Memorandum submitted by Dr Dina Kiwan
1. This evidence is based on research that
I conducted (2001-05), which aimed to examine the conceptions
of citizenship in the policy and curriculum development process
of citizenship education in the English secondary school contemporary
context, from the perspectives of the key players who were involved.
My particular focus was on the extent to which these conceptions
address ethnic and religious diversity, in terms of their theoretical
and practical implications.
2. My methodology entailed interviewing
thirty participants involved at different stages of the policymaking
process, including David Blunkett, Sir Bernard Crick, and others
both actively involved in the policy process, subsequent curriculum
development stages and also related initiatives—including
the Home Office community cohesion initiatives. In addition, I
analysed the Crick Report (QCA, 1998), as well as the Key Stage
3 (KS3) curriculum documentation—the KS3 Programmes of Study
(QCA, 2000) and KS3 Schemes of Work (QCA, 2001).
3. Key findings in relation to:
Leaders' attitudes to citizenship education
(a) Perspectives on why citizenship education
came onto the agenda—the agency of the individual
1. My interview data suggests that those
involved in the policymaking process emphasised the role of individuals
relative to societal influences in their explanations of why citizenship
education came onto the agenda in the late 1990s. Almost two thirds
of those interviewed referred to the political will of certain
key individuals as being of central importance. In particular,
David Blunkett and Sir Bernard Crick were named by the majority
of those who stressed the central importance of certain individuals
in this process. Furthermore, Crick and Blunkett themselves also
emphasised the important role of individuals in the culmination
of citizenship education onto the policymaking agenda.
2. Whilst "powerful" individuals
were clearly perceived to have been central in getting citizenship
and citizenship education onto the agenda, individuals however
did also refer to a range of other influences in the context of
getting citizenship education onto the agenda in the late 1990s,
which I have coded into seven main categories. The table below
ranks in descending order of most frequently referred to, the
range of influences considered to be influential by interviewees:
Table 1
INFLUENCES ON INITIATIVE AS PERCEIVED BY
INTERVIEWEES, RANKED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF FREQUENCY
| Reasons given:
|
| 1. | Political apathy of young people
|
| 2. | Society in moral crisis
|
| 3. | Democratic crisis/low voter turnout
|
| 4. | Legal changes (eg Europe/HR Act)
|
| 5. | Diversity/Immigration issues
|
| 6. | Education—move away from "standards" emphasis
|
| 7. | Re-negotiation between "citizen" and "state"
|
| |
3. Of note, "Diversity/Immigration" issues
are ranked relatively low, coming fifth out of seven main categories.
Only four out of the thirty interviewees referred to societal
diversity at all as an explanatory factor. All four were women
and three of the four were of ethnic minority. What is also of
note is that only one out of the four was directly involved as
a member of the Advisory Group. One possible interpretation of
this is that those individuals who are members of groups who may
have been traditionally excluded from the full rights of citizenship,
may have a greater awareness of the relationship between citizenship
and diversity and the potential role of citizenship in empowering
those from traditionally excluded groups. Nevertheless, these
interviewees were aware that the themes of diversity, identity
and "race" were relatively underplayed in relation to
citizenship in policy and curriculum documentation (QCA, 1998;
QCA, 2000; QCA, 2001).
4. With regard to the theme of immigration, only two
of the interviewees referred to the issues surrounding immigration
and asylum seekers as explanatory factors, arguing that, typically
these issues are framed as a problem. In part, the relative lack
of reference to this issue in relation to citizenship may be related
to political sensitivities regarding "race" and diversity
more broadly in the context of talking about citizenship. It may
also relate to the fact that the complexity of issues surrounding
citizenship, immigration, asylum seekers and refugees is not explicitly
addressed in either the policy or curriculum documentation, which
has been argued was a deliberate strategy, given the political
sensitivities at the time.
5. Whilst my research did not aim to uncover causal explanations
with regard to the question of how citizenship education came
to be on the policymaking agenda, my interest was in the perceptions
of the key players themselves, and the kind of processes they
invoke in explaining how these influences resulted in bringing
about the initiative. Based on interviewees' responses, I have
proposed three explanatory models—the "cocktail"
model, the "trigger" model, and the "fluke"
model. In the first model, the "cocktail" model, a complex
interaction of personal and societal influences was referred to,
with the "mixing" of these influences being perceived
to culminate in bringing the initiative onto the agenda. In the
second model, the "trigger" model, there was a perception
that there was a large number of influences, but typically there
was one key incident that triggered public outrage and created
a climate conducive to the acceptance of the policy initiative.
References were made to serious crimes committed in the early
1990s, notably the Jamie Bulger murder, the murder of the head
teacher, Philip Lawrence, and the Dunblane massacre. The media
was usually invoked as playing a catalytic role in this model.
Finally, in the third explanatory model, the "fluke"
model, it was perceived that there was an arbitrary nature to
how the initiative took hold. This may, in part, be because the
processes by which policy issues, in general, come onto the agenda
lack transparency, even for those actively involved in those processes,
with a number of interviewees invoking the notion of "luck"
or "serendipity".
(b) Perceived aims and outcomes of citizenship education
1. What emerged from the interviews was that there was
often tentativeness expressed with regard to what the implementation
of citizenship education might achieve. This is reflected in much
of the empirical literature, in that there is scant evidence of
a direct correlation between the implementation of citizenship
education and increased formal political participation, with policy
and curriculum development taking place without empirical evidence
of the potential impact of these policies at the student level
(Kerr, 1999), or indeed at societal level (Albala-Bertrand, 1997).
This stands in marked contrast to David Blunkett's assertion that
citizenship education is "crucial to the life of a democracy",
as democracy is "threatened by apathy and disengagement"
(Interview with David Blunkett, p 1).
2. The aims and outcomes of citizenship education as
perceived by interviewees can be grouped under a number of themes.
The key themes referred to by interviewees in order of frequency
are presented in the following table:
Table 2
AIMS AND OUTCOMES AS PERCEIVED BY INTERVIEWEES, RANKED
IN DESCENDING ORDER OF FREQUENCY (CODINGS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE)
[7]
| Aims and outcomes of citizenship education
|
1. | Political literacy
|
| 2. | Supporting democracy and formal political participation
|
| 3. | Empowerment/change |
| 4. | Community involvement |
| 5. | Democratic schools with increased pupil self-esteem
|
| 6= | "Better" society and "better" citizens
|
| 6= | Social Order |
| 8= | Community Cohesion/resolving conflict
|
| 8= | "Do-gooding" (volunteering) agenda
|
| 10. | Race equality, human rights
|
| |
3. Political literacy is the most commonly cited aim
and outcome of citizenship education. This can be understood in
terms of interviewees' dominant conceptions of citizenship, typically
framed in terms of the Crick Report's three "strands"—"social
and moral responsibility", "community involvement",
and "political literacy", with particular emphasis on
political literacy and active participation (QCA, 1998). The theme
of empowerment was the third most frequently mentioned aim and
outcome referred to by interviewees, yet only four members of
the Crick group referred to this as an aim, in contrast to its
being mentioned by those involved either indirectly through the
consultation process, or indirectly through general involvement.
4. The issue of diversity was rarely referred to in the
context of aims and outcomes of citizenship education with only
two interviewees referring to the importance of citizenship education
as a means of raising awareness of race equality and human rights
issues. Of note is that both interviewees referring to these issues
were not central to the policy or curriculum development process,
and expressed concern that these issues were not perceived to
be aims of citizenship education by the Crick Advisory Group and
by those involved subsequently in the curriculum development process.
5. The list of perceived aims and outcomes in Table 2
suggest that interviewees perceived that the citizenship education
policy initiative serves more than one type of aim. However, there
may be inherent tensions between these aims—for example,
between the aim of empowerment and change in contrast to the aim
of social order. Similarly, diversity-related aims (framed as
"race equality/human rights") may require a different
set of measures than aims that focus exclusively on supporting
formal political participation, for example.
Relationship between citizenship education and current debates
about identity and Britishness, and the extent to which this is
reflected in the design of citizenship curriculum and other DfES
guidance
1. What emerged from the analysis of the interview data,
as well as key policy and curriculum documentation, was that there
were three "dominant" conceptions of citizenship—which
I refer to as "moral", "legal" and "participatory"
conceptions of citizenship, with the "participatory"
conception being the most dominant of these conceptions. In contrast,
interviewees also referred to "underplayed" conceptions
of citizenship, supported by my analysis of key policy and curriculum
documentation (QCA, 1998; QCQ, 2000; QCA, 2001). I have grouped
this cluster of conceptualisations under what I have called "identity-based
conceptions", as they are inherently concerned with "identity",
or forms of identification at different levels. These include
national, European, and global framings of citizenship, as well
as citizenship presented as a framework for anti-racist education,
and finally, "multicultural" citizenship. I propose
that the dominant conceptions of citizenship alone do not explicitly
or sufficiently accommodate the issue of diversity, and as a consequence,
will fail to achieve their proposed outcomes. Whilst I note many
positive features of the "participatory" conception
of citizenship—that it is a necessary part of a model of
active citizenship, I argue that it is not sufficient in a multicultural
society, and that a "participatory" conception must
be coupled with a modified "multicultural" conception
of citizenship. Below I summarise the key features of the above-mentioned
"dominant" and "underplayed" conceptions of
citizenship:
2. A "moral" conception of citizenship
There exists a tension throughout the policy process with
regard to what is actually meant by "values": whether
this refers to more "procedural" aspects, for example,
respect for certain public institutions and the rule of law, or
whether these refer to more personal, social and cultural values.
Whilst the Crick Report would tend to emphasise the former (QCA,
1998, p 14), there was disagreement regarding this issue on the
Crick Advisory Group itself. The Crick Report goes into significant
detail, arguing for the conceptual distinction between Citizenship
and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), citing excerpts
from the submission of the British Youth Council as a "warning
against conflating or confusing PSHE (or other forms of values
education) and citizenship education" (QCA, 1998, p 20).
Of note also is the inclusion in Appendix A of a four-page letter
from Crick himself to Professor Tomlinson, Chairman of "Passport
Project" on the relationship between PSHE and citizenship,
[8]including Tomlinson's
response, supporting Crick's explication. Underpinning the Crick
Report's rationale for the Citizenship/PSHE distinction is that
the role of values in citizenship denotes public political values,
rather than personal values. The Crick Report refers to Plato's
and Aristotle's conceptions of citizenship (QCA, 1998), and although
these can be described as moral conceptions, human beings are
conceptualised as essentially political in nature.
3. "Values" are not referred to explicitly
in the KS3 Programmes of Study, although they are likely to arise
in the context of several of the aspects referred to under "developing
skills of enquiry and communication", and "developing
skills of participation and responsible action" (QCA, 2000).
Within the KS3 Schemes of Work, Unit 3 on Human Rights proposes
that it is an expectation that most pupils at the end of this
unit will "know that the Human Rights Act is underpinned
by common values" (QCA, 2001, Unit 3, p 2). However, human
rights are rights of an individual, underpinned by common values
for all human beings, rather than rights based on or derived from
being a member of a political community or nation-state. This
linking of human rights and citizenship through a notion of common
values is theoretically problematic, as I briefly summarise in
the following section on "legal" conceptions of citizenship.
4. "Shared values" and its use to question
and challenge the support and endorsement of "diversity",
is an important theme that emerged from the interviews. "Diversity"
in this context was presented as the opposite of a more favourable
"unity". What is being drawn upon here is a civic republican
conceptualisation of citizenship, exemplified by France's conception
of citizenship (Brubaker, 1998). I argue, however, that support
for "shared values" should not necessarily be problematic
in an ethnically and religiously diverse society. What is neglected
in discussions of "shared values" is the process of
reaching these "shared values". If this is not addressed,
then "shared values" will continue to be perceived by
multiculturalists as synonymous with assimilation into a monoculturalism
based on a numerical majority. Assumptions behind the abstract
theoretical distinction between public sphere and private sphere
must also be re-examined in the context of discussions about shared
values, as ethnicity and religion can not be assumed not to straddle
these two categories. Arnot (2003) argues that the Citizenship
Order in its failure to include social equality as an aim of citizenship
education does not challenge the public sphere/private sphere
distinction. From a feminist perspective, she argues that such
a conception has exclusionary consequences, an argument that can
also be extended to ethnic and religious diversity.
5. A "legal" conception of citizenship
Human rights discourses are increasingly being coupled to
discourses on citizenship and citizenship education. Whilst the
terms of the Crick Advisory Group make explicit reference to rights,
what is of particular note is that the phrase "human rights"
is not used —but rather "rights of individuals as citizens"
(QCA, 1998, p 4). Rights are presented as an included component
of citizenship rather than being presented as its theoretical
underpinning. This is an important distinction between a more
universalist approach and an approach where citizenship is defined
in political terms. Underpinning human rights is the notion of
common humanity based on ethical and legal conceptualisations
of the individual. In contrast, citizenship rights are underpinned
in relation to a political community, based on political and legal
understandings of the individual. It is appropriate that the terms
of reference of the Crick Report do not make the theoretical mistake
of conflating universalist ethical understandings of the individual
with political understandings of the individual. In the KS3 Programme
of Study, human rights are prominently presented as the first
item under the "knowledge and understanding" heading
where "Pupils should be taught about: (a) the legal and human
rights and responsibilities underpinning society" (QCA, 2000).
In the KS3 Schemes of Work, Unit 3 is entirely devoted to human
rights (QCA, 2001), where pupils are taught that the Human Rights
Act is "underpinned by common values" (QCA, 2001, Unit
3, p 2). What is not explained is the conceptual relationship
between human rights and citizenship: for example, whether the
"common values" underpinning the Human Rights Act are
distinctive to citizenship in the UK context, in contrast to other
nation-state settings. Whilst it is important that human rights
are discussed in the context of citizenship, it is important that
theoretical distinctions between citizenship rights and human
rights are made in the curriculum documentation, and that the
two concepts are not conflated, if teachers are to have a clear
conceptual understanding of citizenship and be able to communicate
this effectively to pupils. [9]
6. A "participatory" conception of citizenship
"Active participation" is the most central conception
of citizenship in the Crick Advisory Group's Final Report (QCA,
1998): "Active citizenship is our aim throughout" (QCA,
1998, p 25). There is further reference to the aim of bringing
about a "change in the political culture of this country'
(QCA, 1998, pp 7-8), emphasising the public and political conception
of active participation. This is elucidated theoretically with
reference to the Greek and Roman conceptions of citizenship as
"involvement in public affairs" (QCA, 1998, p 10). This
political conception of active participation is also used to explain
voluntary activity in that it helps to develop informed citizens,
with reference to John Stuart Mill in this context. This is in
contrast to participation and voluntary activity being framed
in moral terms. In the KS3 Programme of Study, active participation
is reflected in the third subheading of: "Developing skills
of participation and responsible action" (QCA, 2000). Similarly,
most of the units in the KS3 Schemes of Work refer to the "active
participation and responsible action" Programme of Study
sub-heading (QCA, 2001).
7. As noted earlier, one of the perceived aims of citizenship
education is its potential to uphold democracy, (also evident
from the title of the Crick Report, Education for Citizenship
and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools), given perceptions
of widespread political apathy, presented in the Crick Report
in its quoting of the Lord Chancellor: "We should not, must
not, dare not, be complacent about the health and future of British
democracy. Unless we become a nation of engaged citizens, our
democracy is not secure" (QCA, 1998, p 8). The terms of reference
for the Crick Group, set out by David Blunkett, then Secretary
of State for Education and Employment, explicitly focused on education
for citizenship to include "the nature and practices of participation
in democracy" (QCA, 1998, p 4).
8. Whilst the tone of the Crick Report, as well as Blunkett's
views expressed in his interview, reflect the perception that
there is a direct link between citizenship education and upholding
democracy, other interviewees were more tentative about presenting
this as an explicit aim of citizenship education. Crick, especially,
in his academic writings, has warned against the ideological and
non-political usage of the term, "democracy", saying
that it has come "to mean almost everything we want—`all
things bright and beautiful': democracy as a civic ideal, as representative
institutions, and as a way of life" (Crick, 2002, p 8). He
has argued that politics must be "defended" from democracy,
warning that "if taken alone and as a matter of principles,
it is the destruction of politics" (Crick, 2000, p 56). This
is because Crick defines politics as an activity involving negotiation
between different interests within a political community; this
diversity must not be compromised by democracy turning "harmony
into mere unison", reducing "a theme to a single beat"
(p 73). There is typically a lack of conceptual clarity when talking
about democracy, with it often being conflated with the concepts
of liberty, individualism and equality (Crick, 2000). This conceptual
confusion is evident in the KS3 Schemes of Work, where, for example,
in Unit 1, democracy is predominantly defined in terms of equality
(QCA, 2001, Unit 1, p 5).
9. The Crick Report, in highlighting the important role
of education in promoting active participation, implicitly relies
on what Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2004) call a choice-based approach
to understanding political participation, and in particular "cognitive
engagement theory", which hypothesises that participation
depends on access to information and willingness to act on that
information, rather than socialising to certain norms and values.
However, a weakness of cognitive engagement theory is that it
does not address what motivates people to participate.
10. I argue, however, that understanding what motivates
people to participate is crucial to developing an inclusive conception
of citizenship. Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2004) refer to "general
incentives" theory—a synthesis of rational choice and
social-psychological accounts of participation, where the argument
is that actors need incentives to participate. I propose that
what is not sufficiently addressed in a participatory-based conception
of citizenship is the question of whether a focus on active participation
without a concomitant focus on people's diversity of identities
can achieve an inclusive empowerment of all types of young people.
Osler and Starkey (2005)'s definition of citizenship as "a
status, a feeling and a practice" is useful to draw upon
in this regard, where citizenship as "feeling" refers
to a sense of belonging to the larger community. In order to be
motivated to participate (citizenship as "practice"),
one must be able to identify with, or feel a sense of belonging
to the larger community. This suggests that citizenship as "feeling"
and citizenship as "practice" are inextricably linked,
and are mutually enhancing. Citizenship education must therefore
logically incorporate what Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2004) call
the "general incentives" aspect explicitly in its participatory
conception of citizenship. In the following section, I summarise
the main "identity-based" conceptions of citizenship
based on the interviewee data and analysis of key policy and curriculum
documentation.
11. "Identity-based" conceptions of citizenship
This set of conceptions was considered to be "underplayed"
by interviewees, and also is less evident in the policy and curriculum
documentation (QCA, 1998; QCA, 2000; QCA, 2001), compared with
the "moral", "legal" and "participatory"
conceptions of citizenship summarised above. These conceptions
include conceptions of citizenship concerned with identification
at different levels—national, global and European. In addition,
conceptions of citizenship linked to discourses on anti-racism
and multiculturalism were also evident.
12. A key theme that emerged from the interview and document
analysis is that diversity was perceived to be conceptually and
politically problematic. In conceptual terms, the Crick Report
presents diversity as a potential problem, with cultural diversity
being linked to "the apparent loss of a value consensus"
(QCA, 1998, p 17). Diversity is explicitly linked to dissent and
social conflict—with the "knowing and understanding"
of "the nature of diversity, dissent and social conflict"
outlined as an expected learning outcome for students by the end
of compulsory schooling (QCA, 1998, p 44). It was suggested by
some interviewees that the relative downplaying in particular
of ethnic and religious diversity in the Crick Report may have
been due to perceived political sensitivities at the time. Although
it was generally acknowledged by interviewees that diversity was
not sufficiently addressed in the citizenship education policy
development process, a number of interviewees proposed that the
curriculum has enough flexibility that diversity issues can be
addressed by citizenship education teachers in the classroom.
13. A second finding was that diversity is conceptualised
differently at different stages of the policy and curriculum development
process. Whilst diversity was primarily perceived to be a problem
in relation to the outlined conception of citizenship in the Crick
Report (QCA, 1998), this was not so apparent in the subsequently
developed KS3 Programmes of Study (QCA, 2000), and the KS3 Schemes
of Work (QCA, 2001). For example, in the KS3 Programmes of Study,
diversity was not presented as problematic, but rather, in terms
of "the need for mutual respect and understanding" (QCA,
2000).
14. A national identity?
The Crick Report takes a civic republican approach whereby
it separates ethnic and religious identity from citizenship (Brubaker,
1998), relegating these forms of identity to the personal sphere.
The conception of citizenship is underpinned theoretically by
the conception of a dominant civic identity, framed primarily
in legal terms, rather than in social or cultural terms—what
is referred to in the literature as an "ethnic" or "ethnocultural"
model of citizenship where the "nation" exists before
the state.
15. The complexity of issues surrounding nationality,
immigration, asylum seekers and refugees is not explicitly addressed
in either the policy or the curriculum documentation (QCA, 1998;
QCA, 2000; QCA, 2001). The Crick Report does not explicitly address
the issue of the relationship between citizenship and nationality.
Yet there is a logical incoherence with the Crick Report proposing
a single national identity, even though it is acknowledging the
presence of a plurality of nations (QCA, 1998, p 17, para 3.14).
It is unclear whether this is just a terminological error, with
the Report actually meaning to propose a single state identity.
However, there is further confusion with citizenship education
being proposed to "create common ground between different
ethnic and religious identities". The "nations"
is dropped at this point, and it is unclear whether this is because
the Report is outlining proposals for citizenship education only
in English schools, and not the UK as a whole. This tension and
logical incoherence between the scope of citizenship and citizenship
education is never explicitly addressed in the Report. In the
KS3 Programmes of Study (QCA, 2000) and KS3 Schemes of Work (QCA,
2001), national identity is acknowledged only insofar as a range
of other types of identities, and in the context of respecting
and understanding diversity. Furthermore, a plurality of national
identities, rather than a single national identity is referred
to, recognising the national identities of England, Wales, Scotland
and Northern Ireland.
16. A Global or European citizenship?
Interviewees, as well as a significant number of those from
the Crick Advisory Group's own consultation process, expressed
the concern that global and European issues were underplayed (QCA,
1998, p 76). In his interview, Crick expressed concern regarding
globalism in the context of citizenship, perhaps in part explained
by a worry that this might, on a practical level, direct attention
away from active participation at local and national levels.
17. Anti-racism and citizenship?
There are no references linking anti-racism to citizenship
in the Crick Report (QCA, 1998). It would appear that this was
essentially a political decision: "Lots of people said, well,
you haven't got anti-racism. I said, well, no, but we've got tolerance
and we need to understand diversity" (Interview with Sir
Bernard Crick, p 8). As in the Crick Report, there is no explicit
reference to anti-racism in the KS3 Programmes of Study (QCA,
2000). In the KS3 Schemes of Work, anti-racism is referred to
in Unit 4: "Britain—a diverse society?" although
it is not developed substantively. Anti-racism is included implicitly
in recommended resources, through references to websites such
as "Kick racism out of football campaign", "Show
racism the red card", and the QCA "Respect for All"—where
diversity and anti-racist education through the curriculum are
listed (QCA, 2001).
18. The tense relationship between anti-racism and citizenship
was also reflected in the views of interviewees. One finding to
emerge was that the perception of some working in the anti-racism
field was that their views had not been sought out sufficiently
in the policymaking process. This perceived lack of interest in
anti-racism of those working in the field of citizenship, however,
was also similarly reflected by some of those in the anti-racism
field, in that citizenship per se was not of particular interest,
but instead was viewed as a convenient place in which to package
anti-racism initiatives.
19. A "multicultural" citizenship?
There is a dominant, although at times, implicit, conception
of diversity in the Crick Report, presented in terms of "multiculturalism".
However, there are conceptual inconsistencies in places; whilst
there is a reference to Modood's (1997) proposal that an explicit
idea of "multicultural citizenship needs to be formulated
for Britain" (QCA, 1998, p 17), this is not developed further
in the Report. Instead, the Report slips into discourses utilising
binary oppositions, with its reference to "majorities"
and "minorities". This illustrates a static conception
of diversity in terms of co-existing bounded groups, whose differences
are perceived to be distinct. This results in the conceptualisation
of the need to maintain the status quo of the mainstream majority
culture—recognised as the "legitimate" culture,
in the face of potentially problematic pockets of "minorities"—perceived
to be a potential threat to social cohesion. This is not to say
that references to minority groups should not be made in any circumstance;
but that discourses that consistently polarise "majority"
and "minority" should be avoided. In addition, issues
of structural disadvantage are masked in utilising conceptions
of diversity in terms of the binary oppositional terms, "majority"
and "minority". The potential impact of people's identities
on how they relate to political institutions and laws is not taken
into account in the Crick Report. The approach in the Crick Report
implies a relatively static conception of identity, and it ignores
the relevance of ethnic and religious diversity to achieving a
common citizenship through a shared political culture.
20. The Crick Report presents diversity under key concepts,
values and knowledge and understanding (QCA, 1998, p 44, Fig 1),
but not in relation to active participation under "skills
and understanding". This suggests a "pedagogy of acceptance"—a
"learning about" pedagogical approach to diversity rather
than a more active approach where diversity and active participation
are integrated as a process. The use of terms like "awareness"
and "understanding" support this interpretation. The
KS3 Programmes of Study and Schemes of Work, like the Crick Report,
conceive of diversity predominantly in terms of a multicultural
model, although there is greater emphasis on the notion of identity
as fluid and multiple (QCA, 2000; QCA, 2001). In contrast to the
Crick Report highlighting the potentially problematic nature of
diversity, the KS3 Programmes of Study and Schemes of Work present
a more positive conception of diversity, although it could be
argued that this takes the form of a "soft" celebratory
multiculturalism, rather than a more "critical" form.
The predominant pedagogical approach, like that advocated in the
Crick Report is in terms of "knowledge and understanding",
rather than in the context of more actively developing participative
skills and emphasising process. There is only one reference in
Unit 4 of the KS3 Schemes of Work explicitly linking identity
and diversity with active participation—under the theme
of "taking responsible action" (QCA, 2001, Unit 4).
21. Whilst Blunkett recognises the fluidity and multiplicity
of the concept of identity, he is nevertheless, hostile to the
term, "multiculturalism". He interprets it in terms
of communities living separately—social cohesion concerns
are raised in both the Cantle Report (Community Cohesion Review,
Home Office, 2001a), and the Denham Report on Public Order and
Community Cohesion (Home Office, 2001b), in the context of inter-ethnic
group violence in a number of northern cities in England in the
summer of 2001.
22. Blunkett's dislike of the term "multiculturalism"
can be understood in that the term, "multiculturalism",
like "citizenship" is also a fiercely contested concept.
In what Joppke and Lukes (1999) have called "mosaic"
multiculturalism, cultural group differences are perceived to
be distinct, and multiculturalism has become synonymous with the
study of "minorities" and the notion of "separate
but equal" communities living separate lives. Assumptions
include that there can be no universally shared values, and that
instead, all values are relative. With multiculturalism being
misconstrued to be for and about "minorities", this
may explain why there seems to be a growing discontent with "multiculturalism"
in popular discourse (Alibhai-Brown, 2000; Blunkett quoted in
The Independent on Sunday, 9 December 2001; Trevor Phillips
quoted in The Times, 3 April 2004; Polly Toynbee, The
Guardian, 7 April 2004), with calls for new terms and concepts.
23. In this final section, I propose that in order to
achieve an inclusive model of citizenship, the dominant participative
model be coupled with a modified "multicultural" model
of citizenship This model consists of two main components—firstly,
I propose the concept of "institutional" multiculturalism,
constituted as a process. Secondly, I propose that citizenship
education must redirect its emphasis to the citizen-state relationship,
relative to the emphasis on the relationship between individuals
and groups from different backgrounds and cultures which is the
predominant focus of "interculturalism" (Gundara, 2003).
24. (i) Institutional multiculturalism
What is needed is to be able to operationalise "multiculturalism"
within the concept of citizenship Multiculturalism is not about
describing a societal context; for it to be meaningful, it must
be about how we operate within society. Just as there has been
an acknowledgement of the concept of "institutional racism",
I would propose that the concept of "institutional multiculturalism"
is a means to go beyond the problem that multiculturalism is generally
perceived to be about and for "minorities".
25. As a member of the subsequent Crick Advisory Group
on immigrants and citizenship education ("Life in the UK"
Advisory Group), a group also appointed by Blunkett, then Home
Secretary, I was personally responsible for drafting the text
advocating this model of "institutional" multiculturalism
in its published report (Home Office, 2003). This group had the
following terms of reference: to advise on "the method, conduct
and implementation" of the naturalisation test, in light
of legislative requirements of the Nationality, Immigration and
Asylum Act (NIA) 2002. The definition of "multicultural"
in the context of being British, which I drafted is given on p
10:
We see a multicultural society as one made up of a diverse
range of cultures and identities, and one that emphasises the
need for a continuous process of mutual engagement and learning
about each other with respect, understanding and tolerance—whether
in social, cultural, educational, professional, political or legal
spheres. Such societies, under a framework of common civic values
and common legal and political institutions not only understand
and tolerate diversities of identity but should also take respect
and take pride in them (Home Office, 2003, p 10).
26. This definition incorporates my conception of "institutional
multiculturalism". The above was an attempt to implicitly
challenge the assumption that ethnic and religious identities
operate only in the private sphere, as well as emphasising a move
beyond a celebratory definition of multicultural, focusing on
mutual learning in all spheres. The word, "process"
was carefully chosen to indicate that active participation and
contribution is inherent to an understanding of operation in all
the above-mentioned domains—political, legal and professional,
as well as the less problematically perceived social and cultural
domains. There is nevertheless a commitment to shared values,
achieved and developed through contribution from all those actively
participating through the "continuous process of mutual engagement",
an implicit recognition that shared values can indeed change.
The fluidity of identity is also recognised: "We do not imply
that identities are ever fixed; in fact identities are often more
fluid than many people suppose" (p 10).
27. (ii) Focusing on the citizen—state relationship
The influences of globalisation have resulted in a strengthening
of identities above and below the nation state level. However,
it is necessary to be aware that individuals nevertheless operate
within the political and legal institutions of the nation-state.
I would propose that more efforts be directed to strengthening
individuals' trust in national institutions, and hence their sense
of identification and feelings of belonging are strengthened,
rather than the dominant focus on inter-group community relations.
Whilst it is important to develop reasonably good individual relationships
between citizens so that inter-group conflict does not arise,
it is not sufficient in developing a sense of identification at
the national level (Kymlicka, 2003; Spinner-Halev, 2003). Whilst
the KS3 Schemes of Work provide teachers with examples to illustrate
the relationship between local and global levels of citizenship
(QCA, 2001), elucidating the relationship between the local and
national levels, and the national and international levels must
therefore be a priority.
REFERENCES Albala-Bertrand,
L (1997). "What education for what citizenship? Preliminary
Results". Educational Innovation and Information,
90, 2-8. (UNESCO Survey).
Alibhai-Brown, Y (2000). After Multiculturalism. London:
Foreign Policy Centre.
Arnot, M (2003). "Citizenship education and gender",
in A Lockyer, B Crick, and J Annette (eds) Education for Democratic
Citizenship: Issues of Theory and Practice, Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishing Ltd.
Brubaker, R (1998). "Immigration, citizenship and nation-state
in France and Germany", in G Shafir (ed) The Citizenship
Debates, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Crick, B (2000). In Defence of Politics. (Fifth Edition).
London and New York: Continuum.
Crick, B (2002). Democracy: A Very Short Introduction.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gundara, J S (2003). Intercultural education: world on
the brink? Professorial lecture. London: Institute of Education,
University of London.
Home Office (2001a). Community Cohesion: A Report of the
Independent Review Team (Cantle Report). London: Home Office.
Home Office (2001b). The Report of the Ministerial Group
on Public Order and Community Cohesion (Denham Report). London:
Home Office.
Home Office (2003). The New and the Old: the Interim Report
for Consultation of the "Life in the United Kingdom"
Advisory Group. London: Home Office.
Joppke, J and Lukes, S (1999). "Introduction: multicultural
questions", in C Joppke and S Lukes (eds) Multicultural
Questions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kerr, D (1999). Re-examining Citizenship Education: The
Case of England. Slough: NFER.
Kymlicka, W (2003). "Multicultural states and intercultural
citizens". Theory and Research in Education, 1(2), 147-169.
Modood, T (1997). Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity
and Disadvantage. Policy Studies Institute, cited in QCA (1998).
Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in
Schools. (Crick Report). London: QCA.
Osler, A and Starkey, H (2005). Changing Citizenship:
Democracy and Inclusion in Education. Maidenhead: Open University
Press.
Pattie, C, Seyd, P, and Whiteley, P (2004). Citizenship
in Britain: Values, Participation and Democracy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (1998). Education
for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools.
(Crick Report). London: QCA.
QCA (2000). Programmes of Study. http://www.nc.uk.net/
10/30/00.
QCA (2001). Schemes of Work. http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/local/schemes/citizenship/schemes.html
07/09/01.
Spinner-Halev, J (2003). "Education, reconciliation
and nested identities". Theory and Research in Education,
1 (1), 51-72.
The Guardian (7 April 2004). "Why Trevor is right",
Polly Toynbee.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1187233,00.html
21/07/04.
The Independent on Sunday (9 December 2001.). "If
we want social cohesion we need a sense of identity". p 4.
The Times (3 April 2004). "I want an integrated
society with a difference", Tom Baldwin: Interview with Trevor
Phillips. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1061080,00.html
21/07/04.
7
Interviewees in many cases gave more than one aim and/or outcome
of citizenship education. Back
8
A project with the remit of raising the quality of PSE in schools. Back
9
Please see my article, Kiwan, D. (2005). "Human rights and
citizenship: an unjustifiable conflation?". Journal of
Philosophy of Education, 39 (1), 37-50 for a full elaboration
of this argument. Back
|
