Citizenship
Education: current state of play and recommendations
Memorandum of
Submission to the Education Select Committee
Tony Breslin,
Don Rowe and Andy Thornton
March 2006
This paper is arranged in the
following sections:
Page
A About
the Citizenship Foundation 1
B What
we mean by Citizenship and Citizenship Education 2
C Citizenship
in the National Curriculum: the current state of play 3
D Summary
of Main Proposals: establishing a National Strategy 4
E The
Education Select Committee's areas of interest 5
1.
Teachers' attitudes to Citizenship 5
2. Initial Teacher
Training and CPD 6
3. Role of Local
Authorities in supporting school staff 8
4. Continuity of
Citizenship from KS1 to post 16 9
5. Quality of
Citizenship across all schools including faith schools 12
6. Debates about
British-ness and identity 12
7. Contribution of
Citizenship to Community Cohesion 14
8. Active aspects of
the Citizenship curriculum 15
9. Curriculum design
and appropriateness of DFES / other guidance 15
10. Practice in other
countries 16
F Recommendations 18
G Endnote 20
A About the Citizenship Foundation
A1. The Citizenship Foundation is an
independent educational charity that aims to empower individuals to engage in
the wider community through education about the law democracy and society. We
focus, in particular, on developing young people's Citizenship skills,
knowledge and understanding. Our work includes Citizenship resources for a wide
audience from teachers to young offenders, nationwide training programmes,
national active learning projects for secondary schools and community-based
projects to develop citizenship education as a collective responsibility beyond
school and college boundaries.
B What
we mean by Citizenship and Citizenship Education
B1. It is important
that we offer our own working definition of Citizenship. By Citizenship we mean the effective,
informed engagement of individuals in their communities and in broader society
around issues relating to the public domain.
This is a definition of Citizenship based around participation and
'process' rather than a narrower one that refers to an individual's legal
status in terms of, for instance, nationality.
This engagement requires that young people are educated for Citizenship and that they develop a
range of knowledge, skills and dispositions.
They need to know about politics, law, economics, the functioning of
communities and social groups and their responsibilities in terms of these
communities and groups. And they need
to feel confident in applying this knowledge; they need a 'toolkit' of
Citizenship skills: investigating,
communicating, participating, negotiating, taking responsible action. Critically, effective, rather than merely 'active', Citizenship is both
underpinned by and develops the individual's political literacy. Effective
Citizenship flows from good Citizenship Education. Necessarily, some of this is delivered in
settings that are "outside" the classroom and some of this involves drawing new
partners - youth workers, representatives of community groups and public
bodies, local politicians - into the school's community, prompting innovative
work within the classroom. For this reason, we talk of Citizenship as
both a new subject and a new type of
subject and we argue for a "subject-plus" mode of delivery: dedicated,
timetabled teaching time and a range
of whole school and community involvement activities that allow young people to
experience Citizenship and to develop the skills and dispositions cited
above. As the respected educational
academic Denis Lawton has put it, "...Citizenship Education is important for its
intrinsic value, as well as its potential to exert a benevolent influence on
the culture of schools and schooling.
It is important in terms of curriculum, pedagogy and the organisation
and structure of schools".
C Citizenship in the National Curriculum:
the current state of play
C1. We see the
introduction of Citizenship to the secondary school curriculum in 2002 as a
long overdue but vital step and agree with Lawton that the introduction of
Citizenship will come to be seen as the outstanding innovation in educational
policy over the past decade. Although
practice is still developing, we, like Lawton, see good quality Citizenship
Education as not only crucial in its own right but as an important component in
school improvement and transformation. We recognise (as do NFER, QCA and
OFSTED) that a significant number of schools are engaged in excellent practice
in delivering this "subject-plus" model noted above, that they are genuinely
becoming "citizenship-rich" as institutions, energised by strong teaching and
by student and community participation.
There is, though, much still to do.
Too many schools are delivering the Citizenship curriculum in a literal
sense but are perhaps less committed or confident in letting students develop
their Citizenship skills through participation in the community and the life of
the school. Still others are
facilitating community participation but are not pulling this together through
a clearly signposted and well-taught Citizenship programme on the
timetable. And studies concur that a
declining group - perhaps fifteen or twenty per cent - are doing little,
perhaps hoping that Citizenship is a passing initiative that will go the way of
others. Strong political leadership,
consistent messages about the permanence of Citizenship in the curriculum and
clear inspectorial intent are needed if we are to convince this group to change
their ways and if we are to support others.
C2. But we need more
than this. Teachers and those who
support them deserve praise for what has been achieved in the past three and a
half years. The small, under-funded
Citizenship teams at the DFES, QCA, OFSTED and the Learning and Skills
Development Agency are doing an excellent job with far too little support. By comparison with the millions (rightfully)
poured into literacy, numeracy, the Key Stage 3 strategy and 14-19 reform,
Citizenship has been introduced on a shoestring. There has been no coherent, strategic approach that embraces the
training of current and new teachers, the establishment and sustainability of
support networks and the preparation of inspectors and school leaders. The result is that too many teachers have
had little or no support in delivering a new and complex subject and that
access to such support, save for the excellent work of the Association for
Citizenship Teaching and the established Citizenship NGOs, has been defined by
the school and/or Local Authority that the individual teacher finds his or
herself working in.
D Summary of Main Proposals: Establishing a National Strategy
D1. At the close of this paper we make twenty-seven
recommendations that we urge the Education Select Committee to consider. Central to these is the establishment of a
National Strategy for Teaching and Learning in Citizenship Education and,
possibly, an associated National Centre of Excellence in Citizenship Education. Within the framework of such a strategy we
need to develop:
D1.1. A coherent nationally coordinated approach to
the initial training of teachers and school leaders and to their continuing
professional development involving agencies and organisations such as the
National College of School Leadership, TDA, the Association for Citizenship
Teaching and, critically, Local Authorities such that every school has a
designated and trained Citizenship specialist by 2010;
D1.2. A parallel programme for the training of
OFSTED inspection teams and LA advisory times such that every inspection team
and every LA has a designated and trained Citizenship specialist by 2008;
D1.3. New guidance clarifying the relationship
between PSHE and Citizenship and reasserting the need to develop specialist
teams to deliver these areas of the curriculum;
D1.4. Proposals for the introduction of Citizenship
as a statutory requirement to primary schools with piloting from 2008 and
implementation from 2010.
D2. In addition, as well as calling for
research into a number of areas of practice, we believe that:
D2.1. The current reviews of the Key Stage 3
curriculum and of 14-19 provision must be used as opportunities to clarify and
strengthen the position of Citizenship Education, as must any future
developments in the inspection framework for schools;
D2.2. All primary and secondary schools should have
a student council, or some other demonstrable form of student participation, in
place by 2008;
D2.3. All primary and secondary schools should seek
to position their volunteering and charitable giving activities in relation to
the Citizenship curriculum, such that this curriculum informs such activity;
D2.4 Independent schools (including independent
faith based schools) and academies should be required to deliver the
Citizenship curriculum from September 2008;
D2.5 While debates about identity are critical to
any understanding of Citizenship, delineating this as nationality is unhelpful
to developing this understanding;
D2.6. The government ought to explore how to better
enable UK practitioners in Citizenship Education to work with colleagues from
overseas so as to advance best practice.
E The Education Select
Committee's areas of interest
E1. In this section, we respond in some detail
to the priority areas identified by the Education Select Committee. In doing so we draw both on our own expert
experience in the field and on research from organisations such as NFER
(notably its ongoing longitudinal study into the impact of the introduction of
Citizenship Education), QCA, DFES and OFSTED.
Where we make a particular
recommendation this is stated and numbered in italics and set out in part F of
this paper.
1. Teachers' attitudes to Citizenship
1.1 Studies by
NFER and OFSTED reveal that teachers' attitudes towards Citizenship vary across
the profession. Some have
enthusiastically welcomed the introduction of Citizenship, both because of the
curriculum void that it has filled (notably around legal and political
literacy) and because of the contribution that
Citizenship makes to whole school life (especially in terms of pupil
participation and community involvement). Others recognise its value but feel
unqualified to deliver it, are concerned about the claim that it makes on what
they see as a crowded timetable and are concerned about workload implications. A minority regard the subject as an
unwelcome addition to the curriculum with some school leaders apparently
resistant to implementing it in their school. We regard the latter stance as an
unacceptable professional response since Citizenship is a National Curriculum
requirement. There is evidence that some schools are not yet persuaded that
Citizenship should be regarded as a 'real' subject alongside those that are
already established. Stronger support from ministers and other visible signs of
central support, such as a National Strategy for the subject, would be welcome.
Recommendations 1, 2 and 3.
1.2 Initially some
teachers in other but related areas of the curriculum (such as History, PSHE
and RE) viewed the introduction of Citizenship as a threat but this concern has
declined as the subject - and a broader range of curriculum models - has
developed.
1.3 Many, notably those involved in the
teaching of the social sciences, who had seen their work as being marginalised
by the earlier models of the National Curriculum, have welcomed the
introduction of Citizenship as an affirmation of the need for a broader and
expert social curriculum with a focus, in particular, on developing young
people's political and legal literacy.
Recommendation 4.
1.4 Likewise,
those teachers who have championed the causes of pupil participation, student
voice, community involvement and charitable activity have welcomed the focus
that Citizenship has given to these activities, placing them at the heart of
school life rather than the margins of extra-curricular endeavour. Citizenship
should also be seen to be strongly linked with schools' behaviour policies and
emotional literacy programmes.
1.5 Citizenship's
previous status as a Cross Curricular Theme and the continuing tendency to talk
about a 'light touch' approach to National Curriculum Citizenship (granting
schools considerable autonomy about how they deliver Citizenship) has sent out
mixed messages - especially to school leaders - about the current status of
Citizenship, its position as a 'real' subject and the need for skilled and
expert teachers to deliver it.
1.6 The perceived
and actual relationship between PSHE and Citizenship is particularly
problematic with the prevalent view in a significant number of schools
remaining that PSHE and Citizenship are indistinguishable and that they can be
delivered by the same team of non-expert form tutors, a point refuted by
research (NFER, OFSTED). The Foundation has strongly urged all those in
positions of influence and authority to make it quite clear that this model of
delivery (namely, that matters as distinct and as complex as sex and drugs
education and Citizenship are best delivered by form tutors) has been shown to
have failed to deliver the quality required for either subject (PSHE or Citizenship)
and to have any impact on students' behaviour or attitudes. There is a proper
role for form tutors in supporting Citizenship activities within the school
(e.g. in supporting school council work) but it is not in the expert delivery
of complex and demanding subjects dealing with controversial or sensitive
issues.
1.7 There is
considerable evidence (OFSTED, QCA, NFER) that governing bodies, heads and
senior management teams are settling for this 'default' model of delivery
(because it is least disruptive to the timetabling process and to staff
allocation) and that they are failing to adequately resource Citizenship in
terms of time, appropriate staffing and finance. Recommendation 5.
1.8 Partly as a
result of this 'generalist' approach, a significant number of teachers now
teaching Citizenship have feelings of inadequacy because of their lack of
training. Studies (NFER, OFSTED, QCA)
reveal evidence of widespread uncertainties around aspects of Citizenship such
as legal and political literacy, dealing with controversial issues, assessment
and organising 'active' citizenship work in the community.
1.9 The implementation of Citizenship is
likely to be least effective when already busy, non-specialists are obliged to
take on this work and most effective when Citizenship is delivered by teachers
who are keen, willing and trained and when the benefits to the broader school -
in terms of both student achievement and social inclusion - are recognised by
senior managers including, critically, the head teacher.
2. Initial teacher training and CPD
2.1 The development of an expert teaching
base in many schools remains, at best, in its infancy - the inflow of
specialist trained Newly Qualified Teachers (NQTs) is insufficient and the
ongoing provision for 'training-up' practising teachers (CPD) is wholly
inadequate and lacks national coordination - it is vital that every school has
at least one trained citizenship specialist, a target that modest funding could
achieve, by 2010. Recommendation 6.
2.2 With regard to initial teacher training,
the TDA has set an annual target of training about 240 Citizenship NQTs but has
consistently failed to achieve these numbers in spite of the fact that PGCE
courses in Citizenship are significantly oversubscribed and good potential
trainees are being turned away.
2.3 For 2006-07 the numbers entering PGCE
(teacher training) courses are set to fall to around 230 as the TDA has
announced that it plans to reduce the number of Citizenship training places in
line with reductions in other subjects. This is a short-sighted move and one
that is at odds with ministerial priorities. Recommendation 7.
2.4 The position with regard to CPD is
bleaker still with access to CPD varying from school to school and LA to LA,
dependent on school leadership team and LA priorities and resultant resource
allocation. Nationally, the picture is extremely patchy with good levels of
support in some local authorities, compared with virtually none in others.
Without a more centralised National Strategy, it is difficult to see how these
local difficulties can be overcome.
2.5 The position with regard to preparing
school inspectors for the introduction of Citizenship in September 2002 showed
a similar lack of strategic thinking. Despite having two years to prepare for
the introduction of Citizenship, the inspectorate (HMI and OFSTED) did not
provide any systematic training for its inspectors until 2004 and this training
remains optional. This means that, in many inspection teams, there is no
inspector specifically qualified in Citizenship and able to make judgements
about the quality of teaching or students' work. Recommendation 8.
2.6 The DFES strategy to support teachers'
Continuing Professional Development in Citizenship has had five major
components: the establishment, with start-up funding, of the Association for
Citizenship Teaching (ACT) in 2002; the launch of a National CPD team of
regional advisers based in the DFES in 2003; the establishment of a network of
approximately 60 Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) in Citizenship; the commissioning,
production and distribution of the CPD Manual, Making Sense of Citizenship (which has recently been distributed to
schools); and the piloting of a National Certificate in Citizenship Teaching
for practicing teachers, a vital initiative which is to be launched later this
year and which will apparently involve the training of 600 teachers in 2006-07
and 600 in 2007-08. Recommendation 9.
2.7 We welcome these initiatives but note
that the Association for Citizenship Teaching is reliant on the renewal of an
annual grant for its further development (ACT serves a membership of
approximately 1200 with only two paid officers - an administrator and an
experienced Citizenship teacher), that the AST network is too small to fulfil
its potential and that the structuring and funding of the National CPD Advisory
Team (now disbanded) is wholly inadequate.
2.8 The National CPD Advisory Team, based
around a team of regional advisers who worked with LA advisers, ASTs and school
based Citizenship Coordinators - is illustrative of the failure to establish a
systematic and coordinated approach to the introduction of Citizenship. The
original intention to base an adviser in each of nine government regions was
scaled back to the appointment of four advisers working full time in the first
year and three advisors, each working two days a week, in year two - the
equivalent of 1.2 full-time posts nationally
- little more than we would hope each
Local Authority to have. Again, a National Strategy is needed.
2.9 One strategic opportunity that is currently
being missed relates to coupling the whole school dimension of Citizenship
provision with the development of school leaders through the programmes offered
by the increasingly influential National College of School Leadership, notably
the Leading from the Middle programme and the National Professional
Qualification for Headship (NPQH): Whilst we recognise that NCSL programmes do
not usually have a subject focus, no school leader should qualify without being
required to understand the relationship between the taught component of
Citizenship and the expression of "Citizenship-rich" values through the
school's ethos and values: its equal opportunities and social cohesion
policies, its participation strategies and community involvement matters and
its leadership style. Recommendation 10.
3. Role of Local Authorities in supporting
school staff
3.1 In many Local Authorities (LAs) there
is no adviser specialising in Citizenship - instead Citizenship is one of many
responsibilities and often one that the adviser has limited expertise in. The National CPD Advisory Team, reporting on
their experience (in an unpublished report to the DFES) found that these LA
advisers felt uncertain and lacked the confidence to take a clear lead in this
area, not least because they lacked the appropriate expertise, time and
resources. Recommendation 11.
3.2 This is, at least in part, the result of
the switch in LAs from subject based advisory teams to generic school
improvement focused teams. The timing
of this change in approach has been broadly concurrent with the introduction of
Citizenship to the National Curriculum and has, therefore, had an acute and
particular impact on LA support for the subject: Citizenship has often been
unable to establish itself at LA level leaving school leaders and classroom
practitioners isolated.
3.3 In this context, LAs have largely failed
to connect the Citizenship agenda to their broader efforts to support school
improvement and raise standards, in spite of the emergence of evidence from
research that suggests some kind of link between strong Citizenship provision -
especially around pupil participation - with both higher levels of achievement
and a more inclusive school ethos, resulting in fewer exclusions. While it would be facile to claim a direct
relationship between, for example, a school's commitment to Citizenship
Education and to league table position, LA's have a key role to play in
ensuring that school's do retain a focus on the broader development of the
young people in their care, especially in light of the Every Child Matters
agenda.
3.4 A vital role for LAs remains in leading
on the establishment of local support networks - relatively few LA's have
established these networks or the frameworks necessary for this. Nor have connections with other areas of LA
activity been made - for instance with colleagues working on youth forums or in
democratic services.
3.5 Evidence collected by the Citizenship
Foundation, including data from a recent questionnaire survey, and by the
Association for Citizenship Teaching underlines the value placed by teachers on
local advisory support and on local practitioner networks. Working groups of
locally based practitioners enable the sharing of experience and the
development of best practice.
3.6 Standards of student achievement in
Citizenship are expected to be comparable to standards achieved in other
subjects at Key Stages 3 and 4. However, without appropriate levels of support
available at local level, this is an unrealistic expectation.
3.7 For this reason, we argue that every LA
should provide a dedicated adviser or advisory teacher for Citizenship by 2008
and that these should act as coordinators for local teacher networks so as to
ensure that over the next few years, the profession becomes skilled up
sufficiently to be able to deliver good quality Citizenship Education for all
pupils, as is their statutory curriculum entitlement.
3.8 In particular, these LA coordinators
should be encouraged, and enabled through appropriate resourcing, to work with
Advanced Skills Teachers (ASTs) and other accredited specialists to drive up
the quality of provision. Without such
local coordination the potential offered by the AST model is often unfulfilled.
3.9 The current diversity of local provision
underlines the need for a clear National Strategy for Teaching and Learning in
Citizenship that provides central support for LAs and which sets out
entitlements for schools in respect of training, support and guidance together
with a nationally agreed set of targets for schools in respect of levels of
specialist and/or trained teachers in the medium term. Without such a National
Strategy the level of teacher or school support is left to chance and standards
across the board will continue to vary widely.
4. Continuity of Citizenship from KS1-4
and post-16
4.1 When supporting and assessing progression
in Citizenship learning it is vital to look across provision at any fixed point
as well as along the conventional age-related continuums - continuity across
classroom based curriculum provision, whole school activity and community
engagement projects has been one of the major benefits to arise from
introducing the "subject-plus" model of Citizenship Education.
4.2 Educational research makes clear that
Citizenship learning (e.g. around concepts such as fairness, rights and
responsibilities) takes place from the early years, even before children begin
formal schools and, therefore, the primary school is of crucial importance in
developing Citizenship understanding, skills, values and attitudes.
4.3 The Citizenship
Foundation has always argued that the failure to make Citizenship Education
statutory in the primary school was a missed opportunity and results in
developmental delay in this area. There
are examples of excellent Citizenship practice in the primary phase on which to
build but we argue that that current provision (based on a non-statutory joint
framework for PSHE and Citizenship) is inadequate. Thus, Citizenship Education is under-recognised and under-developed
in the primary phase. This is especially the case in Key Stage 2 where issues
such as bullying, stealing, the role of the police, respect for law, and
community cohesion issues are commonly addressed but not always from a
Citizenship perspective or in a consistent manner. Moreover, the risk is that key issues are overlooked. For example, young people are criminally
responsible at age ten, but this significant fact and its implications, are not
systematically communicated to primary school pupils as part of the statutory curriculum.
4.4 Granting Citizenship 'Foundation
Subject' (compulsory) status in the primary phase would ensure that students
embarking on their secondary school careers have had a comparable induction
into the key principles of social and moral responsibility, community involvement
and political literacy and the associated knowledge and skills. By political
literacy in the primary years, we mean learning to grasp the key political
ideas at an inter-personal level, including ideas of justice, equality,
respect, rights and duties. Recommendation 12.
4.5 At Key Stage 3,
we view with concern talk about 'slimming down' the curriculum as part of the
current Key Stage 3 review being undertaken by QCA. Any revisions to practice should proceed from an analysis of the
purpose and coherence of the curriculum as a whole. Given the 'light touch' of the first National Curriculum
framework, we argue that there is no case for slimming down Citizenship in
particular. The review should instead be taken as an opportunity to provide
clearer guidance as to the focus and purpose of the Citizenship work undertaken
by students at Key Stages 3 and 4.
Especially at Key Stage 3, there is still a tendency for untrained
teachers to fall back on the tedious details of civic knowledge rather than to
explore the knowledge and skills required for the development of a genuine
political literacy. Recommendation 13.
4.6 Likewise, the
emergence of a 14-19 framework - something that could do much to improve the
transition from pre to post-16 learning in Citizenship and in other areas -
needs to have a commitment to Citizenship Education at its core, which could be
achieved by making it an expectation that all students follow a core
Citizenship component of their academic studies or diploma courses. The Post-16 Citizenship Education
Development Project, led by the Learning and Skills Development Agency, has
much to offer those working on the revision of this aspect of Citizenship
Education practice. Recommendation 14.
4.7 Assessment, in
various forms, has a vital role to play in supporting progression in
Citizenship learning through the Key Stages and educational phases and we
welcome the recent work of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
and the awarding bodies in this respect. Whilst we recognise that assessment in
Citizenship can be problematic, and it has its opponents on perfectly
reasonable academic and social grounds, we nevertheless recognise the need to
assess and evaluate students' progress in Citizenship. Teachers need to be able to make judgements
about the impact of their teaching on students' learning and to revise their
strategies accordingly and students and parents require information about
progress being made.
4.8 We also
acknowledge the contribution that assessment frameworks (including public
examinations) make to the perceived value and standing of a subject, especially
a new (and new type of) subject such as Citizenship. It is important, though,
that teachers continue to assess and celebrate student achievement across the
full range of Citizenship activities in and beyond the classroom, such that the
proper emphasis on assessment does not have the unintended consequence of
reducing Citizenship to nothing more that a paper exercise and another
examination.
4.9 At present, the
issue of assessing progress in Citizenship is undermined by the lack of support
from QCA as a whole into researching the broader relationship between
assessment, progression in learning and the development of social, moral and
political thinking. There is much good quality psychological research on which
to build a clear picture of how to assess progress in this subject (and from
which other subjects might learn). Officers in the Citizenship team at QCA have
done what they can on a very meagre budget but much more development work in
this area is needed. As with our discussion of CPD, inspection and LA support,
this again points to a general failure to take a strategic overview of how to
build all the necessary components of a new subject. Recommendation 15.
4.10 There is a
notable lack of government funded curriculum development work in this, as in
other subjects at the moment. The government's erstwhile plan to establish a
National Centre of Excellence in Citizenship Education, amongst other subjects,
would go a long way to meeting this criticism. Curriculum development has been
largely left to subject associations and other organisations in the NGO sector,
themselves working on limited resources and often in isolation from each other.
Curriculum needs constantly change as education and society changes - a fact
which is not properly addressed at present, in Citizenship or in other areas of
the curriculum. Recommendation 16.
5 Quality
of citizenship across all schools including faith schools
5.1 Citizenship
Education is about inducting young people into public life and all schools have
an important part to play in this process.
5.2 There is
evidence, notably from the NFER study, that some faith-based schools have been
especially effective in addressing aspects of active citizenship, for instance
around community involvement and in the area of volunteering and charitable
giving.
5.3 Faith
schools, however, can, as the former Chief Inspector has remarked, face
particular issues in delivering Citizenship as part of the National Curriculum
- notably in dealing with particular controversial issues and, specifically,
those issues that might be controversial in a given faith setting. There is a
concern that schools, in receipt of public money, may not be sufficiently
honouring their duty to induct young people into what it means to live in a
democratic society with all that means about tolerance of pluralism, difference
and human rights and about the importance of minority ethnic groups fully
participating in the democratic life of the wider community.
5.4 National
Curriculum Citizenship, as a statutory requirement in state funded faith
schools, is one counter to this concern and can make a significant contribution
to community cohesion, to the development and affirmation of identity and to
the 'ownership' of mainstream society felt by members of minority groups.
However, the trend towards more 'separatist' schooling, while understandable
from a human rights standpoint, must not lead to a fragmentation in the quality
and content of the Citizenship curricula offered. Specific research in this area - the delivery of the Citizenship
in faith-based schools - is needed so as to build a broader understanding of
practice and of the issues faced. Recommendation 17.
5.5 These
concerns - which often come down to a willingness to tackle controversial
issues 'head-on' and with objectivity are not exclusive to faith schools (and
can be equally prevalent in non-faith schools where students are drawn
predominantly from specific faith communities) but in faith schools the overt belief
system of the school can tempt some teachers to 'avoidance' and this avoidance
can be further institutionalised in independent faith schools and academies
where there is no obligation to follow the National Curriculum. Supporting the
introduction of Citizenship into all schools, including those currently without
a duty to follow the National Curriculum - would go some way to addressing this
concern. Recommendation 18.
6 Citizenship education and current debates
about British-ness and identity
6.1 We recognise that there are legitimate
concerns around social cohesion and that Citizenship Education has an important
role to play in addressing such concerns, a point that we discuss substantively
in the next section. We also recognise
that sometimes these debates are crystallised around the concept of
"British-ness" and around associated ideas about what it means to educate young
people in the patriotic values of respect for public institutions and for one's
own country. Indeed, this type of focus has been the predominant civic value
underpinning Citizenship curricula in a number of countries.
6.2 There are, though, drawbacks to such an
approach: first, there is the danger of indoctrination into a narrow, fixed,
uncritical and intolerant nationalism; second, there is the reality that
teachers in the UK have not traditionally seen themselves as being in the
business of 'instilling a love of country'; third, there is now evidence of a
shift in many other countries towards the kind of approach employed in UK -
with a focus on Citizenship being about an active, engaging process rather than
a form of nationality.
6.3 There are, of course, legitimate ways in
which schools should nurture a proper concern for what goes on in local,
national and international communities and, in this context, it is vital that
young people learn about the UK's social, political and legal structures,
practices and traditions. This, though, should enable, rather than be at the expense
of, encouraging a critical evaluation of the actions of individual citizens,
public bodies and the state.
6.4 Thus, in respect of teaching about the
concept of British-ness within the Citizenship curriculum, we argue for a
carefully measured approach that recognises the complexity of the term.
"British-ness" is a contested concept, for some specific, others dynamic, and
others nebulous. Students should,
though, be enabled to enter British public life as knowledgeable and capable
citizens, whatever their primary cultures and values. Recommendation 19.
6.5 The notion of identity is more helpful
than nationality in any exploration of British-ness or living in the UK. Students should be clear about the concept
of multiple and changing identities and how they engage these identities. The development
of multiple identities is essential to all citizens, so that they can reconcile
personal or 'private' values with those of the public community. Our private
values drive and determine our view of the 'good society' and motivate us to
act in the public domain. Therefore, it
is imperative that these different identities come to be reconciled and
integrated within the personality. This is a complex process, more so for some
than others, and schools need to give young people proper space and the
opportunity to think about what it means for them, underlying the valuable
contribution that Citizenship makes to the curriculum. We believe further work needs to be done in
this area to support teachers addressing these difficult issues at classroom
level. Recommendation 20.
6.6 A further area of exploration that might
be investigated relates to the links between the Citizenship Education
programmes now undertaken by those seeking naturalisation and the school
curriculum. Both programmes are based
on the framework for Citizenship devised by Professor Sir Bernard Crick and his
colleagues but connections between the learning programmes delivered ought to
be mapped. Consideration ought to be
given to the relationship between the programme followed by young person in the
school and the programme followed by the parent in the college or
distance-learning course, especially if the shared title of Citizenship is
employed. Recommendation 21.
7 Contribution of Citizenship to Community Cohesion
7.1 The "subject-plus" model of Citizenship
has shown itself to be effective in encouraging schools to develop innovative
community links in any number of ways. Social action initiatives, such as the
Citizenship Foundation's Youth Act and Giving Nation programmes, encourage acts
of engagement that are both informed and critical, developing the skills base
and the political literacy required for purposeful community engagement. This
active citizenship reinforces community cohesion and community safety at a
number of individual and social levels. For example, when groups of young
people within our Youth Act Programme address gun crime and bullying within
their communities, they are developing as effective and empowered citizens and making a significant contribution to
the well-being of all in their community.
7.2 These models of community engagement draw
as much on the skills of youth workers, Connexions advisers and community
workers as they do teachers and other school staff and take forward related
agendas around youth participation, community safety, anti-racism and children's
rights. They illustrate the need for
teachers to connect with the many resources freely available from outside the
school setting in order to make the most of Citizenship's school based
potential.
7.3 However, to reiterate the point made in
4.1 above, NFER research informs us that too many schools are slow in realising
the potential of the Citizenship curriculum to connect classroom activity with
community activity and, further, that they do not see the link between this
kind of activity and the development of community cohesion within and beyond
the school's boundaries. Recommendation
22.
7.4 With regard to anti-racism, respect and
equality are core values of the Citizenship curriculum, a curriculum that
enables schools to play a key role in prejudice reduction but, as detailed in
5.5 above, 'avoidance' remains a problem in certain contexts and where the
teacher is (or feels) inexpert in the area concerned, underlying the need for
good quality training and support.
7.5 The Citizenship Foundation has had significant success in
developing multi-professional and all-age community forums that bridge the gap
between the school and the community and has demonstrated how, working in
partnership with the Home Office, LA supported Citizens' Days can perform a
similar function but such initiatives need professional coordination, dedicated
LA support, secure funding and coordinated voluntary sector input to
flourish. Recommendation 23.
8 Implementation of 'active' aspects of
the curriculum including community involvement and participation in school life
8.1 The concept of the "citizenship-rich"
school, developed at the Citizenship Foundation, notably through its innovative
Citizenship Manifestos programme, is proving effective in bringing together in
a coherent way the many elements of an all-embracing programme of Citizenship
Education, including elements around participation in school life and community
involvement - elements that, as noted in 7.3 above, are often seen as disparate
and unconnected. Forms of student participation include membership of school
councils, taking part in "students as researchers" projects, acting as
associate members of school governing bodies (an option since 2003 but little
used by schools), all of which build Citizenship skills and knowledge and democratise
aspects of school life. In a number of countries, it is now mandatory for
schools to have a student council of some description and, in the UK, Wales has
recently taken this step. While we
would welcome more research on the impact of different models of student
participation, we can see no sound case for not requiring both primary and
secondary schools to have representative councils. Recommendation 24.
8.2 Forms of community engagement include
taking part in volunteering programmes and charitable initiatives, membership
of school charity committees and participation in peer mentoring and good
neighbour schemes, all of which, again, build the knowledge, skills for
effective citizenship. NOP research
commissioned by the Citizenship Foundation's Giving Nation project suggests
that charitable activities undertaken during schooling as part of the
Citizenship curriculum encourage the formation of critical and informed
predispositions to charitable giving and volunteering, increasing students'
intended future support of charitable and community action by 33% and 50%
respectively. Recommendation 25.
8.3 Building participation within and beyond
the school's boundaries sits squarely with the recommendations of both the
Crick Report and the Russell Commission and with the Every Child Matters agenda
and related initiatives around youth participation and learner voice. The
benefits of such activity in terms of personal development, Citizenship
learning, community cohesion and community safety have already been set out in
section 7 above.
8.4 The position of Citizenship within the
National Curriculum has enabled schools to give a new status to existing
student participation and community involvement practices and allows their
positioning within the mainstream of schooling, drawing such activities out of
the arena of personal choice and into the arena of public life.
9 Curriculum design and appropriateness of DFES and other guidance
9.1 One of the successes of the Citizenship
curriculum in its present form is that is conceived of as both a subject in the
conventional sense (with a body of knowledge and requiring dedicated teaching
time and trained teachers) and as a new kind of subject that finds expression
through the ethos or culture of the school and in the school's relationship
with the community that it serves. This
"subject plus" model is based on the understanding that Citizenship is learned cognitively via the curriculum, affectively, though curriculum and real
life experiences and experientially
through doing and facilitates the development of holistic and healthy
approaches to Citizenship learning.
9.2 DFES, QCA and OFSTED have produced a
range of documents that have provided very useful guidance to schools, notably
the schemes of work produced by QCA (which now could usefully be re-visited),
the DFES School Self-evaluation Tool, a very helpful guide to whole school
approaches, the recent QCA document on assessment at Key Stage 3 and the CPD
handbook, Making Sense of Citizenship
on which the Citizenship Foundation took the lead role and which we have sent
to members of the Select Committee.
However, the dedicated teams at both DFES and QCA are under-sized and
under-resourced by comparison with those dedicated to the support of other
areas of the statutory curriculum, especially if they are to deliver the kind
of National Strategy for Teaching and Learning in Citizenship that we have
called for above. Recommendation 26.
10 Practice in other countries
10.1 In recent years there has been a growing
interest in research into comparative approaches to Citizenship Education
internationally - examples include the INCA (International Curriculum and Assessment) study of
Citizenship involving eighteen countries, and the Council of
Europe's All-European Study of Policies for Education for Democratic
Citizenship.
10.2 Studies like these tend to show that
Citizenship Education (as education for active engagement as opposed to
traditional conceptions of civic education) is still at the early stages as a
major policy initiative in many, if not most, other countries. Many countries are currently planning or are
involved in major reforms in this area and the Citizenship Foundation, working
with the Council of Europe and the British Council has been involved recently
in initiatives in the Balkans, Russia, Georgia, Turkey, Egypt, Estonia, Oman
and Bahrain.
10.3 There has been an element
of civic or Citizenship Education in the school curricula of a large number of
other countries for many years and, in this respect, the UK is a late convert
to the need for some form of socio-political education as a statutory
provision. However, elsewhere this has
often consisted largely of instructing young people about the political system
in place in their country using formal teaching methods. The underlying model of Citizenship
Education has been a passive and minimal one based around a 'civics' model and
involving not much more than the love of country and a passive obedience to the
law.
10.4 Recently, however, this
type of practice has come under serious challenge in many countries, and new
models of Citizenship Education have been, or are, in the process of being
introduced. Such models emphasise the
need for citizens who are not only informed about their system of government
and respect the rule of law, but who are also 'active' citizens - able and
willing to make positive and responsible contributions to the life of their
communities, their countries and the wider world.
10.5 The 'drivers' for these
new approaches vary from country to country and include: national, ethnic and
religious conflict; global threats and insecurity; economic globalisation; the
pluralisation of society and rapid population movements; mistrust of
traditional political institutions and processes and demand for increasing
personal autonomy and new forms of equality. Further, the emphasis within this
new approach on democratic accountability and human rights, including the
rights of disadvantaged groups such as the disabled and other minorities,
underlines the important contribution that this new conception of Citizenship
Education can make to conflict resolution, democratic governance accountability
and transparency.
10.6 The British Council and
the Council of Europe have played a key role in this arena. However, the Council of Europe often
struggles to fund international educational projects, such as the programme
that the Citizenship Foundation was involved with in Bosnia, at a level that
enables UK practitioners - especially those who are based in NGOs - to play a
full role and the British Council initiatives appear to be organised on an
ad-hoc basis.
10.7 As an organisation that is
committed to developing practice both in the UK and elsewhere and one that
recognises the lessons for UK practice that flow from international activity,
the paucity and precariousness of funding frustrates our efforts to approach
international work in a systematic and strategic manner. Ring-fenced funding streams to support this
work at the British Council and in government departments and agencies would do
much to address this issue and would allow organisations such as the
Citizenship Foundation to play a stronger role in the process. Recommendation
27.
10.8 The UK (and England in
particular) is regarded as a world leader in the development of best practice
in Citizenship Education and in advising on the development of Citizenship
Education as a curriculum entitlement. The approaches that have been developed
here (based on a "subject-plus" conception of Citizenship in the curriculum,
the centrality of human rights values and the development of "Citizenship-rich"
schools as the contexts for active learning in this field) are now recognised
as a means for developing forms of engaged critical and informed democratic
citizenship in other countries. We submit that the government should urgently
look at ways and means of raising its contribution to this vitally important
international movement.
F Recommendations
Following the discussion in Parts B to E, we would urge
the Education Select Committee to consider the following recommendations:
1. OFSTED should give special attention to
the status accorded to Citizenship, especially by school leadership teams, when
inspecting schools and this should be reflected in a range of inspection tools
such as the Evidence Forms used by inspectors and the School Self-Assessment
form;
2. Ministers need to ensure that a higher
profile is given to Citizenship Education, especially in addresses,
announcements and policy papers;
3. A centrally coordinated and resourced
National Strategy for Teaching and Learning in Citizenship, akin to the
National Literacy Strategy and the Key Stage 3 Strategy, with a central focus
on CPD, is required if the current deficit in teachers' skills and confidence
is to be addressed;
4. Schools should be encouraged to
undertake staff audits so as to identify those who may have academic experience
especially pertinent to the teaching of Citizenship, especially those with
backgrounds in humanities and social science subjects not represented in the
current National Curriculum;
5. Schools should be issued with
curriculum advice that clarifies the distinction and the relationship between
Citizenship and PSHE and strongly discourages them from delivering the two
subjects in an undifferentiated joint framework through non-specialist tutor
based teams;
6. By 2010, every school should have at
least one trained Citizenship specialist, qualified through either a PGCE in
Citizenship Education, the National CPD Certificate in Citizenship or an agreed
performance management process that takes account of their academic and
professional experience;
7. The proposed reduction in the 2006-07
training target for Citizenship PGCE entrants (trainee teachers) should be
reversed and affirmative action should be taken in respect of meeting the
target set in Recommendation 6 (above) and in light of the high demand for
course places;
8. By 2008 every secondary school
inspection team should include at least one inspector who has undertaken
specialist training in the inspection of Citizenship;
9. We commend the national roll out of the
National CPD Certificate in Citizenship from 2006-07 but ask for a commitment
to the further roll out of the programme through to 2009-10 in light of the
target set in target 6 (above) and that the Certificate be positioned in terms
of the National Strategy called for in Recommendation 3 (above);
10. The National College of School Leadership
should be asked to explore the development of a module focused around
leadership in the Citizenship-rich school for its Leading from the Middle and
National Professional Qualification for Headship programmes and the
accreditation of the National CPD Certificate in Citizenship within these
programmes;
11. By 2008 every LA should have a designated
adviser who has undertaken specialist training in Citizenship and who has a
remit for the establishment of local support networks for Citizenship
practitioners working in partnership with ASTs and the Association for
Citizenship Teaching (ACT);
12. The DFES should commission QCA to begin
work on the development of proposals for a statutory curriculum for Citizenship
in primary schools with a view to piloting from 2008 and implementation from
2010;
13. The current Key Stage 3 review should be
used as an opportunity to develop, sustain and enhance Citizenship as a Foundation
Subject in the secondary National Curriculum;
14. The parallel review of 14-19 Education
should be used to strengthen and clarify the entitlement to Citizenship
learning opportunities, especially for those in education and training in the
16-19 phase;
15. The DFES should commission QCA to
undertake development work on the relationship between assessment, progression
in learning and the development of social, moral and political thinking;
16. The DFES should revisit the concept of
establishing a National Centre of Excellence in Citizenship Education as part
of the National Strategy set out in Recommendation 3 (above);
17. The National Foundation for Educational
Research (NFER) and other appropriate bodies should be commissioned to
undertake research into the delivery of Citizenship Education in state and
independent faith based schools and in state and independent schools where a
single minority faith is predominant;
18. Independent schools should be required to
deliver the Citizenship curriculum;
19. Through the Citizenship curriculum schools
should nurture a proper concern for how local, national and international
communities operate, an understanding of what this country has contributed to
political and legal frameworks internationally and an understanding of what role
individuals can play in British public life;
20. Further research into teaching about
complex matters of identity and multiple identities and how young people engage
with these should be encouraged;
21. QCA should be encouraged to look at the
relationship between the content and approach of National Curriculum
Citizenship and 'Citizenship' Education programmes offered to adults seeking
naturalisation as part of the current curriculum review;
22. The School Self Evaluation Form that
schools complete as a part of the recently introduced OFSTED process should be
revised so as to position student, parental and community engagement activity
within the broader framework of Citizenship provision;
23. The Citizens' Day model piloted in four
local authority areas by the Home Office with advisory support from the
Citizenship Foundation and the earlier work by the Citizenship Foundation
should be reviewed as to their potential for national roll out;
24. All primary and secondary schools should
have a student council, or some other demonstrable form of student
participation, in place by 2008;
25. All primary and secondary schools should seek
to position their volunteering and charitable giving activities in relation to the
Citizenship curriculum, such that this curriculum informs such activity;
26. The government should reflect urgently on
the resources allocated to the Citizenship Education teams at the DFES and in
agencies such as OFSTED, TDA, QCA and LSDA with a view to increasing the
support that they are offered;
27. The British Council and government
departments and agencies concerned with international issues should ring fence
funding for overseas work around the theme Education for Democratic Citizenship
and should work with NGOs and other advisory and practitioner bodies to establish
mechanisms by which these resources can be accessed.
G Endnote
We will be pleased to provide further
literature on any of the issues raised in this submission or to attend meetings
of the Education Select Committee, should members of the committee wish to
explore the issues discussed or recommendations made in this submission
further.
Tony Breslin (Chief Executive)
Don Rowe (Director, Curriculum
Development and Resources)
Andy Thornton (Director, Participation
and Social Action)
Citizenship Foundation
March 2006
