Model of youth citizenship - Research Paper Example

Model of youth citizenship Introduction: In applying the goal of teaching citizenship in schools, Wood and Hine (2009) have pointed out that thereis a conflicting situation presented in relation to these young people. These authors are of the opinion that young people in Britain today are the most tested and simultaneously excluded group of people in the country. These authors argue that this has resulted in an ambivalent policy towards young people, because on the one hand, it is expected that young people should be listened to, encouraged and given the opportunity to express themselves, while on the other hand, there is an underlying mistrust of their ability to grow up independently without intensive surveillance, so that a very exhaustive social system has been put in place to ensure that they are taken care of (Wood and Hine, 2009). In such an ambivalent situation, the question of teaching young people about citizenship becomes a difficult and questionable issue. Young people these days are perceived to be less involved in and less committed to the collective goals of the community and the ideal of citizenship as compared to earlier generations. Model of citizenship (Wood and Hine 2009): Wood and Hine (2009) have proposed a model of citizenship for young people wherein the manner in which young people themselves identify and experience citizenship forms the basis of knowledge about young people and how they are likely to respond to policy issues. In presenting their model of citizenship, Wood and Hine (2009) have pointed out that the underlying premise behind introducing citizenship education in schools is to ensure that young people become more actively engaged in the community. As a result, citizenship education has been presented as an effective solution to many social problems. The exercise of effective citizenship is therefore strictly external to young peoples’ lives and issues such as anti social behaviour have to be taken into account in deriving an effective model for teaching citizenship to young people. Wood and Hine (2009) have observed that where citizenship research in the cast of young people are concerned, external issues relating to young people, such as their political activities, their moral attitudes and their social activities have been associated with quantitative measures. On the basis of risk and age profiles, such quantitative application has enabled a recognition of the extent to which young people are lacking in certain areas. This identification of the perceived deficiencies in young people has formed a narrow window of research window, upon which most policy makers have relied upon in framing policy. As a result, young people would broadly tend to be placed in two major categories – active or passive, based upon whether they are likely to engage in disruptive behavioural patterns and anti social behaviour. Such a simple classification of young people into two categories, i.e, either likely to be disruptive and thereby not good candidates for citizenship teaching or passive and thereby receptive to indoctrination and teaching from the State on citizenship through policy makers, does not take into account the inherent complexity that young people represent. As opposed to examining citizenship teaching and its impact from the perspective of policy makers, Hine and Wood (2009) have proposed a model that addresses the gap between the existing research and the manner in which young people themselves actually define and experience citizenship. The foundation of this theory is that an attempt to classify young people on the basis of existing research into anti social behaviour and similar aspects into the categories of active or passive would be far too simplistic because it does not take into account the complexities in young people. Hine and Wood (2009) have suggested that where the so called anti social behavioural patterns are concerned, the standards of behaviour that are applied to judge these young people may themselves be flawed. For example, the subjective experiences that young people experience may not lend themselves easily to a method of purely external classification. Behavioural patterns that are seen to be anti social may appear to be completely rational to the young people in question on the basis of the circumstances of their own lives. As a result, if these young people are to function effectively as fully participating citizens, then there would be a need to understand the subjective experiences they are going through. It would be necessary to examine things from their perspective in order to understand what motivates them and how best they can be approached and taught to ensure that the desired goals and objectives are met. Hence, rather than considering limited research, the important factor to take into consideration is research that considers the perspectives that young people have on their own experiences. The model proposed by Hine and Wood (2009) therefore has at its core, the need to understand the experiences and their attitudes before framing a citizenship policy. Secondly, they have proposed that young people be provided the opportunity to learn and actively experience citizenship at the school level itself, so that the experience of citizenship becomes one that young people actively learn through actually experiencing it. Analysis of the model: The model as suggested by Wood and Hine (2009) appears to have a singular relevance, especially when applied in the context of citizenship teaching for young people. These authors have correctly pointed out that any policies derived on the basis of a simplistic classification of young people would have a low level of effectiveness. The model encourages active thought about the discordance between policy objectives and the real world (Hine and Wood, 2009) and especially emphasizes that the inherent complexity of young people needs to be taken into account. This is especially relevant in the context of young people because their views and opinions tend to go through a sea change with the passage of time as they move through the various phases from childhood into adolescence and make the transition into adulthood. Coleman(2004) has articulated this as follows: “It is important to recognize that the overall transition from child to adult is accomplished through multiple smaller transitions all of which may potentially be stressful or difficult in themselves” (Coleman et al, 2004:227). As young people make the transition through the process of moving from childhood into adolescence, they rapid and sometimes dramatic changes, which are experienced differently depending upon which social group, ethnic group or gender they belong to. These transition experiences may be different for different groups of young people; but from the perspective of application of government policy, the tendency has been to apply a uniform economic standard to all young people on the process of transition from childhood to adolescence. The reality however may be that young people from different socio economic backgrounds would tend to make the transition in different ways; young people from the middle classes would have more opportunities for further education and therefore, the process , of transition from childhood to that of an employed person would be much longer. As opposed to this, young people from the poorer sections of society would tend to be forced to make the transition much more quickly because they would face the economic pressures of finding a job quickly. Moreover, during a period of economic recession, when there are reduced job opportunities, young people from poorer socio economic classes are more likely to move across the borderline into that category of young people who abuse drugs and alcohol, or young women who get pregnant. These young people are therefore less likely to be receptive to citizenship initiatives or to being a part of a community. Moreover, it must also be recognized that individuals with disabilities or special needs may tend to respond differently and would therefore need a specialized different approach, so that government policy would need to be framed accordingly to reach out to this group of people to ensure that they do not feel excludes or isolated. Thus, it may be seen that young people make the process of transition in different ways. Applying a uniform standard and developing a citizenship policy that can be taught on a uniform basis to all young people is in itself a flawed premise because young people would tend to respond differently to the same citizenship lessons based upon the manner in which they have responded to their own individual transitions. Cowen (2010) has argued in favour of a personalized transition process, wherein young people who have specialized needs are aided in the process of leaving school and achieving citizenship within the community. In the light of the exhaustive social services system that has been set up and remains in place in the United Kingdom, the net result is that young individuals with special needs tend to go on to lead institutionalized lives rather than being active citizens and participants in the community. In the light of the differing needs and complexities inherent in the collective body of young people, it may thus be concluded that applying a uniform policy perspective on the basis of limited research evidence would not be satisfactory in achieving the desired citizenship goals. Therefore, the model which has been proposed by Hine and Wood (2009) which takes into account the perspective, opinions and experiences of the young people themselves, is likely to be much more useful in achieving a more active citizenship among young people. The introduction of measures such as greater convenience in voting strategies, or engaging in citizenship education alone are unlikely to achieve the goals of more active participation and involvement if the experiences and attitudes of the young people themselves is not taken into account, before designing programs to impart citizenship education and solicit more active participation from these young people. In the context of anti social behaviour for example, the use of ABC (Anti social behaviour contracts) may only serve to push offending young people further into criminal activities. Stephen and Squires (2004) in a study have established that the administration of these ABCs is based upon evidence used against young people that derives from an existing “reputation” they are perceived to have (Stephen and Squires, 2004:355). On this basis, the authors have argued that such so called “community policies and hackneyed stereotypes” only “further marginalised young people and their families, most in need of inclusion and support.” (Stephen and Squires, 2004:366). As Hine and Wood (2009) have also argued, such policies may only serve to further alienate marginalised young people and push them further into the arena of crime rather than integrating them as effective citizens and members of the community. As opposed to this, the suggestion offered through the model proposed by Hine and Wood (2009) wherein citizenship education at school should first of all seek to identify the individual needs of students and then offer them opportunities to actively experience being a part of the community are likely to be much more effective in functioning as a tool of integrating young people into society. This is in sharp contrast to existing policies such as Anti social behaviour orders which target those sections of young people who are already marginalized and therefore only produce an increased proclivity towards criminal behaviour. The advantages of the application of the model proposed by Hine and Wood (2009) are that it would work to integrate those young people who are marginalized or excluded. Since the model proposes that the perspectives and attitudes of young people be taken into consideration, it would provide the additional advantage of making citizenship more relevant and personal to them and ensure their participation. The significant disadvantage associated with this model lies in the actual implementation. Since it advocates a personalised approach, this would in effect, mean that a large part of the existing social structures would need to be dismantled and/or changed to develop a more in depth policy perspective that would allow for much higher levels of individualization, as opposed to the standardized application of welfare and other social measures that are already in place. Since the very basis of citizenship education as currently being applied in the context of youth has been questioned by this model, an application of the requirements of the model would require considerable levels of revamping and readjustments. References: Coleman, J., Catan, L. and Dennison, C. (2004) ‘You’re the Last Person I’d Talk To’, IN J. Roche, S. Tucker, R. Thomson and R. Flynn (Eds.) Youth in Society (2nd Edition), London: Sage Cowen, A. (2010) Personalised Transition: innovations in health education and support, Sheffield: The Centre for Welfare Reform Stephen, D. and Squires, P. (2004) ‘They’re still children and entitled to be children: Problematising the institutionalised mistrust of marginalised youth in Britain, Journal of Youth Studies, 7 (3), pp 351-369 Wood, Jason J and Hine, Jean, 2009. “Work with young people: Theory and policy for practice”, Sage Read More