Assessing Children's Personal And Social Development

Measuring The Unmeasurable?

MARTIN BUCK, Helena Burke, Sally Inman

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781135711009
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Social and personal development of pupils is an area of growing interest. However, while much has been done in relation to provision for development, there is little available on how teachers might assess the development of pupils, be it spiritual, moral, social or cultural. The contributors also examine how we might accredit such development. With provision for development on the national agenda, this title looks at the repercussions and examines the difficult issues raised by assessment and accreditation - and the problems with which teachers will inevitably be faced.

Chapter 1
Personal and Social Development at the Crossroads

Martin Buck and Sally Inman

Abstract

In this opening chapter we attempt to set the scene in relation to the assessment of personal and social development (PSD). The chapter explores the nature of PSD, particularly in relation to values and then examines its relationship to overall curriculum purpose, arguing that PSD must be central to that purpose, and explicitly underpin the curriculum. Finally, the chapter explores some of the issues involved in assessing PSD and suggests some tentative principles to guide our assessment practice.

Setting the context

This is a pertinent moment to review the position of the personal and social development (PSD) of pupils within schools. As we move increasingly nearer to the twenty-first century a range of voices, both from within education and from other areas of civil life, are asking some fundamental questions about the future. Implicit in the questions being asked is a feeling of concern and disquiet about many aspects of our current society and a worry about the kind of society that our young people will inherit. In contrast to the individualism that pervaded the 1980s there is renewed concern with the rights and responsibilities associated with collective living.

Underlying these concerns are a further set of questions concerning the education we shall provide in the twenty-first century. What kinds of schools will best serve that society? What will we ask of teachers in such schools? Central to these questions is a growing interest in the kinds of personal qualities we want to promote in our young people as they move into the next century and the responsibilities of schools to foster those qualities. In other words, the personal and social development of young people within our schools has taken centre stage.

As we have intimated, any discussion as to the place of personal and social development of pupils within the school curriculum should be put within the context of wider societal debate and concern about values and morality. During 1995 and 1996 we witnessed a growing interest in societal values and public morality and, within this, a renewed interest in the proper role of schools in the promotion of values and morality in young people.

Much of this debate was triggered by particular events, some of which gave rise to ‘moral panics’ partly orchestrated and sustained by the mass media. The murder of a small child, Jamie Bulger (1993) by two young boys, the murder of school boy Steven Lawrence (1993) in South London, the violent killing of small children and their teacher at Dunblane in Scotland (1996), the fatal stabbing of the London headteacher, Phillip Lawrence (1996) and the murder of a teenage boy outside the gates of a South London school (1997) each served to demonstrate that all is not well within society.

Explanations for such behaviour and events were various and often conflicting. From within the media, the church, politics and education explanation and blame was sought in a variety of places and people. Explanations included: the apparent corruption and lack of moral values in national politics, government, and business, offering poor role models for the young. The influence of what has been described as the Thatcher idealogy was pinpointed by some; in particular the belief that there is ‘no such thing as society’, linked with self-interest and gain, rather than care and concern. The Chief Rabbi, Jonathon Sacks, for example speaking on Radio 4 said of Margaret Thatcher ‘I think when she said there was no such thing as society she was making a terrible mistake, and we know exactly what happens when society begins to disintegrate’ (quoted in The Independent; Bevin, 1996).

Others pointed to poor parenting and the apparent breakdown of morals and traditional values in the family (Hutton, 1997). This was linked by some to the decline of religious faith and influence of the church in peoples’ lives. Yet others sought explanations within some of the political and economic changes emerging from the Conservative government of the time and suggested that deepening inequalities together with high rates of unemployment and shifts in welfare policy and practice left many young people alienated from their communities and from the wider society. Some Tory MPs took this view. The then backbencher Hugh Dykes, for example, is quoted in the Independent as saying

Vast numbers of moderate and fair minded people in Britain feel strongly that we now have a modern society of gross unfairness and inequalities. (Bevin, 1996)

The debate over values became central to party politics in the run up to the election of May 1997, with the political parties keen to demonstrate an explicit set of values and a new moral code for the future.

The role of schools

This national concern and debate about values and morality has involved much public discussion as to the responsibilities of schools. Schools and teachers have once again been put in the spotlight for their responsibilities in forming young citizens, in particular their role in fostering moral and behavioural codes in young people. The teaching of values and morality and the promotion of self-discipline have become key issues for debate. Towards the end of 1996 the debate escalated when a number of events collided. The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority (SCAA) published a consultation paper concerned with values in schools and their communities (SCAA, 1996) and, at virtually the same time, two schools became the centre for intense media and public attention. The Ridings School in West Yorkshire, and Manton School in Nottinghamshire both hit the headlines over pupil behaviour and school discipline.

The consultation paper from SCAA had emerged from a long running but much less high profile debate over the role of schools in pupils’ spiritual and moral development. This debate can be traced to earlier documents from the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (Ofsted, 1994) and in a series of discussion papers, first from the then National Curriculum Council (NCC) and then SCAA, (NCC, 1993, SCAA, 1995, 1996). Nick Tate, Chief Executive of SCAA had also been raising the profile of the spiritual and moral development of pupils in a number of speeches to various professional associations during 1995 and 1996. In the early part of 1996 SCCA convened a national conference on spiritual and moral education. At the conference Tate made clear his concern with societal and schools’ values. In his opening address he said:

Philip Lawrence’s death highlights what should be a central theme of our conference: the achievements of schools in this area of the curriculum and the need for society to give them more support than it is sometimes currently doing. Your papers give examples of what is already being done by schools to shore up the moral fabric of our society: schools laying down rules of good behaviour and suggesting to parents that these might apply in the home as well. (Tate, 1996)

This conference launched the notion of a national forum on values and it was the work of this forum that led to the publication of the SCAA November (1996) consultation paper. This paper set out a number of core societal values to which schools should adhere and outlined the principles for action associated with the core values. The publication gave rise to an intense, though short lived, media debate in which the document was both supported and attacked from a range of positions. A number of commentators, conventionally from the right, were largely condemning of the document, describing it as ‘wishy washy’, representing what were described as trendy platitudes about respect and equality and the environment. Some of these same critics demanded a strengthening of the document particularly in relation to marriage and family life. The then Secretary of State for Education and Employment aligned herself with this position and made clear that the revised document should redress this perceived weakness. Others were critical of the document for what they saw as an attempt to impose set morality on young people. Such critics saw the processes and difficulties in reaching agreed societal values as problematic and posed questions about whose values were represented in the document. Further debate ensued as to whether morality is best ‘taught or caught’, and the implications of each position for schools and teachers in relation to their responsibilities for promoting moral development in young people. Despite the many criticisms, the document did serve to provoke useful debate about values in relation to schools, a point to which we return later.¹

Meanwhile, the events at Ridings and Manton schools raised all sorts of issues. In particular, they raised issues about the responsibilities of schools for the behaviour of young people. At both schools some young people were portrayed as out of control in the school setting. The events gave rise to public debate about behaviour and school discipline and the responsibilities of parents in relation to their children. Solutions to the perceived problem of the behaviour of some young people included school/home contracts in relation to behaviour, and a return to corporal punishment in schools. During the course of the media coverage a new wave of public sympathy for teachers emerged, with teachers being portrayed as having impossible jobs in relation to pupils who were unwilling or unable to behave appropriately within a school setting.

PSD and values

Despite the high profile publicity given to a minority of so-called failing schools during the mid 1990s with respect to their academic performance and ability to inculcate appropriate values and behaviour, evidence from Ofsted Chief Inspector’s Annual Reports indicates that the vast majority of schools are places where considerable effective practice has been developed in managing pupils’ behaviour. Moreover, we contend that anyone currently involved with working in schools is likely to find the debate about the morality within them puzzling, as their direct experience would indicate that schools, on a daily basis, confront and deal with moral matters. Schools have nevertheless differed widely in the extent to which they have articulated explicitly a shared set of values with pupils and parents, which permeate the day-to-day life of the institution.

But what precisely are values? Halstead defines values as referring ‘to principles, fundamental convictions, ideals, standards or life stances which act as general guides to behaviour or as general points of reference in decision making or the evaluation of beliefs or actions which are closely connected with personal integrity or personal identity’ (Halstead and Taylor, 1996).

In short, values are concerned with the criteria by which we make judgments. This definition, however, raises the question of whether these criteria are absolute or relative, i.e. objective or subjective. Absolute criteria involve judgments which are applied in all situations across different times where circumstances do not alter the views on right and wrong. Relative criteria arise from a view that no set of values can be regarded as superior over another set of values, a view which is linked to a belief that judgments are simply an expression of personal opinions. The question of absolute criteria in relation to establishing a consensus on a values framework arises in the National Framework put forward by SCAA, which is discussed in more detail later in this section.

Are there some core democratic values? Caring for the Earth (IUCN, UNEP, WWF, 1991) advocated just such a set of core democratic values. These are: respect for reasoning; respect for truth; fairness, acceptance of diversity; cooperation; justice; freedom, equality; concern for the welfare of others; peaceful resolution of conflict. These values spell out both the rights and responsibilities that citizens have towards each other and towards nature in striving for a more sustainable world.

O’Hear and White’s publication in (1991) similarly gives emphasis to the importance of democratic values as the basis of a societal and education system. Drawing on White’s (1990) earlier work on altruism (see appendix, p. 16) they give particular significance to the idea of self determination, including a ‘sensitive concern for the well being of others’ which requires, they argue, the removal of obstacles to a self determined life—including poverty, ill health, ignorance, inadequate upbringing, restrictedness of options, being subject to the will of others, absence of law and order and inadequate social recognition. The means for the removal of these obstacles, in their view, is through citizens working together to enable individuals to develop. In particular they give significance to the acceptance of cultural differences and an avoidance of discrimination arising from inequalities of power among different groups.

O’Hear and White also acknowledge the potential conflict of values both at a culturally opposing level (i.e. where the value position was established outside a liberal tradition) and within so called ‘agreed value systems’ where different emphasis is given to competing interpretations of how things are best applied.

How do schools relate to these liberal democratic and competing values? O’Hear and White assert that the role of education in a liberal democracy is to promote an entitlement to personal qualities, knowledge and competencies necessary for their (citizens’) well being. They give specific significance to the role of the local state school providing a revised entitlement curriculum explicitly framed by a set of values which underpin those of a liberal democracy. Such schools must allow children to deal with conflicting values in which they can be helped to resolve conflict and to appreciate the different values at stake and to weigh them up against each other, as part of their development as individual citizens.

Whilst emphasizing this approach in helping students to resolve conflicts between family and wider values, O’Hear and White stress that teachers need to be sensitive to local values and to develop understanding between schools, parents and local religions and minority communities. However, they are clear that the choice must always be left to the student as to how to weigh ‘self directness’ against attachment to the local community or obedience to religious authority.

The SCAA 1996 document, Values Education and the Community, referred to earlier, appears to accept implicitly some of the precepts outlined above of a liberal democracy. The National Forum from which it arose advocated a values framework linked to the wider society, relationships, the self, and the environment. Without assuming agreement on their source or application, these values are considered by SCAA to have a wide societal support. SCAA emphasized that these values are not to be regarded as definitive or complete, nor do they claim to offer any new perspective. In particular, the document views the principles outlined below as being more general than the specific shared values of particular religious or cultural groups.

SCAA Values in Education and the Community

Society: We value truth, human rights, the law, justice and collective endeavour for the common good of society. In particular we value families as sources of love and support for all their members and as a PERSONAL AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE CROSSROADS 5 basis of a society in which people care for others.

Relationships: We value others for themselves, not for what they are or what they can do for us, and we value these relationships as fundamental to our ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• List of Figures
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Personal and Social Development at the Crossroads
• Chapter 2: Personal and Social Development within the National Context: A Review of Recent and Current Initiatives
• Chapter 3: ‘It’s Not a Good Time for Children’— Assessment Issues within Personal and Social Development
• Chapter 4: Learning Outcomes for Personal and Social Development
• Chapter 5: Educating for Personal and Social Development: A Question of Discipline?
• Chapter 6: A Curriculum Framework for Personal and Social Development; A National Project
• Chapter 7: Value Development in the Early Years; Approaches Through Story
• Chapter 8: Conferencing: Structured Talk and Psd in the Secondary School
• Chapter 9: Conferencing in the Primary School: Possibilities and Issues
• Chapter 10: Researching Assessment Practice in Pse: A Secondary Case Study
• Postscript: Which Way Now?
• Notes on Contributors