Arbeitsbereich Geschichtsdidaktik / History Education, Universität Hamburg

custom header picture

Political Competencies or Democracy Competence and Competencies of Historical Thinking? Some Current Trends in Civic Education in Germany

07. Juni 2011 Andreas Körber Keine Kommentare

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

[the fol­lo­wing artic­le has been published in Spa­nish as:

Kör­ber, Andre­as (2010): “¿Com­pe­ten­ci­as polí­ti­cas o com­pe­ten­cia demo­crá­ti­ca y com­pe­ten­cia de pen­sar his­tóri­ca­men­te? Ten­den­ci­as actua­les de la edu­ca­ción cívica en Ale­ma­nia.” In: Iber: Didác­ti­ca de las cien­ci­as socia­les, geo­grafía e his­to­ria. 66, pp.92 – 104.



This artic­le aims at giving a short over­view over deve­lo­p­ments in Ger­man civic edu­ca­ti­on, i.e. the aca­de­mic deba­te and prag­ma­tic pro­grams. An in-depth-account over all strands of inquiry, deba­te and reform, can­not be aimed at for main­ly two reasons: First­ly, “civic edu­ca­ti­on” is a rather wide and unstruc­tu­red field, which com­bi­nes dif­fe­rent aca­de­mic disci­pli­nes and their didac­ti­cal coun­ter­parts resp. bran­ches, name­ly poli­ti­cal sci­en­ces, eco­no­mic­al stu­dies, socio­lo­gy resp. social sci­en­ces, the lat­ter of which is some­ti­mes unders­tood as an inte­gra­ted disci­pli­ne also embra­cing legal stu­dies” for non-spe­cia­lists. Second­ly, edu­ca­tio­nal admi­nis­tra­ti­on is the domain of the fede­ral sta­tes in Ger­ma­ny, resul­ting in schools sub­jects and cur­ri­cu­la as well as forms of exami­na­ti­on vary­ing. Third­ly, con­cepts and models are not mere­ly “han­ded down” from aca­de­mics to admi­nis­tra­ti­on and prac­ti­tio­ners, but the lat­ter are con­sti­tu­ti­ve actors in the deba­tes and the deve­lo­p­ment. The divi­ding lines bet­ween insti­tu­ti­ons and school sub­jects in this field run along some­what dif­fe­rent lines than in other count­ries and edu­ca­tio­nal cul­tures.

Both main trends sel­ec­ted for this short over­view1 can be seen as being focus­sed on a com­pa­ra­ble con­cern: the pro­mo­ti­on of stu­dents’ abili­ties in the modern, plu­ra­list socie­ty. Their start­ing-points, theo­re­ti­cal back­grounds, rela­ti­ons to deve­lo­p­ments in other fields and disci­pli­nes and thus their under­stan­dings of the main com­mon term, “com­pe­tence” is quite different.

Orientation on “Outcome”: “Competencies” and “Standards”

One of the deve­lo­p­ments to be con­side­red and the­r­e­fo­re to be sket­ched here is lin­ked to the con­cepts of “edu­ca­tio­nal stan­dards” and domain-spe­ci­fic “com­pe­ten­ci­es”. Even though poli­ti­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es have not been sub­ject of lar­ge-sca­le-assess­ments both befo­re and within the PISA pro­gram2 (as e.g. has been the case with com­pe­ten­ci­es in mathe­ma­tics, modern lan­guages and sci­ence), the gene­ral noti­ons and con­cepts of the­se pro­grams – name­ly the ori­en­ta­ti­on to edu­ca­tio­nal “out­co­me” – have also influen­ces civic education.

When in 2000 the Ger­man sam­ple achie­ved dis­ap­poin­ting results in the inter­na­tio­nal PISA-pro­gram (at least com­pared to the self-image of the Ger­man edu­ca­tio­nal sys­tem), the stan­ding con­fe­rence of the fede­ral secre­ta­ries of edu­ca­ti­on (KMK) deci­ded to draw con­se­quen­ces in form of a gene­ral re-ori­en­ta­ti­on of the stee­ring-model of edu­ca­ti­on. Ins­tead of pre­scrib­ing the con­tents of les­sons in gene­ral schools in cur­ri­cu­la (“input-ori­en­ta­ti­on”), schools were to be given more auto­no­my to deci­de on the con­tents, whe­re­as the results of the­se les­sons were to be de- and pre­scri­bed in a stric­ter way than befo­re (“outcome”-orientation and stan­dar­di­s­a­ti­on). The idea was that iden­ti­cal (or at least com­pa­ra­ble) “com­pe­ten­ci­es” could and should be deve­lo­ped in les­sons and cour­ses working on dif­fe­rent sub­jects. This cal­led for a much stric­ter con­cep­tua­liza­ti­on of what the com­pa­ra­ble “out­co­mes” should be. The­se nee­ded to be both appli­ca­ble to dif­fe­rent situa­tions, i.e. trans­fera­ble abili­ties and skills, and verifiable.

Buil­ding on deve­lo­p­ments under way in other count­ries for seve­ral years befo­re, name­ly the stan­dar­di­s­a­ti­on-trends in the USA, the deve­lo­p­ment of “rubrics” for self-assess­ment, new pos­si­bi­li­ties of quan­ti­ta­ti­ve edu­ca­tio­nal rese­arch using pro­ba­bi­li­stic models (main­ly RASCH), and the deba­tes around “key com­pe­ten­ci­es” and “qua­li­ty manage­ment” in edu­ca­ti­on, a pro­gram was set up to defi­ne “models of com­pe­ten­ci­es” for some of the main school sub­jects, name­ly Ger­man lan­guage and lite­ra­tu­re, mathe­ma­tics, bio­lo­gy and modern for­eign lan­guages (cf. KMK 2004). Espe­ci­al­ly for the lat­ter, this pro­gram could also build upon the results of the long pro­cess of inter­na­tio­nal deve­lo­p­ment of the Com­mon Euro­pean Frame­work of Refe­rence for Lan­guages (CEFR).

One of the results of this cour­se pushed by the KMK was that repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of school sub­jects not included in this list feared that their sub­jects might lose rank com­pared to others, being “second class sub­jects” no lon­ger being eli­gi­ble for major exams (cf. Sach­se 2005). For many such sub­jects (among­st them geo­gra­phy, histo­ry – and poli­ti­cal stu­dies), the­r­e­fo­re school admi­nis­tra­tors, didac­tics and tea­chers joi­n­ed in efforts to estab­lish the main instru­ments of this new stee­ring model of school admi­nis­tra­ti­on: models of competencies.

The role model for the­se had been sket­ched by a KMK-com­mit­tee (Kli­e­me et al. 2003), refer­ring to a defi­ni­ti­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es by F. E. Wei­nert, sin­ce then quo­ted in almost every rela­ted publi­ca­ti­on. The com­mis­si­on had pro­mo­ted it as a struc­tu­red set of defi­ni­ti­ons of the main “are­as” of skills and abili­ties as well as “moti­va­tio­nal and voli­tio­nal fac­tors” which can be distin­gu­is­hed as being neces­sa­ry for peo­p­le to act in the respec­ti­ve field of know­ledge and action (“domain”). With the lat­ter term, taken from cogni­ti­ve psy­cho­lo­gy, the com­mit­tee dam­pened the ori­en­ta­ti­on to estab­lished school sub­jects still domi­nant in the school admi­nis­tra­ti­on dis­cour­se. Fur­ther­mo­re, it thus encou­ra­ged defi­ni­ti­ons of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” focu­sing not main­ly on the tasks and requi­re­ments in the schools them­sel­ves (“what abili­ties do stu­dents need to pass the next exams and suc­ceed in hig­her gra­des?”) but rather on the requi­re­ments met by citi­zens and “job­hol­ders” in modern socie­ties. This, howe­ver, has only had litt­le effect – espe­ci­al­ly more so, sin­ce the who­le pro­gram aimed not only at the defi­ni­ti­on of com­pe­ten­ci­es, but also to their stan­dar­diza­ti­on for dif­fe­rent levels (or “niveaus”)3 with a main regard to an “inter­me­dia­te” exam. While the Kli­e­me-exper­ti­se out­lined a pro­gram of stan­dar­di­s­a­ti­on via pro­ba­bi­li­stic methods and thus of arri­ving at con­cre­te stan­dards only after exten­si­ve empi­ri­cal rese­arch, espe­ci­al­ly crea­ting, test­ing, dif­fe­ren­tia­ting /”nor­malizing” sets of items for each com­pe­ten­cy, repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of many sub­jects aimed at for­mulating “stan­dards” in a rather quick way.

As for the area of stu­dy in ques­ti­on here, one of the seve­ral pro­fes­sio­nal asso­cia­ti­ons focu­sing on poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on for youths and adults (GPJE) took a head start and pre­sen­ted a com­pe­tence model of the said kind within rather short time (Det­jen et al. 2004). Direct­ly buil­ding on the said defi­ni­ti­on of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” by Wei­nert and the out­line by the Kli­e­me-com­mit­tee, it pre­sen­ted a struc­tu­red set of abili­ties to be deve­lo­ped by poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on in schools, up to the “inter­me­dia­te exam”. As with most models pre­sen­ted in the fol­lo­wing years, it descri­bed the are­as of skills and abili­ties but refrai­ned from express­ly defi­ning “niveaus” of the sket­ched com­pe­ten­ci­es.4

For our con­cern in this artic­le, it is not neces­sa­ry to sketch the who­le model of com­pe­ten­ci­es. A short over­view is given in Graph 1. For the com­pa­ri­son of this trend to “ori­en­ta­ti­on on com­pe­ten­ci­es” to the other deve­lo­p­ment to be sket­ched below (ch. 3), it is neces­sa­ry to cha­rac­te­ri­se the under­stan­ding of “abili­ties” and “com­pe­ten­ci­es”:

When in 2003 one of the Ger­man asso­cia­ti­ons for civic edu­ca­ti­on, the GPJE, pre­sen­ted their edu­ca­tio­nal stan­dards for poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on, it was one of the first coll­ec­tions of such stan­dards to appear after the cen­tral Kli­e­me-Exper­ti­se5 – a speed spe­ci­fi­cal­ly remar­kab­le becau­se of the fact that civic (or its varia­ti­ons) edu­ca­ti­on as a school sub­ject was not inten­ded to deve­lop such stan­dards in the first place. Other sub­jects fol­lo­wed with some delay – espe­ci­al­ly geo­gra­phy, reli­gious edu­ca­ti­on and also histo­ry; in most of them, not one model was pre­sen­ted, but dif­fe­rent com­pe­ting ones.

The GPJE-stan­dards pre­sen­ted descrip­ti­ons of abili­ties and skills of stu­dents after gra­de 4, ca. 9/​10 (inter­me­dia­te secon­da­ry degree) and 12/​13 (Abitur) resp. the end of voca­tio­nal trai­ning. The­se abili­ties were sor­ted into three dimen­si­ons of com­pe­ten­ci­es. This struc­tu­re is given in Graph 1.

Graph 1: Dimen­si­ons of poli­ti­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es after Det­jen et al 2004, p. 13 (Transl. A.K.)


Within the­se three dimen­si­ons, all of which are foun­ded on a basis of con­cep­tu­al know­ledge neces­sa­ry for ana­ly­sis and inter­pre­ta­ti­on, spe­ci­fic out­co­mes (stan­dards) are defi­ned for dif­fe­rent gra­des, e.g. for the end of gra­de 4 (sel­ec­tion): the stu­dents can (Det­jen et al. 2004, p. 19):

  • “explain func­tion of sel­ec­ted public insti­tu­ti­ons on dif­fe­rent poli­ti­cal levels”

  • “for­mu­la­te ques­ti­ons and opi­ni­ons with regard to poli­ti­cal events and con­flicts which meet their per­so­nal inte­rest” (poli­ti­cal power of judgement);

  • “for­mu­la­te and reason/​justify poli­ti­cal jud­ge­ments to mat­ters of politics/​polity/​policy and tole­ra­te other positions”;

  • “prac­ti­ce the rule of majo­ri­ty as a demo­cra­tic means of deci­ding, e.g. when­ever con­sen­sus is not to be found within lear­ners’ groups” (poli­ti­cal abili­ty to act);

  • “simu­la­te a poli­ti­cal­ly rele­vant situa­ti­on by means of play”

  • “use books and elec­tro­nic offers of infor­ma­ti­on, espe­ci­al­ly tho­se for child­ren on the inter­net for class sub­jects” (metho­di­cal abilities).

and addi­tio­nal­ly for the “inter­me­dia­te school exam” (gra­de 9/​10):

  • “the stu­dents have com­mand over a reflec­ted insight into the poli­ti­cal sys­tem of the Fede­ral Repu­blic of Ger­ma­ny, its eco­no­mic and socie­tal order and their interdependences”;

  • they have “con­cep­tu­al know­ledge about the com­mit­ment to fun­da­men­tal rights and per­so­nal free­dom as core con­cepts of sta­tes with demo­cra­tic constitutions”;

  • they can “reflect and judge poli­ti­cal mat­ters (events, pro­blems) taking into account the per­spec­ti­ves and expec­ta­ti­ons of peo­p­le con­cer­ned and of poli­ti­ci­ans” [] (poli­ti­cal power of judgement);

  • “form own poli­ti­cal jud­ge­ments and sup­port them in con­fron­ta­ti­ons with other posi­ti­ons in a fact-ori­en­ta­ted, argu­men­ta­ti­ve way” (poli­ti­cal abili­ty to act);

  • they are “able to recon­s­truct the role of media com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on for the poli­ti­cal public refer­ring to an ade­qua­te exam­p­le” (metho­di­cal abilities).

“Democratic Education”

The second deve­lo­p­ment in civic edu­ca­ti­on to be cover­ed here is based on a dif­fe­rent con­cept of “com­pe­tence”. While the con­tri­bu­ti­ons dis­cus­sed in the chap­ter befo­re all are focu­sing on both the dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on of the gene­ral aim of enab­ling stu­dents to par­ti­ci­pa­te in socie­ty into dif­fe­rent com­pe­ten­ci­es and levels, the focus of this other pro­ject is on a more gene­ral “demo­cra­tic com­pe­tence”. In addi­ti­on, while the for­mer com­plex uses a more distinct con­cept of “poli­ti­cal”, focu­sing on the socie­tal tasks of deri­ving and legi­ti­mi­zing man­da­to­ry and obli­ga­to­ry decis­i­ons, resp. reflec­ting on the models of pro­ce­du­res and legi­ti­ma­ti­ons in demo­cra­tic socie­ties, this second com­plex of initia­ti­ves employs a broa­der con­cept of “demo­cra­tic com­pe­tence” which embraces abili­ties and skills not only in the nar­rower field of “poli­tics” and “poli­ty”, but in demo­cra­tic and civic socie­ties as a who­le. In a cer­tain sen­se, the initia­ti­ve to be short­ly sket­ched in the fol­lo­wing para­graphs is more of a civic edu­ca­ti­on, while the for­mer is more “poli­ti­cal” – a dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on which has led to both deba­te and second reflec­tions about the aims of both projects.

As has been hin­ted befo­re, this second trend in civic edu­ca­ti­on employs a broa­der con­cept of “demo­cra­cy” as the basic struc­tu­re of socie­ty, not only of the poli­ti­cal sys­tem as such. The trend has been set by a pro­gram of the joint federal/​federal count­ries’ com­mis­si­on (BLK) initia­ted by Wolf­gang Edel­stein and Peter Fau­ser, the back­ground of which was a nega­ti­ve assess­ment of the both psy­cho­lo­gi­cal and poli­ti­cal con­di­ti­on of youths in Ger­ma­ny, which can only be hin­ted at here by naming cen­tral pro­blems: right win­ged extre­mism, racism and xeno­pho­bia (espe­ci­al­ly in spe­ci­fic milieus of under­pri­vi­le­ged youths and with a reco­gnizable east-west gra­di­ent), (most­ly male) vio­lence in schools con­nec­ted with school cli­ma­te and lear­ning qua­li­ty, wide­spread annoyan­ce with and dis­in­te­rest in poli­tics.6 The pro­gram aimed at an edu­ca­tio­nal ans­wer to the­se pro­blems. The­r­e­fo­re “Living and Lear­ning Demo­cra­cy” was meant rather a pro­gram for school deve­lo­p­ment in gene­ral, addres­sing demo­cra­cy as a goal of all edu­ca­ti­on and lear­ning demo­cra­cy as a gene­ral task, than as a pro­gram for civic edu­ca­ti­on in spe­cial. Youths’ distance towards poli­tics and the resul­ting ina­bi­li­ty to rely on inte­rest in clas­si­cal poli­ti­cal pro­blems com­bi­ned with a reco­gni­ti­on of an increased abs­tract­ness and com­ple­xi­ty of poli­tics led to an ori­en­ta­ti­on towards a demo­cra­tic rene­wal of school in its­elf, focu­sing on indi­vi­dua­li­sed and coope­ra­ti­ve methods of lear­ning, on enab­ling posi­ti­ve lear­ning and self-expe­ri­en­ces, as well as expe­ri­en­ces with “ele­men­ta­ry demo­cra­tic pro­ces­ses” such as “nego­tia­ting, coope­ra­ting, plan­ning, voting, deci­ding etc.”; Edelstein/​Fauser 2004, p. 12f). The fact that the iden­ti­fied ten­den­ci­es stood in alar­ming con­trast to the aims of the estab­lished civic edu­ca­ti­on, which (as shown abo­ve) was and is ori­en­ta­ted towards a par­ti­ci­pa­to­ry model of citi­zen, and in a way pro­ved it unsuc­cessful (p. 17), has led to influen­ces of the program’s con­cep­tua­liza­ti­on onto the civic edu­ca­ti­on frame­work, espe­ci­al­ly with regard to the con­cepts used in it. “Demo­cra­cy” in this con­text is much more than a form of govern­ment and a set of prin­ci­ples used in it – it is a qua­li­ty of ever­y­day life and of socie­tal and public order, a “life-form” and a con­sti­tu­ti­on with huma­ne con­di­ti­ons and the refrain from vio­lence as cri­ter­ion of imple­men­ta­ti­ons (p. 18). based on this ori­en­ta­ti­on towards enab­ling posi­ti­ve expe­ri­en­ces with basic demo­cra­tic pro­ces­ses which can be trans­fer­red to the con­cep­tua­liza­ti­on and reco­gni­ti­on of “high” poli­tics and can fos­ter inte­rest in and dis­po­si­ti­on for par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on, “demo­cra­cy” beco­mes as much a pedago­gi­cal as a poli­ti­cal con­cept, the two realms being tho­rough­ly interwoven.

This has pro­ved both valuable for bridging the gap bet­ween stu­dents’ “life world” and ever­y­day expe­ri­en­ces (and chal­lenges) on the one and “poli­tics” on the other hand, but also has led to an infla­tio­na­ry usa­ge of “poli­ti­cal” con­cepts and thus the peril of blur­ring con­cep­tio­nal under­stan­ding. For exam­p­le, initia­ti­ves and pro­grams aiming at streng­thening “human rights”, i.e. the under­stan­ding of their neces­si­ty and importance as well as enab­ling stu­dents to respect them (i.e. their fel­low-citi­zens’) in their ever­y­day life are on the one hand neces­sa­ry. On the other hand they might blur the under­stan­ding that “human rights” in the nar­row (not: pro­per) sen­se pro­tect the indi­vi­du­al against the collective’s (main­ly the state’s) trans­gres­si­ons. In Ger­man poli­ti­cal theo­ry, the­re is, howe­ver, no reco­gni­ti­on of a direct “hori­zon­tal effect” of basic and human rights.

If doing so in pro­jects leads to reflec­tions on the neces­si­ty to a) indi­rect­ly secu­ring humans rights also in the “hori­zon­tal” (citi­zen-to-citi­zen) rela­ti­onship or b) chan­ges in the said poli­ti­cal theo­ry, the­se pro­grams pro­mo­te the con­cep­tu­al under­stan­ding of stu­dents. If, howe­ver, they rest­rict them­sel­ves to social lear­ning, fos­te­ring stu­dents’ ide­as to behave “civic” (in the sen­se of ‘tole­rant’ and ‘actively com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ve’) to each other (and espe­ci­al­ly other groups), they are valuable, but tend to under­mi­ne the poli­ti­cal under­stan­ding of the spe­cial natu­re of “human rights”.

“Demo­cra­cy com­pe­tence” in the under­stan­ding of this second pro­ject-com­plex is much more as a com­bi­na­ti­on of “poli­ti­cal com­pe­ten­ci­es” in that it stres­ses the neces­sa­ry , not sole­ly cogni­ti­ve, insight of stu­dents that demo­cra­cy is not a given struc­tu­re for gover­ning only to be acted within, but also con­sti­tu­tes a way for orga­ni­s­ing a socie­ty and a way of living,7 which needs to be upheld and streng­the­ned in ever­y­day life. In this sence, the sin­gu­lar of “demo­cra­tic com­pe­tence” is signi­fi­cant against the plu­ral of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” in the for­mer com­plex. The spe­ci­fi­ci­ty of poli­ti­cal vs. socie­tal competenc(i)e(s) is, howe­ver, sub­ject of reflec­tion and debate.

One more point should be con­side­red. While the for­mer, PISA-dri­ven, com­plex uses a con­cept of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” which has been infor­med and influen­ced by a deba­te around “key qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons”, it car­ri­es along a con­no­ta­ti­on of the term as qua­li­fi­ca­ti­ons to be triggered/​called upon by others. This noti­on part­ly stems from the use of this con­cept of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” in advan­ced trai­ning in eco­no­mic­al set­tings. The­re, some­ti­mes at least, “com­pe­ten­ci­es” are con­cei­ved of as part of “human resour­ces” to be deve­lo­ped, but to be cal­led upon by the employ­er. The other root of this con­no­ta­ti­on has alre­a­dy been men­tio­ned: it is the under­stan­ding that “com­pe­ten­ci­es” descri­be abili­ties and skills nee­ded in school. Both fac­tors con­tri­bu­te to an under­stan­ding of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” as abili­ties and skills, but wit­hout the aspect of respon­si­bi­li­ty for their being cal­led upon. “com­pe­tence” in the full sen­se, howe­ver, does also embrace the noti­on that the hol­der of a spe­ci­fic skill needs to be the one final­ly deci­ding on whe­ther to use it or not – com­pe­ten­cy as respon­si­bi­li­ty. In other words: Fos­te­ring and enhan­cing “com­pe­ten­ci­es” must also embrace the idea of streng­thening the sub­jec­ti­vi­ty of the lear­ner, his (or her) indi­vi­dua­li­ty in acting and reflec­ting upon actions and results. In this view, ori­en­ta­ti­on towards com­pe­ten­ci­es can be seen as ano­ther step of a sub­ject- or lear­ner-ori­en­ta­ted pedagogy.

This noti­on of respon­si­bi­li­ty for one’s own actions (and omis­si­ons), for lever­aging abili­ties and skills, is stron­ger con­no­ta­ted in the second pro­ject of “demo­cra­cy com­pe­tence”, along with the alre­a­dy men­tio­ned respon­si­bi­li­ty for pro­mo­ting demo­cra­cy as a form of living together.

Andre­as Petrik to some ext­ent bridges the dif­fe­ren­ces bet­ween the two sket­ched posi­ti­ons. Making use of con­cepts of tea­ching deve­lo­ped in the 1950s and 1960s in Ger­man, he deve­lo­ped a con­cept of civic edu­ca­ti­on which is both far from being focu­sed on insti­tu­tio­nal and for­mal demo­cra­tic know­ledge in stres­sing demo­cra­tic com­pe­tence and respon­si­bi­li­ty, and from being unpo­li­ti­cal, avo­i­ding the dis­so­lu­ti­on of the realm of “Poli­tik” into mere social beha­viour. Based on the tra­di­ti­on of exem­pla­ric situa­tio­nal tasks as well as on sce­na­rio tech­ni­ques, he deve­lo­ped a com­plex “Lehr­kunst­stück”8 addres­sing both demo­cra­tic com­pe­tence insights into poli­ti­cal con­cepts and poli­ti­cal atti­tu­des cal­led the “vil­la­ge foun­ding” (Petrik 2007).

Separate or Integrated Subjects?

Back in the 1960s histo­ry as a school sub­ject was chal­len­ged in its sta­tus (Schrei­ber 2005) and cla­im to pro­vi­de the main part of civic edu­ca­ti­on and the rela­ti­on espe­ci­al­ly of his­to­ri­cal and poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on has been under deba­te. Can histo­ry, poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on and geo­gra­phy be inte­gra­ted as parts of a gene­ral “civic edu­ca­ti­on” or are they dif­fe­rent disci­pli­nes which need to for dif­fe­rent sub­jects? The result of the fol­lo­wing series of reflec­tions on this sub­ject (Hedke/v.Reeken 2004) was a dif­fe­ren­tia­ti­on of the two sub­jects (and disci­pli­nes) not by the sub­jects cover­ed, but by the modes of reflec­tion: while histo­ry addres­ses events and struc­tures under the aspect of tem­po­ral ori­en­ta­ti­on, poli­ti­cal edu­ca­ti­on does so under the aspect of pro­ce­du­res for fin­ding and legi­ti­mi­zing bin­ding decis­i­ons (Lan­ge 2004). Throug­hout the last 40 years, both sepa­ra­te and inte­gra­ted school sub­jects have been for­med in dif­fe­rent school types and fede­ral sta­tes – with a trend to sepa­ra­ti­on in Gym­na­si­um. Recent reforms have, howe­ver, again instal­led inte­gra­ted forms and are still doing so.9 In the light of the theo­re­ti­cal dis­cus­sion (Hedke/v.Reeken 2004, Lan­ge 2004, 2006, Kör­ber 2004, 2006) and of the ori­en­ta­ti­on to com­pe­ten­ci­es, this should not lead to a con­cep­tua­li­sa­ti­on of the inte­gra­ted sub­jects to be just parts of a gene­ral inte­gra­ted sub­jects, but to an under­stan­ding of each pro­vi­ding a spe­ci­fic set of com­pe­ten­ci­es for stu­dents nee­ded by citi­zens to par­ti­ci­pa­te in a com­plex socie­ty in which pro­blems are not sepa­ra­ted but inte­gra­ted. Thus, each sub­ject can and must be unders­tood as a spe­ci­fic “domain”, ad the school sub­jects as a form of inte­gra­ti­on, not con­fla­ti­on and agglu­ti­na­ti­on. A con­se­quence of this is that in tea­cher edu­ca­ti­on, the dif­fe­rent iden­ti­ties of the disci­pli­nes need to be stres­sed and mark­ed as well as the com­pe­tence of the tea­chers to inte­gra­te, while any plan to form gene­ra­li­zed “civics tea­chers” is to be con­side­red pro­ble­ma­tic. Histo­ry tea­ching, e.g. can thus be unders­tood as the ela­bo­ra­ti­on of stu­dents’ abili­ties to do their own his­to­ri­cal thin­king both in terms of syn­the­sis and of ana­ly­sis of nar­ra­ti­ves pre­vai­ling in their society’s deal­ing with histo­ry. “Histo­ry” as a sub­ject does not only cover the past of cur­rent pro­blems to be addres­sed, but addres­ses the skills and con­cepts nee­ded in order to par­ti­ci­pa­te in a socie­ty whe­re his­to­ri­cal ori­en­ta­ti­on is under con­stant debate.


As a con­clu­si­on, it can be noted that both in the broa­der field of social sci­ence edu­ca­ti­on and in histo­ry edu­ca­ti­on the idea of “com­pe­ten­ci­es” is cen­tral within the last years. Even though the under­stan­ding of “com­pe­tence” resp. “com­pe­ten­ci­es” is dif­fe­rent across approa­ches, the noti­on that tea­ching is neither cen­te­red around the “trans­mis­si­on” of decla­ra­ti­ve resp. pro­po­si­tio­nal “knowledge”to child­ren nor around a fun­da­men­tal­ly pedago­gi­cal but not disci­pli­na­ry “edu­ca­ti­on”, but rather about enab­ling lear­ners to deve­lop their domain-spe­ci­fic skills and abili­ties as well as their under­stan­ding of and approach to cur­rent tasks of ori­en­ta­ti­on, decis­i­on-making and deba­ting, seems to be common.


Berg, H. C. (2004). Lehr­kunst­di­dak­tik — Ent­wurf und Exem­pel einer kon­kre­ten Inhalts­didktik..

Det­jen, J., Kuhn, H., Mas­sing, P., Rich­ter, D., San­der, W. & Wei­ße­no, G. (2004). Natio­na­le Bil­dungs­stan­dards für den Fach­un­ter­richt in der Poli­ti­schen Bil­dung an Schu­len. Schwal­bach a.Ts.: Wochenschau-Verlag.

Edel­stein, W. & Fau­ser, P. (2001). ‘Demo­kra­tie ler­nen und leben’. Bonn: BLK.

Fried­rich, C. J. (1959). Demo­kra­tie als Herr­schafts- und Lebens­form. Hei­del­berg: Quel­le und Meyer.

Hamm-Brü­cher, H. (2001). Öffent­li­cher Bil­dungs­auf­trag: Lebens­form Demo­kra­tie. Das Forum (Baye­ri­scher Volks­­hoch­schul-Ver­band) (1), 2 – 6.

Hed­ke, R. & Ree­ken, D. v. (2004). Rea­der: His­to­risch-poli­ti­sche Bildung.

Him­mel­mann, G. (2001). Demo­kra­tie Ler­nen als Lebens‑, Gesell­schafts- und Herr­schafts­form ; ein Lehr- und Stu­di­en­buch. Schwalbach/​Ts: Wochenschau-Verlag.

Kirch­schlä­ger, R. (1974). Demo­kra­tie als Denk- und Lebens­form. Euro­päi­sche Rund­schau, 2 (4), 3 – 6.

Kli­e­me, E., Ave­na­ri­us, H., Blum, W., Döbrich, P., Gru­ber, H., Pren­zel, M., Reiss, K., Riquarts, K., Rost, J., Ten­orth, H. & Voll­mer, H. J. (2003). Zur Ent­wick­lung natio­na­ler Bil­dungs­stan­dards. Eine Exper­ti­se. Bonn: BMBF.

Kör­ber, A. (2004). Der Abgrund im Bin­de­strich? Über­le­gun­gen zum Ver­hält­nis von his­to­ri­schem und poli­ti­schem Ler­nen. In R. Hed­ke & D. v. Ree­ken (Ed.), Rea­der: His­to­risch-poli­ti­sche Bil­dung (http://​www​.sowi​-online​.de/​r​e​a​d​e​r​/​h​i​s​t​o​r​i​s​c​h​-​p​o​l​i​t​i​s​c​h​/​k​o​e​r​b​e​r​_​b​i​n​d​e​s​t​r​i​c​h​.​htm; read 23.8.2005):.

Kör­ber, A. (2006). ‘Poli­tik­ge­schicht­li­ches Ler­nen’. Zur Fra­ge der Zusam­men­ar­beit von Geschichts- und Poli­tik­un­ter­richt. Eine wei­ter­füh­ren­de Aus­ein­an­der­set­zung mit dem Kon­zept von Dirk Lan­ge — mit Bei­spie­len aus dem The­men­be­reich ‘West­fä­li­scher Frie­den’. In T. Arand, B. v. Bor­ries, A. Kör­ber, W. Schrei­ber, A. Wenzl & B. Zieg­ler (Ed.), Geschichts­un­ter­richt im Dia­log: Fächer­über­grei­fen­de Zusam­men­ar­beit (Vol.11, pp. 132 – 162). Müns­ter: Zen­trum für Lehrerbildung.

Kör­ber, A. (2010). Ger­man Histo­ry Didac­tics: From His­to­ri­cal Con­scious­ness to His­to­ri­cal Com­pe­ten­ci­es – and bey­ond? In H. Bjerg, C. Lenz & E. Thors­ten­sen (Ed.), His­to­ri­cis­ing the Uses of the Past — Scan­di­na­vi­an Per­spec­ti­ves on Histo­ry Cul­tu­re, His­to­ri­cal Con­scious­ness and Didac­tics of Histo­ry Rela­ted to World War II (pp. xxx-yyy). Bie­le­feld: transcript.

Kör­ber, A., Schrei­ber, W. & Schö­ner, A. (2007). Kom­pe­ten­zen His­to­ri­schen Den­kens. Ein Struk­tur­mo­dell als Bei­trag zur Kom­pe­tenz­ori­en­tie­rung in der Geschichts­di­dak­tik. Neu­ried: ars una.

KMK=Kultusministerkonferenz (2004). Bil­dungs­stan­dards der Kul­tus­mi­nis­ter­kon­fe­renz Erläu­terun­gen zur Kon­zep­ti­on und Ent­wick­lung. Frank­furt am Main: Luchterhand.

Lan­ge, D. (2004). Die his­to­risch-poli­ti­sche Didak­tik: Zur Begrün­dung his­to­risch-poli­ti­schen Ler­nens. Schwal­bach am Tau­nus: Wochenschau-Verlag.

Lan­ge, D. (2006). Poli­ti­sche Bil­dung und his­to­ri­sches Ler­nen. Kate­go­ria­le Mög­lich­kei­ten der Zusam­men­ar­beit zwi­schen den Fächern Geschich­te und Poli­tik. In T. Arand, B. v. Bor­ries, A. Kör­ber, W. Schrei­ber, A. Wenzl & B. Zieg­ler (Ed.), Geschichts­un­ter­richt im Dia­log: Fächer­über­grei­fen­de Zusam­men­ar­beit (Vol.11, pp. 122 – 131). Müns­ter: Zen­trum für Lehrerbildung.

Petrik, A (2004): The Gene­tic Prin­ci­ple as a Link bet­ween Ever­y­day Know­ledge and Poli­tics. The Art-of-Tea­ching Work­shop about the Topic ‘Future’. (http://​www​.edu​comm​sy​.uni​-ham​burg​.de/​c​o​m​m​s​y​.​p​h​p​?​c​i​d​=​1​5​3​6​3​3​1​&​m​o​d​=​a​n​n​o​u​n​c​e​m​e​n​t​&​f​c​t​=​d​e​t​a​i​l​&​i​i​d​=​1​9​0​9​243; read Octo­ber 25th, 2009).

Petrik, A. (2007). Von den Schwie­rig­kei­ten, ein poli­ti­scher Mensch zu wer­den. Opla­den [u.a.]: Budrich.

Sach­se, M. (2005). Fächer ohne Bil­dungs­stan­dards – Fächer zwei­ter Güte? Mün­chen.

Schrei­ber, W. (2005). Schul­re­form in Hes­sen zwi­schen 1967 und 1982. Die cur­ri­cu­la­re Reform der Sekun­dar­stu­fe I. Schwer­punkt: Geschich­te und Gesell­schafts­leh­re. Neu­ried: Ars Una Verlag.

Schrei­ber, W., Kör­ber, A., Bor­ries, B. v., Kram­mer, R., Leut­ner-Ram­me, S., Mebus, S., Schö­ner, A. & Zieg­ler, B. (2006). His­to­ri­sches Den­ken. Ein Kom­pe­tenz-Struk­tur­mo­dell. Neu­ried: ars una.

Sym­cox, L. & Wil­schut, A. (2009). Intro­duc­tion. In L. Sym­cox & A. Wil­schut (Ed.), Natio­nal histo­ry stan­dards — the pro­blem of the canon and the future of tea­ching histo­ry (pp. 1 – 11). Char­lot­te, NC: Infor­ma­ti­on Age Publishers.

1The­re are of cour­se lots of dif­fe­rent initia­ti­ves and are­as of rese­arch in the field, which can­not be whol­ly cover­ed here. E.g. con­cepts like “ser­vice lear­ning” e.g. have been intro­du­ced into the Ger­man deba­te (cf. esp. the con­tri­bu­ti­ons of Anne Sliwka).

2An exemp­ti­on is the par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on of Ger­ma­ny in the IEA 1999 “civic edu­ca­ti­on” stu­dy. Fur­ther­mo­re, some minor-sca­le pro­jects in this direc­tion to exist, e.g. on com­pe­ten­cy-deve­lo­p­ment on the sub­ject of Euro­pean politics.

3The lat­ter cha­rac­te­ristic deser­ves a short by-way of reflec­tion: To refrain from defi­ning spe­ci­fic levels of com­pe­ten­ci­es or at least a para­me­ter by which to distin­gu­ish such levels is pro­ble­ma­tic with a view to tea­ching, sin­ce it lea­ves open the cru­cial ques­ti­on of the direc­tion in which com­pe­ten­ci­es (skills and abili­ties) can and need to be deve­lo­ped. A num­ber of con­tri­bu­ti­ons to the deba­te give no hints whatsoe­ver in their phra­sing of com­pe­ten­ci­es as to the levels aimed at: The same wor­ding can be used for describ­ing the abili­ties nee­ded by a pro­fes­sio­nal. On the other hand, dif­fe­ren­cia­ti­ons of levels do have to make sure that they do not mere­ly pre­sent addi­tio­nal skills and abili­ties as hig­her levels, but ela­bo­ra­ted ver­si­ons of the same com­pe­ten­ci­es in order to direct cumu­la­ti­ve lear­ning. Fur­ther­mo­re, it should be noted that “com­pe­ten­ci­es” do not embrace “case know­ledge”, i.e. decla­ra­ti­ve resp. pro­po­si­tio­nal forms of know­ledge per­tai­ning to indi­vi­du­al situa­tions, cases etc. They rather need to be abs­tract in a way allo­wing their hol­der to app­ly them to dif­fe­rent situa­tions (trans­fer). The­r­e­fo­re, know­ledge for­mu­la­ted within models of com­pe­ten­ci­es needs to be con­cep­tu­al and cate­go­ri­al know­ledge, such as con­cepts, scripts, prin­ci­ples etc. This, howe­ver, does not mean that such spe­ci­fic case know­ledge does not hold a place in the new model of orga­ni­zing lear­ning. It rather should be noted that the two kinds of know­ledge need to be pre­sen­ted in dif­fe­rent instru­ments: com­pe­ten­cy-models and (core-)curricula.

4Need­less to say that lots of the resul­ting texts cal­led “edu­ca­tio­nal stan­dards” did not meet the “stan­dards” set by the Kli­e­me-exper­ti­se by far. In some cases, as for histo­ry, the main drafts con­tai­ned litt­le more than clas­si­cal defi­ni­ti­ons of sub­jects to be cover­ed, thus con­ser­ving the “input-ori­en­ta­ti­on” within a frame­work which only used the ter­mi­no­lo­gy, not the con­cepts of the new logic. Other efforts, like our own for histo­ry (Schreiber/​Körber et al. 2006; Körber/​Schreiber/​Schöner 2007) refrain from defi­ning “stan­dards” while express­ly taking up the con­cept of “com­pe­ten­ci­es.” This model is so far the first one (at least for histo­ry) which express­ly ela­bo­ra­tes a para­me­ter for dif­fe­ren­tia­ting levels (“niveaus”) of the com­pe­ten­ci­es it defines.

5To be noted: the role model for such coll­ec­tions of “edu­ca­tio­nal stan­dards” coll­ec­ting not con­tent- but per­for­mance-stan­dards, the Com­mon Euro­pean Frame­work of Refe­rence for Lan­guages (CEFR) had been deve­lo­ped under the auspi­ces of the Coun­cil of Euro­pe, had been in deve­lo­p­ment for many years.

6The Ger­man term “Poli­tik­ver­dros­sen­heit” car­ri­es a stron­ger noti­on of dis­in­te­rest, annoyan­ce and rejec­tion politics/​polity/​policies. Cf. Edelstein/​Fauser 2001, pp. 6 – 12.

7The tri­as (“Herr­schafts­form”, “Gesell­schafts­form”, “Lebens­form”) is for­mu­la­ted by Him­mel­mann 2004. Demo­cra­cy as a form of life has been sub­ject of poli­ti­cal thought in Ger­ma­ny sin­ce at least the 1950s. Cf. e.g. Fried­rich 1959; Kirch­schlä­ger 1974; Hamm-Brü­cher 2001.

8Petrik 2004 uses the term “Art-of-Tea­ching”. The Ger­man term “Lehr­kunst­stück” com­bi­nes the noti­on of exem­pla­ric lear­ning with a noti­on of “leger­de­main” and tea­ching being an art. In the works of Mar­tin Wagen­schein, “Lehr­kunst­stü­cke” are tea­ching arran­ge­ments and quests which enable stu­dents to detect or dis­co­ver basic and path­brea­king insights of man­kind them­sel­ves by sol­ving pre­pared tasks. The con­cept has been re-vita­li­zed by Hans Chris­toph Berg 2004).

9In Ham­burg “PGW” (poli­tics, socie­ty, eco­no­my) in Gym­na­si­um and “civic edu­ca­ti­on” (Gesell­schafts­kun­de” in the new Pri­ma­ry and Urban Quar­ter Schools (Pri­mar­schu­le, Stadt­teil­schu­le), the lat­ter inclu­ding histo­ry and geography.