Citizenship Through Secondary History

James Arthur, Ian Davies, David Kerr, Andrew Wrenn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2003
• Print ISBN: 9781138181281
• eBook ISBN: 9781134552610
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Citizenship through Secondary History reveals the potential of history to engage with citizenship education and includes:

• a review of the links between citizenship education and the teaching and learning of history
• an analysis of how citizenship education is characterised, raising key issues about what could and should be achieved
• a critique of the discipline and the pitfalls to avoid in teaching citizenship through history
• case studiesoffering practical teaching suggestions.

History teaching is at the vanguard of citizenship education - the past is the springboard from which citizens learn to think and act. This book offers positive and direct ways to get involved in the thinking that must underpin any worthwhile citizenship education, for all professional teachers, student teachers in history, policy-makers, heads of department and principals.

Part I
Contexts

Chapter 1
Citizenship education and educational policy making

Introduction

Citizenship education has never been far from the top of the political and educational agenda in England. This chapter concentrates on the latest policy review of citizenship education, that undertaken by the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (QCA, 1998). This review has led to a historic shift in educational policy making in this area. As a result of the work of the Advisory Group, citizenship is to be included, for the first time ever, as an explicit part of the school curriculum. It is a new foundation subject for pupils aged 11 to 16, from August 2002, and part of a non-statutory framework alongside personal, social and health education (PSHE) for pupils age 5 to 11 from August 2000 (DfEE/QCA, 1999a, 1999b). This chapter sets out to explain how this historic shift has come about. It begins by outlining a number of lessons from past policy approaches to citizenship education in England. These were absorbed by the Citizenship Advisory Group and had a major influence on the shape of its terms of reference, membership and working practices. The chapter goes on to explore the main debates about citizenship education within the Advisory Group and their impact on its definition of and recommendations for citizenship education. It then sets the work of the group within the wider frame of current educational policy. Finally, key challenges are identified which need to be tackled if the latest policy proposals for citizenship education are to lead to effective practice in schools and elsewhere. A number of these challenges raise questions about the potential for stronger links between history and citizenship education.

Citizenship education: lessons from past policy approaches

The history of approaches by policy makers to educating for citizenship in England is well documented (Batho, 1990; Brown, 1991; Heater, 1990, 1991; Kerr, 1999, 1999a; Oliver and Heater, 1994; Annette, 1997). There are a number of lessons that emerge from these past approaches, and it is important to understand them because they have had a major influence on the latest attempt by policy makers to review citizenship education. That attempt has been made by the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools (hereafter referred to as the Citizenship Advisory Group) (QCA, 1998). The legacy of past approaches weighed heavily on the Advisory Group, particularly the inability to set out a clear definition of citizenship education as a necessary precondition to establishing a consensus on how to approach the subject. It influenced not only the group’s terms of reference and membership, but also its working practices and the nature of its recommendations. The Citizenship Advisory Group absorbed the lessons from the failure of past policy approaches in its attempt to lay down stronger foundations for citizenship education in schools.

The first lesson to emerge from past policy approaches in the context of England is that there is no great tradition of explicit teaching of citizenship education in English schools or of voluntary and community service for young people. As a result, there is no consistent framework in which to posit discussion of this area and no solid research base on which to make judgements about the effectiveness of practice. Indeed, Rowe (1997) has identified at least eight approaches to citizenship education, which he asserts are competing for primacy in democratic societies such as England. They are the constitutional knowledge, the patriotic, the parental, the religious, the value conflict or pluralist, the empathetic, the school ethos and the community action approaches. There is no space to outline these approaches here, but they serve as a useful reminder of the disparate thinking and practice in citizenship education which are present in England. A major task for the Citizenship Advisory Group was to blend elements of these approaches into an acceptable working definition of citizenship education. It was vital to achieve such consensus, firstly within the Advisory Group, and then outside, among politicians, those in education, parents and those promoting particular approaches. Consensus was necessary in order to develop a strong framework for citizenship education in schools.

Many of the past approaches of policy makers have foundered because of a lack of consensus on definition and approach. This is despite general agreement that the development of citizenship education in English schools is important. All too often, the noble intentions of policy makers have been watered down into general pronouncements that, in turn, have become minimal, and largely ineffectual, guidance for schools. It explains why, when citizenship education has periodically come to the fore in the English education system, it has been located, primarily, in the implicit or hidden curriculum rather than in the explicit or formal curriculum. Indeed, what passes as citizenship education has been characterised more by an emphasis on indirect transmission through school values, ethos and participation in school rituals than by direct delivery through subjects. Transmission has been weighted towards pupil exposure to good role models and sound habits rather than towards direction through specified subject content. The intention has been to mould character and behaviour rather than to develop civic awareness. As such, citizenship education in England has been traditionally insular and largely devoid both of political concerns about contemporary society and of awareness of developments in other countries.

The Citizenship Advisory Group was determined, from the start, to ensure that its efforts would not fail in the same way. Accordingly, the definition of citizenship education put forward in the group’s initial report was purposely concise but broad based, and the accompanying recommendations for future action short and to the point. The intention was to produce a report that achieved maximum exposure, within and outside education, and brought a swift answer as to the degree of consensus on the proposed definition of citizenship education.

The second lesson to emerge from past policy approaches is that there is a complex relationship between citizenship and education for citizenship. Citizenship is a contested concept. At the heart of the contest are differing views about the function and organisation of society. Because education is accepted as central to society, it follows that attitudes to education, and by default to citizenship education, are dependent on the particular conception of citizenship put forward. It is important to understand this connection. The periodic redefinition of citizenship education is a by-product of a much larger, wideranging debate concerning the nature of English society and the role of education within that society.

Attempts to redefine citizenship and, concomitantly, citizenship education, as emphasised in Chapter 2, are often born out of perceived crises in society at large. The latest attempt to redefine citizenship education, undertaken by the Citizenship Advisory Group, is no exception to this rule. The current debate about society has been triggered by the rapid pace of change in the modern world and its detrimental impact on social, political and economic structures. This has led intellectuals to ask whether a watershed has been reached, namely the end of modern, liberal democratic society and the onset of a less certain postmodern world. They have begun to redefine the concept of citizenship in this postmodern world. Indeed, citizenship has been a continuous topic of discussion in the past two decades in intellectual and political circles, cutting across party and class divides (Heater, 1990; Turner, 1990; Wexler, 1990; Andrews, 1991; Roche, 1992; Demaine and Entwistle, 1997; Callan, 1997; Beck, 2000).

These attempts to redefine citizenship have had an impact on recent debates about the nature of citizenship education in schools. The discussion in the late 1980s and early 1990s was dominated by the implications for schools of the then Conservative government’s championing of civic obligation or ‘active citizenship’ (Hurd, 1988; MacGregor, 1990; Oliver, 1991; Abrams, 1993). Since the mid-1990s the focus has broadened to take in concern about the seemingly pervasive erosion of the social, political, economic and moral fabric of society in England, in the face of rapid economic and social change, what some have termed ‘globalisation’ (Bentley, 1999; Beck, 2000). This concern has led to increasing discussion of citizenship education in relation to: values education and pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development; pupils’ experiences of personal, social and health education (PSHE) and their preparedness for life in modern society, as citizens, parents, consumers, employers and employees (Pearce and Hallgarten, 2000).

The Citizenship Advisory Group was keenly aware of this broader debate and made a point of addressing it directly. The proposed definition of citizenship education, though set within the political tradition from Greek and Roman times, very much addressed the needs of modern democratic society. This was reflected in its broad-based approach and scope. It applied not just to schools but across society, and tackled political, social, economic and moral aspects of pupils’ development and understanding of local, national, European and global dimensions. The framework also had a modern focus. Its main aim, as in history, was to develop an understanding of the past and present to help pupils become better prepared for the challenges in their current and future lives. Indeed, it could be argued that citizenship education, as defined by the Advisory Group, provides the opportunity for pupils to address their understanding and experiences of modern society and to think critically about the values which underpin it, as an explicit part of their learning in schools. This opportunity can be missing from pupils’ studies in history. History teaching often does not go much beyond the 1960s, thereby sending out an implicit message to pupils that the past and present are separate entities. It is no coincidence that citizenship concerns in Scotland are addressed largely through a subject deliberately titled ‘modern studies’.

The third lesson to emerge from past policy approaches is how far definitions of citizenship are a product of the spirit and concerns of the age. As is made clear in other chapters, citizenship education has been ascribed various purposes in the past. The focus is often dependent on the views of the whatever social or political group is dominant, and the underlying philosophy that shapes those views. This has been very much the case over the past two decades. It is no coincidence that the focus in the late 1980s and early 1990s, on the rights, obligations and allegiances of the individual citizen, was influenced by the rhetoric and policies of the prevailing Conservative government. It was encapsulated in the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s famous remark in the mid-1980s that ‘there is no such thing as “society”. There are men. And there are women. And there are families.’

The Conservative government championed the individualism of the free market and placed an emphasis on the importance of civic obligation or ‘active citizenship’. The term ‘active citizenship’ was part of a wider Conservative philosophy centred on the primacy of the rights and responsibilities of the individual over those of the state. The philosophy was based on a ‘liberal-individualist’ concept of citizenship. The Conservative government urged individuals to take up actively their civic responsibilities rather than leave it to the government to carry them out. It backed up the call with policies that encouraged greater private ownership and the primacy of consumer rights in all areas of life, including education.

The New Labour government which came to power in May 1997 has championed a different philosophical approach to citizenship. It is one centred on the ‘communitarian’ concept of citizenship. The communitarian concept focuses on the meaning and role of community, with a particular emphasis on ‘civic morality’. This is part of the wider philosophy of ‘New Labour’, as the Prime Minister Tony Blair has termed his party and its policies, based on the civic responsibilities of the individual in partnership with the state. The Labour government is urging individuals to act as caring people, aware of the needs and views of others and motivated to contribute positively to wider society. This is part of what is commonly referred to as ‘third way’ politics (Giddens, 1998). The emphasis on ‘civic morality’ is heralded publicly as a much-needed antidote to counter the harmful effects of the rampant individualism which underpinned the previous government’s stress on ‘active citizenship’.

The shifting emphases in approaches to citizenship over the past two decades had an influence on how the Advisory Group was formed and viewed its work. The group was deliberately set up with all-party backing. This was to avoid accusations that it was a creature of the Labour government and therefore biased in its approach. That spirit of cross-party co-operation and consensus was carried over into the definition of citizenship education. There was a conscious effort to forge a definition of citizenship education that was acceptable to all parties and also met the pressing needs of modern democratic society. The working definition had to achieve a balance between the ‘active citizenship’ approach, based on the ‘liberal-individualist’ concept of citizenship, and the ‘civic morality’ approach, based on the ‘communitarian’ concept. The Advisory Group achieved the balance through a ‘civic participation’ approach, based on the ‘civic republican’ concept of citizenship and neatly combining elements of the other two approaches. Nowhere was this successful combination more apparent than in the essential elements to be developed in pupils through an education for citizenship. These included pupil understanding of the paired key concepts of ‘individual and community’, ‘rights and responsibilities’ and ‘freedom and order’, among others.

The final lesson to emerge from past policy approaches is the renewed interest in citizenship education over the past two decades. This lesson was the one most keenly absorbed by the Citizenship Advisory Group. The renewed interest was instrumental in establishing the conditions for the group’s existence and the parameters of its work. It helped: to fuel the calls, within and across parties and groups in society, for citizenship education to be reconsidered as part of the review of the National Curriculum; to provide a clear indication of the major concerns in society that a redefined citizenship education must address; and to pave the way for the favourable reception of the group’s recommendations.

The renewed interest was sparked in the late 1980s with the then Conservative government’s concept of ‘active citizenship’ and the debate about its implications for education and young people (Hurd, 1988; MacGregor, 1990; Abrams, 1993). It led, in 1989, to the renaissance of citizenship education as a cross-curricular theme, ‘Education for Citizenship’, in the National Curriculum (England). The debate was further fuelled by the publication of two documents that attempted to define citizenship education: firstly, Encouraging Citizenship (Commission on Citizenship, 1990), which made recommendations as to ways of encouraging social citizenship through education, public services and the voluntary sector; and secondly, Education for Citizenship (National Curriculum Council, 1990) which offered guidance for schools from the National Curriculum Council (NCC) on how to develop essential components of education for citizenship. The latter offered considerable advice on the major contribution that history could make to citizenship education.

The early 1990s approach failed to encourage the development of consistent and coherent citizenship education in schools (Saunders et al., 1995; Whitty et al., 1994). This failure had a number of causes. These included the lack of consensus about the specific purposes, approaches and outcomes of educating for ‘active citizenship’ in schools; the ineffectiveness of the chosen non-statutory, cross-curricular policy route; the general nature of the official advice given to schools, as embodied in NCC (1990), and the distrust, in schools and elsewhere, of anything associated with attempts to introduce overt political education into the curriculum. The failure of the cross-curricular policy route for citizenship education in schools, particularly through subjects such as history, weighed heavily on the Citizenship Advisory Group. It was a constant reminder of the folly of following a similar policy route.

Despite this failure, the interest in citizenship education has continued to grow apace from the mid-1990s, bringing with it increasingly urgent calls for its review. These calls have been brought to a head by a number of developments in the public domain. Firstly, the social, political and moral fabric of society in England has seemingly been eroded by the impact of rapid economic and social change. This has resulted in increasing disquiet, in many quarters, at the apparent breakdown of the institutions and values that have traditionally underpinned society and encouraged social cohesion and stability, such as marriage, family and respect for the law. There has been particular concern about growing apathy towards public li...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• List of figures
• List of tables
• List of boxes
• List of authors
• Series editor's preface
• Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: issues in citizenship and history
• Part I Contexts
• Part II Curriculum issues
• Part III Conclusions
• References
• Index