenced under the banner of ‘citizenship as belonging’.

It appears that these teachers gave more weight to a

‘horizontal’ view of citizenship, which foregrounds the

29

relations between citizens more so than the ‘vertical’

relationship between the state and individual (Lister,

2008). It was therefore surprising to the research team

that, within this framing of citizenship as belonging,

there were very few references to biculturalism. The

Treaty of Waitangi has a central place in contemporary New

Zealand society and not only has the relationship between

Māori and Pakeha had a high public profile over the

previous three decades, but in education circles there has

long been considerable official sympathy for the

bicultural model7. The lack of references to biculturalism

may be an artefact of the methodology, as it was not a

concept supplied to teachers. It may also be a consequence

of the increasingly contested and at times acrimonious

nature of the relationship between Māori and Pakeha over

the last 30 years that has been compounded by a lack of a

clear sense of identity among Pakeha New Zealanders in

relation to Māori (Johnson, 2005). For many teachers, the

area of biculturalism has become an uncomfortable space to

inhabit. The muted response could, however, be a consequence

7 See, for example, the recommendations of the Currie Commission(such as those outlined inCurrie, 1962).

30

of teachers developing more sophisticated conceptions of

identity (Fleras & Spoonley, 1999) rather than looking to

biculturalism that locks individuals into a ‘two-worlds’

framework (Liu, McCreanor, McIntosh, & Teaiwa, 2006).

Our findings about the concepts which generated the most

debate and were considered less important for their

conception of citizenship (such as patriotism, rule of

law, warrior, defender) are surprisingly similar to those

of Prior’s (1999), who ten years ago examined concepts of

citizenship amongst teachers in Victoria, Australia.

Teachers in his study rated patriotism as the least

important characteristic of a ‘good’ citizen and a ‘sense

of community’ as an important aspect of citizenship. His

explanation of both these findings as a reflection on

Australian identity appears to have resonance in our

reported New Zealand context – attempting to come to terms

with growing multiculturalism, uncertainty about national

identity and therefore an impasse about “who we are and on

what occasions and in what form we might express a sense

of patriotism” (p.13). Our findings similarly suggest that

31

some teachers distance themselves from a civics-orientated

‘minimal’ view of citizenship (McLauchlin, 1992) and

reject exclusionary forms of citizenship associated with

concepts such as patriotism. Interestingly, a narrowly

nationalistic notion of citizenship has never been a

marker of the New Zealand social studies curriculum.

Patriotism was not a dominant feature of the first social

studies curriculum nor the history and geography

programmes that preceded social studies (Department of

Education, 1929). It seems more probable that teachers’

fears about what citizenship could be stems from wider

perceptions about society (which we cannot cover in

adequate depth here) and ambiguity about values education,

in particular the values social studies teachers see

themselves as being expected to inculcate. As Keown (1998)

points out, social studies teachers have been reluctant to

engage with values (and social action) and in particular

find values both difficult to teach and assess. Thus the

linking of citizenship with patriotism may reflect some

confusion as to the aim of values education in this

subject.

32

Implications and future directions

The importance of holding framings of citizenship up to

scrutiny and presenting, not a normative, but critical

conception of citizenship, cannot be overstated.

Contemporary New Zealand social studies education places

considerable emphasis on critical thinking (Barr, 1998;

Ministry of Education, 1997, 2007b), as does education in

general; “critical thinking is an essential feature of the

liberal ideal of education, so much so that the educated

person and the critical thinker are more or less

synonymous” (Gilbert, 2005, p. 186). Critical thinking

ensures that “the quest for understanding maintains a

continually growing edge” (Bereiter, 2002, p. 340); it is

both a mainstay of democratic education and a guard

against social reproduction. However, if teachers

osmotically represent implicit assumptions about

citizenship to learners, we risk indoctrination;

‘citizenship as belonging’, for example, becomes the

unquestioned default curriculum. In cautioning against

such glib representations, Abowitz and Harnish (2006)

33

argue that the explicit insertion of critical discourses

into discussions about those that predominate is vital in

expanding learners’ conceptions of citizenship. In

addition, they emphasise the importance of narrowing the

gap between “school-constructed citizenship and

citizenship as actually practiced” (p. 681) in learners’

everyday worlds. Without the voices and critique of others

and the students themselves, ‘citizenship as belonging’

might simply become narrow, idealised and sanitised.

Our findings present some challenges to proponents of

citizenship education within social studies, and expose

tensions that may emerge in implementing the New Zealand

Curriculum (Ministry of Education, 2007a). Critically, this

curriculum and supporting material (Ministry of Education,

2008) underplay the highly contested nature of

citizenship. In our view, the most urgent and vital aspect

of addressing teachers’ negative perceptions of

citizenship is a more explicit and careful elaboration of

the contested nature of citizenship as a concept, and the

multiple ends of citizenship education in this country.

34

Openshaw (2004 drawing on work by Hursh and Ross, 2000)

postulates that the central dilemma for social educators

is whether they should stick with the kind of citizenship

that is highly adaptable to the status quo, or whether

they should encourage citizens that challenge existing

structures. In light of this we would argue for a self-

critical concept of citizenship, that is, one that permits

‘counter-socialization’ (Engle & Ochoa, 1988) at the heart

of social studies and citizenship education in New

Zealand.

Optimistically, we note that New Zealand social studies

curricula have never expressly prohibited teachers and

learners from openly examining ‘citizenship’. The current

statement encourages learners to critically examine

perspectives, values and viewpoints in relation to social

issues, use the open-ended ‘social inquiry’ methodology to

expand their worldview and “challenge the basis of

assumptions and perceptions” (Ministry of Education,

2007b, p. 12). However, we urge that such opportunities in

relation to the concept of citizenship need to be evident

35

to teachers. We believe they would benefit from deeper,

not less, exposure to debates about citizenship and

citizenship education (such as those outlined in Frazer,

2008), in order to extend their framing beyond potentially

over-simplified and taken-for-granted representations of

citizenship as ‘belonging’. We urge that stakeholders in

the social studies community present ‘citizenship’ in ways

that allow teachers to better understand its contested

nature. Furthermore, and if learners are to explore

citizenship in any meaningful sense, teachers need to be

engaged in ongoing dialogue about the concept. Teacher

education courses, for example, have an important role to

play in supporting teachers to critique dominant

ideologies and monocular perspectives of citizenship.

Resource providers could similarly consider the importance

of making visible contested aspects of citizenship and

including previously absent or marginalised voices. By

whatever means, teachers and learners need to be invited

to the debate.

36

Acknowledgements: The authors would like to acknowledge the

significant role played by Philippa Hart-Smith, Linda

Hogg, Fuapepe Rimoni, Dr. Mark Sheehan, and Dr. Louise

Starkey, who helped to conduct the research in schools and

initial analysis on which this paper is based. We would

also like to thank Prof. Keith Barton and the anonymous

reviewers for their helpful comments.

Correspondence: ANDREA MILLIGAN, MIKE TAYLOR and BRONWYN

WOOD, Faculty of Education, Victoria University of

Wellington, New Zealand. Email: andrea.milligan@vuw.ac.nz,

mike.taylor@vuw.ac.nz and bronwyn.wood@vuw.ac.nz

References

Wood, B. (2010). Comparing the New Zealand Curriculum

and youth conceptions of the “ideal” citizen: Re-

examining trust, participation and responsibility.

Youth Studies Ireland, 5(1).

37

Abstract

Though ‘citizenship’ has long been a feature of New

Zealand social studies curricula, there has been

little New Zealand research about the meanings

teachers attach to the concept. On the basis of a

number of focus group interviews, we examine

conceptions of citizenship held by primary and

secondary social studies teachers. The discussions

reveal that many teachers framed citizenship as

‘belonging’; a heuristic that was sufficiently

malleable and open to embrace pluralism, and different

scales of citizenry, while attempting to maintain a

sense of cohesiveness. While ‘citizenship as

belonging’ may hold appeal, the absence of critical

debate about contested aspects of citizenship within

the teachers’ discussions is problematic. We argue

that the New Zealand social studies teaching community

vitally and urgently requires exposure to debates

about ‘citizenship’ and citizenship education.

Biographical details

38

Andrea Milligan is a lecturer in the School of

Education Policy and Implementation, Victoria

University of Wellington. Her research interests centre

on social sciences education, including citizenship and

ethics education.

Mike Taylor is a lecturer in the School of Education

Policy and Implementation, Victoria University of

Wellington. His research interest include social

sciences education and assessment.

Bronwyn Wood is a doctoral student in Education at

Victoria University of Wellington. Her research

interests include citizenship and social sciences

education, youth sociology and curriculum development.

39