In this section of the blog, I will highlight how the socio-economic inequalities in political engagement is a result of ineffective citizenship education within the curriculum in schools.
Citizenship education is compulsory in the national curricular, since 2002 between ages 11-16, and is found to enhance engagement with democratic society and active participation in that society. (Thayer-Bacon, 2008, Westheimer and Kahne, 2004). This takes place in schools in forms such as debates, student councils, electing school councils, and holding mock elections, which have been found to be associated with higher levels of political engagement (Keating and Janmaat, 2015: Hoskins et al., 2012).
So how does citizenship education in school relate to the issue of socio-economic inequality in political participation?
This is because, while citizenship education has deemed itself as ‘compulsory’, this may not be reality for all. The activities which were mentioned are not mandatory for schools to undertake, which inevitably has resulted in low value placed on citizenship education by teachers, parents and students alike. This suggests that there is little pressure on students to engage with this subject, and therefore access could be an issue (Burton et al., 2015). This means in order for students to learn about political engagement, alternative access of learning would have to take place. This can take place in forms such as: Political activities in school and open classroom climate.
However, this access of learning may not be beneficial for those with a lower social background. This is as students from more educated backgrounds are more likely to have political discussions with their parents at home and their peers in other environments, which means that they are better able to take the opportunities available in the classroom (Eckstein and Noack, 2016). Moreover, within each school, these activities may not be mandatory for students to participate in, and therefore, a self-selection effect for partaking in these activities can take place. In fact- students from working class backgrounds have also been identified as feeling anxious and not fitting in with the context of classroom discussions and debates (Brookfield and Preskill, 2012). Thus, young people from less privileged social backgrounds may feel less able to have their voice heard.
Reports have found that in England, disadvantaged students report lower levels of participation in these participatory forms of learning political engagement. As a result, this influences inequalities in voting participation in society. This is clearly shown in voting trends in the UK. One example includes the 2015 UK general election, where there was an approximate 20% difference in voter turnout between the highest and lowest socio-economic groups (Ipsos Mori, 2015). In fact, in this graph shown below (figure 1), you are able to see how social classes ABC1 (upper-middle class) are more likely to vote than classes C2DE (lower-working class). This illustrates the gap between social classes in voter turnout, which one reason of this outcome being the ineffective citizenship education in schools.
(figure 1)
This means those from lower economic backgrounds are disproportionately represented in society as a result of poor compulsory education surrounding political engagement. If students become disinterested in politics from an early age, they will be more likely to continue this attitude when they become of an age to vote. This voting trend with the significant class gap inevitably affects democracy. The foundation of democracy in society relies on the assumption of equal representation through equal participation (Geboers et al., 2012; Hoskins & Janmaat, 2015). But because those from a low socio-economic status are less likely to participate in these major political opportunities compared to those of a higher status, there are longstanding socioeconomic inequalities in voice and power, and democratic institutions lose responsiveness and legitimacy to groups who do not participate.
“Democracy is unthinkable without the ability of citizens to participate freely in the governing process” (Verba, Schlozman, Brady, 1995, p.1)
Those from lower socio-economic groups who do not participate politically then may feel alienated and distrust from political elite as governments stop being responsive to social groups who do not vote or who do not politically engage. Disparities in political engagement are said to lead to public policy that favours the elite and enhances social exclusion (Gallego, 2007). Which, in turn, was evident from voter turn out shown in figure 1.
In the United Kingdom, a lack of access to learning political engagement in school was found to contribute to the reproduction of existing socioeconomic inequalities in political engagement (Hoskins and Janmaat, 2019). Therefore, access for disadvantaged students from lower social-economic backgrounds to citizenship education taught inside schools will help reduce inequalities in political engagement as these students will be able to catch up with their political learning and offer the prospect of further reducing social gaps in political participation.
What can be done to reduce socio-economic inequalities in political engagement?
Policy makers can decide to prioritise democracy as an important aim of education. With education being one of the main solutions for increasing political engagement. (Nie et al., 1996). This can be achieved by making Citizenship Education Compulsory until 18 and including this in vocational Education and Training.
Schools can also increase access to political learning for disadvantaged students. This can be accomplished by:
- Gaining greater priority on political learning activities in low SES schools
- Targeting activities aimed at disadvantaged students
- Improving teacher training on including disadvantaged
These methods have been seen successful in Nordic countries where they maintain low levels of socioeconomic inequality (Piketty, 2013) by using an education model that prioritizes education equality and social justice (Lundahl,2016). For example, in the Nordic data, the most notable finding in 2016 ICCS data was that disadvantaged benefited more from civic participation at school.
Therefore, if we begin to engage in citizenship education as a country by making this topic compulsory and easily accessible to the disadvantaged students, we will reduce future socio-economic inequalities in political engagement.
Bibliography
Gabriel, Oscar W., et al., editors. Political Participation in France and Germany. ECPR Press, 2012.
Geboers, E, et al. ‘Review of the Effects of Citizenship Education’. Educational Research Review, vol. 9, June 2013, pp. 158–73. DOI.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.02.001.
Hoskins, B and Janmaat, J.G. ‘Educational Trajectories and Inequalities of Political Engagement among Adolescents in England’. Social Science Research, vol. 56, Mar. 2016, pp. 73–89. DOI.org, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.11.005.
Hoskins, B, et al. ‘Tackling Inequalities in Political Socialisation: A Systematic Analysis of Access to and Mitigation Effects of Learning Citizenship at School’. Social Science Research, vol. 68, Nov. 2017, pp. 88–101. DOI.org https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2017.09.001.
Hoskins, B., Huang, L., Arensmeier, C. (2021). Socioeconomic Inequalities in Civic Learning in Nordic Schools: Identifying the Potential of In-School Civic Participation for Disadvantaged Students. In: Biseth, H., Hoskins, B., Huang, L. (eds) Northern Lights on Civic and Citizenship Education. IEA Research for Education, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66788-7_5
IPSOS (2017). ‘How Britain voted in the 2017 election’. Available at: https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2017-election
Weinberg, J. (2021). The Missing Link: an updated evaluation of the provision, practice and politics of democratic education in english secondary schools. Project Report for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Political Literacy. London: United Kingdom.
Leave a Reply