8+++
ࡢࠪࡦ࠻ࡦᄢቇ
㨪

7PKXGTUKV[QH
9CUJKPIVQP࿖㓙Ꮢ᳃ᕈᢎ⢒ផㅴࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢ࡮࠮ࡒ࠽࡯
㨪ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞߦ߅ߌࠆࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊᢎ⢒ߩᣂầᵹ㨪

27th November, 2008 (Thu) / 2008ᐕ11᦬27ᣣ (ᧁ)Venue: Large Meeting Room, Faculty of Development / ᣈ㧦⊒㆐⑼ቇㇱᄢળ⼏ቶ
9:15㨪10:15
Opening Address㐿ળߩㄉ

Professor Nobushige Imatani / ੹⼱㗅㊀ᢎ᝼
(Graduate School of Human Development & Environment, Kobe University/ ␹ᚭᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ੱ㑆⊒㆐ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼㧕Lecture: Associate Professor Susumu Oshihara㡗ේㅴಎᢎ᝼
㧔Associate Professor, Ehime University / ᗲᇫᄢቇ㧕“Flexible Citizenship and History Education Based Course of Study (2008) in Japan”


10:15㨪12:00
Lecture: Professor Walter Parker (University of Washington)‘ “Global Citizenship” and the “International Education” Movement: A Case Studyof U.S. Schools Today’

14:00㨪16:30
Lecture: Ms. Carol Coe (Doctoral Student at University of Washington, Former HighSchool teacher)“Developing citizenship skills through deliberative discussions: Exploring thePractice/Action Distinction”





28th November, 2008 (Fri) / 2008ᐕ11᦬28ᣣ ㊄
9:30㨪12:00
Venue: Large Meeting Room, Faculty of Development / ⊒㆐⑼ቇㇱᄢળ⼏ቶ
Workshop: Professor Walter Parker‘Deliberative discussion for democratic citizenship education: A demonstration of a
Structured Academic Controversy unit̉
Workshop: Ms. Carol Coe‘Deliberative discussion for democratic citizenship education: A demonstration of a
Choices for the 21st Century unit’
14:00㨪16:30
Venue: Akashi Elementary School attached to Faculty of Human Development,
Kobe University / ␹ᚭᄢቇ⊒㆐⑼ቇㇱ㒝ዻ᣿⍹ዊቇᩞESD Class (by Hiroshi Inoue) Visitation & Discussion/ ੗਄ඳ༹ 㒝ዻ᣿⍹ዊቇᩞᢎຬ ߩESD᝼ᬺෳടߣ⸛⼏

29th November, 2008 (Sat) / 2008ᐕ11᦬29ᣣ ࿯ 
All Day / ⚳ᣣ
Fieldwork / ࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼ࡢ࡯ࠢ

࿖㓙Ꮢ᳃ᕈᢎ⢒ផㅴࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢ࡮࠮ࡒ࠽࡯
ᵴേႎ๔ᦠ
␹ᚭᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ੱ㑆⊒㆐ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼
‐ᔒ⃍␹ᚭᄢቇᄢቇ㒮ੱ㑆⊒㆐ⅣႺቇ⎇ⓥ⑼
᧘᧱᦬ᣣߦߪ‫␹ޔ‬ᚭᄢቇߢࡢࠪࡦ࠻ࡦᄢቇߩవ↢߿㒮↢ߣ੤ᵹߒߡ‫ࠞ࡝ࡔࠕޔ‬ᢎ⢒೙ᐲߦ⸅ࠇ‫ޔ‬࿖㓙ℂ⸃ᢎ⢒ߦ㑐ߔࠆታ〣੐଀ࠍࠃࠅᷓߊℂ⸃ߔࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬߹ߕᗲᇫᄢቇߩ㡗ේㅴవ↢ߪ‫ޟ‬ቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦၮߠߊᱧผቇ⠌ߪ‫ޡ‬࿖᳃‫ޡߪ޿ࠆ޽ޢ‬ᣣᧄੱ‫ߩޢ‬⢒ᚑߩߺࠍ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ขࠅ਄ߍࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ
‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߩ޿߁࿖ኅߩᱧผ‫ޔߕࠄߥߺߩޠ‬‫ޟ‬࿾ၞߩᱧผ‫ࠆߴ⺞ࠍޠ‬ቇ⠌߽ߔߴ߈ౝኈߣߒߡឭ
␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਔ⠪ߩቇ⠌߆ࠄᄙ᭽ߥ⷗ᣇ࡮⠨߃ᣇߩ⢒ᚑ߇น⢻ߣߥࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬႐ว‫(ࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪ࡮࡞ࡉࠪࠠ࡟ࡈޔ‬Flexible Citizenship)ߣ޿߁᭎ᔨ߇㊀ⷐߦߥߞߡ
ߊࠆ‫ߣޠ‬ឭ⸒ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᰴߦ‫࡯ࠞ࡯ࡄޔ‬వ↢߇⻠Ṷࠍⴕߥߞߚ‫ߥ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟޕ‬Ꮢ᳃ᮭ‫ޟ߿ޠ‬਎⇇Ꮢ᳃‫ߚ⑳ޟޔޠ‬ߜߩᣂߒ޿਎⇇⚻ᷣߩߚ߼ߩᢎ⢒‫੹ߪ⺆↪ߩߤߥޠ‬ᣣ‫ޔ‬㗫❥ߦ૶↪ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫⎇ߩߎޕ‬ⓥ
ߪ☨࿖ߩ౏┙ቇᩞߢߩᣂߒ޿‫ޟ‬࿖㓙ᢎ⢒‫ޠ‬ㆇേࠍ⺞ߴߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫☨ޕ‬࿖ߩ౏┙ቇᩞߪߤࠎߤࠎ‫ޟ‬࿖㓙ᢎ⢒‫ࠍޠ‬ណ↪ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫࡯ࠞ࡯ࡄޕ‬వ↢ߪ‫ޟޔ‬࿖㓙ᢎ⢒ߣߪ૗ߢߔ߆!‫߁޿ߣޠ‬໧޿ࠍㅢߒߡ‫ߩߘޔ‬ᗧ๧ߣࡊࡠࠣ࡜ࡓߩᷙੂࠍ⷗಴ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᗲ࿖ᔃߣ਎⇇ਥ⟵ߩࠃ߁ߥ⋧ኈࠇߥ޿൓ജ߇੎ߞߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᦨᓟߦ‫⥄߇ࠎߐ࡯ࠦޔ‬ಽߩ⎇ⓥࠍ⊒⴫ߒߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐᅚߩ⊒⴫࠹࡯ࡑߪ‫ޟ‬ክ⼏⊛ߥ⼏⺰ߢᏒ᳃ᮭᛛ⢻ࠍિ߫ߔ⸠✵㧔ࡊ࡜ࠢ࠹ࠖࠬ㧕ߣⴕേ㧔ࠕ࡚ࠢࠪࡦ㧕ߩ඙೎ࠍតࠆ‫ޔߢޠ‬᭎ⷐߪએਅߩࠃ߁ߦߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ലᨐ⊛ߥ᳃ਥ␠ળߪඳ⼂ߢᾫ✵ߒߚᏒ᳃ࠍᔅⷐߣߔࠆ‫ޕ‬วⴐ࿖ߩ౏┙ቇᩞߪ‫ߩߎޔ‬㔛ⷐߦᔕ߃ࠆߎߣ߇᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ᦨ߇ߩࠆߔ߁ߤߪߦࠆߔ߁ߘޔߒ߆ߒޕ‬ㆡߛࠈ߁߆㧫ߎߩ⊒⴫ߪክ⼏⊛ߥ⼏⺰ߩᵴ↪ߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ᩏߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ክ⼏ߒߡ޿ࠆㆊ⒟ࠍࠃࠅℂ⸃ߔࠆߚ߼ߦ‫ߩࡊࠗ࠲ߩߟ  ߪࠎߐ࡯ࠦޔ‬ክ⼏⊛ߥ⼏⺰ߩᲧセࠤ࡯ࠬࠬ࠲࠺ࠖࠍⴕߥߞߚ
ߟߩ⾰໧߇ߎߩ⺞ᩏߩߚ߼ߩ㊀ⷐߥⷞὐࠍਈ߃ߡߊࠇࠆ   ᳃ਥ⊛ߥᛛ⢻ࠍᒻᚑߔࠆߚ߼ߩ ⸠✵ߦ૶↪ߐࠇࠆ⸛⼏ߣ‫ޔ‬නߦ᳃ਥ⊛ߥᛛ⢻ࠍᒻᚑߔࠆߚ߼ߢߥߊ‫ ޔ‬᡽╷ࠍ᳿߼ߡታᣉߔࠆ ⴕേࠍ⿠ߎߔߚ߼ߦ૶↪ߐࠇࠆ⸛⼏ߩ㑆ߦߪ‫߆ߦߥޔ‬㆑޿߇޽ࠆߣߔࠇ߫‫ࠎߤޔ‬ߥ㆑޿߇޽ࠆߩ߆!  ‫ߩ⪲⸒ߩߢ⼏⸛ޠߩߺߩ✵⸠ޟ‬ήജߐ‫ⴕߡߒ✵⸠ޟߪ޿ࠆ޽ޔ‬േߔࠆ‫ߩ⪲⸒ߩ⼏⸛ޠ‬ജߪ‫ޔ‬ቇ↢ߦ⋧㆑ࠍ↢ߓߐߖࠆߩ߆!ߎߩ⎇ⓥߩ⚿ᨐߪክ⼏ߒߡ޿ࠆㆊ⒟৻⥸ߣ‫ⴕߣ✵⸠ߦ․ޔ‬േߩ඙೎߳ߩℂ⸃ࠍ⍮ࠄߖࠆ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬వ↢㆐ߣ㒮↢㆐ߪ੤ᵹᵴേߩᚑᨐࠍ〯߹߃‫৻ޔ‬ጀࠕࡔ࡝ࠞߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒ߩ⌀㜑ࠍ⍮ࠆߎߣߣߥߞߚ‫ޕ‬ੑᣣ⋡ߩඦ೨ਛߪ‫ޔ‬2CTMGT వ↢ߣ %CTQN ߐࠎ߇᳃ਥਥ⟵ߩࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊᢎ⢒ߦߟ޿ߡߘࠇߙࠇߩࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓࠍ⹦ߒߊ⚫੺ߒߚ‫᧪ޔ޿ⴕࠍࡊ࠶࡚ࠪࠢ࡯ࡢޔߚ߹ޕ‬႐ߩᣇ‫ޘ‬ࠍࠣ࡞࡯ࡊߦࠊߌߡ‫ࠍࡓ࡜ࡘࠠ࡝ࠞޔ‬ታ〣ߒߡ㗂޿ߚ‫߇ࠎߐߥߺޕ‬Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦෳടߒ‫⺰⸛ޔ‬ࠍዷ㐿ߒߚߎߣ߇‫ޔ‬㕖Ᏹߦᒝ޿ශ⽎ࠍᱷߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ඦᓟ‫ޔ‬2CTMGT వ↢ߣ %CTQN ߐࠎࠍߪߓ߼৻ⴕ߇␹ᚭᄢቇ⊒㆐⑼ቇㇱ㒝ዻ᣿⍹ዊቇᩞ߹ߢ
㧢ᐕ↢ߩ‫ޟ‬࿾⃿᷷ᥦൻߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ࠃ߁‫߁޿ߣޠ‬᝼ᬺࠍෳⷰߒߦ⿞޿ߚ‫ᦨޕ‬ೋ‫࡮࠻ࠬࠥޔ‬ࠬࡇ࡯ࠞ࡯ߩᦺᣣᣂ⡞␠ߩ⸥⠪ߩᣇ߇‫ޔ‬਎⇇ฦ࿾ߢ᠟ߞߚ౮⌀ࠍ⷗ߖߥ߇ࠄ‫ޔ‬᷷ᥦൻߦߟ
޿ߡ↢ᓤߚߜߦ⚫੺ߒߚ‫ޔߡߒߘޕ‬࿾⃿᷷ᥦൻ໧㗴ߦߟ޿ߡ㑐ᔃࠍᜬߚߖ‫ޔ‬ේ࿃߿ᓇ㗀‫ޔ‬਎⇇⊛ߥขࠅ⚵ߺߦߟ޿ߡ⺞ߴߚࠅ⸥⠪ߦࠗࡦ࠲ࡆࡘ࡯ߒߚࠅߒߡ߆ࠄ‫ߌࠊߦࡊ࡯࡞ࠣޔ‬ߡ‫ߩࠄ߆ࠇߎޔ‬࿾⃿ߦߟ޿ߡ⠨߃ߐߖ‫⥄ޔ‬り߇ขࠅ⚵߼ࠆ᷷ᥦൻኻ╷ࠍឭ᩺ߒߘࠇߙࠇߦ
⊒⴫ߒߡ߽ࠄߞߚ‫ޕ‬᝼ᬺਛ‫↢ޔ‬ᓤ㆐߇Ⓧᭂ⊛ߦ⸛⺰ߒ‫ߥࠢ࡯࠾࡙ޔ‬ឭ᩺ߒߚߎߣߦߪ㕖Ᏹߦᗵᔃߒߚ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᓟ‫ޔ‬ᩞ㐳ቶߢࡒ࡯࠹ࠖࡦࠣ߇߅ߎࠊߥࠇ‫ޔ‬ᜂᒰߩ੗਄ඳ༹వ↢ߣ⹤ߒว޿‫ޔ‬᝼ᬺߦߟ޿ߡ⸛⼏ߒߚ‫ޔߦ․ޕ‬%CTQN ߐࠎߪ‫ޔ‬᝼ᬺਛ↢ᓤ㆐ߩⓍᭂߐߦᶡ߇ߢࠆ߶ߤᗵ
േߐࠇߚߣߩߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ਃᣣ⋡ߪ‫ޔߡߒߣࠢ࡯ࡢ࠼࡞࡯ࠖࡈޔ‬2CTMGT వ↢ߣ %CTQN ߐࠎࠍᣣᧄߩવ⛔⊛ߥ߽ߩ߇޽߰ࠇࠆ੩ㇺߦ᩺ౝߒߚ‫ޕ‬








 ᐕ๔␜ቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦ߅ߌࠆᱧผቇ⠌ߣࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑ㡗ේ ㅴ㧔ᗲᇫᄢቇ㧕Flexible Citizenship and History Education Based Course of Study (2008) in Japan
Susumu Oshihara, Ehime University
Paper presented at Kobe University, November 2008᭎ⷐ ቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦၮߠߊᱧผቇ⠌ߪ‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ޟߪ޿ࠆ޽ޠ‬ᣣᧄੱ‫ߩޠ‬⢒ᚑߩߺ⋡⊛ߣߒߡ޿ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ขࠅ਄ߍࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆߩߪ‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߩ޿߁࿖ኅߩᱧผ‫ߩޠ‬ߺߥࠄߕ㧘‫ޟ‬࿾ၞߩᱧผ‫ࠆߴ⺞ࠍޠ‬ቇ⠌߽ߔߴ߈ౝኈߣߒߡឭ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ਔ⠪ߩቇ⠌߆ࠄᄙ᭽ߥ⷗ᣇ࡮⠨߃ᣇߩ⢒ᚑ߇น⢻ߣߥࠆߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬႐ว㧘ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮
ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ(Flexible Citizenship)ߣ޿߁᭎ᔨ߇㊀ⷐߦߥߞߡߊࠆ‫ޕ‬

Abstract“Goal of history education is national identity.”Many People think that Goalof history education based Junior high school Course of Study is very similar. History education based Junior high school Course of Study present both
National History and Local History. Both histories produce diversity. It is ver
y important concept “Flexible Citizenship”. It has possibility of connect “National” and “Global”.
ᧄႎ๔ߩ⋡⊛ߣᚻ㗅 ᧄႎ๔ߩ⋡⊛ߪ㧘3 ᦬  ᣣߦ๔␜ߐࠇߚ‫ޟ‬ਛቇᩞቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔‫ޠ‬㧔‫ޟ‬ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔‫⸥⇛ߣޠ‬㧕ߦ␜ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ␠ળ⑼ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩ․⦡ࠍ〯߹߃ߥ߇ࠄ㧘ߘࠇߦၮߠߊᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ(Global Citizenship)⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ(Flexible Citizenship)ߣ޿߁᭎ᔨࠍㆡᔕߒߡߺࠆߣ㧘࿖᳃⢒ᚑߩߺߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇߡ߈ߚᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅޿ߡ߽㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߪน⢻ߢ޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆߎߣࠍ␜ߔߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ౕޕ‬૕⊛ߥᚻ㗅ߪ㧘ᰴߩ㧟ὐߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬





 Ԙ ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦ߅ߌࠆ␠ળ⑼ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩ․⦡ࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ ԙ Ԙߦ߅ߌࠆ⾗⾰⢒ᚑߩ⺰ℂࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ Ԛ Ԙԙߦࠃࠅᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈࠍ⠨ኤߔ 
ࠆ‫ޕ‬


ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦ߅ߌࠆ␠ળ⑼ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩ․⦡ ⋡ᮡ ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦ߅ߌࠆਛቇᩞ␠ળ⑼ߩ⋡ᮡ ᐢ޿ⷞ㊁ߦ┙ߞߡ㧘␠ળߦኻߔࠆ㑐ᔃࠍ㜞߼㧘⻉⾗ᢱߦၮߠ޿ߡᄙ㕙⊛࡮ᄙⷺ⊛ߦ⠨ኤߒ㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߩ࿖࿯ߣᱧผߦኻߔࠆℂ⸃ߣᗲᖱࠍᷓ߼㧘౏᳃ߣߒߡߩၮ␆⊛ᢎ㙃ࠍၭ޿㧘࿖㓙␠ળߦ↢߈ࠆᐔ๺ߢ᳃ਥ⊛ߥ࿖ኅ࡮␠ળߩᒻᚑ⠪ߣߒߡᔅⷐߥ౏᳃⊛⾗⾰ߩၮ␆ࠍ㙃߁‫ޕ‬ ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩ⋡ᮡߪᰴߩࠃ߁ߦᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔ߦ␜ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬  ᱧผ⊛੐⽎ߦኻߔࠆ㑐ᔃࠍ㜞߼㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩᄢ߈ߥᵹࠇࠍ㧘਎⇇ߩᱧผࠍ⢛᥊ߦ㧘ฦᤨઍߩ․⦡ࠍ〯߹߃ߡℂ⸃ߐߖ㧘ߘࠇࠍㅢߒߡᚒ߇࿖ߩવ⛔ߣᢥൻߩ․⦡ࠍᐢ޿ⷞ㊁ߦ┙ߞߡ⠨߃ߐߖࠆߣߣ߽ߦ㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߦኻߔࠆᗲᖱࠍᷓ߼㧘࿖᳃ߣߒߡߩ⥄ⷡࠍ⢒ߡࠆ‫ޕ‬  ࿖ኅ࡮␠ળ෸߮ᢥൻߩ⊒ዷ߿ੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴߩะ਄ߦዧߊߒߚᱧผ਄ߩੱ‛ߣ⃻࿷ߦવࠊࠆᢥൻㆮ↥ࠍ㧘ߘߩᤨઍ߿࿾ၞߣߩ㑐ㅪߦ߅޿ߡℂ⸃ߐߖ㧘ዅ㊀ߔࠆᘒᐲࠍ⢒ߡࠆ‫ޕ‬  ᱧผߦ⷗ࠄࠇࠆ࿖㓙㑐ଥ߿ᢥൻ੤ᵹߩ޽ࠄ߹ߒࠍℂ⸃ߐߖ㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߣ⻉ᄖ࿖ߩᱧผ߿
ᢥൻ߇⋧੕ߦᷓߊ߆߆ࠊߞߡ޿ࠆߎߣࠍ⠨߃ߐߖࠆߣߣ߽ߦ㧘ઁ᳃ᣖߩᢥൻ㧘↢ᵴߥߤߦ㑐ᔃࠍ߽ߚߖ㧘࿖㓙ද⺞ߩ♖␹ࠍ㙃߁‫ޕ‬  りㄭߥ࿾ၞߩᱧผ߿ౕ૕⊛ߥ੐⽎ߩቇ⠌ࠍㅢߒߡᱧผߦኻߔࠆ⥝๧߿㑐ᔃࠍ㜞߼㧘᭽‫⾗ߥޘ‬ᢱࠍᵴ↪ߒߡᱧผ⊛੐⽎ࠍᄙ㕙⊛࡮ᄙⷺ⊛ߦ⠨ኤߒ౏ᱜߦ್ᢿߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦㆡಾߦ
⴫⃻ߔࠆ⢻ജߣᘒᐲࠍ⢒ߡࠆ‫ޕ‬ ᡷ⸓ߩⷐὐ ‫ޟ‬ਛቇᩞቇ⠌ᜰዉⷐ㗔⸃⺑ ␠ળ✬ ᐔᚑ  ᐕ㧣᦬ᢥㇱ⑼ቇ⋭‫ޠ‬㧔‫⸥⇛ߣޠ⺑⸃ޟ‬㧕ߦߪ㧘ᰴ㗁ᨒ࿐ߺౝࠕ㨪ࠝߩ㧡ὐࠍᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩᡷ⸓ߩᄢ߈ߥⷐὐߣߒߡ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬





 ౝኈ ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߩዉ౉⊛ߥ૏⟎ઃߌ߿ᱧผ⊛ߦ⠨ኤߔࠆߣ߈ߩᛛ⢻ߩ⠌ᓧߣ㑐ᔃ࡮ᗧ᰼ߩ⢒ᚑࠍ⋡⊛ߣߔࠆᄢ㗄⋡  ‫ޟ‬ᱧผߩߣࠄ߃ᣇ‫ߣޠ‬㧘ㅢผ⊛ߥ᭴ᚑߣߥߞߡ޿ࠆ  ‫ޟ‬ฎઍ߹ߢߩᣣᧄ‫ޟ  ޠ‬ਛ਎ߩᣣᧄ‫ޟ  ޠ‬ㄭ਎ߩᣣᧄ‫ޟ  ޠ‬ㄭઍߩᣣᧄߣ਎⇇‫⃻ޟ  ޠ‬ઍߩᣣᧄߣ਎⇇‫ߩޠ‬㧡ߟߩᄢ㗄⋡ߢ᭴ᚑߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ࠕ ‫ޟ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩᄢ߈ߥᵹࠇ‫ࠍޠ‬ℂ⸃ߔࠆቇ⠌ߩ৻ጀߩ㊀ⷞ㨻 ‫ޟ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩᄢ߈ߥᵹࠇ‫ߩޠ‬ℂ⸃ߣ޿߁⋡ᮡߩ৻ጀߩ᣿⏕ൻ㨼 ቇ⠌ౝኈߩ᭴ㅧൻߣὶὐൻ

㨽 ฦᤨઍߩ․⦡ࠍߣࠄ߃ࠆቇ⠌ߩᣂ⸳㨾 ฎઍ߹ߢߩቇ⠌ߩᄢⷰൻࠗ ᱧผߦߟ޿ߡ⠨ኤߔࠆജ߿⺑᣿ߔࠆജߩ⢒ᚑ㨻 ᡽ᴦ㕙ߥߤߩᄌ㕟ߩ․⦡ࠍ⠨߃ߡᤨઍߩォ឵ߩ᭽ሶࠍߣࠄ߃ࠆቇ⠌㨼 ᤨઍߩ඙ಽ߿ߘߩ⒖ࠅᄌࠊࠅߦ᳇ઃߊቇ⠌㨽 ᕁ⠨࡮್ᢿ࡮⴫⃻ߔࠆቇ⠌ߣ⏕߆ߥℂ⸃࠙ ㄭ⃻ઍߩቇ⠌ߩ৻ጀߩ㊀ⷞࠛ ᭽‫ߥޘ‬વ⛔߿ᢥൻߩቇ⠌ߩ㊀ⷞ
ࠝ ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩ⢛᥊ߣߥࠆ਎⇇ߩᱧผߩᛒ޿ߩలታ ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߩⷞὐ߆ࠄ㧘߹ߕ⋡ߦߟߊߩߪ㧘ᣣᧄߣ਎⇇ߣߩ㑐ଥߢ޽ࠆ‫ߦޠ⺑⸃ޟޕ‬㧘਎⇇ߩᱧผߩᛒ޿ߩలታߦߟ޿ߡㅀߴࠄࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩᄢ߈ߥᵹࠇߩℂ⸃ߩߚ߼ߦ㧘ߘߩ⢛᥊ߣߥࠆ਎⇇ߩᱧผߩᛒ޿ࠍల
ታߐߖߚ‫߫߃଀ޕ‬㧘ౝኈߩ  ߩࠕߢ਎⇇ߩฎઍᢥ᣿߿ቬᢎߩ߅ߎࠅߦ㑐ߔࠆቇ⠌ࠍలታߐߖߚࠅ㧘ㄭ⃻ઍߩ᰷☨⻉࿖ߩࠕࠫࠕㅴ಴ࠍ⁛┙ߩਛ㗄⋡  ࠕߣߒߡ᭴ᚑߒߚࠅ㧘╙ੑᰴ਎⇇ᄢᚢᓟߩቇ⠌ౝኈߦ಄ᚢ߿ߘߩ⚳⚿ࠍ૏⟎ઃߌߚࠅߒߚ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘࿖㓙㑐ଥ߇㊀߈ࠍභ߼ࠆㄭ⃻ઍߩቇ⠌ࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆߎߣߢ㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩዷ㐿ࠍ਎⇇ߩേ߈ߣ৻ጀ㑐ㅪઃߌߡቇ⠌ߔࠆࠃ߁ߦߒߚ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩὐߪ㧘ᣣᧄߩᱧผߩℂ⸃ߩߚ߼ߦߪ㧘਎⇇ߣߩ㑐ଥ߇ᔅⷐߛߣ޿߁ࠬ࠲ࡦࠬࠍ〯ⷅߒ㧘ߘࠇࠍలታߐߖߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ὐ߆ࠄߪ㧘੹᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆ‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄ࿖᳃ߩᢎ㙃‫ߩߡߒߣޠ‬ᣣᧄߣ਎⇇ߣ޿߁㑐ଥ߽⷗ฃߌࠄࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ 㜞╬ቇᩞߩ࿾ℂᱧผ⑼ߦ߅ߌࠆᔅጁୃߣߩ㑐ㅪߢ㧘ో࿖᳃߇㧘ᣣᧄߩᱧผࠍㅢผ⊛ߦቇ߱႐ߪਛቇᩞߒ߆ߥ޿ߣ޿߁㧘ᢎ⢒⺖⒟✬ᚑ਄ߩ໧㗴߽޽ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ਛቇᩞߢߪ㧘ᱧผ⊛ಽ

㊁ߦ  න૏ᤨ㑆ߒ߆㈩ᒰߐࠇߥ޿‫ޟޕ‬਎⇇ߩᱧผ‫ޟ߽ࠅࠃޠ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩዷ㐿‫߇ޠ‬ఝవߐࠇࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔␠ળ⑼ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߦ߅ߌࠆ⾗⾰⢒ᚑߩ⺰ℂ ޽ߊ߹ߢ߽‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ߩޠ‬⢒ᚑࠍਥ⌒ߣߒߚᱧผቇ⠌ߢ޽ࠆ‫⃻ޕ‬࿷ߦ߅ߌࠆ‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄ࿖᳃‫ߦޠ‬ߪ㧘ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩᄢ߈ߥᵹࠇߣવ⛔ߣᢥൻߩ․⦡ߩℂ⸃߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘࿖㓙␠ળߩ৻ຬߢ޽ࠆ‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄ࿖᳃‫ߪߦޠ‬㧘࿖㓙ද⺞ߩ♖␹ࠍ㙃߁ߎߣ߇ᔅⷐߢ޽ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬⠨߃ᣇࠍၮᧄߣߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߢߎߎޕ‬㧘ߣߤ߹ߞߡ޿ߡߪ㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈߪૐߊߥࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬㧘࿖᳃ᢎ⢒㧔࿖ኅߩᢎ⢒᡽╷㧕ߣߒߡߩᱧผቇ⠌ߩ㒢⇇ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫߆ߩ޿ߥߪߢࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪ࡮࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣߪޠ‬㧫ߣ޿߁⇼໧߇↢߹ࠇߡߊࠆ‫ߩޠ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟߪޠ࡞࠽࡚ࠪ࠽ޟޕ‬ኻ᭎ᔨߥߩߢ޽ࠈ߁߆㧫ߘߩࠃ߁ߦߣࠄ߃
ࠇ߫㧘Ꮻዻᕈࠍ೨ឭߣߔࠆᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅޿ߡࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߪ㧘ߘ߽ߘ߽ਇน⢻ߣ⸒߃ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ޕ‬ ╩⠪ߪ㧘
‫ߟ߽ߩޠ࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬஺᭎ᔨߣߒߡߩᕈᩰࠍ߽ߞߣⓍᭂ⊛ߦߣࠄ߃ࠆߴ߈ߣਥᒛ
ߒߚ޿‫߫ࠇߔ߁ߘޕ‬㧘ᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅޿ߡࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߪน⢻ߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬஺᭎ᔨߪߘߩਛߦᄙ↪ߥ᭽⋧ࠍᜬߟਅ૏᭎ᔨࠍߚߊߐࠎ᦭ߒ㧘ᄙ᭽ߢ޽ࠅ㧘ߘࠇࠄߦኻߒߡኡኈߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁⁁ᘒߢ޽ࠆߣߣࠄ߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ࠍࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪ࡮࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޕ‬࿕ቯൻߒߚ߽ߩߣߣࠄ߃ࠆߣ㧘⢒ᚑߔߴ߈⾗⾰ߩ⋴᧼߇⇣ߥࠆߛߌߢ㧘⢒ᚑ⺰ℂߪᣂᜰዉⷐ
㗔ߣ߆ࠊࠄߥ޿‫ޕ‬ᱧผቇ⠌ߦ߅ߌࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈ ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ Flexible Citizenship ߥࠆ᭎ᔨࠍᩭߦߒߡ㧘⢒ᚑߒࠃ߁ߣߔࠆ‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ߩࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪ࡮࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣߣޠ‬૏⟎ઃߌࠍ⠨߃ߡ޿ߊ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᰴߦ㧘␠ળ⹺⼂ᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ᭴ᚑߩⷞὐߢ߽น⢻ᕈࠍ⠨ኤߔࠆ‫ޕ‬ ‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪ࡮࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣߣޠ‬ ࠞ࡝ࡈࠜ࡞࠾ࠕᄢቇࡃ࡯ࠢ࡟࡯ᩞߩᢥൻੱ㘃ቇ⠪ߢ޽ࠆ Dr Aihwa ONG ߪ㧘ℂ⺰⊛߆ߟታ⸽⊛⎇ⓥࠍㅢߓߡ㧘ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ Flexible Citizenship ߥࠆ᭎ᔨࠍឭ␜ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬᭎ᔨߪ㧘ᦨㄭߩ☨࿖ߦ߅ߌࠆ㧘Citizenship Education ߿␠ળ⑼ᢎ⢒㧘ᄙᢥൻᢎ⢒㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒╬ߦᓇ㗀ࠍ෸߷ߒߟߟ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬
㧔Dr. ONG ⪺ᦠ߿ಽᜂၫ╩ߪާෳ⠨ᢥ₂ިෳᾖ‫ޕ‬㧕╩⠪ߪ㧘ߎߩࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊࠍᣂߚߥ᭎ᔨߣߒߡᝒ߃ࠆ
ߩߢߪߥߊ㧘߽ߣ߽ߣሽ࿷ߒߡ޿ߚ߽ߩߣᝒ߃ࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫⺆⸒ࠍࠇߘޕ‬ൻߢ߈ߚߚ߼ߦᵈ⋡ࠍᶎ߮ࠆࠃ߁ߦߥߞߚߣ⠨߃ߡ޿ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘ࠕࠗ࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖౝߩᄙ᭽ᕈ
ߣߘߩᨵエᕈࠍ⸒⺆ൻߒߡ޿ࠆߣ߽⠨߃ࠄࠇࠆ߆ࠄߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ԘAihwa ONG ߩ໧㗴ᗧ⼂㧘⎇ⓥኻ⽎ ✬⪺ 2.-(3)ߦߪ㧘ᰴߩࠃ߁ߦ⚫੺ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬

UCࡃ࡯ࠢ࡟࡯ߩᢥൻੱ㘃ቇ㧘᧲ධࠕࠫࠕ⎇ⓥߩᢎ᝼‫ޕ‬ᓐᅚߪ᧲ධࠕࠫࠕ㧘ਛ࿖ධㇱ㧘ࠞ࡝ࡈࠜ࡞࠾ࠕߢߩࡈࠖ࡯࡞࠼ࡢ࡯ࠢࠍⴕߞߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐᅚߪ㧘⃻࿷㧘ࠕࠫࠕߩㇺᏒߦ߅ߌࠆ᡽ᴦ(government)㧘ෂᯏ㧘቟ో଻㓚ߦ㑐ᔃࠍᛴ޿ߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬  ԙDr. Aihwa ONG ߩࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ
 Dr. ONG ߪ㧘⾗ᧄਥ⟵⚻ᷣߦ߅ߌࠆ‫⿧ޟ‬Ⴚߒߡ޿ࠆੱ‫ࠍޠޘ‬ขࠅ਄ߍ㧘ߘߩੱߚߜߩ‫࠻ޟ‬࡜ࡦࠬ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡝࠭ࡓ‫ޟߣޠ‬ᄌኈ‫ߩޠ‬㑐ଥࠍ⠨ኤߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬㓙㧘ਛ࿖㧘․ߦ࿷ᄖਛ࿖
ੱߚߜࠍ⎇ⓥߒߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬ᓐᅚߩಽᨆ߇␜ໂߒߡ޿ࠆߩߪ㧘⿧Ⴚੱ㧘଀߃߫㧘ਛ࿖ੱߣ޿߁
▸⇵ߦ߅޿ߡ࠻࡜ࡦࠬ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ߥ৻ຬߢ޽ࠆ࿷ᄖਛ࿖ੱߚߜߩ㧘ⶄ㔀ߢ޽ࠅߥ߇ࠄ㧘‫ޟ‬㗅ᔕ⊛ߥ‫ޠ‬Ꮻዻᗧ⼂ߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ࠻࡜ࡦࠬ࠽࡚ࠪ࠽࡞ߥ⒖േߣࡀ࠶࠻ࡢ࡯ࠢߪ㧘࿾ၞߦᢥൻࠍᒻ૞ࠅ㧘୘ੱߦᣂߚߥࠕࠗ
࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖࠍᒻᚑߔࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬㧞ὐߪ㧘࿖ኅᚢ⇛ߩォ឵ߦ߅޿ߡ㎛ߣߥࠆ㊀ⷐߥ߽ߩߢ޽
ߞߚ‫ޕ‬࿷ᄖਛ࿖ੱ߇ᱧผ⊛ߦਛ࿖ߣ⒖േవ࿖ߣߩ㗼⪺ߥ㑐ଥࠍ⛽ᜬߒ⛯ߌߚ߆ࠄߛߌߢߪ
ߥ޿‫ޕ‬㊀ⷐߥߩߪ㧘ߎߩ࿷ᄖߩ߽ߟ⒖േᕈ߿㗅ᔕᕈߪ㧘ߚߛනߦਛ࿖ੱߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣ
ߦ⇐߹ࠄߥ޿ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘‫ޟ‬Ꮢ᳃‫ߩޠ‬᭎ᔨߩᣂߒ޿ℂ⸃ࠍ߽ଦߔߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߎޕ‬㧘⃻ઍߩ࿖᳃ᕈߩ᭎ᔨ߆ࠄ㧘޽ࠆ⒟ᐲߩ࿾ℂ⊛࡮ᱧผ⊛ߥႺ⇇ࠍ᦭ߔࠆᣂߒ޿‫ޟ‬٤٤ੱᕈ‫ޠ‬ߩࠃ߁ߥ߽ߩߩ೔᧪ࠍᜰ៰ߢ߈ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ߥ߁ࠃߩߎޕ‬㧘‫ޟ‬٤٤ੱᕈ‫ࠍޠ‬ᐞ㊀ߦ߽ౝ࿷ߐߖ㧘ߘࠇࠍߘߩ႐ߦ‫ޟ‬㗅ᔕߒߥ߇ࠄ‫ޠ‬㧘‫ޟ‬ᨵエߦ‫⴫ޠ‬಴ߐߖߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ Ԛࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒߳ߩ␜ໂ ੹߹ߢߩ㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒ߪ㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻ␠ળ߳ߩኻᔕ㧘␠ળߩࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻࠍ⼏⺰ߒߡ߈ߚ‫ߡߒߘޕ‬㧘ߘߎߦ᳞߼ࠄࠇࠆᏒ᳃㧘޽ࠆ޿ߪ㧘Ꮢ᳃ᕈࠍ⼏⺰ߒߡ߈ߚ‫ޕ‬Ყ༙⊛ߦ⸒߃߫㧘‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޟ‬ᢎ⢒ߣߒߡߩᏒ᳃ᢎ⢒‫ޕ߁ࠃ߃޿ߣޠ‬Dr ONG ߩ⠨߃߆ࠄ㧘Ꮢ᳃ߩ⏕┙ߦࠃࠆ␠ળߩ᭴▽㧘ਗ߮ߦ㧘୘ߩ⛘ኻ⊛⥄↱㧔ᗲ࿖ᔃࠍ⛘ኻⷞߔࠆ⥄↱ࠍ฽߻㧕ߦ߅ߌࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻߩ᭴▽ࠍ⺒ߺขࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ޕ‬Ყ༙⊛ߦ⸒߃߫㧘‫ޟ‬Ꮢ᳃ᢎ⢒ߣߒߡߩࠣ
ࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒‫ޕ߁ࠃ߃޿ߣޠ‬ ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߣߪ㧘᭽‫ߥޘ‬࿖ኅߢᵴേߔࠆੱ‫ߩޘ‬ታᘒࠍ⺞ᩏߔࠆਛߢ⸒⺆ൻߐࠇߚ᭎ᔨߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪߣޠ࡞ࡉࠪࠠ࡟ࡈޟ߁޿ߢߎߎޕ‬㧘ߒߥ߿߆ߥ㧘Ⲣㅢߩ೑ߊ㧘㗅ᔕᕈߩ޽ࠆ㧘ߥߤߩᗧ๧ߢ޽ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘ⶄᢙߩ᭽⋧ࠍหᤨߦ‫ޟ‬૕ౝߦ‫ߎࠆ޿ߡߞ߽ޠ‬ߣ߇೨ឭߥߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ࠆߌ߅ߦࡊ࠶ࠪࡦ࠭ࠖ࠹ࠪޕ‬Ꮻዻᕈࠍ⠨߃ࠆ႐ว㧘㊀ⷐߥ᭎ᔨߣߥࠆ‫ޕ‬ߒ߆ߒߥ߇ࠄ㧘ᄢ൓࡮૕೙ߦ㗅ᔕߔࠆߣ޿߁ᗧ๧ߢߪߥߊ㧘ߘߩ႐ߘߩ႐ߩⷞ㊁(Perspective)ߢ⠨߃㧘ⴕേߢ߈ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ᧄޕ‬ᒰߦࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞ߢ޽ࠆߚ߼ߦߪ㧘ో૕߇ߺ߃ߡ޿ࠆߎߣߣ㧘㧔Ყ༙⊛ߢ޽ࠆ߇࡮࡮㧕‫ޕࠆ޽ߢߣߎࠆ޿ߡߒࠅ߆ߞߒ߇ޠࠕࠦޟ‬ ߘߩ‫ࠍޠࠕࠦޟ‬㧘ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔㧔ߦઍ⴫ߐࠇࠆવ⛔⊛ߥ࿖᳃ᢎ⢒㧕ߢߩᱧผቇ⠌ߪ㧘ᒰὼߥ߇ࠄ‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ߦޠ‬᳞߼ߡ޿ࠆߣ⸃㉼ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞ߥࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ
࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ৻ߟߩဳߣߥࠅ߁ࠆߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ߩߘޕ‬႐ว㧘‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫ޠ‬એᄖߩ᭽⋧ࠍ߽ߜ߁ࠆ
ᄙ᭽ᕈߣ㧘ߘࠇࠄࠍᨵエߦⴕ߈᧪ߢ߈ࠆᕁ⠨ࠍ଻⸽ߔࠆᔅⷐ߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ␠ળ⹺⼂ᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ᭴ᚑ ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞ߥࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ‫ޟߡߒߣޠࠕࠦޟ‬࿖᳃‫ߩޠ‬⢒ᚑࠍᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁߇⋡ᜰߔߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫␠ޕ‬ળ⑼ߦ߅ߌࠆઁಽ㊁ߢߪ㧘ઁߩ‫߇ޠࠕࠦޟ‬น⢻ߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬଀߃߫㧘࿾ℂ⊛ಽ㊁ߦ߅޿ߡ‫ޟ‬࿾ၞੱ‫ޟ߿ޠ‬࿖㓙ੱ‫ࠈ޽ߢߩࠆ޿ߡ߃ࠄߣߣޠࠕࠦޟࠍޠ‬߁߆‫ߪ޿ࠆ޽ޕ‬㧘౏᳃⊛ಽ㊁ߦ߅޿ߡฦᏫዻᕈࠍⴕ߈᧪ߔࠆࠃ߁ߥౝኈߦߥߞߡ޿ࠆߩߢ
޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬ዊቇᩞߦ߅޿ߡߪߤ߁ߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫ޕ‬㜞╬ቇᩞߢߪߤ߁ߢ޽ࠈ߁߆‫␠ޕ‬ળ⑼ࠍߪ
ߓ߼ߣߔࠆ␠ળ⹺⼂ᢎ⢒ߦ߅޿ߡߪ㧘‫ߩޠࠕࠦޟ‬Ꮕ߆ࠄࠞ࡝ࠠࡘ࡜ࡓ᭴ᚑࠍౣᬌ⸛ߔࠆᔅⷐ
߇޽ࠆߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ߚ߹ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒ߩౝኈࠍౣ᭴▽ߔࠆᚻ┙ߡߦ߽ߥࠆߩߢ޽
ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬
 ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒ߦ߅޿ߡ㧘ᄙ᭽ᕈߣኡኈߩ㊀ⷐᕈߪਥᒛߐࠇߡ߈ߚ‫ߒ߆ߒޕ‬㧘ߘࠇࠍߟߥ޿ߢ޿ߊ㑐ଥᕈࠍⷞ㊁ߦ౉ࠇߥߌࠇ߫ᄙ᭽ᕈߣኡኈߩᗧ๧ߪඨᷫߔࠆ‫ޕ‬෶㧘⃻ታ⊛ߢߥߊߥࠆ‫ੱޕ‬㑆ߪ᭽‫ߥޘ‬㑐ଥߩਛߢ↢߈ࠆ␠ળ⊛ሽ࿷ߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁⠨߃ᣇࠍ㊀ⷞߔࠆᔅⷐ߇
޽ࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬㑐ଥߩਛߩ㧘૗ߦ㧘ߤࠇߋࠄ޿㊀߈ࠍ⟎ߊ߆ߦࠃࠅ㧘ߘߩੱߩߘߩᤨὐߢߩࠕ
ࠗ࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖ߇↢߹ࠇࠆ‫ޕ‬ᄙ᭽ߥ᭽⋧ߪ୘ੱౝߢߪ㧘ᩮᐩߢ❬߇ߞߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ࠆߴ߈ߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ࠍࠇߘޕ‬㧘೎୘ߩ߽ߩߣ⠨߃ߚࠅ㧘ኻ┙᭎ᔨߣߺߥߔߣ㧘଀߃߫㧘‫ޟ‬࿖᳃‫߆ޠ‬ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ߆ߣ޿߁ᛯ৻⊛ߥ⁁ᘒࠍ↢ߺ಴ߔ‫ޕ‬૗ߦ㊀߈ࠍ⟎ߊ߆ߪ⇣ߥࠆ߇㧘ੱ㑆ߩᜬߟᄙ᭽ߥ㑐ଥᕈࠍᢿߜಾߞߡ޿ߊὐߢߪ౒ㅢߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ੱޕ‬㑆␠ળߩ㑐ଥࠍߺ㧘⠨߃ߡ޿ߊߎߣߢ㧘ᷓ޿␠ળ⹺⼂ࠍㅢߒߡ㧘୘ੱౝߦᄙ᭽ߥ㑐ଥ㑆ߩᜟ᛫⁁ᘒࠍߟߊࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫ߩߎޕ‬ᜟ᛫⁁ᘒߢࠕࠗ࠺ࡦ࠹ࠖ࠹ࠖߪஜోߦ଻ᜬߐࠇࠆ‫ߩߘޕ‬ᜟ᛫⁁ᘒࠍᔅⷐߦᔕߓߡᄌൻߐߖࠆߩ߇ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞ߢ޽ࠆߣ޿߁ߎߣߢ޽ࠈ߁‫ޕ‬ᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔␠ળ⑼ᱧผ⊛ಽ㊁ߦ߅ߌࠆࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈ ࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞ߥࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ⢒ᚑߩⷞὐߦ߅޿ߡ㊀ⷐߥߩߪ㧘‫ޟ‬ᣣᧄߣ
਎⇇‫߁޿ߣޠ‬໧㗴㧔‫ޟ‬ᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผߩ⢛᥊ߣߥࠆ਎⇇ߩᱧผߩలታ‫ޠ‬㧕ࠃࠅ߽㧘‫ޟ‬ᱧผߩߣࠄ
߃ᣇ‫ߣޠ‬ᚲ⻐ᣣᧄߩᱧผߩㅢผ⊛᭴ᚑㇱಽߣ޿߁ੑర⺰ࠍᣂᜰዉⷐ㗔߇ណ↪ߒߡ޿ࠆߎߣ
ࠍ⹏ଔߔࠆߎߣߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬‫ޟ‬ᱧผߩߣࠄ߃ᣇ‫ߩޠ‬ਛߦ㧘ᰴߩࠃ߁ߥਛ㗄⋡߇޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬




㧔ౝኈ㧕
ࠗ りㄭߥ࿾ၞߩᱧผࠍ⺞ߴࠆᵴേࠍㅢߒߡ㧘࿾ၞ߳ߩ㑐ᔃࠍ㜞߼࿾ၞߩౕ૕⊛ߥ੐ᨩߣߩ߆߆ࠊࠅߩਛߢᚒ߇࿖ߩᱧผࠍℂ⸃ߐߖࠆߣߣ߽ߦ㧘ฃߌ⛮߇ࠇߡ߈ߚવ⛔߿ᢥൻ߳ߩ
㑐ᔃࠍ㜞߼㧘ᱧผߩቇ߮ᣇࠍりߦઃߌߐߖࠆ‫ޕ‬㧔ౝኈߩขᛒ޿㧕ࠗ ࠗߦߟ޿ߡߪ㧘ౝኈߩ(2) એਅߣ߆߆ࠊࠄߖߡ⸘↹⊛ߦታᣉߒ㧘࿾ၞߩ․ᕈߦᔕߓߚᤨ
ઍࠍขࠅ਄ߍࠆࠃ߁ߦߔࠆߣߣ߽ߦ㧘ੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴ߿↢ᵴߦᩮߑߒߚવ⛔߿ᢥൻߦ⌕⋡ߒߚขᛒ޿ࠍᎿᄦߔࠆߎߣ‫ߩߘޕ‬㓙㧘ඳ‛㙚㧘ㇹ࿯⾗ᢱ㙚ߥߤߩᣉ⸳ߩᵴ↪߿࿾ၞߩੱ‫ߩޘ‬දജ߽⠨ᘦߔࠆߎߣ‫ޕ‬ ․ߦ㧘ฃߌ⛮߇ࠇߡ߈ߚવ⛔߿ᢥൻ߳ߩ㑐ᔃࠍ㧘࿾ၞߩౕ૕⊛ߥ੐ᨩߦ߅ߌࠆቇ⠌ߣ㑐ㅪߐߖࠃ߁ߣ޿߁ߎߣࠍ⺒ߺߣࠆߎߣ߇ߢ߈ࠆ‫੹ޕ‬࿁ߩᡷ⸓ߩⷐὐߩࠛ‫ޟ‬᭽‫ߥޘ‬વ⛔߿ᢥൻߩቇ⠌ߩ㊀ⷞ‫ߦ߁ࠃࠆ޽ߦޠ‬㧘㧔ᷓ⺒ߺߢ޽ࠈ߁߇࡮࡮࡮㧕ࠊߑࠊߑᢎ⢒ၮᧄᴺߦߪઃ޿ߡ޿ߥ޿‫ޟ‬᭽‫߁޿ߣޠߥޘ‬ᢥ⸒ࠍߟߌߡ޿ࠆ‫ߚ߹ޕ‬㧘ੱ‫↢ߩޘ‬ᵴ߿↢ᵴߦᩮߑߒߚᢥൻߣ
޿߁ᢥ⸒߽޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ ߎߩ‫ޟ‬᭽‫⊒ߩޠߥޘ‬ᗐࠍ㧘࿾ၞߩᱧผߣᣣᧄߩᱧผߩㅢผ⊛᭴ᚑߣߦ↢߆ߔߎߣ߇ߢ߈
ࠇ߫㧘ᱧผߩᄙ᭽ᕈࠍ଻⸽ߔࠆߎߣߦߟߥ߇ࠆ‫ߪࠇߘޕ‬㧘න⺞ߥ‫ޟ‬વ⛔ߣᢥൻ‫߁޿ߣޠ‬ᐛᗐߦᡰ㈩ߐࠇߥ޿⃻ታ߆ࠄߩࠕࡊࡠ࡯࠴ߦߥߞߡ޿ߊߩߢߪߥ޿߆‫ߒߛߚޕ‬㧘ᱞ㆏߿⨥㆏㧘⪇㆏ߥߤߩ㧘ᣣᧄߩ‫ޟ‬વ⛔ߣᢥൻ‫ߣߛޠ‬ᐢߊ⹺⼂ߐࠇߡ޿ࠆ߽ߩࠍุቯߔࠆߩߢߪߥ޿‫ޕ‬ߘࠇࠍ㧘one of them ߣᝒ߃ࠄࠇࠆᕁ⠨ߩ㊀ⷐᕈࠍਥᒛߒߡ޿ࠆߩߢ޽ࠆ‫࡮࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޕ‬ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊ⢒ᚑߩน⢻ᕈ߆ࠄ㧘࿾ၞߩᱧผߩቇ⠌ߪ㧘㊀ⷐߥᗧ๧ࠍᜬߟߣ⠨߃ࠆ‫ޕ‬ާෳ⠨ᢥ₂ި

Dr. Aihwa ONG ߩઍ⴫⊛⪺૞㧔1.න⪺㧘2.✬⪺㧘3.⪺ᦠಽᜂၫ╩㧘4.⺰ᢥ㧕
1.-(1) Aihwa ONG, SPIRITS OF RESISTANCE AND CAPITALIST DISCIPLINE
Factory Women in Malaysia     #$ *[\]
1.-(2) Aihwa ONG, FLEXIBLE CITIZENSHIP The Cultural Logics ofTransnationality^_* [\]]] 㧔࠼ࠗ࠷⺆⸶᦭㧕
1.-(3) Aihwa ONG, BUDDHA IS HIDING Refugees, citizenship, the new America
University of California Press, 2003.㧔ࠗ࠲࡝ࠕ⺆⸶᦭㧕
1.-(4) NEOLIBERALISM AS EXCEPTION Mutations
Sovereignty, Duke University Press, 2006.



in

Citizenshipand2.-(1) Aihwa ONG and Michael G. PELETZ, editied, BEWITCHING WOMEN, PIOUS
MEN Gender and Body Politics in Southeast Asia    `{ 
Press, 1995.
2.-(2) Aihwa ONG and Donald NONINI, editied, UNGROUNDED EMPIRES The
Cultural Politics of Modern Chinese Transnationalism| _ {}\]]
2.-(3) Aihwa ONG and Stephen J. COLLOER editied, GLOBAL ASSEMBLAGESTechnology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems {*#{{Publishing, 2005.
3.-(1) Modernity, Anthropological Aspects. in International Encyclopedia of the Social
and Behavioral Sciences, vol.15, editied by Smelser and Paul B. Baltes, Oxford:
Pergamon, 2001, pp.9944- 9949.
3.-(2) "Higher Learning: Educational Availability and Flexible Citizenship in Global
Space" in Diversity and Citizenship Education, edited by James A. Banks, Wiley,
2003, pp.49-
4.-(1) "Muslim Feminists in the Shelter of Corporate Islam" Citizenship Studies 3(3),
1999,pp.355-\
4.-(2) "Graduated Sovereignty in Southeast Asia" Theory, Culture, and Society\   -
4.-(3) "Cyberpublics and Diaspora Politics among Transnational Chinese", Interventions
5 (1), 2003, pp.82- 100.
4.-(4) "The Chinese Axis: Zoning Technologies and Variegated Sovereignty" Journal of
East Asian Studies 4, 2004, pp.69-96.
4.-(5) "Experiments with Freedom: Milieus of the Human" American Literary History,2006.
 1.-(2) ߪ 㧘 2000 ᐕ 㧘 ࠕ ࡔ ࡝ ࠞ ᳃ ᣖ ቇ ળ ⾨ Senior Prize, American Ethnological

Association ࠍ㧘ߘߒߡ㧘2001 ᐕ㧘ࠕࠫࠕ♽ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞੱ⎇ⓥቇળࠞ࡞࠴ࡘ࡜࡞࡮ࠬ࠲࠺ࠖ
࡯࠭⾨ࠍฃ⾨ Winner of the Association for Asian American Studies Cultural Studies
Book Award ߒߡ޿ࠆ‫ޕ‬
 3.-(2) ߪ㧘⥄り߇ឭ⿠ߒߚ᭎ᔨߢ޽ࠆࡈ࡟ࠠࠪࡉ࡞࡮ࠪ࠹ࠖ࠭ࡦࠪ࠶ࡊߩ⢒ᚑߣᢎ⢒ߦ߅ߌࠆ᦭ലᕈࠍ⺰ߓߚ߽ߩߢ޽ࠆ‫ޕ‬ާAihwa ONG ⪺એᄖߩਥⷐෳ⠨ᢥ₂ި

࡮NCSS, NCSS Position Statement on Global Education. Social Education㧘Vol. 46,
No.1, 1982, pp. 36-.

࡮Michael WALZER, What It Means To Be An American, Marsilio Editori S.P.A., 1992.
㧔ࡑࠗࠤ࡞࡮࠙ࠜ࡞࠷ࠔ࡯⪺㧘ฎ⨃↰ብ⸶‫ޡ‬Minerva ᱧผ࡮ᢥൻ࡜ࠗࡉ࡜࡝࡯㧣 ࠕࡔ࡝ࠞੱߢ޽ࠆߣߪߤ߁޿߁ߎߣ߆̆ᱧผ⊛⥄Ꮖ⋭ኤߩ⹜ߺ̆‫ᦠࠔࡧ࡞ࡀࡒޢ‬ᚱ㧘

2006.㧕࡮Walter C. PARKER, TEACHING DEMOCRACY: Unity and Diversity in Public Life,
Teachers College Press, 2003.
࡮James A. BANKS(edited.),DIVERSITY AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION: Global
Perspectives, Jossey-Bass A Wiley Imprint, 2004.
࡮James A. BANKS and others, DEMOCRACY AND DIVERSITY Principles andConcepts for Educating Citizens in a Global Age `nter for Multicultural
Education, College of Education, University of Washington, 2005.
㧔ࠫࠚ࡯ࡓ࠭࡮㧭࡮ࡃࡦࠢࠬઁ⪺㧘ᐔᴛ቟᡽⸶‫ޡ‬᣿⍹࡜ࠗࡉ࡜࡝࡯ ᳃ਥਥ⟵ߣᄙᢥൻ ᢎ⢒̆ࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ൻᤨઍߦ߅ߌࠆᏒ᳃ᕈᢎ⢒ߩߚ߼ߩේೣߣ᭎ᔨ̆‫ޢ‬᣿⍹ᦠᐫ㧘

2005㧚
㧕
࡮㝼૑ᔘਭ‫ޟ‬21 ਎♿࿾⃿␠ળߩน⢻ᕈߣࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒‫ޠ‬‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޡ‬ᢎ⢒‫ޢ‬ഃೀภ㧘1998
ᐕ㧘pp. 6㨪21.࡮ਃᶆァਃ‫☨ޡ‬࿖ߩ౏᳃⢒ᚑ⎇ⓥ‫᧲ޢ‬ᵗ㙚಴ 㧘2004 ᐕ.
࡮ᣣᧄࠣࡠ࡯ࡃ࡞ᢎ⢒ቇળ✬‫࡞ࡃ࡯ࡠࠣޡ‬ᢎ⢒ߩℂ⺰ߣታ〣‫ޢ‬ᢎ⢒㐿⊒⎇ⓥᚲ㧘 ᐕ.



“Global Citizenship” and the “International Education” Movement:
A Case Study of U.S. Schools Today*

Walter C. Parker, University of Washington
Paper presented at Kobe University, November 2008

Abstract
Terms such as “global citizenship,” “world citizen,” and “education for our new global
economy” are used with frequency today. This study examines the new “international education”
movement in U.S. public schools. Increasingly, U.S. public schools are adopting “international
education.” I asked “What is it?” and found a jumble of meanings and programs. Contradictory
forces, such as nationalism and cosmopolitanism, are at play.
I. Introduction
Not far from my home in Seattle is a public elementary school that closed for a thoroughremodeling and re-opened amid fanfare with “international” in its new name and dual language
immersion as its focus. Several years later, the middle school nearby added “international” to its
name, too, with “global perspective” as its focus. Across town, a distressed high school was
divided into small schools, and one of them became the “global studies academy.” Two othercity high schools have added the International Baccalaureate.
These are not unusual events, which is my first point. A new “international education”
movement—actually a new wave of an old movement—is underway across the United States. It
consists of newly internationalized public schools along with state coalitions for international
education, an annual International Education Week co-sponsored by the U.S. Departments ofState and Education, an array of language initiatives, the Goldman Sachs Foundation’s awards
for exemplary “international” schools, and more. Phrases like “the global economy,” “ourincreasingly interconnected world,” and “global citizens” roll off many tongues. Audiences nod
their heads knowingly. Indeed, “international education” is the new common sense.1*A short version of this paper appears in the journal Phi Delta Kappan (November 2009).
1

See Clifford Geertz, “Common sense as a cultural system,” in C. Geertz (Ed.), Local knowledge (pp. 73-93) (New York:
Basic Books, 1983).

But what does it mean? What forms is it taking, and what work is it doing? This is myquestion. I have studied the current wave from three angles: observing a handful of publicschools that have transformed themselves into “international” schools, interviewing movement
activists who are helping to shape them, and examining government and foundation initiatives.2
Before proceeding, I should clarify two things. First, this study is a continuation of myinterest in democratic citizenship education. I am wanting to know if the “international
education” movement has any connection to citizenship education—if, for example, the rhetoricof “global citizenship” has any real meaning in the movement.
Second, I should clarify that the “international education” is nothing new. The current
commotion is the latest instance of a perennial concern in education. Just since World War II
there have been at least two waves of activity in the U.S.—today’s and another that began in the
1960s. Before that, between the two world wars, was a surge of activity centered on the World
Conference on Education in Geneva in 1929; and still earlier, in 1893, was the International
Education Congress of the Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Indeed, there is a sizeable
literature—documentary, analytic, and historical—on “international education,” and one canonly conclude that it has concerned educators and government officials for as long as there havebeen nations and their schools. 3
II. National Security
National security appears to be the main engine of today’s international education
movement in the U.S. It is the movement’s strong discourse. Discourse is language-in-use, or2Methodological note: I captured a three-pronged sample of the current movement, certainly not its entirety.
Discourse and frame analysis were the principal analytic tools: In each instance of “international education”
examined in my samples of schools, activists, and media, I searched for problem frames, solution frames, andmotivational (urgency) frames, and I deployed four methodological resources: A. Binder, Contentious curricula(Princeton University Press, 2002); R. Eyerman and A. Jamison, Social movements: A cognitive approach(University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991); M. Foucault, The order of things: an archeology ofthe human sciences (New York: Vintage, 1970); and R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse
analysis (London: Sage, 2001). My thanks to Susan Mosborg and Steven Camicia for their able assistance.
3
See these examples: L. F. Anderson, “An examination of the structure and objectives of international education,”
Social Education, 35(7), 1968, pp. 639-652; J. M. Becker, An examination of goals, needs, and priorities ininternational education in U.S. secondary and elementary schools (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969); R. Case, “Key elements of a global perspective,” Social Education, 57(6), 1993, pp.
318-325; D. G. Scanlon, “Pioneers of international education, 1817 to 1914,” Teachers College Record, 60(4), 1959,
pp. 209-219; R. Sylvester, “Mapping international education: a historical survey 1893-1944,” Journal of Research inInternational Education, 1(1), 2002, pp. 91-125; and B. B. Tye & K. A. Tye, Global education: a study of school
change (State University of New York Press, 1992). Of course, any demarcation of “waves,” like other attempts toperiodize history, is an interpretive act over which there is much disagreement.

working language. It refers to the way language rules operate in relation to social circumstancesand structures. Language has effects—it gets things done. It doesn’t simply convey meanings; itmakes meanings, reinforcing some and discarding others. A “strong” discourse drowns out its
competitors, pushing aside other ways of speaking, listening, being heard, and making sense. In a
hospital, medicine is the strong discourse. Whether you’re a patient, nurse, physician, or visitor,
it is medicine’s vocabulary, conceptual apparatus, view of the world, and way of behaving thatlord over the scene. Someone who introduces shamanism, witchcraft, or faith healing won’t get
far. Similarly, in a mental hospital, the strong discourse is psychiatry; in a temple of worship, it isfaith and theism; in a corporation it is growth and the bottom line.
To those who assumed that world mindedness, global citizenship, intercultural
understanding, or something of that sort was driving the movement, this may come as a surprise.
Today’s wave is dominated by nationalism.4
International education as a national security discourse has two key dimensions:
economic and military. The economic way to secure the nation is to improve the nation’s
economic competitiveness with other nations — maintaining it or regaining it if it already has
been lost. The military way is to strengthen the nation’s armed forces, including its intelligencecommunities.

II – A. Economic Security
U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings makes the economic argument forinternational education. “Through the No Child Left Behind Act, we are committed to having
every child in the United States learn and succeed in our global economy. . . .”5 She links school
reform directly to success in today’s world and defines that success in economic terms; school
reform is a technology for accomplishing that goal.
The link is also expressed in a burgeoning number of state reports. For example,
according to North Carolina in the World: Increasing Student Knowledge and Skills About theWorld, “Improving international education is about providing students the best opportunity forsuccess in the emerging workforce.”6 Similarly, the Asia Society’s annual conference “brings
4
5“International Education Week 2005 Announced,” http://usinfo.state.gov/scv/Archive/2005/Nov/09-19221.html.
North Carolina in the World, North Carolina in the World: Increasing Student Knowledge and Skills About theWorld (Raleigh: Center for International Understanding, 2005).
6together high-level delegates from two dozen states. . . to address a significant problem in
American education: the wide gap between the growing economic and strategic importance ofAsia and other world regions to the United States, and U.S. students' limited knowledge about
the world outside our borders.”7
In each of these, international education is positioned to address a key problem posed by
globalization: the defense of the nation’s competitive edge in the new “flat” worldwide economyof the 21st century.8 Schools are seen as the solution. Only they can produce the “enterprisingindividuals” who will be successful in this flat new world.9 This is the calculus of neoliberalism(free-market fundamentalism), with its strategies of privatization, entrepreneurship, and freetrade agreements.10 Without it America will lose its edge to Dublin, Beijing, or Bangalore; or if
lost already, never regain it.
This is plainly put in the influential report from the National Academies of Science,
Engineering, and Medicine, urgently titled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and
Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. This excerpt frames the problem(competition in a flat world) and the urgency (impending loss of leadership) of finding asolution:Thanks to globalization, driven by modern communications and other advances, workers
in virtually every sector must now face competitors who live just a mouse-click away in
Ireland, Finland, China, India, or dozens of other nations whose economies are growing.
This has been aptly referred to as ‘the Death of Distance.’ . . . The committee is deeply
concerned that the scientific and technological building blocks critical to our economic
leadership are eroding at a time when many other nations are gathering strength. . . .
Although many people assume that the United States will always be a world leader inscience and technology, this may not continue to be the case inasmuch as great minds andideas exist throughout the world. We fear the abruptness with which a lead in science and7

www.internationaled.org/statesinstitute.htm.
Thomas L. Friedman, The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century (New York: Farrar, Straus andGiroux, 2005).
9
Brian J. Caldwell, “The New Enterprise Logic of Schools,” Phi Delta Kappan, November 2005, pp. 223-25.
10David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005).
8technology can be lost — and the difficulty of recovering a lead once lost, if indeed it canbe regained at all.11

Gathering Storm then moves to solutions. The first among four is K-12 education:“Enlarge the pipeline of students who are prepared to enter college and graduate with a degree inscience, engineering, or mathematics by increasing the number of students who pass AP(Advanced Placement) and IB (International Baccalaureate) science and mathematics courses.”12

II – B. Military Security
The military dimension to the national security argument is framed as a communication
problem: we don’t know our new enemies’ languages.
In 2003, Rep. Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) expressed this in the National Security
Language Act: “We need to do more to make sure that America has the language professionals
necessary to defend our national security. . . . Changing our (armed forces) recruiting methods
alone will not solve the problem. To meet new security needs, we need to create a new domesticpool of foreign language experts and we can only do that by investing in the classroom. . . inforeign languages of critical need, such as Arabic, Persian, Korean, Pashto, and Chinese.” Later
came Congressional Resolution No. 100 of 2005, which urged the U.S. to “establish aninternational education policy” that would “promote a world free of terrorism, further UnitedStates foreign policy and national security, and enhance [U.S.] leadership in the world.’ ”
In 2006, President George W. Bush himself introduced the National Security Language
Initiative, which would provide $114 million for the “teaching of language for national security
and global competitiveness.”13 In his speech, the President laid out a combined front for the “waron terror” composed of a language-proficient military, language-proficient intelligence network,and language-proficient diplomatic corps that are able to “convince governments” in their own
language, and a language-proficient American people who, all together, can participate withgreater effect in “spreading freedom.”

11

Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Rising Above the Gathering Storm:
Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (Executive Summary) (Washington, D.C.:
National Academies Press, 2007), pp. 1-3, www.nap.edu.
12
Ibid., p. 6.
13
www.state.gov/r/summit/.

So, at least two national security arguments are at play in the current international
education movement. Both are urgent — one with economic threat, one with military threat —and they overlap.

III. “Schools Are Broken”
The popular belief that the school system is broken also fuels the international education
movement. This is a discourse of derision, and it tirelessly broadcasts the claim that publicschools are failing to educate students for life in the new flat world.
The national security and school failure discourses are connected. Consider this statementfrom Operation Public Education, a reform project geared to “transforming America’s schools”
so as to respond to “the challenge of human capital development” in the intensely competitive“level playing field of the global economy.”14

Terrorism and the war in Iraq are high on the list of the nation’s concerns, but the greatest
danger facing America is, as (former IBM chairman) Louis Gerstner recognized, thechallenge of human capital development. Our nation’s public schools, the foundation forthis effort, are still failing far too many of our children despite an investment of some$500 billion annually.15

The author, an advisor to the Secretary of Education, continues by reminding readers that “sadly,
we’ve known about this threat for quite some time.” His reference point is the 1983 report A
Nation at Risk, which claimed that the “mediocrity” of our schools was so profound that had it
been imposed by “an unfriendly foreign power, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”16This is an urgent crisis-and-salvation narrative. The crisis story is that schools are failingmiserably to educate students for the new world order. The salvation story is that only schools
can rescue the nation. It is a simple formula: schools caused the crisis and schools can solve it.
There is no small amount of magical thinking in the claim that schools can save society,since schools themselves are embedded in society. Schools are not autonomous agents outside
14
Theodore Hershberg, “Value-Added Assessment and Systemic Reform: A Response to the Challenge of Human
Capital Development,” Phi Delta Kappan, December 2005, pp. 276-83.
15
Ibid., p. 276.
16
National Commission on Excellence in Education, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform(Washington, D.C., 1983), p. 1.

the fray, steering society in this or that direction. They are more its caboose than its engine.
Lawrence Cremin, the historian of American education, observed that this formula — he called ita “device” — has been used repeatedly across the nearly two centuries of our education system.
It was used by proponents of vocational education in the early years of the 20th century, by the
post-Sputnik proponents of math and science education in the 1950s, in the 1980s by A Nation at
Risk, and now, apparently, by the international education movement. “To contend that problems
of international competitiveness can be solved by educational reform,” Cremin wrote,“especially educational reform defined solely as school reform, is not merely utopian andmillennialist, it is at best a foolish and at worst a crass effort to direct attention away from thosetruly responsible for doing something about competitiveness.”17

IV. Marginal Voices
While the strong discourses of national security and school failure may together dominate
the movement, they don’t push other meanings and programs clear off the curriculum planningtable. At the edges of that table, and closer to the ground of school practice, are otherinterpretations of both the problem and the solution. I found three. One, global perspective, gives
international education a transnational cultural meaning; another, cosmopolitanism, gives it atransnational political meaning; a third, student body, gives it a cultural meaning again, but in a
decidedly local, student-centered way.

IV – A. Global Perspective
The first of these emerged in the 1960s during an earlier wave of excitement about
international education. In 1965, Congress passed the International Education Act. In 1969, theU.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published an influential report that called fordeveloping the capacity of students “to view the world system as a whole,” to comprehend “theinterrelatedness of the human species qua species,” and to think in ways that are “free from theinfluence of ethnocentric perceptions.”18

17

Lawrence A. Cremin, Popular Education and Its Discontents (New York: HarperCollins, 1990), p. 103.
James M. Becker, An Examination of the Goals, Needs, and Priorities in International Education in U.S.
Secondary and Elementary Schools (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1969),
pp. 268, 271.
18

The wave’s high-water mark came in 1978 with the publication of Robert Hanvey’s An
Attainable Global Perspective, which argued for a transition from “pre-global” to “global
consciousness.” That meant understanding that we live in an interconnected world anddeveloping what Hanvey called “perspective consciousness.” Hanvey suggested that students
needed to learn about political, ecological, economic, and cultural connections by studying
problems that cut across national boundaries. “Perspective consciousness” was “the awarenesson the part of the individual that he or she has a view of the world that is not universally shared,that this view of the world has been and continues to be shaped by influences that often escapeconscious detection, and that others have views of the world that are profoundly different fromone's own.”19
The Reagan administration dealt a direct blow to this era of international education in the
1980s, a decade that saw fierce contests over the meaning of “international” and “global” inschools. A 1986 U.S. Department of Education report, “Blowing the Whistle on Global
Education,” accused the movement of pacifism, anti-capitalism, and capitulation to foreign
enemies.20
The discourse of global perspective has resurfaced into today’s movement as a re-scalingof “multicultural education” from the nation to the globe. Knowledge, recognition, and respectfor diverse cultures are taken out of the national container and extended to peoples everywhere.
This approach wants to tackle the cultural provincialism and exceptionalism of American society
along with high school graduates’ slim knowledge of the world.
Here is an example of how this discourse shows up in today’s movement. Teachers at one
new public “international” middle school embrace “global perspective” as the school mission.
On the school’s web site, they display their objectives. Both perspective consciousness and theinterconnectedness of the world system are evident:

1. Global Challenges: Examine and evaluate global issues, problems, and challenges(e.g., students understand that global issues and challenges are interrelated,complex, and changing, and that most issues have a global dimension).

19

Robert G. Hanvey, An Attainable Global Perspective (New York: Center for Global Perspectives, 1978), p. 5.
Gregg L. Cunningham, Blowing the Whistle on Global Education (Denver: Regional Office, United States
Department of Education, 1986).

20



2. Culture and World Areas: Study human differences and commonalities (e.g., students
understand that members of different cultures view the world in different ways).
3. Global Connections: Analyze the connections between the United States and the world(e.g., students can describe how they are connected with the world historically,
politically, economically, technologically, socially, linguistically, andecologically).

IV – B. Cosmopolitanism
Another marginal discourse for international education boldly shifts territory to global
citizenship and, in so doing, raises questions about loyalty and identity.
In contrast to putting the nation first, cosmopolitanism puts humanity and Earth first. In abrief essay that has drawn wide attention, University of Chicago ethicist Martha Nussbaum
proposes a cosmopolitan education for students in American schools. She wants to transform
civic education so that children are taught not that they are, above all, citizens of the UnitedStates and stewards of its interests, but that “they are, above all, citizens of a world of humanbeings.”21
To identify oneself as a citizen of the world breaks the old habit of loyalty to a nation andbeing defined primarily or solely by local origins and membership. That frees us, she argues(quoting Seneca), to dwell instead “in two communities — the local community of our birth andthe community of human argument and aspiration that ‘is truly great and truly common, in which
we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our nation by the sun.’”22
If the global perspective approach to international education takes cultural education
beyond the national container, cosmopolitanism does the same for political education. It tackles
not only the problems of American provincialism and exceptionalism, but also nationalism.
World citizenship, after all, is more a political than a cultural concept. In most states, students are
required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance (to the nation, of course). The cosmopolitan schoolboard member will ask why students aren’t pledging allegiance to the larger civic community:
the human family. One school may express this by quietly dropping the morning pledge ritual;
21

Martha C. Nussbaum, For Love of Country? (Boston: Beacon, 2002), p. 6. See also Joel Spring’s cosmopolitan
proposal in A New Paradigm for Global School Systems: Education for a Long and Happy Life (Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2007); and the study by Katharyne Mitchell and Walter C. Parker, “I Pledge Allegiance To. . . :Flexible Citizenship and Shifting Scales of Belonging,” Teachers College Record, 2008, pp. 775-804.
22
Ibid., p. 7.

another by adding a second, cosmopolitan pledge; another by stronger forms of environmental
education, teaching a course on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or introducing
students to the International Red Cross curriculum on international humanitarian law.

IV – C. International Student Body
A third marginal approach returns the meaning of international education to culture but,in contrast to the global perspective, focuses squarely on the cultural composition of the school’s
student body. Some public “international” high schools serving high-need students in resourcestarved urban areas have created a form of international education built on the demographic
tapestry of the student body. Immigrant students, some of them refugees, add a new kind ofdiversity to the schools’ already diverse populations. School leaders creatively seize theopportunity and claim theirs are international schools because they have an international student
body.
Culture fairs showcase students’ home cultures. English language learning is advanced asa central mission of the school and is, in effect, reframed as international education. The stresses
on such schools — financial, the discourse of school failure, institutional racism — contribute tothis reframing. “International education” can be deployed to mobilize new resources and media
attention and, as one parent activist told me, “to attract market share back to the public schools.”
The main emphasis of the approach, as a district superintendent said, “is making students
and teachers aware of the diversity within their midst and finding ways to help them value thatand trace that to wherever it originated.” He continued:

Being a magnet for so many different kids to come together seems to me to be anadvantage. . . . You can’t avoid it. The kids are going to experience it on the playground,they’re going to experience it in the classroom, in the lunchroom, on the bus. They’regoing to see kids who are different from them. It becomes almost a way of living. Even
though kids may never leave this city, the world has come to them.23

V. Conclusion: A Solution on the Loose
23

Walter C. Parker and Stephen P. Camicia, “The New ‘International Education’ Movement in U.S. Schools: Civic
and Capital Intents, Local and Global Affinities.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York, April 2008.

International education today is a broad movement containing, even in my limited study,
a disparate mix of meanings and motives. It is being deployed to bolster the nation’s economic
and military defenses, to liberate multiculturalism from its national container, to promote world
citizenship, and, in some urban schools, to take advantage of a vibrant immigrant population.
These are a handful of the alternatives curriculum planners will encounter when they consider
how to “internationalize” school programs. The first two add up to a national security discourse,which is backed by no less than the federal government, major foundations, the National
Academies, and the popular belief that the school system is broken. The other three aim in
different directions and are peripheral by virtue of lacking this kind of institutional power toadvance their goals. I have painted these five only in the broadest strokes, and no doubt there are
more.

Table 1
Some strong and weak meanings of “International Education” in U.S. schools today•

economic competitiveness: “International” education will revitalize the school system while ensuringthat the U.S. will retain (or if already lost, regain) its competitive edge in the new “flat” global
economy. Science and math are priorities.

•

military readiness: Teaching strategic languages in schools, K-12, will “make sure that America has
the language professionals necessary to defend our national security” (National Security Language
Act, 2003). Mandarin and Arabic are priorities.

•

global perspective: Rather than only knowing and respecting diversity within our nation, students
should know and respect the multitude of cultures on Earth. Multiculturalism is re-scaled from thenation to the globe, and some attention is paid to global connections and systems.

•

cosmopolitanism: It is time to shift students’ primary allegiance and locus of concern from the nation
to the human family and Earth—from national citizen to global citizen. Some versions trumpet“multiple identities” (national, ethnic, and global), others shift fully to global humanity.

•

student body: Immigration is putting the world in the classrooms, hallways, cafeteria, and playground.
Seizing the opportunity, an “international” school is formed on the basis of its “international” student
body. The cultural and linguistic diversity of students is prioritized.

The multiple discourses at play under the name “international education,” some powerful,some weak, provide educators with a golden opportunity: to decide how best to prepare children
and youth for a changing world. They can spread out the alternatives, weigh them against one
another, and determine which one or two, or some hybrid, shall stand as “international
education.”Deeply held values are woven into each of the alternatives, including conflicting
understandings of patriotism and competing visions of what schools are for. Disagreement isinevitable. Voting against House Bill 266 in Utah, which would have provided more funding for
the IB program in Utah’s schools, Sen. Margaret Dayton said she is “opposed to the antiAmerican philosophy that’s somehow woven into all the classes as they promote the U.N.
agenda.” Aligning herself with the first of the two national security discourses and clearly
against cosmopolitanism, she clarified: “I would like to have American citizens who know how
to function in a global economy, not global citizens.”24 Sen. Dayton’s antipathy to IB is in stark
contrast to the National Academies’ support for it, but both operate within the strong discourse of
economic competitiveness.
Is “international education” anchored somewhere? The short answer, looking through thewindow opened here, is “no.” It would be an oversimplification to assert that international
education In the United States today is nothing but a continuation of national defense education
under a misleading name. It is partly and strongly that, to be sure, but more accurate is to portraythe movement as plural and discordant. There are multiple meanings and practices underwritten
by multiple ideologies, and there is plenty of hype. International education in U.S. schools today
is a solution on the loose; it solves a variety of problems, serves an array of masters, andexpresses diverse and often conflicting values. There is no coherence to the movement, only anillusion conjured by the common use of a name.
That nationalism plays a starring role really shouldn’t surprise readers who, like me, were
expecting the movement’s centerpiece to be something different. As historians have madeabundantly clear, public schools everywhere have routinely served national purposes.25 In anation’s early years, the school system typically is devoted to developing a national community
unified by common beliefs and customs. Later, the system turns to reproducing these in
subsequent generations and making adjustments that are deemed necessary. International
education is caught up in this pattern. As economist Kenneth Boulding observed during thatearlier 1960s wave, the challenge is to24

Quoted in Ben Fulton, “Worldly Program Gets Avid Support,” Salt Lake Tribune, 23 February 2008, pp. A1, A6.
Andy Green, Education and State Formation: The Rise of Education Systems in England, France and the USA(London: Macmillan, 1990).
25develop an image of the world system which is at the same time realistic and also notthreatening to the folk cultures within which the school systems are embedded; for if
educators do not find a palatable formula, the ‘folk’ will revolt and seek to divert formal
education once again into traditional channels.26

Because my sample of schools, activists, and media was limited and not random, thefindings reported here cannot be generalized to the entirety of the current “international
education” movement in U.S. schools. My interest was to find and clarify a set of actuallyexisting alternatives in hopes of expanding the universe of possibilities that educators might
consider when deciding what curricular action to take. Only with some clarity about the various
and at times conflicting aims of so-called “international education” can they hope to make wise
curriculum decisions. Ultimately, my purpose here was to create space for thinking seriously
about how education about the world is proceeding, and might otherwise proceed, in the publicschools of the U.S. and other nations. Must citizenship education be forever tied to the nationstate? Can it be re-scaled to the world? These are my closing questions.

Walter C. Parker is Professor of Education and Adjunct Professor of Political Science at the
University of Washington. His books include Renewing the Social Studies Curriculum (ASCD,
1991), Educating the Democratic Mind (State University of New York Press, 1996), Education
for Democracy (Information Age, 2002), Teaching Democracy (Teachers College Press, 2003)
and Social Studies in Elementary Education 13th ed. (Allyn & Bacon, 2009). Forthcoming from
Routledge is Social Studies Today: Research and Practice.

26

Kenneth Boulding, “Education for Spaceship Earth,” Social Education, November 1968, p. 650.



Developing Citizenship Skills through Deliberative Discussions:
Exploring a Practice/Action Distinction

Carol J. Coe, University of Washington
Paper presented at Kobe University, November 2008
Abstract
To function effectively, a democratic society needs a knowledgeable and skilled citizenry. Publicschools in the United States are charged with meeting this demand. But how best to do so? This paper
explores one possible avenue, the use of deliberative discussions in the high school classroom. In aneffort to better understand the deliberative process, I conducted a comparative case study of two typesof deliberative discussions: deliberations used primarily for skill development or practice anddeliberations used primarily to decide a course of action. Two questions provide the focus for thisresearch: (1) What differences, if any, are there between deliberations that are used for practice (tobuild democratic skills) and deliberations that are used not only to build democratic skills but also totake action (to decide and implement policy)? (2) Does the oral impotence of a “practice-only”
deliberation or the oral empowerment of a “practice-and-action” deliberation make a difference tostudents? The results of this study inform our understanding of the deliberative process in general andthe practice/action distinction in particular.
I. Introduction: A Dearth of Discussion
John Hughes’ 1986 film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” is a classic satire of the American highschool. One scene depicts a particularly grotesque classroom. Student apathy is pervasive. The wellmeaning but pedagogically challenged teacher tries to engage his students in discussion. Failing to
get any responders to his plea (“Anyone? Anyone?”), time after time he ends up answering his own
questions. Ferris Bueller’s classroom, though fictional, is not the kind of educational environmentthat we want for our students. Instead we hope for classrooms in which a lively exchange of ideas is
a common occurrence. Rather than a room filled by the monotone droning of a teacher and thestultifying silence of students, we hope for an atmosphere of eager engagement in which diverse
opinions and multiple ideas provide solid evidence that democratic skill building and citizen
preparation are underway. At least at an intuitive level academics and educators agree that
deliberative discussion, when used effectively, can promote learning.
But is the absence of lively classroom discussions problematic? Some scholars would claim
it is, suggesting that our democratic form of government requires a citizenry trained in effective
ways to talk (Allen, Gibson, 2001). Parker (1989) posits that “[o]pen, free, authentic talk is the coinof participatory citizenship” (p. 354), so without discussion among its citizens, democracy
degenerates. Parker makes clear that asking students to engage in deliberative discussions ofcontroversial issues is one of the most rigorous forms of education available and one of the best
preparations for “the reasoned argumentation of democratic living” (Parker, 2005, p. 350).
Support for moving beyond a stand-and-deliver pedagogy and its accompanying student
passivity can be found in the work of progressive educators and their belief that experiential
education is an important element in relevant and lasting learning. Barber (1989) argues for
programs that empower students “through decision-making processes, that give them practicalpolitical experience, and that make them responsible for developing public forms of talk and civic
forms of judgment (p. 355). He further suggests that such a curriculum “will be a powerfulincentive to citizenship, for it will provide an education that is aimed not only at participation but
works through participation” (p. 355).
In Talking to Strangers Danielle Allen builds a compelling case for "a habit of citizenship”
that would have deliberation at its core. By “talking to strangers”—by discussing a problem throughto a mutually accepted decision—we can, Allen believes, revitalize our democratic citizenry.
Deliberation is a strikingly practical technique for establishing a “habit of citizenship” in theclassroom. The subjective dimension of everyday school life provides multiple possibilities for
instilling in the young “the habit of political friendship,” possibilities for deliberations in which they
can practice this citizenly talk. If schools were to provide such practice, perhaps at graduation
students would enter adult society primed for their role as informed and active citizens.
The International Education Association (IEA) Civic Education Study (Torney-Purta,
2002b) concluded its research by stating: “An ideal civic education experience in a democracy
should enable students to . . . be comfortable in participating in respectful discussion of importantand potentially controversial issues” (p. 203).
Sadly, the “ideal civic education experience” which the IEA study proposes is virtually nonexistent in American schools. The Ferris Bueller spoof is not far from classroom truth. An
examination of the educational landscape of American high schools reveals a dearth of classroom
discussion (Cazden, 2001; B. E. Larson, & Parker, W. C., 1996; Oakes, 2005b). Oakes (2005a)
makes the point that most U.S. classrooms are passive, “non-involving” places rather than active,
engaging ones. She writes that in the 25 classrooms she and her colleagues observed, “passive
activities . . . were dominant [and] the opportunities students had in any group of classes to answer
open-ended questions, to work in cooperative learning groups, to direct the classroom activity, or tomake decisions about what happened in class were extremely limited. In most classes these things
just did not happen at all” (p. 129, emphasis added). The reality is that there is now and always has
been a dearth of discussion in our schools (Boler, 2004; Cazden, 2001; Haroutunian-Gordon, 1991;
Hess, 2004; B. E. Larson, Parker, W.C., 1996; Simon, 2001). This being the case, students may
leave high school ill equipped for effective citizenship, having had little or no practice in discussing
controversial issues with their peers (Barber, 1989; M. Boler, 2004; Haroutunian-Gordon, 1991).
Since talk is an essential skill for citizens of a democracy, the overall lack of democratic skillbuilding through deliberation and other forms of discussion in our public schools hardly seems wise
(Barber, 1989; W. C. Parker, 2006).
In America calls for more classroom discussion, dialogue, deliberation, and debate arenothing new (Apple, 1995; Gutmann, 1987; Sleeter, 2004). In fact, recommendations for more
frequent use of classroom discussion abound (Allen, 2006; Kelly, 1989). Parker (2003) argues that“dialogue plays an essential and vital role in democratic education, moral development, and public
policy” (xviii). In a later article Parker (2005) posits that “[e]ngaging students in deliberations ofacademic controversies is arguably the most rigorous approach to disciplinary education available. .
. . At the same time, such engagement prepares them for the reasoned argumentation of democratic
living” (p. 350). In spite of such recommendations, discussion remains one of the least usededucational strategies (Barber, 1989; Hess, 2004). Clearly, our commitment to this particular
democratic skill is more one of lip service than actual practice.
Since deliberation is a requisite skill for effective citizenship (Goldfarb, 1998; W. C. Parker,2005) and a requirement for a healthy democracy (Mendelberg, 2000), an examination ofdeliberation may prove beneficial to teachers who are always in search of a better educative activity
or a more effective pedagogy and to scholars who, according to Mendelberg and Oleske (2000),“know little about how deliberation in fact works” (p. 169). My research attempts to change that; itoffers a close examination of the process of deliberation as it occurs among high school students
who have little formal training in discussion. Further, it provides insights into the meaning that
deliberations have for them.
II. Deliberative Discussion and the Practice/Action Distinction
In my study I focus on one form of discussion – the practice of deliberation – examining it
as a pedagogical tool for citizen preparation and trying to better understand it, especially from thestudent point of view.

What separates deliberation from other forms of discussion? Gastil (2008) offers a shorthanddefinition of deliberation, stating that people deliberate when “they carefully examine a problem
and arrive at a well-reasoned solution after a period of inclusive, respectful consideration ofdiverse points of view” (p. 6, emphasis in original). To qualify as deliberation, then, various claims
or various ideas must be given a fair hearing. Parker (2006) draws a distinction between
deliberations and other classroom discussions, particularly seminars, and notes that deliberations are
discussions for the purpose of making a decision about what a community should do. Consistent
with Gastil’s and Parker’s conception of deliberation, I use the term deliberation to mean any
discussion in which the participants consider more than one policy option as they attempt to reach adecision. My exploration of deliberation focuses on its process, studying the interactions andargumentation that occur as students work their way forward toward a decision.
An examination of classroom deliberation reveals at least two distinct purposes: (1) one fordemocratic skill development or practice, and (2) one to decide a course of action. Practicedeliberations are meant to prepare students for effective citizenship. This is most often attempted byasking students to deliberate on controversial issues. They are expected to discuss different
alternatives, giving each a careful hearing, and then reach a decision on what the best alternative is.
Their decision is hypothetical, merely the end result of a discussion that offers practice in criticalthinking. Students experience no consequences, no repercussions, because their decision is not put
into place. Their decision does not affect policy. On the other hand, deliberations that call for
decision-making action give students a voice in an authentic process. This moves the deliberationfrom a hypothetical or theoretical plane and places it firmly in the discussion-for-action category ofauthentic decision-making. Once enacted, proposals have various effects or consequences.
With this practice/action distinction in mind, I examined the following two questions:(1) What differences, if any, are there between deliberations that are used for practice (to build
democratic skills) and deliberations that are used not only to build democratic skills but also to takeaction (to decide and implement policy)? (2) Does the oral impotence of a “practice-only”
deliberation or the oral empowerment of a “practice-and-action” deliberation make a difference tostudents?
III. Methods
In order to better understand the distinction between deliberations for “practice only” anddeliberations for “practice and action,” I conducted a study of four deliberations that occurred in thesocio-cultural setting of a high school classroom. I focused on both the argumentation andinteraction that occurred during the process of deliberation and the meaning the deliberation had forthe students who participated in it. Therefore, both the actual deliberations and the reflections ofstudent participants were used to inform my understanding of the deliberative process.
Setting: Although deliberation of any kind is rare in most high schools, when it does occur,
it usually happens in the confines of a single classroom. Therefore, I wanted to locate myobservations in the socio-cultural setting of the classroom. The deliberations I observed took place
at East Bay High School1 located on the campus of Berkwald Community College. The students
who choose to attend East Bay do so knowing that they will be taking some college classes while inhigh school. The students who choose to attend East Bay are probably not typical of high school
students as a whole; they may have higher than average motivation and a greater interest in
obtaining a college degree.
East Bay is in its second year of operation. During its first year, a single class of 35
freshmen was enrolled. During its second year, another class of freshmen was added, so the school
enrollment stands at a relatively stable 70 students. This year a new freshman class will be added
and that number will grow to over 100. In its fourth year of operation, the plan is to cap enrollment
at 140 students in grades nine through twelve. East Bay draws from an economically stable, middleclass population. Many of its students come from a home-school environment, and East Bay is theirfirst exposure to a public-school education. Many choose it, they admit in their pre-enrollment
interviews and essays, because they do not feel comfortable or would not fit in at a traditional
comprehensive high school. In many cases, these students are not “socially adept.” They have had avery limited exposure to life beyond their local area, which is known as one of the whitest counties
in all of California. Therefore, the demographic fact that 99% of the students at East Bay are whiteshould come as no surprise.
Participants: The participants in the deliberations were ninth- and tenth-grade students
enrolled at East Bay. The size of each discussion group hovered between 15 and 20 students. In
addition to listening to students during the deliberations, I also interviewed six student participants
four weeks after the deliberations. This allowed time for the deliberations to be transcribed andavailable for their analysis and observations. Since these particular students were asked to examine,reflect on, and respond to transcripts of their previous deliberations, they served as informants,
helping to deepen my thinking and aid my understanding of the deliberative process from a
student’s point of view.
1 East Bay and all other names used in this study are pseudonyms.

Selecting East Bay as a site for my study was a practical and expedient choice because theprincipal and teachers allowed me to hold the four deliberations during the school’s advisory time.
Since few classrooms would provide a setting in which I could observe regularly scheduled
deliberations, my selection is a clear case of purposeful sampling (Patton, 2002). I believe thebenefits of using a school in which the deliberations were not only allowed but scheduled for“researcher convenience” outweighed any possible drawbacks. I made this decision in much thesame way that Mitra (2003) conducts in her “student voice” work. She chooses a sample based on
how representative it is of the concept of student voice rather than how representative it is of schoolsites. If I had not chosen East Bay and worked with the principal and staff to schedule thedeliberations on a specific day and class period, I could have ended up observing for days at a time
without ever getting to see a deliberative discussion. Such was the experience of Cazden (2001) as
she studied classroom discourse. Since I used the criterion of “availability of deliberative
discussions” in choosing my research site, I make no attempt to generalize my findings to otherschool settings.
Data Collection2: Four deliberative discussions served as the foundation of this study. In
addition, I gathered 48 written responses from student participants (reflections on the deliberations),
and I interviewed six students, asking them to reflect on the experience and examine various
portions of the transcripts. The four deliberations were designed to study the practice-action
distinction. Two deliberations were designated as practice-only (for democratic skill-building); thetopic under consideration was global terrorism.3 The other two deliberations were designated as
deliberations for practice-and-action because the decisions that were reached would be put into
effect. In the deliberations for practice-and-action the students had been given instructions (andpermission of the principal) to develop guidelines for holding future discussions of controversial
issues. It was up to the students to propose, decide, and enforce the guidelines.

2 In setting up my research design I was aware that answers to my central question (What differences, if any, are there

between classroom deliberations for practice only and deliberations for practice and action?) might differ considerably,
depending on whom I asked. I was especially interested in the opinions of students. What meaning did they make of
their participation in these two types of deliberative discussions? Students may view the deliberations differently than
do their teachers or other adult observers. Because of my interest in student voice, I attempted to learn from all student
participants. Both written responses and interviews were important in helping me understand the deliberative processfrom the student point of view. In this manner, I was attempting to follow the example set by Glesne (2006), who
expresses a desire to locate some of her research “with and not on others” (p. 2, emphasis in original). I share thatdesire, and consequently, it influences my research and my findings.
3 The materials used for this deliberation (Responding to Terrorism: Challenges for Democracy) were adapted from
Choices for the 21st Century Education Program, a program of the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown
University. The materials may be accessed online at <www.choices.edu>.
My primary methods of data collection were ethnographic in nature (Glesne, 2006). I used
observation, interviews, and questionnaires:
1. Observation of the deliberations: Data were gathered from four deliberations. Each deliberation
had approximately 15 to 20 students participants, although not every participant chose to speak
during the actual deliberation. The deliberations were audio-taped4 and transcribed (Bogdan, 2007),and the transcripts were coded and studied in much the same way as Cazden (2001) looks atclassroom discourse.
2. Written Reflections: During a follow-up visit to East Bay, students were asked to write short
responses to several questions. These written reflections were used to further investigate themeaning that students made of their participation in the deliberative discussion process, helping me
better understand the practice-action distinction from the students’ points of view. All students who
participated in the deliberation were invited to respond to these open-ended prompts (Maxwell,2005). This collection of reflections written by the student discussants provided insight into thestudents’ feelings and beliefs about their participation in the deliberations and their perceptions andinterpretations of the deliberations.
3. Interviews: During my follow-up visit I conducted six semi-structured interviews (Opie, 2004)
with a purposeful sample drawn from the field of student participants (Patton, 2002). These
interviews were audio-taped and subsequently transcribed. During the interviews participants wereshown transcripts of their deliberations and asked to further reflect on their meaning; thus students
served as informants as well as subjects, since they were asked to reflect on and respond to previous
deliberations. This decision was in keeping with my original intent to understand deliberation fromthe students’ points of view or perspectives. The selection of students was intentional rather thanrandom: I interviewed three males and three females representing high, medium, and low
deliberative participation and a range of academic abilities. Open-ended questions were used toelicit student beliefs about the similarities and differences they observed in the two types ofdeliberations.

4 I audio-taped the deliberations in an attempt to increase student anonymity. No student names were connected to anyof the deliberations. In the transcriptions and coding students are referred to by numbers rather than names or
pseudonyms. In fact, I don’t even know their names. This student anonymity allowed me to focus on the words thatwere said and the ideas that were presented in the deliberations. However, it did limit my understanding of some of theinteractions that ensued. At times during my transcription of the data I would have liked to know some of the nonverbal reactions to what someone was saying. Ultimately, I was satisfied with the decision I made to use only voicedata. It forced me to focus my analysis on the content of a student’s ideas and arguments, a focus which was sufficientfor this initial exploratory work.

Data Analysis: To analyze my data I used ideas gleaned from Gastil (2008), Horn (2007), Toulmin(1958), and Gee (2005). First, I examined the deliberations as a whole. Using criteria developed by
Gastil (2006a) that identify the “ideal deliberation,” I considered both the analytic and the social
processes of deliberation. According to Gastil, an “ideal deliberation” has a five-part analytic
process containing (1) a solid information base; (2) key values; (3) a broad range of solutions; (4)the weighing of pros, cons, and tradeoffs among solutions; and (5) a “best possible” solution.
Additionally, an “ideal deliberation” has a four-part social process containing (1) adequately
distributed speaking opportunities; (2) mutual comprehension; (3) the consideration of everyone’s
ideas and experiences; and (4) respectful communication.
Influenced by the work of Horn (2007), especially her development of the unit of analysis
that she calls “episodes of pedagogical reasoning” or EPRs, I broke the transcripts into “units ofargumentation” or UAs. Not everything that was said in the deliberations could be classified as
UAs; however, as students attempted to explain or justify their positions, the vast majority of what
was said did fit this category. Once the UAs had been identified, I analyzed them using anargumentation taxonomy developed by British philosopher, Stephen Toulmin (S. E. Toulmin, 2003)
in 1958. Using his categories of claim, data, and warrant, each argument (or claim) was dissected so
its strength and validity could be assessed.
I also attempted a rudimentary discourse analysis (S. Florio-Ruane, & Morrell, E., 2004;
Gee, 2005) of the deliberations. Based especially on the discourse analysis work of Gee (2005), I
asked several questions of the data. First, I asked how the discourse in the two different types ofdeliberation were “enacted.” Was one type of deliberation more “schoolish” than the other? Were
the students “enacting” their identities differently from one deliberation to another? What did thedata tell me about what students felt was “normal,” “right,” “good,” “correct,” “proper” (or the
opposite) in a deliberation? What kinds of language were privileged or predominated (e.g.,technical, everyday)? What kinds of evidence were privileged or predominated (e.g., statistical,
expert opinion, personal experience)? What types of elaborations were privileged or predominated(e.g., words, images)? How were claims made? How were lines of argument developed? Whatpersuasive “turns” were evident in the deliberations?
Data Quality and Limitations: The data I gathered have allowed me to begin an initial
exploration of the deliberative discussion process and the practice/action distinction. However, thedata are limited. First of all, the four deliberations I chose for analysis were all conducted in one
school, a school that has virtually no racial and very little economic diversity. This limitation mayhave provided me with a skewed understanding of what goes on in a deliberation. Given a larger
basis of comparison—deliberations from several different schools and more racially and ethnicallydiverse student populations—I might find significant differences in the deliberations.
As with any ethnographic study, there is a danger of researcher subjectivity. My study is no
exception. I tried hard to stay objective. I worried that collecting data at a school in which I had
worked might affect student behavior as they tried to “please the teacher.” I worried that myknowledge of the students might also affect how I read the data. I decided to locate my research in aschool in another state, at a school where I had no pre-conceived ideas of the various student
participants. My positionality to the students was as an outsider, viewed (it seemed) as someone
they did not need to impress. They were able to talk about the discussion topics without worrying“what Mrs. Coe will think.” I wasn’t grading them. In fact, my presence had no effect on theirgrades in any way. Their behavior appeared authentic; they had nothing to gain or lose from how
they behaved in the discussion circle.
IV. Findings
The central finding of this study is that differences exist between deliberations for practice(to build democratic skills) and deliberations for practice-and-action (to decide and enact decisions).
At first, this may seem intuitively obvious. Clearly, in this particular study the practice-action
distinction was built into the deliberations. In the deliberations on terrorism, the discussants were
well aware of the fact that any decision they reached would have no impact on local, national, orinternational policies of any kind. They voiced their opinions, presented evidence in support ofthose opinions, and grappled with one another’s ideas, but they knew that this was merely aclassroom exercise. In the deliberations concerning the policies for controversial issues, thediscussants were equally aware that they had been empowered to decide the policies and that theywould be expected to live with the decision(s) they reached. Therefore, it is not surprising to finddifferences emerging from these two processes; however, the exact nature of those differences was
impossible to predict before the data were analyzed. After data analysis several themes emerged. In
this lecture I will list five of them but, in the interest of time, discuss just two.
Theme #1. Analytic and social processes vary between the two types of deliberation.
Using Gastil’s (2006) analytic and social process criteria, I looked at each deliberation as acase. First, I considered the deliberations in light of his five-part analytic process criteria: (1) a solid
information base, (2) key values, (3) a broad range of solutions, (4) the weighing of pros, cons, andtradeoffs among solutions, and (5) a “best possible” solution. Specific differences soon came tolight. The information base used by the students for the practice deliberations was almost
exclusively academic in nature. The students cited information from the Choices curriculum thatthey had been provided. Consequently, the information they used came from “outside” themselves.
By contrast, the information base for the action deliberations was entirely personal in nature. When
information was offered by the students, it consisted of stories or analogies used in an attempt tosupport their points of view. That information came from “inside” the students’ lives. An
illustration of this phenomenon is the student who chose to personally reveal information about
herself to help support her claim that Internet conversations “can get so out of hand”:
If you use Internet responsibly, it's fine. Like sometimes it can get so out of hand. I
know that personally I am not a good face-to-face kind of person. I am always reallyworried that they're going to get mad at me—that's just me—but I know that I can't dothings face-to-face very well, but if I'm online, then I'm just like hey, ya know, and thenwhatever happens happens. But I'm not worried that they're gonna’ whack me oranything. (laughter)
This “information from inside” phenomenon is further illustrated by a second example,
this one from a student who is offering support for her claim that “being mean can sometimes
help a person change behavior.” She uses a personal anecdote:
Sometimes like I'll be teasing my mom, and I'll think that it's fun, and I think she's goingalong with it. I'll think it's all cool and I'll be like . . . ha ha . . . Mom, make me a sandwich,and she’s like “I don't feel good,” and I'm like, “It's your job. Make me a sandwich, likemake me a chicken pot pie, b-word.” And then she's like (student giggles), “You are beingrude” and then she calls ME the b-word, and then I'm like “Wow, that hurt!” And thenmaybe I shouldn't call her the b-word, and “I'm sorry mom.” But if she answers like “Alicia,
I really don't appreciate it,” I'd be like . . . “ha ha, you're fat,” and “Alicia, I don't like theway you're talking to me!” and I'd be like . . . “ha ha, you have grey hair!” (several students
laugh)
That type of personal example was used frequently during the “practice-and-action” action
deliberations but was used only once during the “practice-only” deliberations, when a student wastrying to argue against an isolationist stance that another student had proposed. To give support toher claim, she offered this analogy:Just letting them [other countries] fight their fight sometimes isn't the smartest idea because
once they are done fighting their fight with them, they come after you or the person that ison the side. If you've ever played Risk or any of those games—I always played it with mybrother—and my brothers, actually—and they would fight against each other, and then theywould go against me after they were done, and then, like okay, let's combine forces because
I was building up my force. So it's pretty much if you . . . if you put yourself in isolation orsomething—someone's gonna come along and—no matter what—I'm saying that if you put
yourself in an area and don't actually care what's going around you, it usually comes back tohurt you.
Another analytic part of the deliberation process, according to Gastil (2006), is the range ofsolutions that are offered in a deliberation. Are different solutions, ones expressing bothconservative and liberal positions, expressed? Is there a range of solutions that include both middleof-the-road and more extreme positions? Here again I found differences between the two types ofdeliberation. In the “practice-only” deliberations the students expressed a variety of different
positions, ranging from an isolationist to a one-world stance. In the “practice-and-action”
deliberation students struggled to articulate any variety at all. A kind of groupthink emerged withstudents agreeing that discussions should be respectful and that freedom of speech should beallowed, but they failed to look for differences as to where they would draw their personal lines.
Most often, they merely restated the importance of respect, for example, rather than introducing a
new or different position. Consequently, they never moved beyond these general platitudes to begin
hammering out a specific policy for the discussion of controversial issues at their school.
The three remaining analytic processes (values, weighing of pros and cons, and solutions)showed similarities between the two types of deliberation. In both cases values were implied but
seldom articulated, the weighing of pros and cons was minimal, and time was up—the discussions
were stopped—before solutions had been decided. Using Gastil’s analytic criteria, neither type ofdeliberation taken as a whole would be considered strong. Potential conflicts over values wereignored as were attempts to argue against someone else’s position. Students tended to offer theirown arguments in favor of their position but seemed unable to mount a serious challenge against
someone else’s argument. The overall effect was one of several alternating monologues. Table #1
summarizes the analytic process similarities and differences between deliberations for practice anddeliberations for action.

Table #1. Analytic Processes of Practice and Action Deliberations
Process Gastil’s Criteria

A
n
a
l
y
t
i
c

Practice-Only
Deliberations

Practice-and-Action
Deliberations

Information BaseAcademic

Personal

Key Values

ImpliedImpliedRange of Solutions

Sufficient

Lacking

Weighing Pros & Cons

MinimalMinimalSolution

Incomplete

Incomplete

Using Gastil’s (2006) analytic and social process criteria, I also analyzed the four-part social
process of deliberation, which contains (1) adequately distributed speaking opportunities, (2) mutualcomprehension, (3) consideration of everyone’s ideas and experiences, and (4) respect. As with theanalytic processes, here again there were both similarities and differences between the two types ofdeliberation. In both cases, there were sufficient opportunities for everyone who wanted to speak tohave his or her turn. In both cases, the deliberations were marked by attempts at respectful
discussion. Students listened to one another, and when they were talking, they addressed the entire
group rather than initiating a “side bar” conversation. Differences between the two deliberative
cases occurred with the two remaining criteria: mutual comprehension and consideration of ideas.
With both, there was a stark contrast between “practice-only” and “practice-and-action”
deliberations. For example, in the “practice-only” deliberation no checking for understanding ofanother’s viewpoint occurred. It is impossible to say, based on the transcripts alone, why this was
the case. Perhaps it was because students felt they already understood all the comments that werebeing made. Perhaps it was because they were more invested in what their peers said during the“practice-and-action” deliberation; perhaps with a forthcoming decision on the line that would
affect their school lives, they felt the need to make sure they understood one another. Regardless of
the reason(s), students frequently asked one another what they thought. Care was taken to include
all voices in the conversation. Several times students who had not yet participated were invited toshare an idea or opinion.
Another difference between the two types of deliberation came with the consideration ofideas. In the “practice-only” deliberation students seemed willing to occasionally disagree with one
another’s positions. Limited consideration of a couple of different ideas surfaced, but not enough toclaim that the consideration of ideas was sufficient. On the other hand, during the “practice-andaction” deliberations, there was no clash between ideas whatsoever. It was as though the group hada tacit agreement to let any statement go unchallenged. The reason(s) for this reticence are not clear.
Additional data would need to be collected to hypothesize about the possible causes. As was
mentioned previously, both deliberations were respectful. However, turn-taking and invitations into
the discussion were more obvious in the “practice-and-action” deliberation. In fact, there wereoccasions in these deliberations for respectful silences. No such silences occurred in the “practiceonly” deliberations. Each time a person finished speaking, another was quick to jump in—not with acomment that built on what had just been said, but rather with a brand new idea or argument. Table#2 summarizes the social process similarities and differences between deliberations for practice anddeliberations for action.

Table #2. Analytic Processes of Practice and Action Deliberations
Process Gastil’s Criteria

S
o
c
i
a
l

Practice-Only
Deliberations

Practice-and-Action
Deliberations

Speaking Opportunities

SufficientSufficient

Mutual Comprehension

Not Attempted

Attempted

Consideration of Ideas

Insufficient with some clash

Insufficient with no clash

Respect

SufficientSufficient

Theme #2. The amount and use of data to build an argument vary between the two types ofdeliberation.
The data clearly indicate that deliberations for practice only more closely conform tostandard forms for argumentation (Cappella, 2002; S. E. Toulmin, 2003) than do deliberations forpractice and action. They were by no means complete in their argumentation, but more often thannot, an effort had been made by the student to provide some support in the form of evidence or
example for the claim he or she was making. So, for example, if a student asserted that “countries
other than the U.S. experience terrorism,” he supplied examples of terrorist acts directed against
both France and Britain. In other words, he offered evidence—what Toulmin (2003) calls data—to
support his claim. If a student asserted that the United States should act in conjunction with theUnited Nations, she provided support for that position—by suggesting that such a position would
reduce the drain on U.S. resources and increase our military strength.
This attempt to provide data in support of various claims occurred frequently in the deliberations forpractice. However, data were most always missing when claims were made in the deliberations foraction.
The four arguments chosen for inclusion in Table #3 are typical of the larger body ofarguments contained in the transcript. Claims were made. If the deliberation was for practice only,
often those claims were backed up with data of some kind (evidence, examples, stories, analogies,
illustrations, etc.). Most of the claims made during the deliberations for practice and action were
presented without accompanying data. Warrants of any kind were seldom made explicit. If no data
were presented in the argument, then of course a warrant is not possible either (since the warrant iswhat ties the data to the claim). Table #3 illustrates this theme.
Table #3. Analysis of Argumentation: Claims, Data, Warrants
Practice-Only Deliberation
UA Claim#1
Terrorism is not just directed against
the U.S.
Data
France and Britain have been attacked
Warrant(No warrant stated)

Practice-and-Action Deliberation
UA Claim#3
Discussing ideas and beliefs is how we
grow
Data
(No data offered)
Warrant(No warrant possible)

UA
#2

UA
#4

Claim
We should go with the United Nations
Data
Limits drain on resources; gives us
bigger army
Warrant(No warrant stated)Claim
We should review the ground rules
Data(No data offered)
Warrant(No warrant possible)

Other themes that emerged include the following:
Theme #3. The level of student engagement varies between the two types of deliberation withgreater engagement resulting during “practice-and-action” deliberations.
Theme #4. A disconnect exists between the deliberations with stronger arguments and thedeliberations that students claim have stronger arguments.5
5This theme requires an operationalization of the term “stronger arguments.” For the purpose of this study,“stronger arguments” are arguments with some support (or data) rather than no support (or data) to back up their claims.
Thus, if a student makes a claim that he/she supports with some kind of data, that will (by definition) be a stronger
argument than one in which no support is offered. Using this fairly standard assessment of argument strength, we realize
from the findings of Theme #2 that deliberations for practice consistently had stronger arguments presented than didTheme #5. A disconnect exists between the deliberations with stronger arguments and thedeliberations considered more engaging by the students. 6
Themes #4 and #5 are, for me, the most perplexing and the most intriguing of all the ideas toemerge from this study. The disconnect between the quality of the deliberations, on the one hand,
and the students’ belief in both their quality and their appeal on the other, startled me. As aclassroom teacher who facilitated hundreds of discussions during my 35-year teaching career, I held
frequent classroom deliberations, some for practice only and some for practice and action. It didn’t
occur to me at the time that I might be sacrificing discussion quality to buy some increases instudent interest and engagement. It didn’t occur to me, either, that the skill-building that I knew was
occurring as we practiced deliberation might not transfer over to other types of deliberation. A
follow-up study could explore the differences that engagement (either intellectual or emotional) canplay in shaping one’s experience. In what ways can deliberation become both intellectually rigorousand emotionally satisfying?
V. Conclusion: Research Recommendations
Because my study was limited to deliberative discussions at one high school, the findings
reported here cannot be generalized to deliberations in other high schools across the United States.
However, based on this preliminary work, I believe additional research is warranted, and I would
like to suggest three areas for additional exploration.
First, I propose to study the deliberative process among students from culturally diverse
and/or traditionally marginalized populations. Since the issue of student voice is at the heart ofdeliberation, cultural influences that may shape a student’s willingness or affinity to talk could playa significant role in how that student participates. Culture has such a powerful impact on shaping
behavior that its effects are certainly worthy of examination.
deliberations for action. That’s why Theme #4 came as such a surprise to me. I had already analyzed the data when I
met with students to conduct interviews. I already “knew” that the practice-only deliberations contained a far greaternumber of strong arguments (i.e., claims backed by data) than did the practice-and-action deliberations. And then as I
interviewed the students, one after another told me how much better or stronger or more powerful the deliberations forpractice-and-action were. I pressed them to explain what made these deliberations stronger, and their responses madeclear that they were basing their decisions not on a traditional assessment of argument strength (e.g. Toulmin, 2003, orCappella, 2002) but on the level of engagement that they remembered experiencing.
6 Applying the same operationalized definition of “stronger arguments” that I used in Theme #4, the data show anegative correlation between the deliberations with stronger arguments and the deliberations that most engaged thestudents. Data indicate that students believed that the deliberations for practice and action were significantly moreengaging that the deliberations for practice only. In the interviews and written responses not one student reported thatthe practice-only deliberations were more engaging. On the other hand, well over half of the students responding to a
generic question about differences between the two types of deliberation chose to comment on the greater involvement
and engagement during the practice-and-action deliberations.
Second, I propose to study the effects of status differences on the deliberative process.
American high schools are notorious as places in which friendship groups can morph quickly into
powerful cliques that sort and separate students by “popular” and “unpopular” designations. Suchstatus differences may have a sizable impact on the deliberation process. Literature on small grouppractice theorizes that the participation of one or two high-status members in a group can lead to
discussions that are less open and less balanced in participation than groups with member ofrelatively equal status (Humphreys, 1981).
Third, I propose to study the effects of participation in the deliberative process over time.
The deliberations that were held at East Bay were conducted over the course of a two-day period.
The students were new to the deliberative process. However, if given a regular diet of discussion,
the students might very well deliberate in a more sophisticated manner. Their argumentation
techniques might improve with practice. So a question for future research is what effects, if any,occur as students receive training and practice in deliberation over the course of an entire school
year?
Clearly, there is still much to learn about deliberation in general and about the practiceaction distinction in particular. My study is one attempt to shine a light on the deliberative process.
While such information cannot help the pedagogically challenged teacher of Ferris Bueller’sclassroom, it may serve as a point of discussion and possibility for those teachers who participate in
the daily challenges of real high school classrooms and who work to turn inexperienced andimmature teenagers into seasoned and effective citizens.

References ____________________________________________________________________
Allen, D. S. (2006). Talking to strangers: Anxieties of citizenship since Brown v. Board of
Education Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Apple, M. W., & Beane, J. A. (ed). (1995). Democratic schools. Alexandria, Virginia: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Barber, B. R. (1989). Public talk and civic action: Education for participation in a strong
democracy. Social Education, 53(6), 355-356+.
Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories
and methods (fifth edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Boler, M. (2004). Democratic dialogue in education: Troubling speech, disturbing silence. New
York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Cappella, J. N., Price, V., & Nir, L. (2002). Argument repertoire as a reliable and valid measure ofopinion quality: Electronic dialogue during Campaign 2000. Political Communication, 19,73-93.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Florio-Ruane, S., Morrell, E. (2004). Discourse analysis In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.)(Ed.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. pp. 46-61). New York: Guilford.
Gastil, J. (2008). Political communication and deliberation. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, &Singapore: Sage Publications.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (Second edition). New
York and London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Boston: Pearson Education,
Inc.
Goldfarb, J. C. (1998). Civility and subversion: The intellectual in democratic society. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hahn, C. L. (1998). Becoming political: Comparative perspectives on citizenship education.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Haroutunian-Gordon, S. (1991). Turning the soul: Teaching through conversation in the highschool. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hess, D. E. (2004). Discussion in social studies: Is it worth the trouble? Social Education, 68(2),151-155.

Horn, I. S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem in mathematics
teachers' conversations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1), 37-79.
Humphreys, P., & Berger, J. (1981). Theoretical consequences of the status characteristics
formulation The American Journal of Sociology, 86(No. 5), 953-983.
Kelly, T. E. (1989). Leading class discussions of controversial issues. Social Education, 53(6), 368370.
Larson, B. E., & Parker, W. C. (1996). What is classroom discussion? A look at teachers'
conceptions. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11, 110-126.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interpretive approach. Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Mendelberg, T., & Oleske, J. (2000). Race and public deliberation. Political Communication, 17,169-191.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applicaions in education. San
Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Mosher, R., Kenny, Jr., R. A., & Garrod, A. (1994). Preparing for citizenship: Teaching youth tolive democratically. Westport, Conneticut: Praeger Publishers.
NASSP. (2004). Breaking ranks: Strategies for leading high school reform. Arlington, VA:
NASSP.
Oakes, J. (2005a). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd edition). New Haven,
Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Opie, C. (Ed.). (2004). Doing educational research: A guide to first time researchers. London: Sage
Publications, Ltd.
Parker, W. C. (1989). Participatory citizenship: civics in the strong sense. Social Education, 53(6),353-354.
Parker, W. C. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Parker, W. C. (2005). Teaching against idiocy. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 344-351.
Parker, W. C. (2006). Public discourses in schools: Purposes, problems, possibilities. Educational
Researcher, 35(8), 11-18.
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Piaget, J. (1955). The Child's Construction of Reality. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Power, F. C., Higgins, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1989). Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral
education. New York: Columbia University Press.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2004). Discourse analysis. In N. K. Duke & M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy
research methodologies (pp. 46-61). New York: Guilford.
Simon, K. G. (2001). Moral questions in the classroom: How to get kids to think deeply about reallife and their schoolwork. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Sleeter, C. E., & Bernal, D. D. (2004). Critical pedagogy, Critical Race Theory, and antiractist
education: Implications for multicultural education. In J. A. Banks, & Banks, C. A. (Ed.),
Handbook of research on multicultural education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
The Civic Mission of Schools. (2003). Carnegie Corporation and Center for Information & Researchon Civic Learning & Engagement.
Torney-Purta, J. (2002a). The school's role in developing civic engagement: A study of adolescentsin twenty-eight countries. Applied Developmental Science, 6(4), 203-212.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated edition). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Designs and methods (Second ed. Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.

Carol Coe is a doctoral student in the College of Education at the University of Washington, Seattle.
Her work focuses on citizenship education, particularly deliberative discussions in high schoolclassrooms. During her 35-year classroom career Ms. Coe taught high school social studies andlanguage arts. As a member of the National School Reform Faculty, she has also worked with adultlearners, most recently engaging in collaborative assessment of student work. She has published adozen articles on teaching and learning and been a regular presenter at state and national education
conferences.

Walter Parker"Structured Academic Controversy" (SAC)

Description
This is an ambitious yet feasible form of instruction that helps students (a) join anddiscuss academic controversies that are at the heart of a course curriculum, (b) learn to deliberatecontroversies in groups, and (c) learn to take and defend positions. (d) If writing is added as theculminating activity/homework, then persuasive writing becomes the fourth objective.
Procedure: 1
1. Introduction.
1a. Tell students the academic, social (group process), and higher-order thinking (HOT) objectives.
1b. Display the materials needed: Background Information, Point, Counterpoint
1c. Give an overview of the procedure.
2. Pair/Team assignments. Assign each student to a pair, and two pairs to a team.
2a. Display pair and team assignments on a poster or transparency.
2b. Students meet in teams and choose a team name.
3. Pairs Study and Prepare.
3a. Pairs independently study the handout labeled Background Introduction and, below this, the controversial
issue stated as a question (e.g., Background Information: Should Britain Return the Elgin Marbles to Greece?)
It introduces the controversial issue and should be no longer than 1-3 pages.
3b. Pairs study the position to which they have been assigned: the point or the counterpoint. The position, withsupporting arguments, is stated on a handout of 1-2 pages, the pair’s task is either to do additional research on
the issue and this position or to go directly to 3c.
3c. Each pair prepares a presentation that it will make to the other pair in the team. In this presentation, the pairstates its position on the controversial issue and argues for it. Prompt students to develop multiple lines ofreasoning to support their positions. Allow for additional research if needed.
4. Teams.
4a. Pairs present positions and supporting arguments to one another.
4b. Pairs reverse positions, feeding back each other’s position and reasoning to the other’s satisfaction (provingthat each pair has listened and understood the other pair’s presentation).
4c. Teams discuss the issue.
4d. Teacher invites students to drop the position to which they were assigned and continue to discuss the issue
in teams, now reaching for a consensus.
5. Whole Class. Ask each team to report on its discussion (4d). Say something like, “Tell us about your consensus
on the issue or, if you didn’t come to a consensus, then where your disagreement is.”6. De-briefing. De-brief each objective in turn, asking students to what degree they think it was achieved. Then, foreach objective
6a. Social objective: Identify group process problems that need attention next time.
6b. HOT objective: Identify higher-order thinking skills that need attention next time (e.g., distinguishing theposition taken on an issue from the arguments mounted for or against it).
6c. Academic: Explain why this controversy is important to the course of study.
7. Follow-up Writing. Using the NAEP persuasive writing rubric, have students individually write an essay in which
they express their ‘own’ post-discussion position and reasoning on this issue.

1Read more about it: Johnson & Johnson, "Critical Thinking Through Structured Controversy," Educational Leadership 45(8),May l988. Walter C. Parker, Teaching Democracy (Teachers College Press, 2003);and Social Studies in Elementary Education,
13th ed. (Allyn & Bacon, 2009).

Handout #1
W. Parker
Structured Academic Controversy (SAC)

Should Voting Be Required in Democracies?

The issue: Over twenty nations require citizens to register and vote. Should Japan have such a
law?

Procedure
Discourse
1. You and a partner will be assigned to take a pro or con position on this controversial
issue.
2. You will study the issue and develop an argument for the position to which you wereassigned.
3. You will make a presentation to the opposing side, laying out your position and thereasons for it. And, you will listen carefully to the opposing side do the same.
4. The two sides will come together and discuss the issue, and see if it is possible to arrive
at a consensus.
Writing
5. Follow-up writing: You will draft a persuasive essay, arguing for the position you truly
support.

Handout #2
Compulsory Voting
B ackground Information

Should Voting Be Required in Democracies?
Over twenty countries have some form of compulsory voting which requires citizens toregister to vote and to go to their polling place or vote on election day. With secret ballots, it's
not really possible to prove who has or has not voted so this process could be more accurately
called "compulsory turnout" because voters are required to show up at their polling place onelection day.
One of the most well-known compulsory voting systems is in Australia. All Australian
citizens over the age of 18 (except those of unsound mind or those convicted of serious crimes)
must be registered to vote and show up at the poll on election day. Australians who do not voteare subject to fines although those who were ill or otherwise incapable of voting on election day
can have their fines waived.
Compulsory voting in Australia was adopted in the state of Queensland in 1915 and subsequently
adopted nationwide in 1924. With Australia's compulsory voting system comes additional
flexibility for the voter - elections are held on Saturdays, absent voters can vote in any statepolling place, and voters in remote areas can vote before an election (at pre-poll voting centers)
or via mail.
Voter turnout of those registered to vote in Australia was as low as 47% prior to the 1924
compulsory voting law. In the decades since 1924, voter turnout has hovered around 94% to96%. [source: Matt Rosenberg www.geography.about.com]
These countries also have compulsory voting: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,
Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, France, Gabon,
Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, Paraguay, Peru,
Philippines, Singapore, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Uruguay. (Note: underlined nations havestrict enforcement; others vary on enforcement, some weak, some none) [source: International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance]Handout #3
Compulsory Voting
P oint: Require voting.

Advocates for compulsory voting have several arguments for why the practice should be
adopted by democratic societies. First, compulsory voting laws do increase voter turnout.
Political scientists estimate that compulsory voting increases voter turnout by 8 to 15 percent.
The increase is most often seen among people who normally do not vote, particularly the poorand less educated. As Simon Jackman notes, “to the extent that compulsory voting increases
turnout, compulsory voting also removes socioeconomic differences in electoral participation.”In other words, say advocates, the higher the rate of voter participation in democratic elections,the more those elections can be said to represent legitimately the will of the people.
Advocates also see important civic outcomes in compulsory voting. In their view, voting
is a necessary part of the work of a citizen. While they acknowledge that this responsibility
might compel people to vote against their will, as American legal commentator John Dean notes,“so is the compulsion to drive only on the right side of the road. Requiring citizens to vote is no
more restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft. And it is far less restrictive thanrequiring, for example, school attendance; to serve on juries, possibly for weeks or months at atime; to pay taxes; or to serve in the military when drafted. Voting is the least a citizen can do for
his or her country.”
Furthermore, advocates claim an element of civic education through voting: if people know theymust vote, they will pay closer attention to the issues and go to the polls more informed.

Handout #4
Compulsory Voting
C ounterPoint: Do not require voting

Opponents of compulsory voting argue that citizens do not want compulsory voting, afact supported by a 2004 survey conducted in the United States, by ABC News. In fact,
opponents argue that low voter turnout may well be a sign of overall voter satisfaction, notdisappointment, with the current system. Canadian academic Filip Palda agrees: “Those who
obsess about voter turnout are perhaps the ones to whom we should pay the least attention.
Politicians of established parties see low turnout as a rebuke. The less legitimate politicians feel,the more they try to pass laws that build around their regimes a Potemkin facade of citizen
involvement. This is why Soviet Bloc countries forced their citizens to vote.” Because voting is
an expression of faith in the political system, opponents of compulsory voting argue that
deciding not to vote is one of the few tools citizens have to challenge corruption or fraud. Whenthe people have reason to believe that their votes will not be counted, will be tampered with byelection officials, or will be otherwise misrepresented, forcing them to vote compels them toendorse a false outcome. When there is only one candidate or when all candidates appear as poor
options, compulsory elections only breed cynicism about the political process. In short, forcing
people to vote in a corrupt or meaningless election actually weakens citizen power in a
democratic society.
Opponents of compulsory voting also worry about the central government’s control of theinformation that compulsory voting requires. Today, when computers and information databases
can reveal so much about a person, decentralized control of election information is an important
way to protect citizens from an increasingly powerful national government. More fundamentally,
opponents argue that voting is not an obligation but a privilege. If the goal is to foster citizen
participation, then there are easier—and better—ways than compulsory voting to foster civic it.
By increasing the level of education people receive, countries can help their citizens better
understand public issues and to address them meaningfully. Finally, critics of compulsory voting
say that forcing participation of millions of people who neither know nor care about an election
is counterproductive.

Carol Coe
Choices for the 21st Century Educational Program
Description
Choices for the 21st Century is a national education program produced by the Watson Institute forInternational Studies at Brown University.* The program is designed to introduce substantive
international content into secondary school curriculum. The goal of the program is to empower young
people with the skills, habits, and knowledge necessary to be engaged citizens who are capable ofaddressing international issues with thoughtful public discourse and informed decision making.
Procedure
1. Introduction• Focus attention on the subject (e.g., terrorism), setting a context and conveying its
importance.
• Review the purpose of deliberation, which is to consider a broad range of alternatives andgive each alternative a thorough and fair hearing.
• Present a brief overview of this procedure.
2. Small Group Preparation• Divide the class of students into four groups of equal size, assigning each group responsibility
for one option. (Depending on the size of the class, the four groups may need to be subdivided as they prepare for the forum.)• Give each person in the group a copy of the appropriate handout (e.g., group one gets thehandout on option #1, group two gets the handout on option #2, etc.). If time allows, students
may be asked to do additional research their assigned positions.
• Individuals read and study the handout, selecting the strongest arguments. (The teacher may
ask students to write a brief summary of their assigned option before discussing it with othersin their group.)• Groups discuss their assigned option, considering its merit and building the strongest case for
its adoption.
• Each group selects a spokesperson to present its position and a spokesperson to answer
questions. (Multiple spokespeople may be selected, each responsible for presenting one of thearguments in favor of the option or for fielding questions.)
3. Public Forum• Presentations: Spokespersons will present their groups’ position, one option presented at atime. (The maximum time allowed for each presentation should be announced in advance.)• Question and Answer (Q&A) Period: Following each presentation, members of the audience
may ask questions. (The time allowed for this Q&A period should be announced in advance.)• Open Discussion: Following all of the presentations and the focused Q&A period, themoderator “opens the floor” for general discussion (a weighing of the issues). At this time,
new options may be proposed and the original options altered or combined in new ways.
4. Decision and Reflection: Depending on the purpose of the forum, this concluding period may vary.
• The moderator may call for a vote on each option individually and on any new alternatives
that have emerged.
• Students may be asked to develop their own options and defend them in a written response
and reflection paper.
• The group may reflect together or individually on the process itself. What worked? What
didn’t? How can changes be made to improve the process in the future?
*

Read more about the Choices Education Program by visiting its website at <http://www.choices.edu/>.
Carol Coe, Kobe Workshop
November, 2008

Handout #1

Option 1: Direct an Expanded Assault on Terrorism*
Our country cannot tolerate acts of terrorism, those who perpetrate them, or those nations who
harbor terrorists. As a peace-loving country, we have no choice but to take on the job of rooting out
terrorism wherever it exists. It is our responsibility and duty to protect ourselves and help make theworld safe from terrorists. The war on terrorism is a worldwide struggle and we must move forwardwith a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed.
Although it is helpful to have the cooperation of other nations, we must be prepared to fightterrorism—using whatever methods it takes and alone if necessary—wherever and whenever it
threatens. Nothing less than our own freedom is at stake.

Arguments for this position

Arguments against this position•

Acting alone when necessary avoids thedifficulties that arise from seeking
cooperation with other nations thathave different political interests andconstraints.

•

If we expand the war on terrorism on
our own terms, other countries may feel
antagonism toward us, and such a
unilateral action may fuel further
terrorism.

•

The only way to avert imminent threats
to our security is to act preemptively.

••

By engaging indigenous forces to fightterrorist groups and their government
sponsors, we can save lives.

If we act without regard forinternational law, we will lose
international support and isolate
ourselves from the international
community.

•

The response fails to address theunderlying causes of terrorism, so it
does not interrupt the cycle of violence.

•

Using force as a response to terrorism
is bound to result in the deaths ofinnocent civilians. Our country must
respond to terrorism in ways that
preserve our national ethics anddemocratic traditions.

•Being free of the bureaucracy andpolitical constraints of multinational
decision-making will allow us torespond more quickly where and when
we need to.

*This handout is a reproduction of the “Options 1” page from a Choices for the 21st Century unit on terrorism. It has
been modified to use as a demonstration model with an international audience.
Carol Coe, Kobe Workshop
November, 2008

Handout #2

Option 2: Support United Nations Leadership to Fight Terrorism*
Terrorism is a global, not a national, problem. Today our security and the security of the restof the civilized world depend upon our ability to work together to address this universal threat. We
must recognize the United Nations as the entity with the legitimacy to develop and maintain a longterm, truly international effort to control and eventually wipe out terrorism worldwide. We must playa leadership role in strengthening the effectiveness of the United Nations on security matters andoffer our military, intelligence, and economic support to a UN-led effort to eradicate terrorist cells
wherever they are found. We must stand with the world community against lawless terror.

•

Arguments for this position

Arguments against this position

Cooperating as a partner with othernations through the UN will create atruly international response to
terrorism, one that reflects the interests
and needs of all of the international
community, and denies hiding places toterrorists anywhere.

•

When our interests are threatened—
here or abroad—we have a right to dowhat is necessary to defend ourselves,
with or without the support of the othernations and international organizations.

•

The UN already has conventions
prohibiting terrorism and biologicalweapons and has been unable toenforce them. Why will the UN be any
more effective now?

•

The UN is too slow, too weak, and too
indecisive to make any real difference.
Giving the institution more power is atbest a long-term proposition. It won’t
do anything for the terrorist threat
today.

•

Terrorism will not end until we address
its root causes.

•

If we pledge to join with the UN in an
all-out campaign against international
terrorism, we may be forced to spend
our own resources on international
initiatives that we may not fully
approve of at the expense of defending
ourselves at home.

•

International cooperation brings
together the financial, diplomatic, andintelligence tools necessary to addressinternational terrorism.

•

The UN is only as strong as its member
states. In order to make the UN
effective as an internationalorganization it must have the full
support of our country.

•

We cannot afford to isolate ourselvesfrom the international community.

*

This handout is a reproduction of the “Options 2” page from a Choices for the 21st Century unit on terrorism. It has
been modified to use as a demonstration model with an international audience.
Carol Coe, Kobe Workshop
November, 2008

Handout #3

Option 3: Defend Our Homeland*
On March 20, 1995 members of Aum Shinrikyo attacked Tokyo’s subway system byreleasing Sarin nerve gas aboard the trains. These terrorists brought death and destruction to ourcountry. Twelve people died and over 5,500 were harmed, many with permanent injuries. We wereattacked on our own homeland, and we now feel vulnerability. Clearly, we have enemies who areintent on doing us harm. The time has come to build up our national defenses against such terrorist
acts. While civil liberties are important, we must recognize that we are in a new world. Our
government must be allowed to take new steps to protect our security.

Arguments for this position

Arguments against this position•

We live in a world where a small
handful of angry individuals can wreak
havoc with a small amount of weaponsgrade biological or chemical material ora “dirty bomb” in a suitcase. Being
prepared for such attacks will save
lives.

••

Terrorism is globalized. It will be
impossible to get a full picture of theterrorist threats facing us if we do notbring our intelligence resources
together with those of the rest of theworld. That integration of intelligencecapacity will not happen if we
withdraw from the international
community.

By limiting any response only to those
who directly threaten us, we will avoid
needlessly drawing the wrath of a wider
circle of terrorist organizations.

•

Withdrawing from the international
community will not protect us frompossible attack. As long as there arehaves and have-nots in the world, we
will remain a target for terrorism. Thereis nowhere to hide.

•

We cannot defend our country against
all possible means that terrorists have attheir disposal. Our only practical andmoral choice is to address the root
causes of international terrorism.

•

The terrorist threat is everywhere. It isbetter to fight terrorism on foreign soil
than to have it come again to our own
shores.

••Taking sides in the battles of othernations (such as Israel’s struggles with
Hezbollah) only increases our own
vulnerability by drawing the attentionof a wider circle of terrorists. The less
we are involved in the affairs of othernations, the more secure we will be.

Resources saved from international
involvement can be redirected topromote enhanced security at home.

*This handout is a reproduction of the “Options 3” page from a Choices for the 21st Century unit on terrorism. It has
been modified to use as a demonstration model with an international audience.
Carol Coe, Kobe Workshop
November, 2008

Handout #4

Option 4: Address the Underlying Causes of Terrorism*
Terrorism is a crime against humanity and cannot be tolerated. However, strong military or
police action will only perpetuate the cycle of violence. We must abandon any plans for such action
and join with others to address the deeper issues underlying terrorism. Terrorism feeds on thefrustration of some of the world’s most disadvantaged peoples. We must join with the developed
world to devote our attention and our resources to launching programs that address the underlying
causes of terrorism. We must also examine our own policies in many parts of the world to see that weare not inflaming longstanding local and regional conflicts, fueling discontent, and creating abreeding ground for anti-Japanese sentiment.

Arguments for this position

Arguments against this position•

If we do not address the underlying
causes of terrorism—including poverty,
injustice, powerlessness, and hatred—
we risk feeding the anger or theterrorists and creating new recruits toterrorist networks.

•

Addressing the underlying causes ofterrorism will take time. Meanwhile weremain vulnerable to more terrorist
attacks. We have to act now to stop
terrorist attacks at their source.

•

Taking a leadership role in addressing
the humanitarian needs of populations
in failing states will reduce animosity
toward our country.

•

Neither our country nor theinternational community has theresources to address all of theunderlying causes of terrorism.

•

In order to be a credible force inaddressing terrorism, we must
demonstrate that we understand thecauses of terrorism and are committed
to taking action to address them.

•

We cannot afford to redirect so much of
our national budget to development
efforts overseas at a time when thoseresources are needed to build up our
defenses here at home.

•

By addressing the underlying causes ofterrorism, we will be able to avoid
putting our civil liberties at risk from
repressive homeland security measures.

•

If we focus our efforts on long-term
solutions, we will be allowing terrorists
to commit horrible crimes without
immediate consequences. This will
invite additional attacks both at home
and abroad.

•

There will always be hatred. There will
always be violence. No amount offoreign aid will change this. We haveno real control over anything but ourown security.

*

This handout is a reproduction of the “Options 4” page from a Choices for the 21st Century unit on terrorism. It has
been modified to use as a demonstration model with an international audience.
Carol Coe, Kobe Workshop
November, 2008

Handout #5

Responding to Terrorism
Challenges for Democracy*
Option 1: Direct an Expanded Assault on Terrorism
Our country cannot tolerate acts of terrorism, those who perpetrate them, or those nations who
harbor terrorists. As a peace-loving country, we have no choice but to take on the job of rooting out
terrorism wherever it exists. It is our responsibility and duty to protect ourselves and help make theworld safe from terrorists. The war on terrorism is a worldwide struggle and we must move forwardwith a worldwide offensive to combat it until all who threaten peace and security are destroyed.
Although it is helpful to have the cooperation of other nations, we must be prepared to fightterrorism—using whatever methods it takes and alone if necessary—wherever and whenever it
threatens. Nothing less than our own freedom is at stake.

Option 2: Support United Nations Leadership to Fight Terrorism
Terrorism is a global, not a national, problem. Today our security and the security of the restof the civilized world depend upon our ability to work together to address this universal threat. We
must recognize the United Nations as the entity with the legitimacy to develop and maintain a longterm, truly international effort to control and eventually wipe out terrorism worldwide. We must playa leadership role in strengthening the effectiveness of the United Nations on security matters andoffer out military, intelligence, and economic support to a UN-led effort to eradicate terrorist cells
wherever they are found. We must stand with the world community against lawless terror.

Option 3: Defend Our Homeland
On March 20, 1995 members of Aum Shinrikyo attacked Tokyo’s subway system byreleasing Sarin nerve gas aboard the trains. These terrorists brought death and destruction to ourcountry. Twelve people died and over 5,500 were harmed, many with permanent injuries. We wereattacked on our own homeland, and we now feel vulnerability. Clearly, we have enemies who areintent on doing us harm. The time has come to build up our national defenses against such terrorist
acts. While civil liberties are important, we must recognize that we are in a new world. Our
government must be allowed to take new steps to protect our security.

Option 4: Address the Underlying Causes of Terrorism
Terrorism is a crime against humanity and cannot be tolerated. However, strong military or
police action will only perpetuate the cycle of violence. We must abandon any plans for such action
and join with others to address the deeper issues underlying terrorism. Terrorism feeds on thefrustration of some of the world’s most disadvantaged peoples. We must join with the developed
world to devote our attention and our resources to launching programs that address the underlying
causes of terrorism. We must also examine our own policies in many parts of the world to see that weare not inflaming longstanding local and regional conflicts, fueling discontent, and creating abreeding ground for anti-Japanese sentiment.

*This handout is a reproduction of the “Options in Brief” page from a Choices for the 21st Century unit on terrorism. It
has been modified to use as a demonstration model with an international audience.
