GUIDELINES FOR

CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
IN SCHOOL
INTERCULTURAL
DIALOGUE

Children’s Identity and Citizenship in Europe

CiCe Jean Monnet Network, 2017
Authors
Monica Oprescu and Cosmina Lungoci, West University of Timișoara,
Romania

With discussion contribution from:

Nanny Hartsmar, Malmo University, Sweden
Arto Kallioniemi and Anneli Heidi Rautionmaa, University of Helsinki, Finland
Anna Liduma and Sandra Rone, Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management
Academy, Latvia

Series Editor
Peter Cunningham, London Metropolitan University, UK
Introduction

Within our globalised, multicultural world, education implies classes of

diverse students of different origins, languages, cultures, identities,
genders, religions, social classes. Therefore, concepts such as multicultural,
intercultural, cross-cultural and even trans-cultural tend to become the
norm and are more and more important not only in theory, but also in
practice.

Social issues are the first challenge to education in general, and

intercultural education as a special case, social exclusion and inequality
being the most ardent issues and maybe the most difficult to overcome.
Furthermore, we can identify general educational challenges of the
educational systems, which refer to pragmatic issues, such as the
introduction of topics related to cultural dialogue in the curriculum, the
training of teachers, opportunities for students to develop intercultural
competences in practical situations, as well, identifying and working for
eliminating prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination. Therefore, in the
specialized literature the concept of intercultural pedagogy appears, being
defined as a pedagogy of relationship, a pedagogy of difference (that is to
know, understand and respect differences) which prepares the individual
to cope with a new social setup, by transmitting and transferring
knowledge and developing specific (in terms of communicational skills,
interpersonal relations and inter-communitarian ones, critical sense
towards special identities, relativising models/role models (Rus, Bota,
2002, p. 22).
The challenges to intercultural dialogue are also of linguistic nature.
Kramsch (1993) discusses the connections language – culture and how we
are formed and shaped by the language and by the culture of a specific
language. This is closely linked to Byram’s (1997) intercultural
communicative competence which shows the same link between the two
fundamental domains of our lives. This approach can lead to the
development of intercultural awareness, intercultural communication,
acceptance of cultural differences and openness, what we call 21st century
skills.

The term intercultural dialogue was officially used in 2008, due to the
Council of Europe’s White Paper, the concept which “suggests a social and
political response to the need for intercultural communication and
understanding in what was then a rapidly expanding European Union”
(Holmes, 2014, p.1). Intercultural refers to the space between cultures, to
attitudes, skills and values such as: attention to diversity, communication,
connection, acceptance, openness, positive attitude, a dynamic process.

Specific challenges: the case of Romania

Romania has always had a diversity of minorities, as a consequence of
historical conditions, which would be, according to Neumann (2000):
Hungarians, Romas, Germans, Serbs, Ukrainians, Czechs, Croatians, Turks,
Jews Russians, Bulgarians, Poles, Armenians, Greeks and Italians. Clearly a
multicultural population: especially in the areas of Transylvania and Banat,
which became a space of multicultural tolerance, intercultural dialogue,
and, linguistic exchange in the 19th and 20th century.
However, the consequences of the communist totalitarian regime have left
serious marks on the relationships with minorities and in intercultural
dialogue. As Neumann (2000) observes, some of the main obstacles in
intercultural education would be “the attempt to preserve 19th century
political ideology that assumed that nation and ethnicity are overlapping”;
“the ignorance of minorities and their cultures”; and “the persistence of a
centralised system and the predominance of stereotypes” (p. 108), to which
Ivasiuc, Koreck, Kővári (2000), in a relevant study of intercultural
education in Romania, add the lack of openness towards the values of the
other, the lack of authentic dialogue, the persistence of negative
stereotypes of minorities. The politics of the communist period in terms of
intercultural education were of social, cultural and ethnic levelling,
therefore there is a void period in the history of intercultural education in
Romania (Ivasiuc, Koreck, Kővári, 2000).

In the ’90s, after the communist regime was abolished, a lot of intercultural
projects and educational policies in the area of intercultural education
were proposed. There was a period of re-growth and concentration on the
rights of minorities, which brought about many improvements in the
domain. Intercultural education topics were introduced, the focus on
intercultural skills was raised, and the awareness of intercultural
differences and similarities was stirred. However, the beginning was slow
and the problems to be solved quite difficult. We could enumerate the lack
of training and experience of teachers, the lack of materials and the
persistence of mentality problems mentioned earlier.

Though, in spite of the fact that nowadays minorities have access to

education in their mother tongue (Hungarians, Germans, Serbian, Slovak)
and most Romanian spaces are focused on dialogue, there is still a minority
group, the Roma “most exposed to the risk of discrimination”(Rus,2012,
p.232). This disadvantaged community lives in poor economic
circumstances, a condition that does not allow the minority to integrate. It
is a common issue of Central and Eastern Europe, as researchers observe,
with deep cultural roots. The social and economic factors (poverty), the
cultural ones (a culture different from the one of the majority), and the lack
of support within the educational system and of the society have all
contributed to the actual situation, characterised by segregation,
discrimination, high dropout rates.

One major step ahead is the National Strategy for Roma Integration which
was adopted in 2015 (http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/roma-
integration/romania/national-strategy/national_en.htm) and which is the
first public policy regarding this minority, which attempts to improve
conditions for education, health, workforce, housing, and aims at ending
segregation, discrimination and lack of opportunities.

Opportunities: the case of Romania

There are many opportunities in Romania related to the development of
intercultural dialogue in different forms in education. The co-existence of
different cultures has proved beneficial for many regions, which are a
multicultural space and have developed intercultural dialogue over the
centuries. The model of Banat region has been described by many
researchers, Neumann mentioning the fact that “Ideas did not remain at an
abstract level; they were developed in the course of an education in which
multilingualism, the assimilation of traditions and customs, the interaction
of religions, and the alliances of cultural aspirations with religion were
fundamental. (Neumann 2000:119). The fact that there are schools in the
minority languages (Hungarian, German, Serbian, Slovak) in the region is a
proof that Romania focuses on minorities’ education and the preservation
of different cultures.

The most disadvantaged community, as mentioned earlier, is the Roma

minority, still with high percentage of early school leaving and
discriminated against. Since 1990 positive action has been taken, positive
discrimination measures were initiated in favour of the Roma community.
Some of the policies introduced by the Ministry are general ones, but
include this minority through the type of problems it has: policies and
programmes regarding social inclusion, early school leaving (e.g. the
programme A Second Chance through Education), special places in
universities for Roma minority, teacher training for teachers of Romani
language, developing resources for these subject, as well.

The National strategy for Roma integration that was put forward in 2012
and 2015 creates the conditions for changes within the educational system
in order to integrate this minority. The focus is on integration, ending
segregation, training of Romani teachers and improving early rate drop-
outs rates. One of the promising practices relates to the dedicated places
for Roma in public universities, which is a measure of positive
discrimination.

In the last years many NGOs and associations have started projects on the
integration of the Roma community, focusing on education. One of the most
active and involved is the Policy Centre for Roma and Minorities, an NGO
which has been active since 2008 and which has focused on campaigns and
projects related to Roma integration and
education(http://policycenter.eu/en/). The specific element of this
organisation is the emphasis on alternative education and the fact that it
focuses on the education of the mothers, as well, not only on children.
Among the institutions that are very active in developing projects and
promoting intercultural dialogue, with a focus on disadvantaged minorities,
we mention the Intercultural institute in Timișoara, which, since 1992, has
been involved in over 50 projects, local, regional, national and
international, being one of the pioneers in the filed while promoting
intercultural dialogue, democratic citizenship and the rights of the
minorities(http://www.intercultural.ro/index.php).

Another promising aspect is the fact that within the new educational plan
for lower secondary school there are optional subjects proposed, related to
Intercultural education - starting with 5th grade Critical Thinking and
Children’s Rights, 6th grade – Tolerance and Intercultural education, 7th
grade – Juridical Education and Democratic Citizenship
(http://www.edu.ro/index.php/pressrel/24187), which aim at introducing
subjects related to social sciences and focus on topics related to children’s
rights, democracy and improving intercultural competences and critical
thinking skills. Higher attention has been given to the initial training as well
as life-long/continuous training for the teaching personnel in view of
developing specific competences to enable and implement education for
democratic citizenship (EDC) and education for human rights, in the
classroom, in school and in the community. Such a programme is the pilot
project Travel Pass to Democracy: Supporting Teachers in Preparing
Students for Active Citizenship, financed by both the European Council and
the European Union, on-going in our country as well. As part of this project
a version of the textbook has been translated to Romanian- How all
teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: a framework
for the development of competences. Other similar projects in progress in
Romania: Experiential learning in virtual media – critical resource in the
initial teacher training for intercultural education (2007- 2009), a CNCSIS
project, type A 1196, Ellaborating, experimenting and implementing
curricular projects and strategies for both initial and life-long learning
training for teachers from the perspective of intercultural education, World
Bank, (1998-2001).

Intercultural dialogue in schools

As can be seen from the above, it is important to note the context for inter-
cultural dialogue, as this will in part determine the nature of educational
responses to the situation and the specific objectives of activity.
Nevertheless, we can consider some common factors in intercultural
dialogue, and identify pedagocical challenges and responses.

Intercultural dialogue as a policy objective has been identified in some EU

member states, spurred-on or endorsed by European initiatives such the
European Year of Intercultural Dialogue in 2008, and the Erasmus E-
twinning programmeme. These have encouraged schools to develop
intercultural projects aimed at promoting tolerance, developing curiosity
for other cultures and learning about their traditions. The Council of
Europe elaborates a definition to state that ‘the objective of intercultural
dialogue is to learn to live together peacefully and constructively in a
multicultural world and to develop a sense of community and belonging.
Intercultural dialogue can also be a tool for the prevention and resolution
of conflicts by enhancing the respect for human rights, democracy and the
rule of law’ (Council of Europe, 2017).
In relation to educational practice the Council stress that based on existing
experience, six crucial conditions must be fulfilled at the outset or achieved
during the process:

 Equal dignity of all participants;

 Voluntary engagement in dialogue;
 A mindset (on both sides) characterised by openness, curiosity and
commitment, and the absence of a desire to “win” the dialogue;
 A readiness to look at both cultural similarities and differences;
 A minimum degree of knowledge about the distinguishing features of
one’s own and the “other” culture;
 The ability to find a common language for understanding and
respecting cultural differences.

These imply an inter-cultural openness in policy and practice; as well as

teacher skill and understanding in facilitating dialogue. In multi-cultural
classrooms, and with some traditional pedagogies, or in situations where
practitioners have little autonomy, some teachers may shy away from
encouraging inter-cultural dialogue worried that it will bring about
controversy. However, if citizenship education is to be more than learning
facts about legal and political processes and seeks to achieve the objects
above, then it must necessarily embrace issues that arise and teachers must
have the skills to be able to constructively manage controversy.

The teaching of controversial issues requires the school to provide

opportunities for truthful and honest discussions about points of conflict
and agreement that are found in the real world (Berg et al, 2003). This
implies more than providing a ‘safe space’ designed to protect sensitivities.
Clearly there is need to establish an environment in which racism, sexism,
homophobia etc, is not tolerated, but this should not be at the expense of
cutting out respectful exploration of similarity and difference. Moreover, a
‘safe space’ approach may deny children the opportunities to explore
relevant topical and political issues. Issues which frequently arise with
children relate to the use of drugs, racist incidents, bullying and acts of
violence or vandalism in the community. Such issues are relevant because
they affect the everyday experiences of children and it therefore follows
that there is a role for the child to express opinion, discuss, debate and
develop ideas during lessons. However this can bring its own problems.

Teachers are rightly concerned that their own contributions or those of

pupils in their class may be biased and reflect strongly-held opinions which
may be difficult to manage. As Berg et al (CiCe 2003) note there is need for
‘...balanced and careful measures of neutrality on the part of the teacher,
whilst acknowledging that there may be some occasions when the teacher
needs to assert a commitment to a value position. At other times the
teacher may need to intervene if class discussion has not been sufficient to
counter the expression of an anti-social viewpoint (for example a racist
opinion) with the effect that individuals in the class are left exposed and
vulnerable’.

In curriculum guidance for citizenship education in the UK, the need to

address controversial issues was recognised and three approaches were
recommended:

 The neutral chair approach: in which the teacher remains neutral,

encouraging children to express their viewpoints whilst maintaining
a respectful, tolerant environment that reflects ‘ground rules’
negotiated with the class beforehand.
  The balanced approach: as above, but the teacher may give a view
(not necessarily their own) to ensure a balance of opinion is heard
 The stated commitment approach: in which a teacher may give their
own view as a means of encouraging pupils to agree or disagree.
Again their expressed viewpoint should be one that fits with values of
respect and tolerance, and the teacher must be cognisant of the
power that their positions afford.

Teachers will often use a combination of these approaches as the need

arises. Also, as noted above, it is imperative that they establish with their
class guidelines for working on controversial issues. Such ‘ground rules’
might include, for example, that no-one will have to answer a personal
question and that no-one will be forced to take part in a discussion. The aim
is to enable a free flow of ideas in a safe, non-threatening environment
where students can think about and question their assumptions and listen
to others. Thus we need approaches which enable children to develop:

 Confidence to voice their own opinions;

 Skills in recognising the views and experience of others;
 Critical thinking and in forming arguments;
 Co-operation and conflict resolution;
 Skills of democratic participation;
 Experience of taking action for change.

These deliberations may arise in general classroom activity, but in order to

help ensure the development of intercultural dialogue, they also must be
planned for with learning outcomes related developing inter-cultural
competence. Some approaches might include:
  Small group discussions followed by plenary sessions to develop and
synthesise arguments;
 Open-ended collaborative enquiries on topical and controversial
issues in order to help develop skills in respectful dialogue, that seeks
understanding and not ability to win an argument;
 Role play, simulations and debates that reflect events in society. This
can help to move discussion from the personal, to focus on the
argument, and gives opportunity to explore the viewpoint of others
without commitment to those views;
 Participation in democratic processes of change: Intercultural
dialogue can be an important process in identifying the needs and
concerns of all students and these can be fed into the decision-
making process. As such intercultural dialogue is also important in
the development of competencies associated with active democratic
citizenship.

Conclusions
Within our globalised, multicultural world, it is important that education
develops intercultural competence, which is best achieved through
dialogue. This can be supported by exchange schemes but also needs to be
developed within schools, where increasingly classes have a multicultural
make-up. Intercultural dialogue requires teachers to have the skills and
confidence to manage the learning process. Inter-cultural dialogue
necessitates ‘respect, tolerance, openness, curiosity and commitment’ that
can only be fostered in an environment in which students can talk openly
about their identities and experiences. This is not easily achieved and
teachers need training and support in managing potential controversy.
However, despite potential difficulties it is imperative that teachers gain
the necessary skills and confidence to meet the objectives of inter-cultural
dialogue, which The Council of Europe argues includes ‘to learn to live
together peacefully and constructively in a multicultural world and to
develop a sense of community and belonging’.

REFERENCES

Berg, W., Graeffe, L. and Holden, C. (2003) Teaching Controversial Issues: a European Perspective:
CiCe Guidelines: London

Butaru, C. (trad.) (2013). Cum pot toți profesorii să sprijine educația pentru cetățenie și drepturile
omului: un cadru pentru dezvoltarea competențelor / How all teachers can support citizenship and
human rights education: a framework for the development of competences. București: Editura
Universitară. Available at http://www.ise.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Cum-pot-profesorii-sa-
sprijine.pdf accessed on 2th January 2017.

Byram, M. (1997). Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence. Clevedon:

Multilingual Matters.

Clarke, P (2001) Teaching Controversial Issues: a four step classroom strategy.

www.bced.gove.bc.ca.abed

Clough, N and Holden, C (2002) Education for Citizenship: Ideas into Action. London:
Routledge/Falmer.

Kramsch, C. (1993) Context and Culture in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holmes, P., (2014) Intercultural dialogue: challenges to theory, practice and research, in Language
and Intercultural Communication, vol. 14, Issue 1, Routledge University Press.

Ivasiuc, A., Koreck, M., Kővári, R., 2000, Educaţia interculturală: de la teorie la practică–
Implementarea educaţiei interculturale în şcoli multietnice din România / Intercultural education:
from theory to practice – the implementation of intercultural education in multi-ethnic schools in
Romania, research report of the Community Development Agency „Împreună”,The Institute for the
Study of National Minority Problems, The Government of Romania, available at
http://www.agentiaimpreuna.ro/uploads/educatia%20interculturala.pdf, accessed on 10th March
2016.

Neumann, V., (2000) Between words and reality: studies on the politics of recognition and regime
changes in contemporary Romania. Washington DC: The Council for Research in Values and
Philosophy.

Rus, C., Bota, O. (coord.) (2002). Educație interculturală în comunități multietinice, / Intercultural
Education in multiethnic communities, Timisoara, The Intercultural Institute, Timișoara: Institutul
Intercultural, available at http://www.intercultural.ro/carti/carte_scoli.pdf, accessed on 29th
December 2016.

Rus, C., (2012) Romania: A System in Evolution, Searching for Its Conceptual References in
Educational Policies and inequalities in Europe, ed by M. Demeuse, Frandji, D., Greger, D., Rochex, J-
Y.London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mihaela Jigău, Mihai Surdu, Magda Balica, Ciprian Fartuşnic, Irina Horga, Laura Surdu (2002)
Participarea la educație a copiilor romi. Probleme, soluții actori (The participation in Education Of
Roma Children: Problems, Solutions, Actors), Bucuresti , Ministerul Educaţiei şi Cercetării, Institutul
de Ştiinţe ale Educaţiei, Institutul de Cercetare a Calităţii Vieţii, UNICEF (The Ministry of Education
and Research, The Institute of Educational Sciences, The Research Institute for The Quality of Life,
UNICEF).
A Strategy of the Government of Romania for the Inclusion of the Romanian Citizens Belonging to
Roma Minority for 2015-2020
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The CiCe Jean Monnet Network
This guide was produced by a Working group of the CiCe Jean Monnet
Network (2014-17), a project funded by the European Commission as part
of the Erasmus+ programme. Jean Monnet Networks foster the creation
and development of consortia of international players in the area of
European Union studies in order to gather information, exchange practices,
build knowledge and promote the European integration process across the
world.

The CiCe Jean Monnet Network is a consortium of universities with interest

in how and what people learn about their society, a partnership that grew
out of the CiCe Erasmus Academic Network, which had been in existence in
various forms since 1998 with the support of the European Commission.
Closely related to the Network is the CiCe Association, an independent body
of individuals and institutions with academic and practical focus on
citizenship education and identity formation in young people in Europe and
the world.

The CiCe Jean Monnet network links 25 institutions in network from 17

states that are involved in training education professionals (teachers, social
pedagogues, early childhood workers, youth workers etc) and concerned
with citizenship education and the development of identities in young
people.

Partners involved in the Network:

London Metropolitan University, UK (Coordinating university)

VIVES – Catholic University College, Belgium
Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Education, CZ
University of Tartu, Estonia
University of Helsinki, Finland
Ss Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, FYROM
University of Augsburg, Germany
University of the Peleponnes, Greece
University of Patras, Greece
Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
Latvian University, Latvia
Rezekne Higher Education Institution, Latvia
Riga Teacher Training and Educational Management Academy, Latvia
Mykolas Romeris University, Lithiuania
University of Warmia and Mazury, Poland
Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências, Portugal
Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra, Escola Superior de Educação, Portugal
West University of Timișoara, Romania
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid., Spain
Malmo University, Sweden
University of the West of Scotland, UK
University of the West of England, UK
University of Huddersfield, UK
University of York, UK
Università Roma Tre, Italy
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission
and London Metropolitan University. This publication reflects the views
only of the authors, and the European Commission or London Metropolitan
University cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of
the information contained herein.