ISSN 2535-5406 Vol 5, No 1(2022) http://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.4487 Date received: 09-06-2021 Date accepted: 12-11-2021 Peer reviewed article © 2022 the author(s). This is an OpenAccess publication licensed under terms given in: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (CC-BY 4.0). https://www.humanrer.org Research articles Measuring competences for democratic culture: teaching human rights through religious education Marios Koukounaras Liagkis National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, makoulia@theol.uoa.gr Michalis Skordoulis Democritus University of Thrace, Greece Vasiliki Geronikou National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece Abstract This paper aims to present research on measuring competences for democratic culture. It describes the development of a multiple-item scale that measures competences in teaching democratic citizenship and human rights through religious education. A principal component analysis based on the 135 items of the Council of Europe’s Reference framework of competences for democratic culture was carried out in two phases, in order to construct and refine the scale. The result was a 52-item scale divided into six components. This was tested for its reliability, factor structure and validity; firstly on a sample of 123, and secondly on a sample of 403 secondary RE teachers (2018-19). The research scrutinises the concept of democratic competences as being the ability to mobilise and deploy relevant values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and/or understanding. It concludes that these competences are more complex structures than has been assumed. Keywords Democratic culture scale, education for democratic citizenship, scale development, religious education teachers, human rights education http://doi.org/10.7577/hrer.4487 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.humanrer.org/ mailto:makoulia@theol.uoa.gr M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 113 Introduction In a world that is increasingly socially, economically and environmentally interdependent and where COVID-19 has significantly weakened the political, financial and social capacities of nation-states and nation-unions, it is incumbent on democratic education and religious education (RE) to develop the consciousness of a diverse and, at the same time, shared world (Heater, 2004, pp. 240-246). This paper focuses on an education that moves forward from just teaching citizenship to one where, within the curriculum, democracy is taught and learned (Biesta & Lawy, 2006; Dewey, [1916] 2002). In this way, schools and humanities subjects can develop young people's capabilities and facilitate critical thinking, world citizenship, and imaginative understanding (Nussbaum, 2006). And RE, as a humanities subject, can contribute to the development of liberal, open-minded and respectful mindsets by studying world religions and worldviews from different points of view (Jackson, 2014; Heilbronn, 2021, pp.27- 30). The paper focuses on RE teachers, the measurement of their ‘competences for democratic culture’ (CDC), and how these impact on teaching and learning democracy within the curriculum. The faith and beliefs of RE teachers, as well as their secular and non-religious positions, seem to play a role in how ‘otherness’ is experienced in the classroom; it is important that these teachers examine themselves and their own stereotypes and prejudices (Everington, 2013; Lundie & Conroy, 2015; Franken & Loobuyck, 2016; Kittelmann Flensner, 2018; Vince, 2020; Mpisi, Groenewald, & Barnett, 2020; Nixon, Smith, & Fraser-Pearce, 2021). Religion and diversity in schools and classrooms, as well as dialogue between different standpoints and the dialogical approach to RE, are at the core of European research (Skeie, 2009; Erricker, 2010, pp. 94-121; Norman & Gallagher, 2011; Barnes, 2012; Weisse, Amirpur, Körs, & Vieregge, 2014; Klutz, 2016; Shanneik, 2016; Arweck, 2017; Schreiner, 2018; Ipgrave, Knauth, Körs, Vieregge, & von der Lippe, 2018; Franken, 2017; 2021). There is a radically growing diversity in the populations of most European countries and a need, firstly, to become acquainted with and learn respect for ‘otherness’ and, secondly, to take part in a dialogue where the plurality of cultures, experiences, actions and faiths is positively addressed (Ipgrave, 2001; 2004; O'Grady & Jackson, 2020). The ‘Religion in Education. A contribution to Dialogue or a factor of Conflict in transforming societies of European Countries’ (REDCo) study stresses that ‘…most [young people] were convinced that respecting the religion of others is a way to cope with differences’ (Valk, 2009, p. 425), and that RE classrooms can provide the ‘safe space’ to discuss such topics (Leganger-Krogstad, 2003), even though in some cases understanding may be difficult (Conroy, Wenell, & Lundie, 2013, pp. 119-124; Weisse, 2011). Moreover, the relation of RE to citizenship is highlighted in numerous pieces of research (Conroy, Wenell, & Lundie, 2013, pp. 117-140; Østberg, 2013; Kjelden, 2016). Stern, in an analysis of research on RE and human rights, values and citizenship, concludes that ‘RE needs all the researchers it Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 114 can get in the classroom’ (Stern, 2006, p. 94). Council of Europe’s reference framework of competences for democratic culture and teaching professionalism In the European context, it is recognised that education plays the essential role in building the world in which future generations will live. This acknowledgement is the key foundation of the Council of Europe’s ‘Reference framework of competences for democratic culture’ (RFCDC) (Council of Europe, 2018a;b;c) and the starting point for current research within the RE community. The Council of Europe has focused on human rights, democracy, and the rule of law in maintaining and fostering the political systems of the member countries as well as promoting citizenship education. In Recommendation CM/Rec (2007)6 a vision of education is defined by four main aims: - Preparation for the labour market - Preparation for life as active citizens in democratic societies - Personal development - The development and maintenance of a broad, advanced knowledge base. (Council of Europe, 2007) These aims literally visualise the development of a rapidly changing world where citizens live independent and active lives. On this basis, approaches and materials such as education for democratic citizenship (EDC) and human rights education (HRE) have been developed. In 2010, the ‘Charter on EDC/HRE’ depicted the central concepts and areas where EDC/HRE should be implemented. The aim of democratic citizenship is defined as follows: To empower them to exercise and defend their democratic rights and responsibilities in society, to value diversity and to play an active part in democratic life, with a view to the promotion and protection of democracy and the rule of law. (Council of Europe, 2010) Furthermore, the aim of human rights education is defined as: To empower learners to contribute to the building and defence of a universal culture of human rights in society, with a view to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. (Council of Europe, 2010) It is clear that these aims address the competences, knowledge, skills, values, and attitudes that citizens need to develop and acquire in order to actively participate in democratic processes. M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 115 When RE interconnects with democratic citizenship (DC) the same competences can be taught. This means that teachers must possess the competences (Council of Europe, 2008, Jackson, 2014) to teach students to act as democratic and intercultural citizens (Council of Europe, 2010, p. 38) (Figure 1). Competences are defined as: abilities to mobilise and deploy relevant values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and/or understanding, in order to respond appropriately and effectively to the demands, challenges and opportunities that are presented by a given type of context. (Council of Europe, 2018a p.32) Figure 1: The 20 competences of the model. The 20 competences are subdivided into four groups: 1. Values; 2. Attitudes; 3. Skills; 4. Knowledge and critical understanding. Values are deemed to be general beliefs about life goals which, as principles, guide individuals. They give qualitative meaning to their actions and offer standards or criteria for evaluating and justifying them. They are psychological resources that enable individuals to manage democratic and intercultural situations. Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 116 Attitudes are defined as beliefs or opinions, emotions or feelings, evaluations, and tendencies to behave towards someone or something (e.g., a person or an issue). Skills are defined as capacities to accomplish complex procedures of thinking or behaving in order to achieve simple or difficult set targets. Knowledge, finally, consists of facts or ideas acquired by individuals which enable them to give comprehensive and appreciative meanings to their experiences—here, in the context of democratic processes (Council of Europe, 2018a, pp. 38-52). Of course: The Model proposes that, within the context of democratic culture and intercultural dialogue, an individual is deemed to be acting competently when he or she meets the demands, challenges and opportunities that are presented by democratic and intercultural situations appropriately and effectively by mobilising and deploying some or all of these 20 competences. (Council of Europe, 2018a, p. 38) The aim is that the publication be used by national educational systems: to evaluate existing courses or study programmes; to design and develop curricula and pedagogies; and, of most interest in the current study, to develop assessments of teachers’ competencies. Clusters of descriptors are provided by the RFCDC for teachers’ self-reflection and self-assessment. They are proposed as: statements that describe observable behaviours which indicate that the person concerned has achieved a certain level of proficiency with regard to a competence. (Council of Europe, 2018a, p. 59) The 135 key descriptors are the result of a procedure in which 3,094 educators from across Europe participated. 2,085 draft descriptors were firstly produced, which became 447 after feedback, rating tasks, validation tasks and scaling tasks. The 135 most useful were then identified. The participants followed specific criteria to devise the descriptors and then to evaluate them: 1. Wording (as learning outcomes), 2. Brevity (<25 words), 3. Positivity, 4. Clarity, 5. Independence (of all the other descriptors), and 6. Definiteness. The descriptors are scaled to three levels of proficiency: 1. Basic, 2. Intermediate, 3. Advanced. They were then published by using these categories. Researchers have questioned the conception of the four groups of 20 competences. In a recent article, Jónsson and Rodriguez (2019) suggest a different conceptualisation. Their study builds on the Aristotelian concept of democratic competences as virtues, and on the Deweyan conception of democracy and what it means for a citizen to live in a democracy and lead a M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 117 democratic life. While pointing out that the RFCDC (2018) provides a brief discussion of the concept of democracy, the authors then provide a theorising of democratic capacities involving three specific conditions: 1. Political conditions; 2. Moral conditions; 3. Conditions of individualisation (p. 4). Thus, they define seven complex competences instead of four ‘simple’ ones; 1. Discursive competence, 2. Competence for conflict resolution, 3. Competence for critical re-evaluation, 4. Competence for communal living. 5. Competence for resilience, 6. Competence for forming a conception of a good life, and 7. Competence for respecting the natural boundaries of human living. They argue that the 20 competences of the RFCDC: are so general and basic that they should figure in any complex competence such as the seven we defined…although some of the simple competences are more central for certain complex competences… However, none of the simple ones will be completely absent (whatever that might mean) from any of the complex ones. (Jónsson & Rodriguez, 2019, p. 11) In fact, the democratic competences are complex structural concerns in a social context (Biesta & Lawy, 2006) rather than individuals’ skills and capabilities to behave in one particular way. When the competences are so general, and figure in so many aspects of individuals’ lives and learning processes, the majority of educators may claim to be working towards one, or more, or all of them; teachers follow the curriculum in the classroom and claim that they work on the competence of listening and observing. That does not mean that there is no value in listing 20 competences. On the contrary, they provide the basis of the democratic competences which must always be conceptualised and analysed by using the 135 descriptors. These can lead to more complex but recognisable competences. The descriptors are provided to help to operationalise the competences in terms of the observable behaviours of democratic culture (Council of Europe, 2018a, p. 59). Although a number of researchers challenge the efficacy and the morality of educating ‘good citizens’ in schools (Merry, 2020; Francis & Mills, 2012; Eksner & Nur Chemma, 2017; Gillborn, 2006; Apple, 2013), education is literally the crucial component in democratic empowerment. Thus, properly educated and trained teachers are necessary since it is their practice that can promote democratic culture, as the EDC/HRE Charter states: Teaching and learning practices and activities should follow and promote democratic and human rights values and principles (Council of Europe, 2010). This requires competent teaching professionals, educated and politically astute, who can develop the CDC themselves and, at the same time, be ready to tackle a range of challenges in their communities, schools, and classrooms. It is these individuals who have the task of educating children to be socially active and responsible citizens (Sachs, 2003, p. 154; Salema, Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 118 2005; Brett, Mompoint-Gaillard, & Salema, 2009; European Commission, 2017; Nieuwelink, Dekker, & ten Dam, 2019). It is known that the powerful relationships which result from the interactions in the community between students and educators can transform disadvantaged students and schools. The transformative dynamic of student-educator interactions is visible when educators have already been transformed by education and training in reflection, openness, flexibility, adaptability, civic mindedness, empathy, and tolerance of ambiguity (Council of Europe, 2018b; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2016; Barrett, Byram, Lázár, Mompoint-Gaillard, & Philippou, 2014). Educators learn to challenge dominant notions of education and curricula with active and democratic ones (Garratt & Piper, 2012), and they learn to contextualise notions of democracy and human rights in different cultural and political contexts (Zembylas, Charalambous, Charalambous, & Lesta, 2017). Thus, the school, the curriculum and teaching can form democratic citizens (Print & Lange, 2012; Council of Europe, 2016) as long as educators are active professionals who embody democratic culture. This means that the epicentre of the transformation process within education is the transformation of educators. These teachers are called to re-orientate their work under a transformative-intercultural-inclusive-democratic framework, one based on the values of equity, inclusion, solidarity, justice, autonomy, critical understanding, communication, emancipation and, above all, humanism. It is apparent from the above that it is of the upmost importance for RE teachers to possess a critical perception, a ‘knowledge and critical understanding of the self’ and ‘knowledge and critical understanding of the world’. These competences can be described in terms of observable behaviours: a) critically examining values and beliefs; b) critically examining prejudices and stereotypes, as well as everything behind them; c) critically examining the deeper causes of human rights violations, such as the role played by stereotypes and prejudices in human rights abuses; and d), recognising the religious symbols, religious rituals, and religious uses of language (Council of Europe, 2018). The examination of the interconnections between beliefs and religion with stereotypes and prejudices but, above all, with human rights, highlights the essential commitment of different dimensions of self— ‘rational, affective, somatic, spiritual, and sociocultural’ (Tolliver & Tisdell, 2006, p.39). The logical dimension of self is a presupposition for a critical understanding of the self and the world to manage the internal interplay between the personal religious beliefs, conditions of education and different social contexts, as well as the external interplay between the interests of stakeholders (state, local authorities, religious communities, etc.) (Christopher, 2020; Jackson & Everington, 2016). This external interplay changes as the politicisation and secularisation of RE has a different impact in different contexts (Zembylas, Loukaidis, & Antoniou, 2019). To conclude, the issue is that both contemporary conditions and educational demands require RE teachers who are competent to transmit democratic culture. This M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 119 inevitably means a change of paradigm for most of them, and it is well known that teachers resist changes of paradigm (Zimmerman, 2006; Clement, 2014; Hargreaves, 2004; Mutch, 2012; Zembylas, 2003). Even though this is the case, RE teachers individually initiate processes of (self-) reflection and (self-) evaluation when research puts them in a position of responsibility for educating students about, through and for, human rights (Burridge, et al., 2013; Tibbitts, 2002; Jennings, 2006; Robinson, Phillips, & Quennerstedt, 2020). Teaching ‘manifests itself as a gift that occurs beyond learning’ (Biesta, 2020, p. 39). Therefore, there is an urgent need for a scale that can challenge teachers to reflect on and evaluate their values, attitudes, skills, and the critical understanding required for democratic culture. Such a scale, based on particular descriptors of competences, will also measure their CDC. This is the starting point of the current research. The development of a tool to measure CDC, however, construes ‘competences’ as not just ‘performative virtues or instrumental character traits’, but also as Aristotelian virtues with a moral dimension (Jónsson & Rodriguez, 2019). These virtues are also interconnected with religious and non-religious beliefs, and this is vital for the development of RE teachers’ competences. This is particularly the case in Greece, where secondary RE teachers are all graduates from two Schools of (Orthodox) Theology who have not even received limited (2-5 courses) pre-service teacher education. In Greece RE is a compulsory subject in primary and secondary education for ten years. Under the Constitution (Art. 16) it remains mono-religious, although world religions and worldviews are also taught (2/10 years). Since 2011 there has been an ongoing debate about the content of RE and its pedagogy and the High Court’s decisions (2016-19) have brought about changes to more confessional approaches (Koukounaras Liagkis, 2015; 2019; 2021). Methodology Aim Our research is based on the 135 descriptors of the competencies for democratic culture, as defined by the Council of Europe (2018b). The core concept is that since the descriptors are observable democratic behaviours they can be a concise, reliable and meaningful instrument to indicate the degree to which a culture is democratic. Thus, the aim of this research is to develop a scale that measures CDC in education and in educators. It also has possible applications, since educators’ competences can be the basis for the development of a democratic culture in schools and, most importantly, for the education of democratic citizens. It is of upmost international importance that schools be laboratories of democracy which prepare coming generations of citizens with democratic pedagogies that are implemented by equipped educators. Although the teaching of religions and worldviews (Jackson, 2014) is a controversial issue (Koukounaras Liagkis, 2019), knowledge and respect for religions is a Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 120 necessary element of democratic culture. That is why the research sample consisted of religious education teachers. Religion and RE are still on the curriculum in most European countries, and so RE teachers have an important role to play: their life-experiences, outlooks and teaching practices seem to influence the development of their students’ characters (Arthur, Moulin-Stozek, Metcalfe, & Moller, 2019). Materials and methods In order to ensure that the development of the scale is valid and reliable and to scrutinise the components/categories, the research was carried out in two stages. In the first stage, 123 secondary RE teachers from all around Greece were called upon to assess their attitudes to the 135 items of the competences for democratic culture, as defined by the Council of Europe. To do so, an electronic questionnaire was distributed between February 2019 to May 2019. All questions were based on a 5-point Likert scale where 1 referred to ‘never’ and 5 referred to ‘always’. The items were initially categorised into four components (values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge and understanding) according to RFCDC (Council of Europe, 2018a; 2018b). Based on the conceptualisation of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1988), the four categories were scrutinised to a degree in order to refine the 135 items instrument by analysing the data. An initial components analysis was carried out and, in order to ensure the extracted components’ reliability, Cronbach’s alpha was used. In the second stage of the research, there were responses from 403 randomly selected RE teachers from all around Greece, between September 2019 and May 2020. This sample is considered sufficient, since in similar studies where the aim is to develop and evaluate a scale for measuring attitudes and opinions, desired samples range from 200 to 400 people (Churchill Jr, Ford, & Walker Jr, 1974; Saxe & Weitz, 1982; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1988). In both stages, the collected data was analysed using SPSS V.26 and inductive statistical methods, including principal components analysis and reliability analysis. Results First stage The collected data was initially analysed using principal components analysis. This aims to reduce the number of variables to a few specific components that correspond to new variables and thus explain a large part of the variation in the data. Varimax rotation, which minimises the number of items that have high loadings and makes the extracted components more interpretable, was used in the analysis. The correlation coefficients and the partial correlation coefficients were calculated. The relative sizes of the correlation coefficients were then compared with the partial correlation coefficients. The measure that gives the value of this comparison is the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin, where values higher than 0.750 are considered to be M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 121 satisfactory. Indeed, for the questions examined using the above method, the Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin value is equal to 0.835. Another way to evaluate the suitability of the model is the Bartlett test of sphericity. The test rejects the null hypothesis (sig. = 0.000), which means that the statistical significance of the statistical chi-square indicates that the variables are correlated with each other and therefore the components analysis model is appropriate. Table 1: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test results concerning the first stage of the research. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.835 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity sig. 0.000 Having ensured that the model was a satisfactory fit, the next step was to identify the number of the extracted components. Based on the Kaiser rule, six components were identified (Kaufman & Dunlap, 2000). Next, the items were categorised into the extracted components. To do this, the items’ loadings are used. More specifically, if an item’s loading modulus is higher than 0.5, this item can be categorised into a specific component. If the loading of an item is higher than 0.5 in two or more components, then it is categorised into the component with its highest loading. In our extracted model, the loading moduli of 83 items were lower than 0.5, which meant that they could be excluded from the analysis. Thus, 52 items were categorised into six components. The extracted components are provided below, while the items are provided in Appendix 1.  Component 1: democratic values  Component 2: respect for the other  Component 3: intercultural awareness  Component 4: communication skills and emotional intelligence  Component 5: critical perception  Component 6: political understanding The six components contain behaviours of thinking, reflecting, and acting. The first one, ‘democratic values’, refers to a set of values that enables individuals as citizens to value human rights, pluralism, and the rule of law. It is a common and basic conceptual basis of the democratic ethos for a democratic community whose members have a deep feeling that all, individually and collectively, are responsible for justice which is beyond the law to impose. It involves thinking and reflecting. Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 122 ‘Respect for the other’ is more a matter of reflecting on and acting out of respect of other people and their beliefs in order to live peacefully and honestly in a community with others, regardless of that community’s diversity. This is the standard of a community not just of individuals but of personhoods who maintain their identities by accepting the cosmopolitan- dialogical self (Habermas, 1990). This is clearly of great importance for RE teachers. ‘Intercultural awareness’ is also important for RE teachers. It is about thinking and reflecting on personal and cultural conceptions and acting within a continual self-conception. It is a matter of whether and to what extent individuals perceive their tradition/religion as the only central one of their realities or whether they experience their own beliefs and behaviour as one reality among other sustainable possibilities (Bennett, 2004, pp. 62-63). ‘Communication skills and emotional intelligence’ focus on the components of communication skills in a democratic and intercultural context. Skills such as empathy, active listening, self- control, resilience, conflict resolution (at the level of interaction relationships), the ability to know and understand oneself and to know and understand language and communication (on an individual and intra-person level) are required in order for individuals to achieve self- awareness, and therefore to communicate and behave democratically (Deardorff, 2009, p. 479). ‘Critical perception’ concerns oneself, others, and the whole world. It refers to how individuals identify their own and others’ behaviour, feelings and actions. It is also a matter of questioning what is right and wrong and recognising what motivates one’s own and others’ actions. It also involves an everyday willingness to think, reflect and act critically within a reasonable plurality (Rawls, 2001), and this is the reason why, for RE teachers, this component is more than just a stipulation for the other components. It is a premise on which the others can be developed. ‘Political understanding’ is individuals’ ability to analyse and interpret the social reality of their own lives and of their communities and therefore to take action. It is about empowering individuals to have a cognitive and intuitive understanding of politics and its power in their lives, as well as to grapple with the interconnection between private and public life. In order to ensure the scale’s reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated. Based on Churchill’s analysis (Churchill Jr, Ford, & Walker Jr, 1974), the desired value of the coefficient is between 0.75 and 0.9. In the following table we see that the Cronbach’s alpha values for all the extracted components are between the desired values. M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 123 Table 2: Cronbach’s alpha values concerning the first stage of the research. Items Cronbach’s alpha Component 1 8 0.817 Component 2 7 0.856 Component 3 12 0.858 Component 4 10 0.852 Component 5 11 0.888 Component 6 4 0.857 Second stage In this stage of the research 403 responses to the final scale were analysed. Initially, a principal components analysis was carried out. As in the first stage of the research, the model was evaluated using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Based on the data provided in the following table, the components analysis model is appropriate. Table 3: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett’s test results concerning the second stage of the research. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.812 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity sig. 0.000 Having ensured the model was a good fit, the principal components analysis was carried out. Based on the results of this analysis, the results of the first stage of the research were confirmed. In order to ensure the scale’s reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha was calculated for the new sample as well. In the following table we see that the Cronbach’s alpha value for all extracted components is between the desired values. Table 4: Cronbach’s reliability factor results. Items Cronbach’s alpha Component 1 8 0.717 Component 2 7 0.756 Component 3 12 0.858 Component 4 10 0.867 Component 5 11 0.857 Component 6 4 0.814 Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 124 It is apparent that a concise, reliable and meaningful ‘Scale for measurement of competences for democratic culture’ was developed and tested in two large samples to help educators to recognise for themselves which qualities and competences are practiced, and which descriptors are implemented. Discussion and conclusion The study presents a ‘Scale for measurement of competences for democratic culture’ (SMCDC) which has been effectively tested on a representative sample (Ν=526) of a total population of 3,000 secondary RE teachers in Greece. The development of the scale was based on the Council of Europe’s RFCDC—its twenty competences and their 135 descriptors. From the first phase of the study the four categories of the RFCDC (values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and critical understanding) were questioned, in line with other research (Jónsson and Rodriguez, 2019). The analysis of the data indicated six components. Each one of these represents a specific dimension of democratic competence in terms of knowledge, attitudes, values and skills. Both phases of the research show that the scale is reliable and that all its parts maintain an interactive, interconnected, inter-complementary relationship, and holistically compose a set of democratic competences of a democratic, intercultural nature. They therefore engender a reflective, active and thoughtfully critical citizen. That means that the scale can be used in educational contexts to measure educators’ CDC when they are called to teach DC as an educational aim or as part of the subject curriculum. It is apparent that in order to confirm the scale’s reliability, further research should be carried out that builds upon the findings of this article. Future studies can focus on RE teachers from other countries or other religious contexts, or on teachers of other subjects (e.g., science or social studies) in different national and educational systems. Future research on a multi- cultural/religious sample is needed since the sample of this study is mono-religious (Orthodox). The literature and the development of the six new components of the competences/categories of democratic culture highlight that it is individuals, particularly the teachers and their conceptions, that determine the competences that RFCDC attempts to describe. There is an interconnection between beliefs and religion with stereotypes and prejudices and this is connected the individuals’ attitudes towards human rights. That interplay highlights the essential commitment of different dimensions of the ‘rational, affective, somatic, spiritual, and sociocultural’ self (Tolliver & Tisdell, 2006). The rational dimension of self is a presupposition of critical understanding of the self and the world to manage the internal interplay between personal religious beliefs, conditions of education and different social M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 125 contexts as well as the external interplay between the interests of stakeholders (state, local authorities, religious communities, etc.) (Christopher, 2020; Jackson & Everington, 2016). This external interplay changes, according to the degree of politicisation and secularisation of RE in different contexts (Zembylas, Loukaidis, & Antoniou, 2019). In conclusion, the issue for RE teachers is that contemporary conditions and educational demands, require well-equipped CDC teachers to teach EDC/HRE through RE, and this inevitably means a change of paradigm for most of them. Self-development and professional development related to RFCDC are needed to confirm research evidence that the humanities can develop the critical thinking and imaginative understanding that will enable young people to be citizens of the world (Nussbaum, 2006). To this end, this study marks a step forward by providing an instrument tested on RE teachers (it is seldom that a tool for all teachers is tested on RE teachers) and measures the impact of their competence in teaching and learning democracy within the curriculum. This does not concern the competences of the RE teachers (this is dealt with in the second part of the research) but the development of a scale to measure CDC. This scale can be used on RE teachers not only because they teach a subject that concerns religious and non-religious convictions but because they are also pedagogues in the state education system who can develop students’ competences and culture. The literature highlights this need, since populations in most European countries are increasingly diverse. Human rights and democracy can be taught by RE teachers as long as religion has an importance in political, social and national contexts and, above all, impacts on the lives and behaviour of many people. The Council of Europe’s RFCDC and its background documents (Recommendations, projects and literature) created the environment in which the first stage could be safely developed. Of course, concepts such as the four categories of competences or definitions of values or other terms are contested and should always be clearly stated. Therefore, this research focused on developing a set of components/categories of competences that represent CDC. Thus, first and foremost, the scale and the procedure scrutinised the concept of democratic competences and the way in which they the RFCDC conceives them (2018a). Although competences in RFCDC are defined as ‘abilities to mobilise and deploy relevant values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and/or understanding’ (Council of Europe, 2018a, p.32), it seems that, after the analysis, the competences are more complex structures. On the one hand, they are constituent elements of an Aristotelian ethos pre-existing or even shaped through the development of democratic competences. On the other, they are complex and flexible predispositions-for-action—as Biesta (2014) redefines Dewey ‘habits’. As Jónsson and Rodriguez (2019, p.13) point out, ‘attitudes, skills and knowledge do not make a person better or more democratic unless the values, attitudes, and knowledge from which the person acts are already good or conducive to democracy’. Moreover, the individual’s ethos can be founded on a democratic ethos which comprises the competences for democratic culture, Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 126 which are both moral and performative virtues. Learning is, therefore, the axis that relates the two ethe, since both are the results of knowing—which means thinking, reflecting, and acting (Dewey, [1916] 2002). For this, it is crucial to have the CDC scale for individuals’ (self-) reflection and (self-) evaluation as a component of change and transformation, especially for those who teach democratic culture and religion. References Apple, M. W. (2013). Educating the right way. Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203112847 Arthur, J., Moulin-Stozek, D., Metcalfe, J., & Moller, F. (2019). Religious rducation teachers and character: Personal beliefs and professional approaches. Research Report. Birmingham: University of Birmingham-The Jubilee Centre for Character and Virtues. Arweck, E. (Eds.). (2017). Young people's attitudes to religious diversity. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315546032 Barnes, P. (2012). Diversity. In P. Barnes (Eds.), Debates in religious education (pp. 65-76). New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813805 Barrett, M., Byram, M., Lázár, I., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Philippou, S. (2014). Developing intercultural competence through education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Bennett, J. M. (2004). Becoming interculturally competent. In J. Wurzel (Eds.), Toward multiculturalism: A reader in multicultural education (pp. 62-77). (2nd ed). Newton, MA: Intecultural Resource Corporation. Biesta, G. (2014). Pragmatising the curriculum: Bringing knowledge back into the curriculum conversation, but via pragmatism. The Curriculum Journal, 25(1), 29-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.874954 Biesta, G. (2020). The three gifts of teaching: Towards a non-egological future for moral education. Journal of Moral Education, 50(1), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1763279 Biesta, G., & Lawy, R. (2006). From teaching citizenship to learning democracy: Overcoming individualism in research, policy and practice. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(1), 63-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490981 Brett, P., Mompoint-Gaillard, P., & Salema, M.-H. (2009). How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: A framework for the development of competences. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203112847 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315546032 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203813805 https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2013.874954 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2020.1763279 https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640500490981 M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 127 Burridge, N., Chodkiewicz, A., Payne, A. M., Oguro, S., Vamham, S., & Buchanan, J. (2013). Human rights education in the school curriculum. Sydney: Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Research Centre, University of Technology. Christopher, K.B. (2020). RE as liberal education: A proposal for a critical religious education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University College London: London Churchill Jr, G. A., Ford, N. M., & Walker Jr, O. C. (1974). Measuring the job satisfaction of industrial salesmen. Jouranl of Marketing Research, 11(3), 254-260. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151140 Clement, J. (2014). Managing mandated educational change. School Leadership & Management, 34(1), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.813460 Conroy, J. C., Wenell, K. J., & Lundie, D. (2013). Does religious education work? A multi- dimensional investigation. London: Bloomsbury. Council of Europe (2007): Recommendation Rec (2007)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the public responsibility for higher education and research. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16805d5dae Council of Europe. (2008). Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the dimension of religions and non-religious convictions within intercultural education. Retrieved from https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1386911&Site=CM Council of Europe. (2010). Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education. Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)7 and explanatory memorandum. Retrieved from https://rm.coe.int/16803034e3 Council of Europe. (2016). Pestalozzi Programme trainer training course: Strengthening education for democracy (STED): Strengthening education for democracy (STED). Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/pestalozzi/sted Council of Europe. (2018a). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture (Vol. I). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference- framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture Council of Europe. (2018b). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture (Vol. II). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference- framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://doi.org/10.2307/3151140 https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.813460 https://rm.coe.int/16805d5dae https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1386911&Site=CM https://rm.coe.int/16803034e3 https://www.coe.int/en/web/pestalozzi/sted https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 128 Council of Europe. (2018c). Reference framework of competences for democratic culture (Vol. III). Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Retrieved from https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference- framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture Deardorff, D. K. (2009). Implementing intercultural competence assessment. In D. K. Deardorff (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Intercultural Competence (pp. 477-491). U.S.A.: Sage Dewey, J. ([1916] 2002). Democracy and education. In John Dewey and American education (Vol. 3). Bristol: Thoemmes. Eksner, H. J., & Nur Chemma, S. (2017). Who here is a real German? German Muslim youths, othering,. In J. A. Banks (Eds.), Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research, and teaching (pp. 161-183). Washington: American Educational Research Association. Erricker, C. (2010). Religious education. A conceptual and interdisciplinary approach for secondary level. London New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855546 European Commission. (2017). Preparing teachers for diversity: The role of initial teacher education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b347bf7d-1db1-11e7-aeb3- 01aa75ed71a1/language-en Everington, J. (2013). Hindu, Muslim and Sikh religious education teachers’ use of personal life knowledge: The relationship between biographies, professional beliefs and practice. British Journal of Religious Education, 36(2), 155-173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2013.820169 Francis, B., & Mills, M. (2012). Schools as damaging organisations: Instigating a dialogue concerning alternative models of schooling. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(2), 251- 271. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.688765 Franken, L. (2017). Country report: Belgium-Flemish community. British Journal of Religious Education, 39(3), 234-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2017.1345515 Franken, L. (2021). Autonomy and shared citizenship: A ‘neutral’ justification for RE? In O. Franck, & P. Thalén (Eds.), Religious education in a post-secular age. Case studies from Europe (pp. 207-228). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47503- 1_11 https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://www.coe.int/en/web/campaign-free-to-speak-safe-to-learn/reference-framework-of-competences-for-democratic-culture https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855546 https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b347bf7d-1db1-11e7-aeb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/b347bf7d-1db1-11e7-aeb3-01aa75ed71a1/language-en https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2013.820169 https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2012.688765 https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2017.1345515 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47503-1_11 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47503-1_11 M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 129 Franken, L., & Loobuyck, P. (2016). Neutrality and impartiality in RE: An impossible aim? British Journal of Religious Education, 39(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1218219 Garratt, D., & Piper, H. (2012). Citizenship education and philosophical enquiry: Putting thinking back into practice Education. Education Citizenship and Social Justice, 7(1), 71- 84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197911432592 Gillborn, D. (2006). Citizenship education as placebo: ‘Standards’, institutional racism and education policy. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(1), 83-104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906060715 Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hargreaves, D. H. (2004). Inclusive and exclusive educational change: Emotional responses of teachers and implications for leadership. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation, 24(3), 287-309. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266936 Heater, D. (2004). Citizenship. The cvic ideal in world history, politics and education. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Heilbroun, R. (2021). Education as social practice. In G. Biesta, & P. Hannam (Eds.), Religion and education. The forgotten dimensions of religious education? (pp. 20-35). Leiden, Boston: Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446397_003 Ipgrave, J. (2001). Pupil-to-pupil dialogue in the classroom as a tool for religious education: Warwick religious and education research unit occasional papers II. Coventry: WRERU. Ipgrave, J. (2004). 'Including pupils' faith background in primary religious education. Support for Learning, 19(3), 114-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-2141.2004.00332.x Ipgrave, J., Knauth, T., Körs, A., Vieregge, D., & von der Lippe, M. (2018). Religion and dialogue in the city. Case studies on interreligious encounter in urban community and education. Munster: Waxmann. Jackson, R. (Ed.). (2014). Signposts - policy and practice for teaching about religions and non- religious world views in intercultural education. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Jackson, R., & Everington, J. (2016). Teaching inclusive religious education impartially: An English perspective. British Journal of Religious Education, 39(1), 7-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1165184 Jennings, T. (2006). Human rights education standards for teachers and teacher education. Teaching Education, 17(4), 287-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210601017378 https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1218219 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197911432592 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197906060715 https://doi.org/10.1080/1363243042000266936 https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004446397_003 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0268-2141.2004.00332.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2016.1165184 https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210601017378 Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 130 Jónsson, Ó., & Rodriguez, A. (2019). Educating democracy: Competences for a democratic culture. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, online, 16(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197919886873 Kaufman, J.D. & Dunlap, W.P. (2000). Determining the number of factors to retain: A Windows-based FORTRAN-IMSL program for parallel analysis. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 32(3), 389–395. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200806 Kittelmann Flensner, K. (2018). Secularized and multi-religious classroom practice-Discourses and interactions. Education Sciences, 8(116), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030116 Kjelden, K. (2016). Citizenship and RE: Different interpretations in discourse and practice: A Case from Denmark. In J. Berglund, Y. Shanneik, & B. Bocking (Eds.), Religious education in a global-local world (pp. 145-164). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-32289-6_10 Klutz, P. (2016). Religious education faces the challenge of religious plurality. Munster: Waxmann. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. (2015). Religious education in Greece: a New curriculum, an old issue. British Journal of Religious Education, 37(2), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.944093 Koukounaras Liagkis, M. (2019). What does a child learn in religious education at school?. Greek Journal of Religious Education, 2(1), 124-138. http://doi.org/10.30457/30420191 Koukounaras Liagkis, M. (2021). The framework of the new curricula in Greece: Profound changes in religious education. In L. J. Francis, D. W. Lankshear & S. G. Parker (Eds), New directions in religious and values education. International Perspectives (pp. 115- 129). Peter Lang. Leganger-Krogstad, H. (2003). Dialogue among young citizens in a pluralistic religious education classroom. In R. Jackson (Eds.), International perspectives on citizenship, education and religious diversity (pp. 150-169). London New York: Routledge Falmer. Lundie, D., & Conroy, J. (2015). ‘Respect study’ the treatment of religious difference and otherness: An ethnographic investigation in UK Schools. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 36(3), 274-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2015.1029886 Merry, M. S. (2020). Can schools teach citizenship? Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 41(1), 124-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1488242 https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197919886873 https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200806 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8030116 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32289-6_10 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32289-6_10 https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2014.944093 http://doi.org/10.30457/30420191 https://doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2015.1029886 https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2018.1488242 M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 131 Mpisi, A., Groenewald, E., & Barnett, E. (2020). Experiencing ‘otherness’: Teacher educators’ journey with first year pre-service teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 30(2), 573- 592. Mutch, C. (2012). Curriculum change and teacher resistance. Curriculum Matters, 8, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0145 Nieuwelink, H., Dekker, P., & ten Dam, G. (2019). Compensating or reproducing? Students from different educational tracks and the role of school in experiencing democratic citizenship. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2018.1529738 Nixon, G., Smith, D., & Fraser-Pearce, J. (2021). Irreligious educators? An empirical study of the academic qualifications, (a)theistic positionality, and religious belief of religious education teachers in England and Scotland. Religions, 12(184), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12030184 Norman, R., & Gallagher, T. (Eds.). (2011). Education for diversity and mutual understanding. The experience of Northern Ireland. Bern: Peter Lang. Nussbaum, M. C. (2006). Education and democratic citizenship: Capabilities and quality education. Journal of Human Development, 7(3), 285-395. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600815974 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA. Preparing our youth for an inclusive and sustainable world. The OECD PISA global competence framework. Paris: OECD. Retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/education/Global- competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf O'Grady, K., & Jackson , R. (2020). ‘A touchy subject’: Teaching and learning about difference in the religious education classroom. Journal of Beliefs and Values, 41(1), 88-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1614755 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). Servqual: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perc. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40. Print, M., & Lange, D. (Eds.). (2012). Schools, curriculum and civic education for building democratic citizens. Rotterdam: Sense. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-167-2 Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robinson, C., Phillips, L., & Quennerstedt, A. (2020). Human rights education: Developing a theoretical understanding of teachers’ responsibilities. Educational Review, 72(2), 220- 241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1495182 Sachs, J. (2003). The activist teaching profession. Buckingham: Open University Press. https://doi.org/10.18296/cm.0145 https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2018.1529738 https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12030184 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880600815974 https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf https://www.oecd.org/education/Global-competency-for-an-inclusive-world.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2019.1614755 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-167-2 https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2018.1495182 Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 132 Salema, M.H. (2005). Teacher and trainer training in education for democratic citizenship competencies. Journal of Social Science Education, 4(3), 39-49. https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-326 Saxe, R., & Weitz, B. A. (1982). The SOCO Scale: A measure of the customer orientation of salespeople. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(3), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900307 Schreiner, P. (Eds.). (2018). Are you READY? Diversity and religious education across Europe- The story of the Ready Project. Munster: Waxmann. Shanneik, Y. (2016). "They aren't holy": Dealing with religious differences in Irish primary schools. In J. Berglund, Y, Shanneik & B. Bocking (Eds.), Religious education in a global- local world (pp. 165-180). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32289-6_11 Skeie, G. (Eds.) (2009). Religious diversity and education. Nordic perspectives. Munster: Waxmann. Stern, J. (2006). Teaching religious education. Researchers in the classroom. London: Continuum. Tibbitts, F. (2002). Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rghts education. International Review of Education, 48(3-4), 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020338300881 Tolliver, D. E. & Tisdell, E. J. (2006). Engaging spirituality in the transformative higher education classroom. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education (109), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.206 Valk, P. (2009). How do European students see the impact of religion in society? In P. Valk (Eds.), Teenagers' perceptions on the role of religion in their lives, schools and societies: A European quantitative study. Munster: Waxmann. Vince, M. (2020). ‘Neutrality’, muslimness and the whiteness of RE professionalism. Journal of Religious Education, 68, 371-383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-020-00114-6 Weisse, W. (2011). Reflections on the REDCo project. British Journal of Religious Education, 33(2), 111-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2011.543589 Weisse, W., Amirpur, K., Körs, A., & Vieregge, D. (Eds.). (2014). Religions and dialogue. International approaches. Munster: Waxmann. Zembylas, M. (2003). Interrogating "teacher identity": Emotion, resistence, and self- formation. Educational Theory, 53(1), 107-127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741- 5446.2003.00107.x https://doi.org/10.4119/jsse-326 https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378201900307 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32289-6_11 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020338300881 https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.206 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40839-020-00114-6 https://doi.org/10.1080/01416200.2011.543589 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2003.00107.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2003.00107.x M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 133 Zembylas, M., Charalambous, P., Charalambous, C., & Lesta, S. (2017). Toward a critical hermeneutical approach of human rights education: Universal ideals, contextual realities and teachers’ difficulties. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49(4), 497-517. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118788990 Zembylas, M., Loukaidis, L., & Antoniou, M. (2019). The politicisation and securitisation of religious education in Greek–Cypriot schools. European Educational Research Journal, 18(1), 69-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1188156 Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it? NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521 Østberg, S. (2013). Diverisity and citizenship in a context of Islamophobia. In J. Miller, K. O'Grady, & U. McKenna (Eds.), Religion in education. Innovation in International Research (pp. 58-71). New York: Routledge. Appendix: Measurement of competences for democratic culture of religious education teachers Responses were invited to each item on a 5-point scale from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. A. Democratic values 1. I always appreciate the quality of my work 2. I pay attention to the gestures and body language of others so that I can understand the meaning of what they are saying 3. I always listen carefully in order to decipher the meaning and intentions of my interlocutor 4. I pay attention to what the others mean, but they do not say 5. I notice that people from different cultural backgrounds react differently to the same situation 6. I try to better understand my friends, trying to imagine things from their own perspective 7. I can accurately understand the feelings of others, even when they do not show them 8. I adapt to new situations, using a new skill 9. I mediate linguistically in intercultural compromises by translating, interpreting, or explaining 10. I regularly take communication initiatives to help resolve interpersonal disputes B. Respect for the other 11. I believe that intercultural dialogue must be used in order to be able to recognise our different identities and cultural affiliations 12. I am interested in learning about other people’s beliefs, values, traditions, and worldviews https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904118788990 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1188156 https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521 Human Rights Education Review – Volume 5(1) 134 13. I am curious about the beliefs and interpretations of other cultural orientations and relationships 14. I am positive about the opportunity to get to know other cultures 15. I always seek and welcome opportunities to meet people with different values, cultures, and behaviours 16. I really seek to get in touch with other people in order to get to know their culture 17. I am always willing to work and cooperate with others 18. I always listen carefully to different points of view 19. I always listen carefully to other people 20. I accept that my worldview is just a worldview among many others 21. I believe that history is often presented and taught through an ethnocentric perspective 22. I enjoy the challenge of dealing with ambiguous problems C. Intercultural awareness 23. I explicitly respect all people as equal 24. I treat everyone with respect regardless of their culture 25. I explicitly respect people who have a different socio-economic status than me 26. I explicitly respect every religious differentiation 27. I explicitly respect people who have different political views than me 28. When I make someone upset, I apologize 29. I explicitly accept the relationship between human rights, democracy, peace, and security in a globalised world D. Communication skills and emotional intelligence 30. Human rights should be always protected and respected 31. All public services must respect, protect and enforce human rights 32. The laws must comply with international human rights, rules and standards 33. We must be tolerant of the different beliefs that other people have in society 34. Schools must teach their students democracy and how to behave as democratic citizens 35. All citizens must be treated equally and impartially by the law 36. The laws must be applied impartially in every case 37. The people in charge of the legislature must be subject to the law and constitutional control E. Critical perception 38. I describe the effects of propaganda on the modern world 39. I explain the ways in which people can be protected from propaganda 40. I describe the various ways in which citizens can influence policy 41. I am essentially interested in the development of the human rights framework and the ongoing development of human rights in different parts of the world F. Political understanding 42. I describe my motivations 43. I describe the ways in which my thoughts and feelings affect my behaviour 44. I critically examine my values and beliefs 45. I critically examine myself from different perspectives. M. Koukounaras Liagkis, M. Skordoulis & V. Geronikou 135 46. I critically examine my prejudices and stereotypes, as well as everything behind them 47. I critically examine my feelings and emotions in a wide range of situations 48. I explain how tone of voice, eye contact, and body language can help communication 49. When I work in a team, I inform the other members about any relevant or useful information 50. I encourage the parties involved to listen carefully to each other and share the issues and problems that concern them 51. I critically examine the deeper causes of human rights violations, such as the role played by stereotypes and prejudices in human rights abuses 52. I recognise the religious symbols, religious rituals, and religious uses of language Measuring competences for democratic culture: teaching human rights through religious education Abstract Keywords Introduction Council of Europe’s reference framework of competences for democratic culture and teaching professionalism Methodology Aim Materials and methods Results First stage Second stage Discussion and conclusion References Appendix: Measurement of competences for democratic culture of religious education teachers