JRIE

Article

Civic education in emerging

democracies: Lessons from
post-Communist Poland and
Romania

Journal of Research in
International Education
9(3) 273288
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1475240910382996
http://jri.sagepub.com

Kerri Tobin

Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA

Abstract
The 1999 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Civic Education
Study revealed that most countries having recently undergone political and social transformations had
lower civic knowledge scores than more stable nations. However, Poland, which instituted policies aimed
at educating citizens for democratic participation after the fall of Communism, scored above international
means. This article examines these educational policy initiatives and compares Poland with Romania, where
fewer curricular initiatives were undertaken. Using 1999 IEA data, the article evaluates civic educations
potential for promoting civic knowledge in transitioning nations and finds that successful programs tend to
pay attention to national context, provide for teacher professional development, engage students in active
learning and collaborate with established democracies to create curricula. Other factors that might have
contributed to the differing scores are also explored, including the two nations relative diversity, relationships
with Western democracies, experiences under communism, and definitions of democracy.

Keywords
civic education, Communism, Poland, Romania

Introduction
When societies make the transition from one form of government to another, how does education
play a role in preparing citizens for a new political reality? The very definition of citizenship
changes, often somewhat dramatically, when societies change from totalitarian systems to democratic ones. Previously voiceless subjects under a dictator are now expected to know how to act as
engaged citizens in a democracy: casting votes, staying informed, expressing opinions. Ethnic and
religious differences that might once have been shunned by a totalitarian ruler are expected to be
tolerated or even celebrated in a democratic society. Citizens are supposed to cultivate pride and a
sense of belonging to their nation without being passive recipients of propaganda or developing
extreme nationalism that leads to xenophobia. With these fundamental changes to expectations of
political and cultural behavior, how do citizens learn what to do?
Corresponding author:
Kerri Tobin, Educational Leadership, Policy, and Organizations,Vanderbilt University, Payne Hall 206A, 230 Appleton Place,
Nashville, TN 37203-5721, USA
Email: kerri.j.tobin@vanderbilt.edu

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

274

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

Social cohesion, though a somewhat nebulous term, is considered by many scholars to be a

crucial element in a nations functioning, as well as the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. When
a society is cohesive, its members trust one another and their social institutions, feel a sense of
togetherness and belonging, and are empowered to make changes to improve their collective life
experiences (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2001). Societies all over
the world today are experiencing a marked decline in social cohesion and finding that adolescents
are not only disengaged from the formal political system but also feel great distrust for it (TorneyPurta et al., 1999). Additionally, because of increased international migration, countries are experiencing greater inter-ethnic conflict. Particularly in nations transitioning from dictatorship to
democracy, there is a great need to understand the role of education in preparing citizens for participation and cohesion.
Although social cohesion is a difficult concept to define and is even more difficult to measure,
some proxies can be used. The International Association for the Evaluation of Educational
Achievement (IEA) Civic Education Study of 1999 attempted to create indicators for participating
countries that could be said to measure student knowledge and attitudes to democracy and democratic participation. The results of this study are helpful in suggesting a role for civic education in
emerging democracies because positive attitudes toward civic engagement can be viewed as indicators of a societys social cohesion. The study revealed that countries having undergone major
political and social transformations in the decade preceding the study had significantly lower civic
knowledge and attitude scores than their peers in more stable nations (Torney-Purta et al., 2001)
and thus, arguably, less social cohesion.
One exception to this finding was Poland, a former Eastern bloc country whose Communist
government was overthrown in 1989, where students scored above international means on indicators of civic knowledge and attitudes in 1999. This article examines educational policy initiatives
in Poland in the years immediately following the overthrow of the Communist government
policies aimed at educating citizens for democratic participation and examines the extent to
which the policies can be hypothesized to have contributed to students IEA scores (Remy and
Strzemieczny, 1997). The article also draws comparisons between Poland and Romania, another
former member of the Warsaw Pact, where fewer curricular initiatives were undertaken to prepare
citizens for the new government (Ciobanu, 2008) and whose students IEA scores fell below international means. Using data from the 1999 IEA survey, the article evaluates civic educations potential for promoting social cohesion in transitioning nations.

Research questions
Poland and Romania appear, at first glance, to be similar nations in many respects. Located in
Eastern Europe, each nation was controlled by a Soviet Union-backed Communist government for
decades until the fall of Communism in 1989. However, IEA scores are one measure on which these
nations are quite different. Polands scores in civic knowledge are above international means, while
Romanias scores fall below. By reviewing existing literature about civic education in these countries during the decade between the fall of Communism and the IEA study, this article will attempt
to shed light on two questions. What could account for the differences in civic education outcomes
in Poland and Romania? What are possible roles for civic education in emerging democracies?

Theoretical framework
This study, in looking for reasons why Polands and Romanias students civic education scores
differ, and looking for possible explanations within educational policy initiatives, is situated within

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

275

the idea that political and economic stability and order require cultural congruency in order to
flourish (Almond and Verba, 1963; Easton, 1965; Linz and Stepan, 1996). A nations students,
many scholars argue, ought to be learning the same things about how democracy works in order to
participate within it. Specific to the former Eastern bloc, also, political scientists and education
scholars have opined that post-Communist nations in particular need their citizens to be educated
about democracy in order to know how to participate in the new system.
The changes that took place in citizenship education in post-Communist countries at the beginning of the
1990s have no equivalent in the history of education. For the first time ever, the education of citizens,
previously based on the aim of indoctrinating them into being builders of Communism, had to be transformed into the education of citizens living in a democracy. (Buk-Berge, 2006: 534)

Many scholars would argue that because under Communist rule citizens were not permitted to vote
in free elections, take part in national conversations about politics and policy, or have access to free
market opportunities, a successful participatory democracy requires that these citizens be taught
how to exercise their agency to achieve desired ends and promote stability. These ideas are not
universally accepted, however; both stability and democratic education are difficult to measure, so
empirical evidence to support these claims cannot be realistically established. This study accepts
this premise as a rational one, in spite of its inability to be fully substantiated.
Another nebulously defined issue important here is the role of education, particularly civic education, in promoting democratic ideals. Theories and popular thought support the idea that part of
cultural congruency is inculcating the young of the nation with a common core of values (Almond
and Verba, 1963). Most Western democratic nations appear to believe that educating both youth
and adults in emerging democracies is important, as evidenced by the amount of funding that is
given by the West to civic education programs in newly democratic nations. Non-governmental
organizations, non-profit organizations and other funders from the USA and other Western nations
invest large amounts of money into programs designed to teach democracy in transitioning nations
(Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997). But the importance of such programs is not proven (Finkel,
2003). Although there is little consistent evidence about the impact of education on civic and political outcomes (Slomczynski and Shabad, 1998), some researchers have found evidence that classroom teachers and experiences impact students civic knowledge and attitudes (Avery, 2007; Niemi
and Junn, 1998). This article aims to examine whether there is reason to believe that specific characteristics of civic education might be related to IEA civic education outcomes, especially in
nations emerging from totalitarian rule and becoming democratic.

The IEA Civic Education Study

The IEA Civic Education Study was first carried out in 1971, with 11 nations participating: Federal
Republic of Germany (FRG), Finland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden,
the USA, England, and Iran. Although mostly established democracies chose to take part in this
survey of 10- and 14-year-olds, some salient differences emerged in the findings about students
civic knowledge and attitudes. Primarily, classroom climate had a strong impact on civic outcomes
(Oppenheim and Torney, 1974). The study also concluded that pedagogy was important and that
the use of rote learning and patriotic ritual had negative effects, while freedom of expression in the
classroom had positive effects on civic education scores (Torney, Oppenheim and Farnen, 1976).
The 1971 study also determined that there was no one single quality of a good citizen that could
be identified in the studied populations, and that there were three dimensions of citizenship education outcomes: support for democratic values, support for national government, and civic interest

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

276

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

and participation (Oppenheim and Torney, 1974). These findings were crucial in the design of the
1999 study, which took place in two phases to allow for more nuanced development of concepts to
be studied. In Phase I, researchers collected documentation and expert interviews describing the
content and process of civic education in the 24 participating countries. They also collected ideas
about what experts in these countries believed students should know about democratic institutions
like elections, individual rights, national identity, political participation and tolerance (TorneyPurta et al., 1999). Sponsored by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) in the USA,
the 1999 study was an international assessment of the civic knowledge and skills of 14-year-olds
in 28 countries: Australia, Belgium (French), Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Cyprus, Czech Republic,
Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong (SAR), Hungary, Italy, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA.
Although many differences were found between nations ideas about what comprises civic education and knowledge, a core of similar concepts did emerge during Phase I of the study. Some
common themes about content included citizens rights and responsibilities to participate in elections, to keep informed about politics and to exercise tolerance of different peoples. Experts from
participating countries tended to agree that civic education should be inter-disciplinary, participatory, interactive, related to real life and should take diversity into account and be carried out in a
non-authoritarian environment (Torney-Purta et al., 1999). With this information, researchers compiled a survey that attempted to measure students citizenship identities. Phase II of the 1999 IEA
Civic Education Study measured the total civic knowledge, civic engagement and civic attitudes of
almost 90,000 14-year-olds in the 28 countries and provides a picture of what students know and
how they feel about democracy, citizenship, national identity and diversity.

Civic knowledge
Civic knowledge is broken down by the IEA study into two categories: civic content and civic
interpretation skills. Civic content refers to knowledge of particular content, such as characteristics
of democracies. One test question asked students: In democratic countries, what is the function of
having more than one political party? and gave the multiple choice answers of a) to represent different opinions in the national legislature, b) to limit political corruption, c) to prevent political
demonstrations, and d) to encourage economic competition (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). This type
of question attempts to measure students knowledge of democratic principles.
Civic interpretation refers to those skills needed to understand civic-related information
and political communication. Some examples of civic skills include the ability to interpret a
political cartoon as well as the ability to gain information from a newspaper article. One question in this section showed a political cartoon of a hand erasing words from a history textbook
and asked students, What is the message or main point of this cartoon? Answer choices were
that History textbooksa) are sometimes changed to avoid mentioning problematic events
from the past; b) for children must be shorter than books written for adults; c) are full of information that is not interesting; d) should be written using a computer and not a pencil (TorneyPurta et al., 2001).
Differences in student scores on these measures were relatively small across nations, and there
seemed to be general consensus that democracies need free elections, civil society, free expression
of opinions, a balanced media and legal rule. Romania, however, scored below the international
means of 100 in both categories (knowledge: 93, interpretation: 90, overall: 92), while Poland
exceeded the international means in both, with 112 in content knowledge, 106 in interpretation,
and 111 in overall civic knowledge (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

277

Civic engagement
Civic engagement refers to students interest and participation in society. Its scales are conventional citizenship, social movement citizenship, expected participation in political activities and
confidence in participation in school. In general, students across nations responded that good citizens should vote and obey laws, exhibit loyalty to the country and work hard. Social movements
that students tended to support involved environmental protection and community service. The
official report notes that voting and conventional political participation activities were considered
relatively important by students in many nations where dramatic political events had recently
occurred, including Romania and Poland (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).

Civic attitudes
This scale measures a somewhat varied list of concepts. Included are economy-related government
responsibilities, society-related government responsibilities, positive attitudes toward immigrants,
positive attitude toward the nation, trust in government-related institutions, support for womens
political rights and open climate for classroom discussion. Although many post-Communist countries had lower scores for trust in government and related institutions, both Poland and Romania
were at the international mean.
Of interest to this article was the difference in the two nations scores on open climate for classroom discussion, because this has been linked to higher civic education outcomes (CIRCLE, 2003).
Students were asked to rate, using a Likert-type scale, their agreement with the following
statements:
students feel free to disagree openly with their teachers about political and social issues during class;
students are encouraged to make up their own minds about issues;
teachers respect our opinions and encourage us to express them during class;
students feel free to express opinions in class even when their opinions are different from
most of the other students;
teachers encourage us to discuss political or social issues about which people have different
opinions;
teachers present several sides of an issue when explaining it in class. (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
Romanias students, with 9.4, scored below the international mean (10) while Polands, with
10.4, scored above it. Likewise, teachers in Romania (55 per cent) were far less likely than those
in Poland (82 per cent) to agree that students ought to be part of negotiations about what will be
taught in school. The results in the IEA analysis demonstrated a correlation between open classroom culture and civic education scores (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). Campbell (2005) provides a
strong case showing how in the USA, students who learn in classrooms where they are encouraged
to participate and express opinions tend to have higher scores in both civic education and engagement. It is reasonable to assume that this holds true in other nations as well, though thoughtful
consideration of context is always important when making international comparisons.

Transition and education in Poland

Poland has an historical legacy of totalitarian control imposed upon it and its people. Between
1772 and the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, Russia, Prussia and Austria each absorbed and

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

278

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

controlled part of Poland. Poles then lived under direct Russian rule from 1918 until World War I
ended, when they enjoyed a brief period of democracy and positive relationships with the West.
However, World War II brought Soviet-supported Communist control, which left a legacy of
Stalinism and managed to effectively destroy and atomize the public sphere, as well as post-war
Communism, which caused widespread alienation towards public life and serious underdevelopment of public virtues (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997: 39).
Despite its experiences with Communism, Poland also has strong historical and contemporary
ties to Western Europe and North America (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997: 38), as well as a strong
labor union movement called Solidarity (Solidarno) which, in concert with the anti-Communist
Catholic church, eventually led to the weakening and dissipation of Communist control of the
country (Barker, 2005). In reaction to the Polish governments use of martial law to crush
Solidaritys labor union activity, the USA and other Western nations imposed economic sanctions
on Poland that forced its government to change. By 1989, Poland had held round table talks and
elections that signaled the end of Communist rule in the country (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997).
The leader of Solidarity, Lech Wasa, who had won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1983, was elected
President of Poland in 1990 and served in that capacity until 1995 (CNN, 2008).
With the new government came new educational initiatives. When IEA asked former Minister
of Education, Andrez Janowski, to write a report for their case study about the state and goals of
civic education in Poland since Communism, he was able to do so rather succinctly and forcefully.
His report states that although there is a legacy of distrust of centralized government and a widespread ignorance of free market principles, Poland is united in four national goals: stable international security, consolidation of democracy, development of civil society, and development of a
dynamic economy (Janowski, 1999).
In order to support these goals, Poland initiated civic education in schools. Since 1989, Polish
Grade 8 students have been required to take a one-hour, once-a-week course entitled Knowledge
About Society, which endeavors to teach the basic components of democracy, explain current
political events, and convey the foundational principles of market economy (Slomczynski and
Shabad, 1998). Although most teachers are not formally trained in civic education, this course
represents a move away from the totalitarian teachings of the Communist era (Janowski, 1999). In
addition to this required course in school, many students have also had the opportunity in recent
years to be exposed to programs started by non-profit, pro-democratic organizations.

Education for democratic citizenship in Poland

The largest and most comprehensive civic education initiative in post-Communist Poland is called
Education for Democratic Citizenship in Poland (EDCP), a joint project of the Ministry of
Education in Poland and the Ohio State University in the USA. The program started in 1992 and
has been heralded as the single most important step in laying out the educational foundations
for international understanding and civic education (Janowski, 1999). Described as a synergistic
and complementary partnership built on commitment, trust, and mutual effort, EDCP was created to accomplish five goals: to enhance the capacity of Polish educators to develop their own
civic education programs; to use American civic education expertise and resources to help Polish
educators meet needs they identify; to contribute to a national dialogue among Polish teachers,
educational leaders, and university scholars on democratic citizenship and civic education; to build
strong and continuing linkages between leading civic educators in the United States and Poland;
and to institutionalize civic education in all schools in Poland (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997:
4243). Although the programs educational objectives do not vary much from the traditional

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

279

Grade 8 required course, the pedagogical style is very different. This course involves active learning
and real-world applications of lessons, and meets twice a week over two years. Additionally, teachers receive extensive training and benefit from structured curricular materials, in the form of a
book called Lesson Scenarios for Civic Education, which contains 80 pre-written lessons (Remy
et al., 1993).
Despite the highly touted successes of the early years of the EDCP program, later results are less
definitive. One study of this program showed that it had no strong effects on student attitudes:
students who participated in it were not more likely than those in the traditional class to support
democracy or market economy in their extreme forms, but students having gone through EDCP
were more likely to regress toward the mean and reject any extreme support or rejection of democratic and free-market ideals (Slomczynski and Shabad, 1998). Nevertheless, many students have
been exposed to civic education and content through the program, possibly impacting their IEA
scores.

Other civic education programs

Another important organization in the quest to prepare Polish citizens, both students and adults, for
democracy has been the Education for Democracy Foundation, a joint project of the American
Federation of Teachers and the Polish Solidarity-sponsored Independent Education Group. This
foundation runs trainings for both teachers and students that teach individuals how to function in a
democracy. Specifically, the trainings focus on methods, including how to chair meetings, decisionmaking processes, negotiation and conflict resolution. The foundation also publishes booklets
related to these skills (Janowski, 1999). The organizations website lists among its missions
increasing public participation in schools supporting the willing participation of the local community, parents, educators and regional government in determining local education policy, contents and methods as well as school curricula (Stanowski, 2008). It is interesting to note that this
foundation, like the EDCP, is the result of collaboration between Polish and American civic educators and labor unions.
Polish teachers interested in learning about civic education and human rights teaching have a
journal called Open Society at their disposal as well. This publication provides educators with views
of civic education in other countries, as well as information on ethnic minorities living within the
country and material that can be used in social studies and history lessons (Janowski, 1999).
The Associated Schools Project of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) is another source of democratic and civic education for selected students
in Poland. Through summer language camps, students in this program, which involves over 8000
schools in 177 participating nations (UNESCO, 2008), are exposed to youth from other nations,
helping to build cross-cultural understanding that speaks directly to the Polish civic education goal
of increasing tolerance (Remy et al., 1993).
Additionally, the Neighbors and Minorities curriculum construction project of the UNESCO
Polish Commission attempts to provide education to Polish youth about the nations closest neighbors: Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Lithuanians, Ukranians, Belarussians and Russians. The objective of this program is to help educators create curricula for students that help them understand, and
cultivate tolerance for, the foreign cultures they are likely to encounter both within Poland and
abroad (Janowski, 1999).
Finally, many successful projects have been undertaken in Poland that aim to educate adults,
instead of children, about participation in the new democratic system (Janowski, 1999). Because
there is research to support the idea that political norms and values are transmitted at home, not at

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

280

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

school (Slomczynski and Shabad, 1998), it is possible that the education of the parents of Poland
has had great effect on the scores of the children of Poland, without any relationship to the education the children have received in school, or that parents education has helped to bolster that which
children receive in school.

Romanias move from Communism

Similar to Poland, Romanias modern history is largely one of struggle to form a government and
national identity independent of foreign control. Long controlled by larger neighbors such as
Austria-Hungary and the Ottomans, modern Romania did not become a sovereign state until the
1878 Treaty of Berlin at the close of the Russo-Turkish War. With that agreement, Romania became
an independent monarchy that lasted until its defeat by the Central Powers in World War I (Cook,
2001). The monarchy was recreated after the Allies won the war, but lasted only until the end of
World War II, when the Soviet Union captured the country and forced its monarch to flee in exile.
Romania was directly controlled by the Soviet Union through the late 1950s, until a treaty gave
power to the dictator Nicolae Ceauescu. During his three decades of rule, Ceauescu alienated
large portions of the population with brutal repression and authoritarian practices that largely
resembled the Stalinist tactics of their Soviet neighbors (Roper, 2000). He also made concerted
efforts to squash the labor movement, fearing the power of the Polish Solidarity group and its antiCommunist successes. Much of the former and current poverty problems of Romania are often
attributed to Ceauescus financial policies, which were enacted specifically to prevent Romania
from having to rely on Western nations for economic stability, because he feared this might have
allowed their anti-Communist thinking to penetrate his rule (Barnett, 1989).
Despite Ceauescus careful protections, popular uprisings broke out in 1989. Romanians,
emboldened by the fall of Communism in other countries, and the support offered by Western
nations, overthrew Ceauescus government and executed the former dictator and his wife
(Patterson, 1996). In his place, the National Salvation Front (NSF) took power through elections,
though the NSF had ties to the Communist regime (Roper, 2000). Gradually, the country enacted
democratic and free market reforms that led to Romanias joining NATO in 2004 and the European
Union in 2007, but the break from Communist rule was not as clean as in Poland.

Educational ideals and challenges

In stark contrast to the preponderance of programs for civic education in Poland, both nationally
and internationally funded, Romanias civic education landscape, particularly as reported in the
first phase of IEA, seems rather bare. The nation established some educational priorities with
regard to civic education, but as of the early 1990s, had very few programs in place to meet them.
Indeed, an examination of these priorities resembles more a laundry list than an organized plan of
action like that specified by the Polish Ministry of Education in 1992. According to the IEA case
study expert report, post-Communist education in Romania should include an explanation of the
fundamental rights, freedoms and duties of citizens as well as an explanation of forms and functions of government bodies and the legal system; it should also focus on public welfare, national
interests, public and patriotic duties, heroism, national unity, Romanian solidarity, national wealth,
national patriotism and common goods. This list, while exhaustive, is not a policy, nor does it
seem to be an imperative for action. The authors of the report acknowledge that the immediate
prerogative in Romania is to eradicate Communist ideology, not replace it with a new one (Bunescu
et al., 1999).

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

281

The report also details major challenges Romania faces in even beginning to design civic education
programming. First, there is the issue of the law stating that teachers are not to deal in politics at
school, often interpreted by teachers as a ban on any discussion of political and social problems
with students. And there are generational gaps; teachers tend to value closed society ideals and a
responsibility to collectivism, while students favor open society and freedom of expression and
initiative (Bunescu et al., 1999). Some traditions of the dictatorship still remain in school as well:
most teaching is what is called implicit, not democratic, meaning that students are not given agency
in the classroom nor encouraged to debate or express divergent viewpoints (Bunescu et al., 1999;
Kjellin and Stier, 2008). As noted earlier, only slightly more than half of teachers in Romania believe
that students should be given any say in what they study in the classroom (Torney-Purta et al., 2001).
Georgescu (1998) notes that a respect for the dignity of students and parents is lacking in
Romanian schools. Parents have no role in educational and school decisions, so chances for democratic participation are few (Bunescu et al., 1999). Ciobanu (2008) details the difficulties Romania
has had regarding rewriting history textbooks after the fall of Communism. She (2008: 59) explains
that under Soviet influence, history books expressed a myth of Romanian exceptionalism and
presented history as a series of successive glorious battles culminating in the victory of the
Communist party and Ceauescus leadership. After the fall of Ceauescus government, however,
the re-writing of these textbooks was highly contested. The task of rewriting them was not undertaken until 1998, at the urging of the European Union Council. And when they were rewritten, their
open criticism of national heroes, questioning of national identity, and undermining [of] what was
taken to be the goal of education that is, to promote patriotic loyalty was so controversial that
one of the new textbooks was immediately banned (Ciobanu, 2008: 59).
Further efforts to re-tell Romanias history in a more accurate manner have nonetheless been
attempted, most notably by a well-known Romanian poet Ana Blandiana, who started a foundation
to promote civic education and revise the countrys history falsified by the communist regime
(Ciobanu, 2008: 59). To this end, the Sighet Memorial Summer School started in 1998 to bring
together 14- to 18-year-old students in an attempt to teach them the real history of the nation.
However, in the early years, the atmosphere was stilted and conformist, the students unaccustomed to the free-flowing expression of ideas (Ciobanu, 2008: 60).
That students would not know how to engage actively in the classroom at Sighet Memorial
Summer School, even in 1998, is not surprising given the reluctance of government to re-vision
history in a more realistic light. The Romanian people clearly suffer from this continuingly repressive atmosphere. Georgescu (1998) writes of the tension existing in Romanias schools and universities between civic identity, ethnic identity and human rights universality. She describes positive
changes in Romanian attitudes toward involvement and civic participation engendered by a pilot
program of teacher training and purposefully designed materials, and predicts similar successes for
a curricular initiative to be undertaken the following school year. However, because it was initiated
so close to the IEA administration, the effects of the new curriculum she mentions may have been
missed by the study.
Information on one civic education program in Romania does exist, called Education for
Democracy, in conjunction with the American Federation of Teachers, but there is scant information published about it. We can confidently assume that this program is similar to its namesake in
Poland, which trains teachers and students how to function in a democracy, including how to chair
meetings, decision-making processes, negotiation and conflict resolution. But whereas the
Education for Democracy program is one of many satellite programs supporting the major EDCP
program, Education for Democracy in Romania appears not to work in concert with other more
robust initiatives. Perhaps because of the legacy of brutal oppression in Romania, as well as the

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

282

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

lack of concerted commitment by politicians and academics to promote democracy, attempts at

revising history teachings, teaching conflict resolution and promoting human rights are more commonplace in the literature about Romania than education for democratic participation.
Steiner-Khamsi (2002) analyzed the case of Romania through the lens of a theoretical framework
she developed based upon the assumption that civic education policies reflect the political culture of
the government. She expected to find that countries in transition would be more likely to emphasize
constitutional aspects of citizenship in their civic education, but she did not find that this was the
case in Romania. Buk-Berge (2006) explains that there is a problem with borrowing concepts from
established democracies, such as the USA, and trying to apply them in totally different situations in
other nations. It is clear that the case of Romania provides a puzzle for civic researchers, and more
research into how countries use education to support their post-Communist governments is needed.

Discussion and policy implications

This article started with two research questions. First, what might account for the differences in
Polands and Romanias IEA scores? Before embarking upon a close examination of the educational initiatives taken since 1989 in each country, we must examine other influences that might
account for the discrepant scores. The nations share some defining characteristics (such as having
been subject to Communist-supported totalitarian governments until 1989 and having citizens who
are wary of any collective action or attempt to teach political values in school), but also differ in
significant ways. Once we consider these issues, we can then turn to examining specific civic education curricula and their possible effects on IEA scores.
It is also important to recognize here the potentially endogenous relationship between social
cohesion and civic education. This review of literature and its conclusions have been based upon
the assumption that civic education, in the form of high IEA scores, boosts social cohesion because
it gives citizens a common foundation of knowledge and values. However, it is possible that an
already-cohesive nation would be more likely to absorb the teaching of civic skills and mores; thus,
social cohesion could boost IEA scores. Differences in IEA scores might have resulted from the
nations respective levels of diversity, historical relationships to western democratic nations, and
experiences under Communism. Similarly, IEA is based on one definition of democracy, which
may not be appropriate for each nation.

Diversity
On the surface, the two nations seem comparable: each threw off the mantle of a Soviet-backed
Communist government in 1989. The level of religious diversity is similarly low in the two nations,
with 89 per cent of Polish residents identifying themselves as Catholic and 86 per cent of Romanians
belonging to the Eastern Orthodox church (United States Central Intelligence Agency, 2008).
However, Poland is quite a bit larger than Romania, and also much more ethnically homogeneous.
Almost 97 per cent of people in Poland consider themselves to be Polish, compared with 89 per cent
identifying as Romanian in Romania. The Hungarian population, recorded at 6.6 per cent in 2002,
is Romanias largest minority group, and the Roma, at 2.5 per cent, are the second largest (United
States Central Intelligence Agency, 2008). The Hungarian minority in Romania was repressed
under Ceauescus reign, and members of that ethnic group still consider themselves badly treated
by the post-Communist Romanian government (Kiraly, 2004). Such a large minority, having such
an uneasy relationship with the dominant culture, could no doubt lessen a nations social cohesion,
and potentially impact its ability to mobilize widespread support for a new system of government.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

283

Relationships with western democracies

It is likewise important to look at each nations historical relationship to established western
democracies. Despite both Poland and Romania having fallen under Soviet control during
Communism, the nations have distinct geographic and ethnic identities. Though there is no agreement on how regions of Europe should be defined, by its citizens or those who study them, general
consensus tends to place Poland in the group of countries called central Europe, whereas Romania
is traditionally grouped with southeastern Europe or considered one of the Balkan states (United
States Central Intelligence Agency, 2010). The historical and political implications of this geographic distinction seem to be that central Europe is considered much closer in a cultural and political sense to western Europe and the USA than is southeastern Europe. The Polish national religion,
Catholicism, is also more western than Romanias Eastern Orthodox identity.
This difference in perceived identity of Poland as more western and Romania as more eastern
may help to explain why the American labor movement supported Solidarity in Poland during
Communism, but allowed Romanias labor movement to be quashed by Ceauescu. It is possible
to imagine, also, how a legacy of close ties with the west might have left the citizens of Poland
more interested in fashioning a new nation in the spirit of those established democracies, as well as
why western nations may have taken a greater interest in contributing to its democratic development. That Romanians would be more tentative about promoting patriotism or allegiance to a
western-style system is understandable when viewed from the perspective of its not having associated with the west throughout history. The west was never particularly involved in Romania before
1989, so its promotion of democracy may never look like Polands because the contexts are simply
too different. These differences could account for the IEA scores, regardless of what forms civic
education programs took in each nation.

Experiences under Communism

These differences in IEA scores and approach to civic education between Poland and Romania
may also be explained by the nature of each nations Soviet-supported government and experiences under Communism. Though it was centrally controlled and somewhat repressive, Polands
government was largely non-violent. Its transition to democracy was gradual, peaceful, supported by Western nations, and helped by a very powerful labor union movement and the Catholic
church. Labor union activity in particular can be viewed as an important training ground for
democracy, as union procedures and processes generally involve group decision-making, participation in discussions, debates and collective goal-setting, as well as the voting in of representatives. All of these activities may have paved the way for civic education as it was launched in
Poland, or even directly affected IEA scores by educating parents about how to participate in the
new system. Likewise, civic education goals and initiatives in Poland reflect a trust in westernstyle democracy that can be thought to have grown from a gradual and peaceful transition to the
new government.
Romania, conversely, suffered without western support under the oppression of a brutal dictator
who was violently overthrown and killed in order to replace the system with democracy, and even
its first post-Communist rulers had ties to the former Soviet regime. Its labor movement never
gained much strength or support from the west under Communism. Romanias goals are much
more focused on erasing the totalitarian system and promoting human rights, reflecting a very different experience under Communism and a violent and tumultuous transition. This difference
might explain the IEA scores as well.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

284

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

Definitions of democracy
The IEA study is based upon certain ideas about democracy, and these cannot be assumed to be
universal. Almost all of the participating countries are western and have western-style democratic
governments, but other concepts of democracy exist. For example, in 1988, 44 per cent of surveyed
residents of Hong Kong opined that the willingness of a government to consult public opinion was
sufficient to label it a democracy, 8 per cent did not believe paternalistic treatment by that government to be anti-democratic, and fewer than 15 per cent felt that an election was an important component of democracy (Lau et al., 1991). Therefore, policy implications of the IEA study results
may need to be limited to nations wishing to promote one specific type of democracy. Buk-Berge
(2006) describes different conceptualizations of democracy in the west and central-eastern parts of
Europe that may further explain why Romania approached the promotion of its new government
differently. The western idea of democracy, she states, was used most in Poland [and] was an
antipode to the Communist state (Buk-Berge, 2006: 540), resting heavily on the idea of individual
freedom. By contrast, the East European ideal of civil society evokes a strong communal attribute
that, while apart from the State, is also equally distant from the idea of the autonomous and agentic
individual upon which the idea of civil society rests in the West (Buk-Berge, 2006: 541). Because
the IEA measures western-style democratic ideals, particularly those involving individual freedoms, it is possible that Romanian education has been quite successful at instilling its democratic
ideals in Romanian students, but those ideals may not be what is measured by this test.

Role of civic education

The second question this review attempts to answer regards the potential role of civic education in
nations transitioning to democracy. Differences between educational approaches to teaching civics
in Poland and Romania are evident in the literature. Polands approach represents a great deal of
organization and effort to put programs into place that teach students about democracy and how to
participate in it and in a market economy, and IEA scores support the idea that these programs have
been successful. Romania, in contrast, seems to have entered into fewer partnerships with western
civic educators, and created mainly programs on re-visioning history and promoting human rights.
Some programs have been tried, but the overall sense given by the literature is that Romanians are
still working through their ideas and ideals about civic educations form and content. Although
neither empirical evidence nor a thorough examination of the elements of the various educational
programs in place in each nation gives us concrete answers, it is nonetheless possible to draw some
tentative conclusions. Context, pedagogy and curricular design, and cooperation with established
democracies, appear to play important roles in civic education.
First, national context is crucial in understanding a countrys needs in preparing its citizens for
participation in an emerging democracy. Two countries emerging from similar governments cannot
be presumed to have the same needs. What Romania needed in 1989 was to help its citizens trust
government and to establish a sense of human rights. Its government was not yet ready to admit
that the glorification of Romanian history had been dishonest, much less rewrite the curriculum to
encourage students to ask questions, challenge long-held notions and argue about national issues.
Poland, conversely, had gradual experiences with democratic processes even under Communism,
and the government was ready, by 1989, to promote the active involvement of its citizens. Poland,
then, was in need of direct instruction in specific democratic participation activities. No one curricular approach could have suited these two nations; their differing emphases seem appropriate to
their circumstances.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

285

Second, some specific classroom practices and curricular designs seem crucial. The EDCP
program was designed with the understanding that Polish teachers, never having had access to
civic education material before, would need easy-to-use lessons with rich resources included. The
EDCP curriculum was designed to teach teachers and students at the same time. That teachers
increased civic knowledge would have increased Polish students civic knowledge and engagement
is consistent with the findings from studies of students in the USA. Torney-Purta et al. (2005)
found that teachers professional development experiences related positively to their students civic
knowledge in the USA. Teachers having received in-service training and having a degree in a
related field correlated with significant increases in students IEA scores in the USA.
The way curriculum is delivered may be as important as its content. The EDCP program also
includes detailed information on how to teach in an active manner, including games, role-plays and
active discussions where students are encouraged to disagree with one another and teachers. These
student-centered learning activities have been shown to produce more support of democratic principles than more traditional passive educational practices (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997). Because
teaching only rote facts about dry procedures is unlikely to benefit students and may actually
alienate them from political participation, including voting (CIRCLE, 2003: 20), it seems reasonable to conclude that a civic education curriculum must encourage student participation in the
classroom. By empowering them in the classroom, these academic experiences directly prepare
students for participation in civic processes outside of school. The finding from the first IEA study
that open classroom climate was positively related to civic knowledge and engagement outcomes
(Oppenheim and Torney, 1974) supports this idea. That Polish students, who reported feeling their
ideas were more welcome in the classroom and whose teachers were more likely to believe students should have a voice in classroom decisions, had higher IEA scores than their Romanian
peers, with lower classroom climate scores and teachers much less inclined to share classroom
power, lends further credence to the idea that engaging and empowering students is as important as
the content taught in civic education classes.
Finally, it seems likely that careful planning and cooperation with educators in stable democratic nations such as the USA might contribute to greater civic knowledge acquisition. Although
as previously discussed, we cannot be sure whether the relationships with western nations that led
Poland to embark upon so many joint civic education programs with them also directly affected
IEA scores, it is likely that enlisting the help of educators in western-style democracies was also
helpful. These nations can be presumed to have experience and expertise to share with transitioning nations about what democracy looks like and how people can participate in it. Particularly
when western educators are willing to act in a supportive role, rather than taking control of curricular design as was the case with the EDCP collaboration between the Ohio State University and
the Polish Ministry of Education (Remy and Strzemieczny, 1997) such partnerships are likely to
produce programs not only suited to the nations specific needs but also reflecting knowledge of
seasoned practitioners.

Limitations
As with any study, the instrument used to measure civic knowledge and attitudes in the 1999 IEA
study is not perfect, and might not be equally appropriate for both of the countries examined here.
Internal reliability tests for the different subsections reveal that the Cronbachs alpha score for civic
interpretation was just under 0.7 in Romania (Torney-Purta et al., 2001). This could indicate that
the instrument is less appropriate for Romania than for Poland, where the score was higher. Crossnational comparisons are always difficult because of the need to take context into account.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

286

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

Perhaps the greatest limitation of this study is theoretical. There are two divergent schools of
thought, alluded to in the theoretical framework section, about the relationship between civic
knowledge and skills and stable democracy. It is not proven that the former are necessary in order
to engender the latter, nor that the pattern would be the same in all nations. Buk-Berge (2006)
strongly criticizes the IEA reports assumptions that education will mirror society with regard to
civics in all countries studied. However, if the assumption is made clear that civic education outcomes are related to the stability of an emergent democracy, policymakers have the option to assess
the information when deciding how best to invest funds to educate citizens.

Conclusion
When civic education is assumed to be crucial to the establishment of stable democracies in transitioning nations, it is helpful to know what types of programs lead to high knowledge acquisition.
The 1999 IEA study points to differences in civic education outcomes between many nations.
Comparisons between Poland, whose scores consistently exceeded the international means, and
Romania, whose scores fell below the means, yield some helpful information to guide future study.
The nations prove to be quite dissimilar in terms of ethnic diversity. Furthermore, their relationships to western democratic nations, the natures of their former Communist regimes, their conceptualizations of democracy, and the educational initiatives undertaken in each country after the fall
of Communism were also quite distinct. This article looked at those differences and concluded that
context-appropriate curricula, preparation of teachers, lessons that encourage students to participate actively in learning about democratic processes, and coordination with western democratic
educators may lead to higher civic education scores.
Certainly, further empirical study is crucial to expand upon these ideas. Nearly half a generation has passed since the 1999 IEA study was conducted, and the nations have likely grown to
resemble each other more. In the late 1990s, Romania joined a program in the USA designed to
assist educators in creating and implementing civic education programs (Burroughs et al., 2007),
which may promote more western-style democratic ideals. The Sighet Memorial Summer School
reports significant improvements in active participation from students in the last five years, but the
IEA study of 1999 would have missed these effects. Both nations are now members of NATO and
the European Union, making it possible that these nations are much more similar than they were
10 or 20 years ago. A promising curricular initiative in the 19981999 school year in Romania
may, by now, have had measurable effects on students IEA scores. Likewise, the Center for
Citizenship Education in Warsaw, one of the original partners in EDCP, reported in 1997 having
received a request from Romania to assist with civic education there. It is possible that, although
not found in the literature, such a partnership has formed and resulted in gains in civic knowledge
and engagement. The IEA study was repeated in 2009, and when the data are released late in 2010,
thorough analysis will reveal whether these nations students have begun to resemble each other
more closely.
References
Almond G and Verba S (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Avery P (2007) Civic education in diverse contexts: challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the
Citizenship Education in an Age of Worldwide Migration Conference, September, 2007, Munster, Germany.
Barker C (2005) The rise of Solidarnosc. International Socialism, 108. Available at: http://www.isj.org.uk/
index.php4?id=136&issue=108

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

Tobin: Civic education in emerging democracies

287

Barnett T (1989) Why Ceausescu fell: his silent war against the Romanian people backfired. The Christian
Science Monitor 28 December: 19.
Buk-Berge E (2006) Missed opportunities: the IEAs study of civic education and civic education in postCommunist countries. Comparative Education 42(4): 533548.
Bunescu G, Stan E, Albu G, Badea D and Oprica O (1999) Cohesion and diversity in national identity:
civic education in Romania. In: Torney-Purta J, Schwille J and Amadeo J (eds) Civic Education Across
Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 505521.
Burroughs S, Hopper P, Brocatim K and Sanders A (2007) Teaching for and about citizenship in a democratic
society: comparative views of selected civic educators in the United States, Europe, and Latin America.
International Journal of Social Education 22(2): 4969.
Cable News Network (CNN) (2008) Knowledge bank: Profiles. Available at: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/
cold.war/kbank/profiles/walesa/
Campbell D (2005) Voice in the classroom: how an open classroom environment facilitates adolescents civic
development. CIRCLE Working Paper 28. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning
and Engagement (CIRCLE) University of Maryland.
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) (2003) The Civic Mission
of Schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Central Intelligence Agency (2008) World Factbook: Poland and Romania. Available at: https://www.cia.
gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pl.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/
the-world-factbook/geos/ro.html
Central Intelligence Agency (2010) World Factbook. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/
the-world-factbook/
Ciobanu M (2008) Teaching history and building a democratic future: reflections from post-Communist
Romania. Democracy & Education 17(3): 5862.
Cook B (2001) Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.
Easton D (1965) A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Finkel S (2003) Can democracy be taught? Journal of Democracy 14(4): 137151.
Georgescu D (1998) Contemporary involvement in political and civic life: trends and implications of the
Romanian case. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engagement in Political and Civic
Life: Citizenship in Twenty-First Century Democracies, Valley Forge, PA, 49 October.
Janowski A (1997) Specific nature and objectives of civic education in Poland: analysis and reflections.
In: Fraczek A (ed.) State and Perspectives of Citizenship Education in Poland. Warsaw: University of
Warsaw and Ministry of Education, 117125.
Kiraly B (ed.) (2004) The Hungarian Minoritys Situation in Ceausescus Romania. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Kjellin M and Stier J (2008) Citizenship in the classroom: transferring and transforming transcultural values.
Intercultural Education 19(1): 4151.
Lau SK, Kuan HC and Wan PS (1991) Political attitudes. In: Lau SK, Kuan HC and Wan PS (eds) Indicators
of Social Development: Hong Kong 1996. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, the
Chinese University of Hong Kong, 173205.
Linz J and Stepan A (1996) Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South
America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press.
Niemi RG and Junn J (1998) Civic Education: What Makes Students Learn. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Oppenheim A and Torney J (1974) The Measurement of Childrens Civic Attitudes in Different Nations.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016

288

Journal of Research in International Education 9(3)

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2001) The Well Being of Nations: The Role of
Human and Social Capital. Paris: OECD.
Patterson M (1996) The road to Romanian independence. Canadian Journal of History 31(2): 329330.
Remy R and Strzemieczny J (1997) Education for democratic citizenship in Poland. International Journal of
Social Education 12(2) 3861.
Remy R, Strzemieczny J and Woyach R (1993) Building a foundation for civic education in Polands schools.
National Endowment for Democracy, Washington, DC.
Roper S (2000) Romania: The Unfinished Revolution. London: Routledge.
Slomczynski K and Shabad G (1998) Can support for democracy and the market be learned in school? A
natural experiment in post-Communist Poland. Political Psychology 19(4): 749779.
Stanowski K (2008) Education for Democracy Foundation. Available at: http://www.tolerance-net.org/news/
podium/podium073.html
Steiner-Khamsi G (2002) Spheres of citizenship. In: Steiner-Khamsi G, Torney-Purta J and Schwille J (eds)
New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: an International Comparison.
Oxford: Elsevier Science, 179206.
Torney J, Oppenheim A and Farnen R (1976) Civic Education in Ten Countries: An Empirical Study.
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Torney-Purta J, Barber C, Richardson W (2005) How teachers preparation relates to students civic knowledge and engagement in the United States: analysis from the IEA Civic Education study. Medford MA:
Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).
Torney-Purta J, Schwille J and Amadeo J (1999) Mapping the distinctive and common features of civic
education in twenty-four countries. In: Torney-Purta J, Schwille J and Amadeo J (eds) Civic Education
Across Countries: Twenty-Four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project. Amsterdam:
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement, 505521.
Torney-Purta J., Lehmann R, Oswald H and Schultz W (2001) Citizenship and education in twenty-eight countries: civic knowledge and engagement at age fourteen. Paper published by the International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (2008) UNESCO Associated
Schools. Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=7366andURL_DO=DO_
TOPICandURL_SECTION=201.html.

Biographical note
Kerri Tobin is a PhD student in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Organizations
at Vanderbilt Universitys Peabody College, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. Her research focuses on
the social context of education and education for citizenship in both domestic and international
contexts.

Downloaded from jri.sagepub.com at West Uni from Timisoara on April 18, 2016