The Relationship of Matrix and the Differences among the Practices of Models in Eight Countries
With the changing of times and power structures among state, society, and locality, the relationship among the models of good citizen of eight countries seems to be a matrix pattern which is a mixture of horizontal and vertical power. Democratic and diversified citizen is the strongest one in power which has influenced and dominated other models for historical reasons (the United States remolded the educational systems of Germany, Japan, and Korea at the end of WWII). These types of relations are the objective reality of the three countries above. The values of educational models differ because of the different distribution of educational powers. The principal part of power requires a different value and model of cultivation of good citizen. The classical decentralized authorities such as USA, UK, and AUS prefer the value of weak community based on multiculturalism, which weakens the unified national standards on curriculum and evaluation. Meanwhile France, who owns the origin of citizenship, and China or East Asian countries, who share the tradition of Confucianism, are inclined to value strong community which asks for the unified national standards on curriculum and evaluation.
Figure 1. Relationship of Matrix among the Practices of Models in 8 Countries. Source: Wang, Xiaofei. Comparative Citizenship Education: paradigms and reform (in Chinese). Guangzhou: Guangdong Education Press, 2015 (to be published), p. 296
The models of good citizen and their power structures cannot be unchangeable although they have been influenced by the political system. Under the premise of an unchangeable political system, an increase in citizen’s rights brings about changes of the CCE model. During the 1990s, the reforms to centralized power structures in education took place in western developed countries in order to learn lessons from extreme individualism, such as reestablishing national curriculum, quality standards on evaluation, national designs on CCE, focus on the content of education instead of equity etc. At the end of the 1990s, England put forward the Crick Report explaining its own plan of CCE (QCA, 1998). Although the U.S. still doesn’t have a federal guide on CCE, professional groups put forward considerable advice and structures on national standards of national curriculum. Traditional authorities have started reform on power distribution in CCE. Japan emphasized the release of policy-making in CCE. Korea has changed the curriculum of traditional national ethics into modern civic education. Similarly, China has also started setting up national standards on curriculum in traditional moral and civic education (see Figure 1).