Cultivating good citizens at mbo
06 January 2020At intermediate vocational education (MBO), students learn a profession, such as software developer, baker or teaching assistant. However, students are not only taught vocational skills, but also citizenship. Citizenship education has been compulsory at mbo since 1996. The vast majority of mbo students have a Dutch passport and are therefore already citizens. So citizenship education does not make students citizens, but teaches them good to be citizens. This raises an interesting question: what kind of citizens does the government want to cultivate at the mbo?
To answer this question, I analyse a law from 2011. At that time, the government laid down in quite some detail what MBO students should learn about citizenship. According to this law, citizenship has four dimensions.
- The political-legal dimension teaches students ‘the willingness and ability to participate in political decision-making’ and covers topics such as democracy and human rights.
- The economic dimension is about ‘the willingness and ability’ to work and ‘consume appropriately and responsibly’. Students learn to be good colleagues, obey rules and not get into debt.
- The societal dimension deals with ‘the willingness and ability to be part of and actively contribute to the community.’ There is a strong focus on tolerance and diversity.
- Finally, the vital citizenship dimension ‘the willingness and ability to reflect on one's lifestyle and take care of one's own vitality’. Issues discussed include nutrition, sport and sexuality.
In 2016, the government added ‘critical thinking skills’. Students should be able to assess sources, take the perspective of others and reflect on their own views.
At first glance, this government vision of citizenship seems obvious and innocuous. Of course it is nice that students learn about voting rights, consumption, diversity and health. Yet there are problems too. For instance, it is very ironic - and embarrassing - that despite the focus on (sexual) diversity, the law only talks about ‘he’, ‘him’ and ‘his’.
Moreover, the government encourages good citizenship in several ways. First, there is a strong emphasis on duties and responsibilities of citizens. Good citizens vote, work, handle money wisely, are active in their communities, respect others, and live healthy lives. Note that the government does not encourage all activities: it does not mention activism or housework, for example. There is much less focus on citizens' rights, such as on benefits. Above all, citizens should bravely fend for themselves and not expect too much support from the government. This vision of citizenship fits seamlessly with government policies of cuts in care, benefits and other public services.
The way the government understands problems highlights such individual responsibilities. Take, for example, the vital citizenship dimension. According to the government, health problems are their own, individual problems that people can and should solve themselves. Students learn to make ‘responsible choices’ and engage in ‘health-promoting activities’ such as sports. People do indeed influence their own health. But their socio-economic background also plays an important role; the richer, the healthier. In the graph, you can see that people with higher incomes live longer. MBO graduates can do little about their parents' income and anyway, climbing the social ladder is quite difficult. Sport does not solve such structural inequalities; that requires active government intervention.
Second, the law uses a very narrow meaning of political. The political-legal dimension is separate from the other dimensions. However, politics encompasses much more than parties and parliament. Labour relations, for example, are about power (see our blog on unions), and culture is also related to politics. Who decides what is ‘normal’ and what is ‘our’ tradition? Black Peters or not? By separating power and politics from the other three dimensions, government creates less space for resistance and protest.
Thirdly, one can question the critical thinking that students learn. After all, the law constantly talks about ‘readiness’. Students not only learn things to can, but also to want. Making their own critical choices is thus not encouraged. And while students learn to criticise individual opinions, they do not learn to critically reflect on social issues such as public policy and power relations.
In this article, I have only looked at the definition of citizenship in the law. How citizenship education takes place in practice is another story. In any case, the law clearly shows what kind of citizens the government wants to breed at mbo: good citizens. Students are taught to behave dutifully, responsibly and obediently, but not to criticise social problems, demonstrate, or demand government intervention. The lack of a public debate on the subject exacerbates the issue. Many have never heard of citizenship education and the criticisms of some mbo graduates and their teachers have hardly received national attention. However, the Netherlands is a democracy. We, as citizens, ultimately decide what students learn about citizenship. Dear citizens, let your voices be heard!
Political Amsterdam Commission Team,
Carlijn Enzerink
Sources
The law under discussion: Examination and Qualifications Decree for Vocational Education and Training WEB, annex 1 Belonging to Article 17a(3). See https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0027963/2019-08-01#Bijlage1
Guérin, Laurence. “The law and citizenship: Constraints and challenges.” Consulted at https://burgerschapmbo.nl/app/uploads/De-wet-en-Burgerschap-002.pdf
Schinkel, Willem. “Against ‘active citizenship’”.” Judicial explorations 5, no. 8 (2007): 70-90.
Westheimer, Joel, and Joseph Kahne. “What kind of citizen? The politics of educating for democracy.” American Educational Research Journal 41, no. 2 (2014), 237-269.
Images
https://pixabay.com/nl/photos/mensen-meisjes-vrouwen-studenten-2557396/
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2009/52/gezonde-levensverwachting-korter-bij-lage-inkomens
