Memorandum submitted by the Association
for Citizenship Teaching
ABSTRACT
This submission has been written by the ACT
Professional Officer. The Association for Citizenship Teaching
( ACT ) is the national professional body representing those who
teach Citizenship in both formal and informal settings. ACT is
a membership organization that supports teachers through our termly
Journal Teaching Citizenship and the monthly E-News. We have an
active web site that contains lesson and resource downloads and
advice. We support teachers in the classroom by INSET and CPD
support, through national and regional conferences, work with
LA's and also offer services ranging from teaching Citizenship
lessons through to leading on Citizenship projects commissioned
by DfES, DCA, BECTA etc. We work closely with other Citizenship
NGOs including the Citizenship Foundation, ESSA, Carnegie and
CSV. You can find out more about ACT at our web site www.teachingcitizenship.org.uk
This submission does not specifically focus
on key stages or phases but attempts a general overview. It does
not address every single aspect of concern, rather it has as a
focus the key concerns of Citizenship teachers. These key concerns
have come to light as a result of the direct contact that ACT
has on an everyday basis with such staff in schools and Citizenship
teachers in training.
It may be construed that there was a political
imperative behind the introduction of the Citizenship curriculum;
one allied to political apathy, lack of community engagement and
participation in the democratic process. ACT would contend that
in order to effectively counter such issues, the Citizenship curriculum
is central. In this respect it must therefore be given the right
sort of support to have an impact and be realised with honesty
and rigour by both teachers and learners. At present this is not
happening and Government should be minded that although Citizenship
is establishing, it cannot be established unless there is a clearer
strategic vision by Government to support this. At present this
is not the case and the subject is therefore at risk of not delivering
on its intention.
1. CITIZENSHIP
TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Since its introduction in September 2004, Citizenship
has provided a very mixed experience for both teachers and learners.
In all phases of education the experience of teachers has been
mixed. In some schools there is very effective provision with
enthusiastic teachers who are confident of their subject knowledge
and competent in working with young people in the spirit of the
subject. These teachers have had a major impact on their schools
and the young people that they work with. They are assured that
they are developing the subject with the backing of their head
teacher yet they are few in number. Too often there is a poor
delivery of the subject by teachers who lack knowledge or commitment
to the subject. They are often pressed men and women who teach
Citizenship in tutor time or have been given the subject to fill
their timetables. They damage the subject and they provide a second-rate
experience. We need to marginalise this practice as a matter of
priority.
Where Citizenship is taught well it is by enthusiasts
who have some knowledge and understanding. They may be trained
Citizenship teachers or those who feel that they have a real affinity
with the subject; the latter being in the greatest number. They
may be teachers who have managed to secure dedicated time for
the subject and have a planned and coherent school provision.
They are often working closely with other partners from outside
the school. Overall their work is to be applauded.
Still too often ACT works with schools where
the head or senior leadership team are ambivalent towards Citizenship
and do not realise its role and importance. This role and importance
is not merely in regard to the statutory requirement and entitlement
but also in the relationship between Citizenship education and
school improvement and developments plans. Patently the breadth
of the Citizenship curriculum, the focus on pupil voice and participative
learning is at the core of what schools aspire to. There are many
examples where the key aspects of school improvement have been
met by a focus on what the Citizenship curriculum can offer. In
schools where there is poor leadership Citizenship may occupy
some 3% or less of the curriculum time, not the 5% that we might
have hoped for. The damage inflicted upon citizenship by this
practice is serious and needs addressing by more direct co-ordinated
action. Ofsted have a clear role to play in this by ensuring that
HMI are clear about what Citizenship education is and what it
is not. At the time of writing some inspection reports still clearly
do not give confidence in this and allow schools to gain recognition
for presenting to pupils something that is not what the Citizenship
Programme of study defines as Citizenship.
Whereas there have been national strategies
for Literacy and Numeracy, there should also be one for Citizenship
education if it is the political imperative that it was suggested
as being at its inception. ACT would contend that Citizenship
teaching and learning is still evolving and is too vulnerable
to the whims of head teachers. The light touch may have been appropriate
of in 2002 but now requires more of a strategic vision if the
impact upon the community is to be realised.
The recent—March 2006—KS3 Review
undertaken by the QCA also involved the use of a survey of the
secondary school population of England. The results of this questionnaire
give evidence that many pupils see that Citizenship is marginalised
in the curriculum yet it is, along with PSHE and Careers, an area
of the curriculum that they value highly when well provided and
see as being an integral part of the most enjoyable aspects of
their time in KS3. If we are to truly devise a curriculum for
young people, we should be seeking their support and opinion also.
Information from the KS3 review questionnaire may be had by emailing
sandsa@qca.org.uk
Sir Bernard Crick spoke in 2002 of a ten year
evolution of the subject. This needs to be underpinned by a national
strategy that ensures rigour in provision and directs schools
with a firmer hand; the hand of Government and the DfES in particular.
Currently Citizenship is still in its infancy in English schools.
We are leaving behind the perception that Citizenship is the new
Civics or British Constitutional History but the subject needs
driving forward with unambiguous support
2. CITIZENSHIP
ITT AND CPD
In recent years we have been training circa
220-250 Citizenship teachers per year. These teachers often get
jobs in schools where their skills are not fully exploited and
they teach only small amounts of the subject they were trained
in. Whilst these teachers do not necessarily have the deep subject
knowledge that we would want, they do have the skills to effectively
teach the subject and the interest in its success. We need to
encourage students to want to teach Citizenship and to feel that
they will be able to more fully teach it in schools. At present
there are too few teachers being trained and in too few HEIs.
ACT contends that there should be a trained Citizenship teacher
in every school by 2010. This should be realised by increasing
the number of ITT courses and students and/or by fully implementing
a certificated CPD course in Citizenship for the enthusiastic
existing teachers who wish to teach the subject. This to be across
all phases of education. The pilot CPD courses highlighted successful
models and the existing PSHE CPD Certificate has been very popular
with teachers. We know that many teachers feel they lack subject
specific knowledge, especially when teaching about politics or
the law. Such concerns can only be addressed by better training
that is quality assured and has progression. Only by having an
agreed national policy for training can the quality of provision
be better guaranteed.
Allied to this should be training for heads
and aspiring school leaders. If Citizenship is to fully impact
upon the curriculum then heads need to have a deeper understanding
of what the subject is about and how important it is to society
as a whole—that it is not merely a school subject. This
again requires a strategy and ACT would contend that the role
of NCSL would be critical here. At present we are not convinced
that this connection has been made.
3. LOCAL AUTHORITIES
(LA) AND COMMUNITY
PARTNERS
In terms of education, ACT has found that in
many local authorities there is no advisor or inspector for Citizenship
or one who feels confident to effectively support the subject.
Often the subject is added to the job description of the advisor
without real thought. In some cases the appointee has not been
an advocate for the subject and therefore is not interested in
running CPD courses locally or working to support the subject.
Enthusiastic teachers are left without support or direction. If
the subject is to be effectively supported it requires advisors
to be familiar with the subject and able to support best practice
and exemplify it. Without such leadership the subject will stagnate.
Similarly, if local authority advisors give out a message of indifference
then head teachers will be unwilling to enable teachers to neither
attend courses nor take the subject seriously. Where an LA advisor
feels confident about the subject there is much good leadership
and this manifests itself in the confidence of teachers and the
quality of provision in school.
In non-education the role of local government
has been of great importance. There is much good practice involving
the democratic services teams in local government with schools.
The education community cannot be left on its own to carry the
burden of Citizenship education; it is a shared responsibility
with community partners. ACT knows of much good practice where
local government is able to support schools in modeling participation
and the democratic process. As Citizenship matters are not just
of interest to DfES, it is important that other Government departments
are able to realise their ambitions in Citizenship as well. The
work of the DCA, ODPM and Home Office in relation to law and political
literacy, participation and the democratic process is clearly
linked to the Citizenship curriculum. Another clear example is
the relationship between Citizenship teaching and the community
cohesion agenda that the Home Office is interested in. Only Citizenship
education can deliver a quality experience in the classroom—in
all classrooms in Secondary—with rigour, quality and progression.
These departments need to work together to enable the curriculum
function. There is evidence that though these departments might
have their own agendas and projects, there is little real co-ordination
or shaping to the direction such initiatives might take and often
they work in isolation. ACT contends that Citizenship education
will not evolve effectively unless these initiatives and the departments
who develop them work in harmony as part of a single strategy.
4. CITIZENSHIP
CURRICULUM DESIGN
The design of the Citizenship curriculum in
2002 was an effective model for evolution. The Programme of Study
and the Schemes of Work were adequate at the time and provided
the right sort of light touch that was needed. However, since
that date the subject has begun to evolve and practice has revealed
certain deficiencies.
It is now accepted that Citizenship is still
a contested term and that many teachers are unclear about exactly
what Citizenship is. The new Citizenship CPD Handbook Making
Sense of Citizenship will go some way to addressing this matter
but clarity should also come from a firm steer by Government.
ACT would contend that the subject needs further clarification
especially in assessment, recording and reporting and progression
from Early Years to Post-16. Specifically the remit of QCA, the
TDA and DfES should provide for a vision of development with ring
fenced funding streams to allow this to happen. This funding should
allow for a development programme over a number of years with
an annual review of specific targets. This will demonstrate the
seriousness of the endeavor and signal an intent to ensure that
the breadth and depth of Citizenship is provided for. Mention
has already been made of the need for more teacher training and
the CPD Certificate, allied to this would be the provision of
full qualifications at GCSE and A level with QCA leading on this.
This will also underpin the academic purpose of Citizenship and
further reinforce its credibility.
The current state of the subject also shows
that there is a lack of clarity about the importance and role
of the participation strand—something that is part of the
uniqueness of Citizenship. This needs to be strengthened and expectations
of schools be made more explicit; much beyond the tokenism of
many current school councils. There is much evidence that effective
participation by pupils in their school and community underpins
the most effective schools and meet the concerns expressed in
the Power Report and Russell Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACT would contend the following:
That there should be a national strategy for
Citizenship education with a clear and comprehensive vision.
That the DfES should lead on this with other
Government departments following a single, agreed plan with annual
target reviews.
That Ofsted continue to improve the quality
of inspection focus regarding the provision of Citizenship education.
That dedicated funding streams allow for real
planning for progression in Citizenship education, especially
in relation to teacher training, CPD and curriculum development.
That school leadership in Citizenship be more
prominent and that NCSL demonstrate their commitment to supporting
the provision of a quality Citizenship curriculum through specific
training in their qualifications.
That Government should aim for one Citizenship
trained teacher in each state school by 2010.
That a national CPD Certificate course for Citizenship
be created and funded by Government to effectively quality-assure
Citizenship teaching standards.
March 2006
| 
