Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-159)
MR CHRIS
WALLER, MS
BERNADETTE JOSLIN,
MR MICK
WATERS AND
MR TONY
BRESLIN
26 APRIL 2006
Q140 Mr Chaytor: Could I move on
from teacher training to management and leadership training, because
unless head teachers are committed to implementing all of this,
then the individual citizenship co-ordinators are going to be
banging their heads against brick walls. What is the state of
play with head teacher training? Is there anything that is being
done by the National College of School Leadership and what is
the state of play with CPD for head teachers?
Mr Breslin: We are convinced that
the National College could do much more here. My understanding
is that the discussions between the Department and other bodies
in the National College, in terms of equipping heads to support
and lead on citizenship, has essentially been that the NCSL does
school management and school leadership, it does not do subjects;
and this is precisely the space where we say, "Yes, but citizenship
is not just a subject, it is a way of doing schooling", and
leading the citizenship, which is school, community involved,
active participation, et cetera, is a very different thing. We
are seeking to lobby the National College for a revision of the
national professional qualification for headship, and they are
leading from the middle programmes, to ensure that there is an
input specifically around citizenship and citizenship as a way
of doing schooling rather than simply narrowly as a subject, but
it is insufficient currently.
Q141 Mr Chaytor: Who does curriculum
reform for head teachers if the NCSL does not? Who is responsible?
Mr Waters: Curriculum reform?
Q142 Mr Chaytor: Yes?
Mr Waters: Curriculum reform lies
with us, the QCA, and we get remits from government to develop
certain aspect of the curriculum.
Q143 Mr Chaytor: In terms of professional
development?
Mr Waters: Within that, we need
to work with system leaders, NCSL.
Q144 Mr Chaytor: But NCSL are not
doing anything. They say it is your responsibility?
Mr Waters: I would not want to
speak for NCSL, but we are currently working with NCSL to ensure
that curriculum construction and design and development are part
of all their work on programmes for leadership of schools, because
when you are a school leader you can manage the premises, manage
the budget, manage the people, but the fundamental job of being
there is to manage the learning and the teaching and the curriculum;
so we are working on that.
Q145 Mr Chaytor: As of now the QCA
has the lead responsibility for curriculum reform, the NCSL has
the lead responsibility for the training of head teachers, but
nobody has taken responsibility for the training of head teachers
in respect of curriculum reform. That is the problem, is it not?
Mr Waters: The training of head
teachers?
Q146 Mr Chaytor: No, head teacher
training in respect of curriculum reform. Who is doing the work
on briefing head teachers about reform to the 14-19 curriculum?
Mr Breslin: The NCSL programme
does have strong elements around curriculum reform and curriculum
management, and that is very good.
Q147 Mr Chaytor: Why are they resisting
doing anything about citizenship during the programme?
Mr Breslin: Because, as I understand
it, this is where the narrow definition of subject is less helpful
where elsewhere it is helpful. We are trying to say to bodies
such as NCSL. "This is not just a subject. It is more than
a subject. It is a means of, indeed a style of, if you like, school
leadership."
Q148 Chairman: What are they saying
back to you? Are they failing to communicate with you?
Mr Breslin: No, this is something
that we have just initiated. My understanding is that that explains
the reluctance for, or the reason why, these programmes do not
have a specific citizenship element at the moment. We will report
back on that dialogue in due course.
Q149 Chairman: Some of you must know.
Are you disappointed in the leadership role of the National College
for School Leadership in this area?
Mr Waller: I would say that my
members would say, "Yes". Where their head teachers
have a clear understanding, not from NCSL but where they have
a clear understanding about the importance of the role citizenship
can play, there is great effective activity taking place in a
school. I would say that those who feel that their head teachers
perhaps need more direction would suggest that NCSL should be
providing that direction and that lead. It is possible for me
to say that perhaps this has slipped off NCSL's radar, and as
they are not here, as has been alluded to already, it would be
unfair to criticise them. On the other hand, NCSL showed interest
in the self-evaluation tool that the DfES produced two years ago
and, indeed, the primary self-evaluation tool for PSHE and citizenship,
NCSL have also showed interest in that currently. It is not necessarily
that they are blanking us but perhaps that we have not made the
right contact with the right people to enable the sorts of changes
that we want to bring about now.
Mr Waters: NCSL is under new leadership
and I am working very closely with the chief executive to establish
the thinking around curriculum, and included in that thinking
is citizenship within the body of the programmes that they develop
for leaders of schools, and I think they are incredibly open to
try to develop new approaches and substantial approaches for schools.
Q150 Stephen Williams: One supplementary
based on David's questions, particularly about those students
who are on PGCE courses for citizenship. Information has been
given to me by someone who monitors recruitment in the teaching
profession that there are only about 245 students at the moment
on PGCE courses, but are they actually going into citizenship
teaching, because out of 14,000 teaching adverts in the last six
months only 41 have been specifically for citizenship posts? We
seem to be training people on these courses but then the schools
are not actually advertising the posts?
Mr Waller: I think that is absolutely
true, and it is a great concern of the HEIs and of the students
that are there. Students are exceedingly enthusiastic. There are
some brilliant students coming out who are very well equipped.
They will gain experience rapidly, they are tremendous assets
to school, and schools recognise that, but they often employ them
in a context which is away from citizenship, and, indeed, sometimes
the adverts that are placed in The Times Ed, for example,
do not actually match up to what happens when an interview takes
place and students find themselves appointed on the premise of
teaching citizenship and find themselves doing other things. That
often leads to those newly qualified teachers being disenchanted
and leaving the profession altogether or finding that they want
to bring about change but, again, there are senior leadership
teams who are frustrating them, and so I think it would be good
to see more citizenship posts that are much more honestly advertised
and interviewed in that respect. This is where we come back to
this issue about how citizenship manifests itself in individual
schools, and we need to try and ensure that schools are much clearer
about, ring-fencing is too simplistic a term, but ensuring that
citizenship is identified clearly within the curriculum, that
responsibility is given as such and that students really do receive
a proper entitlement, not a newly qualified teacher who is put
in charge of Uncle Tom Cobbly and all who devotes 20 minutes a
week to citizenship. That is what kills it and it kills them as
teachers.
Q151 Stephen Williams: I do not know
whether you want to pursue this or not, Chairman, but it does
imply a lack of enthusiasm by schools who are actually taking
on the properly qualified people to teach the subject. There seems
to be little point in training these people on PGCE courses if
then the schools have no demand for these trained people.
Mr Waller: I do not think it is
a lack of enthusiasm on behalf of schools. It is how it manifests
itself in the school curriculum. If it is merely taught in tutor
time by pressed men and women and the school wants to appoint
cheaply somebody who is an enthusiast and who has those skills,
then that may be the line that a particular head teacher pursues.
That does not represent the best management of that teacher or
the best manifestation of the subject, but it does happen. We
need to seek to marginalise that practice by trying to help schools
to understand how citizenship should be a critical part of the
school curriculum per se as well as a subject in its own
right, a discrete subject with discrete provision, but also helping
head teachers to understand, yet again, what this subject can
do to and for their schools and their communities. It is this
concept. Having some vision is what we need to try and support.
Q152 Dr Blackman-Woods: I want to
ask some questions about academies. I wonder, is there any evidence
about how effectively citizenship education is taught in academies
and independent schools compared to state schools?
Mr Breslin: I am not aware of
any research in terms of the academies' position at the moment.
In that independent schools and academies do not have the constraints
of the National Curriculum, that is a big concern. That is all
I would probably say there. We do know that some independent schools
have had a long tradition of doing some of the kinds of work,
especially the active work, that can produce tremendous skills
and tremendous confidence, but I do not have data on that. We
would like to see academies and independent schools of any form
committed to citizenship in just the same way for just the same
reasons.
Mr Waller: I would add to that
the specialist schools and the humanities status and the importance
of citizenship within that. The Specialist Schools Trust produced
a report, a booklet, about the humanities status and the role
of citizenship in that last year, and there is a great interest
in that and there is some very, very good leadership work coming
from those humanities specialist schools where citizenship is
one of the chosen subjects. Our members who teach in those schools
are often very effective leaders within their own geographic region
in terms of being advocates for citizenship. Anecdotally, I would
say that one private school that I worked with saw the CCF as
being the front-line, as it were, of their citizenship work. I
think they missed the point there. There was an important discussion
to be had if that was the way in which they perceived success.
Dr Blackman-Woods: Can I conclude from
what you are saying that it is really a black hole in our knowledge-base,
what is going on in academies and independent schools with regard
to citizenship education?
Q153 Chairman: Let us find out from
Mick Waters.
Mr Waters: I was going to offer
that the DfES is currently doing some work looking at the very
issue you have raised and are inquiring into the position of citizenship
in the two arenas that you discuss.
Q154 Dr Blackman-Woods: So we may
know at some time in the future?
Mr Waters: Yes.
Q155 Dr Blackman-Woods: Can you tell
us what you think the impact is of us not having that knowledge-base?
You are able to talk at some length about what is happening in
the state sector. We do not know what is happening in the independent
sector. It could be that none of these issues are being dealt
with at all.
Mr Waters: Part of our role is
to work with independent sector schools, and I would offer the
observation that the situation is probably as variable in that
sector as it is in others, and throughout the conversation the
danger is that the collective noun wins: schools, teachers, children,
when actually we are talking about specifics on many occasions.
Academies have only been in existence for a very short time and
trends and patterns are only just emerging. Our work has taken
us into their efforts and we shall get information over time,
but the first cohort of young people have not yet gone through
those organisations for us to draw proper conclusions that would
be valid.
Q156 Dr Blackman-Woods: Nevertheless,
they are there now and they are presumably either getting some
citizenship education or not. I want to move on. I want to come
back to the point that Tony made about how you encourage independent
schools and academies to take citizenship education seriously.
Beyond having a statutory requirement for them to do that, what
do you think can be done to encourage them to engage with this
agenda?
Mr Breslin: I would hope that
if we can establish a national strategy for teaching and learning
in citizenship it will be a remit of that strategy to work across
the schooling sectors. Clearly there are issues with regard to
academies, for instance, and the relationship with local authorities.
We know we need to strengthen local authorities rather than CPD.
Perhaps the agency to work through is the Specialist Schools and
Academies Trust with regard to the academies. We have to make
sure that all the parts of the educational infrastructure, all
of the agencies, work through and contribute to that strategy
so that it is delivered coherently rather than the independent
isolated good efforts of each or non-efforts of some.
Mr Waller: It might be interesting
for me to find out what percentage or what number of our members
come from the private sector. I do not know. I know that we have
worked with some. The majority of our members are from state schools.
That might be interesting. If you would like to know that, we
can furnish that information to you. [4]
Chairman: The independents have to go
through very vigorous organisations. Presumably we can pursue
that.
Q157 Dr Blackman-Woods: That would
be very helpful. One last question. Is there any evidence that
faith schools, whether they are independent or state supported,
are less likely than secular schools to tackle controversial issues
in citizenship education, particularly where they are at odds
with their own belief system?
Mr Waller: If I might say something
there. In March I worked with the Birmingham Catholic Schools
Partnership, 10 schools holding down a variety of different themes,
one of which was citizenship. I found very little difference between
working with that group of schools and that group of teachers
and other schools, particularly around controversial issues, which
is one of the things we looked at that day. There were a number
of younger teachers who had been appointed to the schools, who
came to the work that I did on teaching controversial issues,
who were aware of the fact that some of the ways in which the
schools perceived certain aspects, particularly of PSHE more perhaps
than citizenship, might be more difficult for them to manage,
but in general the teaching of controversial subjects in those
particular schools as an example bore no difference from the other
teachers in non-faith schools that I have worked with.
Q158 Dr Blackman-Woods: Are you aware
of any research that has been done on this that we could draw
on?
Mr Waller: I am not. I do not
know whether Tony might be?
Mr Breslin: We held two events
recently that are focused on this issue, one in partnership with
the interfaith network, and we have called in a submission for
research on this area. We really need the information that you
need to do our job, but our sense is that it might not be so much
that faith schools are not dealing with controversial issues,
it might be an issue about how those issues are dealt with, and
we need to understand more about that. There is some evidence
that church schools have had a strong tradition, for instance,
in some of the active citizenship type activities that we would
want to see and, I think, have much to contribute to a citizenship
frame in terms of charitable giving, volunteering, community engagement,
because faith schools often have those kinds of community relationships
that can be very positive for the citizenship agenda, but we need
more work.
Q159 Mr Marsden: Bernadette, I wonder
if I could ask you about the continuity between citizenship education
pre-16 and post-16. The Government, as you know, has recently
announced that people up to the age of 25 will be able to study
for Level L3 qualifications if they have not done so by the cut-off
point of 19. Is there not a case for saying that citizenship education
entitlement should also apply up to the age of 25, where it is
appropriate?
Ms Joslin: Absolutely, yes. Can
I make a general comment? Obviously I can understand the Committee's
preoccupation with pre-16 citizenship, that is obviously statutory
and that is where many of your issues and concerns lie, but many
of the discussions we have had are also about a post-16 setting
as well. You referred, I think, Gordon, to David Roscoe's speech,
made some time ago—I think I quote it in my written response—where
he makes the point that it would be illogical for citizenship
education not to continue beyond 16 where young people are moving
towards voting, becoming more autonomous, independent, etcetera,
and I would fully endorse that. My experience is that it is extremely
worthwhile. Some people say to me, "We have invested a lot
of money pre-16, what is the point of going any further? Why should
we invest more money post-16?" I know it sounds a bit of
a platitude, but citizenship education development is a lifelong
experience, and I am very pleased to say that beyond the development
programme, which is actually focused on 16-19, there is a strong
movement within the Home Office for adult citizenship education
and learning. We do some work with them. I think it is really
important and I would like to see stronger emphasis on 16-19 citizenship
and beyond that as well. I think perhaps implied in your question
there is an issue about transfer as well, which I can talk about.
4 Ev 62-63 Back
| 
