‘My task is to show them how to get things done,’ declare the Pluralist Democratic Educators. Th ey envision and important role for themselves in the lives of their students: to broaden the horizon of their lives and ultimately to achieve student independence, which they see as the crux of citizenship education. Th ey do this by remaining unbiased and open, off ering as many viewpoints and ideas as pos- sible. Yet, they insist on mutual respect, obeying the rules of conduct and ‘the unwritten rules’ of social groups.
Fostering their students’ independence is their most important mission (1). Th is is because their ultimate goal is to educate students who are confi dent and feel good about themselves (2). Part of the process is to make them ‘realize how lucky and privileged they are to be born in this part of the world’ (22). Th e neutral- ity of the Pluralist Democratic Educators should not be confused with disinter- est (who am I to tell them?). It is more accurate to say that the refusal to take a stance or to impose a choice is dictated by a concern for the still fragile student with a shaky ability to set priorities (23). Th ey do not take a back seat in the process of teaching; neither do they assume the role of a devil‘s advocate (30), as their Bulgarian colleagues are inclined to do. Th e Pluralist Democratic Educators ‘explain, never impose’ their position (34), they stimulate their students ‘to look for the reasons of things’ and to form an opinion without ‘following the ones who shout the loudest.’
Th e Pluralist Democratic Educators defi ne their role clearly as pedagogical, as opposed to being a subject specialist (18). Th ey see themselves as personal
examples of moral behavior (5). Th e teachers feel that their students need to be guided and nurtured by human beings who become their role model and guide them into a world larger than home, beyond the comfortable cocoon of ‘mum, dad, brothers and sisters.’ In many cases, the Pluralist Democratic Educators con- fi de, their role is to correct the one-sided beliefs received from home and can be a tool for emancipation.
Th is inevitably means that the teachers pay more attention to the common good, but less so than for the Loyal Citizens’ Teachers (17). Instead, participation is encouraged as a means to help students fi nd their place in the world. However, participation is not necessarily oriented towards improving the world, as it is the case with the Action Learning Idealists. Moral categories defi ne teachers’ engage- ment better than issues and structures (11, 12):
“We should certainly talk about social norms, about how people ought to behave.” (24)
Th e Pluralist Democratic Educators are neutral about specifi c knowledge (9), as they still see knowledge and reasoning as a necessary basis for their peda- gogical goals. Th e teachers appear not particularly concerned about discussion, debate or research skills (14). However, the data reveals a sophisticated look at various forms of discussion and debate, not only expressing an opinion, as well as interesting links to politics and not the least, a sense of decency and civility needed for this kind of work:
‘I would pay more attention to listening fi rst and then putting forth a good argument.’
Th e Pluralist Democratic Educators adhere to a value-oriented view of citi- zenship, within the undisputed framework of democracy (22) and do not think that they should ‘sell’ democracy:
“If you understand democracy in this uncritical way, you have not understood it at all.” (25)
Th ey seize every opportunity to exercise democratic principles also at school, where they see enough opportunities (27). Students have rights, not only duties, the respondents explain. One respondent explains how their school adheres to democratic principles and shows students where and how to participate. Yet an- other one uses the opportunity to be critical:
“[…] even if there is not enough democracy at school, you have to make this clear to them.”
Being critical does not preclude the importance of mutual respect, obeying the rules of conduct and ‘the unwritten rules’ of social groups. On these grounds they disagree with the suggestion that just teaching the rules and laws is enough (4):
“I think that citizenship education is exactly about the grey areas, where you need to make choices, to let students see the shades and the lack of clarity and to be able to analyze and make choices.’ ‘If this were citizenship education, it would be a shame.”
Th is is why the Pluralist Democratic Educators do not wish to spend too much time on the anatomy of government (11). Instead, they work to expose their students to various theories and models of the world (13), in spite of the trace of doubt about the eff ect:
“It is a dream, but if it works... most students learn for the exam and then forget it, but I hope some things stay with them; I would like them to remember some [of the content], but also that over 10 years someone comes with the memory that is was a nice subject with a good class climate, where they could express their opinion and go in debate with each other.”
In sum, the place of the Pluralist Democratic Educators occupies the space between the individualist and egalitarian position, leaning towards the individu- alist. Th ese teachers have a lot in common with the Action Learning Idealists, most importantly the focus in action and getting things done. However, the Plu- ralist Democratic Educators use other means to achieve that and thus diff er sub- stantially in the depiction of their role as educators, and not subject specialists. Th ey diff er from the Loyal Citizens’ Teachers with an uncompromising stress on independent and critical thinking and the refusal to impose the opinion of any authority.
C
ONCLUSIONTh e Dutch views are similar to each other and clustered around the individualist- hierarchic diagonal. Th e aspect ‘good citizen – critical citizen’ does not play a diff erentiating role, as teachers seem to perceive a critical attitude as a part of a ‘good’ citizen – in other words, the degree of acceptance of the country’s cur- rent political arrangements was much higher, compared to the Bulgarian and Croatian groups of teachers. Neutrality is a great concern among Dutch teachers, and most seem to fi nd a pragmatic solution in their own attitude (disclosure of personal views) as they do not feel in any way pressured to defend ideas which are not compatible with their personal convictions. Matters related to the cur- riculum (attitude vs. knowledge) and to a teaching approach compatible with the schools’ pedagogic signature, seem to be of greater importance for Dutch teach- ers, against the backdrop of a consensus on a long-established professional fi eld.
Th e Dutch teachers speak with a coherent voice, share a language to de- scribe their professional preferences and clearly draw upon a tradition which goes back to a common understanding of a school subject (Olgers, 2012; Vis, 2007), through academic training with well-established curriculum, to a practice of teaching that encourages open discussion and frequent exchange. We can say there is a professional community of social science teachers, who are aware of their own choices and often can accurately name the other possible positions
and preferences. Two types of data strengthen this conclusion: two respondents loading on more than one factor were capable of formulating the diff erence in perspective expressed by the respective factors. Also, the respondents sometimes were invited to refl ect on the position of colleagues. Not only they could point out diff erences, they also added that these diff erences are openly discussed and conceptualized as strengths and diff erences, not necessarily as insurmountable viewpoints. Change and innovation are incremental and stable, and the results cannot be spectacular, anyway. Th is is why Dutch respondents tend to be clear about their own professional boundaries – within the walls of the school, for a number of respondents even within the walls of the classroom.
In the following chapter, the views of the teachers in the three countries will be compared and further discussed.