CivicTextEstXYY817.  18 pp., 7920 words. 
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. 
European Identity and Citizenship in Estonian Textbooks. 
Key words. Conventional and deliberative civic education, active and critical citizenship,  normative and critical approaches, authoritarian and democratic curriculum development.  
Abstract. 186 words. 	
The paper has the following main purposes. First, to outline a social-scientific framework for democracy education. Second, to use it for reviewing and evaluating of the main school textbooks. 
Methods. Analysis of the aims and normative materials for European identity and citizenship. Review of international critical studies. Development of a new social scientific framework.  Analyses of the last civic syllabus and its administration. Analyses of some main textbooks for gymnasium in Estonia. 
Results. The new civic syllabus and main textbooks have the same principal shortcomings as the former ones. They still herald democratic ideals and active citizenship, but fail to provide for them any relevant conceptual framework. They focus on extensive empirical and normative descriptions of main political institutions. They hardly describe how could active citizens evaluate and influence these institutions. They avoid complex and controversial issues like hierarchical power relations and social inequality. They fail to describe both the hierarchical public administration and the system for public participation in Estonia. There has been no willingness to use the new framework in civic education. All this rather hinders students’ political literacy, critical thinking and active participation. 
Introduction. 
The paper attempts to give answers to the questions proposed by the editors of the special issue. Do the Estonian textbooks provide students with a system of complex and integrated concepts or do they disseminate normative descriptions of democracy and citizenship? Do they promote realist ideas for active participation in educational, public and business organizations, in local and national political institutions or do they disseminate abstract and utopian ideas? Are the civic textbooks relevant for acquiring of practical competences and skills for participation in educational, social, political and business organizations?   
The paper reviews some main critical social theoretical investigations on education for democracy and active citizenship in some countries. This criticism is also useful for evaluation of the international civic education studies and the European program Education for Democratic Citizenship (EDC). These critical ideas have been used for elaboration of a system of main social theoretical concepts in Estonia. This system is used for analyses of the last Estonian syllabus (2011 and 2014) and textbooks for higher secondary schools. The article reveals the decisive role of subject groups in formulation and alteration of subject syllabuses in Estonia.  
Critical civic theory. 
In the last decades, there have been published many critical investigations on civic education and textbooks in many countries. Joseph L. De Vitis (2011) and Matthew  Knoester (2012) have published proceedings on critical civic education. Typically, the social scientific quality of civics textbooks has been low. Many social scholars have criticized the content of traditional social studies textbooks. These standard texts merely describe the main political institutions. They don’t reveal the social problems of these institutions. They do not rely on social scientific system of concepts. They avoid controversies and hard social issues, including critical evaluation of current social and political institutions (Fuchs & Zielonka, 2006, Hedtke et al., 2007, p. 9, Ross, 2001). They promote blind patriotism, obedience to laws and authorities (Davies, 2003, p. 161, Dekker, 1994, Ichilov, 1998, pp. 269-270, Knoester, 2012, Knoester & Parkison, 2015). They have relied on the functionalist social theory and tended to rationalize or even justify political and economic authorities (Biesta, 2007, 2009 & 2011). As they have avoided complex social problems and conflicts, then they have rather hampered than promoted social change (Dekker, 1994, p. 26). Education based on information delivery, symbolic control and hierarchical relations reproduces or even deepens the existing social structures and inequalities (Wilde, 2004, p. 8). Many governments and educators have realized the need to revise the existing curriculum (Naval, 2002, p. 124). 
The International Civic and Citizenship Education Studies (ICCS) approach civic knowledge, attitudes and activities of young students and their teachers, but they don’t rely on a system of concepts. In 2009, they collected data about social and political institutions, democratic principles, civic participation and identities (EURYDICE, 2012, Kerr et al., 2010, Toots 2011). They didn’t touch complex and controversial issues like social inequality and justice. There was very little about democratic or authoritarian values and attitudes. They distinguished between conventional and non-conventional citizenship, but not active and critical one (Toots, 2011, pp. 82-85). 
In England, the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy identified several significant problems to be addressed in citizenship education already twenty years ago (Crick, 1998). The English and French civic education systems have been compared (Kiwan & Kiwan, 2005). In general, the English system still avoids criticality and its framework is not clear (Peterson & Davies, 2016, pp. 383-385). Some authors like Gert Biesta and Mark Priestly (2013) promote the political and critical approach to European citizenship. In nineties, German civics experts pointed to a limited progress in the promotion of political literacy, basic values and social skills (Händle et al., 1999). Now, there have been designed new curricula for social studies that focus on small number of main political problems and training of four main competences for that (e. g., Mattes, 2016). 
Education for democratic citizenship. 
Council of Europe has adopted a program and concepts for education of democratic citizenship (EDC) in 1999. Francois Audigier (University of Geneva) has outlined the basic concepts and core competences in more detail (1999). Still, he also does not define the basic concepts. He distinguishes between three main competences: cognitive, ethical and social. They have also published many materials for that and some of them for teachers (Huddleston 2007). The EDC stresses the need for active participation. It is vital, at least, in lower levels of political and social activities. It also recommends assessing public authorities critically. Active citizens should react, if politicians and civil servants make mistakes or even misuse their power. Still, the EDC doesn’t rely on critical studies on democracy education. The EDC has been criticized for a lack of theoretical framework (Naval, Print & Veldhuis, 2002, Osler & Starkey, 2006, Veugelers, 2011). It outlines main dimensions, but not any system of concepts (Locker, Crick & Annette, 2003). 
Concepcion Naval, Murray Print and Ruud Veldhuis reviewed the EDC progress in 2002 and stressed the need for a better theoretical framework (2002, p. 124). Between 2001 and 2004, policies for EDC were studied in all Europe (Bîrzéa et al., 2004). Ton Olgers has criticized the EDC policy, as it relies too much on the rational actor theory (Olgers, 2001). Olgers also addressed value education. Values cannot be transferred, but they can be clarified. Rolf Gollob and Peter Krapf published a manual for secondary school teachers in 2008. They introduced some important political concepts like of power and authority, rules and laws, government and politics. It seems that they do not link the concepts to social theoretical framework, to social actors, and their relations. 
Representative democracy contains controversies. It combines democratic and authoritarian models of decision making. In elections, all citizens are equal. Between elections, the elected politicians use the hierarchical model for execution of their power. All citizens are equal only on the day of elections, but they are unequal in the periods between elections. 
Democratic elections rely on rational actor theory. In election campaigns, politicians use more some other models and theories like those of consumer behaviour. The EDC does not address these controversies. It regards democracy education as a set of good practices and activities. It does not say which theories and concepts are necessary for a description of these practices and activities. Democracy education should explain representative democracy as a controversial problem. Roberto Michels has pointed to the iron law of oligarchy in democratic organizations, in a German political party already a hundred years ago. He expected that the oligarchic tendencies could be avoided or diminished by education for democracy at schools. This has not happened yet. 
In sum, the EDC has ideal and ambitious intentions, but its conceptual system remains non-theoretical, incomplete and ambiguous. It focuses on individuals and their participation. This activity of individuals remains but loosely linked to the national and political development. This theoretical framework is necessary, but not sufficient for the main goals of democracy. 
New concepts for democracy education. 
The new approach to European citizenship, identities and democracy focuses on education of democratic citizens and starts with most general phenomena: man, society, culture and nature. It considers them as complex and interrelated. Therefore, the concepts reflecting the essence of these phenomena should be interrelated, too. They should be understood as dichotomies. The system, outlined in Estonia, provides first but initial definitions (Haav, 2008 & 2010). They rely on dichotomist concepts of man and society in sociology and man and culture – in semiotics. These most general concepts are mutually inclusive. After the initial definitions, the concepts will be differentiated. The less general level of relations between man and society has been represented by the dichotomy of social actors and structures. 
In contemporary sociology, individual is often treated as a sum of his or her social relations and activities. Social scientific concept of man is an abstraction that focuses on his social interrelations and –actions. It forgets his physical body. Social identity is a collection of one’s most significant relations. 
Society has been defined as a sum of all human social relations and activities. Social scientific concept of society is also an abstraction that focuses on these social interrelations and –actions. It forgets the physical bodies of people. These concepts consider man and society as functions, as permanent social processes. These concepts are controversial; they reflect the controversial nature of these phenomena. Man is at the same time independent whole and a part of society. Society is also controversial; it combines equality and inequality, equal (horizontal) and unequal (vertical) relations between people. 
Semiotics defines culture as a collection of signs and sign systems. Individuals acquire particular sign systems and signs, and use them. They become parts of particular culture and its main sign systems. They become actors of culture. Again, they are at the same time parts of culture and independent wholes, actors of culture. Words as signs enable to represent also invisible and abstract things. They enable to represent also something non-existent that is not true, that is lie. 
The man-society dichotomy concerns all social relations; it does not distinguish qualitative differences between them. The relations between individuals may be equal and democratic or unequal and hierarchical. These inequalities may be temporary and occasional. In social organizations, they are permanent and systematic. The general dichotomy of man and society fails to describe and analyse these unequal power relations. There emerges the need for a new social dichotomy. The less abstract dichotomy for man-society relations is that of social actors and structures (Haav, 2008 & 2010). This is close to another sociological dichotomy of agency-structure (Giddens, 1979 & 2009, Layder, 1994 & 2006). The latter is in use in critical education studies, too (Apple, 2004 & 2010). The dichotomy of actors-structures is used in the typology of social class. Different social actors have different property and administrative rights.  
Capitalists have ownership rights to control all their material and social resources (labour force). In large companies, they hire managers and delegate to them their administrative rights. The relations between employers and employees are regulated by employment laws and contracts. Employees have signed employment contracts and agreed to act under the control of their managers. In large organizations, the organizational structure can be very complex. Still, the differences between organizational members may be classified and reduced to small number of main social types. In large businesses, there are three main types: owners (employers), managers and employees (workers). Owners have the rights to make rules, appoint managers and control all resources. Managers cannot make rules. They should follow them. Still, they have the right to control the employees and material resource subordinated to them. The employees should follow the rules and managerial instructions. They cannot supervise other employees. 
There are similar social structures and social actors (rule-makers, administrators and executers) in other sectors like politics and education. The main models of decision making are also the same: democratic and authoritarian. There are democratic elections and hierarchical power execution. In the last decades, the hierarchical model has been complemented with participative democracy and partnerships. The authorities ask citizens, experts, interest groups and NGOs to take part in political projects. If active citizens make proposals and the authorities accept all good proposals and put them into effect, then this means a real civic society. 
After the initial definitions, the concepts will be complemented with other aspects. Men take part in many social systems: family, work organization, political, economic, cultural, health, religious and other organizations and institutions. Everybody has different roles in these social systems. Some of these roles rely on power and ability to control other people. These aspects are studied by a number of sciences: psychology, cultural anthropology, ethics, philosophy, politics, economics etc. The initial concepts will be complemented with additional definitions. They will become systems of concepts and theories. Human development is also enrichment of man’s conceptual system. The initial definition is in the centre of this conceptual system.   
System of relative concepts. The dichotomy of social actors and structures enables to reveal the inequality of the main actors. This inequality is the basis for introduction of next concepts that are evaluative and relative. Is the inequality effective and just? Should the power differences be increased or diminished? What are more important, individual freedom and well-being or social solidarity and well-being? Can these problems be approached and solved in a unitary or a pluralist framework? Different social actors like employers and employees do not have similar economic interests, social values and political orientations. They cannot be addressed by a unitary scientific paradigm. There is a need for pluralist paradigm which enables mutual discussion, negotiation and solution. The system of relative and evaluative concepts is the following: social effectiveness and social justice, social value orientations, political ideologies and scientific paradigms. 
There are the same or similar concepts in many sociology textbooks (Giddens, 2009, etc.), but they neither rely on the social actor-structure dichotomy, nor make up a system. The textbooks review many studies in main sociological fields, but these various fields don’t use unified system of concepts. In many countries, the traditional civic education focuses on isolated individuals and ignores the social inequality. It doesn’t use the concepts of unequal social actors. It also ignores the role of social power structures in this social inequality. It reduces the social differences between individuals to differences in their personal characteristics, in their motivation and behaviour. Rich people are better off, because they are talented and work hard. This ignores and denies the role of social factors, the unequal power structures. 
Traditional individualist civic education disseminates the idea that active citizens should discuss, express their opinions and promote their proposals to all political problems. This idea is utopian because nobody can do all this. The new framework offers realist opportunities for public participation. Active individuals should become organized into professional and other groups. They should not react on all political initiatives. They should focus on actions that concern their interests. This idea is the basis for participative democracy. This idea is realistic because it does not require active reactions from all members of some interest groups. It requires activity from the active representatives of these groups. In this way, all active citizens can become organized and have a real say in actual political processes. This is the road to a real civil society. Citizens as members of organized power groups can be active on all levels, not only on local and national, but on the European levels, too. This framework introduces to students and all other citizens realist concepts and ways for active participation and development of their national, European and global identities.   
Syllabuses for civic studies in Estonia. 
It is vital to comment the curricula and syllabuses before analysis of main textbooks. The curricula have been extremely demagogical and controversial. The general parts of curricula and subject syllabuses have heralded high ideals concerning students’ identities, competences and motivation. The subject groups have never accepted them. Every subject group has designed the content of their courses without linking it with development of competences and promotion of some attitudes. All textbooks should correspond to relevant syllabuses. The problem is how have the textbooks’ authors reacted on such syllabus? Did they introduce the ideas of student development into their textbooks, into their chapters and exercises? The answer has been no. It has been so more than twenty years. 
The same has happened with civic and history textbooks. The general parts of curricula and introductions to social subjects declare the aims of active citizenship and European identities many times. This is one of the main tasks of gymnasium. There are eight European key competences and among them general communicative, social and civic competences (https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129082014021?leiaKehtiv , retrieved on 17. 08. 2017. It is not available in English). There are also cross-curricular topics on “Civic initiative and enterprise”, and “Values and morality” both in basic school (http://oppekava.innove.ee/subject-field-syllabuses/ ) and gymnasium (http://oppekava.innove.ee/subject-field-syllabuses-2/ ). 
The subject groups, those of history and civics included, have not integrated them into the content of their subjects. The authors of the general part of national curriculum have intended to do this in period of 1991-2007, but failed. The subject groups have ignored the general group and the general part. After that, the general group gave up and changed their aims and ideology. They did not explain it anywhere. Now, they promote a new ideology. They replaced the task of student development to all teachers and schools, but not to textbook compilers. As a result, the general competences are still badly reflected even in civic and history textbooks. 
In the former Soviet Union, there were extensive and detailed subject syllabuses composed by the leading Soviet scholars. There was no concept of curriculum. The situation changed after 1991. The Anglo-American model of curriculum has been the basis for all National curricula (1996, 2002 & 2011). Unfortunately, they have done this but in general parts. In the last curriculum (2011, reviewed in 2014) the ideas of student development are added also into the introductions of subject syllabuses. Curriculum administrators inform incompetent readers that now the new curriculum is not a collection of subject syllabuses any more. It is finally student centred! Still, the humanist ideas are not introduced into the contents of subjects. The curriculum’s main aim has been facilitation of development of students’ ideas, attitudes, skills and actions. This aim should guide selection of subjects, concepts, and other study materials. This did not happen in 1996 and 2002. We will demonstrate that the administrators of the new version of curricula did not set this goal at all. Compilers of new textbooks ignore the humanist ideals as usual. The subject syllabuses are still too extensive. In the contrary: the amount of texts of subject syllabuses increased three times in period 1996-2010. The minister of education ordered to reduce the amount 30 per cent and the Curriculum was adopted once again in 2014. 
There are three main social subjects in Estonia: history, civics (social studies) and human studies. The role of history is the largest and that of human studies (social psychology, communication, and family) is the smallest. The civic subject has been part of school curriculum since the beginning of the Republic of Estonia. Its role is better than in many other European countries (Eurydice 2005 & 2012). Still, this role is not big. In Germany, the role of politics is similar (www.bpb.de ). In many countries, economic and human geography also belong to social subjects, but this is not the case in Estonia. The conceptual systems of these three social subjects are still badly integrated to each other. 
The civic syllabuses have been eclectic from the beginning (1996). They have compiled knowledge from many social fields: political, economic and legal systems. The subjects of economy and entrepreneurship are still elective; there are no compulsory syllabuses and textbooks. The last civic syllabus for gymnasium concerns four main areas: society at large, politics and the state, economics and globalization. The political part is the largest and probably the best. The economic part is inadequate; it concerns economic system and labour market, but totally ignores entrepreneurship, enterprises and employment relations. The syllabus does not rely on any system of sociological and social scientific concepts. In comparison, one of the first textbooks for basic schools by Ilje Piir, Sulev Valdmaa and Inger Kraav (1993) has much more logical structure: man, family, education (its system), the Republic of Estonia, citizens and some other institutions (parties, NGOs, mass media, defence, and international relation).  
In the last syllabus, the field of society refers to the following terms: national structure, social stratification and mobility, economic and social inequality, poverty, social justice, public and business sectors, civil society (NGOs), industrial and post-industrial society, social transition. There is nothing about education, schools and students in syllabuses (and most textbooks) for the higher secondary level. There is something about them in basic schools (grades six and nine). 
The political part is most extensive, it contains democratic and totalitarian regimes, political institutions, legislation, legal system, civil service, local authorities, human rights, ideologies, elections, political parties and NGOs. It also refers to civic initiatives and citizens’ participation in politics. The syllabus does not introduce concepts of man and society, citizen and the state, social actors and structures as dichotomies. These dichotomies could link the chapters about society and the State to each other. The syllabus also concerns European political institutions, but not identities, values and citizenship. All textbooks must follow the basic structure and content of these syllabuses. 
One could ask why the structure of the civic syllabus has remained eclectic and non-balanced in twenty years. It may be explained, if we compare curriculum theory, policy, administration and practice. According to the both political theory and political model of curriculum design, all phases of this design should be as open as possible. All experts, interested people and main educational partners should take part in all phases of curriculum development. There should be besides teachers and teacher educators also curriculum experts, representatives of students, their parents, alumni and wider society (professional and employers’ organizations). This happens in Finland, but not in Estonia. Estonian guidelines for higher education recognize and recommend this idea (Rutiku et al., 2009). In general education, the curriculum policy has been different from that. Einike Pilli has compiled first written Guidelines for National curricula (2009). She discusses the problem, but she neither refers to nor outlines the political theory for curriculum design. She describes the Estonian practice. The principles of formation of subject groups and selection of group members have not been made public. Usually, ministerial officers, teachers and teacher teachers (subject scholars) are members of these subject groups. Pilli describes, but doesn’t comment this practice. Why do they ignore the developments in curriculum theory? The compilation of curricula has been very political. The subject groups have never described their activities. What have been their theoretical and methodological foundations? Which theories and models have they followed so far in the period of 1991-2011? The initial order for curriculum development (2008) did neither determine nor recommend which theories to follow. Still, it required to take into an account all studies and theories proposed by Estonian scholars. Analysis of the subject syllabuses demonstrates that the subject groups have ignored this ministerial order (2008). They have followed only the subject logic. It means that the groups have ignored former critical studies on curriculum development. They didn’t pay attention on the new framework and the social scientific concepts for social studies. Even more, they also ignored the last Guidelines (2009), general parts of both curriculum and social studies syllabuses. 
The Estonian curriculum policy has ignored the open (public) participation in curriculum design, compilation and evaluation. Still, they occasionally implement the participatory democracy.  In 2009, the projects of general part and the subject syllabuses were disposed for public discussions in period of one month. Everybody had opportunities to analyse the projects and make their proposals. The subject groups have had the right to decide, which proposals to accept and which to reject. This has been the case in social subjects group (history, civic and human studies), too. In this last time, the group was headed by Mrs. Mare Oja, teacher of history and civic didactics at Tallinn University and former specialist of history at the National Examination Centre. The civic sub-group was headed by Prof. Anu Toots, teacher of political sciences at Tallinn University and author of some civic textbooks for basic and secondary education (1997-2014). She also ignored the political model of curriculum design. School teachers made up the majority of the group, the rest were some specialists of law and human rights. Thus, the structure of the group ignored the political model in the curriculum theory; the role of main interest groups was out of balance. There was no expert in curriculum theory and design, they did not accept them. There were but representatives of education providers. 
Next, the theoretical background of the group members was weak in both social sciences and curriculum theory. In Estonia, the most civic teachers have completed BA in history and then obtained a Master degree in education with a focus on didactic of history and civic. Their social theoretical education has remained very weak or even missing. The teachers don’t know much about curriculum theories. They have had experiences in implementation of subject syllabuses and textbooks in school. This suffices to be considered as curriculum experts. They don’t need curriculum theories. The subject groups have the highest power in formulation of their syllabuses anyway. All teachers must be familiar with the general part of the curriculum and implement it in their lessons. As a rule, they rely mainly on the content of their subjects and their textbooks. The same do the teachers in these subject groups. 
Mainstream textbooks. 
Civic studies were part of National Curriculum also in years 1920-1940 in Estonia (Haav, 2011). Some authors published textbooks for both basic schools and gymnasia (Toomas  Adamson & Jüri Parijõgi, 1934 and Richard Kleis & Richard Räägo, 1938). In the Soviet period, the syllabuses and textbooks were compiled by leading scholars in Moscow. The books expressed Marxist ideology, plans for Soviet society and economy and ideological and moral requirements to youth (Shachnazarov, G. H. et al., 1963).  
Since 1991, many textbooks on citizenship education have been published in Estonia. One of the main compilers has been Anu Toots. She and her collaborators have published many books for both basic and secondary schools (1997, 1999, 2005 & 2014). The books have been formerly criticized (Kalmus, 2002 & 2003, Ruutsoo, 2000, Haav, 2008, 2010 & 2011, Räis, 2008). They have followed the eclectic civic syllabuses. As in many other countries, they have formally described the main political institutions. The institutions have been depicted as ideal bureaucracies. They ignore the ideas and studies of new institutional theories, and the dichotomy of social actors and structures. The basic social theoretical concepts like man, society, democratic governance, social structures, active citizenship and civil society are complex and controversial. The mainstream textbooks have avoided these complexities and controversies. 
The last textbook for gymnasium by Katrin Olenko and Anu Toots (2005) is mostly dedicated to political institutions (about one third of the text). There are extensive descriptions of democratic governance (7 pages), elections and its systems (16 pages), parliament (9), governance (12), regional and local administration (6 pages). The book neither mentions opportunities for public participation in laws and policies, nor open governance partnership (OGP). There has been almost nothing about transition from Communist totalitarianism to democracy in Estonia (Möldre & Toots, 1999, Olenko & Toots, 2005, 21). 
Anu Toots has treated social structure as differences between individuals (Möldre & Toots, 1999, pp. 31-33, Toots, 2014, pp. 105-106). She has ignored social aspects of power relations in both business and public organizations. Social inequality is not linked to power differences between main social actors like employers, managers and employees. These hierarchical power relations have been ignored (Möldre & Toots 1999, p. 69 etc.) or underestimated (Olenko & Toots, 2005, p. 21, 44-46). Democratic systems combine democratic elections by equal people and hierarchical decision making after the elections. In practice, the authoritarian relations have been complemented with participative democracy in both public and business organizations in most European countries. In Estonia, this is typical for public organizations, but not for business companies. The mainstream textbooks ignore the participative decision making not only in business sector, but in public sector, too. This has been conceptually justified. If the governance already is democratic, then there is no need for participative democracy. There are also some political reasons. Some interest groups oppose to the public participation. In 2016, the Ministry of Education rejected proposals to design adequate learning materials about the open governance system for civic education in public schools. 
The Estonian syllabuses and textbooks have largely ignored the students’ democratic experiences at school, differently from many European countries (Print et al., 2002, Malafia, Menezes et al., 2016). Estonian students have actually quite extensive rights and opportunities for self-governance and participation in school governance via school council (Eurydice, 2005; Toots et al., 2006, Toots 2011, Torney-Purta et al., 2001). These experiences have not been used in the former textbooks. The last textbook for basic schools refers to student self-governance as an abstract opportunity to behave as do the active citizens (Toots 2014, p. 51). It does not mention that students are represented in school councils as equal members and take part in school management. These experiences and opportunities for active participation at schools, local and national levels could be used in civic studies at schools. They could promote knowledge, attitudes and skills for active citizenship. The textbook neither mentions, nor recommends them. 
The implicit theoretical framework behind these syllabuses and mainstream textbooks is that of functionalist harmony. According to this, all authorities do their best for achieving their official goals. They neither do mistakes, nor misuse their power. The authors ignore some critical social theories like the pluralist one and the new institutional theory. According to them, people and groups have different interests and some of them put their selfish interests first. It means that active citizens should critically observe what the public organizations, their administrators and civil servants actually do. The European concept of democratic citizenship recommends this. All active citizens should be critical and if they notice something wrong, then they should make these cases public. Estonian civics’ textbooks should also recommend this, but so far, they have been reluctant to do so. 
In the last years, there have been published some new textbooks by some other scholars. Although they should follow the national curriculum and civic syllabuses, some authors have expressed also some critical ideas. One of them is a civic teacher and former MP Heiki Raudla. His books for gymnasia (2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013) resist to the functionalist model of representative democracy. Political elite can follow their group interests first and ignore those of the majority (Raudla 2009, p. 26 & 2012, p. 26). He also introduces a new concept of party oligarchy (Raudla 2009, pp. 51-52 & 2012, pp. 50-54). In this, Raudla abandons from the ideology of functionalist harmony and refers to a need for the pluralist paradigm. Unfortunately, Raudla does not disseminate these critical ideas in his next textbook published in collaboration with Talvi Järve and Avo-ReinTereping (2014). 
The workbook by Siilaberg, Somelar and Ugur (2010) disseminates similar ideas. Tarvo Siilaberg, Madis Somelar and Kadri Ugur reveal the limits of popular opinions, actions and influence. They present useful critical facts about political life in Estonia in their books for exercises (2010 & 2013). About 90 % of people believe that they cannot influence the Parliament and Government. About two thirds believe the same about local authorities (2010, pp. 5 & 24). Authors compare elections with competition between PR agencies (2010, p. 45). They also explain the opportunities that people and NGOs have for participation in political activities (www.osale.ee ). 
The textbook by Tõnu Saarts and Liana Roosmaa (2014) provides a correct treatment of concepts of democracy and participation. They refer to the web-based national system of public participation (www.osale.ee ). Participative democracy complements the representative one. People can discuss legal and political drafts and make their own proposals (2014, p. 153). The authors do not isolate or contrast political and voluntary activities. They describe how interest groups can take part in and influence on political processes. The authors have also published an electronic textbook: http://xn--epik-0qa.ee/uhiskonnaopetus-gumnaasiumile/  
These critical ideas and facts are useful for political literacy and motivation. They facilitate students’ independent and critical thinking, social and political skills. All this is useful for emergence of active European citizenship. 
Some conclusions. 
The answers to the initial research questions by the editors of the special issue are different. The educational practice is not very positive. The main Estonian civic textbooks do not provide students with a relevant system of concepts. Fortunately, there has been designed a relevant social critical framework for social science, civic and democracy education. It has been implemented in courses on social sciences at some universities in Estonia in the last decades (Haav, 2010 etc.). It relies on sociological dichotomies of man and society, and semiotic dichotomies of man and culture. There are similar concepts of man, society and culture in a new cultural psychology (Valsiner, 2014, 2017 etc.). The dichotomist concepts of social actors and structures are the basis for introduction of a system of relative concepts like social effectiveness and social justice, social value orientations, political ideologies and scientific paradigms. They facilitate students’ realist understandings of themselves and their limited opportunities in national and European societies and cultures. They enable to describe and analyse complex and controversial social and political phenomena like hierarchical power relations and social inequality. They provoke critical thinking and active attitudes to educational, social and political systems. All this corresponds to the aims of curriculum and subject syllabuses, main competences and extracurricular themes.  
Unfortunately, these concepts have been ignored in the civic education system in Estonia so far. The national curriculum policy does not follow even main models of curriculum design.  It relies mainly on the political model of decision making, according to which politicians who have won the last elections have the authority to make their decisions themselves. Partly, they follow the political model of curriculum design, too. The administrators of national curriculum ask also experts, citizens and interest groups to express their opinions and make proposals. Still, this selection of other partners and acceptance of their ideas is arbitrary. Administrators can easily manipulate with interest groups and experts of curriculum theory. The subject groups have the ultimate power in administration of their syllabuses. The history and civic groups have never revealed the theoretical and methodological principles of their activities. An analysis demonstrates that they have never accepted the contemporary curriculum theories and policies, ministerial orders, guidelines by the general part and the general group. They have mainly followed their subject logic and group interests. They have tried to increase the amount of their subject knowledge as much as possible. 
The National Curricula and civic syllabuses have been controversial in Estonia. They expose humanist goals and high expectations in general parts, key competences and extracurricular themes. They mention social and political literacy, knowledge about society and public participation, skills and motivation to take part in political processes and influence on social development. Unfortunately, the subject syllabus and main textbooks fail to provide necessary concepts and theories for their achievement. They don’t suffice for description and critical evaluation of the Estonian and European democratic systems. The models of democratic state and organizations combine controversial models of decision making: democratic elections and authoritarian power executions. The syllabus and main textbooks focus on the first model and avoid the second one. In practice, the hierarchical system has been complemented with participative democracy, but the main textbooks practically ignore this. The Government has created a web-based system for public participation (www.osale.ee ). The syllabus and textbooks should acknowledge students with these channels and opportunities for information, discussion and proposals. Such system exists also in schools and universities. The textbooks should describe them, but they avoid doing so. Only in books for basic schools (grade six), there are small informative texts about schools. Textbooks should describe some positive cases of student participation on school and local levels. There should be exercises for analyses and discussions about these examples, but this is not the case. The political willingness for that is lacking. In 2016, the Ministry of Education rejected proposals by the Estonian Open Governance Partnership round table to design adequate learning materials for learning and practicing the existing systems for participative democracy. 
The elections combine controversial theories. Politicians disseminate the rational actor theory, but take advantage of models and theories of consumer behaviour. The governance part of the civic syllabus centres on main political institutions; they are not connected with different social actors, their power relations and struggles. This means that the authors of the text have not used relevant social and political theories. It refers to the ideology of functionalist harmony. The textbooks for gymnasia should mention pluralist paradigm and social critical theories, but the mainstream books don’t do this. Only Heiki Raudla uses metaphors that hint to a need for such pluralist theories. This ideology of functionalist harmony does not facilitate critical thinking and civic activities. Pluralist paradigm recognizes differences between interests of various groups. The groups should negotiate with each other and find common interests and make compromises. These ideas promote social competences and skills. 
Civil society has been treated differently. The mainstream books isolate civil and public sectors. This concept diminishes the citizens’ opportunities to take part in political processes.  Some others integrate them (like Liana Roosmaa, 2014). This approach demonstrates how active citizens and NGOs can have a real effect on national development. 
In sum, the whole civic education system doesn’t facilitate promotion of European identities and democratic citizenship. The curriculum theorists and textbook authors have limited opportunities for that in Estonia. Authors must conform to the rigid syllabuses. Usually, they have followed the content of their subject. They should also pay attention to the general parts of curriculum and social studies’ syllabuses, but they have largely ignored this. They have written much neither about development of social competences and skills nor clarification of democratic European values and attitudes. Textbook authors could use the new theory, but it would require much more knowledge, time and energy. It doesn’t pay to do so. It is much easier to follow the traditional subject-centred model. 
The whole civic education system ignores the new social scientific curriculum theory. Curriculum administrators, authors of the general part of curriculum and subject groups should support it, but this has not happened yet. Textbook authors and teachers are neither enough qualified nor motivated to implement the new concepts. 
References. 
Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and Curriculum. New York, London: Routledge Falmer. 

Apple, M. (2010). The Routledge International Handbook of Sociology of Education. New York: Routledge Falmer. 

Audigier, F. (1999). Basic Concepts & Core Competencies of Education for Democratic Citizenship. The Second EDC Report. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.  

Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of democratic education. In The Teachers College Record, 109 (3), 740-769. 
Biesta, G. (2009). What Kind of Citizenship for European Higher Education? Beyond the Competent Active Citizen. European Educational Research Journal, 8 (2), 146-158. 
Biesta, G. (2011). Learning Democracy in School and Society: Education, Lifelong Learning, & the Politics of Citizenship. Springer Science & Business Media. 
Bîrzéa, C., Kerr, D., Mikkelsen, R., Froumin, I., Losito, B., Pol, M. & Sardoc, M. (2004). All-European Study on Education for Democratic Citizenship Policies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Crick, B. (chair). (1998). Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools. Final report of the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship. London: QCA. 
Davies, I. (2003). Developing education for citizenship. In Lockyer, A., Crick, B. & Annette, J. (eds.). Education for Democratic Citizenship: Issues of Theory and Practice. Aldershot & Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 161–175. 
Dekker, H. (1994). Socialization & Education of Young People for Democratic Citizenship. Theory & Research. In Holly, R. (ed.). Political Conciousness and Civic Education. Warsaw: Polish Academy of Sciences, 11-43. 
De Vitis, J. L. (2011). Critical Civic Literacy. A Reader. New York: P. Lang. 
Eurydice (2005). Citizenship Education at School in Europe. Brussels.  
Eurydice (2012). Citizenship Education in Europe. Brussels.
Fuchs, D., Zielonka, J. (2006). Democracy and Political Culture in Eastern Europe. New York, London: Routledge. 
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure and Social Analysis. London: Macmillan. 
Giddens, A. (2009). Sociology. 6th ed. Cambridge: Polity Press. 
Gollob, R. & Krapf, P. (2008). Living in Democracy: Lesson plans for lower secondary level. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 
Goodson, I. (2014). Curriculum, Personal Narrative and the Social Future. New York: Routledge. 
Haav, K. (2008). Civic Education in Estonia: Democratic or Authoritarian? Journal for Social Science Education, 9(1), 121-130. http://www.jsse.org/2008/2008-1 
Haav, K. (2010). Education for democratic citizenship: Development of the theoretical framework for Estonia and European Union. In Müürsepp, P. (ed.). (2010). Proceedings of the Institute for European Studies, Journal of Tallinn University of Technology, 7, 168-192. 
http://www.ies.ee/iesp/No7/iesp_no7.pdf  

Haav, K. (2011). Poliitikaharidus Eesti koolides 1920-2010. [Civic textbooks in 1920-2010].  Riigikogu Toimetised, 24, 135-144. http://rito.riigikogu.ee/eelmised-numbrid/nr-24/ 

Haav, K. (2012). History of curricula and development of sociological curriculum theory in Estonia. Journal Sociology of Science & Technology, St. Petersburg, 3, (3), 54-73. http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/history-of-curricula-and-development-of-sociological-curriculum-theory-in-estonia 

Haav, K. (2015). Õppekava mudelid ja õpiväljundite arendus Eestis. [Development of sociological curriculum theory and analysis of curriculum reform in higher education in Estonia.] Riigikogu Toimetised (Rito) 32, 119-132. www.rito.riigikogu.ee/  
Händle, C., Oesterreich, D. & Trommer, L. (1999). Aufgaben Politischer Bildung in der Sekundarstufe, vol. 1. Opladen: Leske & Budrich. 
Hedtke, R., Hippe, T. & Zimenkova, T. (2007). Transformed Institutions—Transformed Citizenship and Citizenship Education? Paper to the international conference Transformed Institutions—Transformed Citizenship Education? Bielefeld, June 7–10, 2007. 
Huddlestone, E. (ed.). (2007). Tool on Teacher Training for Democratic Citizenship and  Human Rights Education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 
ICCS (2009). International Civic and Citizenship Education Study 2009. 
http://www.iea.nl/iccs_2009.html    
Ichilov, O. (ed.). (1998). Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World. London & Portland (OR): Woburn Press. 
Järv, T., Raudla, H. & Tereping, A.-R. (2014). Inimene ja ühiskond. Õpik 9 klassile. [Civic textbook for the ninth grade]. Tallinn: Avita.  
Kalmus, V. (2002). Do textbooks teach democratic values? In Mikk, J., Meisalu, V., Kukemelk, H. & Horsley, M. (eds.). Learning & Educational Media. The Third IARTEM Volume. Tartu: TU Press, 152–159. 
Kalmus, V. (2003). School Textbooks in the Field of Socialization. PhD thesis. Tartu: TU Press. 
Kerr, D., Sturman, L., Schulz, W., Burge, B. (2010) ICCS 2009 European Report. Amsterdam, IEA. 
Kiwan, D. & Kiwan, N. (2005). Citizenship Education: The French and English Experience. In Pole, C., Pilcher, J. & Williams, J. (eds.). Young People in Transition: Becoming Citizens? New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 136–158.   
Knoester, M. (ed.). (2012). International struggles for critical democratic education. New York et al.: Peter Lang. 
Knoester, M. & Parkison, P. (2015). Where is citizenship education in the age of Common Core? In Critical Education, 6 (22). http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/criticaled/article/view/185901
Layder, D. (1994, 2nd ed. 2006). Understanding Social Theory. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: SAGE Publications.  
Locker, A., Crick, B. & Annette, J. (eds.). (2004). Education for Democratic Citizenship. Routledge, London. 
Malafia, C., Texeira, P. M., Menezes, I., Neves, T. (2016). Linking Learning Contexts: The Relationship between Students' Civic and Political Experiences and Their Self-Regulation in School.  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/300099966_Linking_Learning_Contexts_The_Relationship_between_Students'_Civic_and_Political_Experiences_and_Their_Self-Regulation_in_School. 
Mattes, W. (2016). Arbeitsbuch für Politik u. Wirtschaft. Gymnasium Nordrhein-Westfalen. Paderborn: Schöningh Verlag. www.schoeningh-schulbuch.de
Menezes, I. & Dias, T. (2013). The role of classroom experiences and school ethos in the development of children as political actors: Confronting the vision of pupils and teachers. In Educational and Child Psychology, 30(1), 26-37. 
Möldre, L., Toots, A. (1999). Ühiskonnaõpetus. XII klass. [Civics textbook for grade 12]. Tallinn: Koolibri. 
Naval, C., Print, M. & Veldhuis, R. (2002). Education for Democratic Citizenship in the New Europe: Context & Reform. In European Journal of Education, 37(2), 107–128. 
Olenko, K., Toots, A. (2005). Ühiskonnaõpetus. Gümnaasiumiõpik. [Civics textbook for gymnasium]. Tallinn: Koolibri.  
Olgers, T. (2001). Escaping the Box of Pandora. In O’Shea, K. (ed.). Education for Democratic Citizenship: Policies & Regulatory Frameworks. Strasbourg: Council of Europe,  51–59. 
Osler, A. (ed.). (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: Diversity, Identity, Equality. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham. 
Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2006) Education for democratic citizenship: a review of research, policy and practice 1995–2005. Research Papers in Education, 21 (4), 433–466. 
Peterson, A., Davies, I. (2016). Social Justice and Education for Citizenship in England. In  Peterson, A., Hattam, R., Zembylas, M., Arthur, J. (eds.). The Palgrave International Handbook of Education for Citizenship and Social Justice. London: Palgrave, pp. 369-390. 
Piir, I., Valdmaa, S., Kraav, I. (1993). Kodanikuõpetus. [Textbook for Citizenship]. Tallinn: Avita. 
Pilli, E. (2009). Guidelines for Development of National Curriculum. Tallinn: Ministry of Education. In Est. www.hm.ee 
Priestley, M. & Biesta, G. J. J. (eds.) (2013). Reinventing the Curriculum: New Trends in Curriculum Policy and Practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic. 
Print, M., Ørnstrøm, S. & Skovgaard Nielsen, H. (2002). Education for Democratic Processes in Schools and Classrooms. European Journal of Education Research, Development & Politics, 37(2), 193–210.
Räis, M. (2008). Kodanikuharidus ja kool. [Citizenship Education & the School]. Paper presented at the Forum on Citizenship Education at the Open Estonia Foundation. May 14, 2008. http://www.bapp.ee/_repository/File/KH_ja_kool.doc 
Raudla, H. (2011, 2012). Ühiskonnaõpetus gümnaasiumile. I osa. (Civics textbook for gymnasium). Tallinn: Avita. 
Raudla, H. (2009, 2013). Ühiskonnaõpetus gümnaasiumile. I osa. Tööraamat. [Civics textbook for gymnasium. Excercises].  Tallinn: Avita. 
Ross, E. W. (ed.). (2001). The Social Studies Curriculum: Purposes, Problems & Possibilities. Albany (NY): SUNY. 
Rutiku, S., Valk, A., Pilli, E. & Vanari, K. (2009). Õppekava arendamise juhendmaterjal. [Guidelines for curriculum development]. Tartu: Primus Archimedes. 

Ruutsoo, R. (2000). Kodakondsus ja riiklus: riigiõpetus, ühiskonnaõpetus või kodanikuõpetus? [About civic education textbooks]. In Pavelson, M. (ed.) Ühiskond ja riik: abimaterjalid kodanikuõpetuse õpetajale. Tallinn: Projekt VERA, pp. 70–97. 
Saarts, T., Roosmaa, L. (2014). Ühiskonnaõpetuse õpik gümnaasiumile. I. [Civics textbook for gymnasium]. Tallinn: Maurus. Electronic: http://xn--epik-0qa.ee/uhiskonnaopetus-gumnaasiumile/  
Shachnazarov, G. H. Et al. (1963). Ühiskonnaõpetus. [Civic textbook]. Tallinn: Eesti Riiklik Kirjastus. 
Siilaberg, T., Somelar, M., Ugur, K. (2010 ja 2013). Ühiskonnaõpetuse töövihik gümnaasiumile. I osa. [Civics textbook for gymnasium. Excercises]. Tallinn: Avita.  
Toots, A., Idnurm, T. & Sheveleva, M. (2006). Noorte kodanikukultuur muutuvas ühiskonnas. Final report of the follow-up IEA study on civic education in Estonia. [The civic culture of the youth.] Tallinn: TLU. 
Toots, A. (ed.). (2011). Noorte kodanikukultuur kümme aastat hiljem. [The civic culture of the youth ten years later. The Estonian data in ICCS 2009]. Tallinn: TLÜ. 
Toots, A. (2014). Sootsium. 9. Klassi ühiskonnaõpetuse õpik. [Civic textbook for the ninth grade]. Tallinn: Koolibri. 
Torney-Purta, J., Lehmann, R., Oswald, H. & Schulz, W. (2001). Citizenship & Education in Twenty-Eight Countries: Civic Knowledge & Engagement at Age Fourteen. Amsterdam: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA). 
Valsiner, J. (2014). Invitation to Cultural Psychology. London: SAGE.  
Veugelers, W. (ed.). (2011). Education and Humanism. Berlin: Springer. 
Wilde, S. (2004). Citizenship Education in Germany. Oxford: Symposium Books.