Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools

Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools

Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools Final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship 22 September 1998 The Young Pe...

416KB Sizes 0 Downloads 5 Views

Recommend Documents

Citizenship education in American schools and its role in developing
Few studies provide an overview of citizenship education from the primary to secondary grade levels in American schools.

Schooling for Democracy - Democracy and Education
We risk losing the vision of democracy that respects every form of honest work and cultivates a deep appreciation of int

In this edition - Association for Citizenship Teaching
General Election 2015 – ideas and resources from ... knowledge through the new National Curriculum. ..... 553, 801, 80

Urban Citizenship - Reclaim Democracy
von 'Bürgerschaft'). Page 11. Rosa Parks , 1955. Citizenship als Praxis (‚acts of citizenship). Page 12. Kämpfe um â

Make It Happen - Association for Citizenship Teaching
in partnership with the National Citizen Service Trust. These materials have been written for the NCS Trust by the Assoc

Teaching Democracy - California Humanities
May 16, 2012 - Jennifer Brouhard is a 5th grade teacher at Glenview Elementary School .... In addition, the authority of

Apprenticeships for supporting teaching and learning in schools
The workbook contains, under each section heading, a list of the knowledge that the ..... The candidate's own contract o

Citizenship Education in the Mississippi Delta, 1961–1965 - Journal of
“First-Class” Citizenship Education in the Mississippi Delta, 1961–1965. By Deanna M. Gillespie. In the summer of

teaching artists in the schools - Center for Arts-Inspired Learning
Abe and Barb Miller. Samuel H. and Maria Miller. Foundation. John P. Murphy Foundation. Bruce Ratner. Max and Betty Ratn

Teaching the Holocaust - Institute for Holocaust Education
Oct 22, 2017 - 4:30-5:30pm Model Holocaust Lesson – Megan Helberg ... 8:30-10:30am Key Events in the History of the Ho

Education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools

Final report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship 22 September 1998

The Young People’s Parliament, Birmingham, (YPP) – Educating for Democracy – gives young people in Birmingham and the West Midlands a voice - whether on school, local quality of life or wider national issues; and on global concerns such as sustainable development and human rights. The initiative is a partnership between The University of the First Age, Birmingham City Council and the new centre for learning and leisure, Millennium Point. Already by using ICT, websites, video conferencing and e-mail, as well as use of the City’s Council Chamber, the young people of Birmingham and beyond have been able to participate in two pilot projects. The General Election project in 1997 linked young people in the West Midlands directly with politicians and provided a lively and robust exchange of views. The first G8 Young People’s Summit (YPS) was held in May 1998 to coincide with the G8 Summit meeting in Birmingham. Two youth delegates came from each of the G8 countries as well as the EU. A communiqué was drafted, mainly on the issues of third world debt relief, after a meeting with the Prime Minister. It made a powerful statement for the right of young people to be heard in international affairs.

The Youth Parliament Competition is now in its eighth year, organised by the Citizenship Foundation and sponsored by Motorola. Each participating secondary school holds a mock parliamentary session of the pupils’ own choosing. There are ministers and shadow ministers and a host of backbenchers on both sides. A twenty minute video of the debate is sent to regional judges and regional winners are then judged by a national panel. There is also a separate political writing competition. The national winners are invited to a presentation at the Houses of Parliament to receive their prizes and to meet senior politicians. The entry for this year’s national winner (for the second time), St Michael’s Roman Catholic School, Billingham, Cleveland, included Prime Minister’s Questions and the pollution tax debate. The leading roles went to Year 11 students with Year 7 pupils providing the bulk of the backbenchers.

Youth Parliaments – currently a large initiative is being developed by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regions, to hold a national Children’s Parliament competition for primary schools, on local, regional and then national levels. The issues debated will be environmental and there will also be an essay competition. Youth Parliaments are also organised by the Council for Education in World Citizenship, which involve role-play and are based on an international problem (we saw one at Brighton on the international drugs trade).

First published by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority on behalf of the Citizenship Advisory Group © Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 1998 Reproduction, storage, adaptation or translation, in any form or by any means, of this publication is prohibited without prior written permission of the publisher, unless within the terms of licences issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency. Excerpts may be reproduced for the purpose of research, private study, criticism or review, or by educational institutions solely for educational purposes, without permission, providing full acknowledgement is given. Printed in Great Britain. The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is an exempt charity under Schedule 2 of the Charities Act 1993. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority 29 Bolton Street London W1Y 7PD

Contents Page

Foreword by Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd, MP, Speaker of the House of Commons


Terms of reference


Membership of the Advisory Group


Introductory note






What we mean by Citizenship



Citizenship: the need and aims



Essential recommendations



The way forward



Learning outcomes for Citizenship Education



Phasing in the statutory Order for Citizenship Education



Active citizenship both inside the school and relating to the community



The teaching of controversial issues



Implications for post-16 learning



A note on assessment



Implications for agencies



Implications for the work of OFSTED



Implications for the work of the TTA



Resourcing Citizenship Education



Recommendations for the terms of reference and the composition of the standing Commission on Citizenship Education



Framework for Citizenship Education: learning outcomes






Guiding principles




The learning process



Teacher assessment of learning



Framework of learning outcomes



Aim and purpose



The strands



Essential elements



Overview of essential elements



Learning outcomes by key stages



Key Stage 1



Key Stage 2



Key Stage 3



Key Stage 4



Suggestions as to how part of the statutory curriculum might be fulfilled in combination with other subjects



How Citizenship learning can contribute to development of Key Skills



Whole-school issues



Guidance on the teaching of controversial issues



A last word


Appendix A Letter from the chairman to the ‘Passport Project’ on the relationship of Personal and Social Education to Citizenship Education


Appendix B New information and communication technologies and Education for Citizenship


Appendix C The consultation process


Appendix D Acknowledgements



Speaker’s House, Westminster, London SW1A 0AA The Speaker

Like my immediate predecessor as Speaker, I have become increasingly concerned that Citizenship as a subject appeared to be diminishing in importance and impact in schools – this despite a number of non-governmental initiatives over a long period of years. This area, in my view, has been a blot on the landscape of public life for too long, with unfortunate consequences for the future of our democratic processes. I therefore welcomed the pledge of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools (November 1997), ‘to strengthen education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools’. More particularly, I welcomed the setting up of an Advisory Group on Citizenship to report and make appropriate recommendations in the context of the forthcoming review of the National Curriculum. I was pleased to be able to accept the suggestion that I should be patron of the Group. The Citizenship Group, under the energetic chairmanship of Professor Bernard Crick and with a former Secretary of State for Education in the last administration among the distinguished membership, has now produced a unanimous final report. I believe this to be a measured document, with a comprehensive set of recommendations geared to a sensible proposed timetable. I congratulate the Group on its work and trust that it will enhance understanding of and participation in our democratic, legal and other civic processes.


Terms of reference On 19 November 1997, following proposals in the education White Paper, Excellence in Schools, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment pledged ‘to strengthen education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools’, and to that end set up this Advisory Group with the following terms of reference: ‘To provide advice on effective education for citizenship in schools – to include the nature and practices of participation in democracy; the duties, responsibilities and rights of individuals as citizens; and the value to individuals and society of community activity.’

The framework document setting out the Group’s terms of reference explained that it would cover: ‘the teaching of civics, participative democracy and citizenship, and may be taken to include some understanding of democratic practices and institutions, including parties, pressure groups and voluntary bodies, and the relationship of formal political activity with civic society in the context of the UK, Europe and the wider element of the way in which expenditure and taxation work, together with a grasp of the underlying economic realities of adult life...’

The framework document also made clear that the Secretary of State expected the main outcomes of the Group’s work to be: ‘a statement of the aims and purposes of citizenship education in schools; a broad framework for what good citizenship education in schools might look like, and how it can be successfully delivered – covering opportunities for teaching about citizenship within and outside the formal curriculum and the development of personal and social skills through projects linking schools and the community, volunteering and the involvement of pupils in the development of school rules and policies.’

Our initial report setting out the aims and purposes of citizenship education in schools was published at the end of March 1998 to meet the timetable of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) for providing advice on the review of the National Curriculum. This final report contains, along with the main section of our initial report, detailed proposals for a framework for citizenship education in schools. The report will be considered by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment with further advice from QCA on the review of the National Curriculum and other related initiatives.


Membership of the Advisory Group Patron: The Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd, MP, Speaker of the House of Commons Chairman: Professor Bernard Crick Members: Elaine Appelbee, Member of the General Synod of the Church of England Lord Baker, CH, former Secretary of State for Education and Home Secretary Tom Bentley, from the think tank, DEMOS Michael Brunson, Political Editor, ITN Heather Daulphin, Director of Post-16 Studies, Hampstead School, London Mavis Grant, Headteacher of Mary Trevelyan Primary School, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Elisabeth Hoodless, CBE, Chief Executive of Community Service Volunteers (CSV) Sir Donald Limon, KCB, representing the Speaker of the House of Commons Jan Newton, Chief Executive of the Citizenship Foundation Dr Alex Porter, former Lecturer in Education (Politics) at the Institute of Education, University of London Usha Prashar, CBE, Chair of the Parole Board Graham Robb, Headteacher of Lode Heath Secondary School, Solihull; appointed HM Chief Inspector for Careers Education, April 1998 Marianne Talbot, Lecturer in Philosophy at Brasenose College, Oxford Sir Stephen Tumim, OBE, former HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in England and Wales Phil Turner, former Assistant Education Officer at the Borough of Redbridge, London (until 2 June 1998) Observers: Scott Harrison, Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) Stephen Harrison, Teacher Training Agency (TTA) Phil Snell, Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA): Liz Craft, Project Manager Chris Jones, Head of National Curriculum Review Division David Kerr, Professional Officer, seconded to QCA from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) The Advisory Group was appointed by the Secretary of State and managed by QCA. This report is published by QCA on behalf of the Advisory Group.


Introductory note We present our final report in three parts. Part One: Introduction, is drawn from our initial report of March 1998. The first three sections of this report have become, with only minor changes of wording, the sections in the first part of the present final report, sections 1, 2 and 3 respectively, entitled Preface, What we mean by Citizenship, and Citizenship: the need and aims. Part Two is our Recommendations, in two sections. Section 4, Essential recommendations, is also drawn from our earlier report. Even after extensive further consultation and representations, we have seen the need to make only minor changes, though during the course of this final report, we make a number of further and important recommendations. In section 5, The way forward, we fulfil what we promised to do in the Next steps section of the initial report; but where this involves considerable detail we have simply set down a heading or the briefest summary with a cross reference to the relevant section in Part Three: Spelling it out. The coloured boxes contain just a few examples, among many others, chosen to illustrate the various kinds of existing practice of citizenship learning beyond the formal curriculum that could develop more widely and generally. They should be read in conjunction with sections 5.3.1. to 5.3.3. We have consulted widely following the publication of our initial report. Appendix C provides details of this consultation process and of the main findings.


Part One

Introduction 1 Preface 1.1

We unanimously advise the Secretary of State that citizenship and the teaching of democracy, construed in a broad sense that we will define, is so important both for schools and the life of the nation that there must be a statutory requirement on schools to ensure that it is part of the entitlement of all pupils. It can no longer sensibly be left as uncoordinated local initiatives which vary greatly in number, content and method. This is an inadequate basis for animating the idea of a common citizenship with democratic values.


To prove effective and lasting this will need more than decisions by the Secretary of State. It will need the confidence of both the general public and the teaching profession. A considerable part of this report is, of necessity, addressed more to that profession than to a general audience, since we set out in Part Three a curriculum framework with proposals for detailed learning outcomes. We also offer guidance on how teaching in other subjects and aspects of the curriculum can both enhance citizenship education and be assisted by it. In addition, we offer some advice on the teaching of controversial issues.


However, we are anxious that the wider public should understand precisely why we think citizenship education should be an entitlement for all pupils in schools and for young people generally even beyond the age of 16. So before offering our detailed suggestions about how citizenship might be taught, we state the need for it, the public benefits that could follow, and offer broad guidelines as to what principles should be followed and what should be the educational aims and learning outcomes, including the importance for citizenship education and schools of positive relations and interaction with communities and community organisations.


Proposals so comprehensive, however much they can draw on existing good practice, need preparation and will have to be implemented over a period of time, not all at once. We have therefore made proposals for a phased, systematic approach to citizenship education. Both because a national approach to citizenship education is novel to this country and because it is a sensitive area, we propose a monitoring body to oversee citizenship education. This body should include representatives of the public and parents as well as teachers and public authorities (see section 5.11).


We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country both nationally and locally: for people to think of themselves as active citizens, willing, able and equipped to have an influence in public life and with the critical capacities to weigh evidence before speaking and acting; to build on and to extend radically to young people the best in existing traditions of community involvement and public service, and to make them individually 7

confident in finding new forms of involvement and action among themselves. There are worrying levels of apathy, ignorance and cynicism about public life. These, unless tackled at every level, could well diminish the hoped-for benefits both of constitutional reform and of the changing nature of the welfare state. To quote from a speech by the Lord Chancellor earlier this year (on which we end this report): ‘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.’ 1.6

Citizenship education is an unfulfilled expectation in a national agenda established by the previous Government in Clause 2 of the first paragraph of the 1988 Education Reform Act. That required a ‘balanced and broadly based curriculum’ which ‘promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils’ and also ‘prepares such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life’. Citizenship education in a parliamentary democracy is also part of preparation for adult life, just as the activity of acting as a citizen, not just as a subject, is part of adult life. Following the 1997 White Paper, Excellence in Schools, we were set the task of advising how to fulfil this expectation.


Citizenship education must be education for citizenship. It is not an end in itself, even if it will involve learning a body of knowledge, as well as the development of skills and values. Such knowledge is as interesting, as intellectually demanding and as capable as any other subject of being taught and assessed at any level. The study of politics and civil life, concerned with both institutions and ideas, began with Aristotle, has continued ever since, and flourishes today in our universities.


In section 2 of this report we discuss What we mean by Citizenship – that in essence it has three strands: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy. A poignant comment by an OFSTED inspector about a school was drawn to our attention: ‘There are few opportunities for pupils to develop an understanding of citizenship, mostly because there is no agreed view of what this entails.’. This is by no means an isolated case.


However, two words of caution are needed: (a) Parents and the public generally may be worried about the possibility of bias and indoctrination in teaching about citizenship. We must recognise that teaching about citizenship necessarily involves discussing controversial issues. After all, open and informed debate is vital for a healthy democracy. This is not confined to citizenship however: controversial issues arise in other areas like History, Geography, English, Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) or Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC). Teachers are aware of the potential problems and are professionally trained to seek for balance, fairness and objectivity. Furthermore, safeguards in education law exist to guard against biased and unbalanced teaching or indoctrination. Our report contains guidance on the discussion of controversial issues which we have drawn up (see section 10) consulting fully


with those involved in PSHE and in the promotion of pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural (SMSC) development. (b) Schools can only do so much. They could do more, and must be helped to do so; we must not ask too little of teachers, but equally we must not ask too much. Pupils’ attitudes to active citizenship are influenced quite as much by values and attitudes in schools as by many factors other than schooling: by family, the immediate environment, the media and the example of those in public life. Sometimes these are positive factors, sometimes not. 1.10

We believe that the establishment of citizenship teaching in schools and community-centred learning and activities will bring benefits to pupils, teachers, schools and society at large. The benefits of citizenship education will be: for pupils

– an entitlement in schools that will empower them to participate in society effectively as active, informed, critical and responsible citizens;

for teachers – advice and guidance in making existing citizenship provision coherent, both in intellectual and curriculum terms, as part of stronger, coordinated approaches to citizenship education in schools; for schools – a firm base to coordinate existing teaching and activities, to relate positively to the local community and to develop effective citizenship education in the curriculum for all pupils; for society


– an active and politically-literate citizenry convinced that they can influence government and community affairs at all levels.

Certainly a citizenship education which encouraged a more interactive role between schools, local communities and youth organisations could help to make local government more democratic, open and responsive.

2 What we mean by Citizenship 2.1

In the political tradition stemming from the Greek city states and the Roman republic, citizenship has meant involvement in public affairs by those who had the rights of citizens: to take part in public debate and, directly or indirectly, in shaping the laws and decisions of a state. In modern times, however, democratic ideas led to constant demands to broaden the franchise from a narrow citizen class of the educated and the property owners, to achieve female emancipation, to lower the voting age, to achieve freedom of the press and to open up the processes of government. We now have the opportunity for a highly educated ‘citizen democracy’.


With the rise of nation states there developed a secondary sense of citizenship: people who, even in autocratic states, had the protection of the laws – such as they were – and the duty of obeying them. In the nineteenth century, for instance, to say that someone was a Russian citizen or an 9

American citizen meant something very different. The ‘good subject’ and the ‘good citizen’ meant different things. In Britain, there was often a problem of perception over this distinction. The very continuity of our history, powers being handed down to Parliament by the Crown in response to gradual pressure from below, has made the very concept of ‘British subject’ and ‘British citizen’ seem much the same to most people. 2.3

Recently the terms ‘good citizen’ and ‘active citizen’ have come back into currency. The report of the Commission on Citizenship, appointed by the then Speaker of the House of Commons, Encouraging Citizenship (1990), did well to adopt as a starting point the understanding of citizenship found in the late T.H. Marshall’s book, Citizenship (1950). He saw three elements: the civil, the political and the social. Discussing the first element, the commission rightly put greater stress on the reciprocity between rights and duties; and, more than Marshall, on welfare being not just provision by the state but also what people can do for each other in voluntary groups and organisations, whether local or national. Both of these it saw as a duty it called ‘active citizenship’, but it had less to say about Marshall’s second element. Perhaps it took political citizenship for granted (which, historically, it has never been safe to do). Civic spirit, citizens’ charters and voluntary activity in the community are of crucial importance, but individuals must be helped and prepared to shape the terms of such engagements by political understanding and action.


Respect for the rule of law is a necessary condition for any kind of social order and a necessary component of education. In a parliamentary democracy, however, education must also help future citizens distinguish between law and justice. Such a distinction marked the very beginning of political thought in ancient Athens. Citizens must be equipped with the political skills needed to change laws in a peaceful and responsible manner.


We firmly believe that volunteering and community involvement are necessary conditions of civil society and democracy. Preparation for these, at the very least, should be an explicit part of education. This is especially important at a time when government is attempting a shift of emphasis between, on the one hand, state welfare provision and responsibility and, on the other, community and individual responsibility. We say only that while volunteering and voluntary service are necessary conditions for full citizenship in a democracy, they are not sufficient conditions. Local communities are, indeed, not isolated from the state and public policy.


This has recently been well stated by Professor David Hargreaves in a DEMOS pamphlet, The Mosaic of Learning: ‘Civic education is about the civic virtues and decent behaviour that adults wish to see in young people. But it is also more than this. Since Aristotle it has been accepted as an inherently political concept that raises questions about the sort of society we live in, how it has come to take its present form, the strengths and weaknesses of current political structures, and how improvements might be made.... Active citizens are as political as they are moral; moral sensibility derives in part from political understanding; political apathy spawns moral apathy.’



So a working definition must be wide, without being all things to everyone, but specifically must identify and relate all three of Marshall’s dimensions, not to call any one of them on its own true ‘active citizenship’. Active citizenship must be an habitual interaction between all three. A submission from the Citizenship Foundation in response to the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, states this point well: ‘We believe that citizenship has a clear conceptual core which relates to the induction of young people into the legal, moral and political arena of public life. It introduces pupils to society and its constituent elements, and shows how they, as individuals, relate to the whole. Besides understanding, citizenship education should foster respect for law, justice, democracy and nurture common good at the same time as encouraging independence of thought. It should develop skills of reflection, enquiry and debate.’


While we say that voluntary and community activity cannot be the full meaning of active citizenship, we also recognise that freedom and full citizenship in the political arena itself depends on a society with a rich variety of non-political associations and voluntary groups – what some have called civil society. This was the great teaching of Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill. A comparative survey of Britain and the United States in 1996 by Professor Ivor Crewe and others concludes: ‘There is now ample evidence that electoral turn-out, attention to political and public issues in the media, involvement in election campaigns and demonstrations are all strongly and consistently related to motivations that are reinforced through participation in informal groups and voluntary associations.’ (See also section 3.4).


So what some once argued for, ‘political education and political literacy’ (the title of the influential Hansard Society Report of 1978), might now seem too narrow a term to catch our meaning compared to ‘citizenship education’. This meaning was well reflected in the sentence from the framework document that we quote at the head of this report.


So what do we mean by ‘effective education for citizenship’? We mean three things, related to each other, mutually dependent on each other, but each needing a somewhat different place and treatment in the curriculum: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy.


(a) Firstly, children learning from the very beginning self-confidence and socially and morally responsible behaviour both in and beyond the classroom, both towards those in authority and towards each other. This learning should be developed, not only in but also beyond school, whenever and wherever children work or play in groups or participate in the affairs of their communities. Some may think this aspect of citizenship hardly needs mentioning; but we believe it to be near the heart of the matter. Here guidance on moral values and personal development are essential preconditions of citizenship. Some might regard the whole of primary school education as pre-citizenship, certainly pre-political; but this is mistaken. Children are already forming through learning and discussion, concepts of fairness, and attitudes to the law, to rules, to decision-making, to authority, to their local environment and social responsibility etc. They are also picking


up, whether from school, home or elsewhere, some knowledge of whether they are living in a democracy or not, of what social problems affect them and even what the different pressure groups or parties have to say about them. All this can be encouraged, guided and built upon.

Windsor County Primary School, Toxteth, Liverpool, is in one of the most socially deprived parts of inner-city Toxteth, yet for several years there have been no exclusions, something that the headteacher puts down to the creation of the pupil council. The council held a special meeting for the pupils to discuss what they wanted to say to others about their pupil council. Here is part of it: ‘Having a pupil council ... has transformed our school by the responsible decisions that it has taken. We have appeared on television and we have helped to train other schools. In our school, we have organised events and fund raising activities to buy equipment to improve our playtimes. The number of badly behaved pupils has dropped... Being a councillor is a lot of responsibility. Listening and advising can be a very hard job. Pupils respect the councillors and know they are good friends to everyone. Bullying has diminished in our school because councillors look, listen and support all children... We believe that our pupil council has made our school a better place – a place where children’s opinions count. We believe every school should have a pupils’ council.’

(b) Secondly, learning about and becoming helpfully involved in the life and concerns of their communities, including learning through community involvement and service to the community. This, of course, like the other two branches of citizenship, is by no means limited to children’s time in school. Even if pupils and adults perceive many of the voluntary groups as non-political, the clearer meaning is probably to say ‘non-partisan’: for voluntary bodies when exercising persuasion, interacting with public authorities, publicising, fund-raising, recruiting members and then trying to activate (or placate) them, all such bodies are plainly using and needing political skills.

The John Bentley School, Calne, Wiltshire, has a ‘Young Enterprise’ scheme, community service learning, work experience and an active school council. The school council has developed a formal link with the town council. As the only secondary school in the town, it provides all 16 councillors for the Calne Young Peoples’ Town Council (YPTC). The YPTC liaises closely with the school council and meets monthly in the council chamber at the town hall. YPTC members sit on a wide range of organisations in the town, representing the views of young people, including the Civic Society, the Crime Prevention Panel and the town council’s amenities committee. The YPTC, in combination with the school council, has obtained many improvements for young people in the town and received grants such as that from Rural Action for environmental work. The YPTC has recently worked on a ‘safe routes to school’ project.


(c) Thirdly, pupils learning about and how to make themselves effective in public life through knowledge, skills and values – what can be called ‘political literacy’, seeking for a term that is wider than political knowledge alone. The term ‘public life’ is used in its broadest sense to encompass realistic knowledge of and preparation for conflict resolution and decision-making related to the main economic and social problems of the day, including each individual’s expectations of and preparations for the world of employment, and discussion of the allocation of public resources and the rationale of taxation. Such preparations are needed whether these problems occur in locally, nationally or internationally concerned organisations or at any level of society from formal political institutions to informal groups, both at local or national level.

The Junior Citizenship Programme has been developed by the Institute of Citizenship Studies through a pilot with a number of primary schools in Halton in the north-west. The programme seeks to help Year 6 pupils understand the concept of citizenship, particularly what it is to be a citizen and the principles involved, through their everyday experiences of the world around them. Pupils are encouraged to be active, to speak out about issues and to develop their ideas and attitudes. The programme is supported by teachers’ notes and pupil topic sheets, all based on the concept of community: from the school community to the local community, including understanding of the work of Halton Borough Council, radiating out to the national and European dimensions. Halton’s twinning links with Leiria in Portugal, Marzahn in Germany and Usti nad Labem in the Czech Republic are used. This local focus has proved particularly popular with pupils, as have meetings with other schools. The Institute hopes to make the programme more widely available to primary schools in the coming years.


So our understanding of citizenship education in a parliamentary democracy finds three heads on one body: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy. ‘Responsibility’ is an essential political as well as moral virtue, for it implies (a) care for others; (b) premeditation and calculation about what effect actions are likely to have on others; and (c) understanding and care for the consequences.

3 Citizenship: the need and aims 3.1

We state a case for citizenship education being a vital and distinct statutory part of the curriculum, an entitlement for all pupils in its own right. We recognise that citizenship education can be enhanced by and can make significant contributions to – as well as draw upon – other subjects and aspects of the curriculum. We stress, however, that citizenship education is education for citizenship, behaving and acting as a citizen, therefore it is not just knowledge of citizenship and civic society; it also implies developing values, skills and understanding.



We also recognise that such an education is linked to two other developments in schools and depends on their effectiveness, especially in the early stages of children’s development. Firstly, the promotion of Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE); and, secondly, new developments of a kind being piloted by QCA in a whole-school approach to the promotion of pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC). All such work has some social and community entailments. Later we suggest which values are more specific to democratic politics, drawing on, though not restricted by, the values in the context of society, identified by the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community.


In September 1997, a Citizenship 2000 group was formed, following initial discussions by representatives of the Citizenship Foundation, the Association for the Teaching of the Social Sciences (ATSS), the Secondary Heads Association (SHA), and the Hansard Society. An agreed statement pointed to ‘rapidly changing relationships between the individual and government; the decline in traditional forms of civic cohesion; the new political context of Britain in Europe; and rapid social, economic and technological change in a global context’. So it concluded: ‘Citizenship education in schools and colleges is too important to be left to chance; recent research has underlined the weakness of civic discourse in this country. Citizenship education is urgently needed to address this historic deficit if we are to avoid a further decline in the quality of our public life and if we are to prepare all young people for informed participation, not only in a more open United Kingdom, but also in Europe and the wider world, as we move into the next century. This will not happen unless there is a firm political and professional commitment to education for citizenship.’



Comparative research by Professor Ivor Crewe and others between similar communities in Britain and the United States (1996) revealed that nearly 80 per cent of British pupils say that out of school they engage in very little discussion at all of public issues, including issues important in their own communities. Many reported strong social norms ‘never to talk about religion or politics’. Those who had such an opportunity at school, however, were more likely to talk at home or in the community. ‘Talk’ or discourse is obviously fundamental to active citizenship. When the British sample was asked to give examples of good citizenship only 10 per cent mentioned voting or exercising political rights, whereas 70 per cent ‘talked about civic engagement in some form – for example, working in local voluntary associations, doing something beneficial in the local community’.


However, the research found that ‘single issue’ politics figured more largely; ‘green’ concerns and environmental issues generally attract attention and support. Perhaps there is some ‘displacement effect’ at work here: political scientists have suggested for some time that young people, when feeling that ‘something ought to be done about it’, are less likely than the post-war generation to join political parties, are more likely to join a particular pressure group. Professor Crewe found that more young people stand up for animal rights than for civil or human rights. Even so, here are positive

connections between the civil and the political in the minds of young people that we will seek to show could be developed to mutual benefit both by schools and voluntary bodies. 3.5

The British Election Study reports that 25 per cent of the 18–24 age group said they would not vote in the 1992 general election, the highest abstention rate among all age groups. In the 1997 general election, the reported figure had risen to 32 per cent abstention, again the highest among all age groups, though MORI put it at 43 per cent. This is compared to 71 per cent actual turn-out in the total electorate (the lowest in the post-war period). There is general acceptance that the actual abstention rate among the 18–24 age group in 1997 will have been greater than that reported. However, a research study by the Trust for the Study of Adolescence in 1997 found that a majority of its sample had been involved in some form of political or community action the previous year. A MORI survey for the News of the World in March 1997 on first-time voters found that 28 per cent said they would not vote or were unlikely to, 55 per cent said that they were not interested or could not be bothered, 17 per cent said that it would not make any difference, and 10 per cent said they did not trust any politicians.


Such are some measures of alienation and cynicism. Truancy, vandalism, random violence, premeditated crime and habitual drug-taking can be other indicators of youth alienation, even if historical comparisons are difficult; and the spurts, fits and fashions of vivid media coverage can make it difficult to judge how much is real increase and how much is justifiable public intolerance of things once taken more or less for granted.


A Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR) survey, commissioned in 1996 by Barnardo’s, revealed broadly similar figures. For instance, only 21 per cent of young people claimed to ‘support’ a political party and 55 per cent said they never read a newspaper. However, Barnardo’s cautiously commented that: ‘The survey data are ambiguous. Although young people may not read newspapers they do seem one way or another to have secured some basic but important political facts. Presented with a series of propositions in quiz format, the sample answered pretty accurately, identifying the Prime Minister, the President of the USA and getting some constitutional facts broadly right. Eighty per cent agreed that the Tory Party had won the last election and 76 per cent agreed that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. That there are separate elections for the UK and European Parliaments was known by 65 per cent. These may be simple propositions, but the accuracy of the response suggests basic information does get ingested, whatever the source.’

However, we would comment that such a level of knowledge is so basic that well-taught youngsters in primary school can have it, and often do – and much more – by the age of eight or nine; but others, leaving secondary school, are apparently no better than that. For example, pupils by the age of eleven should know what Parliament stands for and something of how it works and what are its powers. 15


A DEMOS pamphlet by Helen Wilkinson and Geoff Mulgan, Freedom’s Children: work, relationships and politics for 18–34 year olds in Britain today (1995), presented evidence of ignorance and – as it were – ‘could-notcare-less’ attitudes, leading them to state a powerful case that there should be a legal obligation to teach civic education alongside personal and social education and for some central responsibility for civic and political education, as in Australia and Canada. (They could also have cited all other countries in the EU.) Over the whole population, the authors note that disrespect for the way Parliament works doubled in four years after 1991, and that trust in society’s core institutions has been falling steadily, leaving only minority support for the way that national government (15 per cent) and local government (25 per cent) works. About a third of young people take pride in being outside and against the mainstream, identifying only with their own sub-cultures. The authors argue that ‘the potentially explosive alienation we have uncovered requires a different approach to politics – new style of leadership, new languages and new mechanisms’. Their conclusion has worrying implications for the future of democracy in this country: ‘The overwhelming story emerging from our research, both quantitative and qualitative, is of an historic political disconnection. In effect, an entire generation has opted out of party politics.’



Another view, however, is found in a comparison of teenage and adult attitudes to politics based on British Social Attitudes, No 12 (SCPR), 1995–96. Roger Jowell and Alison Park presented these findings in a lecture in December 1997 organised by the Citizenship Foundation, entitled ‘Young People, Politics and Citizenship – a disengaged generation?’. They suggested that negative attitudes, ignorance and low voting turn-out among the younger generation (18–24 year olds) were only marginally worse than the next adult cohort, and that the figures improved towards middle age, only dropping off again in old age. So they questioned whether teenage and younger generation alienation was the kind of ‘historic political disconnection’ of the DEMOS pamphlet, or perhaps a normal phenomenon of the life cycle. Ignorance was considerable, as was distrust of government and politicians, but the authors pointed out that it was ‘not surprising, perhaps’ that 12–18 year olds were even less interested and knowledgeable about politics than were 18–24 year-olds; but that as people got older, concerned with taxes, mortgages and family, they began to inform themselves better and show more concern for public policy.


Perhaps we need to make only two comments on this complex question: firstly, that the truth could well be somewhere between the historic shift argument and that things are much as ever they were; and secondly that even accepting Jowell and Park’s suggestion that things may not be getting dramatically worse, they are inexcusably and damagingly bad, and could and should be remedied.


Schools should have a coherent and sequential programme of citizenship education. Yet in very few schools in England is this the case. A report by David Kerr of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER),

Citizenship Education Revisited, completed in December 1997 (part of the first stage of an international study of civic education in 27 countries), does point to most schools in England claiming – when asked – to have some form of citizenship education, by different names and in different forms and in very varying quantity; and, we suspect, of varying quality, since there are no national standards or targets by which it can be assessed. When the 173 schools in the sample were asked what were the main obstacles or problems faced in dealing with citizenship education, 79 per cent said pressure on the timetable, 51 per cent said lack of funding for resources, 38 per cent said lack of an agreed definition of what it was, 35 per cent said lack of staff expertise, 31 per cent said lack of staff commitment to or confidence in teaching, 28 per cent said lack of suitable resource materials, and 27 per cent said lack of national advice and guidance. There is a lot to build on, but it is neither enough nor a coherent basis for an education for a common citizenship. 3.12

There has been a small but important pointer recently to show how values can modify behaviour when mediated through a good teaching programme. The Home Office in 1990 financed a pilot study into teaching about drug abuse, in three inner-London primary schools, called ‘Project Charlie’. The results were monitored six years later and a report published in November 1997. The findings showed a significantly lower level of experimentation with both tobacco and illegal drugs, and greater resistance to peer pressure, in the children who had been taught in the programme compared to schoolmates who had not.


There are less tangible but wider social questions that constitute a broader aim for citizenship education. The Citizenship Foundation put the case to the National Commission on Education of 1992 in terms of: ‘the increasingly complex nature of our society, the greater cultural diversity and the apparent loss of a value consensus, combined with the collapse of traditional support mechanisms such as extended families...’. ‘Cultural diversity’ raises the issue of national identity.


Responding to these worries, a main aim for the whole community should be to find or restore a sense of common citizenship, including a national identity that is secure enough to find a place for the plurality of nations, cultures, ethnic identities and religions long found in the United Kingdom. Citizenship education creates common ground between different ethnic and religious identities.


The fourth national survey, Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage (Policy Studies Institute, 1997), recommended that ‘an explicit idea of multi-cultural citizenship needs to be formulated for Britain’ and that ‘a more plural approach to racial disadvantage requires forms of citizenship which are sensitive to ethnic diversity and offer respect both to individuals and to the social groups to which they feel they belong’.


Majorities must respect, understand and tolerate minorities and minorities must learn and respect the laws, codes and conventions as much as the


majority – not merely because it is useful to do so, but because this process helps foster common citizenship. This gives a special importance to citizenship education, for these matters of national identity in a pluralist society are complex and should never be taken for granted. We all need to learn more about each other. This should entail learning not only about the United Kingdom – including all four of its component parts – but also about the European, Commonwealth and global dimensions of citizenship, with due regard being given to the homelands of our minority communities and to the main countries of British emigration. 3.17

Some of the replies from organisations to the Secretary of State’s call for responses to the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, state the general aims very well and point towards our conclusions. First however, a word on the responses: there were only 216 responses among the 8,000 received which expressed views on what programmes of citizenship in schools should cover (despite – as David Kerr’s NFER national survey showed – most schools professing to be doing something). This low response is perhaps not surprising since citizenship was only one among many new initiatives and despite its nominal status as a cross-curricular theme, rarely commented on in OFSTED reports; so not something that schools are judged by. However, all but two of the responses were favourable, but (as also reported in David Kerr’s national survey) there was no clear consensus on aims and purposes, or to be blunt, on what it was.


However, a summary for the advisory group from the DfEE said this of the 216 responses: ‘Although the responses to the citizenship question are relatively small in number they contain some useful messages. They do not provide a clear consensus on aims and purposes or a conceptual framework for education for citizenship, but that is not surprising since they were not asked to comment specifically on these matters. Perhaps the clearest messages to emerge are that there is support from a range of interests for developing education for citizenship and raising its status, though some concern that there is insufficient time in the curriculum to accommodate it at present; that most see it as involving experiential learning as well as academic learning; and that many see a commonality of approach with Personal, Social and Health Education.’

We acknowledge that there may be considerable commonality of values and approach or method, especially in primary schools – but we will differ as to content as pupils progress from primary to secondary school – here these must include explicit knowledge of social and political institutions and processes. Citizenship education is important and distinct enough to warrant a separate specification within the national framework. 3.19


The British Youth Council (BYC) represents nearly one hundred youth organisations with a nominal membership of some 3 million young people aged between 18 and 25. Their submission to us was so robust and well considered that it is worth quoting in full – so well does it sum up the common ground of many submissions we have received and what we hope to achieve by our recommendations:

‘The curriculum should address issues such as democracy, community, society and citizenship. It should look at what representative democracy is, how it evolved, what it means and what its advantages and disadvantages are. It should also look at other political systems around the world and other representative democracies. The curriculum should also emphasise the importance of citizenship at a global level and show how people can be exploited when they don’t understand citizenship. It should consider the responsibility of belonging to society – the rights and responsibilities of citizens. It should look at children and young people’s rights and responsibilities as citizens, and how these change as they grow older. It should also look at the law and the justice system and how it relates to their rights and responsibilities. The curriculum should enable children and young people to develop an awareness of community and cultural diversity. It should help them see where and how they fit into the community. It should enable them to understand their community, its history, what part it has played in national life etc. It should also enable them to gain an understanding of the diversity of community and society and an awareness of equal opportunities issues, national identity and cultural differences. In addition, the curriculum should show how ordinary citizens have been the catalysts for change and improvement at a local, national and international level. The curriculum should consider the factors that lead to exclusion from society, such as bullying, colour and other forms of “difference”. It should make students aware of the difficulties such exclusion can have on the individual and society and of the reasons why some people “opt out” of the moral social set-up. In looking at these areas, the curriculum should enable children and young people to explore and understand key questions, moral problems and issues that concern society. The curriculum should also cover practical skills that enable young people to participate effectively in public life and prepare them to be full citizens. It should enable children and young people to develop discussion, communication and teamwork skills. It should help them learn to argue cogently and effectively, negotiate successfully and co-operate with others. It should also enable them to think for themselves, solve problems and make decisions effectively. These practical skills should be backed up by mechanisms that enable children and young people to practise them. We strongly believe that schools should, where practicable, establish Schools Councils. Schools Councils provide practical first-hand experience of decision-making and democratic processes. They enable children and young people to participate effectively in schools and debate and address issues of concern to them and their school.’

All that is lacking in this statement by the BYC is stress on volunteering and learning from and in the local community, and consideration of economic realities, notably taxation. These it plainly had taken for granted, since most of its constituent organisations are heavily committed to volunteering and community work. A philosopher once said that we often forget to state our major presuppositions. 19


However, there was an unexpected kick in the tail of its submission that reflects on the quotation in section 3.18 above and our own comment on it regarding the distinct, if at some points, overlapping spheres of PSHE and citizenship: ‘Finally, we believe that it is important to set out areas that the [citizenship] curriculum should not cover, or at least not be dominated or distracted by. It would be tempting to allow citizenship education to become simply issues based on moral education, revolving around key concepts such as drugs, health education, housing and homelessness, careers development and employability etc. We believe that the most important issue facing young people as citizens is their lack of knowledge about society, its democratic process and their actual rights and responsibilities as citizens. We believe that many pressure groups will be keen to see the curriculum dominated by these key issues. We believe there will be room to address these issues in the broader PSHE education, and that citizenship education must clearly enable children to understand their duties as citizens and more importantly how the world in which they are a citizen actually works.’


Plainly the BYC is not saying that the young people it represents did not welcome discussion of the problems it mentions; but it is saying that they feel left up in the air without the teaching of political literacy that could empower them in adult life to have some effect on these problems. To tackle social issues in school problem by problem can be beneficial, when done in some generally acceptable and practical moral framework. Even so, it would not add up to an understanding of politics. For politics is the general process by which differences of values and interests are compromised or mediated through institutions in the general interest. The BYC’s reservation is a good warning against conflating or confusing PSHE (or other forms of values education) and citizenship education, even if some of the topics it mentions could be discussed under either heading, as schools may choose.


A submission to us from the Hansard Society supports the above position, and states the same general purpose of education for citizenship as the BYC and ourselves, but in somewhat more traditional language: ‘Programmes should be established to promote political discourse and understanding, as well as encouraging young people to engage in the political process. Further, they should encourage tolerance and respect for individuals and their property, irrespective of a person’s gender, race, culture or religion. They must also encourage young people to behave honourably and with integrity, as well as promote respect for the rule of law. Young people must be encouraged to develop leadership and team skills in order to promote self-discipline and self-motivation. They should be encouraged to take pride in themselves and the communities to which they belong, as well as to see themselves as citizens of the world.’



Finally, as for aims we would draw attention to one last aspect of the responses to the White Paper. Some respondents suggested particular models. Among them the Citizenship Foundation advocated a model for citizenship teaching in which ‘civic, social and political education based around the three key concepts of fairness, rights and responsibilities would have its own slot in

Key Stages 3 and 4 and dedicated regular sessions in Key Stages 1 and 2’, with an allocation of five per cent of curriculum time. The Hansard Society also favoured such a model and the same entitlement of time. On the other hand, the model of learning through service was favoured by CSV (Community Service Volunteers) and by schools with existing programmes of that kind. The Pathways to Adult and Working Life project received support from TECs (Training and Enterprise Councils), business and business education responses. These we have drawn upon in our proposals for a curriculum framework and learning outcomes across key stages. (See section 6).


Part One Two

Recommendations 4 Essential recommendations We unanimously recommend that:



citizenship education be a statutory entitlement in the curriculum and that all schools should be required to show they are fulfilling the obligation that this places upon them;


the statutory entitlement is established by setting out specific learning outcomes for each key stage, rather than detailed programmes of study. We advise substituting for the present input and output model of the existing National Curriculum subjects, an output model alone based on tightly defined learning outcomes. This offers flexibility to schools in relation to local conditions and opportunities, and allows the possibility of different approaches to citizenship education, involving differing subject combinations and aspects of the curriculum based on existing good practice in each school;


the learning outcomes should be tightly enough defined so that standards and objectivity can be inspected by OFSTED. This approach by learning outcomes would also avoid objections that a single way of teaching about politics is being imposed, and lessen the dangers of subsequent ministerial interventions on precise content;


there should be a DfEE Order setting up the entitlement and this shall declare that citizenship education in schools and colleges is to include the knowledge, skills and values relevant to the nature and practices of participative democracy; the duties, responsibilities, rights and development of pupils into citizens; and the value to individuals, schools and society of involvement in the local and wider community. This will cover an understanding of democratic practices and institutions both local and national, including the work of parliaments, parties, pressure groups and voluntary bodies, and the relationship of formal political activity to civil society in the context of the United Kingdom and Europe; and an awareness of world affairs and global issues. A basic understanding is required of how taxation and expenditure work together, and of the economic realities of adult life;


the learning outcomes should be based on what should take no more than five per cent of curriculum time across the key stages. This time can be distributed as blocks, modules, a part of existing tutorial time or general studies time, or as a regular weekly period. These are all matters for schools themselves to decide;


schools consider combining elements of citizenship education with other subjects (combinations of citizenship and history have obvious educational merit). This will encourage flexibility in schools, so long as the statutory

requirement to deliver citizenship education as an entitlement for all pupils is met. (See section 7 for detailed recommendations); 4.7

schools consider the relation of citizenship education to whole school issues including school ethos, organisation and structures. This will be of particular help to schools in relation to combinations with Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), pupils’ development of key skills and the promotion of pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC);


although beyond the age of 16 there is no National Curriculum, the Secretary of State should consider how the proposed entitlement to citizenship education should continue for all students involved in post-16 education and training regardless of their course of study, vocational or academic. (See section 5.5 for detailed recommendations);


the introduction and implementation of the learning outcomes should be phased in over a number of years. So much cannot be achieved at once. Time for preparation is also needed for initial and in-service training, the provision of new and revised materials, and to minimise disruption for schools in existing curriculum arrangements. (See section 5.2 for detailed recommendations);


everyone directly involved in the education of our children – politicians and civil servants; community representatives; faith groups; school inspectors and governors; teacher trainers and teachers themselves; parents and indeed pupils – be given a clear statement of what is meant by citizenship education and their central role in it. This is to make clear that the entitlement for citizenship education should include the learning of the skills, values, attitudes, understanding and knowledge needed for both community involvement and preparation for involvement as citizens of our parliamentary democracy and the wider political world. Experiential learning, discussion of social and political issues as well as formal, taught learning should be part of this process, both inside and outside the school as appropriate;


public bodies, at local and national level, consider how best to meet their responsibility to citizenship education. Much more should be done by public bodies, such as the two Houses of Parliament and local authorities, to improve or establish arrangements which assist pupils in their citizenship learning, particularly in providing facilities for visits. We urge these bodies to give this matter early attention. They must recognise the influence of the example they set in public life, particularly in their dealings with young people, on pupil’s attitudes to citizenship education and learning;


the implications of our recommendations and other proposed initiatives for the management of teaching time at each key stage, should be given careful attention by QCA in the context of its overall advice on the review of the National Curriculum. We recognise that our recommendations may cause worries among teachers about the commitment of time for a new area of study in the school curriculum. Whilst issues of the broader curriculum lie outside the remit of the group, we would want to stress that our


recommendations should not be at the expense of other subjects nor lead to any narrowing of the curriculum; 4.13

because of the novelty of the venture and its political sensitivity, there should be a standing Commission on Citizenship Education to monitor its progress and when necessary to recommend amendments to the entitlements, learning outcomes, methods of inspection and teacher training, as appropriate. This Commission should be appointed by the Secretary of State, with a quasi-autonomous relationship to both DfEE and QCA. Its composition should be wider than ourselves, to include cross-party representation. (See section 5.11 for detailed recommendations).

5 The way forward We now set out in a very practical way what we believe needs to happen to ensure that our essential recommendations lead to the successful delivery of effective citizenship education in schools.



Learning outcomes for Citizenship Education


In section 4.2 above, we recommend that the statutory entitlement to citizenship education in the curriculum should be established by setting out specific learning outcomes for each key stage. These detailed learning outcomes are set out fully in section 6 as part of a curriculum framework for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools.


A word about how this framework and these learning outcomes were drawn up. We established two sub-groups, one for primary (Key Stages 1 and 2) and one for secondary (Key Stages 3 and 4) of experienced teachers and practitioners, under the chairmanship of David Kerr, our Professional Officer (see Appendix D for details of membership). These sub-groups met jointly in the first instance, taking as their starting-point past initiatives such as Curriculum Guidance 8: Education for Citizenship and the Speaker’s Commission report, Encouraging Citizenship, several models or frameworks for citizenship education from other countries, notably the Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Australia, as well as ongoing developments in LEAs and schools supported by a number of citizenship bodies and community-based organisations. The sub-groups drew on and adapted some content, ideas and language from all these sources to construct a framework for citizenship education suitable to English conditions. The two groups then used this framework as a common basis to draw up the learning outcomes for the four key stages. These learning outcomes have been communicated to the National Advisory Group on Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), the National Advisory Committee on Creativity and Cultural Education, the Development Awareness Working Group, the Sustainable Development Panel and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Passport Project.


Phasing in the statutory Order for Citizenship Education.


Our initial report put the case for a phasing in of the proposed new Order over time. We now recommend that the statutory citizenship Order which we

proposed in section 4.4, stating the general aims of education for citizenship and democracy, should be of immediate effect when the other revisions to the National Curriculum come into force to begin in September 2000; but that the specific learning outcomes recommended in section 4.2 and set out in section 6 may be phased in as follows. 5.2.2

Schools and colleges should begin teaching in September 2000 Citizenship courses in the general spirit and intention of the Order set out in section 4.4, in a manner best suited to their existing resources and with whatever combinations with other subjects seem appropriate (see our advice in section 7), moving towards the allocation of time implied in sections 4.5 and 4.6.


For Key Stage 1, the new requirements including the learning outcomes would come into force in 2001 and for Key Stage 2, in 2002. We believe that there is so much overlap with existing programmes in primary schools, especially with PSE or PSHE, that the additional matter in Key Stage 2 can be accommodated relatively easily.


For Key Stage 3, the new requirements would come into force in 2002 and for Key Stage 4, in 2004. Our intention is to give schools time (in terms of both resources and training) to work towards the full implementation of this report’s recommendations.


From September 2000, schools and colleges should be able to demonstrate how they are using resources and time to implement a coherent programme of citizenship education. This programme should reflect the themes and priorities set out in this report, involving a gradual familiarisation with the learning outcomes. The programme should be designed in a manner best suited to existing resources, and with whatever combination of other subjects seems appropriate.


Active citizenship both inside the school and relating to the community


‘Active citizenship’ is our aim throughout. Part One of this report states the case for positive relationships with the local community, local and national voluntary bodies, whether concerned with local, national or international affairs. Also it is obvious that all formal preparation for citizenship in adult life can be helped or hindered by the ethos and organisation of a school, whether pupils are given opportunities for exercising responsibilities and initiatives or not; and also whether they are consulted realistically on matters where their opinions can prove relevant both to the efficient running of a school and to their general motivation for learning. In some schools these are already common practices, while in others absent or only occasional.


We also discussed whether service learning or community involvement initiated by schools should be part of a new statutory Order for citizenship education, and whether proposals for school organisation should be included; for example, that school councils should be compulsory. However, we have concluded not to ask for their inclusion in a statutory Order at this time, mainly for fear of overburdening schools and teachers. But this question should be kept under review by the Commission on Citizenship


Education that we recommend in section 4.13. However, the positive presence of these two dimensions should be a proper object of comment both by OFSTED inspectors and the LEA on the performance of a school as a whole, an added dimension pointing to a positive relationship between a school and the surrounding community. We aim to plant a seed that will grow. Therefore we have illustrated this report with some examples of effective practice both inside and outside the school. 5.3.3

We believe that citizenship education will be strengthened and made more effective where there is an active contribution from the local community and where public bodies, including local councillors, MPs and MEPs, voluntary bodies and community agencies such as the police and faith groups, are involved in citizenship learning and activities.


It was suggested to us late in the consultation process that Community Forums be set up in each locality to assist such involvement. The forums would include all those with an interest in citizenship education: community leaders, elected representatives, faith groups, the police, teachers, parents and governors, among others, as well as young people. Their role and responsibilities might include the sharing of experiences and areas of expertise; the provision of opportunities for pupils to meet representatives and participate in service learning and community involvement, and the coordination and dissemination of materials. We recommend that further consideration be given to the establishment of such Community Forums and to a clearer definition of their role and responsibilities in citizenship education.


Pupils should be encouraged to record learning from community activity and service learning through the National Record of Achievement (NRA) process. Pupils can then make use of this as evidence in the review and planning of their learning and in careers guidance.


We draw attention to the relevance of our report to a number of initiatives including the Millennium Volunteers, National Framework for Pupils’ Motivation, National Framework for Study Support, Education Action Zones, School Effectiveness Programmes and Social Exclusion Programmes. We recognise that as these initiatives develop they will interact with citizenship teaching and learning.

At Bordesley Green Primary School, Birmingham, a Year 3 class decided to write to the city council to complain about the state of their local park, incongruously named the Ideal Park. They pointed out the litter, graffiti, dog mess and broken play equipment and suggested how they would like to help to put it right. The city council and the parks department met with the class and before long both the pupils and council were working together to improve the park dramatically. As a result a new residents’ association was set up which took on regular responsibility for monitoring and helping to care for the park.



The teaching of controversial issues


In section 1.9, we state that our report contains some guidance on the discussion of controversial issues. This guidance is set out in section 10. The guidance was drawn up by a sub-group, under the chairmanship of Dr Alex Porter, who has a long-standing interest and invaluable expertise in this area, and included Marianne Talbot who has been overseeing the QCA pilot work in the promotion of pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (SMSC). This guidance has been communicated to the National Advisory Group on Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation Passport Project.


Implications for post-16 learning


The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) brief of April 1998, Greater Expectations: Priorities for the Future Curriculum, sees ‘four apparently discrete elements of personal development that need to be integrated in the curriculum: Citizenship, Values and Attitudes, Key Skills, and Career Planning. They recommend that ‘there should be a new subject (or halfsubject) covering all aspects of citizenship...understanding of democracy, economic and industrial understanding, personal and social education and (in Key Stages 3 and 4) formal careers education and guidance’. Later they shrewdly comment that ‘there must be a continuum of learning between the National Curriculum and the National Qualifications Framework’ and that ‘the maps pre-14 and post-16 do not join up properly...’.


The Trades Union Congress (TUC) supports strongly our recommendation that citizenship be a statutory requirement, with the important caveat that their educational affiliates are ‘somewhat wary of extra requirements being imposed on teachers before the review of the National Curriculum is completed’ – a view with which we wholly concur. They too see the need for such teaching to continue after sixteen.


Preparation for citizenship clearly cannot end at age sixteen just as young people begin to have more access to the opportunities, rights and responsibilities of adult citizenship amid the world of work. The need for an exploration of the ideas and practices of citizenship is evident whether young people are in education or in work-based training. We recognise the great potential value offered by the variety of education and training bodies as well as the Youth Service, voluntary organisations and others in contributing to this learning, building on and from the platform of the schools curriculum we propose.


Further education (FE) colleges do not have a duty to provide PSHE or SMSC. Almost all colleges, however, offer a range of opportunities for students beyond their main course of study or training; these are known as ‘enrichment activities’. In March 1996, the Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) published a report entitled Enrichment of the Curriculum that identified a strong commitment to such activities, some of which, they said, might be described as ‘citizenship’. However, the report noted that these


aims and activities were not always clearly defined, and generally were intended for young people, aged 16–19, rather than for older students as well. We believe that the establishment of a framework and specific learning outcomes for citizenship education in schools should lead colleges to develop a coherent programme of enrichment activities. 5.5.5

It would be wholly wrong if there was a citizenship requirement for further education courses, but not for students taking GCSE and A level courses in school. The need is plainly not met by the relatively small number at present taking politics, government or sociology courses which, in any case are narrower in scope than our concept of citizenship, embracing as it does both community relations and political literacy – even if teachers of these subjects may in the future have an important, wider role to play in teaching citizenship throughout the school and in supporting in-service training.


There could be a requirement for citizenship to continue to be taught with a clear time allocation, such as that for the many year 12 and 13 students who already receive some form of General Studies teaching; or there could be a Certificate of Citizenship established with a common core, but then provision for relating the rest of the content to the particular course to be pursued whether vocational or academic.


Since post-16 education has not fallen within our remit, we have not made detailed recommendations in this area. In any case, we anticipate that a requirement up to 16 will of itself create a considerable demand for new or revised examinations that build upon citizenship; but of themselves such changes would not reach everyone.


However, if citizenship education is to be accepted as important, not only for schools but for the life of the nation, it must continue beyond the age of 16. We therefore recommend: (a) that it is extended into post-16 education and training as an entitlement for full-time students; and (b) that the Commission should examine this problem in its earliest business to help ensure that there is a coherent programme with appropriate learning outcomes building upon pre-16 school experience and which takes account of the increasing complexity and flexibility of the world of work and of community activity, and of the range and comprehensiveness of post-16 courses.



A note on assessment


Learning in citizenship education must also make a significant contribution to raising standards and enabling pupils to achieve their full potential if the implications of our recommendations for assessment and reporting are fully understood. We decided that the assessment and reporting of pupils’ progression, as in existing National Curriculum subjects, was inappropriate for citizenship. This should not be taken as a signal that we see citizenship as a ‘soft option’ in the curriculum with no rigour or bite.


We support assessment and reporting in citizenship through tightly defined learning outcomes. These provide a fair and rigorous basis for assessment, reporting and inspection, both internal and external. They enable assessment by teachers of pupils’ progress and progression in their citizenship learning. They also provide: (a) the means for schools to report pupil progress in citizenship education to parents via the annual report on that child; (b) the means to outline to parents collectively the school’s approach to citizenship education through the annual school governors’ report; (c) the means to measure the standards and objectivity of citizenship education within and across schools; and (d) information to OFSTED inspectors to assist them in making judgements on the quality of citizenship education in a school and the progress that pupils make. The ‘Lipson Cluster’, Plymouth (including Lipson Community College and seven of its feeder primary schools), is based on the innovating work at Highfield Primary School, and seeks to ensure continuity from primary to secondary school of participative experiences. Each school holds a monthly council meeting. ‘Circle time’ is used both to ensure even the youngest pupils have the opportunity to become involved in the free exchange of ideas and opinions, and to vote on issues the outcome of which are then fed into the school council via class and year representatives. The issues discussed have included curriculum review, mediation in personal disputes, redesigning the school uniform, the ‘bully buster’ campaign where older pupils act as ‘guardian angels’ in the playground, and participation in the appointment of new teachers. The schools carefully monitor the improvements in behaviour, attendance, learning and rising pupil self-esteem that have followed the introduction of the participative scheme three years ago. The primary school teachers can see that their efforts are being taken forward into the secondary school.


Implications for agencies


This report will have implications for those agencies involved in the formulation and implementation of educational policy and in supporting teachers and schools in its delivery, notably DfEE, QCA, OFSTED and the TTA. The particular implications of our report for OFSTED and the TTA are set out in sections 5.8 and 5.9 below. However, it is imperative that all the agencies take account of the consequences of our recommendations for their work.


Implications for the work of OFSTED


The importance of inspection has been made throughout the report. The OFSTED Framework for Inspection already provides for inspection of the broad foundations of citizenship education: (a)

(Section 4.2) – Attitudes, Behaviour and Personal Development requires inspectors to evaluate the contribution made by pupils to the life of the community, including the degree to which they show initiative and are willing to take responsibility;



(Section 5.3) – Pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development, requires inspectors to evaluate the extent to which the school encourages pupils to relate positively to others, take responsibility, participate fully in the community, and develop an understanding of citizenship;


(Section 5.5) – Partnership with Parents and the Community, requires judgements on the degree to which the school’s work is enriched by links with the community (primary), including provision for voluntary service (secondary).


Thus there is already the basis for a review and for the more specific guidance to be provided when citizenship is added to the revised National Curriculum.


Implications for the work of the TTA


We are very conscious of the implications of our recommendations for teacher training, both initial and in-service, and for teacher recruitment and supply. The key to effective education for citizenship, as for all other areas, lies in recruiting the highest quality of entrants to the profession and ensuring that training is well targeted to meet the needs of teachers. It is vital that teachers have the knowledge, understanding, skills and confidence needed to be successful in the interactive teaching approaches which underpin effective learning in citizenship education. We advise that the National Standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS), subject leaders, special education needs co-ordinators (SENCOs) and headteachers pay due regard to the importance of citizenship in defining expectations at these key points in the profession.


All those providing initial teacher training (ITT) in higher education and schools will need to take account of our recommendations and make an appropriate response in their training provision. We recommend that: (a) all initial teacher training providers in higher education and schools receive a copy of this final report; (b) the Commission on Citizenship Education liaises with the TTA to enable all initial teacher training providers to be informed of and involved in considering the implications of our recommendations for their training provision; (c) the Commission on Citizenship Education works with the TTA to provide support and advice to initial teacher training providers on how to interpret the existing requirements of the National Standards for Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) and National Curricula for Initial Teacher Training (4/98) in order that trainees have sufficient opportunities to experience and develop the range of knowledge, understanding and skills needed to teach citizenship effectively;


(d) initial teacher training providers should be encouraged to give emphasis to citizenship in relevant courses. The most obvious location is in those subjects, notably History, Geography and English, where possible combinations with ‘elements of citizenship education’ are strongest; (e) the Career Entry Profile can be used to identify any further needs for professional development in newly qualified teachers in relation to the teaching of citizenship. This provides an important bridge between initial teacher training and a teacher’s induction year. 5.9.3

Our recommendations also have implications for the continuing in-service training of teachers. We recommend: (a) that teachers are encouraged and supported to take responsibility for their own professional development in this area; (b) that sufficient good quality training is made available to enable teachers to be confident in teaching to achieve the learning outcomes for citizenship, and in particular the knowledge and understanding component. There may be a need for specific training for those who will teach citizenship in secondary schools in this respect; (c) that the Commission on Citizenship Education works with the TTA to ensure a good understanding of the responsibilities relating to citizenship that are included in the National Standards for subject leaders, SENCOs and headteachers; (d) that effective use is made of the National Grid for Learning and the Virtual Teachers Centre (VTC) to make available guidance, case studies of good practice and high quality resources; (e) that the national training for headteachers, for example the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH), takes account of this report in order that those aspiring to headship have the appropriate awareness and understanding of citizenship education in schools.


Our recommendations also have implications for the recruitment and supply of teachers. We recommend: (a) that the DfEE considers increasing the number of places on those initial teacher training courses or programmes currently under the ‘other’ category, which cover aspects of citizenship, eg Social Sciences. This would enable increased recruitment from those with backgrounds in Social Sciences, Politics and Philosophy and so add to the numbers of teachers most appropriately qualified to teach citizenship; (b) that initial teacher training providers give greater emphasis in their selection procedures to applicants’ experience and understanding of citizenship activities, particularly those relating to community involvement. This may provide a foundation which can be built on by tutors and teachers during the training programme.




Resourcing Citizenship Education


The introduction of citizenship education cannot achieve its aims unless it is properly resourced. This introduction of new requirements will be helped by our recommendations for phasing in, for building from existing good practice, for delivering through PSE or PSHE in Key Stages 1 and 2, for the role of the TTA and, above all, by a curriculum based on suggested learning outcomes not on rigid prescriptions; but nonetheless adequate, new resources are essential. They are of different kinds. Schools should not be reliant on what pressure groups and campaigning bodies can provide; however worthy, these groups do not mirror the priorities of the educational curriculum. Schools will need additional funding to purchase resource materials and books.


The implications for teacher training are treated in section 5.9 above. But in addition we recommend that there should be an additional provision through the Standards Fund in the early years of introduction to assist suitable in-service training and support programmes for teachers and schools. These programmes could be run on a regional or area basis and organised by a wide range of training providers and networks including higher education institutions, citizenship bodies, voluntary and community organisations, teacher groups or associations, local education authorities and subject associations.


A directory of resources and contacts relevant to citizenship teaching and learning, including descriptions of and reports on examples of good practice both within and outside the school should be established under the auspices of QCA. These should include matter from other countries and other parts of the United Kingdom whenever relevant. This directory should also be available on a website with interactive opportunities for comment and exchange of experiences and should also make full use of the opportunities provided by the National Grid for Learning and the Virtual Teachers Centre. This is important to encourage teachers and schools to make active links within and between themselves as well as with those networks mentioned in section 5.3.6 above.


Some schools and teachers, entering into this area for the first time on any scale, will want advice and guidance on how they might approach and organise opportunities and activities towards achieving the learning outcomes. For the reasons we set down in recommendation 4.2 we are strongly against any single source of authoritative guidance. However permissively worded, this could in practice take back the greater freedom and flexibility which is the very object of the learning outcomes; and could also raise proper public worries about imposing a single way of teaching about political and social issues and values. Therefore we recommend that a fund be established either in the DfEE or QCA to which the kind of bodies mentioned in section 5.10.2 may apply for funding to prepare guidance and resource materials for the whole or part of the citizenship curriculum. In every case the funding body shall make sure that there are alternatives

available, if necessary contracting or asking for alternative guidance notes or resource materials. 5.10.5

Publishers will, of course, respond to this new area and normal market forces should help to ensure alternative teaching materials. However, the Commission should have resources to call two meetings or short conferences as soon as the revised National Curriculum has been announced: (a) to brief publishers on the meaning and implication of citizenship for their work; and (b) to discuss alternatives, targets, strategies and the possibility of some coordination with other existing or potential providers of resource material in the public sector and in the voluntary and charitable sectors, together with their main funders. Provision of material and resources is useless of course, if the money to purchase it is not there in all cases.

Cheslyn Hay Primary School, Wolverhampton, is one of a number of schools participating in ‘Newswise’, a project providing primary and secondary school pupils with specially selected live news topics, tailored to age and ability. This use of the Internet provides pupils with material which: is immediate, relevant and appealing; encourages thoughtful questioning and analysis of news stories (structured questions and exercises come with the material), and; enables pupils to engage with the issues not only within a particular class but with other users elsewhere. Evaluation of the project has shown that teachers appreciate this high quality resource, which promotes citizenship learning as well as developing both literacy and IT skills. The Newswise address is: .


Recommendations for the terms of reference and the composition of a standing Commission on Citizenship Education


We have set out the case in section 4.13, for a Commission to advise the Secretary of State. There is no need to repeat this argument. The need not merely to protect the public interest is obvious, but also publicly to appear to do so.


We therefore recommend: (a) that a Commission on Citizenship Education should be established by the Secretary of State with terms of reference to monitor and scrutinise the progress and problems of implementing citizenship education and with powers to make recommendations both to the Secretary of State and QCA; and, when the committee thinks fit, to publish them; (b) that it should receive annual reports as of right from QCA, OFSTED and the TTA; (c) that it should receive and reply to submissions from other interested bodies, public or voluntary;


(d) that it should meet at least twice a year (with provision for extra meetings if a majority of the committee request) and should publish an annual report; (e) that its composition should include cross-party representation from Parliament, teachers, representatives of teachers’ organisations, parent organisations, civic and voluntary service bodies, the media, ethnic and religious groups, and other public figures (as guardians of the public interest), and should include young people in full time education. It should also include observers from DfEE, QCA, OFSTED, and the TTA; (f) that appropriate management and support services be provided.


Part Three

Spelling it out 6 Framework for Citizenship Education: learning outcomes 6.1



The learning outcomes are part of a broad framework for citizenship education and learning in schools, as requested in our terms of reference. This framework provides the basis for what good citizenship education in schools might look like and how it can be successfully delivered. It seeks to build from the aims and purposes of citizenship education, as set out in the initial report, and to bring increasing clarity about what citizenship education entails and how it can be approached, including opportunities within and beyond schools.


In this way, the framework seeks to ensure that the benefits to pupils, teachers, schools and society at large of establishing citizenship teaching in schools and community-centred learning and activities (see section 1.10 above) are realised. In particular, the benefits of the framework include: increased clarity for teachers about what they should teach and how they might teach it; specified learning outcomes for pupils; a firmer basis for the assessment of pupils’ progress and of the progression in their learning; and a better foundation for schools to coordinate existing teaching approaches and learning opportunities and to relate positively to the local community. Over time, it is hoped that the framework will enhance teachers’ confidence and professionalism in developing effective citizenship education for all pupils.


Guiding principles The learning outcomes are founded on a number of guiding principles, and aim to secure:


Breadth and balance To extend and deepen the range and quality of educational experiences that pupils should have through their schooling;


Coherence To provide an entitlement to citizenship education which is coherent for pupils in terms of the concepts, values and dispositions, skills and aptitudes and knowledge and understanding to be acquired, and the range of educational experiences;


Continuity and progression To ensure continuity and progression in pupils’ learning through outcomes which are developmental and sequential, and which reinforce and further develop the concepts, values and dispositions, skills and aptitudes and knowledge and understanding which pupils acquire at each key stage; 35


Relevance To address the immediate and future needs and interests of pupils in the context of the social, moral, cultural, political and economic environment; and to contribute to pupils’ development of positive attitudes to teaching, the school and society in general;


Quality To challenge teachers and help pupils to achieve the highest possible standards of excellence, with due regard to differing aptitudes, abilities and circumstances;


Access and inclusion To ensure that all pupils should have opportunities to engage in all the teaching, activities and experiences which constitute effective education for citizenship. It is important to recognise that these guiding principles are not exclusive to citizenship education but are part of the general aims and priorities of the curriculum in schools.


The learning process Learning in citizenship education is influenced by a number of factors:


Whole-school approaches There is increasing recognition that the ethos, organisation, structures and daily practices of schools, including whole-school activities and assemblies have a significant impact on the effectiveness of citizenship education. Through such climate and practices schools provide implicit and explicit messages which can have a considerable influence, both positive and negative, on pupils’ learning and development. Schools need to consider how far their ethos, organisation and daily practices are consistent with the aim and purpose of citizenship education and affirm and extend the development of pupils into active citizens. In particular, schools should make every effort to engage pupils in discussion and consultation about all aspects of school life on which pupils might reasonably be expected to have a view, and wherever possible to give pupils responsibility and experience in helping to run parts of the school. This might include school facilities, organisation, rules, relationships and matters relating to teaching and learning. Such engagement can be through both formal structures such as school and class councils and informal channels in pupils’ daily encounters with aspects of school life. To create a feeling that it is ‘our school’ can increase pupil motivation to learn in all subjects.


Fair Oak Junior School, Eastleigh, Hants, has had a school council for four years. It has become steadily more effective and has had a major effect in reducing bullying in the school. Councillors hold regular ‘surgeries’ for their constituents. But their most unusual activity involving almost all the pupils is in the production of the school newspaper, Fair Comment, which has a print run of 6000 and is distributed throughout the local community. It is professionally printed with colour on four of its 20 pages and has the feel of a good local paper. Groups of pupils research articles, and draft reports before submission to the editorial team. The paper is funded from advertisement income and is taken very seriously by local businesses. It is an excellent learning experience for pupils and enables the school to promote its high standards to the local community.


Teaching approaches and learning opportunities (a) The learning outcomes will be best achieved through a broad range of teaching approaches and learning opportunities. These should be chosen for their appropriateness in supporting and challenging pupils in their development, application and understanding of the essential elements underpinning citizenship education and in the overall development of pupils into informed and active citizens. It is vital that pupils are provided with structured opportunities to explore actively aspects, issues and events through school and community involvement, case studies and critical discussions that are challenging and relevant to their lives. It is difficult to conceive of pupils as active citizens if their experience of learning in citizenship education has been predominantly passive. (b) Pupils may derive further benefit where these opportunities are linked to a class, school or community project which they have helped to identify, plan, carry through and evaluate. Often the school and its local community provide a perfect context for pupils to examine issues and events and to become involved in active, participatory activities and experiences where the emphasis is on learning through action. This can help pupils to make the connection between learning and acting locally to thinking globally.


CSV (Community Service Volunteers) is involved with many school-based activities. Their work with Battersea Technology College, Wandsworth, London is a pilot programme for a Year 7 class using the CSV Citizenship Tool-Kit and teaching materials. The school stands amid economically and socially depressed council estates. Prior to the programme the class experienced high truancy levels and discipline problems. In particular, pupils displayed low self-esteem, an inability to make eye contact with teachers and each other, as well as being unable to work in groups. After 15 weeks, truancy has been greatly reduced for the class, behaviour modification has taken place and been well documented by all their teachers. Morale has increased and the pupils have bonded into small, productive working groups. Their verbal and written skills have improved and the pupils have become role models for the rest of the school. ‘There is not so much fighting and jumping around anymore’, says one pupil, ‘I like being in class more because we get to go outside and we get to make the school better. I liked what we did today and I think I am learning what it means to be a good citizen.’. The headteacher said, ‘Schools have to take an increasing responsibility for preparing young people for decision-making. The course is helping them learn about relationships, sensitive listening and taking part, as well as learning to be sensitive to the environment.’


Special educational needs There is a need to provide pupils identified with special educational needs with appropriately challenging work in citizenship education at each key stage. This should be in line with the statement on access, which applies to the revised National Curriculum, in the section on Common Requirements. This currently says that: ‘The programme of study for each key stage should be taught to the great majority of pupils in the key stage, in ways appropriate to their abilities. For the small number of pupils who may need the provision, material may be selected from earlier or later key stages where this is necessary to enable individual pupils to progress and demonstrate achievement. Such material should be presented in contexts suitable to the pupil’s age. Appropriate provision should be made for pupils who need to use:


means of communication other than speech, including computers, technological aids, signing, symbols or lip-reading;

non-sighted methods of reading, such as Braille, or non-visual or non-aural ways of acquiring information;

technological aids in practical and written work;

aids or adapted equipment to allow access to practical activities within and beyond school.’

Ashley Special School, Widnes, has had a school council for six years. It has evolved to become central to the life of the school and with a number of supporting committees ensures that most pupils have a chance to be directly involved. In 1995, the pupils voted to change the name of the school to the Ashley School in honour of Jack, a son of Widnes (now Lord Ashley), for his work on behalf of people with disabilities. Since 1996 he has taken a close interest in the school and regularly invites school councillors to visit Parliament. A polling station is set up in a local community centre for elections to the school council, with ballot boxes borrowed from the borough council. The full council meets monthly and will soon have, with the support of the governors, a purpose fitted council chamber in the school. The school was the first special school to receive an Eco-Schools Award and pupils have been to both the Houses of Parliament and to Brussels to talk to MPs and MEPs. The sculptor, David Gross, worked with pupils to make a large globe inscribed with figures representing the values of the School Charter, commitment to justice and global citizenship.


Teacher assessment of learning


Day-to-day assessment supports teaching and learning in citizenship education. It helps teachers to clarify their learning objectives and articulate them to pupils, and provides a measure of the progress that pupils have made in the learning outcomes. Such assessment should be practicable and manageable, providing useful information to the parties involved without becoming burdensome. Day-to-day assessment will take a number of forms, including observation, listening and appraising pupils’ written work. This assessment is most effective where it arises naturally from the teaching approaches, learning opportunities and experiences. It should be valued by pupils and raise their standards of achievement in citizenship. Day-to-day assessment will contribute to periodic reporting on standards and progress and ultimately to pupils’ Records of Achievement.


At Key Stage 4, it is important that there are opportunities for pupils to receive accreditation for their work in citizenship. Awarding bodies should be encouraged to develop a range of appropriate qualifications to match the needs of young adolescents, including full, combined and short course GCSEs, GNVQ units, and Certificates of Achievement.


Framework of learning outcomes The framework has four interrelated components:


Aim and purpose The rationale and justification for citizenship, as set out in the initial report, encapsulated in a statement which sets out the aim and purpose of citizenship education in schools.


Strands The three strands which make up effective education for citizenship namely,


social and moral responsibility (an essential pre-condition for citizenship), community involvement and political literacy, and which are developed progressively as pupils move through schooling from age five to 16. 6.5.3

Essential elements The concepts, values and dispositions, skills and aptitudes, and knowledge and understanding which underpin effective education for citizenship: these are implicit in the aim and purpose statement and the strands of citizenship education and provide the basis for the learning outcomes.


Learning outcomes (a) These are set out by key stages as part of a new statutory entitlement to citizenship education for all pupils in schools. (b) A clear understanding of the four components and the ways they relate to each other will help teachers use the framework to develop a variety of teaching approaches, learning opportunities and experiences which, together, constitute effective education for citizenship in schools.


Aim and purpose The purpose of citizenship education in schools and colleges is to make secure and to increase the knowledge, skills and values relevant to the nature and practices of participative democracy; also to enhance the awareness of rights and duties, and the sense of responsibilities needed for the development of pupils into active citizens; and in so doing to establish the value to individuals, schools and society of involvement in the local and wider community. Democratic institutions, practices and purposes must be understood, both local and national, including the work of parliaments, councils, parties, pressure groups and voluntary bodies; to show how formal political activity relates to civil society in the context of the United Kingdom and Europe, and to cultivate awareness and concern for world affairs and global issues. Some understanding of the realities of economic life is needed including how taxation and public expenditure work together.


The strands


Social and moral responsibility Children learning from the very beginning self-confidence and socially and morally responsible behaviour both in and beyond the classroom, both towards those in authority and towards each other (this is an essential pre-condition for citizenship).


Community involvement Pupils learning about and becoming helpfully involved in the life and concerns of their communities, including learning through community involvement and service to the community.



Political literacy Pupils learning about and how to make themselves effective in public life through knowledge, skills and values.


Essential elements The learning outcomes that follow are founded on four essential elements: concepts; values and dispositions; skills and aptitudes and knowledge and understanding which underpin education for citizenship (see Fig 1). The successful integration and progressive development of these essential elements across the key stages should ensure that schools achieve the learning outcomes and in so doing develop effective education for citizenship for all pupils.


Concepts A number of key concepts provide a clear, overarching, conceptual core to citizenship education. Pupils should come to understand, as they progress through the key stages, how these key concepts serve collectively, though not exclusively, to underpin effective education for citizenship.


Values and dispositions Certain values and dispositions are appropriate to citizenship education. Pupils should be encouraged, as they progress through the key stages, to recognise, reflect and act upon these values and dispositions. They should be helped, in particular, to reflect on and recognise values and dispositions which underlie their attitudes and actions as individuals and as members of groups or communities. This is vital in developing pupils into active citizens who have positive attitudes to themselves, as individuals, and in their relationship with others.


Skills and aptitudes Certain skills and aptitudes are appropriate to citizenship education. Pupils should have opportunities to develop and apply these skills and aptitudes within pluralist contexts. These contexts should be carefully chosen in order to allow pupils to reinforce and further deepen their understanding, think critically, develop their own ideas, respond in different ways to a diversity of views, defend or change an opinion, and recognise the contribution of others.


Knowledge and understanding (a) Pupils should acquire basic knowledge and understanding of particular aspects of society with which citizenship education is concerned. It must be stressed that the manner and depth of acquisition is a matter for the professional judgement of teachers, taking into account what is appropriate for the age and abilities of the pupils concerned. These particular aspects of society provide important contexts and content to support the aim and purpose of citizenship education in schools and are:■


moral; 41

political, including issues relating to government, law and constitution;

economic (public and personal), including issues relating to public services, taxation, public expenditure and employment;

environmental and sustainable development.

(b) Pupils should acquire a basic knowledge and understanding of these aspects of society through the topical and contemporary issues, events and activities which are the lifeblood of citizenship education. The importance should be stressed of developing the habit of having a view on current affairs. The critical reading of newspapers and discussion of television and radio current affairs programmes should be encouraged. (c) For each of these aspects there might be a school, local, national, Europe, Commonwealth or global context. Some issues and events will allow several of these aspects to be accessed at the same time – others may be more homogeneous. How aspects and topical and contemporary issues and events are selected and treated is a matter for the professional judgement of teachers, taking into account factors such as the age of pupils, the range of their abilities and the relevance and challenge to pupil needs and interests. However, motivation is obviously increased when pupils are given some choice in the issues to be discussed. (d) It should be emphasised that the knowledge and understanding components should not be learned as a disembodied list of aspects, content and terms but embedded in issues, events and activities of significance and interest. Indeed there is scope, where aspects, content and terms are revisited across key stages, to reinforce and deepen pupils’ knowledge and understanding, ensuring continuity and progression in learning. Such an approach is vital in order to achieve the overall aim and purpose of citizenship education in schools. (e) As already noted, the concepts, and values and dispositions, and, to a much lesser extent, skills and aptitudes, and knowledge and understanding which underpin the learning outcomes are neither inclusive to citizenship education nor mutually exclusive. They can be developed and applied within other subjects and parts of the curriculum. It will be important for schools to identify the links between pupils’ learning, activities and experiences in citizenship education and those elsewhere in the curriculum, both within and beyond the school. This is essential if teachers are to be helped to build on such links in order to reinforce and further develop such learning for pupils and ensure breadth and balance, coherence, continuity and progression and quality in such learning experiences across the curriculum.



Overview of essential elements


The four columns (Fig 1) represent a complete statement or overview of what is required in citizenship education by the end of compulsory schooling in order to prepare pupils for citizenship in adult life. It is not expected that the learning outcomes will be approached all at once. Rather they are designed to be approached in a developmental and sequential way which reinforces

and further develops pupils’ learning, as appropriate, at each key stage. The manner of approach is a matter for the professional judgement of teachers taking into account, in particular, what is appropriate to the age and abilities of the pupils concerned. 6.9.2

It is also important to recognise that many of the key concepts, values and dispositions, and, to a much lesser extent, skills, aptitudes, knowledge and understanding already are or can be developed and applied within other parts of the curriculum. Taken together this means that the scope and novelty of this potentially ‘new area’ is not as daunting as may appear from an initial look at the columns.


The columns are deliberately set out this way so as to emphasise an approach to learning in citizenship education which is founded on encouraging pupils’ growing understanding, development and application of the concepts, values and dispositions, and skills and aptitudes which underpin education for citizenship. The knowledge and understanding provides the contexts and content to support such learning through the other columns. Such an approach is essential if schools are to develop effective citizenship education for all pupils.


Fig 1

Overview of essential elements to be reached by the end of compulsory schooling

Key Concepts ■

democracy and autocracy

co-operation and conflict

equality and diversity

fairness, justice, the rule of law, rules, law and human rights

freedom and order

individual and community

power and authority

rights and responsibilities

Values and Dispositions ■

concern for the common good

belief in human dignity and equality

ability to make a reasoned argument both verbally and in writing

ability to co-operate and work effectively with others

Knowledge and Understanding ■

topical and contemporary issues and events at local, national, EU, Commonwealth and international levels

concern to resolve conflicts a disposition to work with and for others with sympathetic understanding

ability to consider and appreciate the experience and perspective of others

the nature of democratic communities, including how they function and change

proclivity to act responsibly: that is care for others and oneself; premeditation and calculation about the effect actions are likely to have on others; and acceptance of responsibility for unforeseen or unfortunate consequences

ability to tolerate other view points

ability to develop a problem-solving approach

the interdependence of individuals and local and voluntary communities

the nature of diversity, dissent and social conflict

legal and moral rights and responsibilities of individuals and communities

the nature of social, moral and political challenges faced by individuals and communities

Britain’s parliamentary political and legal systems at local, national, European, Commonwealth and international level, including how they function and change

the nature of political and voluntary action in communities

the rights and responsibilities of citizens as consumers, employees, employers and family and community members

the economic system as it relates to individuals and communities

human rights charters and issues

sustainable development and environmental issues

practice of tolerance

judging and acting by a moral code

courage to defend a point of view


Skills and Aptitudes

willingness to be open to changing one’s opinions and attitudes in the light of discussion and evidence

individual initiative and effort

civility and respect for the rule of law

determination to act justly

commitment to equal opportunities and gender equality

commitment to active citizenship

commitment to voluntary service

concern for human rights

concern for the environment

ability to use modern media and technology critically to gather information a critical approach to evidence put before one and ability to look for fresh evidence ability to recognise forms of manipulation and persuasion ability to identify, respond to and influence social, moral and political challenges and situations

Fig 2

Diagramatic representation

This cube may help to reinforce the interrelationship of the essential elements and to confirm the need to approach them in a developmental and sequential way through the four key stages. This approach underpins the learning outcomes, as set out by key stage, that follow.

VALUES AND DISPOSITIONS KEY CONCEPTS Democracy and Autocracy Co-operation and Conflict Equality and Diversity Fairness, Justice, The Rule of Law Rules, Law and Human Rights Freedom and Order Individual and Community Power and Authority Rights and Responsibilities








Learning outcomes by key stages


The learning outcomes are designed so that pupils will be encouraged to develop and apply the skills and aptitudes through the contexts and content provided in the knowledge and understanding components at each key stage. The knowledge and understanding required will be at a basic level. It is important to reiterate that the manner of acquisition is a matter for the professional judgement of teachers taking into account, what is appropriate to the age and abilities of the pupils concerned. In this way, pupils’ learning in citizenship education is manageable and capable of being reinforced and further developed as they progress through the key stages.

The learning outcomes for Key Stages 1 and 2 6.11

Key Stage 1


Skills and Aptitudes

By the end of Key Stage 1, pupils should be able to:


express and justify orally a personal opinion relevant to an issue;

contribute to paired and class discussion on matters of personal and general significance, learning what it means to take turns, respond to the views of others and use acceptable forms of disagreement or challenge;

work with others and gather their opinions in an attempt to meet a challenge of shared significance;

use imagination when considering the experience of others;

reflect on issues of social and moral concern, presented in different ways such as through story, drama, pictures, poetry, and ‘real life’ incidents;

take part in a simple debate and vote on an issue.

Knowledge and Understanding

By the end of Key Stage 1, pupils should:


recognise how the concept of fairness can be applied in a reasoned and reflective way to aspects of their personal and social life;

understand the different kinds of responsibility that they take on, in helping others, respecting differences or looking after shared property;

know about the nature and basis of the rules in the classroom, at school and at home; also, whenever possible, know how to frame rules themselves; understand that different rules can apply in different contexts and can serve different purposes, including safety, safeguarding of property and the prevention of unacceptable behaviour;

know about the different kinds of relationships which exist between pupils and between adults and pupils; also have some notion that the power in such relationships can be exercised responsibly and fairly or irresponsibly and unfairly;

understand the language used to describe feelings associated with aspects of relationships with others, including words such as happy, sad, disappointed, angry, upset, shy, embarrassed, peaceful, worried, proud and glad;

understand different kinds of behaviour using moral categories such as kind or unkind, good or bad, right or wrong; know about the consequences of anti-social or egocentric behaviour and attitudes, for individuals and communities; also understand that many problems can be tackled as a community;

know where they live, in relation to their local and national community, understand that there are different types and groups of people living in their local community such as other children, teenagers, families and old people;

know about differences and similarities between people in terms of their needs, rights, responsibilities, wants, likes, values and beliefs; also understand that many of these differences are linked with cultural and religious diversity;

know and understand, through shared activities and the process of exploratory talk, the meaning of key terms such as respect or disrespect, question, comment, discuss, agree or disagree, similar or different, point of view, opinion, compare and contrast.


Key Stage 2


Skills and Aptitudes

By the end of Key Stage 2, pupils should be able to: ■

express and justify, orally and/or in writing, a personal opinion relevant to an issue;

contribute to paired and small group discussion on matters of personal and general significance and be prepared to present the outcome to a class;

work with others in a class and gather their opinions in an attempt to meet a challenge of shared significance through negotiation, accommodation and agreed action;

use imagination when considering the experience of others and be able to reflect and hypothesise – the ‘what if’ scenario – on issues of social, moral and political concern in response to stories, drama or ‘real life’ incidents. These should cover a range of citizenship issues and include consideration of the lives of others living in other places or times and with different values or customs;

discuss a range of moral dilemmas or problems, in which choices between alternatives are evaluated, selected and justified, using appropriate language;

participate in a question and answer session in which a member of the local community offers an expert opinion and answers questions prepared in advance by pupils; 47


collect information about a topical or contemporary issue from a range of sources, including television and radio news, documentary footage, newspapers and new communications technologies, and recognise the different ways the sources present the information;

take part in simple debates and have opportunities to vote on issues.

Knowledge and Understanding

By the end of Key Stage 2, pupils should:


know at a simple level, how rules and laws are made and the varying purposes they serve; and understand that there are various sources of authority in their duties but that there are also sources of help and support when needed; also understand the meaning of terms such as rights and responsibilities, right, wrong, fair, unfair, rule, law, forgiveness;

understand the need for laws and their enforcement in shaping behaviour and tackling crimes and why certain behaviour is prohibited; also know about the role of the police in the prevention of crime and protection of persons and property, and be aware of the consequences of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities; also understand the meaning of terms such as punishment, cause, consequence, justice, fairness, evidence;

know about the workings of local and national communities, including the main faiths and ethnic cultures, and how individuals relate to them; know about, in simple terms, contemporary relations between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and Europe; know about local and national sources of government and opportunities to participate; also understand the meaning of terms such as mayor, council, councillor, Member of Parliament (MP), election, vote, parliament, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), political party;

understand that there can be different types of government such as democracies and dictatorships; also understand the meaning of terms such as freedom of speech, opposition, vote, government, King, Queen, Prime Minister, President;

know about voluntary and community bodies who work in their local community; also understand the meaning of terms such as voluntary service, volunteer, charity, protest, petition;

know that there are different economic systems; know that there are different ways of allocating scarce resources; understand the choices that have to be made in modern society and the impact on individuals and communities; also understand the meaning of terms such as fairness, justice, choice, price, services, wealth, market, wage;

know about the world as a global community, and that people around the world live in communities as we do; understand that there are similarities and differences between communities in terms of social, economic, cultural, political and environmental circumstances; also understand the meaning of terms such as poverty, famine, disease, charity, aid, human rights.

The learning outcomes for Key Stages 3 and 4 6.13

Key Stage 3


Skills and Aptitudes

By the end of Key Stage 3, pupils should be able to:


express and justify, orally and in writing, a personal opinion relevant to an issue;

contribute to small group and class discussions on matters of personal and general significance and present the outcome to a class;

work with others to meet a challenge of shared significance through negotiation, accommodation and agreed action, and be able to reflect on the process;

use imagination when considering the experience of others and be able to role-play, express plausibly and reflect on viewpoints contrary to their own;

analyse, discuss and reflect on significant issues and events encountered within a community;

garner information about an issue from a range of sources including TV and radio news, documentary footage, newspapers and new communications technologies with some understanding of the different roles these sources play;

demonstrate an understanding of the use of statistics;

take part in informal debates and have opportunities to vote on issues.

Knowledge and Understanding

By the end of Key Stage 3, pupils should: ■

understand the significant aspects of topical and contemporary issues and events;

understand, at a basic level, the legal rights and responsibilities of young people with particular reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, particularly the right to be heard; understand the general nature of legal aspects and responsibilities of other citizens, including consumer law, employment law, discrimination law, age-related laws and the laws relating to drugs and relationships; also understand the meaning of terms such as discrimination, equal opportunities, tribunal, ballot, trade unions;

understand the rights and responsibilities underpinning a democratic society, with particular reference to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); be aware of issues surrounding rights such as freedom of speech and freedom from arbitrary arrest; know about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and why it was developed; also understand the meaning of terms such as prejudice, xenophobia, discrimination, pluralism;


know about aspects of the criminal justice system, including the role of the police and how a criminal trial works; also understand the meaning of terms such as court, judge, magistrate, jury, witness, defendant;

know about local government, the services it offers and the opportunities to contribute at a local level; also understand the meaning of terms such as mayor, council, councillor, bye-law, election;

know about the work of voluntary and community bodies; also understand the meaning of terms such as pressure groups, lobbying, protest, public opinion;

know about the work of Parliament, the Government and the Executive in making and changing the law; also understand the meaning of terms such as Member of Parliament (MP), general election, political party, national government, opposition, cabinet, government department, Act of parliament;

know about the ideas and aims of the main political parties and pressure groups; also understand the meaning of terms such as pressure groups, lobbying, public opinion;

know about the UK as a political entity, including its multi-national constitution and contemporary relations with the Republic of Ireland, the European Union (EU) and the Commonwealth; also understand the meaning of terms such as Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly, Welsh Assembly, Member of the European Parliament (MEP), European Union (EU);

understand the economic system with reference to the work of the market and the concept of price and major economic issues of the day such as poverty and unemployment, including the provision of key public services; also understand the meaning of terms such as taxation, the welfare state, competition, market forces, distribution of wealth;

know about the world as a global community and understand the political, economic and social disparities that exist; also understand the meaning of terms such as overseas aid, development, sustainable development, international trade, charity, human rights.


Key Stage 4


Skills and Aptitudes

By the end of Key Stage 4, pupils should be able to:


express and justify, orally and in writing, a personal opinion relevant to an issue;

contribute to small group and class discussions on matters of personal and general significance and present the outcome to a wider audience;

work with others to meet a challenge of shared significance through negotiation, accommodation and agreed action, and be able to reflect on and critically evaluate the process;


use imagination when considering the experience of others and be able to role-play and express plausibly viewpoints contrary to their own, and to reflect on and critically evaluate such viewpoints;

investigate, analyse, discuss and reflect on major challenges faced by communities;

research an issue or event of significance from a range of sources including TV and radio news, documentary footage, newspapers and new communications technologies with particular reference to bias and the use of evidence;

demonstrate an understanding of the use and abuse of statistics;

take part in formal debates and have structured opportunities to vote on issues.

Knowledge and Understanding

By the end of Key Stage 4 pupils should: ■

understand the significant aspects of topical and contemporary issues and events;

understand, at a basic level, the law and the legal system in relation to areas such as the family, consumers, the law at work and in relation to the environment; understand about different sources and types of law, including statute, judge-made law, and European law (including ECHR); know about the different ways in which the law is enforced, the role of the police, crime and punishment and penal reform as a personal and social issue; also understand the meaning of terms such as rule of law, civil law, criminal law, civil rights, natural justice;

know about the different ways in which MPs can be elected and the Government held accountable through parliament to the electorate, including the importance of voting, public opinion, opinion polls, the role of the media, lobbying, pressure groups and different forms of protest; the different electoral systems and understand the reasons for the differences; also understand the meaning of terms such as proportional representation, referendum, federalism, monarchy;

know about the values, interests and policies of the main political parties and pressure groups; also understand the meaning of terms such as pressure groups, lobbying, public opinion;

know about the changing constitution of the UK, including the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament, the changing role of the monarchy, shifting relationships between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and Britain’s relationship with the European Union and the Commonwealth; some understanding of why the European Union was created; also understand the meaning of terms such as devolution, independence, European Monetary Union (EMU);

understand the economic system with reference to what is appropriate to private and to public ownership, regulation or control, and to problems of


income distribution, employment, taxation, housing and the provision of public services, especially health, education and social services; also understand the meaning of terms such as wealth creation, personal taxation, pension provision; ■

understand the world as a global community, including issues such as sustainable development, economic interdependence, heavily indebted countries, and the work of United Nations organisations and major non-governmental organisations; understand the meaning of terms such as stewardship, interdependence, ethical trading, peace-making and peacekeeping.

7 Suggestions as to how part of the statutory curriculum might be fulfilled in combination with other subjects



So long as the intentions in sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.9 are observed concerning curriculum time for this new area, certain combinations of ‘elements of citizenship education with other subjects’ are obvious and possible at different key stages in different schools. The word ‘elements’ is important for we strongly believe that citizenship needs a distinct profile in the revised curriculum (see section 4.4). Though some of the key concepts, values and dispositions, and skills and aptitudes in the learning outcomes can be developed and applied within other parts of the curriculum, many of the skills and aptitudes, and knowledge and understanding need separate articulation. Nonetheless in primary schools this is likely to be done by class teachers through existing subjects and there can be substantial overlap.


The biggest overlap is with PSE or PSHE. While the learning outcomes for Key Stages 1 and 2 are the essential basis of our whole report, we believe that they can be achieved as part of the framework for PSE or PSHE programmes of primary school. Appendix A sets out our reasoning on this (and we welcome Professor Tomlinson’s response to our chairman’s letter).


However, a distinct and separate articulation of citizenship is essential in Key Stages 3 and 4. Nonetheless so long as this takes place within the kind of time allocation set out in section 4.5 and with the flexibility for provision set out in section 4.6, we point to obvious and advantageous overlaps with elements of both the content and approach of other subjects, most notably of History, Geography and English.


In History, there is much teaching and learning about the development of societies and of political, social and economic systems, including the development of British democracy and of our pluralist society, which provides an essential conceptual and institutional foundation to many elements in our learning outcomes. For example, the history of Parliament is at the heart of British history and can readily lead into discussion of present day electoral arrangements. Meanwhile, British, European and world history topics can also lead into consideration of the international, sustainable development and the human rights aspects of our learning outcomes. The emphasis in History on the use of evidence and processes of enquiry can help

pupils to discuss and reach informed judgements about topical and contemporary issues which are the lifeblood of citizenship and to develop the confidence to take informed action. 7.5

In Geography, the emphasis of place, space and environment and the study of places, themes and issues from the local to the global, offers significant opportunities to learn about conflicts and concerns, to extend knowledge about political groupings and the activities of pressure groups and voluntary bodies and to evaluate the consequences for people, places and environments of decision-making. There is a particular opportunity to understand how people and places are inextricably linked and interdependent, thus to learn about and experience citizenship from the local to the global. The processes of enquiry in Geography, as in History, can also contribute to pupils’ development of the understanding, skills and confidence needed to take informed action. Pupil involvement in fieldwork can enhance such learning and despite the pressure of the timetable, many schools in Key Stage 3 have Environmental Studies programmes.


While in most secondary schools with existing citizenship programmes of some kind the teaching is done by History and Geography teachers, English can also play a role. There is scope through the sources in English teaching to make links to the elements in our learning outcomes – both printed sources (books, plays, poems and newspapers) and oral and visual sources (television, radio, and new communications technologies) – as well as through drama, role-play, literary criticism and media education. One common example is reading Orwell’s Animal Farm. Is it a lament for the failed attempt to create an egalitarian society, or an implication that it was and is always impossible? The critical, open-ended reading and discussion of a text is a skill very close to our ‘critical approach to evidence put before one and ability to look for fresh evidence’. Meanwhile, drama, role-play and stories can be excellent means to help pupils develop the ‘ability to consider and appreciate the experience of others’.


The possibility of combination is not limited to History, Geography and English, though these are likely to be closest to citizenship in terms of subject content, contexts and teaching and learning approaches. Other subjects can make valuable contributions too. For example Mathematics and Information Technology (IT) can contribute to a knowledge and understanding of electoral systems and opinion polls and the skills to get the best from them. Science and Technology subjects commonly raise ethical issues of social policy. Religious Education (RE) provides opportunities to explore moral and social concerns. Physical Education (PE) can encourage individual initiative and effort as well as teamwork skills. Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) can offer a contrasting perspective from other countries on national, European and international events and issues, while Business Studies can combine to exemplify the economic aspects of citizenship.


The experience of the Technical and Vocational Education Initiative (TVEI) highlighted the existing possibilities in making combinations with music and the arts. One obvious linkage of Art, citizenship, PSE and PSHE exists


already in many schools where classroom walls and open areas are covered with artwork made by pupils, illustrative of lessons and projects. 7.9

These are but a few illustrative examples to underline the possibilities. The potential combinations are many and varied. How these combinations are identified and approached is ultimately a matter for schools to decide, so long as they are natural and advantageous to the subjects involved and the elements of citizenship education in any combinations are clearly identifiable.


Many schools are able to find time for programmes based on the ideas of Human Rights, Rights of the Child, Global Citizenship or Sustainable Development, and the charters or international agreements associated with them. Others find room simply for a weekly current affairs lesson. All of these can make and are making (where they occur) significant contributions to citizenship learning and teaching. In our general aims and learning outcomes they can all find a valued place; but none on their own can furnish the comprehensive and sequential citizenship teaching of our advice. Nonetheless, our strategy allows for considerable variation in the proportion of time and effort given to different topics and existing programmes.

8 How Citizenship learning can contribute to development of Key Skills



We recognise the close links between citizenship and ‘the six key skills’ (communication, application of number, information technology, working with others, improving own learning and performance, and problem solving and learning) and maintain that citizenship learning can be a relevant and an appropriate context for pupils’ development and achievement of key skills. Our proposed learning outcomes provide many opportunities to integrate the key skills; an approach that would avoid duplication of effort and be of greater benefit to pupils and schools.


The first three key skills are at the heart of the learning outcomes across all four key stages. The key skill of Communication closely relates to the emphasis in citizenship on discussion and the opportunities for pupils to develop and practise verbal communication skills from primary school onward. This should be seen alongside the current emphasis on literacy which overlaps with the skill in citizenship of gathering and critically evaluating information and evidence in all forms. There are numerous opportunities through citizenship learning to help pupils to progress in their written and verbal communication skills and the ability to develop a reasoned argument.


The key skill of Application of Number can also be developed in citizenship contexts, such as examining electoral systems, opinion polls and statistics and investigating the current reforms to the electoral system in Britain. The teaching of citizenship can contribute to the key skill of Information Technology (IT) by enabling pupils to develop their competence in, for example, data handling and presentation of information. Good use can be made of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in teaching citizenship education where it enables the learning outcomes to be achieved

more effectively. The teaching and learning of some topics can be enhanced through the use of software packages and websites. (See Appendix B). 8.4

The wider key skills, though closely interrelated, can also be developed through the teaching approaches and learning opportunities which underpin the learning outcomes in citizenship. The key skill of Working with Others is fundamental to the aim and purpose of citizenship education and to help pupils become involved in the local and wider community. The key skill of Improving Own Learning and Performance is a guiding principle behind the learning outcomes, while the key skill of Problem Solving can be developed through an active, experimental approach to citizenship both inside and outside schools. We see problem-solving as central to political and social thinking in education, rather than formulation of doctrinal alternatives - as some have argued.


We also note the potential of the day to day approaches to assessment of learning in citizenship education in schools to contribute to the assessment of pupils’ development and acquisition of key skills. The recording of citizenship learning through pupil Records of Achievement and other appropriate forms of accreditation, offer scope to the future development of key skills qualifications both pre and post-sixteen.

9 Whole-school issues 9.1

We recognise the significant contribution that citizenship learning can make to whole-school issues and to the development of values. The contribution is a two-way process. The ethos, organisation, structures and daily practices of schools have a considerable impact on the effectiveness of citizenship education. Schools need to consider to what extent their ethos, organisation and daily practices are consistent with the aim and purpose of citizenship education, and provide opportunities for pupils to develop into active citizens. We believe that schools should make every effort to engage pupils in discussion and consultation about all aspects of school life on which pupils might reasonably be expected to have a view, and wherever possible to give pupils responsibility and experience in helping to run parts of the school. (See section 5.3).


Citizenship learning can also make a significant contribution to the development of values. The values and dispositions which underpin citizenship and democratic politics are clearly set out in the learning outcomes. Pupils are encouraged to recognise, reflect and act upon these values and dispositions through citizenship learning across the four key stages. These values and dispositions overlap with, though are not restricted by, the values in the context of society, identified in PSHE and by the National Forum for Values in Education and in the community, which form the basis of the QCA pilot looking at a whole-school approach to the promotion of pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development. (See section 2.11(a)).


10 Guidance on the teaching of controversial issues Summary of the Statutory Requirements The Education Act 1996 aims to ensure that children are not presented by their teachers with only one side of political or controversial issues. Section 406 of the Act requires school governing bodies, headteachers and local education authorities to forbid the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in schools; and to forbid the pursuit of partisan political activities by pupils under age 12 while in school. Section 407 requires them to take all reasonably practical steps to ensure that, where political or controversial issues are brought to pupils’ attention, they are offered a balanced presentation or opposing views. If anyone has reason to believe that a school is not complying with these requirements, they may make a formal complaint to the governing body under statutory local arrangements for considering complaints about curricular matters. If dissatisfied with the governors’ response they may refer the complaint to the local education authority, in the case of an LEA-maintained school, and, ultimately, to the Secretary of State (in the case of either an LEA-maintained or grant-maintained school).



Education should not attempt to shelter our nation’s children from even the harsher controversies of adult life, but should prepare them to deal with such controversies knowledgeably, sensibly, tolerantly and morally. Of course, educators must never set out to indoctrinate; but to be completely unbiased is simply not possible, and on some issues, such as those concerning human rights, it is not desirable. When dealing with controversial issues, teachers should adopt strategies that teach pupils how to recognise bias, how to evaluate evidence put before them and how to look for alternative interpretations, viewpoints and sources of evidence; above all to give good reasons for everything they say and do, and to expect good reasons to be given by others.


A controversial issue is an issue about which there is no one fixed or universally held point of view. Such issues are those which commonly divide society and for which significant groups offer conflicting explanations and solutions. There may, for example, be conflicting views on such matters as how a problem has arisen and who is to blame; over how the problem may be resolved; over what principles should guide the decisions that can be taken, and so on.


Controversial issues can arise in the teaching of virtually every subject. For example, History deals with the causes of events such as wars, industrial disputes, revolutions, coups, and so on, implicitly attributing blame or credit. Geography involves a concern with the use of the natural and built environments and consequently with issues such as pollution, the siting of roads, airports and power stations. English literature is replete with all the drama of human life; divided loyalties, patriotism, the worth of human life, political and secular betrayals, crises of faith, issues of ends and means and

their relationship and justification. Religious Education probably embraces the very essence of controversy, dealing as it does in foundations of moral behaviour and the purpose and meaning of life. And the sciences, technical subjects and the arts are not exempt from controversy, both about their theories and their applications in society. 10.4

There are two kinds of justification for encouraging teachers not to shy away from giving attention to controversial issues, whether in school or in community-based activities. Firstly, at the immediate and practical level it can be argued that controversial issues are important in themselves and to omit informing about and discussing them is to leave a wide and significant gap in the educational experience of young people, and is to fail to prepare them for adult life. Many controversial topics are major issues of the day: moral, economic, political and religious issues which young people ought to know about either because the issue could directly affect them or because they will in some way in a democratic society have opportunities to take a part in influencing the outcome. Other issues have an enduring and unremitting significance. Social issues concerning war and peace, concerning relationships between peoples of different colour, ethnicity and creed, concerning oppression and justice, and religious issues concerning the value of human life, our stewardship of creation and our response to spiritual values are all of this order.


Secondly, in a more profound sense it could reasonably be argued that to omit controversial subject-matter is to leave out not only an important area of knowledge and human experience but the very essence of what constitutes a worthwhile education. For teachers to confine their endeavours to the inculcation of knowledge and the transmission of skills, no matter how useful they may be, is to restrict the enterprise of schooling to just a scheme of training. Education, as opposed to mere training, requires an encounter with other experiences, such as active participation in group decisionmaking, and the development of further qualities of mind beyond retentive memory.


Those particular qualities of mind which we believe would be enhanced by examining controversial issues in a programme of citizenship education would include:


a willingness and empathy to perceive and understand the interests, beliefs and viewpoints of others;

a willingness and ability to apply reasoning skills to problems and to value a respect for truth and evidence in forming or holding opinions;

a willingness and ability to participate in decision-making, to value freedom, to choose between alternatives, and to value fairness as a basis for making and judging decisions.

But a word of caution is required. The very nature of controversial issues means that everyone concerned with education is aware that various groups are likely to hold strong opinions on such issues and can even object to


others expressing their views. Educators are aware that controversial issues may also be sensitive issues. Headteachers, governors and members of the local education committee may worry or speculate about the possibility of parents being afraid of biased teaching and even of attempts to indoctrinate their pupils. Understandably some teachers, particularly newly qualified teachers, may lack confidence when approaching these issues. 10.8

Such fears, while common, are largely unfounded and greatly underestimate both the professionalism and the prudence of teachers. In the early 1980s, when some attention was being given in schools to particularly sensitive issues such as Peace Studies, advisers and inspectors were required to be alert to the possibility of teachers abusing their position to persuade pupils to their point of view, and to investigate complaints. Verified examples were extremely rare and a senior staff inspector of HMI was able to reassure the then Secretary of State for Education that there was no evidence to substantiate such fears.


We acknowledge, however, that in the teaching of controversial issues there is always a risk of bias, whether unwitting or otherwise. Experienced teachers would seek to avoid this by resisting any inclination to: ■

highlight a particular selection of facts or items of evidence thereby giving them a greater importance than other equally relevant information;

present information as if it is not open to alternative interpretation or qualification or contradiction;

set themselves up as the sole authority not only on matters of ‘fact’ but also on matters of opinion;

present opinions and other value judgements as if they are facts;

give their own accounts of the views of others instead of using the actual claims and assertions as expressed by various interest groups themselves;

reveal their own preferences by facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, etc;

imply preferences by a particular choice of respondents or by not opening up opportunities for all pupils to contribute their views to a discussion;

neglect challenging a consensus of opinion which emerges too readily.

Experienced teachers would also feel secure in establishing a classroom climate in which all pupils are free from any fear of expressing reasonable points of view which contradict those held either by their class teachers or by their peers. 10.10


The above does not address adequately the concerns of those who have anxieties that there may be some teachers who consciously set out to persuade a class to their own point of view. Although, as suggested earlier, such anxieties are largely unfounded, they do need to be addressed. And so, recommendations are needed about how teachers might approach the teaching of controversial issues in such a way as to fulfil the aims of education for citizenship, as well as to provide some reassurance for those who are apprehensive.


The most effective way to address these two concerns will be to adopt teaching strategies which place as a priority the objective of equipping pupils with an understanding and an ability to recognise bias, an ability to recognise and evaluate argument, an ability to weigh evidence put before them, and to look for alternative interpretations, viewpoints and sources of evidence. The recommended curriculum based on learning outcomes in section 6 addresses these concerns in detail. Teaching strategies which are based on these principles will ensure that controversial issues are not only presented in a fair, acceptable and thoroughly professional manner but, more importantly, that they are also handled in a way that is most likely to stimulate the interest of pupils and achieve many of the basic aims of education for citizenship.


There are three general approaches to the teaching of controversial issues which are commonly recommended. (a) The ‘Neutral Chairman’ approach was first advocated by the Schools Council Humanities Curriculum Project (HCP). This requires the teacher not to express any personal views or allegiances whatsoever, but to act only as the facilitator of a discussion, ensuring that a wide variety of evidence is considered and that opinions of all kinds are expressed. (b) The ‘Balanced’ approach by which, as teachers ensure that all aspects of an issue are covered, they are expected to express their own opinions on a number of alternative views to encourage pupils to form their own judgements. This requires teachers to ensure that views with which they themselves may disagree, or with which the class as a whole may disagree, are also presented as persuasively as possible – in other words, to act on occasion if necessary, as ‘Devil’s Advocate’. (c) The ‘Stated Commitment’ approach in which teachers openly express their own views from the outset, as a means of encouraging discussion, during which pupils are encouraged to express their own agreement or disagreement with the teacher’s views.


It seems to us that if used in isolation, rigidly or alone, each of these approaches contains significant shortcomings. A teacher using only the ‘Neutral Chairman’ approach is likely to find pupils are unconvinced by her or his ‘neutral’ stance, perhaps because of what they know and observe about the teacher during the rest of school life. There is also some evidence from the evaluation of the HCP pilot materials on race, that this approach may lead pupils to hear only what they wish to hear, thereby reinforcing their prejudices. The ‘Balanced’ approach runs the obvious risk that as a teacher strives to ensure every point of view is given equal attention in the classroom, the pupils themselves, already subject to a barrage of partisan opinions from the mass media, may not be adequately equipped with ideas and information which counteract those that they get from the media. And the ‘Stated Commitment’ approach alone carries with it, from the start, the grave risk that teachers who use it may well be accused of bias and attempting to indoctrinate those whom they are teaching.



It is not our business or intention to try to tell teachers how to teach as if there was for every issue and in every circumstance a single best method, but we do suggest a ‘common sense’ approach has much to commend it. We suggest that teachers may wish to adapt or select methods from any or all of the strategies we have outlined, as they develop a personal style of teaching controversial issues. Sometimes, for example, a useful starting point to a lesson or discussion may be to say, ‘ Here are a number of viewpoints on the issue we are examining: what do you think?’. As a discussion develops, the teacher’s personal assessment of all such points of view may be helpful to pupils so long as contrary views have been sought and expressed. Just as sometimes it may be helpful if a teacher has the ability to say: ‘Well, I have personal experience of these matters and I’d like to share it with you.’


The guiding principle should surely be that teachers are encouraged to use whatever means they find most effective in bringing home to those they teach that, by their very nature, controversial issues do not admit of easy answers. Nevertheless, whatever approach a teacher chooses to adopt, good practice will always seek to provide assurance that the risk of bias is avoided by making sure that every aspect of an issue is examined fairly and thoroughly by means of a checklist of questions such as the following:


What are the main features and probable causes of this issue?

How, where and by whom are these matters normally resolved?

Are there other ways in which this issue might be resolved?

What are the main groups involved in this issue and what do they say needs to be done and why?

What are their interests and values? What are the likely consequences of their policies?

How can people be persuaded to act or change their minds?

How can the accuracy of the information be checked and where can additional evidence and alternative opinions be obtained?

How does this issue affect us and in what ways can we express our point of view and influence the outcome?

We recognise the anxiety that the handling of controversial issues causes to many people, especially parents, headteachers and school governors. However, in summary, we stress that three important principles underpin the recommendations in this section of our report: (a) While we do not underestimate the difficulties, it is our strong belief that offering pupils the experience of a genuinely free consideration of difficult issues forms a vital and worthwhile part of citizenship education. (b) Therefore pupils themselves should always be given some choice as to the issues to be considered. First, because that is likely to lead to a considerable increase in their enthusiasm for, and interest in, the subject-matter. Second, because it guards against attempts to impose upon them any particular sectional interest or viewpoint.


(c) Good practice will usually take the form of analysing issues according to an established set of criteria (such as those suggested in section 10.15 above) which are open to scrutiny and which are publicly defensible.

11 A last word 11.1

Let the last word – for the moment, for this report will stimulate discussion or else it has failed – be with the Lord Chancellor. Earlier this year, and coincidentally, he put the three strands of our definition of citizenship in clear and forceful terms in an address to the Citizenship Foundation at the Law Society (27 January 1998): ‘A healthy society is made up of people who care about the future. People who willingly contribute to its development for the common good. People who reject the “don’t care” culture, who are not always asking “What’s in it for me?” People who want to be practising citizens. Before this can happen they need to have a sense of belonging – of identity – with the community around them.... Our goal is to create a nation of able, informed and empowered citizens who, on the one hand, know, understand and can enforce their rights; and, on the other, recognise that the path to greatest personal fulfilment lies through active involvement in strengthening their society. Citizenship education must give people confidence to claim their rights and challenge the status quo while, at the same time, make plain that with rights come obligations. It should foster respect for law, justice and democracy. It should nurture concern for the common good at the same time as it encourages independence of thought. It should provide people with an armoury of essential skills: listening, arguing, making a case; and accepting the greater wisdom or force of an alternative view. But, since we learn by doing, the practical experience of citizenship is at least as important as formal education in its principles. One of the best ways of putting the theories of citizenship into practice is through voluntary work in the community. Young people often display a spiritual and material generosity towards others which can disappear by the time adulthood is reached. One of the challenges facing us is how to encourage children to retain that giving instinct and how to help them put it to best use.’


Appendix A Letter from the chairman to the ‘Passport Project’ on the relationship of Personal and Social Education to Citizenship Education. Professor John Tomlinson, CBE Chairman, The Passport Project Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation 98 Portland Place London W1N 4ET 12 May, 1998 Dear Professor Tomlinson,

Passport Project and Citizenship



Your committee is, I am sure, aware of the initial report of the advisory group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools established by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment of which I am chairman. I am glad that our Professional Officer, David Kerr, has been invited to attend your meetings and that there is other cross-membership. The proposal for your project, it is almost needless to say, struck me and my colleagues as an admirable and well stated proposal for getting greater clarity and systematic purpose into PSE – an area of education of extraordinary importance but which, indeed, has sometimes been as variegated and confused as has Citizenship in schools.


Noting the several strong references to Citizenship in your framework document, I think it might be useful to set down my own view of where the two areas differ as well as coincide, otherwise confusion may arise both in educational circles and in the public mind that will help neither of us. To be clear on this is a pressing matter because, on the one hand, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment clearly intends that Citizenship will play a role in a revised national curriculum and, on the other hand, there has been established the committee on PSHE of the two ministers from the Department for Education and Employment and from the Department of Health, doubtless to be much enriched and influenced by your eventual recommendations. With so much public importance attached to both areas, it is very important, I suggest, that we both can give a clear message about divergences as well as common ground and do not appear to be rivals for curriculum time whether separately or together – thus worrying teachers about overload and duplication.


I am a little concerned because throughout your initial document, as summarised in Appendix 3, A Framework for PSE in Schools, Citizenship is treated as sub-theme of PSE. This may be because your project takes as its starting point the five cross-curricular themes as defined by the NCC in 1989.

One of these was Education for Citizenship (Curriculum Guidance 8). Our work began by assuming that we were set up both because that paper’s definition of citizenship was too narrow and because a cross-curricular approach to citizenship had failed. Your treatment of Citizenship gives me no cause to worry if it is read as a temporal statement relating to primary education, but it does worry me if it can be read as an intellectual statement on which curriculum development would be based: that what is needed for good citizenship can simply be deduced from the principles to guide PSE, whether part of the curriculum or cross-curricular. 4.

In our initial report we give, as it were, a sound-bite summary of three senses or strands of Citizenship education as the three heads on one body: ‘social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political literacy’. The first may be thought of as common ground between us (indeed for all education) or as our final report may well state more clearly, the essential pre-condition for what is commonly thought of as citizenship both as teaching and practice. The second clearly has much common ground, if with a different emphasis (I will elaborate in a moment); but the third is quite distinct in content from anything reasonably called PSE and calls for a different type of teacher and teaching as well as curriculum.


This will become clearer in the second phase of our work that we have only just begun: setting out learning objectives through Key Stages 1 to 4 (not a precisely prescribed programme for citizenship education as in the present National Curriculum subjects) by (a) values, concepts and attitudes; (b) skills; and (c) knowledge. A word on each. (a) Most values and attitudes will, of course, begin in PSE teaching influenced by the ideas of SMSC, indeed exist already in the whole ethos of a good primary school (say ‘responsibility’ itself, say ‘respect for truth’, say ‘tolerance and empathy’, say ‘a sense of right and wrong’). But, of course, in Citizenship learning and education moral questions of responsibility gradually have to be attached to institutional knowledge of who or what body is responsible, whether in social or voluntary services or in political and administrative structures. And the limits of toleration have to be discussed in terms of public order and political doctrines, as well as the ability to understand different interests and values. Always ‘what is thought to be the case’, ‘what is the case’ and only then ‘what ought to be the case’. (b) ‘Community involvement’ is an objective that is a large part of our remit. We have yet to discuss how far schools can be required to take action in this field as distinct from encouraging it strongly as a definite set of assessable learning objectives. But at least (and I suspect we will go further) a concrete knowledge of what are community organisations, voluntary and official, local and national, will be required and treated as a child’s entitlement to know and to be given a chance to volunteer. This may be thought of as either common ground or an extension of PSE into Citizenship; but I suspect that once it passes into Key Stages 3 and 4 it will need a different kind of teacher and teaching, more akin to our third and overtly ‘political strand’. For it is impossible, undesirable, indeed to discuss such community organisations without policy and 63

political issues being raised. However much teachers must stress the reality of ‘what is the case’ and try to keep expectations realistic, ‘what ought to be the case’ and ‘can it be done better?’ will inevitably be discussed and should be discussed. (c) By ‘political literacy’ we mean to imply that not only knowledge of political and social institutions and ideas, but the skills, values and attitudes are needed for the practice of good citizenship in adult life, and some experience of analogous activities whether in or out of school. However, the knowledge component is large: again, national and local political, economic and social institutions, the EU and other international commitments and concerns (all these in our remit). This is certainly distinct from PSE and is more likely to be undertaken in its early years of development (and we have advised that it should be phased in gradually) by History or Geography teachers than by those trained in PSE or moral education. So looked at from the point of view of curriculum construction, our first Citizenship strand above could be fully satisfied within PSE programmes; the second less clearly so, or different schools may properly interpret it either way if neither field is over-prescriptive; but the third strand is clearly a different concern from PSE, and one in which, I suspect, you would not want to get involved!



The interests of good citizenship would, in my opinion, be fully served if my sub-committee on the primary stages comes up with some simple but definite learning objectives, particularly concerning our second and third strands; so that, for example, no child should leave primary school without more than a glimmer of what are the differences between democracies and dictatorships, what are the main institutions of government in the United Kingdom (eg the difference between the office of Prime Minister and the Crown), what local councillors and MPs can and cannot do, and what are community organisations etc. Some children get this in primary school already (it is well within their abilities), but some not at all. It is an essential basis on which to build towards the aim of a politically literate citizenry as well as one disposed towards public and voluntary service. Citizenship depends upon good behaviour and an ability to make informed moral judgements; but it is far more than that.


However, what is essential common ground is that at primary school ‘circle teaching’ or inter-active and experiential teaching is practised for both PSE and Citizenship objectives – an essential way to fulfil the aims of both. More traditional direct teaching may, indeed, be the best way forward to enhance literacy and numeracy. Neither of our groups should or need to contest that for one moment. But we do both need, I suggest, to say very firmly that children learn responsibility best and gain a sense of moral values by discussing, with good guidance from the earliest age, real and controversial issues. Talk, discussion and debate are the bases of social responsibility and intercourse and the grounding and practice of active citizenship. Simple and immediate issues get discussed at first, of course – home and neighbourhood, attitudes to stealing etc, but then more complex social issues, with reasons and evidence for opinions being demanded at every stage. Take the practical issues which, I believe, the PSHE committee of two ministers may concentrate on: drug and alcohol abuse,

sexual morality and behaviour, and parenting. Each of these presumably begins with classroom discussions centred on personal responsibility – clearly PSE territory in every sense; but in secondary school these issues will be also discussed as issues of public policy identified with parties and pressure groups, justice and law enforcement – more plainly Citizenship. 8.

We are both aware how ambivalent is public opinion (certainly the press): demands that something must be done in schools in both fields, but fears that the wrong things are being done; sometimes a naive belief that values can be directly taught, coupled with a somewhat contradictory fear of indoctrination. The view is even expressed that schools should keep out of both areas because of fears of bias, so ‘leave it to the parents’. Because of this my group has just set up a sub-committee on ‘The Teaching of Controversial Issues’ with the aim of providing an advisory paper aimed both to assuage public worries and to give teachers some practical guidance. (David Kerr will see that an early draft reaches you with the possibility in mind of a broadly common approach, at least non-contradictory statements – possibly even a joint statement?).


To put it briefly. I myself would be quite happy, despite the remit of my Group to cover all the time in school, simply to set out what citizenship learning objectives should be met in Key Stages 1 and 2, presumably to be taught in PSE. ‘What’s in a name?’ (I have recently visited a primary school in a problem area that teaches all I want to mean by Citizenship under the rubric PSE; and visited another that under the flag of ‘Citizenship’ tackles many of the objectives you set out, with a particular emphasis on ‘parenting’). But for Stages 3 and 4 I would see a Citizenship programme as having substantially different goals from PSE; so that both areas need a definite and different curriculum even if (which is important) there are fruitful areas of overlap – the approach, for example, to crime and drug abuse as personal responsibility, but also to be examined and discussed as social and political problems. ‘Overlap’ is not an invitation to time-table a consolidation of teaching at that level, rather should be seen as a fruitful reinforcement. To put it logically: PSE is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for good citizenship.


I hope this genuine attempt to clarify is welcome, not itself confusing.

Yours sincerely,

Bernard Crick


Reply from chairman of the Passport Project to Professor Crick

PASSPORT THE PASSPORT PROJECT Raising the Quality of PSE in Schools

Professor Bernard Crick Chairman, Citizenship Advisory Group QCA 29 Bolton Street London W1Y 7PD

26 May 1998

Dear Professor Crick, Very many thanks for your letter of 12 May. Our view of the Citizenship project could almost be exactly described in the words you use about PSE in schools – ‘an area of education of extraordinary importance but which, indeed, has sometimes been as variegated and confused as [PSE] in schools’. So we see the problem in the same light and care equally that the revised National Curriculum should give both areas their due weight and space. Your long and thoughtful summary of the relationship between the two domains deserves to become a locus classicus. The Passport Project leaders are in complete agreement with your understanding of where our two projects meet and diverge. And we are determined to ensure that our project works alongside the several other cognate projects and enquiries now in train so that the model eventually offered to schools is coherent and workable. We look forward to the contribution David Kerr will be able to make to that end so far as your project is concerned. On behalf of all involved in the Passport Project, thank you for writing so fully and helpfully. And let us work together to see the teachers and the children are offered a better curriculum after 2000. Yours sincerely

John Tomlinson









Chairman, Advisory Committee




with additional support from the Department for Education and Employment

Appendix B New information and communication technologies and Education for Citizenship The purpose of this appendix is three-fold. It seeks to demonstrate that: ■

new information and communication technologies (ICTs), specifically the Internet, are growing fast as an educational tool, particularly amongst young people;

many opportunities to become better informed about citizenship and to participate in democratic discussion exist on the Internet;

the interactive character of the Internet provides opportunities for invigorating citizenship education, although some notes of caution need to be considered.

The growth of the Internet In June 1997, when the last major survey was carried out, the number of households in Britain with access to the Internet was 960,000: approximately 1 in 25 of all households. The number exactly one year earlier (June 1996) was under 400,000. Six million people over 18 used the Internet in the year prior to June 1997 and approximately nine million are expected to have used it by June 1998. The growth in UK Internet connectivity shows no sign of decreasing. Indeed, with schools becoming systematically connected via the National Grid for learning, and pupils having their own e-mail addresses, there is every reason to predict a continued sharp rise in the number of ‘connected’ citizens in the UK. However, not all users of the Internet use the World Wide Web (WWW). The Internet is still mainly used for e-mail. Using the WWW (ie visiting web sites) is more costly, as it involves maintaining a telephone connection when on-line, and web sites cannot be visited without being on-line. Comparative data with countries where telephone call charges are lower show greater use of the WWW by Internet users – and where there is no charge for local calls, as in the USA and Canada, Web use is very high. Nonetheless, use of the WWW has grown significantly in the UK: three million Internet users used the WWW in the month before June 1997, whereas only 1,100,000 had in December 1995. The fastest rate of growth for Internet usage is for educational purposes. In June 1996, 39% of the Internet use was as an educational tool. By June 1997 this had increased to 48%. This has coincided with growth in Internet connections by younger people: 29% of users are aged between 25 and 34. Most students (at school or college) are not connected in their own name, but some have access to the Internet and WWW via personal computers at home and /or school/college computers.


Opportunities for on-line information and/or deliberation of citizenship There is a wealth of information on the WWW. Much of it is primarily US-based and of little use to UK citizens. Unfortunately, most web browsers (which search for sites matching key words) have a built-in tendency to find American sites. However, as background for the teaching of citizenship and politics, there are several very good UK-based sites which meet key standards of accuracy, impartiality and comprehensiveness. These sites offer political and social resources which are broader and less expensive than most schools or colleges could otherwise afford to store. Amongst the best UK web sites are Julian White’s British Politics Page: , and Richard Kimber’s Political Science Resources (produced at Keele University): . The Keele site is particularly good for accurate, up-to-date political facts and figures, and it includes David Boothroyd’s Election site which is a mine of information on UK elections. UK school networks can be reached via Eduweb, which has its own discussion groups: and SchoolNet: . The on-line journal, From Now On, is a very good resource for linking schools internationally and providing clear guidelines on web design and protocol: . The EU’s Europa website is not the easiest to navigate, but there is a worthwhile forum, Dialogue Youth: . There is also the well-established EU Youth Forum: . The Tatis discussion network is of relevance to educators seeking to make links with others in the EU; it can be contacted by e-mail via . On international issues, the One World web site is excellent: . The same site also runs community.web which connects a number of active youthbased groups: . Of similar interest is the UNICEF information and discussion site: . It is important to differentiate between such web sites and those from news groups which are primarily informational or based on specifically-organised discussions and which encourage more casual, user-driven discussion of news and current affairs. The latter are particularly active in the UK. The uk.politics news groups have regularly received several hundred messages per day and often of a quite high standard of discussion. News groups exist in the form of ‘hierarchies’, with uk.politics as the opening address, followed by a dot and then a sub-theme, such as electoral reform, cryptography, or the environment. (There are hundreds of themes: some attract many participants, others remain relatively dormant.) A more international news group hierarchy is news:talk. The participants in news groups are overwhelmingly young and not conventionally politically involved. A good search engine for new groups is . The UK has pioneered citizen-led, on-line discussion at a national level with the formation in 1995 of UK Citizens Online Democracy (UKCOD). This non-partisan, independent web site was set up with the intention of providing an on-line public space for informed democratic dialogue amongst citizens and between citizens and government. A good example of UKCOD’s work was the government-supported Have


Your Say forum (to be found at ) set up as a pre-legislative on-line public consultation on the Freedom of Information (Your Right To Know) White Paper. The site was used to provide access to the White Paper, with informative background material relating to it; to allow any citizen to make an on-line submission to the Cabinet Office regarding the White Paper; and for a ‘Meet The Minister’ session in which questions from the public were put to the Minister over an extended period. This site could be used as an example of how government consultation takes place, allowing young citizens to evaluate the arguments and advocacy skills of those involved. It is also useful, in terms of education for citizenship, to look at how discussions develop; the Internet permits this because most web sites remain as archives after they are ‘dead’. The work of UKCOD as a pioneer UK experiment in on-line democratic deliberation is covered in the UK chapter for the G7 Government-Online White Paper: . On-line opportunities Certain opportunities provided by the new information and communication technologies are of particular relevance to citizenship education. It is important to point out that: ■

the technologies are interactive: users are not expected to simply imbibe information, but are usually able to add to it or contest it;

the information provided is easy to access (once on-line) and can be examined in as much or little depth as the user chooses;

information can be updated regularly;

on-line discussions offer people a sense of not simply hearing about or being spectators of civic affairs, but becoming involved as deliberating participants. The commonly-stated claim that ‘nobody cares what I think’ is countered by the ease with which citizens can have their say on-line and experience a sense of being heard and meeting responses;

on-line discussion allows citizens to become familiar with the rules (implicit as well as formal) of democratic debate. Very often peer pressure from other users serves to temper the initial dogmatism or crudeness of contributions to discussion. On-line discussion exposes people to information and ideas they might not otherwise have encountered;

globalisation has been an intellectual as well as an economic process. This applies particularly to ‘cyberspace’ which is quintessentially global: it is as easy to discuss issues with people in Melbourne, Australia as it is with those in Manchester. The European Union (EU) has been pursuing a number of initiatives to further the use of the Internet as a means of developing common understanding between the citizens of Europe (Tatis);

sites such as UKCOD allow citizens a closer (virtual) proximity to people in authority than they would otherwise have;


much has been written about the effects upon the identities of ‘netizens’, that is citizens who use the Internet. Some of this is perhaps exaggerated, but there is certainly evidence that groups such as the disabled or the young feel less intimidated or ignored in an interactive forum where their identities are not revealed;

the imminent arrival of digital TV (DTV) could soon make interactive communication a much more widespread aspect of being a citizen. DTV will have vast potential for interactive communication and should have within its provision a Citizens’ Channel and other slots for more direct interaction between citizens and government. One school of thought suggests that DTV will render the Internet obsolete, but even if that is so, in terms of educating young people to be active citizens, the Internet is an excellent tool and the best available at present;

the Internet’s anarchic reputation is well known. In fact, good Internet usage does require rules and regulation; nonetheless, the sense of free access to information and comment and the diminished barriers between rulers and ruled does make for a more egalitarian, liberal (if sometimes libertarian) atmosphere. This communication environment may well be compatible with values of individual independence combined with civic co-operation appropriate to a twenty-first century conception of citizenship.

Notes of caution New information and communication technologies (ICTs) possess no inherent means of enhancing political literacy and developing young people as active and informed citizens. Socio-political (and, indeed, philosophical issues) must be considered before assuming that the new media can facilitate a more democratic, participative approach to informed citizenship. Notes of caution that need to be considered when considering the use of ICTs in citizenship education include:


there is currently unequal access to the Internet, leading to the well-known divide between the information-rich and information-poor. When all students are on-line at school or college this division will diminish, but still there will be a divide between those who have on-line access outside of school or college and those who do not;

some information on the Internet is outdated, and trivial, inaccurate or heavily slanted. It is important to teach skills of discrimination and good judgement – as in the whole curriculum – that will enable users to distinguish between useful, less useful and useless information. With the expansion of new media these critical skills will be more essential than ever as prerequisites for active citizenship;

some (though probably only a minority) of on-line discussions are poorly monitored. Some thought is currently being given to the need for training in monitoring on-line democratic discussions. It is necessary to refine these skills and produce ‘best practice’ guides for moderated interactive discussion. In acquiring these skills, young people could learn much about debating protocols and the importance of developing tolerant approaches to discussion based upon ‘hearing’ as well as ‘speaking’;

some Internet users and, more importantly, web site providers, are as yet too concerned about technology and insufficiently aware of the need for the quality of content and materials;

the Internet, as an educational tool, can be both interactive and stimulating to the critical mind. An alternative tendency, notable amongst the flourishing growth of educational games and on-line libraries, is based upon a rather simplistic, encyclopaedic purely factual approach to knowledge. If applied to citizenship education this would be a negative tendency, diminishing autonomous, critical thought and teaching a reliance upon formulaic conceptions of citizenship. So, it is important that recommended sites involve dialogue debate and ideas as well as information provision.

Most of these problems are equally applicable to the use of any library system. They are not peculiar to the Internet, but should be noted as a counter to those who have depicted new information and communication technologies as ‘the solution’ to concerns about the ‘democratic deficit’ in modern societies. Overall a strong case can be made for the use of ICTs as an integral part of education for citizenship. However, at present, there are few signs that schools and colleges are realising or have the resources to realise the full potential of this important link within the curriculum. Much of the potential is dependent on the competence and confidence of teachers in using ICTs as a teaching and learning tool as well as on resources. It is to be hoped that the opportunities provided by ICTs to contribute to effective citizenship education for all young people will be fully grasped in the coming years and the experiences and outcomes carefully monitored and evaluated. Further useful websites: The Labour Party: Conservative Party: Liberal Democrats Party: Scottish Nationalists: Government Information Services: Number 10 Downing Street site: Parliament: House of Commons: House of Lords: UK Directory: British Politics Index: <> Cambridge University Law Faculty’s Politics link Page: National Citizens Advice Bureaux: Dr Stephen Coleman Director of Studies, The Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government LSE Media Research Group Political Consultant, UKCOD


Appendix C The consultation process Background In our initial report we recommended that before this final report was written we would present the initial report to regional conferences for representatives of governing bodies, parents’ associations, youth organisations, local authorities, community and voluntary organisations, employer and employee organisations, as well as teachers and teacher associations. QCA organised three consultative conferences in June 1998. The conferences were held in Birmingham on 2 June (70 participants), Sheffield on 5 June (89 participants) and London on 8 June (99 participants). Participants at each conference included teachers, drawn from a representative sample of schools in each area, as well as representatives from local education authorities, subject associations, teacher unions, community and voluntary organisations and other interested bodies and individuals. Members of the Advisory Group also attended. The conferences had a uniform format consisting of short keynote presentations, followed by questions, group discussions and a plenary session. David Blunkett, Secretary of State for Education and Employment spoke at the Sheffield conference, Estelle Morris, then junior Minister for Education, at London, and Professor Tim Brighouse, Birmingham’s Director of Education, at Birmingham. At the same time, the Advisory Group gathered further views by means of a short proforma included with the initial report. Two hundred and sixty-seven responses were received, 229 completed proformas and 38 in the form of letters or written statements. These views were considered alongside those from the consultative conferences. Those who took part in the consultation process are named in Appendix D. What follows is a summary of (a) the views expressed in the consultation conferences (as noted by the QCA officers attached to each session); (b) the responses to the proforma questions. (The analysis of these responses was carried out by Jim Jamison and Sarah Blenkinsop from the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) with assistance from David Kerr). (a) A summary of the views expressed in the consultation conferences There was general support from participants for the essential recommendations, the definition and the need and aims of citizenship as set out in the initial report. Many felt that the aim and purpose of education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools required greater emphasis to ensure that everyone concerned was clear about the distinctiveness of the subject and its benefits for pupils, teachers, schools and society. Points raised in connection with specific recommendations included:


statutory entitlement – participants argued that a statutory entitlement was essential to ensure that citizenship had status as a subject in schools, particularly in relation to existing National Curriculum subjects. This status must be clear to teachers, pupils and parents to ensure that citizenship education will be taken seriously. A number of participants emphasised the need for citizenship education to be a specific focus of the OFSTED school inspection process, to reinforce the issue of status. Some went further and argued that OFSTED should hold headteachers accountable for ensuring the statutory entitlement was met, while a small number felt that citizenship should be a feature of league tables for schools. learning outcomes – this approach was warmly welcomed as a positive development, particularly by those from schools. They saw that it offered flexibility in relation to local circumstances. There was general relief that the group had not proposed a rigid programme of study for citizenship education, as in the existing National Curriculum subjects. Participants felt that the learning outcomes approach would stimulate a diversity of approach to citizenship education and allow schools to build on existing good practice. However some participants expressed concern that if citizenship education became part of the formal curriculum there was a danger that some of the informal aspects of current citizenship teaching might be lost. Others argued that while citizenship is not a new subject in some schools, the approach through learning outcomes is and, therefore, it would require exemplification and support and training for teachers to fulfil its potential. There were a number of issues which it was felt were not given sufficient emphasis in the initial report, notably social issues, economic aspects, including the pupil as future worker and consumer, environmental concerns, human rights issues, media literacy and European and global dimensions. These should be made more explicit in the proposed learning outcomes. Many participants argued that there was insufficient reference in the initial report to assessment. There was general agreement that it required further clarification, but there was no consensus on how. Some participants were opposed to a national qualification in citizenship education, others suggested drawing up a set of standards or levels of expectation which could be moderated, while others favoured an approach akin to the National Record of Achievement. curriculum time – many participants were concerned about the stipulation of up to five per cent of curriculum time for citizenship, if made without consideration of the implications for teaching time within the curriculum as a whole. Those from primary schools raised the issue of time for citizenship alongside the current time and resource expectations of the literacy and numeracy strategies. It was important that citizenship was not presented to schools as yet another thing to be squeezed into the curriculum at the expense of other subjects and areas. Therefore it was essential that the issue of curriculum time for citizenship was considered within the context of the review of the


National Curriculum and presented as part of the overall advice to schools on how to manage the revised National Curriculum. While recognising the need to ensure distinct and identifiable curriculum time, because of the failure of cross-curricular approaches, participants considered that flexibility of approach was the key to curriculum time. The acknowledgement of different ways of distributing curriculum time for citizenship and of potential combinations of elements of citizenship education with other subjects was considered helpful in this respect, though requiring further clarification. combinations with other subjects – participants requested further clarification of the proposed links between elements of citizenship education and other subjects, as well as relationship of citizenship to other initiatives in Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE), sustainable development, arts and creativity, and Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Education (SMSC). It was noted by many participants that there are clear links between citizenship and PSHE in terms of pupil development of values and skills, particularly in primary schools. However, some participants warned that teachers would not be able to distinguish between the two areas unless the rationale for and distinctiveness of citizenship was clearly stated and understood. post-16 education and training – there was strong support for the continuation of citizenship education as an entitlement for all students involved in post-16 education and training. The group should consider this further. whole-school approaches – it was accepted that for citizenship education to be successful it had to be both for all pupils and accessible to all pupils. The emphasis should not be on disaffected and special needs pupils nor should it be the sole preserve of those on academic courses. The ethos and organisation of the school was seen as central to such an approach. Some participants felt that the culture of schools needed to change if this was to happen, particularly in terms of their capacity to value, listen to and involve pupils in school matters. A number of participants stressed the need for pupils to be given opportunities to experience citizenship beyond the taught curriculum in schools, particularly through active involvement in class and school councils. However, there was no agreement as to how this could be best achieved. Some participants favoured encouraging schools to offer such experiences while others pressed strongly for such involvement to be made a statutory requirement. There was also strong support for greater co-operation between schools and their local communities. This was seen as a key component of citizenship education and a way to link the three strands as set out in the initial report. Many participants provided positive and effective examples of such co-operative experiences. They underlined the need for teachers to be encouraged to work in partnership with a range of local bodies such as councils, churches, charities, voluntary bodies, employers, businesses, youth groups, youth service and public services such as the police.


phased introduction and implementation – this was generally welcomed, though participants raised a number of areas, affecting implementation, to which it was hoped the Advisory Group would give further consideration. These included teacher training, OFSTED inspection, advice and guidance, and dissemination. Participants emphasised the importance of teacher training, both initial and in-service, in ensuring that both new and existing teachers have the confidence, knowledge and skills to be able to deliver effective citizenship education. Some raised a concern about the current difficulty of those with social science backgrounds to secure places on PGCE postgraduate teacher training courses. It was felt such people would be a welcome addition to the number of teachers qualified to teach citizenship in schools. Many participants called for the OFSTED inspection framework to be amended following the review of the National Curriculum, to take account of citizenship education. They argued this would be crucial to how it would be approached by schools, and to its status. However, there were concerns that some aspects of citizenship education were difficult to inspect and would require careful handling. Many participants also stressed the need for mechanisms to enable the sharing and dissemination of examples of effective practice. This process would be given a kickstart if some examples of effective practice were included within the Advisory Group’s final report. Finally, participants stressed the need for the main messages from the final report and any further advice and guidance to be distributed widely and quickly in order to assist planning and implementation. Dissemination needed to be broader than schools and include all those involved in the education of children, including governors, parents, politicians and the wider community. (b) A summary of the proforma responses to the Advisory Group’s initial report Introduction Two hundred and twenty-nine completed proformas were returned and in addition 38 responses were received in the form of letters or written statements. Nearly all of the respondents identified themselves or their institutions. The responses were as follows – 43 from universities, 36 from schools, 28 from local authorities, 13 from local authority related organisations, ten from subject and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) associations, seven from faith organisations, four from organisations concerned specifically with citizenship education, six from teachers associations, three from Training and Enterprise Councils (TECs) and business education organisations, 69 from other organisations and 37 from individuals. The organisations and individuals are included in Appendix D, Acknowledgements. When the responses were analysed by group (schools, universities, local authorities, etc) it was found that there was very little difference – the same pattern of response was repeated. Many responses were brief, consisting largely of expressions of general agreement with some specific suggestions. There were also some quite lengthy written responses, sent in addition to or instead of the proforma and the key messages from these responses have been included in the analysis. 75

Key points from the proforma responses ■

Over 80 per cent of respondents agreed with the essential recommendations, the next steps and the way in which citizenship was defined in the initial report.

A frequently-expressed concern was that global, European and multicultural issues should be given sufficient emphasis in citizenship education.

While some respondents saw citizenship as a separate element in the curriculum, a much greater number felt that it should be closely related to PSHE programmes in schools.

There was a widespread feeling that learning about citizenship should be active and participatory and should involve participation from members of the wider community.

Responses to each question are explored in more detail below. Do you agree with the essential recommendations? Of the 229 respondents who completed the proforma, 222 replied to this question. Of these, 187 (84 per cent) agreed with the essential recommendations, 24 (11 per cent) disagreed and ten (four per cent) indicated that they agreed with some recommendations but not all. Additional comments, either expressing support for, or dissension from, specific recommendations were made by some respondents. Of these, 25 (17 who agreed and eight who disagreed) thought that learning about citizenship and democracy should either be integrated with PSHE or related to it in the curriculum; only five of these respondents stated that they thought citizenship should be a separate subject. Twenty (17 who agreed and three who disagreed) expressed the view that learning about citizenship should be active and participatory and twenty (18 who agreed and two who disagreed) were strongly in favour of citizenship being a statutory curriculum entitlement. Four felt that it should not be. The concept of a maximum of five per cent of curriculum time for citizenship was criticised by 20 respondents, eleven of whom largely agreed with the essential recommendations. Twelve wrote stressing the need for more consideration of global or European issues within citizenship education. Fourteen, all but one of whom agreed in principle with the recommendations, expressed support for the flexibility provided by the suggested output model based on tightly defined learning outcomes. Do you agree with the ‘next steps’ outlined? Once again, the majority agreed. Of the 221 who responded to this question, 190 agreed (86 per cent), 21 disagreed (10 per cent) and four agreed with some aspects of this section but not all. Thirty-one respondents (28 who agreed and three who disagreed) wrote stressing the need to involve the wider community actively in citizenship education. Almost as many (26 who agreed and four who disagreed) stressed the need for training and guidelines for teachers and for the provision of


adequate resources. Fourteen respondents stated that, in their view, in addition to the specific learning outcomes for teaching about citizenship and democracy, schools needed guidance on how this should be structured and taught. Twelve took the opportunity in answering this question to indicate their belief that citizenship education should be closely related to PSHE. Do you agree with the definition of Citizenship Education? Two hundred and twenty respondents answered this question, 183 (83 per cent) agreeing with the definition. Twenty-seven (12 per cent) disagreed and ten (five per cent) were uncertain. Only two comments featured in more than six responses. These were that global, European and multicultural issues should be included (15 comments) and once again that citizenship should be closely related to PSHE (nine comments). Other comments In response to the invitation to add any additional comments, a number of respondents wrote comments which could be categorised as expressing general approval or disapproval of the report, without saying anything specific. Of these, 34 were generally positive and only seven were negative. The other comments are summarised in tabular form below: Table 1

Respondents’ additional comments on the initial report


Citizenship should be integrated with or related to PSHE Comments on the need for funded teacher training and resources Citizenship programmes should be participatory and democratic Global and European issues should be included Include the wider community in an active participatory role Concerns about the already crowded school curriculum Stressing the importance of learning outcomes and assessment Importance of addressing ethnic diversity

Number of Respondents

33 31 29 25 24 17 12 9

These comments were made by respondents from all of the main respondent groups. None of the comments came exclusively or mainly from one group. The 38 additional responses which were received in the form of statements and letters were almost all in favour of education for citizenship and teaching about democracy taking place in schools. A number of these responses expressed concerns about the context within which the advisory group was working. These can be summarised as falling into two categories: fears that a specialist and enthusiastic group were creating a separate subject which would have to be integrated into the National Curriculum prior to the outcomes of


the National Curriculum review; and the belief that the Advisory Group, or at least the proposed standing Committee on Citizenship Education, should include wider representation – from local authorities, teacher associations, ethnic groups, special interest groups and others. Some of these respondents also questioned the need for a separate standing Committee for Citizenship Education. It was felt by teacher associations that the time and financial cost of citizenship education becoming a statutory requirement in schools required further investigation. There were concerns too about how even five per cent of curriculum time could be found to accommodate it. These concerns prompted some respondents to state their opposition to curriculum time for citizenship education being found at the expense of other subjects and to suggest that it should be located in PSHE and other subjects. On the other hand, some of those who supported the idea of citizenship education having a separate ‘slot’ in the curriculum were concerned that without this, it would suffer the fate which has met the cross-curricular themes in many schools, especially secondary schools, that of being diffused across subjects and lost. These respondents similarly argued for it to be taught by teachers with specialist knowledge. There was some concern expressed that citizenship education could become a way of encouraging children to behave appropriately. Many commented on the importance of the ethos of the school needing to be itself democratic if the teaching of democracy were to succeed: ‘if the ethos of the school is not reinforcing the skills and practices the students are learning in the lessons, then the impact on them is minimal....staff training needs to precede working with students and consultation needs to precede staff training’. Some felt strongly that citizenship education meant that all schools should have school councils, but ‘school councils fail if real power is not shared’. Circle time was also identified as having the potential to give young people the experience of developing rules and solving difficulties democratically. Respondents from some schools and local authorities pointed out that the local context in which schools would be teaching about citizenship and democracy should be taken into consideration. They referred to communities of great ethnic diversity and to communities where much of the population felt disenfranchised or socially excluded and urged the advisory group to consider strategies to include and consult with the wider community, particularly parents. There was concern expressed about potential variation in pupils’ experiences of citizenship education. A small number felt that establishing specific learning outcomes, rather than detailed programmes of study, could mean that the content and quality of teaching and learning might continue to vary widely between schools and LEAs.


Also with the quality of teaching and learning in mind, many respondents saw a need for the implementation of a programme of citizenship education to be supported by a component in initial teacher training courses and in-service training programmes. Summary Although the responses to the consultation exercise are relatively small in number, and should not be regarded as representative of the views of all interested groups, they do contain considered and potentially helpful messages. There are concerns about where citizenship education should be located in the curriculum, its scope, particularly in addressing local, European and global issues, how it should be taught and how it will be resourced. However, the central message is that there is strong support from a range of groups and individuals for education for citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools as set out in the advisory group’s initial report and for its inclusion in the revised National Curriculum. Conclusion The consultation process, though constrained by the limits of time between the publication of the initial report in March 1998 and the completion of the final report in summer 1998, proved to be extremely valuable and worthwhile. The advisory group are grateful to all who took the time and effort to contribute. The consultation process influenced members’ thinking, as reflected in the substance, tenor and organisation of this final report. Responses to the final report will be carefully considered by both DfEE and QCA.


Appendix D Acknowledgements The Advisory Group would like to offer particular thanks to the following for their contributions and advice in developing the framework of learning outcomes for citizenship education in schools: Primary sub-group David Kerr- Chair (Professional Officer ). Annabelle Dixon - Lucy Cavendish College, University of Cambridge. Mavis Grant - Mary Trevelyan Primary School, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Roy Honeybone - Mansbridge County Primary School, Swaythling, Hampshire. Don Rowe - Citizenship Foundation. Graeme Smith - The Brow County Primary School, Halton Brow, Runcorn. Secondary sub-group David Kerr- Chair (Professional Officer ). Heather Daulphin - Hampstead School, London. Tina Harvey St Anne’s SLD School, Merton, Surrey. Jan Newton - Citizenship Foundation. John Potter - Community Service Volunteers. Graham Robb - HM Chief Inspector for Careers. Gabby Rowbery - Council for Education in World Citizenship. Chris Waller - Mill Chase Community School, Bordon, Hampshire. The following members of the advisory group worked on the Controversial Issues Paper. Controversial issues sub-group Dr Alex Porter - Chair, Elaine Applebee, Michael Brunson, Marianne Talbot, and Phil Turner. Our thanks also go to Dr Stephen Coleman, for his work on Appendix B New information and communication technologies and education for citizenship and to Jim Jamison and Sarah Blenkinsop at NFER for their analysis of the responses to the initial report which are included in Appendix C The Consultation Process. We are also grateful to all those teachers and professionals who attended and contributed to the consultation conferences held in June 1998. The Advisory Group would also like to thank the following schools, colleges, local authorities, universities, subject and teacher associations, organisations, government agencies and departments, and individuals for all their contributions and responses to our work. Initial Consultations Colin Adams, National Association of Humanities Advisers (NAHA). John Bangs, National Union of Teachers (NUT). Tony Breslin, Citizenship 2000. Terry Cane and Tom Wylie, National Youth Agency (NYA). Arthur de Caux, National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT). Professor Ken Fogelman, Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education. Dr Rita Gardner, Royal Geographical Society (RGS). David Harris, The Hansard Society. Olwyn Gunn, National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT). Samantha Peters, British Youth Council (BYC). John Potter, Community Service Volunteers (CSV). Patricia Rogers, Council for Education in World Citizenship (CEWC). Don Rowe, Citizenship Foundation. Pat Smith, Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL). Madeline Stiles, The Historical Association (HA). Peter Stokes, The Foundation for Civil Society. John Sutton, Secondary Heads Association (SHA). Jenny Talbot, The Institute for Citizenship Studies. Clive Thomas, The Politics Association. Schools Albert Bradbeer Junior School. All Saints RC School, Sheffield. Alleyn’s School, London. Ampleforth College, York. Aran Hall School, Gwynedd. Archbishop Grimshaw Secondary School, Birmingham. Archbishop Tenison’s CE High School, Croydon. Ashley School, Widnes, Cheshire. Avondale Park School, London. Barrs Hill School and Community College, Coventry. Beaverwood School, Kent. Beech Hill Primary School, Wigan. Belfast Royal Academy. Bilton High School, Rugby, Warwickshire. Bordesley Green Primary School, Birmingham. Bramcote Park Comprehensive, Nottingham. Broadoak High School, Manchester. Brodetsky Primary School, Leeds. Brooke Weston City Technology College, Corby. Buckpool School, West Midlands. Brow County Primary School, Halton Brow, Runcorn, Cheshire. Bury Grammar School for Girls, Lancashire. Byron Primary School, Gillingham, Kent. Cambridge School, London. Carmel College, St Helens, Merseyside. Cherwell Upper School, Oxford. Cheslyn Hay Primary School, Wolverhampton. Chislehurst and Sidcup Grammar School, Sidcup, Kent. City Technology College, Birmingham. City School, Sheffield. Clifton Comprehensive, Rotherham. Collingswood College, Durham. Co-operative College, Loughborough. Courthouse Green Primary School, Coventry. Cypress Hill Junior School, London. Dame Dorothy Primary School, Sunderland. Dartford Grammar School for Girls, Kent. Dronfield School, Dronfield, Derbyshire. Eare Marshall School, Sheffield. Edge End High School, Nelson. Edwalton Primary School, Nottingham. Fair Oak Junior School, Eastleigh, Hampshire. Farnborough Grange County Nursery and Infant School, Hampshire. Ferndown Upper School, Dorset. Firfield Primary School, Derbyshire. Foulstone School, Barnsley. Frances Bardsley School, Essex. Frankeley Community High, Birmingham. Godolphin and Latymer School, London. Grangetown Primary School, Middlesborough. Hallmoor School, Birmingham. Hampstead School, London. Harrogate College, Harrogate. Hartland School, Nottinghamshire. Higham Lane School, Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Highfield Primary School, Plymouth, Devon. Hillcrest School, Birmingham. Hindle House School, Sheffield. Holly Lodge High School, West Midlands. Immanuel College, Bushey, Hertfordshire. Jewish Free School, London. John Bentley School, Calne, Wiltshire. King Solomon High School, Ilford, Essex. Kings School, Worcester. Lancaster Royal Grammar School, Lancaster. Langley Green Middle School, West Sussex. Langley Park School for Boys, Beckenham, Kent. Leys High School,


Redditch. Lipson Community College, Plymouth, Devon. Liskeard Junior School. Little Heath Primary School, Coventry. Lode Heath School, Solihull, West Midlands. Madeley Court School, Telford. Manor Park Primary School, Birmingham. Manor School, Woodhouse. Mansbridge Primary School, Hampshire. Mary Trevelyan School, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Meden Secondary School, Mansfield. Mill Chase Community School, Bordon, Hampshire. Mill View School, Upton, Chester. Monknearmouth School, Sunderland. Mornington Primary School, Nottingham. Mount Nod Primary School, Coventry. Mount Pleasant Primary School, Quarry Bank, West Midlands. Netherhall School, Cumbria. Oakbrook School, Yorkshire. Olchfa School, Swansea. Parkstone Grammar School, Poole, Dorset. Pheasey Park Farm Grant Mntd. Primary School, Birmingham. Phoenix College, Morden. Pingle School, Derbyshire. Prince Albert Junior and Infant School, Birmingham. Repton Primary School, Derby. Rickstones School, Colchester. Ridgewood High School, Wollaston Stourbridge. Robert Bruce School, Bedford. Robert Bruce Middle School, Berkshire. Rossett School, North Yorkshire. Royal Grammar School, Newcastle Upon Tyne. Royal Manor School, Portland, Dorset. Royton and Crompton School, Oldham. Rushey Mead School, Leicester. Ryhope Junior School, Sunderland. Sandford School, Sandford, Devon. Sandringham School, St Albans, Hertfordshire. Sawtry Community College, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire. Scargill CE Primary School, Derbyshire. Sheffield College, Sheffield. Shoreham Beach First School, Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex. Sidney Stringer City Technology College, Coventry. Sir Bernard Lovell School, Bristol. Spennymoor School, Co. Durham. Spingfield School, Portsmouth. St Andrew’s College. St Anne’s SLD School, Merton, Surrey. St Giles School, Nottinghamshire. St John Fisher Catholic Primary School, Sheffield. St Mary County Primary School, Clyst, Devon. St Mary’s Meadowside School, Sunderland. St Mary’s Primary School, London. St Marylebone School, London. St Michael’s RC School, Billingham, Cleveland. St Wilfred’s RC Primary School, Sheffield. Sunderland High School, Sunderland. Swaffield Primary School, London. Thirsk School, North Yorkshire. Tolworth Girls’ School, Surrey. Turney GM Special School, West Dunwich. Wath-upon-Dearne Comprehensive School, Rotherham. Wentworth CE School, South Yorkshire. Willowgarth High School, Barnsley. Wimbledon Chase Middle School, London. Windsor County Primary School, Liverpool. Wolverhampton Grammar School, Wolverhampton. Wyggeston and Queen Elizabeth I College, Leicester. Local Authorities Barnet LEA. Barnsley LEA. Birmingham Advisory and Support Services. Birmingham City Council Education Department. Blackburn Borough Council. Bradford Metropolitan District Council Education Department. Bradford Education Inspection and Advisory Services. Brighton and Hove Council. Bristol LEA Education Centre. Buckinghamshire LEA. Bury Metropolitan Borough Council Education Department. Cambridgeshire Advisory Service, Huntingdon. Cambridgeshire LEA. Camden LEA. Carlisle City Council. Chelmsford Borough Council. City of Coventry LEA/Support and Advisory Services. City of York LEA. City of Swansea Education Services. Cumbria LEA. Derbyshire LEA. Devon LEA. Dover District Council. Dudley LEA. Durham LEA. East Riding of Yorkshire Council. East Sussex PSE Advisory Team. East Sussex County Council Education Service. Enfield Professional Development Centre. Essex County Council. Gloucestershire County Council Education Services. Hammersmith & Fulham Urban Studies Centre. Hammersmith and Fulham LEA. Hampshire County Council Education Services. Hampshire Inspection and Advisory Service. Harrow Borough Council LEA. Hertfordshire LEA. Hillingdon Borough Council Education Department. Isle of Man. Islington LEA. Kent County Council LEA. Kirklees Council. Lambeth Borough Council Education Department. Lancashire County Council Education Department. Global Education Centre, Lancashire. Leeds City Council, Education Department. Leicester Advisory and Inspection Services. Leicester City Council Education Department. Leicestershire City Council. London Borough of Bromley Education Development Centre. London Borough of Enfield Education Advisers. Merton London Borough Council Education Department. Newham Conflict and Change Project, London. Redbridge Borough Council Advisory and Inspection Services. Southwark Borough Council Education Department. Sutton London Borough Council, The Glastonbury Centre. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council Education Department. Wandsworth Borough Council LEA. Westminster Borough Council LEA. Manchester City Council Education Department Inspection and Advisory Services. Manchester City Council Education Department. Medway Council. Middlesbrough LEA. Milton Keynes Council. Newcastle Upon Tyne City Council. North Lincolnshire Council Learning Services. North Yorkshire LEA. Northamptonshire LEA. Oldham Metropolitan Council. Oxfordshire LEA Advisory and Inspection Services. Oxfordshire County Council. Peterborough City Council. Plymouth Advisory Service. Plymouth LEA, Professional Development Services. Poole School Advice and Support Services. Redcar & Cleveland LEA. Rochdale LEA, Rotherham LEA, Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Education Directorate. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council Education and Community Services. Sefton LEA. Sheffield LEA. Sheffield Advisory and Inspection Services. Sheffield Pupil Referral Service. Shropshire LEA. Somerset LEA. Staffordshire LEA. Stockport LEA. Stockton on Tees Borough Council Education Office. Stoke-on-Trent City Council Continuing Education Department. Suffolk County Council Education Department. Sunderland LEA. Surrey LEA. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council Education Department. Thurrock Council. Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council. Wakefield LEA Advisory and Inspection Services. Warwickshire LEA. West Sussex LEA. Wigan LEA. Wiltshire LEA. Wirral Youth Service. Wirral LEA. Worcestershire LEA. Universities Bath Spa University College. Birmingham University. Birmingham University, School of Education, NALDIC. Birmingham University, Education in Human Rights Network. Birmingham University, School of Public Policy. Bristol University. Cambridge University, School of Education. City University, London. De Monfort University, Bedford. Durham University Business School, Enterprise and Industrial Education Unit. Durham University. East Anglia University. Exeter University, School of Education. Glasgow University. Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Greenwich University. Hertfordshire University. Homerton College, Cambridge. Keele University, Education Department, Staffordshire. Lancaster University. Leeds Metropolitan University, School of Professional


Education. Leeds University, Adult Education for Citizenship and Democracy Programme. Leeds University, Bretton Hall (College), Wakefield. Leeds University, School of Education. Leicester University, School of Education, The Centre for Citizenship Studies in Education. Liverpool Hope University College. Liverpool John Moores University. London School of Economics. London University, Commonwealth Values in Education Project. London University, Goldsmiths College, Centre for Cross-Curricular Initiative. London University, Human Rights Incorporation Project, King’s College. London University, Institute of Education, International Centre for Intercultral Studies. Loughborough University. Lucy Cavendish College, Cambridge. Luton University. Manchester Metropolitan University, Development Education Project. Manchester Metropolitan University, School of Education, Crewe. Manchester University, School of Education. Manchester University, Department of Government. Nene University College, Northampton. North London University, School of Education. Nottingham University, Department of Politics. Oldham College Institute. The Open University, School of Health and Social Welfare. Oxford University. Oxford Brookes University, School of Education. Plymouth University. Portsmouth University. Portsmouth University, School of Languages and Area Studies. Reading University. Reading University, Southern Regional Council for Education and Training. Rolle School of Education, Plymouth University. Roehampton Institute, London. St Mary’s University College, Twickenham. St Mary’s College, Centre for Research and Curriculum Development, Belfast. Staffordshire University. Staffordshire University Business School. Strathclyde University, Department of Social Studies. Strathclyde University, Faculty of Education. Trinity and All Saints College, Leeds. University of Central England in Birmingham. University of the West of England, ASDAN, Bristol. University of the West of England, Faculty of Economics and Social Science, Bristol. University of Wales at Cardiff, Department of Education. University College, Worcester. Warwick University. Westhill College, Birmingham. Westminster College, Oxford. Wolverhampton University, Walsall. Worcester University, Faculty of Education and Psychology. York University, Department of Educational Studies. Organisations 2000 by 2000, Sun Alliance, London. Amnesty International UK, Teachers’ and Academics’ Network, University of London. Antidote Campaign for Emotional Literary, Slough. Archives in Education Group, London. Arts Council of England, London. Association for Language Learning, Rugby, Warwickshire. Association for Librarians and Information Managers, London. Association for the Teaching of Social Sciences, Watford. Association of Essex Councils, Chelmsford. Association of Muslim Schools. Association of Northamptonshire School Governing Bodies, Wellingborough. Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL), London. Audit Commission, London. Award Scheme Development and Accreditation Network (ASDAN), Bristol. Baptist Union of Great Britain, Oxfordshire. Barnardos, Basildon, Essex. Board of Deputies of British Jews, London. British Association for Early Childhood Education, London. British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London. British Education Suppliers Association, London. British Humanist Association, London. British Red Cross, London. British Youth Council, London. Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London. Cambridge Schools Classics Project, Cambridge. Catholic Education Service, London. Changemakers , Welham Green, Hertfordshire. Channel 4 Learning. Charter88, Cardiff. Children’s Consortium on Education, London. Children’s Rights Office, London. Christian Education Movement, Derby. Church of England General Synod Board of Education. Citizen Organising Foundation, London. Citizenship 2000, London. Citizenship Foundation, London. Civic Trust, London. Classical Association, Bolton. Common Purpose , London. Communitarian Forum, Bury St Edmunds. Community Initiatives in Citizenship Education Regionally Organised (CICERO), Sheffield. Community Service Volunteers (CSV), London. Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Education and Training Human Resources Directorate, London. Cornwall 2000, Bodmin, Cornwall. Council for British Archaeology, York. Council for Education in World Citizenship (CEWC), London. Council for Environmental Education, Reading. Courseware Publications, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk. Curriculum and Management Consultancy, Surrey. Demos, London. Design Council, London. Development Education Association, London. Duke of Edinburgh Award, Windsor. Dynamix, Swansea. Economics and Business Education Association (EBEA), The Nuffield Foundation, London. English Heritage, London. English Outdoor Council European Movement, London. European Parliament Office, London. Federal Trust, London. Field Studies Council, Shropshire. Foundation for Civil Society, Birmingham. Free Churches Council, Surrey. Funding Agency for Schools. Further Education Funding Council, Coventry. Geographical Association, Education Standing Committee, Sheffield. Halton Junior Citizenship Project. Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government, London. Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference. Heads, Teachers, Industry, Coventry. Health Education Authority (HEA), London. History Curriculum Association, Lewes, East Sussex. Howard League for Penal Reform, London. Human Scale Education, Bath. Humanities Association, London. Inner Cities Young Persons Programme, London. Insted Ltd, London. Institute for Citizenship Studies, London. Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), London. Institute of Democracy from Mathematics, Oxford. Institute of Legal Executives, Kempston, Bedford. Jewish Council for Racial Equality, London. Joint Association of Classical Teachers (JACT) and Hellenic Society, London. Leeds Development Education Centre. Leicestershire Model United National Girl Assembly (MUNGA). Library Association, London. Library Association, Youth and School Libraries, London. Lloyds TSB Forum, London. Local Government Management, London. London Federation of Clubs for Young People. May Field, Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Merton Education Business Partnership, Morden, Surrey. Metropolitan Police, London. Midlands History Forum, Birmingham. Mitsubishi. Modern Studies Association, Linlithgow, West Lothian. MORI Social Research, London. Motorola, London. Museum of Law, Nottingham. Muslim Teachers Association, Surrey. National Advisory Council for Education & Training Targets (NACETT), London. National Advisory Group for Continuing Education and Life Long Learning (NAGCELL), London. National Association for the Education of Sick Children, London. National Association of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants (NAEIAC), London. National Association for the Teaching of English, Sheffield. National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), Haywards Heath, West Sussex. National Association of Humanities Advisers, London. National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers (NASUWT), Birmingham. National Child Helpline Action for Children, London. National


Children’s Bureau, London. National Consumer Council, Council. National Council for Development of Urdu, West Yorkshire. National Education Business Partnership Network (NEBPN), Co. Durham. National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), Slough, Berkshire. National Governors Council, Crediton, Devon. National Institute for Careers Education and Counselling, Cambridge. National Research Child and Family Department, London. National Society for Education in Art and Design (NSEAD), Wiltshire. National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC), London. National Union of Teachers (NUT), London. National Youth Agency, Leicester. Norfolk Education and Action for Development, Third World Centre, Norwich. Northbank Curriculum & Professional Development Centre, Sheffield. Northern Examination and Assessment Board (NEAB), Manchester. Nuffield Foundation, London. Ormonde Advisory Service, Birmingham. OXFAM, Oxford. Parliamentary Education Unit, Houses of Parliament, London. Personal Finance Education Group, London. Political Studies Association of the UK, Nottingham. Politics Association, Citizenship Education Committee, Manchester. Professional Association of Teachers (PAT), Derby. Quality Learning Services, Stafford. Re:membering Education, Brighton. Religious Education Council of England and Wales, Hertfordshire. RGS IBG, Bedford. Rockington Teachers Centre. Royal Geographical Society, London. Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Horsham, West Sussex. RSA Examinations Board , Coventry. Runnymede Trust, London. Save the Children Fund Education Unit, London. Schools Council UK, London. Schools Curriculum Advisory Development Education Association, London. Schools Music Association, Hertfordshire. Second City; Second Chance, Birmingham. Secondary Heads Association (SHA), Leicester. Selfesteem Network, London. Sheffield EBP, Education Business Partnership Network. Shell UK Ltd, London. Social and Community Planning Research (SCPR), London. Society of Archivists, London. Teachers in Development Education (TIDE), Birmingham. Thames Valley Partnership, Thame, Oxfordshire. The East London Communities Organisation (TELCO). The Education Training Partnership, Salford. The Glade Centre, Community Resource Centre, Yeovil, Somerset. The Historical Association (HA), London. The Industrial Society, London. The Methodist Church. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Education and Training Department, West Sussex. Third Sector Schools Alliance, Windsor, Berkshire. Tourist Concern. Trades Union Congress (TUC), London. Trident Trust, London. United Kingdom Reading Association, Derbyshire. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), UK Committee, London. Urban Learning Foundation, London. Values Development Unit, Bristol. Values Education Council, London. Voluntary Service Overseas (VSO), Development Education Unit, London. Welcome Trust. Workers Educational Association (WEA), London. World Citizenship Project, London. World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Surrey. Government Agencies and Departments Cabinet Office, Social Exclusion Unit. Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment, Northern Ireland (CCEA NI), Belfast. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Department for Education and Employment. Department of Environment, Transport and Regions. Department for International Development. Department of Trade and Industry. HM Customs and Excise. The Home Office. The Lord Chancellor’s Department. Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED). Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC), Dundee. Scottish Office Education Department. Teacher Training Agency (TTA). Other Countries Australian Curriculum Studies Association, Belconnen, ACT. Civic, Social, Political Education, Dublin West Education Centre, Dublin. Civics Expert Group, Canberra, Australia. Department of Education & Science, Government of Ireland, Dublin. Dutch National Institute for Curriculum Development, Enschede, Netherlands. Generator, Roseville, MN, USA. In-Career Development Unit, Dublin. Johnson Foundation Inc., Rancine, WI, USA. Keiwa College, Niigata, Japan. Le Ministre de la Fonction Publique, Bruxelles. Ministry of Education, Department of Primary and Lower Secondary Education, Denmark. National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, Government of Ireland, Dublin. National Council for Social Studies, Washington DC, USA. National Youth Leadership Council, MN, USA. The Communitarian Network, Washington DC. The Washington Workshop Foundation, Washington DC, USA. Individuals C. Addison, Stuart Ainsworth, Professor the Lord Alton of Liverpool, E. G. Archer. David Armitt, Dr Madeleine Arnot, Marilyn Ashworth, Simon Atkinson, George Ball, Professor Michael Barber, James Baxter, Professor G. H. Bell, P. Bellingham, M.A. Bond, Tony Breslin, Malcolm Brigg, Professor Tim Brighouse, Helen Brooks, Michael Brown, Martin Buck, Helena Burke, Tom Buzzard, John Bynner, The Most Reverend and Rt. Hon George Carey, Professor Wilfred Carr, I.M. Cartlidge, Roger Casale MP, V. Cassie, Di Clay, M. P. Clayton, Christine Counsell, Cedric Cullingford, Christopher Donnelly, R. Doubtfill, Dove Excell, Derek Fatchett MP, Sherry L. Field, George Foulkes MP, Professor R. H. Fryer, Stuart Gardiner, Carmel Gallagher, Karen Gold, Teddy Gold, Derry Hannam, Professor David Hargreaves, Derek Heater, D. Hooper, Paul Hutchinson, Sally Inman, Lord Irvine of Lairg, The Lord Chancellor, George Johnson, Roger Jowell, Rose Jowell, David Kidney MP, Richard Kimberlee, B. Knight, J. R. Lambert, David Liverside, John Lloyd, Tim Lomas, Laura MacDonald, Henry Macintosh, Stephen McCarthy, Des McConaghy, James McLwraith, Paul Machon, Professor David Melville, Alison Montgomery, Gillian Morris, Kevin Mott-Thronton, Dawn Oliver, Kate Parish, Alison Park, Sarah Perman, Lord Plant of Highfield, Sir George Quigley, Eleanor Rawling, A. Rodda, Lord Rogers of Riverside, Andrew Rowe MP, M.H. Scott, Professor Alan Smith, Deirdre Smith, Andrew Stevens, Bob Tutton, Stephen Twigg MP, N. Tyldesley, Jenny Wales, Tony Webb, Dr Anne Webster, Baroness Williams of Crosby, Dr Tony Wright MP, Professor Ted Wragg. Finally thanks are due to QCA for the management and support of the work of the advisory group, and in particular to Liz Craft the Project Manager.


The Citizen Organising Foundation (COF) is a multi-faith alliance with affiliates throughout the country which aims to help people in localities to combine to effect the well-being of their communities by their own actions. Their ‘Iron Rule’ is ‘never to do for others what they can do for themselves?’. TELCO (The East London Communities Organisation) is especially active both within schools and between schools and local communities. The COF provides training for teachers and for community activists. [Citizen Organising Foundation, 3 Merchant Street, Bow, London E3 4UJ].

Dynamix is one of the most experienced of several travelling performance groups who offer role-playing and training activities for schools. They offer work such as Anti-Bullying Strategies (for the Council for Voluntary Services), participation (for the Local Government Information Service), the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (for Save the Children), as well as Youth Parliaments for schools and LEAs. [Dynamix, 14 Montpelier Terrace, Swansea SA16JW.]

Changemakers is a partnership of organisations who help young people between eleven and twenty-five to get together to set up their own projects to achieve positive benefits for themselves and their communities. Their book Young People Sharing Their Future gives an account of activities all over the country. Currently they have a DfEE grant to pilot a model for activities to provide young people with skills and experience for the world of work. Together with the thinktank DEMOS, they are organising a series of regional seminars. [Changemakers, 45 Somers Road, Welham Green, Herts AL9 7PT].

Education Business Partnerships (EBPs) is a network with 147 affiliates in England and Wales and 18 in Northern Ireland, supported by BT and the DfEE. They try to provide in LEA areas a single point of contact for business and schools to improve pupils understanding of and readiness for the world of work. Generally they see their work as part of citizenship. Some groups have developed well-structured and imaginative role-playing scenarios for running the governments and economies of imaginary societies, such as the ‘Micro Society’ programme from the Merton Education Business Partnership (Phoenix College, Morden). We saw classes at Park House Middle School, Wimbledon School making good use this. [The Secretary, NEBPN, c/o DBEE, Broom Cottages Primary School, Ferryhill, Co. Durham, DL17 8AN].

Ref: QCA/98/245 Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) 29 Bolton Street London W1Y 7PD Further copies of this document may be obtained by using the QCA Publications Catalogue or by contacting QCA Publications, PO Box 99, Sudbury, Suffolk CO10 6SN (tel: 01787 884444, fax: 01787 378426). When ordering, please quote title and reference number.