Response - Education for Citizenship in Scotland

General Comment

We support the idea that youngsters should have education for citizenship but we do not support the proposals outlined in this document, nor we do not think that it should be taught incidentally. Before we embark on a detailed response to the consultation, we would like to highlight three fundamental flaws with the current proposal.

1) Definition of citizenship education

We do not agree with the definition of citizenship as being for an informed, caring and responsible person. This is a laudable aim but it is a general aim of education. There is nothing specific to citizenship education as opposed to ethical or moral education. The document makes no mention at all of the state's part in the process yet citizenship is properly defined in terms of an individual's relationship to the state. In our view, therefore, the definition of citizenship education is flawed and somewhat naive. However, the document builds on this flawed definition without questioning its validity.

For example, it asks whether education for citizenship should be part of the 3 -5 curriculum. If you accept the document's definition - that it is really education for social and personal responsibility - the seeds of this are sown in the nursery stages. However, if you do not accept the document's definition, but instead see citizenship as concerned with an individual's relationship with the State, then it is less clear that citizenship education could/should be part of the nursery curriculum.

Similarly, the document's definition of citizenship education can be delivered at any stage and through any subject of the curriculum e.g. home economics. However, this does not make sense if you see citizenship as being about something more specific than general social and personal responsibility.

The document does run into problems of consistency. Having advocated that citizenship is about social and personal responsibility which can be delivered through all areas of the curriculum, it recognises that some subjects are more suitable than others and cites Modern Studies at the secondary level. But Modern Studies is an optional subject, not taken by all, hence the document falls back onto home economics and science as vehicles with opportunities "taken to contextualise the learning in ways that help to foster some aspects of capability for citizenship". This does not stand up to scrutiny.

2) Permeate yet audit

The next inconsistency in the document is the proposal that citizenship education should not be a separate subject within the curriculum, but delivered incidentally. However, it proposes a system of auditing to ensure that everyone has been taught citizenship education. You cannot teach something incidentally and audit it. If a subject is important enough to audit, then it should have a proper place in the curriculum which in turn means deciding what should be left out in order to make room for it.

3) Skills versus knowledge

The bulk of this proposal is built on an assumption that being a caring, skilled, thoughtful person is enough for citizenship. Only towards the very end, in the section on Education for citizenship through post-14 studies, is there any suggestion that citizenship might require some specific knowledge. However, when it is realised that the subject through which this knowledge could be delivered, Modern Studies, is not actually compulsory, the solution is to suggest that the knowledge can be delivered through a range of other non-related subjects. If this does not work, the curriculum for these subjects e.g. art and design could be rewritten to deliver the necessary information. This argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

The Consultation

This document comes with a Foreword, Preface, Summary and Introduction! We feel this is something of an overkill.

Introduction

This helpfully points out that economic, social and political relationships are changing and asks whether schools and pre-schools should have a key role in educating young people for active and responsible citizenship. We do not think pre-fives are really up to coping with the concept of globalisation. Getting them to tie their shoe laces would be more constructive. It undermines education documents when for reasons of "political correctness/inclusion" everything has to be extended to the pre-five sector. Citizenship education is more properly located in primary and secondary schools.

Section 1: What is "citizenship" and why is "education for citizenship" important?

1.1 Meaning of citizenship

We do not accept the broad view of the meaning of citizenship advocated in the consultation. It separates citizenship from the state and sees it as operating in only one direction, from the citizen to the state, and independent of the state. In fact the nature of the state is an important factor in defining citizenship which is not an absolute and does not exist in the same form, in all places for all times. It is not valid to suggest that every social relationship is surrogate citizenship.

1.2 The value of "education for citizenship"

We accept that the schools "should seek to promote and foster needs to be thoughtful and responsible - rooted in, and expressive of, a respectful and caring disposition in relation to people, human society generally, the natural world and the environment." However, we see this more properly as an aspect of individual personal and social development, not as specific or critical to citizenship education.

Similarly, the listed "key characteristics" may be desirable for individual personal and social development, but they are not necessary for effective and responsible citizenship and some are contradictory.

The list:

• An ability and disposition to examine matters critically and to develop informed views, including views that challenge established conventions and the status quo.
  Comment: This is desirable in a mature adult in all areas of life.
• The ability and willingness to think creatively and act appropriately in response to a situation
  Comment: However desirable this may be for an individual, it is not clear what scope there is for creativity within citizenship.
• Sensitivity to other people's needs and views and to the potential impacts of choices and actions on others and on the environment.
  Comment: Individuals have conflicting needs and views. It is the role of the state to make decisions between these conflicting views, sometimes to the detriment of one group.
• The ability and willingness to exercise rights and to act for the benefits of others. Comment: "Exercising rights" and "acting for the benefit of others" can be conflicting activities. Individual rights often have to be modified in the light of social benefit. The state's role is to determine how this is done.
• The ability and willingness to work with others to achieve a common purpose imbued with a shared sense of social and environmental responsibility.
  Comment: This is a very naive view of citizenship. There are often legitimately conflicting views about what should be done. Consider the great debates over nuclear weapons, fox hunting, comprehensive education etc. The function of the state is to make decisions when there is no common purpose or a shared sense of social and environmental responsibility.
• A disposition to openness, objectivity and rejection of prejudice or discrimination Comment: This may be desirable for an individual, but it is not clear how it contributes to citizenship.

This list depends on accepting the document's definition of citizenship as being for a caring and nice person and not as being about an individual's relationship with the state. It is fine to have education about being nice as long as this is not confused with education about citizenship. Citizenship education should include an understanding of conflict, of the methods used to resolve conflict and the power balance between the different groupings within society which means that some groups are more likely than others to get their views heard.

Section 2: What should education for citizenship seek to achieve?

2.1 Introduction

We have already registered our disagreement with this broad definition of citizenship and so reject the idea that education for citizenship is "a key purpose" of the pre-school and school curriculum and of community education programmes, justified on the basis that it is about the development of the whole person, personal growth and for work.

2.2 The overall goal

We agree that education for citizenship should aim to develop capability for thoughtful and responsible participation in political, economic and social life. Our disagreement with the proposal is that it too often confuses general skill and social competency with citizenship. Not every social action is the action of a citizen.

2.3 Outcomes

In this section there is confusion between the desirable end aims of education per se and the end aims of citizenship education. It is desirable for youngsters to achieve the outcomes detailed in the document and this in turn helps them be better citizens. However, that is quite different from saying that this equates with citizenship education. This is a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Knowledge and understanding.

It is valid to suggest that citizens should have knowledge and understanding of complex issues before they make decisions. However, this often requires the state to provide the knowledge. For example, the decision-making behind the PPP developments in Glasgow schools is secret because of "commercial confidentiality". How can a citizen be knowledgeable if the state does not provide information? Where should citizens get their information. What is the role of politicians who are often determined to deceive? The individual cannot be a good citizen if the state does not allow it.

Skills and competence

Desirable as it may be to acquire skills, including the core skills and personal qualities such as self-esteem, confidence, initiative, determination and emotional maturity, it is not clear why these are an essential part of citizenship. This section states "being skilled and competent as a citizen means feeling empowered, knowing and valuing one's potential for positive action and being generally prepared to take a constructive and proactive approach to issues and problems" However, this requires more than core skills. A person cannot understand the potential and limits for positive action unless they also know how the state works. Many people, for example, are utterly confused to know which level of government is responsible for which decision. Many people do not understand the difference between legislation and executive action. Without this quite specific knowledge, an individual's ability to function as an active citizen is seriously curtailed.

The weakness of this whole approach is that it sees citizenship as a one way process, as something which the citizen can determine independent of state action. This is a flawed argument.

One of the examples of a "skill outcome" in this section is that young people should be able to work independently and in collaboration with others. The question has to be asked, why is this citizenship? Indeed, the question "why" can be applied to all the outcomes.

Values and dispositions

This is about "developing the ability to recognise and respond thoughtfully to values and value judgements that are part and parcel of political, economic, social and cultural life". This section really means do not be prejudiced, but it does not say that. These are good qualities, but are they essentially about citizenship? It requires political groupings to offer "lack of prejudice" as an option. How does politically inspired racism fit this equation, and what can citizens do to prevent it? This is ethical education, and sound principles make for a sound state, but who should take the lead?

Creativity and enterprise

In suggesting that a good citizen should be capable of lateral thinking, the general objective of education is once more being confused with citizenship education. How specific to citizenship is the requirement that an individual should be able to "apply knowledge and skills gained in one context to another in order to take advantage of an opportunity, solve a problem or resolve an issue"

Excluded from the outcomes for education for citizenship are an understanding of how the state works, of power complexes e.g. the various establishments, and an ability to identify how individuals can effect the State's decisions. The proposal is for compliant citizenship, not true active citizenship. Most direct political action arises as a consequence of people failing to achieve their objectives through the formal structures. The Scottish Parliament was set up largely because people were angry at the imposition of Thatcherism on Scotland when Scotland had not voted for it. You cannot leave politics out of citizenship and, unless these aspects of citizenship are discussed, then youngsters will be seriously short-changed in their understanding of citizenship.

Section 3: Effective education for citizenship in practice

3.1 An entitlement for all

The document proposes that citizenship education should be delivered both through the existing curriculum and in the way youngsters are involved in the school. This approach is possible only if the broad definition of citizenship education is accepted. As we do not accept the definition, we do not accept this approach. Moreover, if something is important, time should be found to teach it.

3.2 Overview

The document sees citizenship as being delivered through

1. participation in decision-making at school
2. through specific areas of the curriculum
3. through cross-curricular projects
4. involvement in link activities with the community

Interestingly, the document places great emphasis on the context of the learning and on the school having an ethos which is conducive to citizenship education, yet it never makes any similar reference to or demands on the State.

3.3 Essential features and key experiences

There is a serious inconsistency between saying that citizenship education can be delivered through the existing curriculum and then establishing a "framework of essential features and key learning experiences, coupled with the outcomes associated with capability for citizenship as the basis for the audit of overall provision". This is the kind of approach which works on paper but is totally unworkable in schools. If there is a requirement for key outcomes to be audited, then citizenship should become a separate and identifiable programme, with a time allocation, which in turn means deciding what will be left out of the curriculum to make room for it.

Two dilemmas are apparent

1. The proposal for auditing that a youngster's "entitlement" has been delivered contradicts the idea that citizenship education should not be as burdensome as a separate course.
2. Why is the democratic nature of the school important for the proper delivery of citizenship education yet the nature and role of the state is not mentioned?

3.4 Education for citizenship through the curriculum 3-18

The document now reverts to "unconscious citizenship education" which is to be delivered through parts of the existing curriculum. However, it then goes on to add that an "overall challenge for curriculum designers...is to ensure that each young person's entitlement to education for citizenship...is provided by means of a varied, carefully planned and progressive programme of learning experiences". So we have total Catch 22. Citizenship education can be delivered through the existing curriculum if the existing curriculum is designed to deliver citizenship education!

Opportunities in the 3-5 curriculum

Basically, the document suggests that nursery education provides learning experiences which underpin children's sense of belonging and this somehow delivers citizenship education. We reject this for the reasons outlined above.

Opportunities within 5-14 areas of study

The document suggests that the whole curriculum at this stage provides opportunities for citizenship education. We reject this for the reasons outlined above.

Education for citizenship through post-14 studies

For the reasons outlined above we reject the idea that all the main standard grade subjects are effective in delivering education for citizenship. The document states "even where a topic being studied may have no obvious relevance to education for citizenship, opportunities can be taken to contextualise the learning in ways that help to foster some aspect of capability for citizenship". This only makes sense on paper. This sense does not survive reading the statement out loud.

The document does identify two problems for schools at this stage.

1) How to impart the necessary political, economic, social and cultural knowledge.

This is in stark contrast to the concept considered in the paragraph above and highlights the inconsistency which runs throughout the proposal. Finally here is recognition that citizenship requires more than skills or attitudes. It actually requires specific knowledge. It then highlights the dilemma that whereas Modern Studies is a natural vehicle for delivering the necessary information, not every pupil takes this subject. However, the solution that other optional subjects such as art and design, home economics, science or social and vocational skills could be adequate vehicles for providing the knowledge relevant to citizenship stretches credulity.

The Review Group rejects making citizenship a course on the grounds that this would restrict choice and make practical problems for curriculum planners. We are left with the very unsatisfactory option of education by osmosis or citizenship through cooking and shopping!

To support education by osmosis, the document suggests that there should be an audit of subjects to see what combinations provide the factual information needed.

• Use expertise of staff within compulsory subjects and outwith school
• Encourage pupils to take the right courses
• See how much citizenship can be delivered in mathematics!

There should be no prescription but each school should come up with its own solutions. However, the approach might lead to a review of the content and focus of the post-14 curriculum.

2) how to provide learning experiences that enable young people to perceive, forge and make use of the many connections across areas of study.

Apparently a sense of citizenship can be nurtured through students involvement in projects dealing with the school environment. I guess time is a problem.

3.5 Interaction with the wider community

This suggests it's a good idea for pupils to get involved in community projects but it warns "However this is done, it is very important that schools develop, in consultation with their local communities, opportunities for learning that help to ensure that key learning outcomes are covered" - well, that makes sense!!!!!

Section 4: Implications and next steps

4.1 Areas for further development

1. What are the longer term implications for the content and organisation of the curriculum?
   If citizenship is deemed to be a requirement, then time has to be made available. Decisions then have to be made on what to leave out. At present the only compulsory element in the curriculum is religious education. Is it time to review this?
2. How does education for citizenship relate to other social and educational priorities, such as social inclusion and improving achievement?
   Informing youngsters of their rights is a very important aspect of social inclusion particularly when these change when they become aged sixteen. But this is quite specific information which helps them to function more efficiently. As above, time needs to be made available to provide the information.
3. Should education for citizenship be assessed and accredited? If so, in what ways?
   No
4. What are the professional development implications for teachers and other practitioners?
   Teachers need to acquire the information to be passed on to youngsters. If citizenship education as defined by us is to be a required part of education, then it also has to be a required element in Initial Teacher Education.
5. How can the enthusiasm and commitment of staff be fostered and supported?
   Good question!

4.2 Sharing good practice

We agree that good practice should be shared.

Conclusion

The normal starting point for a curriculum document is a clear understanding of the nature of the subject under consideration. If, for example, this had been a proposal for a new chemistry curriculum, there would have been a clear understanding of the body of knowledge to be considered, and experts in the field would have been invited to devise a sensible programme. Regardless of the experts involved, the end product would probably have been remarkably similar. However, here it would seem there was never a clear understanding of what citizenship was and the advisory group included a range of people from quite different backgrounds. The result is a confused document which pays homage to all their various agendas but which lacks proper coherence. If a different group of experts had been assembled, the document would have been quite different. This is the right way to proceed.

Scottish Parent Teacher Council
February 2001

01 Feb 2001