Memorandum submitted by the Citizenship
Foundation
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
15 or 20%—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 and Skills 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
AND SKILLS
SELECT COMMITTEE'S
AREAS OF
INTEREST
E1. In this section, we respond in some
detail to the priority areas identified by the Education and Skills
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 (eg 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 1,200 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 (eg 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 "Britishness" 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 Britishness within the citizenship curriculum, we argue
for a carefully measured approach that recognises the complexity
of the term. "Britishness" 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 Britishness 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 a 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 it 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, through 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 and Skills 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.
| 
