SUMMARY

— Our experience running Citizenship Foundation programmes such as the National Youth Parliament Competition and Youth Act has shown us that young people are passionate about political issues—the environment, world poverty, racism and inequality—and that they are prepared to campaign for change.

— We thus argue that the problem of political disengagement is not one of apathy, but of political literacy. People are not uninterested in political issues; they either (1) lack the skills, knowledge and confidence to participate in political processes or (2) do not believe that existing political institutions are able to address the issues that concern them.

— Therefore, if the Speaker's Conference wishes to address the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large, we suggest that it focuses not on the appearance of apathy, but on the political literacy of these and other social groups. The crucial question is: how might they develop the knowledge, skills and confidence needed for effective participation?

  This paper is arranged in the following sections:

1. Background: the appearance of apathy

2. About the Citizenship Foundation

3. What we mean by Citizenship, Citizenship Education and "Citizenship-rich" communities

4. Citizenship Education in schools and through the National Curriculum

5. Developing Active and Effective Citizenship in Youth and Community Settings

6. From Participation to Politics: Reconnecting "Civil" and "Civic" Engagement

7. Recommendations and conclusions

1.  Background: the appearance of apathy

  1.1  In the last two General Elections, voter turnout amongst 18-24 year olds went from bad (39 per cent in 2001) to worse (37 per cent in 2005) (Electoral Commission, 2005). Although in line with decreasing voter turnout across the generations, these figures have brought the issue of the disengagement of young people from politics to the forefront of the political discourse, with: "more young people vote for the winner of the X-Factor than the next Prime Minister" becoming a phrase often bandied about by wearied political commentators. Apathy has been a common explanation for this lack of participation in formal politics; we want to explode what we described in our evidence to the Power Inquiry almost four years ago as the apathy myth.

  1.2  The Citizenship Foundation's experience with young people in schools and in community settings tells a different story. We believe that young people are not disengaged from political issues; rather they either (1) lack the skills, knowledge and confidence to participate in political processes or (2) do not believe that existing political institutions are able to address the issues that concern them.

  1.3  This lack of knowledge about, and faith in, the political system is compounded by a declining democratic tradition within families and communities, accentuated by the decline of a range of "bridging institutions". In previous generations, institutions such as trade unions and churches created links between civil society and civic politics, and helped to develop and hone political literacy.

  1.4  If the Speaker's Conference wishes to address the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large, we suggest that it focuses not on the appearance of apathy, but on the political literacy of these and other social groups. The crucial question is: how might they develop the knowledge, skills and confidence needed for effective participation?

   1.5  Our work with young people, both within formal educational settings (such as schools and colleges) and in youth and community settings, suggests that high quality Citizenship Education and participation programmes can play a key role in (re-) connecting individuals to the political process, in developing the political literacy with which they can "navigate" the system and in raising political aspirations.

  1.6  However, we offer two qualifications: (1) Citizenship Education has only been taught in English schools since 2002 and has not been able to build on the heritage of a strong social curriculum within which the issues of politics, law and economics might be addressed; (2) By definition, with the exception of its youngest members, the existing adult population has not had access to this curriculum and, therefore, has not been "schooled" in matters of politics.

  1.7  It follows that, in making the case for high quality education programmes for young people, we are making the case for high quality education programmes for all.

  1.8  While there has been some good work carried out in the field of Adult Citizenship Education (ACE)—such as that carried out through the active citizenship programmes developed within the framework of the DCLG supported Take Part programme[93] and the excellent resources and activities delivered under the auspices of the LSN-QIA Post-16 Citizenship Education programme[94]—there is no universally accessible education programme available to the adult members of those communities that are the Conference's concern.

2.  About the Citizenship Foundation

  2.1  The Citizenship Foundation is an independent education and participation 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. We are committed to three interdependent strategic objectives: supporting and informing the development of (1) Better Citizenship Education, (2) Effective Participation and (3) Stronger Communities.

3.  What we mean by Citizenship, Citizenship Education and "Citizenship-rich" Communities

  3.1  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 rights and responsibilities in terms of these communities and groups. And they need to feel confident in applying this knowledge, which requires 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.

  3.2  We refer to those schools that combine the delivery of a clearly identifiable and rigorous curriculum in Citizenship with multiple and varied opportunities for both student participation and community involvement as "Citizenship-rich", a term and definition now adopted by the National Foundation for Educational Research in their Longitudinal Study into Citizenship Education (NFER, 2007; Breslin and Dufour, 2006).

  3.3  More recently, in work commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, we have extended this thinking beyond the school to the neighbourhood, developing the concept of the "Citizenship-rich" community: inclusive, participatory and politically informed.

4.  Citizenship Education in Schools and through the National Curriculum

  4.1  Citizenship was introduced as a statutory Foundation Subject of the National Curriculum in August 2002 and revised, along with the wider curriculum, in August 2008. Previously, during the 1990s, it had had the status of a "Cross-curricular theme"—a status that we suggested condemned Citizenship (and the other Cross-curricular themes) to being "everywhere but nowhere" (Citizenship Foundation, 2006).

  4.2  The introduction of Citizenship Education into secondary schools is unparalleled since the 19th century in terms of subject innovation, with the possible exception of Information and Communications Technology (which is, in any case, of a different nature). Professor Denis Lawton at the University of London Institute of Education has described the introduction of Citizenship to the secondary curriculum as "the most important educational innovation in the last fifty years" (Breslin and Dufour, 2006).

  4.3  However, as we have argued elsewhere,[95] and as the National Foundation for Educational Research's Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS) Study makes clear (NFER, 2002-07), Citizenship Education remains a work in practice. After less than seven years, we should expect this to be the case, granted that, as argued earlier, it does not build on the kind of social studies tradition enjoyed in the United States or across Western Europe.

  4.4  In this context, there is some excellent work (which we shall go on to describe) but, equally, in too many schools Citizenship has a low priority with teachers and heads. It is often delivered by non-specialist teachers in tutor time at the start of the school day, bundled into low status and overcrowded Personal, Social, Health and Economic Education (PSHEE) programmes or simply dispersed across the curriculum, largely invisible to teachers and students alike.

  4.5  It is our concern that this low priority afforded to Citizenship Education at a local level is now shared on the national stage. The excellent and valued DCSF support team for Citizenship has been significantly reduced in size and is also charged with "looking after" Religious Education and PSHEE.

  4.6  Moreover, the introduction of Citizenship has never been accompanied by the kind of properly funded, widely promoted, high profile National Strategy for Teaching and Learning in Citizenship Education that we have repeatedly called for (most notably in evidence to the Education and Skills Select Committee in 2006) and which commonly supports other "priority" areas such as literacy and numeracy.

  4.7  The best school-based Citizenship Education programmes combine strong, specialist Citizenship teaching in dedicated curriculum time with a plethora of opportunities for students to "do" citizenship—participating in meaningful activities through which they develop, rehearse and hone their citizenship skills, across the school and in the community.

  4.8  These activities might include taking part in mock elections and mock trials, participating in School Councils, local youth councils and the UK Youth Parliament, taking part in community volunteering programmes, organising social enterprise programmes and raising funds for charitable causes.

  4.9  As noted earlier, the NFER CELS Study which has monitored and evaluated the nature and quality of Citizenship Education since its introduction in 2002 has now adopted our concept of the "Citizenship-rich" school to describe this multi-faceted approach to the delivery of Citizenship (NFER, 2007).

  4.10  In this context, the reports of the CELS Study offer a good news story that needs to be told, one about the increasing number of "Citizenship-rich" schools. These schools see organisation-wide impact across a range of measures: achievement, inclusion and cohesion.

  4.11  For twenty years the Citizenship Foundation has been involved in the design and delivery of resources and a range of active learning programmes designed to build the political, legal and economic literacy in schools, each designed to promote participation and active, effective citizenship, of which the National Youth Parliament Competition (NYPC) which has been running since 1990, is a longstanding example.

  4.12  In 2008, the NYPC involved 1500 young people drawn from a range of backgrounds across the country. The competition helps bring to life the processes of parliament, government and politics by offering young people the opportunity to set up and film their own parliamentary debates. In doing so, participants are able to reflect on how laws are made within the framework of a democratic process and how parliament and parliamentarians work.

  4.13  Through emphasising the knowledge that MPs (and MSPs)[96] must develop, and the terms in which they are required to work in order to present a reasoned point of view, the NYPC offers a rare positive public representation of their role. In particular, the competition demonstrates how MPs balance the needs and views of constituents with their own conscience and any "party line". Frequently, local MPs work with schools and youth groups that have entered the competition, panels of MPs judged those entrants short-listed for prizes and senior politicians (including the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition) have participated in the annual awards ceremony.

  4.14  The NYPC offers teachers and youth group leaders[97] a framework through which students can learn about and practice democratic engagement through participating in an interesting, confidence-building experience that can be delivered as a part of the National Curriculum in Citizenship, through other subjects such as Drama or as an extra-curricular activity. In taking part, participants get a genuine insight into formal politics and into aspects of what their MP is doing while "away at Parliament".[98]

5.  Developing Active and Effective Citizenship in Youth and Community Settings

  5.1  The Citizenship Foundation has long believed that citizenship must not just be active; it must be effective. That is to say, it must empower individuals—through the development of political literacy and a range of practical citizenship skills—to drive change in whatever setting they are working in. The Foundation's participation and social action programmes are focused on generating exactly these capacities in individuals and communities.

  5.2  In this context, the Foundation's Youth and Community based programmes are designed around five key principles:

— Facts—through participating in the programmes, individuals need to be able to learn a range of key facts about political processes and institutions.

— Understanding—they need to ally this knowledge with a wider understanding of how politics works in practice.

— Skills—there needs to be a practical focus on the development of the type of citizenship skills (communication, negotiation and political awareness) that support and enable political engagement.

— Experience—the programmes must afford participants the opportunity to put their learning and skills into practice, to "do" citizenship.

— Reflection—the programmes must be designed in such a way that participants are encouraged to reflect on their experience, such that they cement their learning and build their confidence.

  5.3  The Citizenship Foundation's Youth Act programme was first established in two London Boroughs (Haringey and Islington) in 2004 and has since been delivered in fifteen authorities. Youth Act supports groups of young people (aged 11-18) who want to achieve change in their school, college, youth club or community. Through training to develop their campaigning skills, the programme fosters participants' personal development, social understanding and political empowerment. Specifically, it develops skills in advocacy, negotiation, influencing, teamwork, media, communication and conflict resolution.

  5.4  Working in groups with an adult supporter (for example, a youth worker, teacher, parent or police officer), participants identify a local issue that they want to tackle and follow an intensive training programme to enable and support their campaign for change. Projects have focused on a variety of issues including gun and knife crime, bullying, facilities provision and estate regeneration, with many Youth Act groups and participants winning local and national awards for their efforts.

  5.5  By supporting young people to set realistic campaign goals (for example, cleaning up a part of their estate or establishing a local anti-bullying initiative) young people develop the skills, the knowledge and—most importantly—the confidence to engage with the formal and informal political systems in their local community. There is evidence that this builds their interest in "bigger" issues and in the broader political system, nationally and internationally. It is common for young people who participate in Youth Act training to go on to take their campaigns and their interests to a wider audience.

  5.6  Youth Act explodes the apathy myth: young people are interested in local, national and international issues. Young people are concerned about the way in which their local communities are policed, cleaned and provided for. In our experience, Youth Act participants also take an interest in a range of national and international issues: votes at 16, tuition fees, the war in Iraq, world poverty. However, their interest is in the issue itself and sometimes in response to the apparent lack of action in the formal political sphere.

6.  From Participation to Politics: Reconnecting "Civil" and "Civic" Engagement

  6.1  As noted above, our experience running Citizenship Foundation programmes such as the National Youth Parliament Competition and Youth Act has shown us that young people are interested in political issues—the environment, world poverty, racism and inequality—and that they are prepared to campaign for change. However, what they lack is faith in our formal political structures, trust in our politicians to deliver on these issues and the knowledge, skills and confidence to make these structures work for them. They are committed to civil action but not civic engagement. They are often willing—and sometimes keen—to engage in "civil" society but remain unconvinced of the relevance of "civic" politics.

  6.2  We believe that this separation of the "civil" and "civic" domains poses real dangers because, in the longer run, it casts many of our most passionate campaigners outside the political process, questions the relevance of formal politics and reduces it to a dull and mistrusted managerialism in the process.

  6.3  The declining levels of participation in a range of organisations and conduits that might have "bridged" the civic and civil spheres in previous years has accentuated the appearance of a "professional", self-perpetuating and detached "political class", based in Westminster and Brussels, if not the local town hall. We suggest that, as the routes into formal politics at the national and European level narrow ("politics" is increasingly a high-end graduate entry career, pursued from—or before—graduation and accessed through internships and think tanks, not one entered into after a lifetime in workplace or community activism), the risk of this civic-civil split becoming embedded is all the greater.

  6.4  Finally, because it is much more difficult to audit the level and diversity of participation in civil society (as opposed to formal politics), we have little idea as to who is missing out, a point that will be of particular concern to the Speakers Conference. Certainly, there is a danger that recent attempts to develop participation and learner voice among young people have disproportionately benefited those already drawn to participate. If this is the case, we may be at risk of widening the participation gap, rather than narrowing it. For this reason, programmes such as Youth Act are especially important in reaching beyond the "usual suspects" and targeting the so-called "hard to reach".

7.  Conclusions and Recommendations

  7.1  Increasingly, research and experience points away from "apathy" as a single or appropriate explanation for low levels of participation in the political process. Instead, the suggestion is that "politics" has become at best an irrelevance and at worst a "dirty word" amongst the wider population, especially amongst young people. In short, too many people feel that "politics" is something that is not relevant to them and, therefore, does not engage them. However, evidence does show that young people, in particular, are interested in political issues and do hold political views.

  7.2  Against this background, the Electoral Commission has expressed concern that there is a lack of a connection between young people's ability to be articulate their views, and their participation in the processes of power, stating that: "…it should not be assumed that this group are 'apathetic' …political debate is not phrased or presented in a way that is meaningful to this group—and lack of connection leaves them with no motivation to vote" (Electoral Commission 2004).

  7.3  Recent high profile campaigns and campaigning bodies have demonstrably involved those that the "apathy myth" suggests "don't do politics" (Live Earth, Make Poverty History, Stop the War, Countryside Alliance). However, their engagement is with political issues rather than in formal politics.

  7.4  Moreover, because of the very nature of informal civil participation, it is difficult to map where these campaigners are drawn from.

  7.5  Against this background and so as to close any "participation gap" and the apparent disjuncture between the civic and civil spheres, it is vital that the Conference gives its attention to:

— The under-resourcing of Citizenship Education in schools and the low priority currently granted to it by the DCSF and by some school leaders;

— The patchy and uneven access to youth and community engagement programmes such as Youth Act and the paucity of local national funding to support such activities;

— The need for a clear, coherent approach to the provision of Adult Citizenship Education (ACE), accessible through the FE sector, school based family learning programmes and workplace based learning;

— The actual and potential impacts of a growing disconnect between civil action and formal civic engagement;

— The increasingly exclusive routes of entry into national politics and any ways in which this might be mediated.

REFERENCES

  Breslin, T and Dufour, B (eds.) (2006) Developing Citizens: a comprehensive introduction to effective citizenship education in the secondary school, London, Hodder Murray.

  Electoral Commission (2004), Public Opinion and the 2004 Elections: London, Electoral Commission.

  Electoral Commission (2005), Turnout How many, who and why? London, Electoral Commission.

  NFER (Kerr, D, Lopes J, Nelson, J, White, K, Cleaver, E, Benton, T). (2007) Vision versus pragmatism: citizenship in the secondary school curriculum in England: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study: Fifth Annual Report. Slough, National Foundation for Educational Research

94   Bernedette Joslin at the Quality Improvement Agency leads this initiative. Although focused on 16-19 year olds it may hold real lessons for future ACE provision. Back

95   A full outline of this argument is contained in the Citizenship Foundation's submission to the Education and Skills Select Committee investigation into Citizenship Education in schools (2006). Back

96   A version of the NYPC based on the Scottish Parliament has been available since 2003. Back

97   The NYPC was extended to youth groups in 2005-06 so as to encourage participation by those best reached through channels beyond formal schooling. Back

98   We appreciate the current accessibility and openness of the Parliamentary Education Service in opening up their central resources and facilities to help us (alongside many other organisations), in bringing politics to life for young people. Back