Citizenship and Multiculturalism: A Critical Assessment
The views of young members of BME communities and
subsequent implications for professional development
Written by:
Amanda Simon
Project Manager: Dr Bela Arora
Newman University College
Genners Lane, Bartley Green
Birmingham
B32 3NT
Contacts:
Bela Arora (Project Manager)
b.arora@bham.ac.uk
Amanda Simon (Researcher)
a.simon@newman.ac.uk
CONTENTS
List if Figures
5
Acknowledgements
9
Abstract
11
Executive Summary
13
Introduction
17
Chapter 1: Literature Review
Section 1
Citizenship: A Brief Conceptual History
Section 2
Political Participation
Section 3
Multiculturalism
Section 4
Citizenship in Education
Section 5
Black and Minority Ethnic Groups and Education
19
21
39
53
65
77
Chapter 2: Methodology
Phase 1
Phase 2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Phase 5
91
91
93
95
95
97
Chapter 3: Perspectives of Citizenship Educators
Effectiveness
Engagement
Inclusiveness
Cultural Diversity
The Needs of BME Pupils
101
119
129
139
149
Chapter 4: Perspectives from BME Young People
Description of Participants
Perceptions of Citizenship Education
Understandings and Views of British Democracy
169
169
172
192
Chapter 5: Perspectives from Community Group
Representatives
Perceptions of Citizenship Education
Understandings and Views of British Democracy
197
Overall Conclusions
203
Recommendations
207
References
209
2
197
200
Appendices
Appendix I: Phase 1 Interview Questions
Appendix II: Phase 2 Interview Questions
Appendix III: Phase 3 Images
Appendix IV: Phase 3 Interview Questions
Appendix V: Phase 4 Interview Questions
Appendix VI: Phase 5 Interview Questions
3
217
219
221
223
225
227
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Age of pupils
Figure 2
Ethnicity of pupils
Figure 3
Schools of pupils
Figure 4
Ages of community group members
Figure 5
Ethnicity of community group members
4
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
BME
Black and Minority Ethnic
CRE
Commission for Racial Equality
DfEE
Department for Education and Employment
DfES
Department for Education and Skills
EiC
Excellence in Cities
EMAG
Ethnic Minorities Achievement Grant
ESRC
Economic and Social Research Council
GCSE
General Certificate of Secondary Education
LEA
Local Education Authority
LSDA
Learning and Skills Development Agency
MORI
Market and Opinion Research Institute
OFSTED
Office for Standards in Education
QCA
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
SEN
Special Educational Needs
UNCRC
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child
5
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research team would like to thank all the students teachers and citizenship
coordinators that were involved in the research and also the community group
representatives and members, all of whom contributed their time and support
to the project. Thanks are also offered to the senior staff at participating
schools and community groups who gave permission for staff, pupils and
members to be involved in the research project.
The research team would also like to thank the project steering committee and
project supervisors at Newman University College Des Bowden and Pam
Copeland who contributed valuable advice and guidance and constituted an
effective sounding board throughout the project. Thanks are additionally
offered to citizED who gave valuable support to the research and facilitated
dissemination opportunities.
Finally, thanks are offered to Esmee Fairbairn Foundation who funded the
research and to Newman University College where the Project was based.
6
ABSTRACT
Overview: Within the last decade, citizenship has emerged as a key topic of
debate within social, political and educational spheres. This heightened interest
in citizenship has been marked by the government’s positioning of citizenship
studies as a core subject within secondary education in 2002. This research
project seeks to explore the views and beliefs of young people from black and
minority ethnic (BME) groups concerning the citizenship agenda. This research
will also investigate how prepared citizenship educators feel, to meet the needs
and aspirations of young people from BME groups and what they feel is
required from training and professional development to enable them to meet
these needs. It is intended that the research will contribute to the development
of citizenship educators so that they might adequately meet the needs and
aspirations of young people from black and minority ethnic (BME) communities.
Key Question: What views do young people and community representatives
from established BME communities have about British democratic systems and
procedures and what are the implications of these views for the professional
development of citizenship educators?
Sub-questions:
Regarding young people and community representatives:
What are their understandings of and views on British
democratic systems?
What are their views as to the effect of citizenship
education in English schools?
How do they feel citizenship education might be better
constructed to meet their needs?
Regarding citizenship educators:
How prepared do citizenship educators feel to meet the
needs of young people from established BME communities?
What do citizenship educators feel is required from ITE,
EPD and CPD so that they might fully meet the needs and
expectations of young people from established BME
communities?
How might such professional needs be met and evaluated?
Methodology: This research incorporated semi-structured qualitative
interviews and group discussions to explore the views and experiences of
citizenship educators, school pupils, community group representatives and
community group members. Descriptive quantitative data was also gathered
from school pupils and community group members in order to contextualise
responses more fully.
Findings: It is clear from the responses gathered, that there was a strong
sense of ambivalence surrounding citizenship education. All four groups of
7
participants harboured very positive outlooks towards citizenship education in
terms of its importance and purpose and its potential to inform about pivotal
everyday issues. It is also apparent however, that these positive outlooks were
seriously tarnished by a number of factors.
Overall, responses throughout the research indicate widespread disappointment
both in the reality of citizenship education and that of the British democratic
system that it seeks to promote. The young people in particular, whilst
enthusiastic, are hindered by a number of structural challenges which ultimately
prevent them from experiencing the realisation of their own hopes and
aspirations for citizenship education. Similarly, the value that they detect in the
concept of democracy is lost in the actual experiencing of the British democratic
system. These conclusions indicate serious challenges for the remit of
citizenship education and emphasise the need for relevant and adequate
support for those by whom this education is delivered.
Practical Implications: This report will be a useful resource for citizenship
coordinators, citizenship teachers or trainee teachers and also staff involved in
the training and development of citizenship educators. The report will also be
of interest to BME community representatives, the wider academic community
and policy makers at all levels.
Key Words: Citizenship education, young people, needs, BME communities,
British democracy.
8
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chapter 1: Literature Review

Far from being a universal given, citizenship is very much a social
construction. Citizenship is both a complex and pliable notion and its
shape and form is dependant upon the arena in which construction takes
place.

This nature of citizenship is reflective of the continually shifting, diverse
and uncertain social climate.

It is important that citizenship education accommodates for this pliability
and adopts a concept of citizenship that embodies a broad outlook,
allowing greater scope for inclusion and genuinely engaged involvement.

Political participation is widely recognised as a central component of
citizenship, yet some political activities are more likely to be classed as
political than others and some are more accessible to certain individuals
compared to others.

The groups that typically experience political marginalisation, are the
economically deprived and BME groups. There is a need to ensure that
such groups have adequate access to political involvement.

These debates have obvious implications for citizenship education which
aims to cultivate active and engaged citizens.

Multiculturalism as a social reality and theoretical concept is highly
complex and encompasses a number of perspectives that are
representative of possible teaching styles and contents.

Careful consideration must be given to the nature and consequences of
multicultural perspectives particularly within citizenship education where
issues of identity and belonging are central components.

There are multiple challenges in the education of black and minority
ethnic pupils which have existed for decades.

Recent literature has highlighted the importance of identity and
education and the need for careful examination of their interrelation, in
light of contemporary multiethnic society.

Citizenship education is challenged by a number of wider social factors.
It is important that they are responded to appropriately by educators
within the citizenship education that they deliver.
9
Chapter 2: Methodology

The methodology used within this research was largely qualitative. The
research involved semi-structured interviews and group discussions,
which were carried out with secondary school students, secondary school
staff, community group representatives and community group members.

This research methodology is reflective of the aim of the research, to
explore the experiences, concepts and opinions of participants within the
area of citizenship and multiculturalism.
Chapter 3: Responses from Citizenship Educators

On the whole, the citizenship education curriculum was thought to be
effective. Educators spoke positively about the structure and content of
the curriculum.

With regards to the factors of effectiveness, both teachers and
coordinators placed heavy emphasis on the approach of the teacher and
the teaching methods involved.

The concept of the engagement of BME pupils in citizenship education
conjured mixed views from educators.

In terms of the determinants of engagement the subject matter and the
relevance of the lesson content to pupils’ lives was highlighted.

With regards to the indicators of engagement, educators spoke of very
general signs such as the inclusion of pupils in lessons or activities and
pupil knowledge.

Most educators viewed citizenship as a generally inclusive subject.

Educators emphasised the incorporation of real and relevant topics and
the incorporation of pupil contribution within lessons as key methods by
which to maintain inclusively.

Some teachers proposed that citizenship is an innately universal subject
due to the universal topics that it encompasses.

The majority of educators indicated that the citizenship education
curriculum was suitable for the culturally diverse setting. This was
mostly due to its perceived flexibility.

The notion of BME specific needs conjured considerable debate. Whilst
most educators agreed that BME pupils did have specific needs, some
considered this notion to be controversial.
10

One of the key needs of BME pupils that was highlighted by educators
was the need to have a wider awareness of other community groups
beyond their own.

Educators’ perceived ability to meet the needs of these pupils was mostly
hinged on personal attributes such as their ethnic background and life
experiences.
Chapter 4: Perspectives form BME Young People

Both pupils and community group members saw great value in
citizenship education. It was clear however, that perceptions were
impacted upon by the topics covered, the teaching style and the
teaching method.

Pupils envisaged that their needs in relation to citizenship education,
were not being met.

The overall outlook of the pupils and community group members
towards British democracy was one which was fundamentally ambiguous
in the sense that whilst pupils are able to identify fundamental
dysfunctions of the system, it was still recognised as the central system
that affects their lives.
Chapter 5: Perspectives from Community Group Representatives

The perceptions of community group representatives concerning
citizenship education corresponded closely with those of the pupils and
community group members

Community group members expressed a very critical outlook on
citizenship education yet still appreciated the importance of the subject.

The responses of community group representatives concerning British
democracy, reveal a collective perception of a deceptive system that
does not correspond with standard definitions of democracy.

Even though, community group representatives were highly critical of
British democracy, they still advocated the involvement of BME young
people in democratic processes.
11
INTRODUCTION
Within the last decade, citizenship has emerged as a key topic of debate within
social, political and educational spheres. This heightened interest in citizenship
has been marked by the government’s positioning of citizenship studies as a
core subject within secondary education. In August 2002 Citizenship education
became compulsory in Britain for all year groups in key stage 3 and 4 (QCA,
2000), and was also recommended for the primary school curriculum. The
primary aim of citizenship education is to equip pupils with knowledge, values
and skills that will enable them to become informed and effective citizens within
local, national and global society.
Citizenship education as a compulsory addition to the secondary curriculum, has
arisen against a backdrop of social and political upheaval caused by the rise of
nationalism and increased disregard for ‘civic virtues’. Current citizenship
education seeks to confront these societal trends by reasserting the traditional
liberal democratic conception of citizenship (Wilkins, 2000). It is hoped that its
conception will enable the establishment of a common citizenship base in which
the multiplicity of identities present in British society can find a place. The
education system seeks to achieve this through the exploration of three key
areas: social and moral responsibility, community involvement and political
literacy.
Whilst its goals are admirable, there is still some concern over the suitability of
the citizenship education agenda to the British multicultural context. Some
writers perceive that the theoretical basis of on which citizenship education has
been constructed is unsuitable for contemporary multicultural society. Young
for instance advocates that the concept of universal citizenship that is
embedded within citizenship education can actually lead to the exclusion of
certain groups (Olssen, 2004). Osler additionally highlights the subject’s
insufficient coverage of racism and human rights issues (Osler, 2000). The
existence of such debates highlight the necessity for research to be conducted
at the intersection of citizenship education and multiculturalism in order to
ensure that all pupils have equal access to the benefits of this subject area.
Newman University College in Birmingham, has received substantial funding
from Esmee Fairbairn Foundation to undertake a study within Birmingham and
the Black Country, UK, to explore the perceptions and needs young people from
black and minority ethnic (BME) communities concerning citizenship education
and the issue of democracy which stands at its core. Within this study, the
understandings and needs of citizenship educators are also explored, in order to
establish how they might be further assisted in meeting the needs of these
young people. It is envisaged that this research will contribute to the
development of educators so that they might adequately meet the needs and
aspirations of young people from BME communities.
12
CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
Far from being a new concept in Britain, citizenship education has been
featured within the curriculum on a number of different occasions throughout
history. The actual existence of citizenship education spans over several
decades. Through careful examination of the particular times when citizenship
education has been reformulated and its promotion intensified, it is clear that
its emergences have been carefully orchestrated to correspond with specific
social circumstances. Attempts to redefine citizenship education often occur at
times of perceived societal crisis (Kerr, 2003). The latest resurgence of
citizenship education is no less timed or premeditated.
Current citizenship education has come about as a result of mounting fears for
the health and stability of British democracy. At the centre of these concerns is
the perceived political apathy of young people in Britain. Within the Final
Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (the Crick Report) it is stated that
there are “worrying levels of apathy, ignorance and cynicism about public life”
(QCA, 1998:7). This problem has come to the fore amidst the rapid changes
taking place within the modern world. Changes that have influenced the nature
of societal relationships and have ultimately shifted and strained traditional
boundaries of citizenship. Citizenship education was designed to address these
fears by promoting and encouraging active participation and empowering young
people to initiate their own forms of involvement. In doing so it is intended
that the political culture of British society will be transformed, ultimately
safeguarding the future of British democracy.
“We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country
both nationally and locally” (QCA, 1998:7)
“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” (Lord Chancellor cited in QCA,
1998:8).
Both of the above quotes taken from the Crick Report, strongly reflect the
concerns and aims that underpin citizenship education and the intended
outcomes of its implementation.
Considering the content and orientation of the Crick Report on the Education
for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, it is clear that
current citizenship education has been constructed on a political foundation and
has at its core, an overt political agenda. This political focus will be strongly
reflected throughout the literature review.
The first section constitutes a review of literature related to the main issues
13
surrounding the project focus. Here, the concept of citizenship will be
presented, as it is perceived within the various political, philosophical and social
arenas. This section will show that citizenship in itself presents a distinct
definitional challenge in that it is constructed within so many different contexts
that it is becoming increasingly difficult to ascertain what it actually is. Under
contemporary social conditions, citizenship is no longer an automatic given but
is something that is negotiated, debated and constructed. This section will
examine the various tenets of a range of conceptualisations, highlighting
differences both between and within the main construction arenas. The final
part of this section will outline the concept of citizenship used within education
today.
The second section constitutes a detailed examination of the concept of political
participation. As indicated earlier, this social factor is central to the aims and
purpose of citizenship education and stands at the very core of its existence.
This section will explore the different types of political participation,
participation trends and determinants of participation. In addition the section
will also look more specifically at the political involvement of black and minority
ethnic groups and of young people. Here, the notion of political apathy among
young people will be critically examined. In doing so it will be suggested that
young people are more politically engaged than literature would seem to
suggest.
The third section will examine notions of multiculturalism from both factual and
theoretical standpoints and will also highlight the intersection of
multiculturalism and education.
Within this section the sociological
conceptualisations of multiculturalism will also be explored, each pinpointing a
particular force, which is seen to contribute to the shaping of multiculturalism
as a social reality. The final part of this section will feature a critical discussion
of multiculturalism and current citizenship education as outlined within the Crick
Report.
Section four explores the nature and positioning of citizenship within the
current education system. This section outlines the central aims of compulsory
citizenship education and other key elements that support these aims. The
section then proceeds to explore practical delivery of citizenship within schools,
with reference to government guidance. This section draws on a number of
guidance documents pertaining to the implementation and delivery of
citizenship education within schools.
The fifth section on black and minority ethnic groups in education, outlines
problematic aspects of the educational experience of black and minority ethnic
pupils, focusing specifically on compulsory schooling. These issues have raised
major concerns for decades and various attempts have been made to tackle the
related shortcomings. However despite these efforts, it is still shown to be the
case that the British education system fails these students in a number of ways.
14
SECTION 1
CITIZENSHIP: A BRIEF CONCEPTUAL HISTORY
The Modern conception of citizenship as active membership of a political
community is thought to have originated in Greece between 700 and 600 BC
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). Underlying this early conception were
notions of equality and freedom (Clarke, 1994), principles that still constitute
central concerns within citizenship debates today. At this time citizens were
classified with regards to their wealth and status, which determined their
influence on government affairs. Under the subsequent Roman Empire
citizenship was expanded to also confer legal status instead of just political
status. This conceptualisation enabled citizenship to extend beyond the citystate, enhancing integration within the empire (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley,
2004). However as the Roman Empire declined so too did its idea of
citizenship. The following feudal system, failed to accommodate for such a
conception and only fragments of the Roman and Greek conceptions of
citizenship survived within particular social groups (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley,
2004).
It was only following the establishment of parliamentary sovereignty that the
evolution of citizenship began to move in increasingly expansive and inclusive
directions, extending membership to a broader spectrum of groups. This
expansion process remains at the heart of Marshall’s highly influential yet highly
contested theory of citizenship development throughout history (Pattie, Seyd
and Whiteley, 2004). Although it has received much criticism in recent years,
Marshall’s theory has at the very least ignited the British citizenship debates
arena and has been at the heart of many enlightening and challenging
discussions.
The emergence of contemporary perspectives of citizenship, represent yet
another stage in its evolution. These theories have been built on varied
perceptions of late-modern society.
Ingrained within them are deep
considerations of the changed and changing nature of this society and the
consequent effects on the nature and positioning of citizenship. Within such
perspectives, the process of globalisation is carefully considered together with
its consequent side effects including: nation-state decline, the emergence of
transnational institutions, the disembedding of time and space and the rise of
culturally plurality.
The dynamic changed and changing nature of citizenship is reflected in the
multiplicity of interpretations of citizenship currently in operation.
“The common good can never be actualised. There will always be a
debate over the exact nature of citizenship. No final agreement can ever
be reached”
(Mouffe cited in Heater, 2004:287)
“Citizenship as a useful political concept is in danger of being torn
15
asunder….By a bitter twist of historical fate, the concept which evolved
to provide a sense of identity and community, is on the verge of
becoming a source of communal dissension. As more and more diverse
interests identify particular elements for their doctrinal and practical
needs, so the component parts of citizenship are being made to do
service for the whole. And under the strain of these centrifugal forces,
citizenship as a total ideal may be threatened with disintegration”.
(Heater, 2003:287)
The recognition of the decline in nation-state sovereignty, coupled with fears
for the stability of the modern democratic society, has placed citizenship high
on national and international agendas. This has instigated an upsurge in
citizenship debates and related anxieties. In Britain, citizenship education is
now compulsory in secondary schools, and is also taught at primary level. Yet
as the citizenship agenda is thrust ever forward, the answer to one fundamental
question still remains unclear: What is citizenship? The diverse pool of
citizenship literature shows that far from being a universal given, citizenship is
very much a social construction, pieced together within differing trajectorial
contexts.
This section will present the notion of citizenship as it is
conceptualised within various conceptual contexts within the arenas of politics,
philosophy and sociology. These presentations will clearly demonstrate that far
from being a standardised given, citizenship is a complex and pliable notion, the
shape and form of which, is dependant on the arena in which construction
takes place.
The Political Philosophical Foundations Of Citizenship
Throughout the modern period, the most predominant perspective in Western
political thought has been the liberal theory. The advancement of political
theory has been achieved through ongoing debates between this and other
opposing standpoints. Consequently, most modern political theoretical debates
can be situated within a broad liberal tradition. Other traditions, which have
emerged, constitute critiques of liberal theory. None of these traditions
however is a closed, internally consistent cluster of thoughts. Instead, political
traditions are pliable conceptual realms that occasionally overlap (Heywood,
1999).
Amongst the range of political philosophical perspectives there are four roughly
distinguishable strands. These are liberal theory, the consensual order,
participatory republicanism and moderate post-modern pluralism (Janoski and
Gran, 2002). This section will briefly outline the general ideas contained in
each of these strands, highlighting key representative thinkers. The main
tenets of these perspectives will be further elaborated upon within the following
sociology section, which highlights the political orientations of each strand.
Out of the four perspectives named above, liberalism is considered to be the
most dominant in the areas of philosophy and political theory. This perspective
strongly emphasises the individual and rights are mostly based on liberties that
16
apply to everyone. In this view, legal and political rights are prioritised and are
balanced by only a few obligations, particularly the obligation to obey laws.
The relationship between these rights and obligations is a contractual and
reciprocal one (Janoski and Gran, 2002). Political parties grounded within this
view tend to aggregate the various issues raised by interest groups and most
political activity takes place within representative legislatures.
One philosopher, well renowned for his Liberal theory of citizenship is Rawls.
Rawls is widely considered to be one of the most important political
philosophers of the late twentieth century. In his theory of justice as fairness,
Rawls presents a framework that explains the significance of political and
personal liberties, equal opportunity and cooperative arrangements that are
beneficial to the less advantaged of the society (Garrett, 2005).
Quite apart from many of his liberal counterparts, Rawls aims to explore the
rights of free and equal individuals as part of a social cooperation theory.
Rawls seeks to achieve this by associating justice with the idea of fairness.
Rawls postulates that when co-operation between individuals is fair, justice can
then be insured. And justice in essence, becomes fairness. In this sense Rawls
approach represents a shift in the liberal focus from private to public but
without forsaking the traditional concern for the rights of the individual (Pocock,
1998).
In his quest for a basic structure for social order, Rawls seeks a social contract
type agreement. Rawls suggests that as a prerequisite to the establishment of
fairness, those who are in the original position of contracting must operate from
behind a ‘veil of ignorance’, pertaining to their social positioning. Rawls argues
that such conditions will enable individuals to develop a framework of political
justice and consequently construct a society of free and equal individuals
(Pocock, 1998).
In recent years a new strand of liberalism has emerged. The neo-liberalist
strand is, like traditional liberalism, committed to individualism. The aim of
neo-liberalists is to address the dangerous imbalance inherent in individual –
state relationships. In this view the state has become too involved in the
economic and social life of the citizen and therefore stands accused of robbing
individuals of self-respect and liberty. The neo-liberalist ideal of citizenship is
one that centralises the nineteenth century liberalist notion of ‘self help’ and
individual responsibility (Heywood, 1999).
The consensual order perspective incorporates communitarianism and civic
republicanism.
In contrast to liberalism, communitarianism emphasises
community goals achieved through mutual support and group action,
participation and integration. Whilst communitarianism places more emphasis
on obligations it also seeks to preserve individual rights. However here, the
relationship between obligations and rights in this sense is less immediate than
in the liberal tradition.
Civic republicanism bears many similarities to
communitarianism in its emphasis on the obligations of citizens. However this
17
emphasis is articulated from the standpoint of civic virtue rather state
requirement (Janoski and Gran, 2002). Within this perspective, the state is
seen to be responsible for the enforcement of obligations on the members of
society, however civil society also enforces obligations to a certain extent. The
work of Rousseau with its emphasis on community, clearly reflects these
general sentiments.
Rousseau begins from the standpoint that men are naturally unequal and that
as societies evolve from a state of primitiveness into civilisations these
inequalities are replaced by politically imposed inequalities, which are totally
separate from the former. These inequalities progress in their extremity and if
the process remains uninterrupted the final phase is that of the establishment
of the master-slave society (Reese, 1980).
Rousseau visualises savagery and civilisation at two opposing ends of the
development spectrum, yet postulates that they are not much better than each
other. Whilst the state of savagery is unable to accommodate rationality in the
absence of language, the onset of civilisation leads to depravity and corruption.
Rousseau therefore suggests that between these two states there is “the simple
human community where humanity has been achieved and corruption still lies
ahead” (Reese, 1980:497) and that this political constitution must be found in
order to foster the conditions necessary to establish a simple human community
in the modern age (Reese, 1980).
In Social Contract (1762), Rousseau outlines what he deems to be the political
conditions necessary for the political reformation of society. These involve the
defence and protection of each person and their goods and the sustaining of
both societal unity and the freedom of each individual. Rousseau suggests that
this process begins with each person yielding his or her natural rights to the
community. These are then exchanged for civil rights, which enable individuals
to become citizens of the state. This transaction impacts upon the citizen's will,
who, whilst still willing as an individual also becomes a constituent of the
general will (Reese, 1980).
The third group of theories is that of participatory democracy. This perspective
is composed of expansive democratic and neo-republic theories. The expansive
democratic element emphasises the rights and participation of the lower classes
and other marginalized groups to a greater extent than the previous
perspectives. The focus here is on the balancing of group rights with individual
rights and obligations with a view to establishing a self-identity that unites
individual interests through community activities whilst also preserving the
individual’s civil rights. Central to expansive democracy are the principles of
empowerment, participation and deliberation in and through democratic
processes. Similar to this view, neo-republicanism advocates that citizens
should partake in shared public action with other citizens, adopt an office which
incorporates formal rights and duties and establish a plurality (as opposed to a
majority) to guide the community (Isin, 2002). The ideal here is for the state
and civil society to create deliberative institutions such as deliberative poling.
18
Philosophical representation of the ideologies held within this perspective, are
embodied in the work of Habermas. Habermas’s aim is to piece together a
social theory that propels the cause of human emancipation whilst still
preserving an inclusive, universalist moral framework.
He views the
rationalisation, humanisation and democratisation of society as resulting from
the institutionalisation of the potential for the rationality ingrained within the
communicative modes common to humans. In this sense Habermas advocates
a discursive democracy, which suggests a direct correlation between the
prevalence of democracy and its ability to generate communication. This
democratic form is grounded in a type of argumentative communication, which
places greater focus on deliberation than consent (Delanty, 2000).
Moderate postmodernist theories are the most recent addition to the political
philosophical debates arena. Theories contained within this group can be
arbitrarily divided into two categories, those who propose that citizenship is
dead, and those who whilst accepting the notions of citizenship and politics,
advocate significant modifications geared towards the establishment of group or
particularistic rights. One of the theories contained within the latter category is
that of radical pluralism. Within this view it is envisaged that there will be an
ongoing contention referred to by Mouffe as agonistic pluralism. A process
through which antagonism is transformed into shared consensus on basic
democratic issues. According to Mouffe, the antagonistic form of democracy
involves confrontations between individuals who agree on basic foundational
rules but have differing interpretations of these rules and disagree on key
political and moral issues. Central to this model is the notion of the active
protesting citizen (Janoski and Gran, 2002).
The Sociology of Citizenship
This section will first begin by outlining the classical sociological conceptions of
citizenship, which are born within three dominant traditions; liberal theory,
communitarian theory and that of radical democracy. The section will then
proceed to document some of the recent contemporary sociological theories,
which will also assist in highlighting a number of issues that are seen to
determine the nature of citizenship in our late modern age. Here the key
features of the nature of late modern society will be considered and its effects
on the nature and positioning of citizenship explored.
Liberal Theory
In its most general sense, citizenship as membership of a political community
and is constructed around a set of interrelations between four key elements,
these are rights, duties, participation and identity.
The conception of
citizenship within the liberal tradition has generally focused on the rights of the
citizen (Delanty, 2000). This formalistic conception of citizenship is a market
centred one, which is based on the principle of equality (Delanty, 2000). This
conception effectively presents citizenship and civil society as pre-political forms
19
by placing the citizen within the confines of the private domain (Delanty, 2000).
One of the main theories encompassed within modern liberal thought and one
in which there has been a recent revival of interest, is that of Marshall (Delanty,
2000). Although Marshall’s theory is widely applicable it is important to note
that his analysis was constructed with particular reference to English history.
The theoretical standpoint of this theory is often termed as left wing liberalism
or the social democratic version of citizenship. Where as liberalism highlights
the rights of the citizen and conservatism focuses on the duties of the citizen,
Marshall stresses both rights and duties (Delanty, 2000). Marshall saw
citizenship as an official legal status associated with full membership of a
community. Within this conception, citizens have the right to have rights and
all citizens are equal with respect to their rights and duties (Hogan, 1997).
Marshall’s work bears some resemblance to Marxism in the sense that it
redirects the focus placed on civil society and places it on the class system
(Delanty, 2000).
In fact possibly the most important aspect of Marshall’s
theory is its explicit proclamation of the relationship between citizenship and
social class (Barbalet, 1980). Marshall’s theory presents a State-based model
as opposed to a market based one (Delanty, 2000).
According to Marshall it is following the encompassing of both political and
social rights that citizenship develops a more overtly contentious relationship
with the class system.
Marshall does not see this contention in a purely
negative light however. On the contrary, Marshall’s theory postulates that
through this conflict citizenship or more specifically social citizenship, is able to
impact upon the capitalist class system, reducing social inequalities. Marshall
did not claim that this interactive relationship marked the end of the class
system, but that it enabled citizenship to impose certain modifications upon it
(Barbalet, 1988). It is for this reason that Marshall states: “citizenship has itself
become in certain respects the architect of legitimate social inequality”
(Marshall and Bottomore cited in Heater 2004:114) Marshall sees this
interactive relationship between social class and citizenship as an ongoing one
in which both structures act upon each other, each initiating and shaping
changes in the other (Barbalet, 1988).
Marshall perceives citizenship as an integrated whole comprised of three
interrelated elements; the civil, the political and the social (Hogan, 1997).
According to Marshall these three elements have independent histories and
institutional bases which could be traced back to the eighteenth Century when
civic rights were acquired, through to the nineteenth Century in which Political
rights were acquired, through to the twentieth Century which marked the
acquisition of social rights. Marshall did however acknowledge a certain amount
of elasticity within these stages (Heater, 2004). Marshall postulates that is was
through this accumulative chronological pathway of rights acquisition that
citizenship as a concept has evolved (Delanty, 2000). Marshall’s account of
citizenship is therefore in effect, a theory of social change, which documents
the growth of citizenship throughout time (Barbalet, 1988).
20
Two of the main criticisms of liberal theory are; it’s perceived inadequate
response to the challenge of community and to the challenge of democracy.
The first of these criticisms is levelled from the theoretical camp of the
communitarians. In contrast to liberalism, communitarianism situates civil
society in the community.
In this viewpoint participation and identity are
emphasised as opposed to rights and duties (Delanty, 2000).
Communitarianism is unique in its rejection of contractualism and individualism,
which separates it both from liberalism and social democracy (Delanty, 2000).
Although communitarian theory can be seen to have drawn the citizenship
debate into the political domain, the concept of politics utilised by
communitarians, does not encompass democracy. Consequently this viewpoint
is often associated with liberal theory, which also stands accused of this
shortcoming (Delanty, 2000).
Communitarianism
The communitarianism perspective is one which centralises the social sphere
and more specifically the community. In fact the formulation of values and
order within the community are favoured above the formulation of such aspects
on an individual level. Consequently, communitarians have a vested interest in
the social units through which values are transmitted and enforced. These
include the family, schools and other community based organisations. Whilst all
communitarians uphold the general importance of community, they differ in the
extent to which they emphasise individual liberties and rights (Christensen and
Levinson, eds, 2003).
Within the communitarian viewpoint there are three main categories, these are
liberal communitarianism, conservative communitarianism and civic
republicanism. Although uniquely individual in their stance, these three forms
are held together by a number of permeating strands. Due to the specific
philosophical issues it embodies, the liberal communitarian debate is one that is
notably separate from other debates within communitarianism (Delanty, 2000).
This particular viewpoint is commended for its highlighting of the identity
problem within the citizenship debate. Liberal communitarians seek to affix the
political community within the context of the cultural community and believe
that these circumstances facilitate the discovery of identity. The focus here is a
kind of moral, cultural collectivism in which material values are marginalized.
This focal area is reflective of Liberal communitarians quest to highlight the
importance of cultural identity as opposed to individual rights (Delanty, 2000).
The above sentiments are clearly expressed in the work of one of the bestknown communitarian theorists, Charles Taylor who offers the most concrete
analysis of citizenship issues within the liberal communitarian debate (Delanty,
2000).
Unlike liberal communitarianism, conservative communitarianism has more of a
sociological as opposed to philosophical content base. This particular form of
communitarianism tends to emphasise the family, religion, tradition, nation and
the culture of consensus. Conservative communitarianism is distinguished by
its strong consensus on identity issues, its perception of participation as a civic
21
responsibility and its emphasis of social reconstruction (Delanty, 2000).
Emphasis within the civic republicanism perspective is placed on civic bonds this
is quite apart from the market or state emphasis found in liberal theory or the
moral community emphasis found within mainstream communitarianism.
Central to this tradition are participation in public life and commitment. In fact
civic republicanism postulates that it is within this context that individualism is
able to attain its highest level of expression. The model of citizenship
constructed within this perspective is one which is anchored in participation and
public action, one in which identity occupies a minor position (Delanty, 2000).
The political ideal here is that of the ‘self governing political community’
(Delanty, 2000) which constitutes the very heart of citizenship notions within
the civic republicanism perspective. Democracy is regarded within this tradition
with considerable ambivalence. Although civic republicanism did in certain
respects accommodate the democratic revolution that followed after it,
republicanism has maintained a deep-rooted scepticism of the concept of
modern democracy (Delanty, 2000).
Though individual in their approach, Liberal communitarianism, conservative
communitarianism and civic republicanism are nevertheless united in their
efforts to furnish citizenship with the political dimension that is absent from
other state-centred conceptions. All three strands also present community as
the central constituent of civil society. It is additionally evident that the above
traditions seek to give citizenship a public voice centred around identity and
participation (Delanty, 2000).
Despite their contrasting perspectives of
citizenship, viewpoints within the Liberalist and communitarian traditions still
share in their disregard of democratic issues. It is for this reason that both
traditions are heavily criticised by theorists who perceive democracy to be
central to any valid notion of citizenship (Delanty, 2000).
Radical Democracy
The aim of radical democracy is to deepen the political significance of
citizenship to a level that is impossible to attain within liberal and
communitarian traditions. It is important to note however, that radical
democracy is not so much a theory of citizenship as it is a theory of democracy
which has been highly instrumental in transporting the citizenship debate out of
the liberal and communitarian realms and giving it a deeper political grounding.
Within the liberal tradition, citizenship is reduced to the various rights of the
individual. Communitarianism counteracts this view by effectively substituting
democracy with the concept of a participative, community based citizenship.
Within radical democracy, citizenship is repoliticised through democracy. Not
surprisingly the desirable model advocated here is one of democratic citizenship
(Delanty, 2000). Within radical democracy there are a number of different
perspectives that construct images of citizenship from differing standpoints.
These are direct democracy, discursive democracy and feminist perspectives
(Delanty, 2000).
22
Direct democracy emerged during the 1970s and 1980s during a time when
much debate was centred around the new social movements. Within this
viewpoint the aim is to induce social change through the transformation of
democracy. Citizenship here is seen to have the potential to eradicate the
separation between state and society if its potential for democratic political
participation is realised.
A citizenship of participation would effectively
transport politics out of the hands of the state and into the domain of society
thus bridging the gap between the two (Delanty, 2000). It is this line of
thought that characterised the new social movements of the 1970s and 80s,
which led to the reintroduction of the idea of ‘civil society’. Also underpinning
the direct democracy movement was the concept of collective identity,
grounded by a common goal. In this sense the direct democracy movement
extended the citizenship agenda to the self-creation of society, empowering
citizens in a way that could be distinguished from all other previous
perspectives (Delanty, 2000).
Following its dominant emergence during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, Direct
democracy experienced a steady decline during the 1990s. It was at this time
that a number of separate movements arose. One of these successive
movements was discursive democracy. Discursive democracy focuses on the
deliberative process of democracy and challenges notions of privatism by
extending this process into certain ‘depoliticised areas’ (Delanty, 2000). This
model both acknowledges and respects the distinction between state and
society but also distinguishes civil society as a third domain which cuts across
both state and society, creating a “social basis for autonomous public spheres”
(Habermas, cited in Delanty, 2000:41). Discursive democracy is therefore
located both in the public sphere and within civil society, which is characterised
by a “partly institutional political culture” (Delanty, 2000:41). Within this
model, the public sphere is seen as a space where information, opinions and
problems can be articulated and deliberated over. Its capacity to actually solve
problems is however limited. It is therefore thought that the process of
decision-making lies firmly in the hands of the institutionalised political system
(Delanty, 2000).
Within the discursive democracy perspective, contemporary society
characterised by its decentred and self-critical nature. This is due to the
significant rise in the emergence of competing interest groups and frontline
issues of cultural pluralism, which dominate debates surrounding the nature of
contemporary society. According to discursive democracy theorists, the only
viable response to this social climate is for civil society to become discursive as
opposed to self-organising, thus making citizenship the basis of politics instead
of segregating the two completely (Delanty, 2000).
Though mindful of the democratic political potential of the autonomous public,
discursive theory is nevertheless criticised by feminists who claim that
inadequate consideration is given to the pre-discursive domain and that
consequently deeper power structures related to identity construction are
neglected (Delanty, 2000). Such feminist perspectives will be discussed below
23
and will constitute somewhat of a critique of the theoretical viewpoints that
have been presented thus far.
The central complaint of feminist theorists is that little or no attempt is made to
politicise the private sphere, which exists outside of the politicised public
domain. Feminists therefore promote a politicised view of the private domain
together with a pluralist conception of the public domain. Rejecting both the
universality of liberal perspectives and the communitarian notion of the unitary
community, feminism constructs its argument form the point of group
difference also rejecting notions of the homogeneous society constrained by
common concepts or goals (Delanty, 2000). Young (1989,1990), suggests that
the liberal ideal only serves in privileging dominant groups and excluding
women and other subordinated groups, despite the fact that they have equal
citizenship status (Delanty, 2000). Such viewpoints are also thought to assume
that every individual has equal access to avenues of participation in society,
whereas for many groups this is far from reality (Delanty, 2000).
The exclusion of women in particular is emphasised by Foster who along with
other feminist theorists states that citizenship is a masculine construct which
excludes women through its separation of the private and public domains. The
claim here is that “the burden of women’s responsibility for work associated
with the private sphere has implications for their legal status as citizens”
(Foster, 1997:55) simply because it places women outside the public domain
and therefore outside of the realm of citizenship (Foster, 1997).
According to young (1989), what is needed are group rights which will enable
marginalized and minority groups to uphold their autonomy in the face of
dominant groups. The citizenship ideal here is one which accommodates and
respects the diverse private identities of individuals enabling the formation of “a
group differentiated citizenship and a heterogeneous public” (Young cited in
Delanty, 2000:44).
Underlying each of the viewpoints housed within the radical democracy model is
the premise that citizenship is located in collective action, the nature of which
changes from viewpoint to viewpoint. Under radical democracy, the realms of
citizenship are also extended to the domain of the self. One of the main
contributions of radical democracy to the citizenship debate is its questioning of
the notion of assumed consensus, a notion that is integral to both liberal and
communitarian perspectives (Delanty, 2000).
There is no doubt that all of the above perspectives have made valuable
contributions to the citizenship debates over the years. They have at the very
least maintained thought provoking animation within the citizenship dialogue
and have been instrumental to succeeding theorists who in criticising the early
perspectives in particular, have in effect anchored and amassed their own
arguments. In this sense, these theories can be viewed as the foundation
blocks of the modern citizenship debate as we know it. The reality is however,
that earlier citizenship debates are often deemed to be inadequately equipped
24
to accommodate issues inherent to the nature of late-modern society (Delanty,
2000). It is on this premise that many of the more contemporary theories have
arisen.
Contemporary sociological perspectives
Contemporary perspectives of citizenship have been built upon varied
perceptions of late-modern society.
Ingrained within them are deep
considerations of the changed and changing nature of this society and the
consequent effects on the nature and positioning of citizenship. The innately
complex and multilayered nature of these theories has caused considerable
disagreement about their categorisation. For the purposes of this exploration
however, the theories covered will be very loosely separated into nationalist
and post-nationalist theories. Some theories however can be perceived as
belonging to both categories.
Multinational Citizenship is one of the few nationalist theories within the
contemporary citizenship debate. Here it is believed that an operational and
effective post-modern citizenship can maintain harmonious existence within the
confines of nation and state structures. This viewpoint is presented within
Harty and Murphy’s ‘defence of multinational citizenship’ (Harty and Murphy,
2005). Whilst Harty and Murphy agree that regional and global integration are
indicative of significant challenges to state sovereignty, they disagree with
predictions of the complete dissolution of the state and its replacement with
regional and/or global authoritative forms (Harty and Murphy, 2005). Instead it
is envisaged that state sovereignty will be redistributed both internally, for the
purpose of internal autonomy within nations (within nationally plural states) and
externally to cater for the realities of global interdependence. Supporters of
this viewpoint believe that the adequate provision of access to autonomy for
national groups within multinational states is possible, and also that this can be
achieved without the transcendence of nation and state boundaries (Harty and
Murphy, 2005).
Here the aim is to highlight the ways in which institution based solutions can
satisfy nationalist demands. The claim is that a multinational citizenship will
enable the establishment of a sub-state citizen community with the freedom to
select political representatives and with the autonomy to make decisions
without interference from external authorities. It is thought that this process
can be enabled through appropriate institutional designs, which as a basic
principle, must incorporate the equal consideration of the range of national
identities for which they cater.
This would accord greater autonomy to
national groups whilst safeguarding the political and territorial elements of
citizenship and fulfilling the traditional demands of the state (Harty and Murphy,
2005).
Postnationalists argue that the process of globalisation has depleted state
sovereignty and that this has resulted in the erosion of the political salience of
regionally situated national identities and citizenship forms. Theorists within
this area envisage the replacement of national identities with identities and
25
citizenship forms that transcend national boundaries (Harty and Murphy, 2005).
One of the more contemporary postnationalist approaches to citizenship is that
of cultural citizenship. This theory is based on the premise that we live in an
information society in which networks and information are paramount, where
time and space are separate and disembedded, where risk and uncertainty
have replaced progress and confidence and where consumerism prevails
throughout. According to Stevenson (2003), it is in this societal climate that
symbolic, mobile cultures have arisen (Stevenson, 2003).
Cultural citizenship promotes the development of a communications-based
society, in which democratic communication is an institutionalised norm. In this
viewpoint, it is under these conditions that social transformation can take place
and not through the collective insurgence of workers. The implementation of
this communication mode requires individuals to seek beyond their own
culturally relative viewpoints to gage and deliberate the perspectives of others
and consequently learn from others. “A genuinely cosmopolitan dialogue would
need to be underpinned by both the acceptance of universal principles and the
recognition of difference. This is the very essence of cultural citizenship”
(Stevenson, 2003:25). Further to this point, the development of a cultural
citizenship also involves the eradication of assumed identity labelling of
particular groups. This in turn involves the questioning of dominant codes and
cultures, which enable and encourage such labelling processes (Stevenson,
2003).
Whilst cultural citizenship strongly encourages the acceptance and embracing of
difference it does not undermine the importance of overarching, inclusive,
democratic communities. Indeed the view here is that both ideals can be
adequately accommodated in communication-based societies and without the
need for the homogenisation of difference (Stevenson, 2003). In sum “cultural
citizenship includes rights, obligations, civic spaces of participation, respect,
identity and difference and individualisation” (Stevenson, 2003:33) and explores
the possibility of maintaining solidarity whilst at the same time promoting the
creativity of the self (Stevenson, 2003).
Another contemporary portrayal of citizenship is forwarded by cosmopolitan
citizenship. This theoretical standpoint transcends the boundaries of nation and
state yet fails to dispense with either. Like the cultural citizenship viewpoint,
the cosmopolitan citizenship perspective places general emphasis on inclusion
and the accommodation of difference and acknowledges the ‘advanced
interconnectivity of cultures’ that characterises late-modern society (Delanty,
2000).
Within the cosmopolitan citizenship viewpoint there are several sub-strands,
which whilst reflecting similar central concerns, construct cosmopolitanism from
differing points of emphasis. The first of these notions of cosmopolitanism
emphasises both international and legal aspects. This particular strand was
initiated and led by Kant. During the late 1700s Kant proceeded to explore the
26
notion of an international civil society. The central theme running through his
work was the principle of reason, which led him to believe that it was necessary
to restrict the exercise of power to law. Kant campaigned for a system of
international law, which he termed cosmopolitan law. This notion encompassed
the possibility of citizenship existing beyond the state (Delanty, 2000).
While Kant’s theory of cosmopolitanism is said to have opened the debates
arena on the subject of internationalism, many post Kantian theories of
cosmopolitanism tended to a certain extent, to be shaped by the concept of
nationalism, shifting from the wider focus evident in Kant’s work. However in
the relationship between civil society and nation, the concept of nation was
later replaced with that of the state. Within this paradigm there emerged two
viewpoints, that of realism, which promoted the notion of autonomous states
and that of functionalism, in which supporting states were at the centre. Both
of these views were counteracted by the emergence of arguments for a postnational order, which would induce the dissolving of the state as a sovereign
entity. Bull (1977) for instance, whilst remaining heavily sceptical of the notion
of global civil society, argues for an order in which sovereignty is shared on
multiple levels (Delanty, 2000).
Within this diversified discourse of
internationalism and citizenship, cosmopolitan citizenship is generally confined
to a state centred world. Despite Kant’s early efforts, the idea of citizenship
beyond the state still remains a subordinated concept within this citizenship
model (Delanty, 2000).
The second theory of cosmopolitanism emphasises globalism and holds the
concept of a global civil society at its centre. Here, strong emphasis is placed
on the cultural and social nature of cosmopolitan citizenship. The emergence of
globalisation theory carried with it strong implications of a dissolving
significance of nationality and the severing of the link between nationality and
identity alongside the rapid growth of cultural pluralism. It was on the general
premise of such implications that the theory of global cosmopolitanism arose.
The globalisation debate has given voice to a number of different perspectives,
all of which conceive the possible existence of a global civil society under
pinned by democracy. In contrast to Kant’s notion of internationalism these
standpoints are overtly anti-statist. From the points put forward within the
globalisation debate it is clear that there are various possible ways that
globalisation can accommodate cosmopolitanism yet the eventuality itself is not
a certainty (Delanty, 2000)
Another notion of cosmopolitanism is built on the concept of transnational
communities. Within this conception, cosmopolitanism is situated within
deterritorialized transnational communities formed of highly mobile
cosmopolitan citizens. In fact mobility is a key component to this form of
cosmopolitanism. Within this view the identity of the cosmopolitan citizen
embodies greater flexibility and these citizens are more likely to be
multilinguistic. Since such citizens are typically those who have left their
homeland to settle in another country, they are characterised by the multiple
loyalties, which transcend physical location (Delanty, 2000). For instance, a
27
British resident who was born and raised in Estonia may have dual loyalty, to
Estonia as their homeland and to Britain as their place of abode. This is seen to
result in what is often termed, the ‘creolisation’ of global culture. This is the
adaptation of global culture by its recipients. In one sense there is an
acknowledgement and assimilation towards the strong currents of the global
culture and on the other these currents are rode against and its central force
weakened (Delanty, 2000). The flexibility of cosmopolitan citizens which
extends to cultural identity also pertains to the citizenship of the individual,
which is subject to alteration (Delanty, 2000).
The notion of transnational communities outlined within the cosmopolitan
citizenship perspective reflects less of a concern with world governance and
more of a concern with the identities of these communities. Within this
viewpoint cosmopolitan citizenship is tied to residence and not birth. This
theory highlights the impact of cultural issues on citizenship, consequently
exposing the inappropriateness of the segregation of public and private spheres
in the conceptualisation of citizenship (Delanty, 2000).
A fourth strand of cosmopolitan citizenship is that which places the notion of
post nationalism at the centre. Although accorded with a number of different
meanings, within the discourse of cosmopolitan citizenship, the term
postnationalism refers to the “reflexive transformation of existing national
conceptions of group membership” (Delanty, 2000:65). Again, the key factor
here is residence. One of the key supporters of the post-national citizenship
ideal is Habarmas. At the foundation of Habarmas’s proposals is the notion of
the dual existence of a constitutional order and a civil society characterised by a
discursive democracy and grounded in public spheres. His theory also reflects a
strong commitment for both the constitutional state and cosmopolitanism.
Habermas visualises the development of cosmopolitanism taking place within
the confines of the constitutional state as opposed to it being imposed through
global processes. For Habermas postnationalism is more to do with the
embedding of cosmopolitism in the realm of constitutional state, than it has to
with global civil society. It is these premises that separate Habermas’s theory
from most other normative cosmopolitan theories, which envision the
establishment of global civil society following the dissolving of the nation-state
(Delanty, 2000).
It is from the departure point of Habermas’s novel theory that Delanty
constructs what he terms, the idea of civic cosmopolitanism. Delanty proceeds
a step further than Habermas in that he dares to propose a new concept of
cosmopolitanism based on the premise that cosmopolitanism poses a real
challenge to the forces of globalisation. However Delanty’s proposals are not
without condition.
Delanty postulates that in order for this threat to be a
significant one, cosmopolitanism must replace the already unstable institution of
nationalism. In order for this to be achieved, the relationship between
cosmopolitanism and the community, which still remains monopolised by
nationalism, must be re-established.
28
Delanty’s notion of civic cosmopolitanism reconciles nationalism with postnationalism, thus forming what he terms a self-limiting kind of cosmopolitanism,
which avoids both the extremes of particularism and of universalism. (Delanty,
2000). In contrast to other normative cosmopolitan theories, Delanty presents
a form of cosmopolitanism that looks not to transcend the political community
through “an international organisation of states” but rather through “a pluralist
world of political communities” (Delanty, 2000:145).
One post-nationalist theorist, who questions the appropriateness and stability of
the notion of citizenship altogether, is Soysal. Soysal argues that due to the
effects of globalisation in late modernity, human rights have adopted an
enhanced role and position. In fact, Soysal’s proceeds further in proposing that
human rights are presently replacing citizenship as the primary facilitator of
individual autonomy (Faulks, 2000). Soysal argues that the post-war era has
cultivated a revolutionised notion of citizenship, which is underpinned by
principles of universal personhood as opposed to national belonging (Faulks,
2000).
This shift in principles is said to have occurred against a backdrop of
globalisation, which has encompassed international law, the United Nations
network, the emergence of global civil society, and the establishment of
regional governance. As a result, Soysal argues that human rights are
increasingly taking centre stage in the global political arena, as the notion of
state sovereignty begins to fade. Put another way, “once relegated to the
status of pre-political privatism, human rights are now overriding the rights of
citizenship and reshaping democratic politics” (Delanty, 2000:68). Using the
example of ‘guest workers’ in Europe, Soysal concludes that the fact that these
workers had been accorded social and civil rights without being granted official
citizenship status, demonstrates the decline in the importance of citizenship
benefits caused by the increasing prevalence of human rights. Through this
demonstration Soysal also highlighted the frailty of national laws, which can
now be overridden by transnational communities via transnational legal
institutions such as the European Union (EU). These communities are also able
to take advantage of the incorporation of international human rights laws into
national law.
From Soysal’s viewpoint this evidence shows that social
membership is seen to be a post-national phenomenon built on personhood as
opposed to citizenship itself (Faulks, 2000).
Taylor further supports the above view point. Taylor postulates that in the late
modern age, risk has become a global common denominator and thus has
created common interests and concerns. According to Taylor, the current social
climate has given way to a more overarching and unified agreement on the
importance of human rights in the late-modern age (Faulks, 2000).
Another theory which emphasises the nature and form of rights in its portrayal
of citizenship is multicultural citizenship. Multicultural citizenship is one which
combines concerns for the universal rights and membership in liberal nation
states, with those for the challenge posed by ethnic plurality. While many
29
liberal theorists believe that the universal rights accorded through citizenship
safeguard the cultural membership of individuals, theorists within this school of
thought envisage the need for additional rights for vulnerable minority groups,
in order for such groups to sustain themselves amidst the dominant culture(s)
(Kymlicka, 1995).
Within this perspective there are two general versions both of which reflect
differing conceptualisations of the relationship between multicultural citizenship
and universal citizenship. On the one hand, feminists and (post) marxists
perceive a critical and antagonistic relationship where both concepts are seen
as opposites. In this view, universal citizenship facilitates the prevalence of
oppression whilst multicultural citizenship allows for marginalized voices to be
heard. At the centre of the feminist contribution to the multicultural citizenship
debate is the theme of ‘oppression’. According to young (1989, 1990), society
is formed of different groups which are either dominant or oppressed. This
strand of differentiated citizenship therefore concerns the denouncing of
universal rights and the provision of special rights for oppressed groups. This
suggests a politics for difference and not one geared towards the possibility of
integration (Janoski and Gran, 2002).
On the other hand, this notion of ‘oppression’ is hardly featured in Kymlicka’s
liberal version of multicultural citizenship. Within this viewpoint the notion of
universal rights is an acceptable one. However it is the inadequate number of
them for certain groups that remains problematic. Kymlicka (1995) campaigns
for the establishment of group differentiated rights for particular minority
cultures in addition to the universal rights bestowed upon all (Kymlicka, 1995).
The central concept here is ‘societal culture’ which is effectively synonymous
with the majority culture. Within a culturally plural society this evokes issues of
equality and justice, which can only be confronted through the according of
special rights to aid in the recognition and protection of minority cultures
(Kymlicka, 1995).
Unlike many other post-war liberals Kymlicka argues that General human rights
cannot replace or subsume minority group rights, as these are unable to
adequately confront important questions relating to cultural minority groups.
This ultimately results in cultural minorities being left vulnerable to injustice at
the hands of the dominant group, thus aggravating ethnocultural conflicts. It is
for this reason that Kymlicka advocates a supplementing of traditional human
rights with special minority rights in order to minimise or avoid altogether such
disputes, which too often result in bloodshed and loss of lives (Kymlicka, 1995).
In his presentation of multicultural citizenship Kymlicka aims to show that the
emergence of ‘politics of difference’ brought about through the increased
mobilizing of national groups need not pose a threat to liberal democracy. In
fact kymlicka demonstrates that many of the demands of such groups
correspond with liberal principles of social justice and freedom (Kymlicka,
1995). Whilst the allocation of minority group rights to particular groups may
seem discriminatory, Kymlicka argues that it does in fact correspond with the
30
liberal principle of equality.
Instead of giving these groups an unfair
advantage, these rights are seen to compensate for the inevitable disadvantage
they experience, existing within multinational societies (Kymlicka, 1995).
From the information within this section it is clear that citizenship is indeed a
complex and multifaceted notion and one which has been constructed and
reconstructed on a number of different levels. As times have changed so to has
the nature and positioning of citizenship. Within the contemporary advanced
industrial society citizenship is a negotiated and constructed form and is in this
sense reflective of the continually shifting, diverse and ultimately uncertain
social climate. Within this climate, individuals are able to shape their own
histories and piece together multilayered identities. It is important that
citizenship education accommodates for this pliability and adopts a concept of
citizenship that embodies a broad outlook, thus allowing greater scope for
inclusion and genuinely engaged involvement.
31
32
SECTION 2
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Apart from the embodiment of particular norms and values, citizenship may also
be seen as a matter of civic behaviour, a willingness to support the
perpetuation of democratic society through active participation in politics and
public affairs (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). This Political participation is
widely viewed as a positive aspect of democratic society, which cultivates
integration, encourages individual identification with the wider community and
generally enhances social solidarity (Segal, 2000). According to White (1993),
it is a key requirement for a meaningful democratic society (Johnson and Lollar,
2002).
There is much disagreement among political scientists concerning the
definitional boundaries of political participation (Schlosser, 2005).
One
commentator states that Birch (1993), defined political participation as an
activity which “is essentially a case for substantial numbers of private citizens
[…] to play a part in the process by which political leaders are chosen/or
government policies are shaped and implemented.” (Birch cited in Schlosser,
2005). According to Huntington (1991), political participation involves two
dimensions. These are participation and contestation. Huntington’s definition
also implies the existence of civil and political liberty to speak, assemble and
publish in the name of political debate, and also the freedom to conduct
electoral campaigns (Jonson and Lollar, 2002).
Political engagement incorporates both conventional and unconventional acts.
Conventional or institutional participation refers to involvement in electoral
party politics (Barnes, 2004). This form of participation refers to the political
venues of participation that are established, monitored and encouraged by the
state (Segall, 2005) and includes acts such as voting, standing for office or
participating in political party campaigns (Sanghera, no date) Unconventional or
non-institutional participation on the other hand refers to acts such as
demonstrating, leafleting or petitioning (Segal, 2005) such acts may be
legitimate or illegal (Citizenship Foundation, 2004).
Whilst many traditional accounts of political engagement have tended to focus
on the conventional political activities, there have been recent calls for the
widening of the definition of political participation in light of new forms of
activism that have arisen in recent decades (Schlosser, 2005). There are also
claims that narrow traditional conceptions of political participation create a
deceptive portrayal of political activity levels within contemporary society
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). As stated by Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, “
the citizen audit survey reveals that citizens have not contracted out of politics,
but rather are engaged in a multiplicity of political activities beyond the
traditional ones” (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004:266). It has also observed
that unorthodox forms of participation are increasing in popularity and
importance and therefore need to be adequately considered within participation
debates (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
33
Both conventional and unconventional forms of participation can be divided into
three main categories. The first of these is that of individualistic participation.
Individualistic forms can be undertaken by the individual, without assistance
from others. Such forms may involve the donation of money to organisations
and voting. One of the more invisible individualistic forms of participation is
‘consumer citizenship’. Many politicians conceive active citizenship to consist of
the influencing of public services to respond to customer preferences.
However, consumer citizenship implies that citizens are able to influence the
political process by using their purchasing power and that in doing so, such
citizens are participating politically (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). Contact
participation is from the respondent’s viewpoint, also individualistic, however
also requires the participation of representatives or officials. This form involves
such activities as writing to the media or speaking to a Member of Parliament.
Lastly, collective participation involves the joining together of citizens for
political purposes.
Collective participation activities may involve attending
political meetings or participating in demonstrations (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley,
2004).
Participation Trends
Concerning contemporary liberal democracies, several trends of political
participation have been identified. These are:
 An increasingly informed and critical citizenry
 A decline of trust in effectiveness of political elites and institutions
 A decline in loyalty to traditional political parties
 A drop in turnout rates in elections
 An increase in unconventional political participation.
(Sanghera, no date)
Such trends are generally reflected in accounts forwarded by Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley (2004) concerning the current British political climate. Here it has
been observed that with the exception of protest forms, collective forms of
participation have experienced significant decline, this has been coupled with
the weakening of norms central to the perpetuation of collective participation.
In tern, writers have also observed a marked increase in individualistic forms of
participation, which are thought to have overshadowed collective forms. In
light of this evidence, Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley conclude that Britain is largely
composed of ‘atomised citizens’. These shifts have resulted in the weakening of
institutions that facilitate collective participation such as political parties. This
movement is further reinforced by the increase in ‘cheque-book’ participation
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
With this emergence of atomised citizenship there comes the increased risk of
policy fragmentation and failure. If civil institutions become weak then such
processes are harder to counteract. A major consequence of this trend is that
34
the state abdication of its responsibility to provide collective goods and services
placing it in the hands of the market (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). The
problem with this arrangement is that citizens feel less obligated to a market
state. Also, markets are unable to enforce the rule of law needed to sustain an
inclusive, fair and cohesive society. State withdrawal will ultimately result in a
breakdown in basic security. Another consequence of weakening institutions is
the breakdown of communication between ruler and ruled (Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley, 2004).
Despite these risks however, there are certain advantages of atomised
citizenship and market intervention. One such advantage is the provision of
increased choice in public services; another is increased efficiency due to the
market focus on innovation and cost reduction. A third advantage is the direct
correlation between the cost of services and the benefits gained by the user
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004)
Determinants of Participation
Gaining a full understanding of the relationship between the personal
characteristics of citizens and their involvement in political activities has been
one of the ongoing goals of political behavioural empirical research (Barnes,
2004). At the most basic level, theories of participation can be divided into two
categories: those which focus on individual or personal attributes and those
which highlight the effects of wider social networks. Traditional theories of
participation determinants tend to focus on personal or individual characteristics
(McClurg, 2003). These studies have generally found the main determinant
factors of participation to be individual resources such as education, income or
socio-economic status and age or experience. It has been found that those
with greater resources in these fields tend to have greater political involvement.
In the case of age for instance, it has been found that there is what appears to
be a universal increase in participation as people grow older, suggesting that
experience is in itself, a political resource (Barnes, 2004). In times past,
women have been found to participate less than men. These differences have
narrowed considerably and have almost disappeared in industrial democratic
societies (Barnes, 2004).
Income has also been identified as a key determinant factor with those at the
lower end of the income scale displaying lower levels of political engagement.
Unemployed individuals are even less likely to be politically active because they
do not have access to social networks existent within the workplace through
which political participation is facilitated (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
In addition such individuals have very low levels of residential stability. This
hinders participation because they are less likely to be integrated in their
communities and therefore less likely to have a stable network of neighbours
and friends (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
35
Whilst the individuals most likely to be apathetic and non-participatory are
those who lack power and resources, these individuals are those most likely to
desire state intervention on their behalf. This creates a vicious cycle of
frustration, as the lack of political involvement among such individuals
constitutes a significant barrier to the implementation of state intervention
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). Another aspect of non-participation is the
emergence of ‘cheque-book’ participation.
This essentially involves one
individual subcontracting out his or her participatory duties someone else.
Maloney suggests that this type of participation is responsible for much of the
recent growth of interest groups such as green peace and shelter (Pattie, Seyd
and Whiteley, 2004). Skocpol (2002), further suggests that the establishment
of such organisations often rests in the hands of political entrepreneurs who
generate funds through direct mail which are then used to hire pollsters and
media consultants to frame policies and lobbying strategies (Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley, 2004).
More recently, apparent limitations in personal characteristics perspectives,
have led to greater emphasis being placed on the environmental determinants
of political engagement (McClurg, 2003). A key focal point within this area of
research has been the relationship between political participation and
individuals’ involvement in formal and informal groups. Such groups may
include sports clubs, student societies or Book clubs. Although such groups
may have few direct links with the political process, they are nonetheless
arenas in which individuals can learn skills that can be utilised within political
activities of a higher intensity. They can therefore be considered as training
grounds for political participation for many of those involved (Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley, 2004). It is suggested that involvement in such groups stimulates
collective political interest, makes individuals available for mobilisation by the
elites and equips people with skills that make participation easier (McClurg,
2003).
Considerably less research has focused on the role of informal groups in
political mobilisation. These groups are nevertheless said to underpin civil
society and provide vital services. Activities within this area may include
involvement in a pub quiz team or the provision of support for neighbours or
friends.
These activities are valuable because they help to build civic
engagement networks and also provide valuable services (Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley, 2004). One explanation of the relationship between such groups and
political participation is that when individuals have friends who participate, they
themselves are more likely to do the same (McClurg, 2003). Other research
emphasises the size and political orientation of the group as influential factors
of political involvement. Another suggestion is that even very basic interactive
activities such as playing cards or having lunch with friends may influence
participation by enhancing interpersonal trust and compliance to social norms.
In addition, there is also evidence to suggest that family interactions can also
affect political engagement (McClurg, 2003).
36
Whilst the above research is highly valuable and enables a clearer
understanding of political behaviour, it is nevertheless seen by some to lack
detail in certain areas. McClurg (2003) for instance argues that whilst social
interaction influences participation the actual affect it has is very much
dependant upon the amount of political discussion that occurs within these
networks. According to McClurg (2003), social networks can only influence
participation through the political substance they encompass (McClurg, 2003)
thus to fully understand the relationship between social interaction and
participation it is necessary to adequately examine this substance as opposed to
solely focusing on the social network form.
A more comprehensive and detailed categorisation of political participation
theories is given by Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2004). The categories used
here are choice-based theories and structural-based theories.
In the
perspective of the choice based theories, actors are seen to be operating within
a world where individuals seek to obtain the highest return at the minimum
cost. This perspective views citizenship as something which results from the
choices that people make which reflect the costs and benefits of the situation in
question. The point here is that individuals choose their levels of participation.
Within the structural perspective emphasis is placed on the socialisation of
individuals into norms, values and behaviours of social groups and those of the
wider society. Here, citizens are viewed as products of social forces and
structures, which affect behaviours and attitudes (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley,
2004)
The first choice theory of participation is the cognitive engagement model. The
core idea of this theory is that political engagement is determined by the
individual’s access to information and their willingness and ability to use it.
Education is a central component of this theory because it enables people to
acquire and process large amounts of information. Education also enables the
acquisition of key skills such as IT and information analysis skills. Increases in
education levels coupled with the declining cost of information acquisition,
creates a process of cognitive mobilisation which in tern produces politically
conscious individuals who have a clear understanding of democratic norms and
principles. The cognitively engaged citizen is also a critical citizen who is likely
to take action if dissatisfied by state delivery of services. If such citizens feel
that they are not receiving adequate benefits, they may be less inclined to
acknowledge their obligations as citizens. This is why cognitive engagement is
essentially a choice based theory, because it postulates that the political
involvement of citizens depends on their perception of the performance of the
state system (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
One of the main criticisms of this theory is that whilst it explains the importance
of information gathering, it is not clear why the individual would want to act on
this information or what encourages them to do so. Thus, the process of
information acquisition and processing is seen by some as an incomplete
explanation for participation (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
37
The second choice based theory is the general incentives theory. This theory
specifically explains involvement in high intensity participation, involving
political activists. The core idea that underpins this theory is that in order to
participate, actors need incentives. These incentives are divided into five types;
collective, selective, group, social and expressive (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley,
2004).
Collective incentives refer to the benefits of citizenship that are available to all
individuals regardless to whether or not they participate. Economists refer to
these incentives as public goods. These goods are provided by the state and
include, freedom from crime and freedom from invasion. Other goods such as
healthcare, education and infrastructure are also public goods. In this view it is
thought that if individuals perceive policy delivery to be effective then they will
be motivated to participate but if they perceive failing delivery then this will
function as a deterrent to participation. Here the individual’s own belief that
they can affect outcomes plays a central role. This is because, even if an
individual perceives the system to be an effective one, if they don’t think that
they can have any influence within it they still will have no motivation to
participate (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Selective incentives are the benefits gained as a direct result of participation.
Such incentives are exclusive to participants and are not accessible to nonparticipants. There are two types of selective incentives, process and outcome.
Process incentives refer to the perceived benefits of involvement in the
participation process itself. The joy of meeting new and interesting people for
instance, may be enough of an incentive for someone to get involved in a
political activity. Outcome incentives refer to the achievement of certain
personal (as opposed to collective) goals whilst participating in the political
process. Such incentives help to secure individuals’ political commitment for
private reasons. For instance a citizen may harbour a private desire to become
a local magistrate and this may be their personal incentive for sustained
political engagement (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Group incentives refer to the willingness of individuals to be involved in political
activities because of the group benefits that will be gained. Individuals
propelled by these incentives will often think of the welfare of the group instead
of their own welfare. This theory implies that a person may engage in political
activity because of the available benefits for a group that is important to them
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
The fourth motive for involvement in the general incentives model is drawn
from social norms or from the perception of the individual that those around
them are supportive of participation and civic values. This viewpoint postulates
that a person’s level of political involvement will either be inhibited or enhanced
by the views of those around them, depending on what they perceive these
views to be (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
38
The final set of motives for political engagement outlined within the general
incentives model involves the individual’s emotional or affective attachments to
society. Here it is implied that for some people the motive for political
engagement is an emotional attachment to their country, a sense of ‘British
pride’ for instance (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
The general incentives model has been criticised for overemphasising the
centrality of choice behaviour whilst neglecting the role of socialisation
processes in explaining participation trends. Evidence gathered by Barnes and
Kaase (1979) for instance, suggests that people become involved in voluntary
activities due to their parent’s involvement (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
A person’s involvement may also be dictated by the extent to which they are
embedded within their community (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Structural theories of participation highlight the influence of macro level forces
as opposed to the individual choices made by citizens. The civic volunteerism
model is the most prevalent of the structural models. At the centre of this
model is the availability of resources, namely; time, money, civic skills, political
efficacy and access to political recruitment networks. The central suggestion of
this model is that individuals with these resources will participate if the
resources have resulted from social structures, education and inherited
characteristics from parents. Within this viewpoint, psychological engagement,
which is subject to individual choice, is less important than these resources
(Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Though useful, this type of theory does present a number of problems. The
first of these is connected to the proposed correlation of socioeconomic status,
participation and civic values. The model fails to adequately explain why
significant numbers of high status individuals are not politically engaged. There
is also the anomaly that despite the fact that advanced industrial societies are
becoming better educated and more affluent, political participation levels
continue to decrease. Verba et al (1995), also suggest that this model would
benefit from a broader examination of resources including spare time and
financial resources in order to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the
connection between socioeconomic variables and participation (Pattie, Seyd and
Whiteley, 2004). Another perceived problem with this model is its tendency to
focus on supply of participation whilst failing to adequately consider the
incentives that underpin political involvement (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
The equity-fairness theory, offers an alternative perspective of political
participation. Here it is believed that society is composed of various groups
who compete for resources. The central notion is that individuals compare
themselves with their peers and if these comparisons reveal an unfavourable
reflection on the individual, then this can result in frustration or aggression.
This aggression may be manifested in the political actions of the individual. In
other words, individuals compare their actual life situations with their perceived
expectations of that situation, which are constructed through peer comparisons.
If there is a significant gap between expectations and actual reality, then
39
relative depravation results, which has consequences for political action. This
type of scenario is more commonly manifested amongst objectively deprived
groups such as ethnic minorities and individuals with low income. The larger
the gap between expectations and reality, the more substantial the political
consequences. This model has been used to explore the occurrence of
unconventional political activity (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Despite its usefulness in explaining unorthodox political participation, the
relevance of the equity-fairness model in the general exploration of political
participation is somewhat questionable. It is also possible that relative
depravation hinders more conventional forms of participation. These differing
effects of relative depravation cause theoretical postulations of the theory to be
unclear. The relationship between equity-fairness perceptions and attitudes
towards rights and obligations are also said to be inadequately defined (Pattie,
Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
The last structural model of participation is the social capital model. In the
literature, there is much debate about the definition of social capital. Putman
(1993) defines it as “features of social organisation such as trust, norms and
networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating co-ordinated
actions” (Putman cited in Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004:149). Central to this
theory is the notion that if individuals trust each other and work cooperatively
to solve societal problems then society will be much better off. Generally trust
is the key constituent of social capital theory. This trust is strongly embedded
in social structures, which transcend time and are concentrated in particular
geographical zones (John, Morris and Halpern, 2003). According to social
capital theorists it is trust that enables individuals to transcend beyond their
immediate networks and connect with others in corporate activities. According
to Tocqueville (1990), communities with high levels of social capital feature
extensive civic engagement networks and appear to have less crime and higher
levels of political participation (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004).
Despite being one of the more predominant models of participation, social
capital theory is seen to have some inadequacies. One problem is that that of
circularity. When utilised in the explanation of wide forms of participation there
is a danger that it could be seen to imply that voluntary activity perpetuates
itself in some sort of continuous cycle. This in tern poses the potential problem
of broad measures of participation becoming both independent and dependent
variables in explanatory models (Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley, 2004). It has also
been suggested that current social capital theory does not adequately account
for the causal effects of the socialisation processes (John, Morris and Halpern,
2003).
BME Groups and Political Participation
Over the last two decades, various studies have shed light on the political
participation of immigrant groups and the factors which influence participation
40
levels. Drawing from their study of political participation in California, Uhlaner
et al for instance, conclude that voting behaviours were influenced by ability to
speak English. Cho (1999), also came to similar conclusions and also postulates
that immigrants educated outside the United States are less likely to vote than
those educated in the United States. In 1999, Junn concluded that immigrants
may be less likely to participate in institutional political activities, however are
just as likely as natives to be involved in direct unconventional political activities
such as protesting (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
Since 1974 several studies have demonstrated that non-registration among
ethnic minority groups in Britain is notably higher than it is among the white
community. This was highlighted in the 1974 sample survey. Another survey
reflected the same results in 1979. Over 10 years later in 1991 another survey
showed that although participation levels had improved among BME groups
they were still notably lower to those of the white population. Consequently,
there has been mounting concern about the non-participation of ethnic minority
groups. A more recent study undertaken in 1998 discovered that nonregistration among black respondents was still very high (Anwar, 2001).
Non-registration has been connected to doubts surrounding the residential
status of respondents, others experienced language barriers. There was also a
fear of attack from extreme right wing groups who were able to use electoral
registers to target individuals from ethnic minority groups. High levels of nonparticipation, particularly among ethnic minority young people, were also found
to have resulted from a general alienation from political processes. High levels
of non-participation may also be accounted to the policies and practices of
registration offices, which at times fail to meet the needs of ethnic minority
electorates (Anwar, 2001).
According to Fennema and Tillie (1999, 2001), differences in political
participation amongst ethnic minorities are connected to disparities in civic
communities, which primarily constitute the amount of ethnic social capital of
the group, indicated by involvement in ethnic associational life (Jacobs, Phalet
and Swyngedouw, 2004). Here it is predicted that the denser the political
ethnic association networks, the more political trust will be generated among
the group and the more political activity will be embarked upon (Jacobs, Phalet
and Swyngedouw, 2004).
This model was however found not to be applicable to Brussels where it was
found that although there were notably higher levels of ethnic membership
among the Turkish community compared to the Moroccan community, there
were no notable differences in political participation between the two groups.
From this, Jacobs, Phalet and Swyngedouw (2004), conclude that the proposals
put forward by Fennema and Tillie need to adequately consider the differences
between ethnic social capital and cross ethnic social capital and the relationship
that exists between the two. Jacobs Phalet and Swyngedouw, also stress the
importance of examining the possible differing effects of ethnic social capital on
different ethnic groups (Jacobs, Phalet and Swyngedouw, 2004).
41
A similar theoretical viewpoint suggests that political involvement is affected by
ethnic residential concentration. The claim here is that those who live in areas
which are highly populated with co-ethnics, have greater access to ethnic media
and community organisations. This is said to lower the cost of political
mobilisation encouraging participation (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
Another factor said to affect political involvement amongst immigrants is their
prior political experiences. Those who have escaped from oppressive political
regimes may be distrustful of the political system and therefore less likely to
participate. On the other hand however, they may cherish the opportunity to
choose freely the candidate of their preference, which may increase their
tendency to vote. The prior political experiences of first generation immigrants
may also influence the political participation levels of their children. Studies of
political socialisation demonstrate that the voting behaviour of adults is
significantly influenced by political activities and discussions of parents during
childhood (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
Anti-immigrant legislation may also influence immigrant political mobilisation.
Where the public benefits of immigrants are placed under threat, the first and
second generations are more likely to mobilise against the laws in question for
their own benefit and that their relatives. This was shown in the case of the
1996 American elections where it was indicated that immigrant legislation was
more prominent for immigrants than it was for other members of the
population (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
Many of the traditional theories of immigrant adaptation perceive assimilation to
be a unilinear process through which social and economic conditions of
immigrants improve over time. Over the past decade however, this view has
been strongly challenged in light of the “new” second generation. Many of the
revised theories perceive more of a segmented assimilation trend where
disparities in group characteristics and incorporation trends lead to
unpredictable outcomes (Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
One such viewpoint is forwarded by Ramakrishnan and Espenshade (2001),
who in their examination of immigrant generational status and voting
participation found that immigrant political involvement trends were varied
according to the racial or ethnic group. The research also found that linguistic
barriers may not necessarily be primary obstacles to voting and that previous
political experience does not have an effect on voting participation as suggested
within more traditional accounts. The study did reveal however, that the
presence of anti-immigrant legislation did increase voting participation among
immigrants. Overall the findings highlight a need for further systematic
research to be conducted concerning immigrant political participation
(Ramakrishnan and Espenshade, 2001).
42
Young People and Political Participation
Current representations of young people tend to be quite negative. Youth
today tend to be portrayed as self-centred, inconsiderate and apathetic or as a
source of trouble (Rocker, Player and Coleman, 1999). A central constituent of
this negative portrayal is the view that young people remain indifferent to social
and political issues and alienate themselves from the political world (Rocker,
Player and Coleman, 1999). As concerns for the perceived political apathy of
young people have mounted, various approaches and responses to the issue
have been forwarded.
In the 1996 MORI Omnibus survey on conventional political participation in
Britain it was again confirmed that age is a key determinant of political
engagement. In tern, these findings confirmed those of earlier studies, which
imply the existence of extensive non-participation and political indifference
amongst youth. The study revealed that young people were less likely to vote,
join a main stream political party or to engage in political activities that involve
any significant costs; either in time, information or finances. The data gathered
also revealed clear and systematic variations in levels of political engagement
according to employment status, income and class. Unemployed and lowincome respondents were much less likely to be politically engaged than those
on average or above average incomes. However even when income and social
class were accounted for, age was still found to be strongly associated with
levels of political engagement (Fahmy, no date).
In light of these findings, Fahmy stresses the importance of examining and
confronting the wider social and economic issues when discussing and
encouraging the political engagement of young people. According to Fahmy,
such an approach has implications for citizenship education, which, apart from
its central emphasis on knowledge skills and values, must consider the wider
social and economic circumstances of the young people it attempts to reach
(Fahmy, no date). This involves a commitment to tackling the processes of
economic exclusion that continue to afflict youth transitions.
Fahmy
additionally comments that young people are unlikely to benefit from the social
and professional networks or civil associations that facilitate involvement in
conventional politics. This is partly due to their dependant and subordinate
positioning within the life cycle and often within society. This is particularly true
of disadvantaged young people (Fahmy, no date).
In its conclusion the report recommends that in order to encourage more wide
spread participation, the political views of young people be seriously considered
and that serious consideration be given to the accessibility of political structures
to groups marginalised by the political process. It is also seen to be necessary
to widen avenues for the involvement of young people in formal politics and to
develop ways of articulating formal politics using the unconventional forms that
young people prefer. This viewpoint accepts that young people have a very
limited involvement in formal politics, it also proceeds further in exploring the
aetiology of this disengagement with reference to the social and economic
43
disadvantages and the perceived shortcomings of political systems and
processes (Fahmy, No date).
Another approach which challenges notions of youth apathy perhaps in a more
overt sense, is that forwarded by Rocker, Player and Coleman (1999). Here,
young people’s involvement in more informal voluntary and campaigning
activities is highlighted as an area of political involvement that is often
overlooked. Quite apart from the above negative claims, it was found in this
study that whilst young people in Britain seem to be somewhat alienated from
the world of party politics, they are at the same time very much involved in
single-issue campaigning and volunteering activities. This evidence applied to
young people from a variety of different backgrounds. It was also found that
such activities could help to develop political knowledge awareness,
understanding and skills (Rocker, Player and Coleman, 1999). These results are
endorsed by John, Morris and Halpern (2003) who state that whilst young
people do not appear to have an interest in conventional politics, they do tend
to engage with broader political issues and with a range of group activities
(John, Morris and Halpern, 2003).
More recent research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC) argues that young people are not politically apathetic but simply have a
different understanding of what politics entails. The report also states that
most young people desire to be socially engaged but not necessarily in the
ways that are traditionally advocated by politicians. In addition the project
concludes that young people have a strong interest in political issues and are in
fact highly articulate about political issues that affect their lives (Citizenship
Foundation, 2004).
In light of such findings, it is suggested that claims of rampant youth apathy
are founded on an overly narrow definition of ‘the political’, which excludes
what may be seen as the more unconventional political activities (Rocker,
Player and Coleman, 1999).
Political participation is widely recognised as a central component of citizenship.
This is reflected in the sentiments of the Crick Report and other related texts.
Yet political activities seem to be more accessible to some than others. In
addition, the political activities of some are more likely to be classified as
political than those of others because of the extent to which these activities do
or do not correspond with traditional definitions of the political. The groups
that typically experience political marginalization are the economically deprived,
black and minority ethnic groups and young people. Indeed there are large
segments of the British population that fit all three of these categories. Clearly
there is a pressing need to ensure that such groups have adequate access to
political involvement especially in the light of emergent inclusive notions of
citizenship. This may be enabled through the revision of political participation
boundaries and a movement beyond the confines of voting behaviour, allowing
the consideration of more unconventional forms. It may also be necessary for
a paradigm shift to occur in relation to the language used to explain and
44
promote political involvement. In general it is vital that a greater effort is made
to ensure that all have equal access to political expression. These debates also
have obvious implications for citizenship education, which aims to cultivate
active and engaged citizens for the future.
45
SECTION 3
MULTICULTURALISM
“If anything is truer of the world post 9/11 than before it is, whether we
like it or not, that we live in a multiethnic world” (Olssen, 2004:189)
The issues of immigration and multiculturalism have now become hot topics of
debate in many western countries (Verkuyten, 2005). So much so, that
Multiculturalism is currently at the forefront of global affairs (Siebers, 2004).
The increased focus on this global issue has resulted from notably increasing
immigration flows across national borders. This movement began in earnest
during the mid 1940s. However it is only since the 1960s that it has emerged as
a major global force (Rex, 2003). As a result the vast majority of western
countries have developed diverse multi-ethnic societies and are having to
examine the implications of this type of society for existing political, social and
cultural orders (Verkuyten, 2005). The following section will examine the
notion of multiculturalism from a factual and theoretical standpoint and will also
pay particular attention to the intersection of multiculturalism and education.
Like citizenship, multiculturalism is a difficult term to define. The term has
been used and misused to such an extent that any discussion of
multiculturalism must first in some way distinguish its intended meaning
(Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
For the purposes of this section,
multiculturalism will be generally operationalised into two understandings: that
of multiculturalism as a social reality or fact and that of multiculturalism as a
theory or theoretical field.
Multiculturalism as a social reality or fact simply refers to the demographic
condition of contemporary societies which contains two or more ethnic groups
whose differing cultural traits are distinctive enough to enable the
establishment and maintenance of differing cultural identities and communities
(Tiryakian, 2003). The British society with its devolved Scottish and Welsh
constituents is an apt example of this multicultural reality.
This social condition is said to have emerged in the midst of the demographic
overhaul that is occurring in western societies, incorporating increased
immigration and movements of race and gender awareness. Consequently, the
ways in which these societies define themselves and other institutions has been
brought into question. Moreover the cultural nature, values and mission of the
West are no longer presumed givens but have become the objects of
investigation, exploration and critical analysis. It is in this social climate that
Westerners are having to except the reality of the multicultural society in which
they live. In the case of multiculturalism, belief and disbelief are of no
consequence; it is simply a fact of late twentieth century Western society
(Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
There are various ways in which this reality has been responded to. These are
tailored by contrasting definitions of the social world that correspond with
46
specific interests of a social, political and economic nature. The first of these
responses is that of Conservative multiculturalism or monoculturalism.
Conservative multiculturalism basically reflects a belief in the superiority if
Western patriarchal culture. It tends not to address issues of social injustice
and conceptualises multiculturalism as a threat to western identity (Kincheloe
and Steinberg, 1997).
Central to this approach is the idea of a ‘common culture’, which is seen as the
only way to secure the effective functioning of society. It is therefore deemed
necessary to assimilate all to the white middle class social ideal. The western
monoculturalist construction of traditional consensus encompasses the
perpetuation of the white fear of non-whites. This position is also characterised
by the polarisation of ‘we’ and ‘they’, ‘we’ being the legitimate homogeneous
civil assembly and ‘they’ being the heterogeneous burdens to society (Kincheloe
and Steinberg, 1997).
The second response is that of Liberal Multiculturalism at the centre of this
viewpoint are the concepts of sameness and universal equality. Here it is
believed that everyone is essentially equal and that the existence of intellectual
sameness enables diverse individuals to compete equally for capitalist economy
resources. Liberal multiculturalists explain positional inequalities between
groups as the resulting from the lack of social and educational opportunities
that are needed to enable equal competition in the economy.
Whilst
emphasising on consensus and similarity, the liberalist approach to
multiculturalism is often accused of failing to address the pressing issues of
oppression and inequality, allowing the assimilationist movement to plough
forward unchallenged. The perceived danger here is that an over emphasis on
sameness will undermine attempts to understand the mediation of race class
and gender in the construction of experiences for both privileged and
marginalised groups (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
According to Kincheloe and Steinberg (1997), the ethos of this perspective is
evident in ‘black’ shows of the 1990s such as The Cosby Show, which failed to
confront the issue of African American oppression or other issues of particular
concern to African Americans. Instead, a more ‘sanitised’ depiction of black
culture was presented. What Kincheloe and Steinberg refer to as “a warm and
fuzzy, feel good lesson on multicultural unity and racial accord” (Kincheloe and
Steinberg, 1997:11).
The third approach, pluralist multiculturalism, is the most mainstream version of
multiculturalism and has close association with current multicultural education.
Whilst pluralist multiculturalism is said to bear many similarities to liberalist
multiculturalism, it maintains an opposite focus on difference as opposed to
sameness. In this approach, diversity is intrinsically valuable. Here the
experiences of different groups are viewed as separate yet essentially equal
(Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
47
Like liberalist multiculturalism, Pluralist multiculturalism is somewhat reluctant
to address issues of socioeconomic status, ethnicity and race. Here, cultural
pluralism is viewed from beyond the boundaries of social structure power
relations. In this sense pluralist multiculturalism is seen to have a tendency to
depoliticise, whilst again allowing the status quo to remain unchallenged
(Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
The fourth approach is that of left-essentialist multiculturalism which is one of a
number of existing forms of essentialist cultural politics. Left-essentialist
multiculturalists see groups as having certain historically grounded essential
characteristics or essences around which identities are formed. In this
viewpoint difference is often connected with a historical past of cultural
authenticity where the core elements of group identity were established. These
elements are thought to transcend historical, social and power dynamics
(Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
Left-essentialist multiculturalists stand accused of failing to acknowledge the
dynamic and fluid nature of the identity formation process (Kincheloe and
Steinberg, 1997). In a critical examination of left essentialist multiculturalism
critical multiculturalists make the point that identity formation is in itself socially
constructed and therefore is subject to the constant shifts inherent in all such
discursive and ideological constructions (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
Lastly, the approach of critical multiculturalism is effectively a critique of all of
the above approaches. In this view it is important that we transcend beyond
conservative and liberal assumptions of equal status across all gender, racial
and ethnic groups and open access to the social system and take note of the
prevalent power dynamics that are instrumental in the construction and
perpetuation of social inequalities (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997). Critical
multiculturalists are concerned with the interaction of class with other axes of
power and with the particular contexts in which class and gender inequalities
emerge (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
Multiculturalism as a theoretical field is the ‘multicultural movement’ and what it
stands for. It can at a very general level be viewed as a normative critique of
the institutional functionings within society, which result in depriving cultural
minority groups of their rights (Tiryakian, 2003).
The concept of
multiculturalism emerged at a time when it was recognised and accepted that
market economies and democratic polities had failed to dissolve resilient ethnic
identities despite the establishment of immigrant policies geared towards
assimilation this ignited fresh concerns about the nature of political institutions
within ethnically plural societies. The theoretical field of multiculturalism
constituted a response to these concerns (Mahajan, 1999).
Contemporary theories of multiculturalism tend to focus on the specific needs of
minority groups and indigenous people, they argue for greater sensitivity and
respect towards the cultural identity of these groups. Multiculturalist theorists
such as Kymlicka (1999), advocate that these minority groups should at least
48
be provided with a sense of involvement in the wider societies in which they
exist and that this can be achieved through a system of group rights (Mahajan,
1999). From the multiculturalist viewpoint the ideal society values diversity
and encourages and supports the preservation of a healthy dialogue between
cultural groups (Parekh, 1999).
According to Parekh (1999), this perspective or way of viewing human life rests
on three central insights. Firstly that humans are culturally embedded in that
the worlds in which they exist are culturally structured and that their social
relations and general life organisation are shaped by culturally determined
meaning systems. This does not mean that humans are incapable of critical
evaluation of these systems but that they are inevitability directed by them in
some sense. Secondly the multicultural perspective postulates that different
cultures are grounded by different meaning systems and ideals of the ‘good
life’. In this sense, each is able to capture and embody only a segment of the
totality of human existence and consequently needs other cultures to assist in a
better understanding of itself and to enable intellectual and moral expansion.
Thirdly, within multiculturalism, each culture is seen to be internally plural and
encompasses an ongoing dialogue between different traditions and thought
strands. Far from implying an absence of coherence, identity and selfdetermination, this feature suggests that cultural identity is plural and dynamic
and able to filter and accommodate external influences. From this point of view
all cultures are established through interaction with others and are shaped by
the overarching economic and political dynamics amongst other structural
influences (Parekh, 1999).
Sociological Approaches to Multiculturalism
Within multiculturalism theory, there are a number of perspectives, each of
which present and promote multiculturalism in slightly different ways. The
sociology of multiculturalism offers four major approaches. These approaches
are categorised according to the factors of multiculturalism that they
emphasise.
Circumstantialists tend to focus on the effects of social conditions and the
positioning of groups in social stratification structures. Circumstantialists stress
the influence of stratification factors on collective consciousness within society,
consequently, emphasis is placed on the influence of social depravation
influences the extent to which cultural groups develop and retain their
particularism within the wider society. The perceived causes of this social
depravation of racial immigrant or religious groups include: barriers of prejudice
and discrimination, power relations structures and exploitation operating
through competitive labour markets (Ben-Rafael, 1996).
Circumstantialists believe that it is when the consistent marginalisation of such
groups is attributed to social inferiority that they are able to gain the greatest
saliency as contrasting entities. Groups are able to establish a collective
49
consciousness, which facilitates solidarity as a response to discrimination (BenRafael, 1996).
It has been shown by numerous writers (Hechter, 1975,1978; Lipset/Rokkan,
1967), that cultural particularism is more widely prevalent among minority
groups within the lower strata or working class communities as opposed to the
middle classes. Milroy 1989 claims that isolated working class communities
tend to display certain cultural and linguistic codes that can be seen to
constitute a form of ethnicity. These codes are grounded in the close-knit
networks which substantiate them. On the other hand it is believed that
members of these groups who do manage to progress academically and/or
professionally face greater exposure to cultures outside of the group. This
suggests that whilst social mobility breeds acculturation to the mainstream
social inferiority facilitates the cultural crystallisation and social cohesion, which
is related to the concept of ethnicity. In this respect, this perspective generally
implies that “the conjunction of culturally contrasting groups may be a major
feature of lower strata, while the mainstream culture which refers to that
society as a whole is predominant in the higher strata” (Ben-Rafael, 1996:137).
The culturalist position insists on the role of the dominant culture in the
establishment of multiculturalism. Here the dominant culture is seen to
represent “the systematic relation of social reality to the symbolic order” (BenRafael, 1996:138) and thus is central to the justification and moulding of the
dominant social order. This social order encompasses the central tenets and
obligations of membership.
Of particular concern to those within this perspective is the inclusion of
attitudes towards social disparities and multiculturalism within the content and
orientations of the dominant culture, which are legitimated and solidified within
the central political domain. These attitudes are known to differ between
dominant cultures. Two types of attitude highlighted by the culturalist theorists
are the ‘Unifying syndrome’ where integration and conformism are expected of
newcomers, and the ‘pluralistic syndrome’ where cultural differences are
accommodated and cultural differences are institutionalised within the social
order. In addition, within some dominant cultures more tolerance may be
accorded to certain pluralisms than others (Ben-Rafael, 1996). In this respect it
is argued that the dominant culture plays a vital role in the shaping of
multiculturalism (Ben-Rafael, 1996).
The approach of primordialism emphasises the bonds between group members
and the way in which they are solidified through social, cultural and historical
means.
This viewpoint postulates that groups do play a role in their
development and therefore implies that culturalist focus on the dominant
culture overlooks the fact that different groups have been known to embark
upon diverse paths whilst remaining within the context of the same dominant
culture. An example of this can be seen in the case of the Italian, Scandinavian
and Jewish immigrants within the USA (Ben-Rafael, 1996). Here it is believed
that it is on the basis of the complexity of primordial influences that groups
50
construct and reconstruct their relationship with society and to themselves. It
is important to note however that due to the differing social positions of group
members this process is not necessarily uniform throughout the group. The
process is very much dependant on the extent to which group members are
willing to perpetuate the group, at least in a symbolic sense (Ben-Rafael, 1996).
Having briefly reviewed the sociological approaches above, it is clear that each
highlights a major force, which contributes to the shaping of multiculturalism as
a social reality. Each aspect indicates something concerning the group’s
acculturation or assimilation into wider society or the group’s orientation
towards particularism. Through the consideration of all three of these key
aspects we gain a true sense of the multidimensional nature of multiculturalism
(Ben-Rafael, 1996).
The last of the sociological approaches is the cultural capital approach. This
approach focuses on the cultural symbols of groups, which function as markers
of group identity and constitute cultural resources of the wider society. These
resources are accessible or at the very least visible to non-group members. In
this sense the group symbols become part of the wider society’s cultural
resource pool at the very point at which they join the dominant culture (BenRafael, 1996). This pool of cultural resources can be seen to constitute the
cultural market of society. In this context, resources become goods that are
priced according to the efforts individuals are willing to go to in order to acquire
or attain them. Within this viewpoint, cultural resources are seen to be highly
influential to the development of multiculturalism. The cultural market is
particularly significant because of its relation to the acculturation/ assimilation
of groups verses the perpetuation of cultural diversity and particularism (BenRafael, 1996).
Through the social pressures that it represents, the cultural market distributes
appreciations of symbols, which in tern influence the willingness of the original
carriers to retain them and the non-members to acquire them. The market also
dictates the extent to which groups are obligated to share or give up all
together their symbols and the extent to which commercialisation of such
symbols are economically beneficial to their careers. In other words this
cultural market effects the nature of multiculturalism through its influence on
the extent to which cultural groups wishing to retain their cultural particularism
are able to do so (Ben Rafael, 1996).
In terms of social stratification, studies of secondary languages have
demonstrated that the stronger the social status of individuals, the greater their
ability to control the cultural goods they desire and the weaker the social status
of individuals, the more reliant they are on other factors in the pursuit of their
goals. It may also be concluded that the higher the price of the cultural
resource, the more it is sought after by those of the stronger social layers and
the less appeal it has to those within the weaker layers. In addition, the
weaker the resource price, the more stigma is attached to their possession.
51
This is especially the case for high status individuals however this stigma is less
of an issue for Lower-status individuals (Ben-Rafael, 1996).
Multiculturalism and Education
The extent and nature of the incorporation of multiculturalism in education is
very much dependant on the approach adopted by the educator and/or
educating body. Within the conservative approach for instance, the purpose of
schooling is to socialise immigrant children into civilised western society. The
education advocated here is therefore one aimed at assimilation, an effort that
is substantiated with the argument that this type of assimilation aids in the
economic progress of such pupils (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
Within the Liberal approach to multiculturalism, educators reflect similar
sentiments to that of conservative multiculturalism. Within this viewpoint,
educators whilst emphasising diversity, still promote the Eurocentric culture as
the norm and still assimilate to white male standards. Liberal multiculturalists
believe that educators are able to divorce their political orientation from the
practice of teaching. In this sense, liberal multiculturalists can be seen to depoliticise the educational process (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997). Such a view
is described as “a hyper rationalisation of politics that represents the political as
a very narrow terrain which never overlaps the moral and ethical” (Kincheloe
and Steinberg, 1997:13).
Pluralist multiculturalists believe that it is of great importance that pupils gather
knowledge concerning the values and beliefs of a variety of cultural groups and
that they develop an awareness of social unfairness. It is envisaged that this
development of cultural literacy will enable pupils to operate effectively in
diverse cultural contexts. At the same time it is believed that it is important for
pupils from culturally diverse backgrounds to learn to function effectively within
the mainstream culture to enable them to gain equal opportunities in the
educational and economic spheres. In addition, cultural pluralists also in the
building of students pride in their own cultural heritage in order to further
chances of gaining equal opportunities (Kincheloe and Steinberg, 1997).
Another approach to multiculturalism is that of the left-essentialists. Educators
with a left-essentialist perspective of multiculturalism tend to advocate the
transferral of unquestioned bodies of data to students in such a way that is
thought by some to resemble indoctrination. In this sense it is thought that this
educational approach is unsuitable for democratic society (Kincheloe and
Steinberg, 1997).
The critical multiculturalist approach to education aims to move beyond
traditional liberal and conservative critiques of schooling. Operating on the
premise that education is not a politically neutral process critical
multiculturalists seek to uncover hidden educational processes that privelage
the affluent whilst disadvantaging the poor. In this viewpoint it is believed that
52
students should be allowed to examine and evaluate a range of perspectives
and critically reflect upon the contradictions encased within them (Kincheloe
and Steinberg, 1997).
Multiculturalism and Current Citizenship Education
The Crick Report presents a rather limited view of multiculturalism which
sees it as being about visible minorities rather than about all citizens in
society, including the majority white population (Osler, 2000:33).
The intersection of current citizenship education and contemporary theories of
multiculturalism is an essentially critical and contentious one for a number of
different reasons. Since the development of the citizenship education syllabus
a number of criticisms have been raised concerning the ‘narrow liberal’
ideologies that have been detected within the report (Olssen, 2004). The
following section will outline some of the perceived questionable areas of the
citizenship education agenda as it is outlined within the Crick Report.
Firstly, the Marshallian liberal notion of citizenship reflected within the Crick
Report is seen to be inadequate for contemporary multicultural society. The
Crick Report is seen by many multicultural theorists to encompass the central
tenets of liberalism, firstly in its universalistic stance, whereby a uniform
standard is applied to everyone regardless of circumstantial disparities and
secondly in its reluctance to recognise as legitimate the particular claims of
different cultural groups. Major criticisms of the liberalist viewpoint have been
strongly maintained by Young (1986, 1990, 1995, 1997). Young argues that
the notion of universal citizenship incorporated within the social democratic
citizenship ideal incorporates a sense of universality as generality and equal
treatment. According to young, this ideal of a citizenship that serves to
“express or create a general will that transcends the particular differences of
group affiliation, situation and interest” (Young cited in Olssen, 2004:181), has
in fact succeeded in excluding groups deemed incapable of adopting that
general viewpoint. The assumption that laws and rules can be applied to
everyone in the same way is also said to result in exclusion and/or homogeneity
(Olssen, 2004).
Young advocates the notion of “differentiated citizenship” which advocates the
public recognition and acceptance of irreducible differences and the coexistence
of these differences with “common procedural commitments” contained within
the communication process that operates across differences (Olsen, 2004:182).
This particular structure of political life preserves minority group differences
through the institutionalisation of mechanisms and minority group
representation (Olssen, 2004).
Other authors such as Osler and Starkey (2001), and Pearce and Spencer
(1999), argue that the Crick Report presents an overly consensualist portrayal
of society. This can be detected throughout the report in the reoccurring
53
suggestion that “certain uniform conceptions of moral values and social
development constitute an essential precondition for citizenship” (Olssen,
2004:183). This in itself implies the promotion of the idea of a single national
identity (Olssen, 2004).
The Crick Report is also widely criticised for its inadequate portrayal of ethnic
minority groups. Taking careful note of the wording used in the Crick Report
Osler and Starky argue that the Crick Report presents certain ethnicities as
‘other’ when exploring the issue of ethnic diversity. Further to this point, the
Report is seen to suggest that visible ethnic minorities are not necessarily
capable of conforming to the laws, standards and conventions, which
characterise democratic society (Olssen, 2004). Put another way, the report
suggests that the cultures and values held within these minority groups, conflict
with those of mainstream laws and conventions (Osler, 2000), and therefore
individuals within these groups must undergo change in order to participate in
the common culture (Olssen, 2004).
With reference to “our minority
communities” (QCA, 1998, cited in Osler, 2000), the report also stands accused
of promoting the assumption that members of ethnic minority groups view the
country from which they or their families migrated, as their ‘homeland’ as
opposed to the country in which they reside (Osler, 2000).
An additional criticism of the Crick Report is that it fails to adequately highlight
the threat of racism within the democratic multicultural society, when
presenting the case for citizenship education with reference to threats to
democracy. In this view, the Crick Report gives no consideration to the ways in
which citizenship education can support antiracism in education and thus fails
to challenge the force that poses a substantial treat to the very structures
which it aims to preserve and strengthen. In fact Osler (2000), proceeds
further in stating that the proposals for citizenship education themselves would
seem to encompass examples of racism and are also reflective of the
institutionalised racism present within society. Osler argues that if an inclusive
concept of citizenship is to be developed within a pluralist society and a
citizenship education which supports the development of democratic practice,
then a different conception of multiculturalism is required. One which is
founded on human rights and is inclusive of all citizens. One which requires the
recognition of the operation of racism at both the institutional and interpersonal
level (Osler, 2000).
Lastly the Crick Report stands accused of failing to adequately incorporate
human rights issues.
Despite general references made to rights and
responsibilities of citizens and various human rights legislation, there are no
references to the equal rights of minority groups. The Report also fails to
mention how international human rights standards provide general principles
which can be utilised as a foundation of shared values in culturally plural
societies (Osler, 2000). These two aspects are thought to be particularly
significant since human rights are increasingly used in the mobilisation and
facilitation of minority groups within contemporary multicultural societies.
54
According to Parekh, (2000), “human rights principles provide a sound
framework for handling differences” (Parekh cited in Olssen, 2004:185).
The disparities between the above sentiments of the Crick Report and those
contained within the multiculturalists ideal are made even more evident when
the Crick Report is compared to the Parekh Report on multiethnic Britain. The
Parekh Report is the product of the Commission on the Future of Multiethnic
Britain, which was set up by the Runnymede Trust in 1998. The remit of this
commission was to analyse the state of current multicultural Britain and to
suggest ways in which disadvantage and racial discrimination could be
counteracted to make Britain a more lively multicultural society (Olssen, 2004).
The Parekh Report suggests that presently existing concepts of ‘Britishness’ do
not accurately encompass or assist ethnic relations and that this had a definite
impact on citizenship education (Olssen, 2004). The Parekh Report therefore
advocated the use of ‘British’ in a way that reflected a greater awareness of
multi-ethnicity and the array of groups that constitute British society (Olssen,
2004).
The Parekh Report is underpinned by several guiding principles. The first is
that all people have equal worth and that all are entitled to have equal claims to
the opportunities needed for their development and contribution to the
collective well-being. The second principle emphasises the twofold nature of
British society as a liberal community of citizens on the one hand and a
multicultural community of communities on the other. The report also
highlights Britain’s need to reconcile the sometimes conflicting requirements of
these two sides. The third principle advocates that full recognition be given to
the differences of citizens. The Report also goes on to state that negative
effects are caused both when equality ignores diversity and when diversity
ignores equality.
In saying this however the fourth principle strongly
emphasises the need for cohesion and additionally advocates the simultaneous
nurturing of diversity and common sense of belonging and identity. The fifth
principle affirms this principle of common cohesion advocating the importance
of common values as well as procedural values. The last principle takes
account of the nature of racism and of its deeply damaging effects to the
“common sense of belonging lying at the basis of every stable civilisation” (The
Runnymede Trust cited in Olssen, 2004:185).
It was on the basis of these principles that the Parekh Report assessed that
current state of multiethnic Britain (Olssen, 2004). Through this assessment
the report sought to create a balance between difference and diversity and
commonality universalism and consensus. The Parekh report seeks to purport a
respect for difference whist at the same time positioning it within the context of
the democratic community. In this sense the report is based on the premise
that difference and unity are interdependent entities (Olssen, 2004).
Due to its recognition of commonality, the Parekh Report is said to be superior
to other multicultural models which emphasise difference whilst neglecting the
need for common provisions. It is due to this unique nature of the Parekh
55
Report that Olssen suggests that a richer text on citizenship education might be
gained if it were joined together with the Crick Report (Olssen, 2004).
Olssen states:
“While it is true that the Crick Report tends to ignore racism,
multiculturalism and any sophisticated understanding of how the politics
of difference might inform citizenship education, I am arguing here that
it need not do so, at least on the grounds of theoretical coherence, and
that the Parekh report resolves the issues between difference and
universality in a way that makes sense”
(Olssen, 2004:188).
According to Olssen the conceptual adjoining of these two reports will create a
citizenship education that emphasises the equal dignity of citizens, equal rights
and entitlements, equality in inclusion and equal rights to participation and an
overall principle of equal citizenship which is accepted by all (Olsen, 2004).
From the evidence presented, within this section, it is clear that multiculturalism
both as a social reality and a theoretical concept is highly complex,
encompassing a number of perspectives. As shown throughout this section,
these various approaches are also representative of possible teaching styles and
contents within the educational context. The stance taken within this context is
very much dependant on the educator and institutional ethos. Careful
consideration of the nature and consequences of the various multicultural
perspectives and approaches is particularly poignant within citizenship
education in which issues of identity and belonging are central components.
56
SECTION 4
CITIZENSHIP IN EDUCATION
“Citizenship gives pupils the knowledge, skills and understanding to play
an effective role in society at local, national and international levels. It
helps them to become informed, thoughtful and responsible citizens who
are aware of their duties and rights” (QCA, 1999:12)
“Citizenship is more than a statutory subject. If thought well and
tailored to local needs, its skills and values will enhance democratic life
for us all, both rights and responsibilities, beginning in school and
radiating out” (Prof. Bernard Crick, cited in QCA, 1999:13)
The existence of citizenship within the curriculum spans over a number of
decades and has adopted a number of forms such as: political studies, Civics,
world studies and general studies (Inman and Buck, eds, 1995). During this
time there have been various calls for some form of citizenship training
(Lawton, Cairns and Gardener, eds, 2000), however citizenship education
remained a somewhat subordinated area within the UK national curriculum
(Wilkins, 2000). The emergence of citizenship within the present school
curriculum, came about as a result of the Final Report of the Advisory Group on
Citizenship, published in September 1998. It was due to this report and the
ensuing consultation process, that the government in 2002, granted citizenship
the prevalent position it now occupies within the school curriculum. This
section will outline the concept of citizenship held within education through
exploring the main tenets of citizenship education and how citizenship is
currently taught. Particular focus will be placed on the secondary school
context where the teaching of citizenship has now become a compulsory
subject area.
The primary aim of citizenship education as outlined within the current national
curriculum, is to equip pupils with knowledge, values and skills that will enable
them to become informed and effective citizens within local, national and global
society (www.dfes.gov.uk, date accessed:14/09/05). The particular nature of
this aim is heavily related to the social climate in which citizenship education
has emerged. Citizenship education has arisen against a social backdrop of
considerable social and political upheaval caused by the rise of nationalism and
increased disregard for ‘civic virtues’. Within this climate global capitalism rivals
national democratic institutions and the nation state can no longer be viewed as
the given natural order (Wilkins, 2000).
These societal characteristics were reflected in research carried out by
Professor Crewe and others during the 1990s in which 80 per cent of British
students stated that outside of school, they had very little participation in
discussions of public issues. For many of these students religion and politics
were considered to be prohibited areas of discussion. When questioned about
their perceptions of good citizenship only 10 per cent of students mentioned
voting or exercising of political rights (QCA, 1998). The British election study
57
also reported that 25 per cent of 18 to 24 year olds had planned not to vote in
the 1992 elections, a figure which rose to 32 per cent in the 1997 general
election (QCA, 1998). Such studies reflect the disengagement and apathy that
is seen to be increasingly typical of young people living within contemporary
society.
On a broader scale, the cause of citizenship education is further propelled by
the “increasingly complex nature of our society, the greater cultural diversity
and the apparent loss of value consensus, combined with the collapse of
traditional support mechanisms such as extended families” (QCA, 1998:17).
The combined effects of such characteristics threaten the stability of traditional
citizenship and national identity (QCA, 1998).
Current citizenship education seeks to confront these societal trends by
reasserting the traditional liberal democratic conception of citizenship (Wilkins,
2000). It is hoped that this conception will enable the establishment of a
common citizenship base in which the multiplicity of identities present in British
society can find a place. The education system seeks to achieve this through
the exploration of three key areas outlines by the Department for Education
and Skills (DfES):
Social and moral responsibility – Pupils learning from the very beginning – selfconfidence and socially and morally responsible behaviour both in and beyond
the classroom.
Community involvement – Pupils learning about becoming helpfully involved in
the life and concerns of their neighbourhood and communities, including
learning through community involvement and service to the community.
Political literacy – Pupils learning about the institutions problems and practices
of our democracy and how to make themselves effective in the life of the
nation, locally, regionally and nationally through skills and values as well as
knowledge - a concept wider than political knowledge alone.
(www.dfes.gov.uk/citizenship, date accessed: 14/09/05)
Metaphorically depicted as “three heads on one body’’ (QCA, 1998:13), these
three areas whilst being independent, are interrelated segments with mutual
dependence on each other (QCA, 1998).
These three key areas are reflected within the programmes of study which
outline what pupils should be taught and set out the basis for the planning of
schemes of work (QCA, 1999). Programmes of study are based on the work of
the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship, the sentiments of which are
encapsulated in the Crick Report. These programmes were completed following
a consultation on proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for the
revised national curriculum. The programmes of study are complemented by
the non-statutory guidelines for personal social and health education for Key
stages 3 and 4 (QCA, 2000).
58
Also interwoven into the programmes of study for citizenship education are
three key constituents which function alongside the three key areas of learning
to form the complete citizenship learning experience at Key stages 3 and 4.
These are divided into three interrelated parts:

Knowledge and understanding about becoming an informed citizen – this
involves: the teaching of legal and human rights and responsibilities; the
diversity of identities in the UK; the legal system, the government and
democracy; the role of the media; conflict resolution; and the challenges
posed by global interdependence and responsibility.
 Developing skills of enquiry and communication – here pupils should be
taught to consider issues, events and problems and to express and
justify opinions and contribute to discussions and debates.
 Developing skills of participation and responsible action – pupils should
learn how to take account of others experiences and to responsibly
participate in activities and reflect on this participation.
(QCA, 2000:8-9).
Below is a slightly more elaborated outline of the Knowledge and skills taught at
each key stage:
59
Key stage
Knowledge, Skills
and Understanding
Skills of Enquiry
and
Communication
Skills of
Participation and
Responsible Action
Key stage
3
Pupils should be taught
about:
Pupils should be taught
to:
Pupils should be taught
to:
- Legal human rights and
responsibilities underpinning
society
- The diversity of religious and
ethnic identities
- Central and local government
- Characteristics of
parliamentary and other
government form.
- The electoral system
- The work of voluntary groups.
- Conflict resolution
- The Media in society
- The global community and the
role of the EU, Commonwealth
and United Nations.
- Consider topical, political,
spiritual, social moral and
cultural issues, problems and
events by analysing information
and its sources.
- Justify a personal opinion
about such issues problems or
events
- Contribute to group discussions
and debates.
- Consider other peoples
experiences and express and
explain views that are not their
own
- Negotiate, take part and
explain responsibly in school and
community based activities
- Reflect on the participation
process.
-Legal and human rights and
responsibilities underpinning
society and their relation to
citizens.
-Origins and implications of
diverse religious and ethnic
identities in the UK.
-The work of government,
parliament and the courts in
shaping Law.
- Playing an active part in
democratic processes.
- The functioning of the
economy
-The opportunities for individuals
and voluntary groups to bring
about social change.
- Free press and the role of the
media.
- Rights and responsibilities of
consumers, employers and
employees.
- The United Kingdoms Relations
in Europe.
Wider issues and challenges of
Global interdependence and
responsibility.
Research a topical political,
spiritual, moral, social, or
cultural issue, problem or event
by analysing information from
different sources
- Express justify and defend a
personal opinion about such
issues, problems or
Events
- Contribute to group discussions
and formal debates.
- Consider other peoples
experiences and express, explain
and critically evaluate views that
are not their own
- Negotiate, decide and take
part in school and community
activities
- Reflect on the participation
process.
Key stage
4
(QCA, 1999)
There are three different ways in which the above citizenship education can be
delivered:


discrete citizenship provision with separate curriculum time
teaching citizenship within and through other subjects, curriculum areas
and courses
 citizenship events, activities and tutorial work
(QCA, 2000).
60
Discrete citizenship provision, is when citizenship is thought within specified
citizenship lessons, where citizenship is given separate timetables provision.
This type of provision has the advantage of being easily identifiable and is also
is easier to plan and monitor and assess. However if this is the only approach
adopted by the school, citizenship may be seen to be separate from other
curriculum areas, making it more difficult to integrate citizenship as part of the
everyday functioning of the school (QCA, 2000).
The teaching of citizenship through other subject areas or courses has the
advantage of involving a range of subject areas in the citizenship curriculum
(QCA, 2000). It also spreads the responsibility for the teaching of citizenship
across the school departments. Some examples of how citizenship can be
thought through other subject areas are:



the teaching of diversity of cultures in RE
the teaching of environmental issues in science
the teaching of sustainable development in geography
This approach however requires detailed planning and continuous monitoring to
ensure consistency. Also in cases where pupils do not take the subjects where
these opportunities for citizenship are provided, discrete provision is required
(QCA, 2000).
Citizenship education provision through events, activities and tutorial work,
provides pupils with the opportunity to implement and develop the skills and
principles of citizenship in a practical way and to reflect on and share their
experiences under the guidance of tutors and other appointed adults. This
approach may involve:



special activity days or weeks in school
volunteering in the local community
participation in local community initiatives
The QCA initial guidance for schools recommends that schools create links with
other organisations within its community such as other educational institutions
or voluntary groups so that pupils can learn and develop citizenship skills
outside of the school. This document also encourages the use of specialist
visitors who can provide current knowledge on certain aspects of the citizenship
programme of study such as the criminal justice system (QCA, 2000).
The citizenship education programmes of study are constructed in such a way
that schools have flexibility in the way they plan, approach and provide
citizenship education. This allows schools to: build on what they may be doing
already, vary the coverage of aspects of understanding and be innovative and
develop their own approaches to citizenship (QCA, 2000).
Here, it is clear that citizenship learning takes place within three distinct
contexts. Firstly, learning takes place in the context of the school curriculum,
61
which includes elements of citizenship education that are delivered through
other subject areas. The cultural context of the school is also integral to
citizenship education. That is the ethos and value system, which underpin
everyday operations. Thirdly, learning takes place within the wider community,
through the involvement of students in community programmes and events
(Huddleston and Kerr eds, 2006). Both the elements and contexts of learning
serve in reflecting and effectively substantiating the three core areas of learning
within citizenship.
In particular, the cultural context of the school is often pinpointed as a highly
influential aspect of citizenship education (Arthur, Davison and Stow, 2000).
The DfES advises that ‘the ethos, organisation, structures and daily practices of
the school have a considerable impact on the effectiveness of citizenship
education’ (www.dfes.gov.uk, 26/09/05). This point is further reinforced by a
number of perspectives which call for a broader conception of citizenship that
involves not only the teaching of the subject, but the practical experiencing of it
(Inman and Buck, 1995; Lawton, Cairns and Gardner, 2000; Arthur, Davison
and Stow, 2000). This conception of citizenship education corresponds with the
maximalist model as described by Mcloughlin (1992), where citizenship
education penetrates all areas of school life (Inman and Buck, 1995).
This practical experiencing of citizenship education in action involves a number
of key institutional factors such as the interrelations between students and
between students and teachers, the nature of democracy within the school and
the schools discipline structure (Arthur, Davison and Stow, 2000). In order for
citizenship education to be effective it is argued that such aspects of the school
culture must be reflective of the values and aims set out within the citizenship
agenda. According to Arthur Davidson and Stow (2000), this is necessary
because the school is an individual’s first experience of an organised community
setting and effectively constitutes a microcosm of the wider society (Arthur,
Davidson and Stow, 2000).
It has been suggested that the implementation of such a model involves
treating young people with respect and allowing them an appropriate forum in
which their views can be heard and considered (Kerr, 2003). This will then give
them first hand experience of the procedures and duties involved in a
democratic process similar to that which governs the wider society. This
advocacy for student involvement corresponds with the sentiments of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), undertaken by the British
government in 1991. Within this document, mutual respect for each persons’
equal claim, dignity and worth is endorsed (Lawton, Cairns and Gardner, 2000),
Article 12 in particular also emphasises the child’s right to freely express their
views concerning matters that affect them.
This view is further supported by Alderson (2000), who looks at the
implementation of citizenship values in the context of student rights. According
to Alderson, the rights of children or students are often overlooked by
professionals and policy makers and while many claim that their school teaches
62
citizenship, few actually take rights and mutual respect seriously. This is mainly
due to current education policies that conceptualise children as future as
opposed to present citizens (Lawton, Cairns and Gardner, 2000).
The danger is that if discrepancies between the teaching and practice of
citizenship education persist within the school organisation, some pupils are
likely to become alienated and disengaged with the whole citizenship agenda.
This would ironically result in counteracting the Governments central aim of
citizenship education, which is to address increasing political apathy by
empowering children and young people with the knowledge and tools to
actively engage in democratic society (Lawton, Cairns and Gardener, 2000). In
order to avoid this, Alderson suggests that changes be made in the routine and
relationship structures within the school and that significant changes also be
made to popular perspectives concerning the nature of rights and of childhood
(Lawton, Cairns and Gardener, 2000).
There are various learning approaches that can be used in the teaching of
citizenship. These include: research, group work and discussion, simulation
activities, and action activities, which are pupil responses to issues they have
learnt about (QCA, 2000). Three key approaches that are strongly connected
to the three strands of the citizenship programme of study are:



A concepts approach
A skills approach
An enquiry approach
The concepts approach uses the key concepts as specified by the Advisory
Group on Education for Citizenship, to provide a clear framework for citizenship.
These key concepts are:









democracy and autocracy
co-operation and conflict
equality and diversity
fairness, justice, the rule of law
rules, the law and human rights
freedom and order
individual and community
power and authority
rights and responsibilities
The above concepts can be used to organise aspects of knowledge and
understanding within the citizenship programme of study. They also constitute
the basis for required skills development. These concepts also help to identify
both context and content for the issues, problems and events incorporated
within citizenship education. In doing so, they help to identify specific headings
that connect aspects of knowledge and understanding, the discussion of current
issues and participation skills and the required actions in relation to the
programme of study (QCA, 2000). The use of this approach can ensure that
63
the programme of study is manageable for educators and coherent and
relevant for pupils across key stages. This approach does however require
careful planning to ensure that meaningful links are established between,
concepts, aspects of knowledge and skills (QCA, 2000).
The skills approach utilises the development of required skills as a means of
promoting knowledge and understanding. These skills include; skills of enquiry
and communication which encompasses the exploration of contemporary
issues, problems or events on a local, national or international scale. Pupils
also learn skills of participation and responsible action. Pupils develop such
skills through active involvement in local, national or international activities.
The main difficulty with this approach is that the emergence of local, national
and international issues and events is unpredictable; making detailed planning
complicated (QCA, 2000).
An enquiry approach accesses the interests and curiosity of pupils to investigate
elements of the programme of study. Here, the central concepts, knowledge,
skills and understanding contained within the foundation of the programme of
study are promoted through certain lines of enquiry. This approach provides
structured opportunities for active exploration of key problems issues and
events through discussion and debate. It also highlights connections between
local and global activities (QCA, 2000)
Although individually distinct, the above approaches can be used in
combination, over the course of the academic year. Citizenship educators may
preference one approach over another, depending on the topic of study and the
issues involved.
Choice of delivery may also be influenced by the
characteristics of pupils being taught (QCA, 2000).
Assessment
From August 2003, teachers are required to assess pupils attainment in
citizenship at the end of key stage 3. However, there is no statutory
assessment requirement for the end of key stage 4. Instead, schools are
advised to decide on the most appropriate methods for monitoring progress and
recognising achievement. The QCA Initial Guidance for Citizenship at Key Stage
3 and 4 (2000), advises that assessment in citizenship should be based on the
attainment target for citizenship at the end key stage descriptions. These
include:


Pupils’ knowledge and understanding of elements of the programme of
study
Pupils’ skills development, enquiry, communication, development and
action.
According to the end of key stage description, at the end of key stage 3 pupils
should be judged on:
64

Their ability to demonstrate a broad knowledge and understanding of the
topical events they study
 Their understanding of how the public gets information
 Their ability to participate in school and community activities.
(QCA, 2002).
Although there is no statutory requirement for assessment at key stage 4,
schools are advised that teachers and pupils should collaborate to identify
pupils’ strengths and development needs in line with the end of key stage
description in which it is stated that pupils should be able to:

Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the events studied; the
rights, responsibilities and duties of citizens. The role of the voluntary
sector; forms of government and the criminal justice, legal and economic
systems.
 Access and utilise different kinds of information to form and express an
opinion; evaluate the effectiveness of different ways of bringing about
change in society.
(QCA, 2002)
It is advised by the QCA that pupils’ progress is recorded in pupil profiles,
record sheets or portfolios and that pupils review and record their own
progress. Annual reports on citizenship are also required from August 2002
(QCA, 2000).
Inclusion
“The teaching of citizenship should be relevant to the individual needs
and concerns of pupils, connect with their interests and experiences and
relate to their abilities and backgrounds” (QCA, 2000:5)
“Pupils need to be provided with structured opportunities to explore
issues actively, problems and events through school and community
involvement, and to take part in critical discussions that are challenging
and relevant to their lives” (QCA, 2000:19).
In the teaching of citizenship, teachers are required to adequately consider the
following three principles for inclusion.

Setting suitable learning challenges - Every pupil should have the
opportunity to experience success and achieve as highly as possible.
This requires teachers to teach the knowledge, skills and understanding
to pupils in a way that corresponds with their individual abilities.

Responding to pupils diverse learning needs – this requires teachers to
set high expectations and provide adequate opportunities for all students
65
to achieve including pupils with special educational needs, pupils with
disabilities and pupils from a range of diverse cultural and linguistic
backgrounds. All students should be able to fully participate. In order
for this to be achieved teachers are required to fully implement the
requirements laid out in equal opportunities legislation relating to
schools.

Overcoming potential barriers to learning and assessment for individuals
and groups of pupils – this requires teachers to adequately consider the
particular leaning and assessment needs of pupils in order to enable all
pupils to participate effectively. This includes taking account of the type
and extent of any difficulty experienced by the pupil.
It is intended that through adherence to these guiding principles, the specific
needs of individual and groups of pupils will be met (QCA, 1999).
Post-16 Citizenship Education
In addition to its implementation in schools, citizenship education is also being
developed in some 6th forms, colleges and in other informal settings. This
citizenship education is being delivered through a Post-16 Citizenship
Development Programme which began in September 2001 and is managed by
the Learning and Skills Development Agency (LSDA) (DfES, 2004). The
programme was originally set up as a pilot initiative to explore different ways of
offering citizenship to young people aged 16 and above. During the pilot phase
79 citizenship projects were being run. In September 2004 however, the
programme was expanded to include 120 organisations from all over England
(http://www.lsneducation.org.uk, 2004).
Post-16 citizenship was established in response to recommendations from the
Citizenship Advisory Group, who advised that:

The entitlement to the development of citizenship should be established
which applied to all students in the first phase of post-16 compulsory
education and training.

All such young adults should be granted the opportunity to participate in
activities that correspond with the development of their citizenship skills
and receive recognition for their achievements.
(QCA, 2004).
Post-16 citizenship education aims to substantiate and reinforce the citizenship
skills developed throughout secondary education. The emphasis at this level is
placed on exploring new areas of citizenship and providing opportunities for
young people to lead out in activities (www.citizenshippost-16.lsda.org.uk, date
accessed: 03/04/2006).
66
The key concepts of post-16 citizenship education include:



Rights and responsibilities
Governments and democracies
Identities and communities
The guidance issued by the QCA on post-16 citizenship education recommends
that learners should have the opportunity to:

Identify, investigate and think critically about citizenship issues problems
or events
 Decide on and participate in follow-up action
 Reflect on recognise and review their citizenship learning
(www.citizenshippost-16.lsda.org.uk, accessed: 03/04/2006).
It is intended that through these opportunities, young people will work towards
broad learning objectives. Students can then proceed to develop and practice
acquired skills through a range of actions and activities (QCA, 2004).
This section has documented some of the key challenges with which the health
and stability of British democracy is currently faced. Citizenship education has
been accorded with the rather ambitious task of addressing these challenges
through the promotion of a particular conception of citizenship which underpins
and directs its processes and content. This conception is one of the ‘active
citizen’ in which an individual is required not only to merely function within a
society but to play an active role within it - to possess adequate knowledge and
act upon it. Active citizens are empowered citizens who are able to “question,
critique and debate the workings and processes of society” (Arthur, Davison
and Stow, 2000:27) and in doing so, contribute to the communitarian ethos
that underpins the democratic society (Arthur, Davison and Stow, 2000).
67
SECTION 5
BLACK AND MINORITY ETHNIC GROUPS AND EDUCATION
Within the post-industrial societies of the 20th Century, the national education
systems are looked upon as avenues for the economic and civil incorporation of
ethnic minority groups into the host societies. As a result, they are also areas
of continued tension. Tensions here are mostly centred around the question of
the type and level of education needed for minority groups to function
effectively in society, whilst still retaining an appropriate level of cultural
autonomy (Tomlinson, 1998). In the 1985 Swann Report in Britain, the
Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children of Ethnic Minority Groups,
recommended that British education should enable all children to understand
the multicultural nature of British society with schools taking a direct approach
to tackling racism and stereotyping. The report encouraged Local Education
Authorities (LEAs), to commit to the ethos of ‘education for all’ and to adopt a
pluralist curriculum (Blair, 2001). Since this time there has been extensive
interest in the educational achievements of ethnic minorities and various
theoretical and empirical explanations have been forwarded concerning the
diverse educational experiences of ethnic minority pupils (Abbas, 2002).
One of the key pieces of legislation, affecting the education of black and
minority ethnic children is the Race Relations Act (1976) as amended by the
Race Relations (Amendment) Act (2000). This Act gives public authorities a
statutory general duty to promote racial equality (Commission for Racial
Equality, 2002). The aim of this act is to centralise racial equality in the
everyday
functioning’s
of
public
authorities
including
schools
(www.standards.dfes.gov.uk, date accessed: 12/05/06). According to the
general duty, schools must give adequate attention to: the eradication of
unlawful racial discrimination and; the promotion of equal opportunities; and
effective relations between individuals of different ethnic groups. Under the
Act, schools have been given specific duties, which includes: the preparation of
a written statement of the schools policy for promoting race equality; and the
practical implementation of this policy (www.standards.dfes.gov.uk, date
accessed: 12/05/06). According to Commission for Racial Equality guidelines,
this race equality policy should deal with areas such as: the attainment and
progress of pupils, the involvement of parents and community in the school and
curriculum teaching and learning including language and cultural needs
(http://www.cre.gov.uk, date accessed: 12/05/06).
Following their election to office in 1997 New Labour were eager to
demonstrate their valuing of cultural diversity and their appreciation of the
inequalities faced by ethnic minority communities. Consequently, within a year
the government addressed a number of long running grievances, which resulted
in the establishment of the Social Exclusion Unit, with the remit of enquiring
into exclusion and truancy in schools, particularly in relation to black pupils.
The government also replaced the section 11 grant with the Ethnic Minorities
Achievement Grant (EMAG), and made the decision to offer Muslim schools
state funding as with schools of other denominations (Tomlinson, 2005). In
68
1993, the government also announced the commencement of an extensive
enquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, this resulted in the Macpherson
Report (1999), which led to the strengthening of race relations legislation
(Tomlinson, 2005).
Despite these positive efforts of the government, it soon became apparent that
implemented measures were limited and were unable to sufficiently alleviate
inequalities in education. As schools have increasingly exercised segregation of
groups the gap between policy and practice has become more apparent
(Tomlinson, 2005). The limited success of these efforts is largely due to the
creation of the education market, which has further conflated problems of
inequality in education. The choice policies of education for instance have
continued to intensify the hierarchy of schools, ranging from least to most
desirable, with the most desirable schools containing the lowest numbers of
ethnic minority pupils (Tomlinson, 2005). This is largely because the more
privileged social groups who are essentially white middle class parents, have
easier access to the desired schools that are often situated in prestigious areas
where residents can obtain privileged access. It is also the case that due to
social class differences, privileged choosers are able to discriminate between
schools and evaluate teachers. The less privileged on the other hand, often
lack the skills and knowledge needed to effectively engage with the market
system and maximise their children’s advantages (Tomlinson, 1998). In tern,
schools have also become more selective of ‘desirable customers’ with some
students being valued above others.
Schools can select overtly through ability testing or religious criteria. They can
also select covertly through parent interviews and by discouraging parents and
students or excluding students on the basis of perceived special educational
needs (SEN) or behavioural problems of the student (Tomlinson, 1998). This
has led to the development of racially segregated schools (Tomlinson, 2005).
Under market conditions selection of pupils has continued to increase despite
Labour government promises in 1996, that it would be abolished (Tomlinson,
2005). Within the ‘choice’ system, it is usually the ethnic minority groups who
predominantly occupy the lower socio-economic classifications that are seriously
disadvantaged, despite the high aspirations of parents for their children
(Tomlinson, 1998). Tomlinson states that despite the strong rhetoric of
partnership purported by the labour government, there seems to have been a
general delay in the transferral of good practice between local education
authorities concerning the issues of race and ethnicity (Tomlinson, 2005).
Overall, few studies have examined the schooling experiences of ethnic
minorities in Britain. However, those that have, have generally reported that
whilst considered valuable, these experiences have been tainted in some way
by discrimination, stereotyping or racism. Smith (2004), reports that even
when minority students attend schools within predominantly white suburban
areas, and attain highly, their school experience is still very often plagued by
low teacher expectations and negative stereotyping (Tomlinson, 2005). Blair
(2001), additionally found that many of the young people she spoke to were
69
angry about the negative racial stereotypes that they felt had been attached to
them by school teachers (Tomlinson, 2005). Tomlinson also reports that
studies of refugee children indicate that the majority suffer racial harassment in
school and in the community (Tomlinson, 2005).
The vast majority of literature within the area of Black and minority ethnic
communities and schooling, is focused on the achievement levels. The
relatively low achievement levels of ethnic minorities has been a major concern
from the 1960s onwards. A large amount of the corresponding literature
focuses on the lower attainments of Afro-Caribbean, Pakistani and Bangladeshi
pupils in particular (Tomlinson, 2005). Academic achievements of gypsy
traveller pupils are also of considerable concern, such pupils are reported to be
most at risk of educational failure (www.cre.gov.uk, date accessed: 09/10/06).
Later research carried out on these groups in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, has
found that these pupils are still making less progress than their peers
(Tomlinson, 2005). In the 1999 Ofsted report ‘Raising the Attainment of
Minority Ethhnic Pupils’, it was found that although Bangladeshi pupils made
steady progress from key stage 1, their overall performance remained below
national averages particularly in relation to the higher grades at GCSE level.
Black Caribbean pupils were found to start well in primary school yet
underachieve at secondary school level and in some cases they were found to
be the lowest performing group at GCSE level. Pakistani pupils were found to
achieve well below national average levels at primary school but tended to
catch up in secondary school. The attainment of higher grades at GCSE level
however, was still a cause of concern with this group. In addition, the
attainment levels of gypsy traveller pupils was found to be well below average,
with most being placed on the SEN register and few achieving GCSEs (Ofsted,
1999).
Since 1997, various policies and initiatives have been implemented which are
specifically geared towards the raising of minority achievement. In 1997 the
government established what is now known as the Ethnic Minorities
Achievement Division. The Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant (EMAG), which
cost £155 million annually, was also provided for local education authorities
with considerable numbers of minority pupils. In addition, every white paper
and legislative document that has been produced since 1997 has included a
section on raising the achievements of minority pupils. Policies implemented in
2001 included strategies to improve learning, the reinstating Excellence in Cities
(EiC) strategies with the addition of the Excellence Challenge Programme,
closer collaborations with the inspectorate and teacher training agencies,
supporting teachers in the teaching of students who speak English as an
additional language and the increased recruitment of teachers from ethnic
minority backgrounds (Tomlinson, 2005).
Despite encouraging reports of marked improvements in the achievement levels
of some ethnic minority groups, it is still the case that many ethnic minority
pupils are not achieving as well as they could.
Furthermore, the fact that
children from Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi backgrounds have been half
70
as likely to attain five good grades at GCSE level when compared to their peers
from other ethnic groups is according to the DfES 2001 report, unacceptable
(Tomlinson, 2005).
The notion of underachievement was brought to the fore in Britain due to the
investigations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from
Ethnic Minority Groups – chaired by Lord Swann. This committee was
constructed in (1979) in response to widespread concerns about the academic
performance of West Indian pupils. The committee concluded that West Indian
children were under-achieving within the British education system (Gillborn and
Gipps, 1996).
This issue of ‘under-achievement’ dominated debates
surrounding the education of ethnic minority pupils up until the early 1990s,
however the concept is still widely misunderstood and highly problematic (Amin
et al, 1997). Underachievement fundamentally implies that there exists a
standard level of acceptable achievement which has not been reached, a notion
that is highly contestable. The term underachievement has also been known to
encourage detrimental generalisations about entire ethnic groups (Haque,
2000). If the teacher projects these generalisations, this can also lead to ‘selffulfilling prophesies of failure’ (Amin et al, 1997:33) among certain groups
(Amin et al, 1997). It is for these reasons that writers such as Haque (2000)
prefer to utilise the notions of average or relative low attainment or
performance which indicates that it may be particular pupils within the group
that account for the average low attainment detected in the statistics (Haque,
2000).
Pinpointing the causes of poor educational attainment in relation to particular
groups is a challenging and intricate task, because the reasons behind it are
very often complex and interlinked (Haque, 2000). Over the years however, a
number of different explanations have been formulated, pertaining to the below
average achievement levels of black and ethnic minority pupils. Some of the
most common of these relate to the socio-economic status of ethnic minority
groups. Traditionally, the social class factor has proved to be very powerful in
explaining the differences in educational attainments of groups with manual
and non-manual backgrounds. It is perhaps not surprising then, that many
now propose that educational differences may have more to do with social class
groupings than differences in ethnic origin (Hague, 2000).
Within the Swann Report (1985) it was argued that the relationship between
poverty and poor educational performance that was seen to be the case for
white children could also be applied to children from ethnic minority
backgrounds (Haque, 2000). In 1997, Amin et al commented that social
background is a key influencer of academic achievement and that “ethnic
minorities are more likely to belong to socio-economic groups which will
increase their academic disadvantage” (Amin et al, 1997:33). Tomlinson (1998)
also reports that whilst there is evidence of a small emerging middle class
among ethnic minority groups, ethnic minorities are still most predominant
within the lower socio-economic groups (Tomlinson, 1998).
71
Although a seemingly straightforward concept however, there is a need to be
cautious of how social class is operationalised when applied to ethnic minority
communities. Whilst the income of certain ethnic minority groups may be
reflective of a particular social class status the historically and culturally
informed values, interests, aspirations and identity traits of that group may
mean that traditional social class categories can not be applied in the same
ways as they are for white groups (Haque, 2000). The very term ‘social class’
is in itself increasingly complex (Haque, 2000) and its categories contestable.
But when related to ethnic minority groups, it becomes even more so, because
advantages and disadvantages are unevenly dispersed across all the variables.
An example of this complexity can be seen in the Pakistani community in
Britain. Despite being one of the most economically disadvantaged groups,
with high unemployment rates, Pakistanis have high rates of self-employment
and have high representation as owner-occupiers of homes. Other ethnic
minority groups have shown more sustained patterns of advantage or
disadvantage.
It is for these reasons, that Haque (2000), advocates the
careful consideration of the social class composition of each ethnic minority
group before comparisons are made between groups (Haque, 2000).
Other influencing factors related to the background and home life of the pupil
are thought to be their fluency in English and the length of time they have
spent in the British education system. Such factors are seen by multicultural
educationalists to be key determinants of educational achievement (Abbas,
2002). In the case of fluency in English, it has been found that this factor
disproportionately effects certain ethnic minority groups compared to others. It
was found in 1995 for instance, that in both London boroughs of Camden and
Newham, a greater number of students who spoke Bengali were at the initial
stages of English language learning, had fewer years in education and had been
entered for fewer exams than other students who spoke Gujerati, Punjabi or
Urdu. It was also found however that these differences became less marked at
the later stages of education (Haque, 2000).
It has long been claimed that length of schooling in Britain is a strong
determinant of educational achievement. Within a study carried out by the
Department of Education and Science between 1966 and 1973, it was found
that although pupils of Asian origin generally performed less well than their
white peers in the first instance, performance of the Asian pupils improved as
did their length of stay in the United Kingdom. More recent studies carried out
by Millios (1995) and Sammons (1995), within inner London areas, have also
endorsed these findings (Haque, 2000). Despite these claims however it
appears that this issue is more complex than the vast majority of literature may
suggest. It has been found that African-Asian and Chinese groups, despite
arriving post 1970, have been found to perform significantly better than earlier
arrivals (Haque, 2000). This inconsistency in findings suggests the need for
further research in this area into the more intricate complexities of the
relationship between the length of settlement and schooling in Britain and
academic achievement levels.
72
It is widely suggested that disparities in educational achievement and
experiences can also be caused by educational structural factors.
The
curriculum for instance, is identified as a factor that can possibly hinder
educational equality. The curriculum along with the organisation of teaching
and learning transmits powerful messages to students, concerning what is
valued and what isn’t (Gardner, 2002). Within the curriculum, what is taught
often contrasts with the actual learning needs of the students and the reality of
student’s everyday lives. At worst, the curriculum may also reinforce limited
perspectives, discriminatory practices and stereotyping through: text books, the
organisation of the school year and schedule, curriculum policies and practices
and the artificial division of the curriculum into subject areas. This refers to the
division of knowledge into discrete areas and the designated order in which
knowledge is delivered (Cordeiro, Reagan and Martinez, 1994).
Academic grouping practices are also pinpointed as being in direct conflict with
the inclusive ethos. Besides homogenous class grouping, ability grouping can
also take the form of: Special education classes, gifted and talented
programmes and Bilingual programmes. Although this practice has become
widely prevalent, schools have recently began to reassess grouping practices in
light of extensive evidence that suggests that these practices can have longterm, negative effects on children. It is also said by Ireson and Hallam (1999),
for instance, that the practice of academic grouping can lead to the
development of anti-academic attitudes and feelings of alienation from school
(Ireson and Hallam, 1999).
Under the structuralist perspective, the practice of setting by ability is put
forward as one of the causes of disparities in the academic attainment of
different ethnic groups (Runnymede Trust, no date). In investigations carried
out by Wright (1992), it was found that teachers’ perceptions of pupil behaviour
were more influential than actual academic ability. As a result, AfricanCaribbean pupils were more likely to be placed in ability bands that were lower
than their academic ability (German, 2002). In their study of classrooms in
America, Meier and Stewart (1991) discovered that Hispanics and AfricanAmerican students were less able to access gifted classes and that ethnic
inequalities in gifted classes were growing (Cordeiro, Reagan and Martinez,
1994).
The very measures used to identify and label levels of academic achievement
are said to disadvantage ethnic minority pupils. According to Amin et al (1997),
these measures can in fact influence achievement levels and can often
engender significant achievement differences within student groups (Amin et al,
1997). One of the main problems identified within this area is the over reliance
on examination results as an indicator of achievement levels. The problem with
this method is that entrance for exams can be heavily influenced by the schools
perception of certain pupils as opposed to a genuine measurement of
achievement. Researchers such as Wright (1992) and Troyna and SirajBlatchford (1993), discovered that certain school processes led to the allocation
of students to examinations and courses that were clearly below their academic
73
abilities, an issue which some teachers were unwilling to address (Haque,
2000). Therefore it may be that examination results are not necessarily the
most effective performance indicators. It has also been suggested that the use
of initial/entry attainment levels in progress measurement/tracking, can lead to
misleading portrayals. This is because ethnic minority students are at times,
wrongly allocated to lower bands at the end of primary school or at the start of
secondary school (Haque, 2000).
It is also argued that the form and content of assessment instruments can often
be strongly influenced by a particular worldview held amongst white people.
This was found to be the case by Dreyton (1989). The danger here is that the
abilities of individuals who are unable to influence this particular worldview may
be under-measured in such means of assessment. Dreyton suggests that this
problem can be counteracted by the combining of the curriculum content, with
the “histories and cultures of under-represented groups” (Dreyton cited in
German, 2002:212). Dreyton also advises that assessment results be looked
upon with some scepticism and with the realisation that they have only limited
ability to present ‘real world success’ (German, 2002).
In addition, the learning style embedded in the teaching practices of the school
can also engender educational inequalities. Learning styles refer to different
ways of selecting and classifying information. It is believed that when the
learning styles of students are acknowledged and incorporated into learning
processes, this gives them more opportunity to become involved in their
learning, increasing chances of academic success and enhancing productivity
and confidence (Esquivel and Houtz, eds, 2000). Many scholars including HaleBenson (1986) and Barrera, (1993), have concluded that these learning styles
of pupils are culturally and historically based (Esquivel and Houtz, eds, 2000).
Cohen (1969), identifies two different learning styles: these are the analytical
style and the relational style. Cohen believes that it is the analytical style of
learning that is most predominant in schools and that is rewarded and
encouraged. However, Cohen also believes that it is the relational style of
learning that is most dominant within the black community (Esquivel and Houtz,
eds, 2000) The suggestion here is that some students will be disadvantaged
because their style of learning does not correspond with the style that is
reflected within mainstream education.
Despite the seeming logic of such theories, other writers warn that learning
style theory can be precarious territory (Hall, 2004). Many authors claim that
the field of learning styles in itself is a considerably unstable one which is
underpinned by a series of conflicting terms, concepts and assumptions
(Coffield et al, 2004). For example, research into learning styles has been
described as largely ‘small scale, non-cumulative, uncritical and inward-looking’
consequently this research seems not to have benefited much from
interdisciplinary collaborations. The result is that although there are occasional
overlaps in the concepts of different approaches each one has its own separate
core characteristics. This causes difficulties for practitioners and academics
wanting to engage with this field (Coffield et al, 2004).
74
According to Hall (2004), the division of pupils into categories and groups
according to learning style, can lead to ‘dangerous simplifications in practice’
(Hall, 2004).
This misuse of learning styles theory can result in an
overemphasis on learner characteristics instead of learning itself. According to
Coffield et al (2004), many practitioners implement learning styles instruments
in such a way that leads to stereotypical generalisations of student groups. For
instance, vocational students may be viewed as non-reflective activists (Coffield
et al, 2004). Students may also be stereotyped on the basis of their ethnic or
cultural background.
This simplistic implementation of learning styles
instruments can also undermine the importance of gathering subject specific
knowledge and skills and could obscure differences between the learning
cultures inherent within different academic subjects. There is also the
additional danger that labels will be adopted by learners who will begin to see
themselves as being limited within certain boundaries because of their
particular learning style (Hall, 2004).
There is a growing body of research that suggests that the teacher-pupil
relationship can also affect pupil achievement levels and overall academic
success (Sanders and Jordan, 2000). This is thought to be especially true in
cases where the pupil has had a history of negative schooling experiences or if
the pupil comes from a family whose background characteristics place them at
risk of academic failure (Sanders and Jordan, 2000). Research within this area
has pinpointed certain hidden processes that serve in denying students the
equal opportunities to which they are entitled (Amin, 1997). It was found for
instance that relationships held between African Caribbean pupils and white
teachers are often characterised by high levels of criticism and control (Amin et
al, 1997). Several writers have also implied that black students in both primary
and secondary schools criticised and apprehended by teachers to a
disproportionate degree (Blair, 2001).
The debate concerning teacher racism or discrimination is a long-running,
sensitive and multifaceted. The low expectations that teachers have of black
and ethnic minority pupils has been found to be highly problematic, having the
effect of de-motivating students. Anti-racist educationalists claim that the
negative and discriminatory perceptions of white teachers towards ethnic
minority pupils and towards African Caribbean pupils in particular, is the central
cause of underachievement within these groups (Abbas, 2002).
The
persistence of this problem was reflected in the report by the London
Development Agency’s Education Commission (2004), which again pinpointed
lower teacher expectations as a hindrance to black and ethnic minority pupils
(Tomlinson, 2005). In particular it has been shown that some teachers
associate academic problems to the home or to the student’s innate attributes.
A number of studies have reported teachers’ complaints concerning the
unrealistic expectations that Asian parents have of their children (Kallie 1986,
Mirza 1992, Shaw 1992), complaints that have proved to be unfounded. It was
additionally reported that teachers’ perceptions of South Asian pupils are often
75
shaped by negative stereotypes particularly with regards to their home,
communities and linguistic abilities (Amin et al, 1997).
The issue of racism or discrimination is also seen to bear strong links with the
disproportionate representation of African Caribbean pupils in exclusion
statistics. Far from being a recent phenomenon, this overrepresentation is a
social reality that can be traced back to the depths of British education history,
even before the 1988 education reform Act (Blair, 2001). The DFEE 1998/99
statistics showed that the exclusion rates for black Caribbean, Black African and
Black other students were 0.59%, 20% and 49% respectively. Although these
rates show an improvement from previous years, they are still significantly
higher than those of other groups (Rhamie and Hallam, 2002). While
exclusions usually result from violence, threatening behaviour or other such
serious offences, additional evidence suggests that the disproportionate
exclusion rates of Black pupils may be due to less obvious conflict with teachers
(Amin et al, 1997). According to Gillborn (1995), school exclusions operate in a
racist manner, denying black students access to mainstream education.
Gillborne also comments that the marketisation of education has further
conflated this problem (Tomlinson, 1998).
From a somewhat wider perspective, it has been said that pupil-teacher
interactions have also been negatively influenced by the establishment of the
education market. It is thought that the increased pressure placed on teachers
by the teacher appraisal system and the increased workload of teachers has
placed them in “a contradictory relationship to their responsibilities to students”
(Blair, 2001:23). Hargreaves (1994) further argues that teachers preoccupation
with administration and assessment tasks means that they have very limited
time and opportunity to display care and connectedness towards their students.
Aspects, which Wexler (1992) argues, are central to the effective working of the
teacher-student relationship. According to Blair, the rationalisation of the
curriculum in Britain through the introduction of school league tables, prevents
a holistic approach to the lives of students, an aspect which has in times past,
been central to schooling in Britain (Blair, 2001).
Teachers are also thought to be generally disadvantaged by the lack of training
they receive to teach within Britain’s multiethnic society. Despite ongoing calls
for training in multiethnic teaching, many of the university and local authority
courses within this field have now been abandoned, leaving a knowledge deficit
amongst teachers (Tomlinson, 2005). Although the teacher training agency did
in 2000 produce guidelines which advocated that trainee teachers should
understand how to prepare pupils for their role in the culturally diverse
democratic society, there is little advice on the practical implementation of this
ideal (Tomlinson, 2005).
Black and minority ethnic pupils are also disadvantaged by the racist or
discriminatory attitudes of other pupils. Some studies have identified racism to
be one of the key factors affecting the achievement levels of ethnic minority
groups (Haque, 2000). Despite the multicultural agenda adopted by the British
76
education system in the late 1960s, its achievements within this area have been
somewhat limited. Despite a pupil’s level of motivation, racism is often able to
deny them the right to an adequate education (Rhamie and Hallam, 2002).
Racial harassment has a significant negative impact on students’ performance
and confidence. Asian students in particular tend to suffer a high level of racial
harassment in schools, the extent of which teachers are often unaware (Amin
et al, 1997).
Although racism is largely colour based, it is important that both researchers
and practitioners avoid the oversimplification of racism. Notions of racism or
discrimination based on colour, tend to disregard differences in religion, culture
and language, viewing all ethnic minority groups as one homogeneous group.
There is now evidence to suggest that not all ethnic groups are discriminated
against by white groups in the same way (Haque, 2000). It has been
suggested for instance that the distinctive Muslim identity can increase
disadvantage, particularly in schools where pupils are discriminated on religious
or cultural grounds (Haque, 2000).
An additional aspect thought to impact upon the achievement levels of black
and minority ethnic pupils is the distinct lack of role models. According to
Rassool (1999) it is important that ethnic minority pupils are able to see and
identify with positive role models in public life so that they can realise what can
be achieved and what is within their reach (Rassool, 1999). It is said that such
positively impacting figures are not readily available within the immediate
educational environment and that this is likely to have a major impact on the
educational achievements of African Caribbean pupils (Rhamie and Hallam,
2002).
These shortcomings in the education system have caused widespread
dissatisfaction amongst parents, which has instigated a distinct rise in
supplementary schooling, particularly within the black immigrant community
(Rassool, 1999). These are places where blackness is the norm and African
Caribbean pupils can develop a sense of self-confidence and belonging. Such
supplementary provision has proved to be a key factor in educational success
(Rhamie and Hallam, 2002).
From this review of issues surrounding the education of BME groups it is clear
that the process that determines educational achievements is made up of a
complex and multilayered set of factors (Abbas, 2002). It is argued that the
“the actions of teachers and the policies of schools impact on the performance
of pupils on one level; at another it is the adverse cultural practices within the
home coupled with disengagement with the school that lead to educational
underachievement” (Abbas, 2002: 310). According to Vincent (1995), in order
to raise the achievement levels of ethnic minorities a combined effort needs to
be instituted that engages both teachers and parents/carers in home - school
partnerships (Abbas, 2002).
77
Implementing Inclusive Practice
From a theoretical viewpoint, the constructivist approach to learning is thought
to effectively facilitate inclusive teaching practice because of its emphasis on
students playing an active role in the construction and development of their
own learning. This perspective stands in stark contrast to traditionalist views of
students as passive empty vessels in need of the infilling of knowledge by
teachers. In the constructivist viewpoint, the student endeavours to make
sense of the curriculum presented whilst the teacher facilitates this sense
making process. Constructivists also believe that the curriculum is socially
negotiated. This suggests that knowledge is both subjective and evolving as
opposed to being fixed (Cordeiro, Reagan and Martinez, 1994). Within
constructivism, teachers are required to assist students in the critical analysis of
the views contained with textbooks instead of presenting them as absolute
truth. This perspective allows for the integration of student experiences from
beyond the confines of the school (Cordeiro, Reagan and Martinez, 1994).
During research on learning experiences within the multicultural setting, Moll
(1988) discovered that the most effective classes for Latino students were
those in which they were encouraged to use their personal experience to make
sense of school experiences. Moll’s research highlighted the fact that in most
classrooms, home and community experiences are avoided. However when this
area of knowledge is valued, positive effects often result. The integration of
personal and cultural knowledge within the classroom can increase the cultural
relevance of learning (Cordeiro, Reagan and Martinez, 1994), thus engaging
Black and minority ethnic students more effectively. These suggestions are
further substantiated by Gay (2004) who stresses the importance of
intercultural, multicultural education, which encompasses the exploration of
information concerning a range of diverse ethnic groups (Codjoe, 2006).
According to Codjoe, this will allow schools to become more effective and
relevant learning environments for minority students (Codjoe, 2006).
The constructivist approach to learning is particularly relevant within inclusive
education because it allows the effects of diversity on learning to feature
predominantly in dialogues concerning professional development and teacher
training. It also requires schools to focus on the improvement of the sensitivity
to, and recognition of, diversity within the school organisation (Cordeiro,
Reagan and Martinez, 1994).
One of the keys of effective inclusive education, Identified by Gardner (2002),
is collaborative learning. An important aspect of collaborative learning is group
work. Whilst some educationalists argue that group work results in low-level
thinking, a growing number of teachers appreciate the value of group work as
an effective teaching and learning method. This is particularly the case among
teachers funded through the Ethnic Minority and Traveller Achievement Grant
(EMAG) who tend to place great emphasis on bilingual pupils talking with their
monolingual peers within small groups (Gardner, 2002). Corden (2000), has
78
identified a number of benefits associated with this mode of learning which
include:


Greater scaffolding of comprehension skills
Improvements in pupils ability to make connections between the reading
and writing process
 Increased corporative behaviour amongst pupils
 Improved interpersonal and social skills
 Improved educational achievement levels
(Corden cited in Gardner, 2002:18)
This type of learning is seen as important within inclusive education because it
increases pupils’ opportunities to share their knowledge, including cultural
knowledge. Through collaborative learning, students are also able to develop
vital communication and social skills. If the material used reflects aspects of
diversity appropriately, then important messages can be conveyed concerning
the school’s valuing of cultural and social diversity. In addition, an environment
where pupils are encouraged to share their thoughts and opinions and where
these thoughts and opinions are genuinely valued is likely to lead to
psychological security in learning (Gardner, 2002).
Collaboration between colleagues is also seen to be effective within inclusive
education. Gardner (2002) emphasises the importance of the effective use of
additional staff members in the enhancement of learning and achievement of
black and minority ethnic pupils. Here Gardener refers to the corporation of
class and support teachers in the planning, delivery and assessment of lessons
with the central aim of meeting the diverse needs of pupils (Gardner, 2002).
This requires teachers to have mutual respect for each other and to be granted
equal status within the classroom, and advocates the sharing of good practice
amongst colleagues (Gardner, 2002).
This collaborative ethos can also be adopted as a whole-school approach to
inclusive learning. This firstly begins with the ethnic monitoring of pupils to
assess the extent to which equal opportunities are being achieved. Without this
data, schools can very easily ignore underachievement and the uneven
distribution of scarce resources. It is for these reasons that the Parekh Report
recommends that educational institutions should be able to demonstrate with
the use of statistical data, that disparities in the achievement levels of different
ethnic communities are closing (Runnymede Trust, 2002). The second phase
involves the identification of underachieving groups and the reasons for this
underachievement.
Thirdly, important decisions will have to be made
concerning the allocation of resources for identified pupil groups. The next
stage consists of a comprehensive review of pupil needs, in light of curriculum
demands, including the cultural implications encompassed within it. It is
suggested that working with cultural frames of reference familiar to the target
pupils, results in increased access to learning. Collaborative planning, teaching
and assessment amongst teaching staff is also likely to engender a more
comprehensive approach to teaching and learning. The reporting and
79
dissemination of achievements resulting form collaborative partnerships will also
allow for the collation of wider reflections and learning among staff (Gardner,
2002).
In the case of students who speak English as an additional language, it is
important that thy too feel valued and included within the classroom.
According to Gardner (2002), such students can be made to feel valued and
included through the use of different languages within the classroom. If the
teacher incorporates even just a few phrases of the pupil’s first language this
conveys a message of acceptance to the pupil which is likely to lead to the
psychological security of the pupil within the school (Gardner, 2002). Some
studies have further demonstrated that that teaching the pupil using their first
language, has enabled easier access to the curriculum and can actually enable
an improved acquisition of the English language compared to students who are
taught in English (Gardner, 2002).
Gurnah (1989), proposes that multilingual studies be adopted as a necessary
measure of support for black pupils for whom English is an additional language.
Gurnah envisages that this area of learning will constitute a holistic and
dynamic approach that would present the issues, concerns and aspirations
expressed in particular languages, as well as the linguistic rules and
conventions. Gurnah postulates that this type of provision will promote the
multifaceted nature of British culture and ultimately eradicate the
marginalisation of working class ethnic minority children (German, 2002).
According to Gardner, factors that create an inclusive learning environment for
EAL students are:








A stress free learning environment
Tasks that focus on curriculum access
Scaffolding learning strategies
Comprehensible language input
Collaborative group work
Supportive pupil networks
Rich and varied contexts for talking and listening to English
An inclusive classroom ethos which incorporates Linguistic and cultural
diversity
 Opportunities to encounter new concepts through the medium of a first
language
 Visual aids
 Explicit modelling of the structures of English
(Gardner, 2002:10)
At present there exist multiple challenges in the education of Black and ethnic
minority pupils, which have remained consistent for decades. Although there is
evidence of progress in some areas, there still remains a significant amount of
work to be done. According to Haque (2000), what’s needed is a more
thorough understanding of what life is like for ethnic minorities living in Britain
80
and what kind of relationship they have with the school. In this view the
effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of the school in bridging the cultural gap
between the home and the school warrants further scrutiny. Haque also states
that further clarification is needed on the issue of whether differences in the
attainments of ethnic groups are related to national origin as opposed to socioeconomic, historical or cultural factors which are integral to the ethnic
backgrounds of these groups (Haque, 2000).
Recent literature has additionally highlighted the importance of identity and
education, and the need for more careful examination of this interrelation in the
light of contemporary multiethnic society (Rassool, 1999). Within the last two
decades, the concept of cultural identity within the pluralist nation-state, has
become increasingly complex. According to Bbhabha (1994), within this
context there is a need for a reconceptualised framework which transcends the
concept of ‘linear ethnic identities’ and contemplates the complex and
multilayered nature of identities which are emerging within contemporary
society. It is necessary for these issues of cultural hybridisation, adaptation and
identity to impact upon the education process, in tern, helping to maximise the
potential of black and minority ethnic pupils (Rassool, 1999).
The above sections have presented a comprehensive account of a number of
key factors, which in some way impact upon the conception of citizenship and
consequently have implications for citizenship education. Each of these areas
contain a multiplicity of different perspectives which contribute to the vastness
and complexity of the arena in which this topic area resides. It is important
that citizenship education is considered within the wider context of these
factors, to enable the construction of an accurate and comprehensive portrayal
that is suitable for contemporary post-modern society. In light of these factors,
there is clearly a need to address citizenship in a more inclusive way and with a
broader
outlook
of
what
citizenship
means
and
entails.
The diversity of these factors also show that a multidisciplinary approach is
warranted for any extensive examination of citizenship or citizenship education.
Each of the wider factors explored, pose a challenge to the citizenship
education agenda and should affect the form it takes and the nature in which it
is delivered. Whilst these social realities can’t be eradicated, they can be
responded to. It is therefore important that citizenship educators are aware of
these overarching issues and that they respond to them appropriately within
the citizenship education that they deliver.
81
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used within this research was largely qualitative in nature.
The research involved semi-structured interviews and group discussions, which
were carried out with secondary school students, secondary school staff and
community group representatives and members. This research methodology is
reflective of the aim of the research, to explore the experiences, concepts and
opinions of participants within the area of citizenship and multiculturalism. The
following sections will constitute a full explanation of these phases outlining the
content and procedure involved in each.
PHASE 1
The first phase of the research consisted of a number of one-to-one semistructured interviews, which were carried out with eight citizenship coordinators
at seven schools across Birmingham. The main aim of this phase was to gain an
awareness of the issues and concerns in relation to the teaching of citizenship
education and the multicultural issues involved, from an educator’s perspective.
Selection of Schools
Schools that were selected to participate in this phase were chosen by the
researcher using a sampling technique, which is termed as the purposive or
judgemental technique. This is where the researcher selects subjects or
institutions ‘that could not be identified through other sampling strategies.
Employing judgement to ensure that the sample is selected on the basis of the
information required’ (Greig and Taylor, 2004:59). In the case of this particular
research project, the researcher selected schools using a map of schools within
Birmingham and the Black Country and school lists. Having had no prior
knowledge of any of the schools within this area, the researcher selected
schools blindly and then viewed the Ofsted reports of these schools to check
the percentage of BME pupils within the school populations. Due to the focus
of the research, the majority of the schools selected for this phase were those
in whose reports it was indicated that BME pupils constituted a third or more of
the pupil population. Two schools, whose reports suggested a lesser population
of BME students, were also selected for comparison purposes.
Gaining Access
Following the selection of schools, letters explaining the focus and purpose of
the research were sent to the head teachers and also copied to citizenship coordinators at the schools. These letters contained a brief outline of the project
and its aims and a request for the schools to assist in the research by allowing
82
citizenship co-ordinators to be involved in initial interviews. Each of these
letters were followed up with phone calls to the schools through which the
researcher was able to confirm whether or not the school was able to
participate in the research and what time would be most appropriate for
interviews with citizenship coordinators. From the ten schools contacted, eight
agreed to take part in this initial research phase.
Participants
All the participants were citizenship coordinators and therefore were responsible
for overseeing the delivery of citizenship education within their respective
schools. These participants had various amounts of experience within this role,
ranging from seven months to six years.
The Interviews
Before any questions were asked, the researcher first made some introductory
comments and also briefed participants on the interview procedure. Within the
introduction the interviewer briefly introduced herself and the research project
focus and thanked the participant for attending the interview. Within the
briefing the interviewer assured the participant that anonymity and
confidentiality would be maintained. Participants were therefore encouraged to
speak as openly as possible. Participants were also informed that they were
able to leave the interview at any time and that they did not have to answer
any questions they felt uncomfortable with.
Interviews were conducted with the use of a pre-prepared interview schedule
(see appendix I). Whilst this schedule was used to guide the interview
conversation, the interviewer also used additional questions to encourage
expansion or to further explore points raised by interviewees. It was also
necessary for the interviewer to modify certain questions in some cases, in
accordance with the particular formatting of citizenship education within a given
school.
Within the interviews citizenship coordinators were asked a series of questions
under the following subtitles:






General information – General information concerning the role of
participants within the school and school organisation
Effectiveness – The effectiveness of citizenship education
Diversity – The appropriateness of citizenship education for culturally
diverse settings
Inclusion – the inclusiveness of citizenship education
Engagement – the engagement of pupils in citizenship education
Pupil needs – the needs of BME pupils and catering for these needs.
83
The questions asked were of an open-ended nature.
The Interview Setting
Interviews with citizenship coordinators were carried out within the school
setting either in an empty classroom or office, which either belonged to the
participant or was shared with other members of staff. The advantage of
conducting the interviews in these empty spaces is that it eliminated the risk of
the participants’ responses being directly influenced by the presence of other
staff members. This arrangement also meant that confidentiality could be more
easily maintained. Carrying out the interviews within the school environment
also allowed the participants to remain within an environment, which was
familiar to them. This goes some way to addressing the power imbalance that
can often exist between researcher and researched.
Recording and Transcription
Interviews were recorded using a digital recording device from which recordings
could be downloaded onto regular computers or laptops. This device is small
and discrete and were also able to maintain a high sound quality. This was
particularly appropriate for use within the school environment which was
sometimes quite noisy especially if the interview was being conducted in a
space near to the playground during a break time or on a noisy corridor during
lesson interchange.
Following the completion of interviews with citizenship coordinators recordings
of the interviews were downloaded and transcripts were then typed up by the
project secretary. Each transcript constituted a word-for-word account of the
interview recording. Whilst these may have been lengthy and tedious to
compose, they allowed the researcher to gain as accurate an account as
possible and therefore to gain a clear picture of the meanings and contexts
encompassed within the responses of participants.
When these had been
completed, the researcher checked each transcript for accuracy purposes and
made any minor corrections as appropriate.
PHASE 2
The second phase of the research was largely similar to the first, except that
within this phase interviews were carried out with citizenship teachers as
opposed to coordinators. These again were a series of semi-structured
interviews, which followed a similar format to those within the first phase.
84
Gaining Access
After the first phase of the research letters were sent out to citizenship
coordinators asking them to select a teacher who was involved with citizenship
education, to be interviewed. These letters were also followed up with phone
calls and e-mails. When the teacher had been identified, the researcher
contacted them directly to establish their preferred date and time of interview.
Participants
All except one of the teachers interviewed within this phase were fully qualified
teachers. All participants within this stage were involved in the delivery of
some form of citizenship education. This could be integrated, discrete or
events based provision or a combination of two or more of these forms.
The Interview
Most of the questions used within phase one were also used in phase two with
the addition of a section of questions focused on the training experiences of
teachers (see appendix II). In addition to the actual face to face interview,
teachers were also asked to fill in a short questionnaire which contained a
number of general questions concerning the teachers role and the school
organisation in which they worked participants were asked to complete and
submit these questionnaires prior to the interview. The use of this device
allowed the researcher to consider the phrasing of questions prior to the
interview bearing in mind key factors such as the teaching format of citizenship
education at the school in question. These preliminary questionnaires also
allowed for a more economical use of time, enabling the researcher to spend
more time in the interview exploring issues that were more closely related to
the core of the research.
These interviews were again carried out within empty classrooms or offices with
the exception of one interview that was conducted in a small café as this was
most convenient for the participant.
Transcription and Analysis of Phase 1 and 2 Data
The interview data collected during this initial phase of the research was
analysed using a thematic analysis technique. The researcher first began by
reading over the completed transcripts in order to revisit the interview
situations and familiarise herself with the issues and concepts encompassed in
each. The researcher then proceeded to label the transcripts identifying the
various themes contained within the responses given. After all arising themes
had been identified, the researcher placed all dialogue relating to each theme
85
into separate documents. Preceding this, each interview had been colour
coded, so that when these documents had been compiled, the responses of
each participant could be easily identified. There were no limits placed on the
number of times a single section of dialogue could be pasted into different
documents, so sections of dialogue that pertained to more than one theme
were pasted into each document to which it applied. The theme-based
documents that resulted from this process, were closely examined by the
researcher, in order to decipher the dynamics contained within each theme.
Discussion of Phase 1 and 2 methodology
The semi-structured interview was particularly suitable for this research phase
because it allowed the participants the freedom to elaborate on the issues
raised in their own way (May, 1997:111). This feature is particularly valuable in
the investigation of experiences, concepts and opinions.
The use of semi-structured interviews allowed respondents to illustrate their
responses with experiences from their teaching careers. In tern, enabling the
researcher to understand more clearly the point being made and the concepts
involved. A strength of this type of qualitative interviewing is that it allows the
interviewee the space/freedom to be self-reflexive and to evaluate experiences,
situations and even their own feelings in the presence of the researcher. This
can often allow for valuable data to be unearthed (Miller and Glassner, 2004)
PHASE 3
Phase three has consisted of group discussions with pupils from participating
secondary schools within Birmingham and the Black Country. These pupils
were all from BME groups. The actual group discussion was divided into two
parts. Within the first part, discussions were instigated through the use of
thought provoking images (see appendix III). Discussion was also encouraged
through a number of open questions posed by the researcher (see appendix
IV).
Within the image exercise, pupils were shown a number of citizenship related
images and then asked to select the ones that they thought most depicted
citizenship. Pupils were encouraged to discuss their choices and justify them.
Pupils were then asked a series of questions related to their experiences of
citizenship education in secondary education, their thoughts about the
effectiveness of citizenship education and their concepts of British democracy
and democratic systems.
PHASE 4
Phase 4 consisted of a combination of one group discussion with community
group representatives and two further follow-up interviews with representatives
86
that were unable to attend the group discussion. The aim of this phase was to
gather the views and opinions regarding the key research topics, from those
who worked with young people within BME based community organisations in a
mentoring, support or leadership capacity.
Selection of Community Groups/Organisations
Within the selection process the researcher sought to gain representation from
community organisations connected to a range of separate BME communities
present in Birmingham and the Black Country. Representation was also sought
from religiously based groups. Based on an internet search and advice from
community group representatives concerning other known organisations, a
range of community organisations were selected using a purposeful selection
technique centred around the above criteria. Altogether ten community
organisations were approached for involvement in phase 4, however four of
these organisations actually participated in the research.
The Group Discussion and interviews
During the discussion and interviews, participants were led into a discussion
concerning citizenship education and issues of British democracy (see appendix
V for discussion questions). In particular, representatives were questioned
about: the particular needs of BME young people within the context of
citizenship education; their personal views of British democracy and the
attitudes of BME young people towards the British democratic system.
Through these lines of enquiry the interviewer sought to capitalise on the vast
combined experience of the representatives of working with young people from
the research projects’ target groups.
Most representatives involved in the research had limited knowledge of
citizenship education, therefore the researcher began both the group discussion
and follow-up interviews with a brief explanation of the key components and
aims of citizenship education.
This insured that representatives were
commenting from a basically similar understanding, thus safeguarding the
validity of the data gathered. As with phase 3, the phase 4 discussion and
follow-up interviews consisted of a number of open-ended questions, geared
towards the facilitation of qualitative discussion.
Discussion and Interview Setting
The group interview was carried out in a room within a community facility in the
Newtown area of Birmingham. This room contained soft seating and was both
comfortable and informal. The two further follow-up interviews were held
within the community centres where the representatives worked, these were
87
slightly more formal environments, however the conversation between
researcher and representative remained quite relaxed.
PHASE 5
Phase 5 again involved a series of group discussions, however in this case
young people from community groups with affiliation to BME communities, were
targeted. The community groups that were approached to participate in this
phase were those who were selected to take part in phase 4 and one additional
group that was recommended by one of the phase 4 discussion members. This
group was approached because of the inability of some phase 4 groups to
participate. Altogether, three group discussions were held, involving seven
young people from three different community groups.
Selection of community group members
Young people who were involved in this phase of the study, were selected by
community groups representatives/leaders, however the criteria for these
young people was minimal. Community group representatives were simply
requested to select a mixed group of approximately four members of their
community organisation that were as near to school age as possible, so that
they had some knowledge of citizenship education.
The Discussion Setting
Discussions with the young people were held within the actual community
centres where community organisations were based. Each of the discussions
were attended by an older community group representative. In these cases,
representatives took on a semi-supervisory role and also prompted the young
people as and when they thought necessary. Although the young people were
the main focus of this phase, this presence of community leaders did not seem
to present any significant problems. This was mainly because as members of
the community group, the young people were accustomed to discussing their
ideas and opinions concerning social issues with such individuals.
The Group Discussion
Most of the young people who took part in the group discussions were beyond
school age, therefore the researcher started discussions by ensuring that all
participating young people had at least a basic idea of the main components of
citizenship education. Within two of the groups, one of the young people had
studied citizenship whilst at school. In those instances the researcher allowed
those young people to give an explanation of citizenship education from their
own first hand experiences of the subject, contributing brief comments where
necessary. Within the phase 5 discussions, students were asked a series of
88
questions concerning; citizenship education, and British democracy. The lines
of questioning were largely similar to those pursued within phase 3 (see
appendix VI).
Recording and Analysis of Phase 3, 4 and 5 Data
Each of the group discussions were recorded with a digital recorder. As in the
phase1 and 2 interviews, this recording instrument was particularly appropriate
because of its ability to record with very high sound quality. This feature is
particularly helpful in the case of group discussions, where more than one
participant may speak at the same time. After the discussions and interviews
had been recorded they were then downloaded onto computer and transcripts
were produced in much the same way as in the first two phases (see page 92).
Analysis of the data gathered within phase 3,4 and 5 was carried out using a
thematic analysis technique. Initially interview transcripts were read by the
researcher in detail for familiarity purposes. Key themes were then identified
from across all discussion groups within each phase. These themes included;
general conceptions of citizenship education, the importance and effects of
citizenship education, the needs of BME pupils in relation to citizenship
education and conceptions of British democracy.
The researcher then
proceeded to further explore the dynamics and sub-themes, within these
themes, paying close attention to what was actually said and the implications of
the responses given. As a result, the researcher was able to highlight a number
of patterns and concepts relating to the views and experiences of young people
and community group representatives concerning citizenship education and
British democracy.
Discussion of Phase 3, 4 and 5 Methodology
The advantage of group discussions of this kind is that the researcher is able to
gather a large amount of information in a short space of time. Group
discussions are also said to be more naturalistic than one to one interviews as
they tend to include certain communicative modes and practices that are typical
in everyday interactions, these may include: joking, teasing and arguing
(Wilkinson, ed, 2004). As with one-to-one semi-structured interviews, group
discussions also allow participants to discuss issues in their own way and using
their own linguistic forms that are familiar to group members. In tern, the
researcher is able gain first hand experience of these linguistic forms
(Wilkinson, 2004). This is particularly useful in this study where the school
pupils were significantly younger than the researcher and used particular youthspecific terminologies.
Group discussions are also seen to be effective in engaging disempowered or
subordinated groups (Plaut et al cited in Wilkinson, 2004). BME groups such as
those involved in this research project can sometimes feel marginalized due to
89
their ethnic backgrounds (Wilkinson, 2004).
Additionally, because the
researcher is outnumbered in the group discussion, this method redresses the
power imbalance that often exists between researcher and researched
(Wilkinson, 2004). This is especially significant in research involving children
and young people where the researcher is often much older than the
participants.
In such research situations participants are also able to tease information out of
each other in ways that would prove impossible in a one-to-one interview
situation. According to Stewart and Shamdasani (1990), participants are able
to react towards and elaborate on the responses of other group members, thus
creating a ‘synergistic effect’ (Wilkinson, 2004). Solidarity among peers can
enable Participants to respond more freely than they would do within a one-toone interview (Wilkinson, 2004).
In group discussions however, there is the risk of intense disagreement
amongst participants and the direct challenging of participants views. This
however does not need to be completely disadvantageous. These occasions
can be used as grounds for further elaboration of issues or points (Wilkinson in
Silverman, ed, 2004). In addition, group dynamics can lead to the dominance
of certain voices over those of other group members. Group members may
also be influenced by particularly dominant individuals (Greig and Taylor, 2004).
In such cases, group members may feel pressured to give particular responses
in order to gain approval from other group members (Hennessy and Heary,
2005). Group interviews can also be difficult to transcribe and are virtually
impossible to record in note form (Greig and Taylor, 2004).
90
91
CHAPTER 3
RESPONSES FROM CITIZENSHIP EDUCATORS
The following chapter will constitute a detailed exploration of the responses of
the citizenship coordinators and teachers who were interviewed during phase
one and two of the research. This chapter captures the views and experiences
of these respondents in relation to various aspects of citizenship education.
The information documented under the various subheadings give a clear
indication as to educators’ general perceptions of citizenship and its effects and
also their perceptions of the needs of BME pupils and how prepared they are to
meet these needs. Both teachers and coordinators shared fundamentally
similar views concerning the topics discussed.
EFFECTIVENESS
Perspectives from Citizenship Coordinators
Most respondents confirmed that they did perceive the citizenship education
curriculum to be effective or in some cases very effective. Others outlined
some of the difficulties of delivering citizenship education under the current
curriculum. In the cases where the citizenship curriculum was said to be
effective a number of contributing factors were outlined. Firstly, the curriculum
was seen to be effective due to the wide range of different areas encompassed
within it. In each of these extracts, respondents refer to the wide scope of the
citizenship curriculum, which they clearly deem to be a valuable characteristic.
I1
The citizenship education curriculum is effective, to my mind
insofar as: the areas are covered
_______________
I3
It looks at a wide aspect. I quite like the way it’s divided up into
community and then gets wider into national and then global, so
in some ways I find it quite interesting, and the more I look at it I
find it has great potential. So I’m quite pleased, I’m quite
impressed with the way it’s been sorted out.
In the first extract, the respondent explains that the he perceives the citizenship
curriculum to be effective because of the wide variety of topics that that
educators are able to choose from. According to this respondent, this allows
for citizenship education to be shaped to the needs of the pupils, enabling them
to connect with the subject matter more easily. A similar sentiment is
expressed within the second quote where the respondent expresses her
appreciation of the ‘freedom’ that the curriculum allows citizenship educators.
Other respondents also emphasised the value of flexibility within the citizenship
curriculum:
92
I think it’s very effective, because it allows us to choose. What we like
about it is – it’s the recommended syllabus isn’t it, of what we can do,
certain topics, we pick and choose and mix and match what we think
meets the needs of our children and our community. And it’s real to
them, so that’s how they can connect a little bit more. So I think it’s
very relevant. It’s not set in tablets of stone where you must follow this,
it isn’t rigid, and it provides us with flexibility to change and pick
whatever modules suit the needs of our kids in our community.
_______________
I think the criteria is good in a way as it’s quite diverse and there’s scope
to do lots of different stuff…The actual curriculum of what you can cover
I think it’s good because you have got the freedom to take it how you
want to.
Despite the above comments, the format of the citizenship curriculum was not
viewed positively in all accounts. Some highlighted the difficulties or even
dangers caused by its wide-ranging scope, even in cases where its flexibility
was also appreciated.
I really enjoy it, as I said before, but it’s not valued and maybe the
curriculum…they do say you can deliver it in different ways – discretely,
events, lessons; but I think it needs to be more defined, what the kids
should be knowing
_______________
I think the problem is too many teachers don’t know what citizenship is,
it’s just seen as another one of these subjects that’s something we’ve got
to cover and tick a list.
The first respondent suggests that the citizenship curriculum is not adequately
defined and that as a result, there is uncertainty amongst staff and students
concerning what citizenship actually is.
The second extract gives the
impression of teachers being blindly driven by a ‘tick list’ of targets without
proper understanding.
Another respondent commented that within the citizenship curriculum there
was ‘a lot to deliver’ suggesting that it would be difficult if not impossible to
deliver everything featured within it. We can see from the above statements
that the broad nature of the citizenship curriculum was viewed both as a
blessing and a curse in terms of its capabilities to both liberate and confuse.
Another danger of the broad scope of the citizenship curriculum, which is
inferred in the comments made by respondents, is that in hand-picking subjects
from the curriculum, educators may give preference to the topics or issues that
they are personally drawn to or that they feel most comfortable with. Similarly,
93
they may avoid certain issues that they feel may cause difficulties. Whilst there
was no direct evidence that this was the case in any of the schools involved in
the research, the two extracts below give an indication of how certain issues
and themes can be either selected or avoided on the grounds of what is
deemed to be most comfortable as opposed to pupil needs.
I think the programme can be effective, but I don’t think you can deliver
all the things, you have to pick and choose what you think are the most
important things. You have to fit it in with everything else you are
delivering.
_______________
I would say asylum seekers is one of the main ones, because…the pupils
have got some very strong, negative views and I think the teachers don’t
want to stick their toes into that area at all, they’re worried how to deal
with it. We should be encouraging pupils to have their own voice and to
express their opinions, but on an issue like that it’s ‘do you want them to
express their opinions on issues like that?’ and teachers are a bit worried
to do that, to not go into that.
This dual nature of the citizenship curriculum is summarised in the following
statement made by a trainee citizenship teacher during a workshop on
citizenship and multiculturalism:
The curriculum for Citizenship is much broader and much less specified
than, say history, which can be a good thing because you can have more
freedoms to explore subjects in a given time. But that depends on the
Citizenship co-ordinator because I would say that their background plus
the freedom to do what they want in Citizenship can mean that someone
from a business background might teach Citizenship from mostly an
economic sense, so it’s all globalisation but not in the social kind of
sense, it was all economics. So, sometimes it could be a bonus that the
curriculum is quite wide, but sometimes it can impede you.
(Trainee teacher)
Another aspect of citizenship education that was seen to be particularly
effective was the formatting of citizenship education, which incorporates
different levels of community. Two respondents expressed appreciation for this
aspect:
I quite like the way it’s divided up into community and then gets wider
into national and then global, so in some ways I find it quite interesting,
and the more I look at it I find it has great potential. So I’m quite
pleased, I’m quite impressed with the way it’s been sorted out.
_______________
94
I think it’s very effective. It covers all the areas that we already cover to
a certain degree, but it does engage the students and highlights for them
what is involved in being a good citizen but above all it gives them the
opportunity to engage in that and to be engaged by it, to reflect on it
and hopefully realise that they cannot live in isolation from the
community where they live, and that community, of course, is not only
local but worldwide. Our starting point is that they belong to a range of
communities, beginning with the family, moving out through local,
national, European and then global, and that this underpins the notion of
what it means to them to be a citizen, underpinning what is a good
citizen.
An additional aspect of citizenship education that was seen to be a key
determinant of its effectiveness was the specific subject areas covered and the
key sentiments they encompassed.
I think the sentiment is right, I think it’s very positive they want to
improve people’s ideas and give them some political ideology and give
them an understanding of how things run and all the other issues that go
with that.
_______________
I think the emphasis on skills is a good thing, because I think skillsbased education is a very important thing, the idea that you are
developing these skills of enquiry, communication and participation is
very good. I think some of the topics are more difficult for the kids to
get hold of really, trying to teach children about politics, or getting them
involved in it is very hard to do.
Both of the above respondents are approving of the areas of learning contained
within citizenship education. In the second extract however the respondent, at
the same time, highlights the difficulty in teaching children about the political
matters featured within the curriculum. Difficulties in teaching about politics
from a teachers perspective, were also identified by another respondent:
A lot of people worry about the political aspect of it being brought in as a
political drive and some people object morally. I’ve spoken to teachers
who say ‘it’s not right, we’re trying to teach kids about rights and
responsibilities it’s not our job to do that’. It’s very difficult to sit on the
fence as a teacher, in much as the same way in which a teacher has got
the right to refuse to teach RE or sex education I suppose citizenship
falls in that band and some teachers would perhaps refuse to teach
some aspects of it because they feel that it’s too close to personal
beliefs, that can cause some issues.
Whilst the subject matter involved in citizenship is thought to be relevant and
necessary, certain areas are on the other hand recognised as being somewhat
95
‘difficult to teach’ because of the intellectual challenge they pose to students
and the moral challenges posed to teachers. This extract highlights the
sensitive nature of citizenship education because of its political underpinnings.
Consequently it is classed in the same bracket as RE or sex education.
The Effectiveness of Citizenship Education within the School
When asked about the effectiveness of citizenship education within their
respective schools, citizenship co-ordinators gave a range of answers: Two
respondents stated citizenship education within their schools was ‘not that
effective’; another three, that it was developing but that there was still some
way to go; whilst three respondents indicated that citizenship education was
effective in their schools and that they were pleased with manner in which it
was being delivered and responded to.
There were a number of key factors that were seen to determine the
effectiveness of citizenship. The first of these is the awareness of staff and
students of citizenship and what it actually is.
AS
In your opinion, how effective is citizenship education within this
school?
I3
I think we’re getting better. It’s really hard to put a finger on it,
but we do a lot of citizenship, whether we’re aware of it, we try to
make the children aware of it all the time and I think it needs to
be reinforced, and I think we are quite good at that.
_______________
I think teachers are just so bogged down with everything else it falls to
the wayside, which is a real shame because I don’t think a lot of staff
realise they are teaching it and they aren’t flagging it up. I think if you
asked lots of children here ‘what is citizenship?’ a few would be able to
give you a good answer but some of them would vaguely tell you what it
is and that has been the battle of doing this job here.
_______________
As much as you will hear a kid say ‘what is citizenship?’, you’ll often hear
a member of staff say ‘what is citizenship?’. They are still unsure what it
actually means, it’s not quite defined enough.
Citizenship co-ordinators also thought that the style of delivery used in
citizenship education was central to its effectiveness. More specifically, it was
thought that citizenship education needed to incorporate the active involvement
of pupils as opposed to textbook or worksheet based lessons. This conception
was very much consistent with the examples and descriptions that pupils gave
concerning effective lessons or activities.
I think probably some of the best activities that we’ve done are where
we’re getting the kids to come up with ideas about things. So some
96
topics, like I did a lesson this morning with the kids on school uniform –
if they were going to redesign the uniform what would they do. Then
they’re full of ideas and will take the lesson then. They will say, ‘why
don’t we do this’, ‘can I design this’, that kind of thing. So it’s probably
one of those things where they feel they can still have an impact.
_______________
The health day was so incredibly exciting and the children were so
enthralled with healthy eating and what they should be doing; how to
help someone with anorexia or eating disorders, we covered so many
things and I think it’s about opening the children’s eyes – that’s my own
kind of vision of it. I think we do that here, try to get them involved with
things, I think that’s most successful. I think you cover more that way
than sitting down in a classroom.
_______________
The most effective citizenship, for me, is steering away from text book
lessons, which we do have, and again we have to have that as back-up
for those non-specialists who want a text book they don’t want to do the
active lessons. I think citizenship is far better active…I think actively it
works well and the kids respond well to it. When you’re talking about
life issues you can’t learn it from a textbook, can you? Being active is far
better, far more effective.
Within the above quotes teachers advocate a distinct movement away from
textbook lessons to more activity-based lessons and events. It is suggested in
the first extract that this empowers pupils by allowing them to realise that they
can have an impact. The suggestion that students are allowed to take over the
lesson also indicates that they are empowered in the sense that they are
allowed to have some ownership of their own leaning. It is also suggested
within the third extract that more can be achieved within an activity-based
activity than in a conventional lesson. The third extract additionally suggests
that lessons and events where pupils can be actively involved are better suited
to the exploration of life issues such as those contained within citizenship.
Despite the advocations of the above extracts, there were other respondents
who reported the tendency of teachers to use textbooks or worksheets as quick
and easy fixes for citizenship education. The two main problems emerging here
are the lack of preparation for lessons and the lack of motivation displayed by
teachers to teach citizenship education.
Some will enjoy it, like myself and another couple of teachers along this
corridor who enjoy doing it, but they don’t want to know; they want a
text book, they want kids to sit quietly, they want to get on with
something else
_______________
97
everyone’s kind of, in the staff room, ‘what are we doing today?’, and
they get their little sheets, I don’t know whether they take it seriously
enough because it has never changed, whether you’re doing tutorial or
whether you call it Personal and Moral Education, it’s just that one extra
lesson, and staff don’t always want to do the preparation for it, they
want to be given some information.
_______________
I think the problem is that people don’t plan the lessons, like PD this
morning, ‘we’re covering citizenship, let’s open the book to page.., what
activity is it? Design a poster’, and that’s the problem we’ve got.
An aspect that was very obviously seen to be a key factor in the effectiveness
of citizenship was staff perceptions of citizenship as a subject. In a significant
number of cases, respondents indicated that citizenship was perceived
negatively by some if not most of the teaching staff at the respective schools.
The below extracts outline a number of reasons behind the negative views that
are held by some staff members towards citizenship education. The first
reflects the reluctance of teachers to take on the responsibility for teaching
another subject outside of their own specialist subject area. This indicates that
some teachers see citizenship as an unwelcome imposition and an additional
weight on their regular workload. According to the second extract some
teachers conceive citizenship to be a subject that consists largely of the teacher
sitting and talking to students. This view clearly does not perceive the
innovative active nature of citizenship education that is strongly advocated
within government guidelines. The third extract speaks of the difficulty of
establishing a system of integrated citizenship education because of the
reluctance of staff within different subject areas to implement and acknowledge
citizenship education within their day-to-day teaching. Lastly the fourth extract
explains that some teachers fail to take citizenship seriously or treat it as a
‘proper subject’ because of the subject’s lack of definition.
[E]everyone’s teaching it and you have got variable amounts of skill and
variable amounts of motivation, most teachers want to teach their
subject and nothing else.
_______________
It wasn’t easy for the staff because they thought citizenship, no one
wants to start talking, and other staff would say, all you have to do is sit
and talk.
_______________
I don’t think it’s as effective as it could be and other subjects could really
be taking that part of it on board and developing that, but as I said from
the problems earlier, not all staff are prepared to take it on board fully,
that’s a difficulty.
_______________
98
I was talking to some teachers about citizenship and they still sort of
make fun of it really as a subject. They called it namby-pamby or
something, its neither one thing or the other, it’s not a proper subject,
but it’s not a nothing subject either. I think it needs to be treated more
like a proper subject.
The sentiments reflected within these extracts were widely expressed among
citizenship educators questioned, who, whilst realising the value of citizenship
education also realised that attitudes of teachers towards the subject were
highly problematic. One of the respondents also indicated that pupils hold
similar perceptions towards citizenship education.
Years 10 and 11 they take things slightly differently they’re not so
bothered about who they want to be in terms of a good citizen and that
general idea, they are more interested that they want to get their maths
GCSE and their English GCSE and all the things that go with it, so that’s
the challenge.
Most respondents agreed that there was a genuine need for the general profile
of citizenship education to be heightened in order for the subject to progress.
The extent to which citizenship education was relevant to pupils’ lives, was also
thought to determine its effectiveness within schools.
I think your lesson has always got to be as relevant as possible to those
children’s lives so trying to build on their current experiences and
showing them how they already do or they don’t take part in the
community and then use that lesson to try and relate to that ... I think
you’ve got to make things relevant to the kids, you’ve got to bend and
manipulate your material to make it relevant and try and build on the
kids current experience of participating in the community or showing
them how they can participate in the community if they’re not
_______________
I think because the programme that we offer is real to our kids, it’s
about their everyday lives. When we look at issues, in Year 8 for
example, when we look at the models of crime there’s anti-social
behaviour etc our children don’t have to do very much research to come
up with the answers, they live it every day and it’s about telling them
how they need to focus to get the answer they need. It’s about their
experiences, they know all the answers.
Both of the above extracts suggest that making lessons relevant to pupils’ lives
has an empowering effect on pupils, ‘showing them how they can participate in
the community’ and suggesting to them that ‘they know all the answers’.
Citizenship coordinators thought that the qualification status of citizenship also
had a direct impact on the effectiveness of citizenship education. It was
99
perceived in some cases, that if citizenship education was or would be more
effective if students could take a GCSE in the subject.
I think at the moment we are still in an early stage of developing. I
think we have to develop a vision as to where we want to go with it.
Where we want to go with regard to qualifications is the main thing
because we don’t currently run any qualifications in it, and we need a
clear strategy for Key Stage 4, and I think when we’ve got the vision of
where we want to go we will have a really effective citizenship provision.
The indication here is that it is important for students to work towards
something and for students to have knowledge of ‘where they are going’ as
opposed to studying different topics without any tangible aim.
One respondent however, saw the status positioning of citizenship education to
be much deeper-rooted problem. This respondent suggests that even with
assessment and qualification structures, citizenship is generally not perceived in
the same light as other subjects. This respondent further suggests that this
problem is related to the profile of citizenship, which needs to be raised
significantly in order for citizenship to be on par with other subject areas.
The trouble is, we’re all guided towards this thing about assessment and
apart from the end of Key Stage 3 assessment which they have to have
under curriculum guidelines and the possibilities of GCSEs they don’t see
it in the same vein as they see other lessons, so it is devalued really
Hindrances to the Effectiveness of Citizenship Education
In addition to some of the comments outlined above. The respondents also
highlighted a number of factors that they perceived to be hindrances to the
effectiveness of citizenship education. In particular the home life of pupils and
the life they are involved in outside of the school was of particular concern.
Both of the below extracts refer to the negative influences that parents are
seen to have on their children. Influences that stand in opposition to the ethos
and values contained within citizenship education. In this sense some parents
are seen by teachers to greatly hinder the citizenship education process by the
counter-values, which they emit to their children within the home.
I think they take on their parents’ attitudes and that’s the problem that’s
the barrier that we’ve got to break at this school. The parents have a
very powerful influence on the pupils and it’s our job to try and stop that
culture really so the next generation don’t have the same stereotypes or
begrudgements.
_______________
We talk about making a difference, we talk about being part of things
and helping others and understanding other cultures, we deliver that and
we deliver it well, but when they go home and you’ve got parents who
100
really don’t care about other people other than what car they’re driving,
how successful they’re going to be, you can’t do anything about that. All
we can do is try to help them understand that it’s not just themselves in
this big world, there are lots of other people around them, and you’re
probably a lot more successful if you think about other people rather
than solely about yourself.
Some teachers also commented more generally on the home – school
dichotomy.
[M]y biggest frustration is with certain students you really would like to
help but they go home at the end of the day, and they’ve gone home
now and they’re going to spend 3 nights away before you see them
again [referring to the weekend], a lot could happen in that time. You’re
just scratching the surface with them, and unless you get to know them
well and get to know their parents well, you don’t know what’s
happening with them outside, and that’s where the influences are.
Again, if they are getting the right kind of support it’s great, but it’s the
ones who aren’t getting it, you worry about those.
_______________
We are just informing and giving them the details of things and how they
can ‘go out and do this’, have you thought about doing this’, ‘wouldn’t it
be great to..’, ‘lets do a project on this and make a difference’. We can
do those sort of things, but unless you’ve got somebody at home to
support you with it it’s very difficult to go home and be enthusiastic
about being part of a community if you go home and there’s no interest
there.
These coordinators seem to suggest that there is somewhat of a battle being
fought between the influences inside the school environment and those
without. The result of this battle is seen to be very much dependant on the
nature of support given to the pupil outside of the school. All three extracts
indicate the importance of establishing strong home-school connections in order
to increase the effectiveness of citizenship education in the lives of the pupils.
Other factors seen by one respondent to impact on the effectiveness of
citizenship education are the lifestyles and conceptions of the pupils
themselves.
I think one of the challenges is often in terms of groups of people and I
can only speak in the understanding of the groups of people that I teach,
the students, there are groups of people who keep solely to themselves
because their whole life revolves round their little community. We may
have those who are Muslims who really are involved in their own little
world, if I can use that term. Everything revolves round their mosque
and their families that live around the area, and in terms of the politics
they are involved in their local area with local councillors, quite a few of
101
our students, their parents are involved as local councillors solely in their
little area, and I think we have pockets of groups who are involved in
their own little communities and I would like to see them more involved
in other communities as well. I think some are quite insular and I would
like to see them looking more at the broader picture. But I think that’s
something that’s very hard to break, if your area revolves around your
religion, which is very emotive and very strong then that is your life,
perhaps you don’t see the broader picture
This respondent views students to be hindered by having too much involvement
in their ‘own little communities’. This is seen to be at odds with the citizenship
ethos and thus is described as a ‘challenge’. It is suggested that it is necessary
for pupils to get involved with other communities in order to gain a broader
perspective and establish a more selfless outlook towards others.
Within all of the extracts featured within this section there is a distinct
suggestion that citizenship education can only do so much and that some things
are simply beyond the reach of the subject. This is due to certain powerful
influences present outside of the school, which exert opposing values to those
promoted within citizenship education.
Perspectives from the Citizenship Teachers
With regards to the citizenship education curriculum, comments from teachers
were largely positive. Most comments pertained to the topics and issues
contained within the curriculum. Three of the teachers highlighted the variety
of topics or subject matter contained within the citizenship curriculum. The
first teacher highlights the connections between citizenship and other subjects
taught within secondary education. The second teacher comments on the
increased opportunity for pupils to relate to the subject matter in citizenship
because of the wide range of topics included. Whilst the third teacher also
identifies the wide range of topics contained in citizenship, as a factor of its
effectiveness, she also cautions that it may perhaps be overloaded. It was also
suggested that whilst the vastness of citizenship meant that it could be shaped
for use within the culturally diverse setting, it also caused a lack of prescription
which could result in teachers going ‘off on a tangent’ or being unsure as to
how certain subjects should be taught.
I think the citizenship curriculum is very effective, just because of the
way, the content of the syllabus for citizenship. It draws on a number of
disciplines, for example it draws on geography, history, English and all
the social sciences so I think it’s very effective in that way because even
though it’s a new subject, children shouldn’t perceive it as a new subject
because they have strands that they already know about which is
building on what they already know and teaching them in a different
way.
102
_______________
I think it was quite effective actually…the actual content, I think was a
good content that covered a wide range of things, and a lot of issues
that they could relate to, and just getting them to think about reading
newspapers and what’s going on in the world is very important,
_______________
I think it’s really comprehensive, it really goes into detail, I think it covers
everything that is required to be a good citizen and it talks about all the
different, you know, how voting works, and how globalisation works and
how you represent parliament. If they’re thorough I think it does I think
citizenship works…I am teaching topic by topic but from what I can tell
there’s loads in there, I think if anything they probably have too much in
there it doesn’t feel like there’s a stone unturned really, I think it’s quite
comprehensive, but I haven’t really gone through it with a fine tooth
comb.
The third teacher has additionally commented on the relevance of specific
topics covered within the citizenship. Topics which she believes are necessary
to cultivate a ‘good citizen’. In particular, this teacher highlights globalisation
and other political issues as key topic areas. Another teacher also highlights
the nature of topics covered within citizenship as a key factor of its
effectiveness. This teacher identifies the areas of; working together, interacting
with others and learning about different cultures as central areas of learning.
Whilst the previous teacher highlights issues within the wider political realm this
teacher pinpoints more socially based issues that relate more directly to the
everyday lives of pupils.
I think it is effective, because the children, it’s a life-skill I think, so if you
link it back to a life-skill it is because they need to know how to work
together, how to interact with people, different things like that. They
need to know about different cultures, and that is actually helping, and
they’ve got a lot of opinions as well, so it is effective, yes.
The idea that citizenship is effective because it caters for the specific needs of
pupils was also pinpointed by another teacher.
I would say it was fairly effective, just because it’s a subject that those
kids needed in particular, just because of where they were coming from.
The subject is about how to be a good citizen, and unfortunately some of
the kids don’t have role models in their lives so they need to have a
subject like that to actually help them to be a good citizen. Just looking
at their background, knowing where they are from and some of the
things that they came out with as well. Every child comes out with
stereotypes, but some of the stereotypes they were coming out with
were quite extreme, and I felt that subject helped address the issues, or
the comments they were coming out with so I did feel that citizenship
was fairly effective.
103
The factor of effectiveness most frequently mentioned by teachers emphasised
the need for pupils to relate to the issues explored within citizenship. Four of
the six teachers interviewed highlighted this point. Here this teacher contrasts
relevance with remoteness. In particular, this teacher mentions the integration
of current issues as a means of making citizenship education relevant for pupils.
I would say the need to make it relevant and not to make it an academic
study of something that’s remote, and we try and bring in current issues
that make it relevant to the pupils so that they’re engaging in something
that they have experience of.
_______________
[we] try and tailor it to make it relevant to what their experiences are.
_______________
[P]upils enjoy being able to talk and discuss about issues that affect
them directly in their community, and also take part in discussion with
external agencies about how things can be improved.
Two of these teachers spoke of the possibility of adapting general topics so that
they are relevant for to pupils’ lives.
I think they like things that they can see how it relates to them. If it’s
just ‘the EU’s the people in Brussels and they’re in charge of the EU’,
that’s a bit dry, so I think it’s important to try and talk about the topic in
a way that’s relevant to them to make it more interesting for them. I
think that sometimes the topics are quite dry, like globalisation could
well be argued to be a dull topic! So you have to try and see how it
would impact on them - in 100 years time you’re not going to be able to
get foods from around the world in supermarkets because of pollution
and all that, that sort of thing.
_______________
Yes, you’ve got strands in history, strands in English that kids can
identify with but citizenship you can allow kids to, you can personalise
the subject so kids can relate to it
In contrast to the above statements, another teacher projected a more critical
view of the citizenship curriculum. This teacher perceived that the teaching of
life skills within citizenship education is inadequate and is therefore in need of
further development. This teacher additionally emphasises the lack of time
available to fill perceived gaps in the curriculum.
I
It touches on the basic fundamentals but I think that there are
lots of gaps that should have been thought about prior to its
implementation, …there are lots of life skill issues that aren’t
touched on within the new citizenship curriculum, and when time
104
is at a premium within a curriculum and is already hard-pushed to
deliver everything that has to be delivered, then maybe thought
should have been given to some of these life skills. I don’t know
if the government expects us to create time in Form period or
other times on the curriculum to deliver a PSHE programme
alongside citizenship but in a school like this, and I would guess
any other school, then it is difficult to get that time available.
AS
You mentioned that you thought there were some gaps, what
specific areas do you think have been neglected?
I
When I think of life skills in particular, things like fundamental
form-filling understanding of forms, related to, not so much job
application, let’s say for example, I get an awful lot of people
come to me to ask about passport forms, particularly children who
have left who have adult… and I see huge gaps in simple filling in
forms like that and so there are issues around the curriculum.
With regards to the factors of effectiveness, teachers placed much of the onus
on the educator, stating that the effectiveness of the curriculum was dependant
on the teacher delivering it. On one hand two of the teachers suggested that
the teaching style and delivery had a significant influence on the effectiveness
of citizenship education. On the other hand, the second extract, highlights the
versatility of citizenship education as a factor of its effectiveness, particularly its
ability to pervade various subject areas and expand beyond the confines of the
classroom.
I think it’s not only about the school, but how it’s taught, and every
teacher has got their own different teaching style and the previous
teacher who taught it, taught it differently to me and the kids did inform
me about that as well.
_______________
[I]t’s effective because of the way it’s taught, and that it’s not taught
solely as a discrete subject, it is in year 8 and 11, but in Years 10 and 9
they have focus days on various aspects of the national citizenship
curriculum…so it runs right through every thread of school life.
In relation to the effect of the teacher on the effectiveness of citizenship
education at his school, one of the teachers emphasised his difficulty in
teaching the subject due his lack of citizenship training. This teacher didn’t feel
that he had the correct specific skills to teach citizenship.
It was also envisaged that the relationship between the teacher and the pupils
dictated the effectiveness of the citizenship education delivered. In particular,
the following teacher emphasises the importance of the rapport between
teacher and pupils and how important it was for the teacher to understand the
pupils they are teaching.
105
[Y]ou’ve got to understand who you are actually teaching that topic to
because without the understanding of the kids the subject won’t be
taught effectively…the kind of kids I was teaching you need to build up a
very good rapport with them before you can actually see how effective a
subject it. You need to build up trust with those kind of kids because a
huge proportion of them are disengaged, and they are disaffected. They
don’t trust so easily.
Another key hindrance issue highlighted by one teacher in relation to the actual
teaching of citizenship was the unwillingness of teachers to invest time in the
planning of citizenship activities because citizenship was beyond their specialist
subject remit. This teacher advocated that specialist citizenship teachers be
employed within school to enable the more effective delivery of citizenship
education. Two other teachers also mentioned problems with accessing
resources and the need further resources to be made available to citizenship
educators.
The sharing of experiences and opinions and the generally interactive nature of
citizenship was also seen to contribute to the effectiveness of citizenship
education. One of the teachers spoke of the value of experience sharing
among students and across the student – teacher divide. Another teacher
commented on the opportunity for pupils to contribute their views and opinions
within citizenship education as a contributing factor to its effectiveness which
also relates to the sharing aspect of citizenship.
…sharing experiences amongst pupils amongst staff and across that
divide makes it meaningful and I think that helps, certainly helps.
Teachers also spoke of certain pupil related factors that they perceived to be
connected to the effectiveness of citizenship education. Two of the teachers
mentioned the ability level of the group as a determinant factor. These
teachers suggested that lessons delivered to lower ability classes tended to be
less effective. One teacher mentioned that the lower ability pupils tended to be
generally less engaged and tended to have poorer behaviour. Another teacher
perceived that the low ability class had particular difficulties in grasping key
terminology and that they lacked certain skills. Another two teachers also
pinpointed the significance of the lesson time, which it seemed to be implied,
had an effect on the response of the students. These teachers mentioned the
last hour of the day and after lunch as two inappropriate times of the day in
which to teach citizenship education.
The multicultural nature of school populations was viewed as a factor of
effectiveness by two of the teachers interviewed. Within the first abstract the
teacher refers specifically to the multicultural dimension brought to the school
by the influx of pupils from differing cultural backgrounds and the building of
new skills and sharing of experiences. This implies that the multicultural nature
106
of the pupil population enhances citizenship by enabling the sharing of skills
and experiences from a range of viewpoints.
It’s a very multicultural school…so they [the pupils] bring expertise and
skills with them that are perhaps totally different to a suburban school or
a rural school where the people are all local and the families have lived
there for generations. So they bring a multicultural dimension, they
bring a language/cultural dimension, which you wouldn’t normally have
without that massive influx. So in a way, we’re building on new skills
and we’re also sharing experiences and I think in that sort of context we
deliver citizenship in an effective way ……
_______________
…the school I also taught at was very multicultural as well, very
multicultural and I think that made a difference how effective it was.
I’ve taught at other schools and I’ve got a different response.
Again the issue of qualification status surfaced within the discussion of
effectiveness one of the teachers suggested that the opportunity of pupils to
gain a citizenship qualification was a factor of its effectiveness. Another teacher
however, contradicted this point, claiming that in her view, citizenship was
effective because it was not centred around an aspiration for certain grades.
Hindrances to Effectiveness
Like in the coordinator interviews, the disparity between School and community
values was again identified as a hindrance to the effectiveness of citizenship
education. One teacher mentioned that pupils are often made to grapple with
two contrasting sets of values.
Citizenship here is thought of very highly by the pupils because of the
activeness in which we teach it and therefore it has meaning in here, it
has meaning in school I think one of the issues around what we need to
develop is that it has the same meaning when the children go out of
school and into the community, because quite often they have two
different sets of values
Responses of citizenship coordinators and citizenship teachers concerning the
effectiveness of citizenship education were largely similar. On the whole, the
citizenship curriculum was thought to be effective. Both groups of educators
spoke positively about the structure and content of the citizenship curriculum
and the freedom that it allowed. However educators also realised that the
flexibility of the curriculum and its extensive coverage was also the cause of
confusion amongst educators as to what citizenship actually is.
Some
responses also implied that these attributes of the citizenship curriculum could
also allow for teacher bias in the selection of lesson topics.
107
With regards to the factors of effectiveness, both teachers and coordinators
placed heavy emphasis on the approach of the teacher and the teaching
methods involved. In particular it was advocated that lessons be practical and
interactive. Educators’ reluctance and lack of planning were seen as key
hindrances to effectiveness as were contradictory influences within pupils home
and social spheres beyond the school.
108
ENGAGEMENT
Views from the Citizenship Coordinators
The Problematising of BME Engagement
When questioned about the extent to which BME pupils were engaged in
citizenship education two of the teachers questioned made the specific point
that it was possible to engage all students in the same way and that there was
little or no need to distinguish between groups. In fact, the notion of conscious
efforts being made in order to engage particular groups of pupils was seen to
be somewhat problematic in some cases.
I think a lot of it is to do with, in terms of citizenship point of view, the
key to me is once we come to school we are on a level platform and I
don’t think we should necessarily be starting to do too much focussing
on this group and focussing on that group and making it that it’s a big
issue and big problems with certain groups of people in this area. For
me it would be much better to deliver that this is how it is.
In the extract above, the respondent begins by commenting that in school all
pupils are on a ‘level platform’. If we place this comment in the context of the
whole extract, we see that there is a clear suggestion that ‘too much focusing
on this group and focusing on that group’ may distort this level platform,
causing inequalities amongst pupils. This teacher feels that the conscious effort
to engage pupils from BME groups could potentially cause problems instead of
solving them. It is also suggested that in focusing on certain groups, big issues
and problems could possibly be created in relation to those groups. The last
sentence of this extract additionally suggests that there is a standard way of
delivering citizenship education and that it is best to deliver it in this way, rather
than in a way that attempts to engage different groups.
Talking about our black students, they aren’t necessarily involved in the
black community because they may live not in a ‘black’ community,
because often students here … often aren’t in the communities, they are
in a predominantly white area that the black students might live in who
come into school … At school you are limited, you only have a certain
amount of time. I would love to start looking at and be able to look at
all the differences- this is the issue to do with black students, this is the
issue to do with Asian students and how they perceive their role in this
and that. If you started to look at every single thing you would never
get anything done, you would be talking about the same topic for
months.
In the extract above, this respondent further suggests that conscious efforts to
engage particular BME groups are not always necessary, using the example of
his own school, the second teacher assumes that since most of the black pupils
who attend the school do not live in ‘black’ areas they do not face the same
community specific issues as other black peers who live alongside other black
109
people within a ‘black’ area. There is a clear assumption here that those pupils
who do not live in ‘black’ areas are somehow disconnected from their ethnic
communities both geographically and psychologically. This respondent also
raises the issue of time and the fact that that there isn’t enough time in the
school context to consider differences between groups.
Determinants of Engagement
The heads of citizenship questioned, suggested a number of factors that
affected the extent to which BME pupils were engaged. One teacher suggested
that the engagement of BME pupils in citizenship education was dependent on
their engagement in education in general. In this instance the respondent
placed the engagement of pupils in the wider context of the schooling
curriculum as a whole. Another respondent similarly stated that pupils could be
engaged as much or as little as they wanted. Here the onus was placed
specifically on the pupils.
On the other hand it was also suggested that the engagement of BME pupils
was dependant on the enthusiasm or knowledge of the teacher and how much
preparation is done for the lesson.
It engages them as much and as little as they want, and I think a lot
comes down to whoever’s there in front of the classroom getting them
involved. I think if I hadn’t been guiding and enthusing about the topic
because I am the citizenship coordinator and I do think it’s an exciting
subject to do, and it has so much potential, that comes across to the
children … but what if you have a member of staff who doesn’t? Or
hasn’t had time to prepare anything or can’t be bothered to do
something then maybe some of the children from different backgrounds
might not feel so engaged.
_______________
I think the problem is that people don’t plan the lessons, like PD this
morning, ‘we’re covering citizenship, let’s open the book to page.., what
activity is it? Design a poster’, and that’s the problem we’ve got.
Another key determinant factor of engagement was whether or not the issues
discussed or topic areas studied actually affected black and minority ethnic
communities. Here it was thought that pupils from BME groups were more
likely to be engaged in the study of issues that affected their particular
communities.
I think it engages them in the sense that our curriculum when we look at
the issues that affect that community, or those communities in our
community.
_______________
110
I think you can be inclusive to all if you make it specific to the groups of
people that you’ve got.
In addition, another respondent explained that the black students in the classes
he taught were ‘far more engaged’ in lessons concerning black history.
The engagement of BME pupils through the exploration of issues relating to
BME communities was viewed with a certain amount of scepticism however.
One of the teachers expressed particular concerns about the efforts being made
to involve pupils in fundraising activities. This teacher suggests that whilst the
selection of fundraising causes that are related to the cultural backgrounds of
students, may secure their involvement, there is also the danger that pupils can
in the process be prevented from cultivating wider views.
… that is a way of supposedly getting children engaged because it’s
something close to their heart or to do with their cultural background,
and yet again I think they sometimes need to look a bit wider than that.
The account given by this teacher suggests that there is a need to look not only
at the extent to which pupils are engaged but the motivating factors behind
their engagement.
There is also an underlying suggestion that pupil
engagement is not necessarily synonymous with effective citizenship education.
Another key determinant of engagement featured in the responses was the
delivery of lessons or the teaching methods used. Here it was suggested that it
was possible to get everybody engaged, regardless of the subject matter, if the
style of delivery suited the class population. In the below two extracts it is
clear that the respondents view delivery styles to be central to the engagement
of BME pupils. The first extract comments on the efforts of the teacher to
connect political issues, to the world of ‘pop-rap’. Here the teacher gives
account of their efforts to connect issues, which may be seen to be somewhat
disconnected from students’ everyday lives, to an area of youth culture that is
seen to be very much integral to the everyday lives of black students in
particular. In the second extract, the teacher focuses more on the teaching
style. This teacher explains how she ensures the engagement of black students
by teaching in accordance with their perceived learning styles.
Again it’s about shaping if we’re talking about democracy we would try to
put it on to the level our students has. Our black students are very.. if
we talk about music and try to link it into the pop-rappers and different
things who are trying to portray their politics through that, that might
catch their interest. If you can pick little things out that some people are
attracted to you can get their attention for a little bit and I think that’s
what we try to do ...
_______________
…we try to engage all pupils no matter what ability and what ethnic
background by doing a real variety of tasks and we use a lot of teaching
111
and learning styles for example in some of the groups I teach, some of
the black lads aren’t so interested in the writing but will do a lot of active
learning and kinaesthetic learning to get them engaged.
Whilst their efforts may be seen as commendable, It is clear that both of the
above teachers have used typical stereotyping of students to dictate their
choice of teaching method. This assumption based generalising of pupils is
unreliable and potentially detrimental.
Indicators of Engagement
There were two main indicators of BME pupil engagement highlighted by
citizenship heads, the first of these was the enjoyment of the pupils.
I don’t see it as an add-on or a particular thing that would be particularly
attractive or unattractive because it’s built into the structure of what’s
going on, so I couldn’t say that it is particularly attractive or not, but I
know that they enjoy the activities we do and that they do respond to
them.
_______________
I would say fairly well engaged. It’s really difficult to comment on in my
experience. If I comment on the trips I have done they have been the
most engaged.…at the Young People’s Parliament, they were the ones
that really got their teeth into it and really enjoyed it, and enjoyed the
opportunity to express their views. So from what I’ve done, they are
very engaged
Both of the teachers quoted above perceive the enjoyment expressed by BME
pupils as an indication that these pupils are engaged with the citizenship
education being delivered.
In both cases these comments have been
forwarded as evidence of BME pupil engagement.
The second indicator of engagement was the inclusion of all pupils or the
absence of exclusion. Teachers perceived that if everyone was included then
this was an indicator that all pupils were being engaged.
I think there’s more we need to do to get the kids engaged but I
wouldn’t have thought, it doesn’t occur to me that it’s something that’s
particularly, that they would find particularly alien. I don’t think they
would, maybe I need to do some more research on that, and I’m very
happy to do that.
_______________
my children have always been engaged in the topics because I’m there
guiding them. I haven’t had anybody feel demotivated and don’t want to
be involved in it – they can see it has potential
_______________
112
There is no distinction made whatsoever, there is no reason why the
students can’t engage in their local communities, most of it is round
here, in the same way that white students do. There is no division, no
separation or perception of separation at all, either in the eyes of the
staff or the students here, we all belong to one community, and that
goes without saying, it’s an assumption, and no student feels in any way,
shape or form that they are somehow different or excluded or whatever.
They’re just not excluded in any way shape or form. They are engaged
as anyone else is engaged. They are students whether they are black,
white, Asian or whatever
The final quote also raises the issue of opportunity, suggesting that all pupils
have an equal opportunity to be involved in their community and that this
indicates that all pupils are equally engaged in citizenship education.
Views from the Citizenship Teachers
Of the six teachers questioned, three perceived that the pupils from BME
backgrounds within their schools were just as engaged as other pupils at the
school. The other three teachers failed to give a direct answer to the question.
All teachers spoke about the various factors that they perceived to lead to
engagement or disengagement of these pupils.
Factors of Engagement
Similar to coordinators responses, a key factor of engagement that emerged
very clearly within responses was the relevance of the topics to pupil’s lives.
Three of the teachers emphasised how important it was for pupils to be able to
relate to the material and content of citizenship lessons in order for them to be
engaged in the lesson.
I think it’s making sure that the material is relevant for the kids and then
you’ll engage the kids, and that’s one way you make it inclusive for black
and minority ethnic kids, just make sure the material’s relevant because
in other subjects kids are subjected to material that they can’t relate to
and that’s when they switch off
_______________
If it is meaningless and has no purpose and it’s certainly not relevant to
you as a pupil you might even just go to sleep in the lesson rather than
actually listen, and certainly not participate because all you’d say is ‘huh,
rubbish’, and nobody wants to do that.
_______________
I think they are engaged, the ones that I can think of they are engaged
because it might affect them, it might affect their families and its
113
something they can relate to, so I would say yes, they’re engaged,
definitely.
Whilst the above criteria pertaining to lesson content may seem quite
prescriptive, the following teacher also talks about the flexibility of citizenship
as a subject and how this enables her to choose from wide range of associated
materials.
[C]itizenship is an unconventional subject, it should be taught like no
other and it’s quite unique and that’s because of the degree of flexibility
of the subject, and because the subject is flexible I can use whatever
materials I want. I tend to go off on a tangent I can talk about the …, if
I want to but then I can also talk about Martin Luther King to illustrate
my point, or talk about Gandhi, or talk about a famous, positive
figurehead so that I can engage the kids. I can talk about local issues as
well in citizenship. Citizenship is made up of strands and one of those
strands is to look at the national and the local areas.
In relation to lesson content and the topics covered, two teachers highlighted
identity as a typically engaging topic for BME pupils. In both of these extracts
the teachers seem to emphasise the exploration of uniqueness and the sharing
of this uniqueness as the key element of attraction for pupils from BME
communities. These teachers speak of pupils being able to discuss unique
elements of their cultures and the enjoyment and pride that pupils experience
when engaging in such discussions. Both teachers also highlight the general
importance of this topic for pupils from these groups.
When I was teaching identity the kids loved it because they were able to
talk about them, and one of the things that was quite significant for me
was that part of their identity was being black or being Asian, and that’s
what came across quite strongly, about their identity, that some of their
parents were from the Caribbean, that they ate Caribbean food, that
they like black music and I think the kids like that because they found
the subject to be relevant, they were engaged and it addressed their
needs because they were able to talk about themselves.
_______________
It gets them to think about their past and where they are from. Again, I
mentioned identity, I really do think it helps them to think about their
identity. I think it’s really important that they have a sense of identity
and a sense of being part of a group, even if this group is a minority,
and maybe getting them to think that it’s ok to be different, and I think
that’s really important.
_______________
114
I think they [BME pupils] have probably been brought up to be proud of
their cultures and stuff and I think that sense of pride does come out
and so they can show the other pupils in the class.
Quite opposite to the comments made above, another teacher also spoke
extensively about the topics that pupils from BME backgrounds found
particularly disengaging:
I think there are aspects that are hard to deliver and there are aspects
that people do not wish to be engaged in at the risk of using
stereotypes, looking at the groups in my school I have the greatest
difficulties with health issues when I’m dealing with African-Caribbean
boys…Asian girls who are Muslim do not wish to do certain health issues
and sex education is a problem in terms of delivery to those pupils who
are female who’s parents come from various but not all racial
backgrounds but who are Muslim but feel very strongly on religious
grounds that they don’t want their daughters, especially teenage
daughters being in receipt of sex education. One of the groups I
mentioned before, I didn’t actually refer to them with a descriptive label,
but same sex relationships are certainly taboo in any Muslim community
and in any fundamentalist Christian community, and both of those
communities are well represented in my school, so some of my
colleagues would say you take your life in your hands if you’re really
going to deal with that issue and try and do it in an inclusive way…You
are going to get people who aren’t engaged because of what the
material is and not for the reason that they’re not interested or they’re
disaffected about school or life in general.
Here this teacher points out the hindrances to engagement that are related to
religious backgrounds of pupils, which he believes influence their approach to
certain topics within citizenship education. This teacher later mentions that it
is due to this disengagement of certain pupils with the identified topics that
some teachers would not be prepared to tackle them. This teacher also
highlighted the negative influence of parents and the wider community on pupil
engagement.
Other factors of disengagement identified by teachers were related to the
influences of the home and the wider society.
How do you teach a group of people that are between 11 and 19 that it
is important first of all to study this issue, to understand it, when
everyone they meet outside school isn’t interested in it, thinks it’s a
waste of time and will probably criticise school if it became known in that
community that they were spending time doing that instead of
concentrating on the 3 R’s?
_______________
115
[H]ow many of their parents, that they go home to every night are
interested in the government are interested in politics, have sufficiently
strong views to engage with their children about the issues that we’ve
been doing in school and we’ve been talking about. And that’s a
handicap for lots of schools, particularly inner city schools the sort of
disaffection whenever they go home, the failure to establish strong links
between school life and home life and the relevance of what they’re
doing.
For another teacher, a major hindrance to the engagement of pupils in general,
lay in the teaching and status of citizenship education.
I think there’s various reasons why the kids weren’t engaged; because
they’d had different teachers teaching it, I just think it’s because of the
status of the subject within the school, and the kids knew they weren’t
going to get anything out of the subject by the time they left – there was
no exam in the subject so kids were quite complacent and especially the
kids in Year 9 as well, the subject was only introduced to them when
they were in Year 8 so they weren’t used, they came to the school, they
hadn’t done citizenship for a year and then they were in the school for a
year and then they were given a subject they were told they had to do
as well as their other subjects, and not only did they have to do a
subject, but they were doing a subject that they had no exam in, and
that is the only subject in the school that has no exam so the kids were
quite complacent and didn’t value the subject highly at all, but you had
some groups in Year 7 who were very engaged, very motivated and
loved the subject.
This teacher specifically emphases the lack of formal citizenship examinations.
Here we see that whilst the unconventional nature of citizenship was seen to
contribute to its effectiveness, it was also perceived that the absence of
conventional assessment processes caused the subject to be devalued. In
particular this teacher mentions the students need to ‘get something out’ of the
subject a need that was not being fulfilled in citizenship.
The responses from teachers also indicated that the subject teacher could also
affect the engagement of students in citizenship education.
[W]e’re not all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, the same mixture is
reflected in my colleagues, which helps because if you have someone
from one particular racial grouping, male or female group who are a
problem then there’s probably someone from the same community of the
same gender on the staff so you engage their help.
Here this teacher states that the range of ethnicities represented in the staff
population helps with the engagement of pupils from BME backgrounds. This
116
suggests that the ethnic backgrounds of staff members does at least to some
effect, have a bearing on the engagement of BME pupils.
Another teacher also identifies the organisation of teaching and the actual
teacher as another factor of pupil engagement. In particular this teacher
comments on the lack of consistency in the teaching of the subject stating that
the class that she thought had had a number of different teachers teaching the
subject. This teacher also highlights the disadvantages of non-specialists
teaching the citizenship particular in relation to the quality and status of the
subject.
[T]he disadvantage of non-specialist teachers teaching citizenship is that
they have, their main aim, is their own subject. If they’ve got a full
timetable and they’re given another subject like citizenship to teach then
they’re not going to put 100% into it, and if they don’t put 100% into it
then this is going to reflect in their lessons and the kids are going to pick
that up and they’re not going to be very motivated. I also think that
another disadvantage of using non-specialist teachers is that teachers
know, if you give a French teacher citizenship to teach the kids know
that teacher as the French teacher so I think it devalues the subject.
These comments connect closely to those made by coordinators, again
emphasising the detrimental effects of educators’ approach to citizenship.
In contrast to preceding comments, one of the teachers commented on the
perceived universal application of citizenship for all pupils. This teacher directly
relates the engagement in citizenship to the universality of human rights,
perceiving that all pupils have the same rights and therefore all aspects of the
citizenship curriculum should apply equally to all pupils. This teacher therefore
concludes that citizenship education engages BME pupils just as much as it
does pupils from other groups.
[E]veryone has the same rights within the classroom and within the UK.
I think it would be different if the different minority groups had different
rights, but everyone has equal rights in the UK, so every aspect of the
curriculum should apply equally to them so I can’t see that it wouldn’t
engage them.
This emphasis on the sameness of pupils strongly relates to comments made by
coordinators concerning the problematising of conscious efforts to engage BME
pupils.
Indicators of Engagement
Only three of the six teachers highlighted indicators of engagement within their
responses.
117
I got them to do a publication and that was absolutely fabulous because
they were really engaged and they wanted to participate, and you know
that a subject is effective if the kids want to do it as well.
_______________
[L]ast year’s Year 11 the ethnic minority children who took the exam
would have got results that were comparable if not better than white
majority groups, so they do engage, it’s not that they switch off and
think this is not a subject that involves me.
_______________
The two I can think of in particular are very focused and very willing to
give their opinion and I think if you want to give your opinion on
something you’ve got to know a little bit about it and some of the others
in the form don’t, so I think they are engaged.
Within the first extract the teacher considers the desire of pupils to participate
in lessons as a positive sign of engagement. The second extract highlights the
examination results of BME pupils in citizenship whilst also adding that the
pupils do not display disinterest in the subject and therefore they are to his
knowledge, engaged. The third extract focuses on the perceived knowledge of
the pupils. This teacher sees the displayed knowledge of pupils (shown
through their ability to give their opinion) as evidence of the engagement of
BME pupils in citizenship education. Two other teachers also focused on the
knowledge and achievement of the pupils as indicators of their engagement.
Overall the concept of engagement of BME pupils conjured mixed views from
educators. A minority of educators strongly emphasised the sameness of pupils
from different ethnic backgrounds. For two of these educators in particular, the
concept of the specific engagement of BME pupils was seen to be impractical
and unnecessary. An additional coordinator again cautioned that specific
measures to engage BME pupils may in fact prevent pupils from cultivating
wider views. In terms of the determinants of engagement, the subject matter
of the lessons was again highlighted as a key factor. Much importance was
placed on the relevance of the lesson content to the pupils’ lives. The approach
of the educator to citizenship education was also labelled as a key factor.
with regards to the indicators of engagement, educators spoke of very general
signs such as the inclusion of pupils in lessons or activities, pupils knowledge,
pupils desire to participate and the enjoyment levels of pupils. Some teachers
however, envisaged more general basic indicators of engagement such as the
absence of pupil exclusion from the lesson or activity.
118
INCLUSIVENESS OF THE CITIZENSHIP CURRICULUM TO BME GROUPS
Under the theme of inclusion, respondents were asked both about the
inclusiveness of the citizenship curriculum in general and about the citizenship
education delivered in the respective schools. Answers to these two separate
lines of enquiry remained largely similar in that similar reasoning was used in
the answers given. The following section will therefore constitute a joint
examination of the inclusiveness of both the citizenship curriculum and inschool citizenship education as commented on by the staff members
questioned.
Perspectives from the Citizenship Coordinators
Factors of Inclusion
Within their responses, respondents suggested a number of factors which they
perceived to be constituents of inclusion, particularly within the context of BME
pupils. These were aspects that respondents mentioned as evidence that the
citizenship curriculum or the citizenship education within the school was
inclusive. Some respondents also explained what they thought an inclusive
lesson or activity should consist of which again revealed perceived factors of
inclusion.
The most common factor of inclusion that was found within the responses
given, pertained to the easy or open access that pupils have to citizenship
education.
those who come from a different ethnic origin, whether AfricanCaribbean or Asian are actually finding themselves perfectly able to enter
into, to participate, to join in and to be able to reflect on themselves as
being citizens of this community in the same way as their white
contemporaries and white friends are.
_______________
it’s not exclusive of anybody by it’s very nature it’s inclusive
_______________
Everyone has equal access, nobody is left out, special needs are taken
into consideration so I think it is totally inclusive. There are no special
dispensations for anybody and kids do not get left out of things or
brought specifically into things
_______________
It’s inclusive in that no-one is excluded from them, so everyone is
involved in citizenship, and everyone is involved in tutorial time
The first of the above three extracts speaks about the citizenship curriculum
whilst the second, third and fourth extracts speak of in-school citizenship
education. The second and third quotes in particular reflect the view that the
119
availability of citizenship education to all pupils in itself, is an indication of its
inclusiveness. The first and fourth quotes proceed further in suggesting that
pupils’ ability to experience equal involvement and participation in citizenship
education also indicates inclusivity.
Equality of voice in the classroom was also thought to be an important aspect
of inclusion or inclusive practice.
We try and make sure that everyone has an equal voice in the
classroom, so I think we do in terms of lesson content, we try and do
that.
The third key factor of inclusion pertained to the subject matter of the
citizenship lessons delivered. As was the case with the effectiveness of
citizenship education. It was thought that the inclusiveness of citizenship
education was dependant upon the relevance of the subjects or issues covered,
to the everyday lives of pupils. Within the first extract, the respondent seems
to relate the inclusiveness of citizenship to the tailoring of citizenship education
to meet the needs of pupils. This respondent also suggests that this involves
looking at the ‘real issues’ as opposed to shying away and only focusing on
issues that are ‘easy to handle’. The second extract similarly highlights the
importance of pupils being able to relate to the issues covered in citizenship
education and the importance of covering issues that affect students’ everyday
lives.
we tailor it to meet our needs and from what I’m teaching in Year 8 and
Year 11 I think it is, and not only do I think it is but our response from
pupils within those focus groups think it is. We’re not here to be nice
and think everything’s lovely in the garden we want to look at the real
issues.
_______________
AS
Are there any ways that you think the citizenship curriculum could
be made more inclusive for black and minority ethnic pupils?
I
I think if it were made compulsory that you had to have an hours
lesson per week of citizenship that covered issues that all groups
could relate to and issues that affect their day-to-day lives.
This sentiment is also expressed in the following extract. In the view of this
respondent, inclusiveness is indicated by the absence of purposeful steering of
views and ‘stifling’ of issues. These three extracts pertain to the subject matter
of citizenship education, which according to respondents, must be reflect real
life in an open and honest manner in order for citizenship to be inclusive.
I can only suggest that non-inclusive citizenship would either be
discriminatory in who you included, as in who took part in it, or it might
be discriminatory in the way that you delivered something which might
120
steer their view in a particular direction, and neither of those things
happen ... I don’t think there is anyone being left out or issues being
stifled or anything like that.
One of the specific ways in which lessons were made relevant to students was
through the exploration of key dates and events connected to BME
communities. These dates and events were both current and historical.
I always try and make things as relevant as I can do, so for example,
one thing I did last year, when there was the England Spain match and
the awful chanting against Shaun Wright-Philips, we were doing racism
at the time so I did a lesson on that and tried to pose some questions to
the kids about what did they think should happen there … and we have
done things in history, and in the history provision when we look at the
war effort and the number of black troops that were involved in that.
When I’ve taught history I’ve tried to do bits about that as well. So
always trying to make sure things are relevant, but I’m sure I could do
more like everything else.
_______________
Something else we did that comes into history, we did a small display in
the library last year on black history month, so we are conscious of that
kind of thing. It is coming more into the consciousness of the people.
There was also the suggestion that certain topics were overarching and were
relevant for everybody including BME groups and therefore indicated inclusion.
The PD work would cover issues that are aimed at all sections of the
population, so I wouldn’t say they are being excluded from their learning
in any way in the issues that are being addressed though PD, they do
cater for everybody. So in that respect I wouldn’t say there are any
issues there.
_______________
AS
Do you think the curriculum, as it stands as the moment, is
inclusive to black and minority ethnic young people?
I
I think so. I feel that when we have been looking, in Years 7 and
8, at things like bullying, we’ve tried to look at who we are and
identity, we’ve tried to look at that.
The first extract clearly explains that the universality of the issues covered
within citizenship means that they are relevant for everyone which indicates
that the citizenship education delivered is inclusive to BME groups. The second
extract indicates that the respondent views topics such as bullying and identity
to be examples of such universal issues that whilst not being specific to BME
groups, are relevant to all pupils.
121
Within the responses given, respondents also suggested ways in which
citizenship education could be made more inclusive. One respondent for
instance mentioned that the lack of time was a particular hindrance. She
believed that given more time, she could conduct research into inclusive
practice and that she could then use this information to ensure that everyone
was being included. Another teacher suggested that conducting a pupil survey
asking pupils what they would like to be included in citizenship education,
would also help to improve the inclusiveness of citizenship education.
Views from the Citizenship Teachers
The Inclusiveness of Citizenship Education for BME Pupils
When questioned about the inclusiveness of citizenship education, only one of
the teachers gave a direct answer as to how inclusive the current citizenship
curriculum is for BME pupils or how inclusive citizenship education was within
the respective schools.
Responses did however reveal staff members
perceptions of inclusive practice. One teacher commented on the flexibility of
citizenship education as an aspect, which he believed enabled inclusive practice.
Another teacher similarly commented on the variety of issues covered in
citizenship, as a key indication of the inclusive nature of citizenship education.
…because it lends itself to talking about a wide range of experiences,
therefore, if you are in a majority white class and you have some black
or Asian pupils from other backgrounds they are able to contribute. I do
think it gives them a sense of actually feeling that they can contribute
because they have got a different opinion and a different experience. I
do think it does help, definitely.
_______________
you can get different opinions, we’re looking at different issues and it’s
taking everybody in, it’s everyone’s opinion.
In terms of the elements that contribute to the inclusiveness of citizenship
education, again the importance of incorporating material that pupils from BME
backgrounds can relate to, was emphasised. One teacher in particular
mentioned her use of materials that students could ‘identify with’, referring to
the inclusion of issues that have affected and will affect the lives of pupils from
BME backgrounds. This teacher also emphasised the importance of the quality
and style of teaching in inclusive practice.
I do think if it’s taught well, and taught in an interactive way and an
active way, that you can make the subject inclusive.
Most of the teachers referred to the opportunity for pupils to share experiences
and contribute their opinions during citizenship related activities. This was the
most prevalent means of ensuring inclusiveness that emerged within interview
responses. Each of these teachers clearly saw great value in allowing pupils the
122
opportunity to contribute to class discussions from their own unique viewpoints
that are heavily influenced by cultural and religious factors.
The content of it, whether it makes, if it’s inclusive for the kids, I would
say yes, because the strands of citizenship making sure that they give an
informed opinion, making sure that they learn about belief and values,
and they are being critical,
_______________
We do a lot of sharing of experiences as part of the process of delivering
citizenship to try and make it meaningful. The fact that people are
sharing means that their own experiences are, in the process, are being
expressed, and therefore they are being included…I can give them
specific closed questions that would hopefully produce very short, brief,
meaningless answers or I can get them to engage in the process by
discussing in small groups, large groups, the entire group, something
that gives input so that is being inclusive but the teacher can’t do that
other than to generate the situation where you enable them, empower
them, encourage them to give you the feedback and I think in
citizenship, more than in any other subject, with perhaps PSHE as an
exception, that that is so important,
_______________
I try as part of my lessons to get as many people contributing as
possible. Whether I’m inclusive, I would like to think I am, but I guess
there are certain pupils in the group that don’t really participate as much
that may happen to be in an ethnic minority, but that might very well
just be that they just don’t participate, but generally I’ll ask questions
and try and get people to contribute about their experiences and stuff,
and if I know that a certain person will have a different opinion or
experience due to their ethnicity I will try and help them contribute.
_______________
AS
Do you feel that the citizenship education that you personally
deliver is inclusive to black and minority ethnic pupils?
I
Yes, I think so…because you can get different opinions, we’re
looking at different issues and it’s taking everybody in, it’s
everyone’s opinion. So whatever background you come from it’s
everybody’s opinion we want, so yes, I think so.
Another teacher suggested that the citizenship education that he delivered was
inclusive because it incorporated an awareness of cultural diversity amongst
pupils. For this teacher the key factor of inclusive education is the pupils
understanding of each other’s cultures. As opposed to focusing specifically on
the inclusiveness of the lesson content and materials, this teacher highlights the
pupils’ wider knowledge of each other’s cultural background.
123
I teach with a view of making all groups aware of the diversity of each
other. I mean it takes an awful lot for children to understand what a
culture is and their experience of other cultures. Lots of children of all
groups will look at you and say ‘I don’t have experience of other
cultures’, yet if you say to them ‘do you eat a curry?’, suddenly they’ve
got experience of an Asian culture, or your French curriculum within
school, you have access to a foreign language, holidays, the cultures of
the different groups within the UK, and then when we open it up and
talk of Birmingham and the diversity we have in this city they realise that
every day they are touched by different cultural issues…I’m very much
aware of my responsibility of making the children aware of the needs of
other groups and their responsibility for their needs.
In contrast to the perspectives forwarded by most teachers two teachers
perceived that the citizenship curriculum was universally relevant because of
the incorporation of certain universally important topics. The first teacher
highlights its focus on the working of the UK and the UK government system,
issues which she perceived to be beneficial to all pupils regardless of their
ethnic back ground.
I honestly don’t think there’s anything wrong with the curriculum.
Citizenship is literally about how the UK works, how different government
system works, how to be a good citizen. So I think that’s going to be
good regardless of the colour of your skin, it’s not going to not be
relevant to someone because they’re black or they’re Asian or whatever
minority they are it’s still going to be relevant. So I think it’s completely
relevant.
In line with these sentiments, this teacher proceeds further in suggesting the
citizenship education she has delivered is inclusive to BME pupils because she
has not touched on issues of race and ethnicity topics which she perceives are
tenuous and have the potential of excluding pupils and not including them.
This teacher additionally commented however, that even in this tackling of
universal issues, there is a possibility that culturally specific issues may be
inadvertently touched upon. In particular this teacher highlights the potential
disparity between the teachings of equality within citizenship education and the
customs of particular cultures in which men and women occupy specific gender
roles.
I suppose it might go against, I’m just going to show my own ignorance,
I know some perhaps Asian families the role between men and women
aren’t so equal are they, they are, but in the sort of early generations to
the country they would definitely have been stuck in a gender role, the
woman stay would at home and the man is in charge, so I don’t know
whether citizenship would obviously talk about equal rights, and I don’t
know if that would infringe on what children, or family ethics that
originally existed, maybe
124
This teacher also proceeded to suggest that there were certain ‘neutral’
overarching topics within citizenship that were risk free because there were no
envisaged cultural or racial implications.
Yes definitely.
I haven’t touched on a subject yet that ethnic
background would have an impact on or would be something that you
might have to be wary of. We’ve been looking at globalisation and we’ve
been looking at what makes a good citizen and that’s just based, it
doesn’t matter what colour skin you’ve got or where you’re from it’s not
going to change. So I haven’t yet and I don’t think there’s much in the
curriculum that lends itself to causing offence or causing someone to feel
left out or not included in the lesson. So yes, I would like to think that
I’m alright.
In addition to the above comments one of the teachers questioned, also
commented on the general inclusiveness of citizenship education specifically
focusing on pupils responses to certain issues contained within the teaching
programme. This teacher envisaged that citizenship could never be made to be
totally inclusive due to the concepts and beliefs held by pupils, which were
heavily influenced by the society in which the pupils are based. In this sense
this teacher saw the inclusiveness of citizenship to be beyond the control of the
school.
[E]very policy that we have, we have tried to be as inclusive as possible
and yet there are three distinctive groups in my school, who will never
because of either their racial or religious, or both, background will never
accept same sex relationships, would never accept someone who they
would say is gay or lesbian and would verbally at least, as a minimum,
would immediately verbally attack them and denounce them…I see
gender issues arising in some religious groups, and that isn’t always
cultural it’s sometimes in religious groups where they would never accept
the authority of a woman…. that is something that defines the context in
which you work, so it doesn’t matter how inclusive you try to be there is
always that element that is getting in the way.
It is clear that this teacher equated the inclusiveness of citizenship education
for BME pupils, to the conceptions and beliefs of pupils. According to the above
extract, although the school promotes inclusively, the perspectives of the pupils
themselves are seen to be somewhat opposed to this aspect of the school
ethos. This teacher sees the pupils’ non-acceptance of certain realities relating
to citizenship, as an indication of non-inclusiveness.
Here again we see that a clear disparity is made between what the school is
attempting to teach through citizenship education and what is promoted by the
wider communities of pupils. In this sense the wider community is again
portrayed as a hindrance to the effectiveness of citizenship education. This is
further emphasised in the following extract:
125
You can’t isolate a child in school from what they experience at home,
what they’ve learnt at home, what they’ve learnt in their place of
worship and so on, you can’t isolate them from that. We don’t work in a
vacuum, we work in the real world, and we all bring our experiences of
the real world, so no matter how purposeful and meaningful schemes of
work, outlines of work, curriculum are in their design, you still have that
element to deal with.
Improvements to Inclusion
With reference to the improvement of the inclusiveness of citizenship education,
one teacher suggested that there is a distinct need for further guidance as to
what teachers should be teaching in order to cause citizenship to be more
inclusive for the culturally diverse pupil population. Here this teacher refers to
the overly flexible nature of citizenship and suggests that citizenship needs to
be more prescriptive in order for topics such as identity to be tackled
appropriately. This teacher further comments that this is especially important
for teachers who are not from a BME background who are likely to have less of
an awareness of the topics that are relevant for BME pupils. This teacher
additionally comments that pupils need to be questioned about what they want,
within the context of citizenship education in order to ensure that the
citizenship syllabus is relevant to them.
It was clear that most, if not all educators viewed citizenship as a generally
inclusive subject. Again, the importance of real and relevant topics was
emphasised. Educators also placed considerable emphasis on the pupils access
to citizenship education. Namely, the ability of pupils to participate in and
contribute to citizenship lessons.
Some educators envisaged that inclusiveness was obtained through the
exploration of key topics such as cultural diversity (learning about other
cultures) and the workings of the UK system and also specific topics connected
to the pupils ethnic background. Some teachers also proposed that there are
certain fundamental topics within citizenship that are universally relevant and
cause citizenship to be a universally relevant subject in and of it self.
In terms of the improvement of inclusion, one teacher perceived that attitudes
held with the religious or community groups of BME pupils significantly hindered
the inclusiveness of citizenship education. It was also suggested by both a
teacher and coordinator that in order to improve inclusiveness, pupil surveys be
carried out to gauge how included pupils feel and perhaps how they would like
to be included.
Again the responses given by coordinators and teachers were largely similar.
Responses were promising in the sense that a high importance was placed on
the active involvement of pupils as an indicator of inclusion and the relevance
of the lesson contents to their lives. On the other hand however, the
perception of citizenship being an innately universal subject due to its
126
incorporation of perceived universal topics can be somewhat detrimental.
There is a risk that teachers will become less proactive in implementing
inclusive measures because of an over reliance on the ‘naturally’ inclusive
nature of citizenship. The very concept of inclusive topics employed by these
educators is concerning, since it seems not to consider the differing cultural
interpretations of the same topics despite their seeming neutrality. It is
therefore important that citizenship educators adopt a more complex
conception of inclusion and inclusive education.
127
CULTURAL DIVERSITY
Perspectives from the Citizenship Coordinators
Six of the eight citizenship coordinators envisaged that the citizenship
curriculum was adequate for the culturally diverse school setting. Three of the
coordinators equated the adequateness of the citizenship curriculum with its
flexibility. In the following extracts the citizenship coordinators explain that the
wide scope and flexibility of the citizenship curriculum means that citizenship
educators can shape it to meet their needs, and that this causes the curriculum
to be appropriate for the culturally diverse school setting:
Provided the framework is flexible and open, which I believe it to be,
then each school will adapt accordingly….what we’ve got is sufficient in
itself certainly in its flexibility to allow schools to develop as they require
and as they wish
_______________
We were doing about racism, the last topic that I was doing and the
examples in the book were just so wide ranging. Because it was looking
at, from a Pakistani point of view, it was looking at people who had
come from France, it was looking at Irish travellers. So what was great
about the book was, it wasn’t just white Anglo-Saxon type book.
_______________
Citizenship isn’t such, you don’t have to follow what’s there, I think you
can tailor and change it and add things on to meet your needs.
The third coordinator, quoted above, proceeds further in explaining that in his
school staff feel that they ‘own’ the citizenship curriculum in that they are able
to implement their own ideas and do not feel obliged to follow the curriculum.
Another two coordinators who also agreed that the citizenship curriculum is
adequate stated that the actual realisation of its appropriateness within the
school was largely dependant on how staff members implement and deliver the
subject.
I think it depends on how you are able to implement it as well, and
whether you are able to enable children to achieve what they want to do
________________
It depends on the teacher you’ve got. If you’ve got a teacher who is
really enthusiastic and knowledgeable, and a lot of teachers almost fear
talking about certain subjects because they are worried about being
politically correct or ‘that’s a taboo subject, should we be talking about
that?’ and that is the issue rather than it being subject specific. A lot
depends on the head of department and whether they have built it into
128
their schemes of work and making sure they have covered all the
different aspects like diversity.
One other coordinator who also perceived that the citizenship curriculum was
adequate, simply arrived at this conclusion due to his perception that all
students generally had the same understandings irrespective of cultural or
ethnic backgrounds. The suggestion here was that the citizenship curriculum
was appropriate because it could be applied universally to all pupils.
I think here, all groups respond to it whether they are white, black or
Asian, I can’t see any great differences between how they understand
…generally all groups of people respond in the same way, from my
experience of teaching groups of people. Generally they are all relatively
the same I think, I can’t see ant great differences.
In the cases of the two coordinators who suggested that the curriculum was
not adequate they pinpointed the need for citizenship education to cover the
topic of cultural diversity more extensively.
I don’t think we cover enough, especially within this school because we
are very very diverse. When you look at the make up of the kids and
where they’re from, I don’t think we do cover enough….maybe its not
covered in enough depth to really get to the heart of what racism is all
about within a school like this because we do have some major issues in
this school. I would say it does need developing on that front.
_______________
When you’ve got a culturally diverse community, you’ve got things like
working with others and knowledge and stuff but they really need to be
getting into that learning about the other people who share a room with
you because this school is very diverse…They’re trying to promote
Englishness – I think they should be promoting multi-cultural awareness.
The second coordinator is particularly wary of the promotion of Englishness
within the multicultural context. This teacher further states that if ‘their culture
[BME groups] is accepted, and they are accepted as people, then they might be
a bit more willing to become part of what is here [in Britain]’. Here this
coordinator suggests that individuals from BME groups need to be accepted in
Britain as opposed to a prescriptive notion of Britishness being imposed upon
them.
Within the second extract the issue of between-group interrelations is
also highlighted.
This need was additionally mentioned by two other
coordinators who emphasised the importance of pupils learning about other
ethnic community groups beyond their own.
Ways to Increase Appropriateness of the Curriculum
Citizenship coordinators highlighted a number of measures for improving the
appropriateness of the citizenship education curriculum coordinators suggested
that the area of cultural diversity could be granted more extensive coverage
129
within citizenship. In particular, teachers mentioned the implementation of
citizenship days and an increased focus on learning about different cultural
groups.
Perspectives from the Citizenship Teachers
In relation to cultural diversity, teachers were asked firstly whether or not they
thought the citizenship curriculum was appropriate for the culturally diverse
setting and secondly, what they thought could be done to make the curriculum
more appropriate.
Most of the teachers indicated that they viewed the current curriculum to be
appropriate or to at least have the capacity to be made appropriate for the
culturally diverse school setting.
Two of the teachers related the
appropriateness of the curriculum to its flexibility, suggesting that the flexibility
of the curriculum allows teachers the opportunity to shape lessons so that they
are appropriate for culturally diverse pupil populations.
Yes I do. I think, I was quite happy when I looked at the citizenship
curriculum just because I felt that it was appropriate for kids, multi-racial
kids, like I was saying earlier, kids can identify with every section of the
national curriculum. I can actually personalise the subject as well, so I
do think it’s a subject that was really appropriate for that school.
_______________
I tend to look at what we’re delivering and make it fit, and the National
Curriculum then becomes a sort of skeleton and I take whichever unit or
units that I would need and I do my planning by taking bits from here
and bits from there, it’s like a jigsaw I suppose where you’re putting bits
together, not necessarily from the same original jigsaw and try to make
it fit, so I wouldn’t say we were delivering the National Curriculum as it
stands and as it’s to be found on a DfES or a QCA website. I would say
we are taking the elements of what is there and putting together our
own package and delivering it.
Whilst both of these teachers’ views the flexibility of the curriculum as an
advantage, the first teacher also cautions that alongside this flexibility there
also exists a lack of prescription which in her view could result in teachers going
‘off on a tangent’ or being unsure as to how subjects such as identity should be
taught.
I teach about identity but I think there needs more clarity, teachers need
more guidance because identity, you could touch on anything. So
maybe some guidance needs to be given as to what teachers should put
in there about identity and how it can be taught to kids from ethnic
minority backgrounds.
130
Two of the teachers stated that the appropriateness of citizenship education
was dependant on the format and quality of teaching suggesting that
citizenship curriculum could be effective if it is delivered in an effective way.
These teachers placed the onus on the actual citizenship educator as opposed
to focusing on the curriculum content. One of the teachers proceeds to
describe what he sees as the main aspects of effective teaching. These include
a wide range of resources, an opportunity for pupils to express their opinions
and formulate coherent arguments and an opportunity for pupils to assess and
gain awareness of the multicultural society in which they live.
The importance of the inclusion of appropriate subject matter was also raised
within the interviews with one of the teachers highlighting the incorporation of
equal opportunities and discrimination issues in the citizenship programme at
the school.
Again the universalistic perception of citizenship was expressed by one teacher
who suggested that the central topics of citizenship are standard aspects that
are universally applicable. This teacher further commented that in this sense
citizenship is not ‘bad for different cultures’ in any way. This teacher also
suggested that the fact that the citizenship curriculum has been government
approved is in itself proof that it is suitable for the culturally diverse setting.
This teacher mainly relates the appropriateness of the curriculum to the lack of
certain negative aspects such as segregation or offence. In this sense, this
teacher assesses the suitability of citizenship curriculum by focusing on the nonexistence of certain aspects as opposed to highlighting aspects of the content
of the curriculum as it currently stands. In relation to these comments, another
teacher also refers to his perception that within the citizenship curriculum no
ethnicity is ‘missed out’ as an indication of its appropriateness for the culturally
diverse setting.
I mean citizenship really, as far as I can tell, is about how to be a
responsible, good citizen isn’t it, and how the country and the wider
politics work, so that doesn’t really, that’s just the way it is, I don’t think
it’s really that bad for different cultures…I think people are so aware of
not causing offence and not segregating certain minority groups and
they would certainly put every effort into making it accessible to
everyone and not leaving people out or you know, making offensive
comments, I think they would try, so I would say it must be, you
wouldn’t get a government initiative that was geared to segregating
people or making it awkward for people because I just don’t think it
would ever reach that far out without them saying, actually it’s a bit
offensive.
Two of the teachers raised the issue of the sharing of experiences amongst
pupils, indicating that the opportunity within citizenship for pupils experiences
to be highlighted was in itself indicative of the appropriateness of the
citizenship curriculum for the culturally diverse school setting. This teacher also
131
comments on the global outlook of citizenship education, which enables pupils
to ponder on issues that span beyond the British context. Issues which relate
to the ethnic backgrounds of students from BME communities.
you’ve got lots and lots of different experiences of the pupils that can be
brought out for example of different cultures and where they belong and
things like that, I think that is very good to get discussions going, to get
them thinking…the kids were very good at talking about different global
issues in different parts of the world, and they’re thinking about themes
in not just in a British context, so they can think about world-wide
issues, like economics, to an extent because their families in Pakistan or
Bangladesh might be materialistically poorer than themselves here, and
they can think about why. So I do think it’s a good thing to get them
thinking because I think they have got a lot of knowledge because of the
diversity and it’s just bringing it out and linking it.
How the Appropriateness of the Citizenship Curriculum can be
Increased
In terms of the improvements that could be made to the citizenship curriculum
in order to make it more appropriate for the culturally diverse setting one
teacher commented that the curriculum was not sufficiently diverse and could
be made more so. This lack of diversity was demonstrated through the fact
that this teacher was often made to supplement curriculum material with
additional materials from other sources. This teacher also suggested that in
order to increase the suitability of the national curriculum for BME pupils, there
was a need to implement a system or programme whereby citizenship
educators working in geographical areas that lack diversity, could gain first
hand, practical experience of cultural diversity:
[I]nstead of trying to change the framework I would bring the people to
Birmingham and I would let them experience what we do and what we
have in the context of us doing it, so I see there a tremendous training
potential and it’s like total immersion in a way, you’re not doing
something remote you’re doing something that’s meaningful at the core
and if you can’t take the core to them, bring them to the core and let
them experience it.
(Interview 2-5)
This extract suggests that this teacher places a high value on the actual
practical experience of cultural diversity as a prerequisite to delivering effective
education on the issue.
Two teachers also raised the issue of time constraints, which in their view,
prevented them from covering all the appropriate topics and from covering
topics in adequate depth. In the second extract the teacher also suggests that
the lack of time spent on each topic within citizenship prevents pupils from
gaining adequate knowledge of each topic area.
132
[W]e don’t and possibly should look at a multicultural day, a day when
we can explore the diversity of the cultures that surround us, but again
it’s time as well, and we are only allowed so many focus days per year
and it’s prioritising and one of the big gaps that came out of our PSHE
programme and into a citizenship programme is all our sex education
disappeared off the curriculum so we’ve had to look how we deliver that
through focus days.
_______________
If we looked at 3 or 4 different topics, we’re only looking at things like
asylum seekers for a couple of weeks then we’re moving on to another
topic then they’ve only got a basic knowledge but I think we need to dig
down a bit further…I feel like were just skimming the surface, we need
to do a little bit more and a little bit more knowledge for the children
really, because they have only got that basic knowledge.
The second teacher additionally comments on the lack of planning time
available for teachers to plan citizenship lessons and activities. This results in
teachers placing citizenship planning on a ‘back burner’ and focusing more of
their efforts on their specialist subject areas.
Teachers also commented on the topics covered within the citizenship
education curriculum. One teacher for instance suggested that the citizenship
curriculum could be improved with the inclusion of certain key topics such as
religion and the migration of ethnic minority groups to the UK. This teacher
suggested that through the covering of such topics the unrest caused by the
influx of migrant workers in the UK can in some way be addressed.
There was also the additional suggestion that in order for the curriculum to be
improved it needed to incorporate a wider selection of topics. This teacher also
mentions that the delivery of citizenship was also in need of improvement to
adequately cater for low ability pupils. Here it is suggested that the ability
levels of pupils can actually affect their engagement in citizenship education
and their ability to make a valid contribution.
Also delivery, because in a different school to ours children will have
different opinions on things and some of our groups are low ability and
they will just say to you what their parents say, they are not mature
enough to actually form an opinion. So I think it depends on the school,
but I do think more topics need to be covered really.
(Interview 2-10).
Teachers’ Confidence Concerning the Teaching of Race and Diversity
With reference to their confidence in teaching race and diversity, most of the
teachers indicated that they had at least some level of confidence in teaching
these issues, with answers ranging from very confident to fairly confident.
133
All of the factors related to either teachers’ confidence or lack of confidence fell
within 3 distance categories; experience, knowledge and the ethnic background
of the educator.
In relation to experience, two of the teachers commented on how their life
experiences had prepared them teach race and diversity issues. One teacher
mentioned how his experiences of living in a black community within another
culture has helped him to understand some of the issues that face ethnic
minority groups who are like he was, in the minority. This teacher perceived
experience to be his ‘resource book’.
A second teacher mentioned his
experience of teaching in a multicultural school and living in Birmingham (a
culturally diverse city) as factors which contributed to his confidence.
In the case of the two teachers who indicated a lack of confidence, statements
from the first teacher showed that this was clearly related to her ethnic
background. The extract below clearly shows that this teacher was concerned
about how BME pupils would respond to her as a white person, and that she
feels somewhat anxious about teaching issues related to ethnic minority
cultures. This teacher is particularly concerned that she may be perceived as
‘siding’ with the white pupils, simply because she herself is white, or that she
may be perceived by pupils being unworthy to teach about certain culturally
related issues because of her perceived lack in knowledge. This teacher also
comments that she is worried about the segregation of pupils through the
exploration of specific culturally based topics. This teacher also expressed her
apprehension concerning the addressing of specifically culturally based topics,
lest certain members of the class felt that they were being singled out.
I
there’s always a feeling isn’t there, that if I’m white and I’m
teaching to a group of mixed white, black Asian, other minorities I
sometimes would feel conscious, do they think I’m siding, am I
siding with the other white people in this room or, if I’m teaching
a group of only black girls would I feel like I knew what I’m
talking about or if they would feel ‘how come Miss knows about
this all of a sudden?’. That worries me a bit that the other
minorities might feel that I was siding, not siding, but I can’t see a
topic where you would side, but do you see what I mean? Like
would they think I only have affinity
AS
Like you’re biased?
I
Yes, somebody makes race an issue which it normally isn’t in the
classroom because it’s immediately puts people into groups and I
think teachers would find that hard so obviously if we were talking
about some Asian issue, I don’t know what, it would be very
obvious who you were talking about, but if we’re talking about
bullying in the room, anyone could be a bully I can look at them
all ‘hmm she’s a bully’. Like if you’re talking about Asian issues,
good or bad, then it immediately segregates out the three Asian
134
girls in the class, something like that.
something maybe difficult.
I think that would be
A second teacher stated that she does not feel confident teaching about race
and diversity related issues because she is unsure of how to categorise pupils
from ethnic minority groups and is therefore apprehensive about offending
pupils.
I just think we have training on even things like politically correct, how
you say what colour people are and I think people are very scared of ‘do
I say black?’, ‘so I say this, do I say that?’. Do I say… what’s the latest
one – when they come from two different cultures, and it’s like ‘I don’t
know what to say’… dual heritage, that’s it. I think things like that you
can really offend somebody and not mean to, and personally I think ‘do I
say that and what do they think?’. Also the children as well, they need
to know what’s acceptable and what’s not acceptable. So I find it quite a
difficult subject really, but maybe that’s because our percentage isn’t
high, maybe if I went to another school where it’s different and a high
percentage, then maybe they do more things there to cater for more of
their pupils but I would like more training definitely. If I had to teach
more of it I would definitely need more training because it’s dodgy
ground because you just don’t want to offend people so I would like
more training on that.
The views expressed in the above two quotes are particularly concerning since
these apprehensions are related to the very foundations of identity exploration
within the classroom and therefore indicate that these teachers are failing to
allow for any kind of significant discussion within the areas of race , diversity
and identity because they are hindered by these initial hurdles.
Needs of Teachers in Relation to Race and Diversity Teaching
Teachers mainly expressed a need for collaboration and feedback. Two of the
teachers expressed their desire to share and discuss with other citizenship
educators in order to evaluate their own ideas and gain new ones. One teacher
also suggested that collaboration can help in overcoming the isolation that
citizenship educators often feel.
Being a citizenship teacher is quite an isolated experience and I think its
nice for you to have support, so maybe another teacher to bounce ideas
off and for them to give you the green light as well and say, yes that’s
ok. If you’re teaching a subject like race and diversity and its just you
then its difficult I think it can be quite contentious. People may
misconstrue why you are teaching that subject the way you are.
This extract again demonstrates the apprehension that some teachers feel
when facing the challenge of teaching race and diversity topics.
135
Another teacher suggested that it would be useful to gain feedback from
students in order to gain a clearer definition of effective non-offensive practice.
This teacher for instance stated that she would ask pupils questions concerning
how they felt within a given lesson and whether or not they felt offended at any
point.
Lastly, the final teacher, whilst being unable to identify any further support that
he would personally need, stated that a cultural information bank would be a
useful resource for both teachers and pupils:
If you had one Asian pupil in the school for instance, and he was off for
Ramadam and people were saying ‘why is he always off then?’ and you
weren’t really sure what Ramadam was then there could be a bank for
finding out things like that.
The vast majority of educators indicated that the citizenship education
curriculum was suitable for the culturally diverse setting. This was mostly due
to the perceived flexibility of the curriculum which allowed educators the space
to adapt it to their own means. Others pinpointed the delivery of the subject as
a determinant of its appropriateness.
Again, a minority of educators adopted a more simplistic view of citizenship
being an innately universal subject, incorporating universally applicable topics.
This again reflects a more passive as opposed to proactive approach to the
appropriate delivery of citizenship education within the culturally diverse
setting. Two teachers also justified the suitability of citizenship by emphasising
the absence of certain negative aspects such as segregation and offence and
the fact that no ethnicity is excluded from the subject curriculum. Another
teacher additionally advocated that students all think the same, indicating that
all pupils, regardless of ethnic background, will inevitably receive the citizenship
curriculum in the same manner. Again, such perceptions seem to lack due
consideration for the active role of the educator in the delivery of culturally
sensitive citizenship education that is suitable for the multicultural school
setting.
In terms of the possible ways in which citizenship education can be made more
suitable for the culturally diverse context, time constraints were identified as a
significant problem in that they did not allow for adequate lesson planning or
covering of topics. Educators also thought that more focus should be placed
on the covering of cultural diversity issues, particularly those that increased
pupils’ knowledge about different cultural groups and cultivated appropriate
interactions between groups.
136
THE NEEDS OF BME PUPILS
Perspectives from the Citizenship Coordinators
One of the more general needs reported by coordinators pertained to the need
for good materials, good information and informed teaching staff. Within the
above extract, the respondent places the needs of BME pupils within the
context of the basic needs of pupils in general. This respondent highlights
three elements that she believes are needed in order for pupils to access
citizenship; good material, good information and informed teachers.
They just need access to good materials, good information, and they
need access to teachers who know that information, as opposed to going
in the classroom with nothing. It seems to me if you’re not very well
prepared how can you help the children access citizenship? Whether
they are black or ethnic minority groups, or white children. They just
need good information and I think the teachers need training in that
information.
The issue of access was also highlighted in the response of another citizenship
coordinator. Here it was thought that the main need of BME pupils was to have
access to participation within the communities of their choice. This respondent
recommended that the needs of pupils be investigated and that they be given
‘the tools they need to take part in the communities they need to, to be
successful’.
In addition to the need for pupils to engage with the community, three of the
respondents also mentioned the need for pupils to have a wider awareness of
different community groups beyond their own cultural and religious groups.
One of the things I have talked about is being more involved with other
people, that would be perhaps something to focus on, in terms of
religious groups and their own cultural identities. Lets be aware that
there are lots of different groups of people out there.
_______________
I’ve said that the pupils here look very insular, they look inside all the
time because they think that the whole world, well Britain, is full of
Pakistanis. They really think that there are mosques everywhere
throughout Great Britain. Sometimes we need to be able to say, well it’s
not quite like this, perhaps we need to look more regional and say, well
in the North East it’s a bit like this, in Cardiff it’s like this…Yes, the
children are not just from Birmingham….they need to know a little bit
more what it’s like up and down the country
_______________
I like things that take you out of the school gates, even if it’s going to
watch an event, drama productions, mixing with students from different
137
backgrounds, just opening their eyes that there are different ways,
things that celebrate culture, tradition, heritage, and all those things, I
think, are great for the students
These extracts reflect a real concern of the for pupils’ awareness of and
involvement in a wider spectrum of communities. Here great importance is
given to the broadening of pupils’ outlooks through exposure to these other
community groups.
Respondents also highlighted the needs of BME pupils in relation to the
attitudes, perceptions and actions of others around them. The need for
equality of opportunity and inclusion for instance, were emphasized. The below
extracts also highlight the need of BME pupils for non-BME pupils to be aware
of their specific needs and to be generally accepting of BME groups.
AS
What do you perceive to be the needs of black and minority
ethnic pupils in terms of citizenship education?
I
That they have equality of opportunity, that people are made
aware of some of the issues that are around for black and
minority ethnic people, and the real issues that are around in their
communities. That they have an equal opportunity to what we’re
doing at that moment and that equal opportunity is embedded in
what we’re teaching across citizenship.
_______________
AS
What do you perceive the needs of black and minority pupils to be
in terms of citizenship education?
I
Just, I think, the idea of inclusion really, and covering issues that
do affect them, and raising issues as well that encourage all pupils
to have an acceptance of others in a diverse society. So, for black
and ethnic minority groups, look at what learning styles they like
and make sure you are encompassing them, and secondly
ensuring that all other pupils are aware of the needs of ethnic
minority groups as well, and to stop the segregation that
happens, and I think that is one of the big things that need to be
covered in citizenship, about, being engaged and forging positive
relationships with everybody.
This issue of acceptance was also raised by another respondent in relation to
the citizenship curriculum and cultural diversity:
That is certainly an area that needs looking at – the raising of the status
and knowledge about the different communities that are living in the
country. And that, in itself, paradoxically, might raise people’s belief in
being British, if they feel that their culture is accepted and they are
accepted as people they might be a bit willing to become part of what is
138
here, because I believe that there is a non-welcoming aspect to how we
live in this country, and if you’re new from anywhere it is quite difficult
and citizenship should take that into consideration.
Here again we see that the issue of intermingling between community groups is
raised as a concern. Within this extract the respondents speaks of the
importance of awareness and acceptance of ‘different communities’ living in
Britain. This respondent postulates that if shown acceptance that these groups
may feel more able to become part of British society. It is also suggested that
citizenship education should in some way consider the dynamics of acceptance
and participation within the context of host and minority communities.
One respondent also the highlighted the need for BME pupils themselves, to
have adequate knowledge concerning the issues that affect their own lives.
Here it was thought that BME pupils need to understand their own rights and
have an understanding of racism, something which is likely to affect them at
some point in their lives. This coordinator suggests that the need for BME
pupils to understand their rights in particular, is not adequately covered within
citizenship education.
I think awareness of their rights is an important one, because they’re not
always. Talking on a very basic level, again, explaining what racism is
because it can be quite complicated for some students to get an
understanding and an acknowledgement of what it actually means. I do
think that those students need those type of lessons to enlighten them
about background; about history; about how things are; why they are;
their rights and responsibilities. I definitely think there should be more
focus on that cause as individuals, we talk about rights and
responsibilities in a general way in citizenship ‘your right to an
education’, ‘your right to free speech’ in very general way.
The Problematisation of BME pupils’ Needs
Not all respondents however accepted the notion of BME specific needs. In one
particular case the very consideration of such needs was seen to be particularly
problematic.
AS
In your opinion what do you see to be the needs of black and
minority ethnic pupils in relation to citizenship education?
I
As I said before, the needs that all the students have, there are
no particular needs here we can observe, because they’re not in
any way differentiated here, and do not appear to be
differentiated by ethnic origin. Its something that we don’t even
consider because our assumption is that they’re all human beings
who are able to express and share and are accepted by everybody
else in the community. If there were ever a case where people
felt that they were someway being differentiated because of their
colour skin this would be immediately aired, talked through and
139
overcome, but the students who come here, because they come
already having established that from their junior schools we don’t
seem to have that problem here.
The suggestion in the above extract is that all pupils have the same needs. It is
clear that this respondent equates the consideration of BME specific needs with
differentiation and inequality. The respondent seems to believe that the
suggestion that BME pupils may have particular needs, stands in opposition to
the schools ethos of equality which recognises all students as equal human
beings.
A contrasting perspective was forwarded by another coordinator, who adopted
a broader view of the question, commenting on the general needs of pupils,
expanding beyond the school. The above respondent also problematises the
notion of BME specific needs in relation to citizenship education, in the sense
that he viewed the needs of pupils to be more closely related to life experiences
and social class, than ethnicity grouping. According to this respondent, the key
need of pupils in general, is the need to address their ‘life experiences’ in
connection to their approach to life and education. Also mentioned are pupils’
need of support and guidance.
I don’t see a lot of difference. I think you have the good, the privileged,
the less privileged, the bad, you’ve got everything in each of the
communities, but I don’t think it’s down to the communities themselves
and the fact that they come from a particular part of the community, I
think it’s to do with experiences, I think it’s more to do with social class
to my mind, and I know that gets into a complicated area, but even
within each of the social classes you got break downs and those will be
the key areas because most of us will be in the same one anyway. But
within that you’ve got a different strata, and again it’s your life
experiences in your immediate environment that your life, what they are.
Those are the things that sometimes need addressing, and that can’t
come through the citizenship curriculum, that comes through an
approach to life, an approach to education and along the way you will
learn these things in citizenship but so many are the normal things you
could learn in life, normal education through a normal upbringing at
home, this is not rocket science they’ve included. Alright, they’ve picked
up specific things on democracy etc and all those things you would have
to learn about at school, or go and read about or get involved in but a
lot of the other things are pretty straightforward.
This respondent suggests that though vital, these needs are to a large extent,
beyond the scope of the school and citizenship education.
AS
Do you think it’s within the school’s reach to accommodate for
those needs, even beyond citizenship?
140
I
No, I think schools can do a lot but my biggest frustration is with
certain students you really would like to help but they go home at
the end of the day, and they’ve gone home now and they’re going
to spend 3 nights away before you see them again, a lot could
happen in that time. You’re just scratching the surface with them,
and unless you get to know them well and get to know their
parents well, you don’t know what’s happening with them outside,
and that’s where the influences are. Again, if they are getting the
right kind of support it’s great, but it’s the ones who aren’t getting
it, you worry about those.
Preparedness of Coordinators to Meet Perceived Needs of BME Pupils
When asked how prepared they thought citizenship educators were to meet the
needs of BME pupils, and how prepared they actually felt, citizenship
coordinators were generally quite positive. Pertaining to the preparedness of
citizenship educators, respondents made the following key comments:
I think we are reasonably well blessed here; I would like to see a lot
more, but I do know that there are schools that would give their rightteeth for the expertise we have here, which I don’t think is adequate, but
I’m glad it’s there – at least we have what we’ve got!
_______________
I would say we are pretty experienced and I think … I think I would say
again, we are consolidating, we have got the potential there for that and
I think there are always things we can look at there.
_______________
We could be better prepared. I think teachers will teach their so-called
tutorial lessons to the best of their ability with the materials available to
them in the school, and therefore teach the black and minority ethnic
pupils in the classroom, but I think they could be better prepared.
_______________
I think we are, very open, I think that’s why there are good relationships
between staff, of course you are not going to prepare staff for every
pupil, but I think we are.
_______________
If you’re teaching citizenship one pre-supposes that you are in favour of
the subject area, then anything that speaks of prejudice in any way
shape or form is an anathema which needs to be recognised and
challenged.
_______________
AS
How prepared do you think that teachers here at this school are
to meet the needs of these pupils?
141
I7
I think they are very prepared to. I can’t think of any teacher in
the school who would want or like to see the segregation that is
happening and I think every single teacher encourages all pupils
to mix and encourages good racial relationships really.
_______________
…It does need lifting in terms of profile. I’ve just mentioned it
yesterday, I was talking to some teachers about citizenship and they still
sort of make fun of it really as a subject.
As we can see from the above extracts that whilst optimistic comments
concerning the preparedness of teachers to meet BME needs were not made
without reservation. In the majority of cases respondents realised that there
was more work to be done or that there was room for improvement but they
were simultaneously positive about current and future citizenship provision
within the school. Within the last extract however, the picture is notably
bleaker. When asked about the preparedness of teachers to meet BME needs
in relation to citizenship education the respondent referred to the reluctance of
teachers to teach citizenship in general. This suggests that there still remains a
number of baseline issues concerning the attitudes of teachers towards
citizenship that perhaps prevent or make irrelevant the consideration of more
detailed issues such as the adequate provision for BME needs.
With respect to their own preparedness to meet these needs of BME pupils the
respondents stated the following:
Citizenship is something I believe in, it’s part of the pastoral thing for
me. I like to feel that my own personal experiences help me a great deal
in working with the kids and stuff like that. I don’t feel uncomfortable
with any of the areas and I like to think they are learning something
from me by being here, and being me, so I don’t have a problem with it
at all, I welcome it.
_______________
I feel fairly well prepared to do that and it’s a topic I’m very interested in
and it’s important as a school we try to serve the needs, as well as we
can, of all our pupils …. I feel I’ve got the motivation to do it, I’m not
saying I know all the answers but it’s certainly something that I want to
look into.
_______________
… I rely heavily on my textbook and my scheme of work of work I’m
meant to follow, so I feel reasonably prepared to meet the needs of the
children – I don’t flounder in the classroom, as such, so I feel reasonably
prepared, although I feel very pressurised because it’s a GCSE, but I’m
reasonably prepared.
_______________
142
I’m prepared in the sense that I’m very receptive to the needs and
requests, of all pupils including black and minority ethnic pupils, and I
want to do more if I can but I need to know, I need some assistance, if I
can do more. I think we are already doing enough – but you can never
do enough.
_______________
AS
Do you yourself feel prepared enough in the context of the same
question?
I5
Yes in fact, absolutely, in fact there’s not even a doubt in one’s
mind that one is not prepared for that. If you are a human being
whose driving principles is that you are concerned to enable
young people because each and everyone of them matters, to
develop into a whole person it’s a holistic education, if that’s your
guiding principle then you are prepared to deliver the citizenship
curriculum in that way. It doesn’t even enter our minds that we
are not prepared for that, because we are.
_______________
I feel fairly well equipped but I must admit my knowledge is lacking
_______________
…I just use my own experience really, and as I said there’s very little in
my formative years before I came back to education, but it’s a lot better
now and I enjoy it. I like finding out things, onwards and upwards
always learning that’s how I see it. But perhaps, no, I’m not. At some
level I am probably not as prepared as I should be.
Within the above extracts we see that respondents are again largely positive
about their preparedness to cater for the needs of BME pupils. Respondents
highlight their motivation and their commitment to citizenship education and
their own relevant skills, abilities and principles, in particular respondents
mentioned personal experience and motivation as key factors of preparedness.
Alongside these comments however, some respondents also recognised the
need for further advancement in terms of access to knowledge and assistance.
Time pressures were also mentioned by one coordinator.
Respondents’ answers additionally highlighted various indicators of
preparedness as perceived by the citizenship coordinators. These pertained to
both their own preparedness and the preparedness of citizenship educators in
general. The following is a list of indicators that were used by respondents in
their identification of the extent to which they or their colleagues were prepared
to meet the needs of BME pupils:



Personal history and experiences of the citizenship educator
Not feeling uncomfortable with areas covered in citizenship
Performance in the classroom
143





Receptiveness to the needs and requests of pupils
The driving principles of citizenship educators – a concern for the holistic
development of young people.
Amount of knowledge the educator has
Expertise of citizenship team members
The concerns of citizenship educators – a concern for effective race
relations.
Needs of Citizenship Coordinators in Relation to BME Needs
One of the key needs of coordinators was time. Respondents felt that they
needed more time to prepare, investigate resources and to produce appropriate
materials for use in the lessons. One respondent also mentioned the need for
more time to be allotted to citizenship within the school timetable:
I feel I need more time and more emphasis needs to be put on it. In
schools everything is stretched to the limit, your ICT, your literacy, your
numeracy. Citizenship may be high up on the new structure for the
school but at the moment it isn’t reflected as such because it’s just
tagged on at the end of the day on (day X). It’s time, I suppose you
could teach citizenship almost every day maybe that emphasis needs to
be on that.
Apart from the amount of time allocated to citizenship education, this
respondent also comments on the time at which citizenship lessons are
scheduled which in her view is representative of the low status given to
citizenship within the school.
It was also thought that more resources were needed for citizenship education.
The following extracts speak both of the lack of resources and the need for
more relevant resources that correspond with the cultural backgrounds of pupils
within a given area.
For the delivery of citizenship I would love, and I’ve been trying to get,
an interactive whiteboard with a digital projector because the internet is
such a valuable tool but we just haven’t got those kinds of resources and
the citizenship resources that we could use are limited. Until more
money is put into it, you are fighting a losing battle.
_______________
I’m not always sure that some of the organisations, the Equal
Opportunities Commission or disability rights organisations, I don’t know
if they make available enough resources to assist us in doing our job. I
think they have probably lost touch with how they can get to the
grassroots of people, certainly with young people, and how they could
influence and change people’s thinking. I think it’s very limited.
_______________
144
Perhaps more of a role could be given to the LEA in terms of shaping
materials which would be appropriate for their area. That might centre
more on certain groups of people that we have … within one area you’ve
got an incredible mix of schools, so perhaps from a cultural point of view
and backgrounds of the people perhaps local education authorities,
perhaps they could have more of a role in what they think is appropriate
what they think should be delivered in citizenship education rather than
being ‘this is what we would like delivered to everybody.
The need for knowledge and information was also widely reiterated:
AS
Apart from the training is there anything else that the staff need
to be better prepared to meet the needs of black and minority
ethnic pupils?
I
Information? Accurate up-to-date information. It depends on the
topic really, but I think that’s it. Access to material – I get a lot of
website information.
_______________
…teachers need to be aware of things – courses, getting involved in
projects…
_______________
The only thing I think in terms of preparation is obviously there’s a
certain element of content background which needs to be read. A good
teacher is always reading widely around their subject area, obviously
citizenship cuts across and every subject is delving into that, but there
are some areas for example the whole aspect of multi-nationals which,
as an RE teacher I wouldn’t necessarily touch on, but I’m aware of it
because I had to deliver lessons on it, but I had to do reading which
enhanced my knowledge and understanding of it, and I think that area
generally needs to be done, but I think that will be done as more and
more students at universities on PGCEs and so forth take citizenship as
their main subject as will happen, and is happening, we are getting more
and more people coming out with citizenship as a qualification then that
is going to help us tremendously as well. We are going to get people
who are expert in the whole area, but I don’t think that prevents us from
delivering an education in citizenship that is valid and right. We don’t
give them wrong information, it just takes us longer to tap into
resources, and to find resources because we are not necessarily experts
in that area. Once you are an expert you know exactly where to go. We
find them, but it takes us longer to browse through books, texts, internet
to find the right resources to use for the students.
The fist two extracts reflect the perceived need for teachers to access
appropriate information and materials through sources such as the internet,
courses and projects. In the third quote the respondent explains the challenges
145
faced by citizenship educators who are often required to teach about issues
that they are not fully aware of. Another citizenship coordinator whilst stating
that she does feel fairly well equipped, admitted that her knowledge was
lacking. This respondent also stated that although there were conferences and
courses available, she found it impossible to attend these because of the time
demands of the citizenship coordinator post.
The training of staff constituted another concern:
AS
How equipped do you think teachers are to meet the needs?
I7
I think we need more training really. Like I said I think there are
some teachers who don’t quite know…As I said before I think
some teachers are frightened to even get into issues, or they are
worried that if they talk about a race issue they are not being
politically correct. I think they are so worried about saying
something wrong or saying something; I think it’s to do with
training really, and not having that fear of ‘is this something I
should be talking about, will I get into trouble?’, or ‘should I be
encouraging pupils to speak up like this?’. I think it’s training on
how do you ensure you are catering for ethnic minority groups. I
must admit I will put my hand up for myself, I’m not sure even as
citizenship coordinator whether I cover it, whether my
understanding of diversity is correct or whether I’m covering
issues correctly in my lessons and I think it’s down to staff
training,
This respondent speaks particularly about the effects of the perceived training
deficit on the capabilities of staff members to handle the sensitive yet critical
issue of race. The suggestion here is that lack of training has caused a lack of
confidence amongst teachers, which in turn has resulted in a distinct
apprehension or even avoidance in dealing with the ‘race issue’ in particular.
The respondent also suggests that her own lack of certainty concerning
whether or not she is catering for BME groups is due to her lack of training.
An additional need expressed by two of the teachers was the need to embark
upon research type activities to gain further insight into particular areas. One
respondent suggested that it would be useful to conduct surveys with pupils
and gain feedback about their needs and also with year 11 pupils to ask them
what they would have liked to have known. Another respondent thought that it
would be beneficial for her to visit other schools where citizenship education is
effective and where there is a high percentage of BME pupils and observe how
the needs of BME pupils are met.
146
Perspectives from the Citizenship Teachers
Out of the 6 citizenship teacher questioned, only half agreed that pupils from
BME communities did have specific needs in relation to citizenship education.
Two of the teachers supporting the existence of these specific needs stressed
the need for BME pupils to be able to relate to citizenship education and for the
material and content of citizenship lessons to be relevant to their lives. This
response clearly suggests that life experience of BME pupils is different from
their white British peers and would therefore warrant a lesson content and
materials that are specific to them. These teachers gave the following example
of citizenship education, which they deemed to cater for the needs of BME
pupils.
In the first extract this citizenship teacher makes a direct link between the
ability of students to talk about themselves and the effective meeting of their
needs and also the pupils’ engagement in the citizenship lesson. According to
this teacher, the fact that students were able to share information about
themselves meant that the subject was relevant to them, they were engaged
and the subject was addressing their needs. Within the second example the
participant emphasises the covering of black history issues across the
curriculum, again suggesting that it is important for BME pupils to be able to
relate to the content of citizenship lessons.
I agree that BME kids probably do have more specific needs and I think
that’s more about making sure they can identify with the material, with
the lesson. I think other subjects they are probably given material they
can’t relate to so it’s making sure that you make the subject more
relevant. When I was teaching identity the kids loved it because they
were able to talk about them, and one of the things that was quite
significant for me was that part of their identity was being black or being
Asian, and that’s what came across quite strongly, about their identity,
that some of their parents were from the Caribbean, that they ate
Caribbean food, that they like black music and I think the kids like that
because they found the subject to be relevant, they were engaged and it
addressed their needs because they were able to talk about themselves.
_______________
If we are doing business studies we would do something that related to
trade with the Caribbean then we would bring in elements of the slave
trade there to look at the origins. In geography if you’re looking at
places like Bristol, Liverpool, Glasgow, we would say they all developed
at the beginning, middle of the Industrial Revolution but there was
already strong trade in those 3 western sea ports because of the
produce that was coming in and again link it to the slave trade because
it was tobacco and sugar, and we would bring in the black history
elements there, and we would bring in citizenship and bring in the
human rights.
147
Both of these teachers also emphasised the incorporation of pupil experiences
as a means of fulfilling their needs.
Another teacher agreed that lessons could be made relevant by drawing on the
pupils’ experiences and giving pupils opportunities to talk about themselves.
However this teacher also suggests that the effective addressing of BME needs
is very much dependant on the ability of the teacher to understand BME pupils.
The below extract therefore outlines an additional prerequisite need of BME
pupils , the need to be understood:
If you’ve got a teacher who can’t really relate to the kids, who doesn’t
have an understanding of BME pupils then they may struggle, so I think
they need guidance to meet the needs of the pupils.
Speaking again of the meeting of pupil’s needs, this participant also emphasised
the importance of responding to the learning styles that she perceives to be
common among ethnic minority pupils.
At the same time this citizenship teacher also acknowledged the general need
for oneness and the need for the inclusive ethos of citizenship to be upheld for
all pupils.
We’re talking about inclusively and kids need to understand that we’re
working together. The ethos of citizenship is to promote harmony, to
promote understanding so I don’t think you can kind of address one
person’s needs whilst excluding another.
This teacher additionally stresses the wider social issues that impact upon the
lives of BME pupils and consequently determine their needs within the school
context.
It’s going to be by looking at the groups. In my school I would ask the
question does everyone have equal opportunities alongside everyone
who’s 11 – 19 living in Birmingham? No. Do all the boys in my school
have the same opportunities with all the boys living in Birmingham of the
same age range? No. Do all the girls in my school have equal
opportunities with all the girls in their age range living in Birmingham?
No. How do I know? Well I know from the state of their housing, I
know from the state of their lifestyle in terms of quality, I know from
their restricted opportunities that they have in terms of choice in many
aspects of their everyday life. Even as mundane as whether they come
in a car to school or they have to come on the bus, do they come from
home backgrounds where there’s always a parent at home, or always an
adult at home when they go home? No they don’t.
The third teacher that suggested that BME pupils did have certain specific
needs, initially suggested that there were no BME specific needs but then
realised that there were certain cases where citizenship teaching and cultural
148
norms could perhaps clash. The teacher therefore suggests that there is a
need to ensure that pupils from these backgrounds are not offended in any
way, by the lesson content.
I don’t think they need to be told any more or any less than any other
pupil in the classroom, because they should technically all be equal. So
no I think the needs would be the same. Or maybe, no, maybe in the
case of the Asian family where I’m aware that they still have a slightly
more male/female divide, I’m not saying they’re not equal but there’s
more of a male role and a women’s role. Maybe sometimes to sort of
just make clear, if you’re doing something like equal rights, to make
clear that it’s not bad if you are living in a family unit that isn’t equal in
the sense that your mum doesn’t go out to work, your mum stays in the
home and looks after you as a housewife, then that’s exactly the same
as in a white household where that happens, it’s not sexist, it’s not a bad
thing, it’s a choice between parents sort of thing
In the above extract, this teacher links catering for the needs of BME pupils
with the quantity of information given. It is clear that this teacher also equates
the notion of specific BME needs with inequality because in her view it indicates
difference and not sameness. This is also seen in the subsequent comments
made by the teacher concerning ‘Asian’ and ‘White’ households. It is clear that
the aim of these comments was to emphasise and promote sameness.
In line with this perspective, this teacher also suggested that the need of BME
pupils to be protected from offence or upset should be addressed by the
teacher who should promote as neutral a standpoint as possible and should be
‘really careful not to offend people’.
Problematisation of BME Needs
Teachers who did not perceive that there were any needs that were specific to
ethnic minority groups, highlighted what they perceived to be universal aspects
of citizenship education and other universal aspects of pupils lives.
It’s like we’re trying to single out that black and minority ethnic groups
have different issues, and there aren’t any different issues. The issues in
citizenship are the same for everyone; whether you’re in a black minority
group or a white dominant group the issues are the same. When you go
outside and you have a community to live in, because citizenship is not
just about being active and involved it’s the feelings and values that we
are able to give to these children, and whether you are black, white,
pink, yellow, whatever, the values should be the same, so if we’re doing
crime the values that we teach around crime in the community are the
same for whoever you are. They shouldn’t be different.
Here, this teacher emphasises the perceived existence of universal social values
as an indication that all pupils have the same needs within the context of
citizenship education. This teacher uses the example of crime, a universal
149
phenomenon governed by universal laws, to demonstrate this point. This
teacher also sees the fact that all pupils at the school live in the same local
community as additional evidence that pupils all have the same needs
regardless of ethnicity. This teacher seems to adopt a rather deterministic
view, considering the social environment to be the key factor, whilst not giving
adequate consideration to the perceptions of pupils that are shaped by their
cultural/ethnic background. Again the concept of sameness amongst pupils
comes to the fore here.
AS
In your view, do you think that black and minority ethnic groups
have specific needs in relation to citizenship education?
I
I would probably say no more than any other pupils because I do
feel that from teaching this there is such a wide range of pupil
understanding of the world that you would have that in any other
school to be honest. I still think you would have very naïve white
pupils, naïve about what goes on in the world and they’re happy in
their little community and I think likewise you would have that with
your black and ethnic minorities. So I don’t think they have any
extra needs.
This teacher refers here to certain general characteristics of pupils, which he
sees to be common across all ethnic groups. In this case, it is proposed that
the fact that all pupils are capable of possessing the same characteristics is an
indication that all groups are essentially the same and consequently have the
same needs. This teacher seems to view the individual mindsets of pupils to be
of greater significance than their ethnic background.
Preparedness of Teachers to Meet BME Needs
Responses from teachers with regards to their preparedness to meet the needs
of BME pupils reflect a distinct sense of caution and even inadequacy. When
asked about how prepared they themselves felt to cater for the needs of BME
pupils within the context of citizenship education, teachers expressed the
caution with which they approached this particular aspect of citizenship
education. Teachers tended to relate their preparedness to meet BME needs,
with their own personal attributes.
I feel very prepared to meet the kids needs. Just because I’m from an
ethnic minority background myself so I can understand the kids, and it’s
about understanding in citizenship, one of the strands in citizenship is
knowledge and understanding so if you’re going to teach a topic you’ve
got to understand who you are actually teaching that topic to because
without the understanding of the kids the subject won’t be taught
effectively…but because I know the nature of the kids I’m able to tailor
my lessons according to their needs because I’m actually from the local
area as well so it actually helps, so I understand the culture of the kids,
150
the issues of the area and I can bring them into my lessons and
because the kids knew I was from the local area they have a certain
degree of respect. If somebody comes in and teaches them who may
not be from the local area then they may be a bit more hostile towards
them and they might not be as respected, and I think it helps that I was
from a BME background and that I was from the local area. I actually
showed them that I understood where they were coming from.
This teacher gains confidence from the fact that she herself is from a BME
group and therefore feels that she is able to have an adequate understanding
of BME pupils. It is clear that this teacher views her ethnic background as a
key determinant of preparedness.
In fact this teacher proceeds further in
suggesting that teachers who are not from BME backgrounds are likely to face
difficulties. This teacher also highlighted the fact that she is from the local area
of the school, which helped her to understand the culture of the students,
which in tern enabled her to gain their respect. All these factors have
contributed to this teachers confidence in her own ability to cater for the needs
of BME pupils.
On the other hand, another teacher questioned about his preparedness to cater
for the needs of BME pupils expressed his feelings of inadequacy because he
was not from a BME group. This teacher did however gain some confidence
from his transferable counselling skills, which he utilised in the teaching of BME
pupils. Despite the confidence gained from these additional skills however, this
teacher still perceives that his background warrants a cautious approach to the
teaching of BME groups.
AS
How prepared do you personally feel to meet the needs of black
and minority ethnic communities?
I
Very inadequate because I don’t come from any of those
categories, and I am very conscious that I could easily be
patronising, I might even be patronising. I try and get round that
because I have an advantage that …I am used to counselling
people, adults, teenage students…I’m used to developing the
situation where you can empathise and of listening, and not
interrupting, in the way you would expect a counsellor to behave,
and I use those skills when I’m teaching and when I’m in a
discussion group… you have to be very careful that if you are
talking to 95% minority grouping people that you’re not the old
white man who’s standing there saying it and you don’t do it in a
way in that’s what they see and that’s what they hear and that’s
what they react to…
The third teacher expresses her apprehension in the teaching of BME pupils,
due to her fear of causing offence.
151
Sometimes I don’t think through what I’m going to say and it will come
out wrong and I will be like ‘oh that didn’t sound right’ or ‘I hope I
haven’t caused offence’. I think I’m still capable of doing that sometimes
I’m sure, I had an awful lesson once where I was talking about Asian
communities and the smell of Asian food being offensive… I was vaguely
talking about it then I just felt my face getting hotter and hotter because
I thought ‘oh my God am I just being really offensive here?’, I was not
meaning to be but I’d not really thought through what I was going to say
properly. So I think that happens occasionally, maybe, but it’s not
through, maybe there needs to be flag up boxes, be careful not to cause
offence at this point while talking about topics or flagging it up maybe
sometimes, that could help. So sometimes I think, yes, I do put my foot
in it but as I say, I don’t mean to.
This teacher seems to be pinpointing the difficulties caused because of the
existing differences between herself, a person of White British ethnicity, and the
pupils of BME background. Differences which cause uncertainty about what is
and isn’t offensive to these groups. Here again the preparedness of the teacher
is related to personal characteristics or attributes. This extract again highlights
the uncertainty and apprehension with which some educators approached the
teaching of race and diversity and identity related issues.
In terms of the needs of educators in relation to pupils from BME backgrounds,
one of the teachers thought there should be more guidance for educators as to
how citizenship lessons can be made more inclusive for pupils from culturally
diverse backgrounds because of the broad scope of the area of identity in
particular.
I think there needs to be more guidance as to what teachers should be
teaching to make the subject more inclusive for culturally diverse kids.
For example, I teach about identity but I think there needs more clarity,
teachers need more guidance because identity, you could touch on
anything. So maybe some guidance needs to be given as to what
teachers should put in there about identity and how it can be taught to
kids from ethnic minority backgrounds, so yes. Especially if the teacher
isn’t from an ethnic minority background as well they might have less of
an awareness how to make the subject relevant to them, to the kids.
Clearly this teacher perceives a danger in the broadness of the topic of identity.
While this can be perceived as a positive feature, in this instance it is suggested
that it leaves ample room for the inadequate tackling of the topic particularly in
the teaching of ethnic minority pupils. Again the identity of the teacher is seen
to impact upon their ability to deliver culturally sensitive citizenship education.
With regards to her personal needs, this teacher also states that it would be
helpful for her to gain more insight into the learning styles of pupils in the class
so that lesson can be prepared appropriately to adequately meet students
needs. It was envisaged that this would allow the pupils to feel more included
and thus engender a better reception from them, towards the lesson.
152
The second teacher felt that he needed more time. This teacher felt that time
restraints prevented him from performing to his optimum level. Another
teacher expressed her need for guidance on tackling sensitive topics and some
kind of indication of which areas should be approached with caution.
General Preparedness of Teachers
In terms of the preparedness of citizenship teachers to teach citizenship in
general, all except one teacher expressed some degree of preparedness. The
actual factors of preparedness and non-preparedness were quite varied.
For three of the teachers, knowledge was a central factor of preparedness in
that more knowledge was associated with greater preparedness. This was an
area in which most teachers saw themselves to be lacking.
I2-1
I feel quite prepared to teach citizenship. I think it’s a very, it’s a
subject where you need a lot of knowledge, and I think I would
like to develop my knowledge base a bit more better,
Obviously my knowledge on citizenship issues, are not strong
because it’s not my subject. So that I think we need to develop,
but you develop that just as you keep teaching it every year, I
think.
Probably not very because I don’t really know how, I know how to
be a citizen but I’m still quite young, I probably read far too many
magazines as opposed to broadsheet newspapers that I should
do. So sometimes I am a bit, I don’t know what my consumer
rights are, I don’t know, I learn with the kids sometimes a
bit…obviously I teach the lesson but I don’t know it, I’m a bit like
well I’m not sure of that myself.
Apart from her lack of knowledge, the third teacher also highlights certain
personal/lifestyle attributes that in her view determine the extent of her
preparedness. This statement relates to other statements of teachers related
to the preparedness of teachers to meet the needs of BME pupils, where the
personal attributes of the teacher were emphasised.
With reference to the factors that enabled teachers to feel confident about
teaching citizenship, one of the teachers emphasised the significance of his
extensive teaching experience and his general love for the subject. Again, this
extract emphasises the significance of the personal attributes of the educator in
relation to their preparedness.
AS
So to what extent would you say you’re prepared, very
prepared or…?
153
I2-6
I love teaching it. I think it’s a great subject to involve the
children in and get reaction and get reaction to do
something.
General Training Needs of Teachers
With reference to the general training needs of teachers only one of the
teachers questioned perceived that he had no training needs. This teacher
referred to the Internet as a key resource bank and also to the extensive
teaching experience of the citizenship educators at the school. Due to these
two factors this teacher envisages that he had access to adequate skills and
resources to deliver citizenship education to an adequate level.
Two of the teachers questioned, referred to specific training needs in relation to
meeting the needs of pupils from BME groups. One of these teachers for
instance mentioned that she felt that she needed to receive training on
‘tailoring the lesson to meet the particular needs of pupils’. This teacher
highlighted her belief that ‘kids from different backgrounds have different
needs’ and that it was important to attempt to meet those diverse needs when
teaching the subject. Another teacher commented that she would like training
on a specific topic that she saw to be of particular relevance to pupils from BME
backgrounds.
[M]aybe it would be interesting to look at how different minorities have
arrived in the UK, I would enjoy training on that, I don’t think that’s
something that the curriculum could tackle, like the roles different
communities play…. I think if it’s not in the curriculum that could be
something really good to add to the curriculum because that would be
really, you know. I don’t think any of the topics in the national
curriculum aren’t relevant to black and minority groups but I think you
could certainly put some things into it that are more relevant, and that
would be one of them, maybe, different routes and different travels to
the UK.
Also within the same theme of the specific needs of pupils, another teacher
thought it would be useful to receive training on catering for pupils with lower
ability levels who find it difficult to handle the open-ended discursive nature of
citizenship education.
AS
Do you think there are any specific areas where it might be useful
to have more resources or more training on?
I
As I said, resources I would say because we are teaching mixed
ability classes I do find it difficult to differentiate the tasks
because with citizenship this are quite a lot of open questions like
‘what’s your opinion on this’ and I do find it difficult to cater for
some of the lower ability pupils and maybe writing frames or
activities that are slightly more closed or slightly easier for them
154
to do... Also, just being trained to lead discussions and get pupils
to think about that, I think is really key.
The last teacher stated that she felt she needed more subject knowledge.
Whilst this teacher could identify useful sources of information such as
newspapers and news programmes she also stated that time restraints
prevented her from reading newspapers. This teacher identified time as a key
constraint but did comment that the school was quite well resourced.
The very notion of BME specific needs was in itself one that conjured
considerable debate within the responses given. Whilst most educators
excepted that BME pupils did have specific needs, some considered this notion
to be controversial and to stand at odds with the school ethos of equality. The
perceived sameness of pupils was also tightly entangled within such viewpoints.
Teachers who adopted this viewpoint either considered all students to possess
similar understandings or considered citizenship education to be innately
universally applicable, containing topics that applied universally to all pupils
irrespective of ethnic background. This is particularly concerning since the
understanding of pupil needs will inevitably affect the manner in which
citizenship education is delivered, particularly within the topic areas of race,
diversity and identity.
One of the key needs of BME pupils, highlighted, was the need for pupils to
have a wider awareness of different community groups beyond their own
cultural and religious groups. Three of the respondents in particular expressed
real concerns within this area. Again, the need for lessons or activities to be
made relevant to pupils’ lives was emphasised, in terms of the lesson or activity
content and the opportunities for pupils to draw on their own experiences.
Teachers’ perceived that their ability to meet the needs of BME pupils was
mostly hinged on certain personal attributes such as their ethnic cultural
background and life experiences. Whilst educators were generally quite
positive about theirs and other teachers’ abilities to cater for the needs of BME
pupils, they also acknowledged existing inadequacies and areas in need of
improvement. There was also a distinct sense of apprehension that pervaded
responses, with two teachers in particular expressing uncertainty about
teaching race and identity issues, based on the fact that they themselves were
not from BME groups. One teacher also indicated that her basic knowledge
within this area was lacking. In general, teachers spoke of the need for more
time, knowledge, resources and the need to collaborate with teachers and
pupils to gain feedback and evaluate teaching practices.
155
CHAPTER 4
PERSPECTIVES FROM BME YOUNG PEOPLE
DESCRIPTION OF PARTICIPANTS
School pupils
Pupils that took part in this phase of the research were of various ages that
ranged from 11 to 16 years. Most pupils fell within the 14 to 15 age bracket
(see figure 1).
Figure 1: Ages of pupils
Age of pupil
10
8
6
Frequency
4
2
0
11
12
13
14
15
16
Age of pupil
As stated in the methodology section, all pupils who took part in the research
were from BME communities. The groups that were most predominantly
represented were the Black Caribbean and Indian groups.
The least
represented was the Pakistani group (see figure 2).
156
Figure 2: Ethnicity of pupils
Ethnic group
6
5
4
3
Frequency
2
1
0
mixed white & black
mixed other
mixed white & Asian
Pakistani
Indian
black other
black Caribbean
Ethnic group
Pupils involved in this phase were drawn from 5 different schools within
Birmingham and the Black Country. The size of the discussion groups varied
from school to school. Figure 3 below, illustrates the numbers of pupils that
participated within each school.
Figure 3: Schools of pupils
School of pupil
7
6
5
4
3
Frequency
2
1
0
School 1
School 7
School 3
School 4
School 8
School of pupil
Community Group Members
The ages of the community group members who took part in the research
ranged from age 16 to 19.
157
Figure 4: Ages of community group members
Age of young person
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
Frequency
1.0
.5
0.0
16
17
18
19
Age of young person
Figure 5: Ethnicity of community group members
Ethnic group
5
4
3
Frequency
2
1
0
mixed white and blac
pakistani
Ethnic group
158
black caribbean
PERCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
Perspectives of the School Pupils
The Image Exercise
Altogether 8 images were used in the initial exercise. These images consisted
of a passport, a voting paper being marked, the queen, worshipers at a
mosque, a football fan with a George cross painted on his face, protesters
picketing at Birmingham University, Rioters engaged in an altercation with
police and a local recycling bank (See appendix III). Pupils were requested to
choose four images that they thought were most representative of citizenship.
Pupils were also asked to discuss and justify their choices. Pupils were also
encouraged to question and criticise the choices of other group members if they
thought it necessary to do so. Due to timing restrictions in one group, only four
of the five groups were able to carry out this image exercise. Across these four
groups the most frequently selected images were the mosque and the passport,
and the least selected image was that of the queen and the football fan.
In all three cases where the passport was selected, participants argued that a
passport displays a person’s identity in terms of who you are and where you
come from. It was however argued by pupils in two of the groups that a
passport is not a comprehensive representation of who you are. One pupil in
particular stated that although a passport bears some reflection of a persons
identity, it has no bearing on who that person actually is or what they are like.
Within the first group the mosque image was viewed as a representation of
religion which was seen as a reflection of who a person is. Pupils within this
group envisaged that identity could be shown through religion and therefore
perceived the mosque image to be an adequate representation of citizenship
due to their perceived connection between citizenship and identity. Within the
second group the mosque image was seen to be representative of
multiculturalism, which again was viewed by one pupil to be a significant
component of citizenship.
Within the three groups however two pupils also cautioned that the mosque
image was not appropriate because religion has the potential of dividing people
as well as bringing them together, within another group is was additionally
suggested the image would be more representative if it depicted a number of
individuals form different religions mixed together because citizenship is about
everyone ‘getting on’ together.
With regards to the other images, the voting image which is perhaps most
representative of the governments conceptualisation of and vision for
citizenship education, attracted mixed views. On one hand, voting was viewed
by two pupils with two different groups as an opportunity to select individuals
by whom they wished to be represented or who they wanted to be in power.
On the other hand two pupils from the third group commented that voting as a
159
system was fundamentally floored in that the government is in it self, corrupt
and that the effectiveness of the voting system depends on what the voter is
voting for. The suggestion here was that the image of someone voting was not
necessarily positive one because the person could be voting for an extremist
group like the British National Party, a party whose ethos students disagreed
with.
Amongst the least frequently selected images were the protest image of
university workers protesting peacefully on university grounds and the image of
the recycling bins. In three of the groups it was agreed that recycling was
strongly linked with citizenship. One pupil however commented that although
recycling is related to citizenship, it isn’t an activity that many pupils participate
in. This pupil therefore states that they wouldn’t place recycling ‘at the top’
simply because it’s not something that citizens themselves adhere to in their
every day lives. Here, the pupils’ perception of the relationship between
recycling and citizenship was based on the extent to which the recycling ethos
is practically followed.
With regards to the protest image, two groups highlighted the fact that the
protest depicted was a positive example of how to get a point across in the
sense that it was peaceful as opposed to violent. A pupil in another group also
emphasised the association between citizenship and rights and the way in
which the image was closely connected to citizenship because it constituted an
expression of rights.
The Image of the Queen was not selected at all. The general perception of the
Queen amongst the discussion groups was that the queen was a rather abstract
figurehead who doesn’t have any real power over the major governmental
decisions. One pupil went further in commenting that the queen is ‘removed’
from the community. This mentality is again reflective of the concept of
citizenship being associated with practical and real things that can be detected
in every day life.
The football fan image also remained unselected. In one group it was thought
that the man in the picture looked racist and was also not an appropriate
representation of citizenship because he was drinking alcohol. Two other pupils
however, suggested that this image does reflect citizenship because it is
representative of the culture of football supporting that exists in the UK and
because the football fan in the image could be seen as a portrayal of British
patriotism much like the queen.
The various image selections and the discussions surrounding the selection
process reveals important information concerning pupils perceptions about core
constituents of citizenship. In particular, the close association of citizenship
with concepts of identity, cohesion and reality (as opposed to idealism), is
particularly prominent here. Standards of morality were also considered by
pupils in the evaluation and assessment of the images.
160
Positioning of Citizenship Education
When asked where they would place citizenship if they were to list their lessons
from best to worst, the pupil’s responses were varied. Most pupils stated that
they would place citizenship in the lower half of the subject list. Only three
pupils within the four groups interviews, placed citizenship within the top three
subjects.
The key factors that impacted on pupils’ positioning of citizenship education
were; the issues covered, the teaching of the subject and the frequency of
citizenship or citizenship related lessons.
In three of the groups pupils indicated that the issues and topics covered in
citizenship largely affected their perception of the subject. For instance, in one
of the groups one of the pupils mentioned her desire to learn about issues that
‘matter’ to pupils.
[I]n citizenship we don’t really learn that much and people just go on
about animal rights, but what about human rights? It’s about animal
testing and everything but we don’t get anything else what actually does
matter to us. So I don’t really see the point in citizenship if they’re not
going to teach us stuff that you have to learn.
In her description of her positive experience of citizenship education in the
former years of secondary schooling, another pupil explained that in citizenship,
pupils were able to address what she terms as ‘real issues’.
These comments related to the subject matter of citizenship clearly reflect
pupils desires to discuss and engage in topics that relate closely to the reality of
their everyday lives, issues that affect them in some way and therefore
mattered to them. This sentiment expressed by pupils corresponds with
comments made within the image selection exercise which highlighted pupils
associations of citizenship with reality.
A member of another group also commented that for some people citizenship
would be near the bottom of their preference list because they already know
about the topics being learnt from their parents and other people. Again this
comment indicated the importance of the subject matter in pupils positioning of
citizenship education.
With regards to the teaching of the subject, it was thought within two groups
that in order for citizenship to be effective it is important that the lessons are
delivered in a ‘fun’ and ‘enjoyable’ way an aspect which is dependant on the
attitude of the teacher as well as the methods used. This issue of fun was
mentioned with three groups as a determinant factor of pupils responses to
citizenship education.
In the following extract, pupils comment on their experiences of citizenship
classes during their former years of schooling. Here a good teacher is
161
described as a teacher who enjoys the lesson and a bad teacher is described as
a teacher who ‘cant be bothered’. In tern the example of bad teaching given is
that of pupils being given copying tasks. This teaching method is also identified
by another group as a ‘boring’ way to learn. A pupil within this group also
suggested that the amounts of information retained by pupils is largely
dependant on the teaching method used which if it is ‘fun’, will result in the
maximum remembrance. Here the second pupil speaks of ‘keeping the subject
alive’ through the enjoyment of the teachers and pupils.
1
It wasn’t like history and everything where they just throw stuff at
you, you know, throw information at you, it goes in your head
then it goes back out. In citizenship it’s stuck in your head
because it’s taught in a different way.
2
It’s just the teachers, and not just that, like you’ve got people like
your friends who enjoy it and then you enjoy it yourself and have
a good time, but if the teacher’s there can’t be bothered one day,
and say get your books, get on with the work and copy and you
don’t want to learn like that, and you feel, you lose interest and
start messing around and then you won’t learn anything that
lesson about citizenship. Then if you’ve got a good teacher and
they’re enjoying it and you’re enjoying it, keeping it alive you
understand because you learn something about citizenship
In this particular group discussion one of the students pinpointed debating as a
fun activity that was a regular feature of previous citizenship lessons.
In connection to the frequency of citizenship lessons, pupils indicated that the
infrequency of lessons had a negative effect on pupils’ responses to it. In one
of the groups, a pupil commented that because of the space of time between
each lesson it was hard for pupils to remember what they had learnt in
preceding lessons. In another group the infrequency of lessons was closely tied
to the decline of the subject:
AS
If you were to list all your lessons from say, best to worst, or
all the bits of education that you get, where about would
citizenship education come?
1
What learning citizenship? I would say Year 7, Year 8 quite
high and then after that just give up.
2
Because we only do PD once a fortnight, RE once a
fortnight, unless you pick it.
Other pupils viewed citizenship negatively because of its lack of qualification
status within the curriculum. In two of the groups, students commented that
162
citizenship was seen to be low priority to pupils simply because it was not a
GCSE subject:
The things you learn they are important but not many people, because
it’s not a GCSE or anything, even though we’re doing one this year,
because it’s not a GCSE so people don’t really care about it, that’s the
way it is.
_______________
No ones bothered as well because they’re not really getting a GCSE as
well, that’s why no-ones really bothered.
In a third group, citizenship was also referred to as an ‘easy GCSE’.
The Purpose of Citizenship Education
The vast majority of pupils were confident in articulating what they deemed to
be the purpose of citizenship education. Pupils perceived citizenship as a
subject within which pupils were taught about the workings of society and how
to live effectively within it. In particular, pupils made comments pertaining to
the citizenship education as a source of knowledge concerning life in the wider
society or world, citizenship as a guidance instrument to shape pupils and gear
them in the right direction, citizenship as a tool to raise awareness about the
needs of others within society.
In terms of the perception of citizenship as a subject in which to gain
knowledge about the wider society, some of the pupils commented that the
purpose of citizenship education was to educate pupils generally about real life
and the workings of society. Other pupils made more specific comments
pertaining to learning about other people within society. The following
statements pertain to the perceived purpose of citizenship education. In the
below extracts, there is a clear focus on pupils looking beyond themselves and
considering the actions and needs of others within society. In this sense these
statements are related to the responsibility aspect of citizenship.
2
Yeah to teach you about it because if you don’t learn about it you
don’t understand about other people.
(Group Discussion 3-3)
3
So you know what’s going on, not just in your life but what is
going on in other people’s lives. For instance people that are
obese you have to get them into sports but then some people
aren’t actually in to sports, then you have to actually make it
encouraging for them.
163
1
To teach us stuff like what goes on in our world and how people
act towards other people in our societies kind of thing, in our
communities.
4
Yeah, not just about yourself, like saying about other people;
seeing things and what they do, not just about you.
(Group Discussion 3-8-1).
The other key theme within these responses was that of the citizenship as a
guidance or shaping tool.
3
Probably for all the rude kids, All the idiots.
1
It gives people guidelines as well, when they’re telling them not to
smoke
2
Push you back into shape basically.
______________
AS
What do you think the purpose of citizenship education is? What
is it there for? What is citizenship hoping to achieve?
1
Things change in the world and …
2
A better future,
1
Yes because if the teachers and the kids now, the kids now are
the future so it teaches them how to act right and everything.
What you teach them now they’re going to take with them,
Only one of the students referred to citizenship as a means through which
students could learn about their rights. This was also the first time that politics
was highlighted in relation to the purpose of citizenship education:
AS
What do you think the purpose of citizenship education is?
1
To teach us about the outside world
3
And make people aware.
1
Yes that’s the one.
AS
Make people aware of what?
3
Lives, make people aware of their rights and that
1
And that like voting and …
164
3
Yeah
Whilst pupils’ comments revealed the importance and uniqueness of citizenship
education, these sentiments were somewhat contradicted by the highlighting of
the possible hindrances to its effectiveness within the school context. In
particular, pupils in one group mentioned the attitude of young people towards
issues of citizenship:
2
[T]his generation they won’t care.
3
Back in Year 7 when, I remember a story about a girl she was
taught home-school and she wanted to go to school with friends
and that and her mom wouldn’t let her, her mom’s like ruled her,
so if you thought about that now and you’ve got kids of your own
and they want to do something, put your mind on something you
ain’t going to change it for them are you? …If you learn
citizenship it’s still going to happen, they just want to do whatever
they want to do.
In addition, two of the pupils commented that citizenship didn’t seem to have
any direction or purpose in their view. One of these pupils refers to the lack of
practical guidance within citizenship as evidence to support this negative
outlook. This pupil commented that whilst pupils learn about a whole range of
different topics, they are not informed about the practical uses of this
knowledge within society.
2
[T]hey just like teach you about a whole different group of
subjects and put a purple sticker in your book to say you know
about citizenship and everything but they don’t tell you how it’s
going to benefit you in the world and everything, like when you
get out of school, they don’t tell you how it’s going to benefit you
out there in society.
One of the students also mentioned the disparity between the importance of
citizenship education and the lack of time given to the subject within the school
curriculum:
1
[Y]ou forget things. Think about day to day, if they’re trying to
push you into shape then why don’t we have it as many times as
we do? We only have it once every fortnight.
2
It’s not as important as the rest of the curriculum,
What is clear is that the pupils placed a large responsibility on citizenship
education in terms of its perceived remit to educate them about fundamental
life issues. Pupils’ responses also indicate that they have considerably high
165
expectations of citizenship education. Responses additionally highlight the
perceived importance of citizenship education among pupils and the uniqueness
of citizenship in terms of its remit as described by the pupils themselves. It is
also apparent however, that pupils perceptions of and responses to citizenship
education were somewhat tarnished. This was largely due to the inadequate
delivery of the subject and lack of priority given to the subject within the school
timetable.
Importance of Citizenship Education
Most pupils suggested that citizenship education is important and gave a range
of reasons of why this is the case. The reasons given were largely reflective of
students’ comments concerning the purpose of citizenship education. Young
people from the community groups also agreed that citizenship education was
important because it gave pupils access to useful information that was
applicable to their lives.
Many of the students related the importance of citizenship to the subject matter
covered in the lesson. Within two of the groups the gaining of knowledge
concerning practical every day living and interactions with others within society
was highlighted as a key factor of the importance of citizenship:
1
It’s got to be important because citizenship is going to teach you
how you’re going to be in the outside world. So if you go in the
outside world not knowing what to do then it’s got to have some
value and importance in it.
3
Amen.
2
I think you might have all the GCSEs in the world A*s and
everything but if you don’t know how to communicate with other
people and you don’t know about other people and don’t know
how to like get on with people you’re not going to get on
anywhere in life, you’re going to be like arrogant.
1
Technically yeh, citizenship yeh is an every day thing
2
Yes but some people don’t learn how to deal with certain
situations. Like if you don’t learn RE in school ever, you’re
going to say something to someone else and you’re going to
offend them and then there’s going to be this and
everything, so it’s good to learn about other people not just
about yourself, it’s good to learn about other people because
then you show more respect to them because like you
respect what they stand for at least they’ve got their own
beliefs.
166
In the above extract it is suggested that citizenship is in fact more important
than other more academic lessons because of its value for everyday living.
Here, life skills are seen as an essential component of success, a belief that
reflects positively on citizenship education.
A similar viewpoint is also expressed in the following extract:
…[Y]ou’ve got to learn it in life. Some bits of citizenship teach you about
life, like how to get a job and stuff, and that’s quite good.
Again the capacity within citizenship to facilitate the learning of life skills that
will enable an individual to operate effectively within society, is emphasised
here. These comments were further substantiated by comments made by one
of the students who stated that in his view the learning was ‘too slow’ due to
the implementation of topics that he deemed to be irrelevant. In this particular
case this pupil had pinpointed the topic of ‘rubbish’ as a ‘rubbish’ topic, which
he personally had no interest in because he didn’t feel that he, as an individual,
could make a difference by changing his behaviour. Responses from a third
group also emphasised the importance of subject matter in the evaluation of
the importance of citizenship education. This group did not consider citizenship
education to be important because of what they were learning at the time.
Pupils from another group spoke about the value of citizenship from more of an
individual empowerment point of view. In the below extract, the pupil has
pinpointed the facilitation of knowledge about young people’s rights and self
respect as key factors of the importance of citizenship education:
[E]nough people probably don’t know your rights as a young person you
just think ‘oh my rights’ and go and mess about you don’t know …
It is kind of important because of teaching things about stuff around
them and respecting yourself and stuff like that, and what rights you
have...
At the same time, pupils were also able to identify certain aspects of citizenship
education that hinder/mask its importance within the secondary school context.
As was highlighted in comments pertaining to the purpose of citizenship
education, for some pupils, the importance of citizenship was dependant on
certain key factors related to the nature of the lesson. In three of the groups,
it was indicated that the importance of citizenship education was dependant on
the topics being taught and whether or not these topics were deemed to be
relevant:
4
It depends what the topic is because if it’s something like smoking
then you already know everything about it, you don’t really
167
concentrate as hard as you do on more important stuff like
euthanasia or abortion.
4
But we did that in RE anyway.
1
Everyone’s always talking about drugs and smoking and all that
and it gets boring because you know about it already. Everyone’s
always ‘Don’t smoke, Don’t drink alcohol’, don’t do all those things
but you know it.
____________
2
Not important. I wouldn’t class it as important
3
Not at the moment
4
Because of what we’re doing now.
3
Half of the stuff we’re doing there’s no point learning about.
1
You just like sit there, like yes, the bells gone, time to go home.
The approach of the teacher to the lesson and the actual teaching methods
used, were also seen as significant factors of importance. Within the following
extract, pupils talk about what they refer to as ‘proper lessons’ which
encompasses a more practical approach to the teaching of citizenship.
AS
How important do you think citizenship education is?
1
Because we haven’t really been taught, we haven’t really had a
proper citizenship lesson it doesn’t really bother me at the
moment, it’s not that important, but if I had a proper lesson
maybe it would become more important to me because I would
know what it was.
2
I think it is but you need more of a positive attitude like from the
teachers and stuff.
AS
Can you explain that, when you say positive attitude?
2
I don’t know, like if they were more strict and just made the
lesson more fun for you to want to do it.
1
Improving their teaching methods ain’t it.
1
It’s not really working for me at the moment.
168
AS
Give me some more, that’s an interesting perspective to take on
it, when you said ‘interesting, make it more fun, change the
teaching methods’ practically what do you expect them to put in
to it?
2
More activities and stuff because at the moment we’re just looking
at a worksheet
3
Or a whiteboard, copying into your book, copying sentences,
making notes, it’s boring. They need to like surprise us, do
something, take us on trips or something.
On the other hand, the following student commented on the practical and
interesting activities that they used to take part in, in citizenship classes that
they thought reflected the importance of the subject.
AS
Why would you say it’s important?
2
I don’t know I just say yes because back in Year 7 when we were
doing it, we used a book thing, a textbook, all the things like
debating I just find it good.
Despite the general agreement among pupils concerning the importance of
citizenship education, a minority of pupils also mentioned some additional
obstacles, which thwarted the importance of citizenship as a subject. In one of
the groups the pupils suggested that whilst citizenship was important, the
reality remained that young people of their age failed to understand the true
importance of citizenship education. It was also suggested within this group
that the reason for this is that many pupils already have knowledge of the
values imparted within citizenship from within their own homes.
2
Some people already know the things that the teacher tells us,
you already know because your parents have said it, other people
have said it.
3
Most people already get those values that you get from
citizenship.
On the other hand it was again suggested that pupils themselves failed to
realise the true importance of citizenship education.
2
It’s important, but people our age don’t understand that it is,
that’s the problem.
1
That’s true.
2
They don’t understand the importance of citizenship.
169
Pupils from another group also commented that in some ways citizenship
education is not important because some of the social systems that pupils are
thought about are not practically accessible to them.
1
…in another way it’s not really that important.
3
Because we’re so young.
1
Yeah, like voting and things like that really we don’t have, we
don’t vote anyway so we don’t really need to learn all about it so
only half of it would be to do with it.
The Effects of Citizenship
Pupils envisaged that a number of factors impacted on the effectiveness of
citizenship education. Pupils in one of the discussion groups explained that the
effects of citizenship education in the lives of pupils was dependant on the
motivation of pupils which in tern was dependant on the way in which the
lesson was taught and the topics that were covered in the lesson.
AS
Do you think that citizenship education has an effect on the lives
of pupils?
2
Depends, if they’re like us, [Afro Caribbean] then not really. It’s
because we’re not motivated in the lesson.
1
That’s it, that’s the word, not motivated.
2
If the lessons were more fun then yes.
AS
Then you think people would be affected by it?
personally been affected?
2
Not affected by it but more into it.
3
Had better discussions and that, it’s like not, the lesson’s not
really for us…It’s not like for black kids, it’s mainly for like
AS
So you don’t think it’s for black people?
3
No it’s not…because they’re not discussing like…
2
Especially in history
3
They’re not discussing topics that relate to us…They talk about
racism and inequality but they don’t, the white kids in the class
don’t seem to understand, like we tell them or we voice our
opinion ‘oh no you may think that we’re all equal in the world but
170
Have you
we know that we’re not’ and they’re just like ‘no, no, we’re all
equal, there’s no racism, racism doesn’t exist’ and this and that
and sometimes the teacher is agreeing with them.
1
We have discussed about racism but it’s just like pupils are just
discussing it, the teachers don’t exactly say what they think and
what’s right and what’s wrong, they just let the students discuss it
and they don’t really know what’s right and what’s wrong.
Within the above extract the pupils explain that they are de-motivated by the
lack of fun in citizenship education and the lack of relevant study topics. More
specifically, these students state that the topics covered in citizenship are not
relevant to them as young people from Afro-Caribbean communities. One of
the pupils’ comments indicates that whilst students were given opportunities to
discuss relevant topics such as racism and inequality, these pupils felt that
these discussions were not handled in an appropriate manner.
Similar to the previous sub-sections, one of the groups also commented that if
pupils were more engaged in the lesson and the lessons were more active then
pupils would ‘take it in more’. Pupils also comment that the topics covered
within citizenship education have often already been covered within other
subjects. The importance of the subject matter was also highlighted with
regards to the extent to which BME pupils related to citizenship education.
Here there was a significant indication across groups that the extent to which
BME pupils related to citizenship education was again dependant on the topics
being explored. Two groups suggested that BME pupils relate to citizenship
education when the topics of race, racism and equality are covered. This
collaborated with comments made within a second group where pupils
suggested that BME pupils could relate to citizenship education delivered in
former years because these lessons explored real life situations that were close
to pupils’ own experiences.
Mostly all we do is watch DVDs, drugs and you just go to sleep basically.
You hear it in biology, you hear it in RE, you’re doing the same things
over and over again, it’s nothing new, it’s just reinforcing what’s there
already in your head.
Another group also highlighted teachers’ lack of passion, which was detected in
the manner in which lessons were conducted. One pupil mentioned for
instance, the non-interactive method where pupils are required to copy from
the board. In particular one of the pupils mentioned that when a teacher has
clearly put no effort into the lesson this then determines a negative response
from pupils who ‘cant be bothered’. This again emphasises the effects of lesson
delivery on pupil responses towards and perceptions of citizenship education.
Another factor that was seen to hinder the effectiveness of citizenship
education was the teachers’ lack of knowledge. This was highlighted with two
of the group discussions. In one of these groups one of the pupils commented
171
that the teachers don’t seem to know right from wrong when discussing issues
of race and discrimination.
We have discussed about racism but it’s just like pupils are just
discussing it, the teachers don’t exactly say what they think and what’s
right and what’s wrong, they just let the students discuss it and they
don’t really know what’s right and what’s wrong.
This extract raises the very tenuous issue of how such sensitive discussions
should be dealt with. The question of whether or not the teacher should
express his/her personal opinions or remain ‘on the fence’ in such matters, is
brought to the forefront here.
In one of the groups the issues of timetabling was also raised. Pupils in this
group thought that the lack of time given to citizenship education within the
school curriculum limited its effects on pupil’s lives.
These comments
correspond with pupils’ identification of the disparity between the importance of
citizenship education and its low status.
3
It’s too brief, it’s not a regular thing.
2
Yeh that’s true.
AS
Are there any other reasons why you think it doesn’t affect?
2
Because you only do it once in a while up until Year 9 and
you get to Years 10 and 11 and you pick your options then
you’re concentrating on your GCSEs and you just forget
about it.
Here the claim is that citizenship is not taught frequently enough for it to have
a significant effect on pupils lives. It is also suggested here that in the latter
years of school, citizenship is considered to be of less importance than other
GCSE subjects.
In addition to the above suggestions, there was also some realisation that the
effects of citizenship did to some extent depend on the pupils themselves and
whether or not they were prepared to adopt and implement the knowledge
disseminated in citizenship education. Pupils from one of the groups also
postulated that young people of their age were unable to be significantly
affected by citizenship education simply because they had inadequate
knowledge of their rights. These pupils seemed to consider knowledge of rights
as a prerequisite to the effectiveness of citizenship education in the life of the
individual.
172
Perceptions of Citizenship Education: Community Group Members
Like the school pupils, the young people from community groups viewed
citizenship to be an important subject. There was however a retrospective
realisation that this was not always the case. Two young people explained that
whilst they did not value citizenship education whilst studying it at school, they
later realised the importance of the information contained within the subject.
When I was studying it at school I didn’t find it as important but now as
I’m older I recon it plays a big role in your life and you actually need to
know all about citizenship, what it is.
_______________
Some maybe took it in but others they don’t care, but I think now
leaving school and everything, they’ve realised that the things that we
got taught we need to know.
The second young person later proceeded to explain that without studying
citizenship at school she would not have known about the Education
Maintenance Allowance (EMA) scheme. This young person strongly believed
that citizenship education prepared pupils for life after school. These comments
relate to comments from school pupils which imply that some pupils fail to see
the importance of citizenship education. This lack of perception could also be
linked to the hindering factors that mask the importance of citizenship
education such as poor delivery and lesson infrequency.
There were various further reasons why citizenship was thought to be
important. Firstly, it was thought by one of the young people that citizenship
helps with general awareness. Another young person with in the same group
suggested that the knowledge and skills gained through citizenship was central
to the transition to adulthood and enabled young people to keep up with issues
and events on a world-wide scale.
One young person also highlighted the usefulness of citizenship in its
incorporation of political issues, an area of teaching which he thought would be
useful for young people when engaging with the voting process.
if you have these lessons you could understand how to vote, why you’re
voting for, what reasons you’re voting for, so you would actually know
about the issues and the politics
This comment collaborates with the comments of another young person who
saw the incorporation of legal and political issues within citizenship education,
as a key factor of its effectiveness. This young person appreciated the
opportunity provided through citizenship to ‘understand the laws’ and ‘how the
government works’.
173
With regards to the effectiveness of citizenship education, most comments were
again positive, pertaining to the knowledge gained and the subject matter
covered and the general awareness of social issues and processes. Within one
of the group discussions however, one young person suggested that not all
pupils would be willing to admit to the usefulness of citizenship education. This
comment was made with particular reference to BME pupils. Within this group
it was thought that black boys in particular would not be willing to admit to the
usefulness of citizenship. This is perhaps indicative of the stigma attached to
citizenship and the effects of the unofficial labelling of the lesson as a ‘doss
lesson’.
Like in the pupil discussions, despite these comments however, there was some
discrepancy raised concerning the teaching of the subject. Whilst realising the
usefulness of the subject in her own life, one of the young people suggested
that the effectiveness of the subject depends on who is teaching the lesson.
Below is an example of good and bad teaching as explained by one of the
young people. This respondent emphasises the unique nature of citizenship as
a subject in her suggestion that it should not be taught like other conventional
subjects in the curriculum.
1
Well for one, don’t sit you down and give you loads of leaflets and
work sheets, just explain it to you. Don’t try and put it on like it’s
just part of the curriculum, because to me citizenship is something
that you should want to learn, not something you should be
forced to learn. Whatever you take in, you take in. The teacher
shouldn’t sit there and say ‘you have to know this, if you don’t
learn this get out of my class of my class’, because that’s how we
get taught in my school. But I think that everyone should
participate in it and the teacher should make it interesting, not
just talking the same rubbish over and over again, things that
would be relevant to you as a person, not just what she thinks is
relevant to her or what’s just relevant in her eyes.
The above comments were further substantiated by another young person who
explained that in his experience, the teaching methods employed in citizenship
education caused pupils to be somewhat disengaged:
1
I think no, because everyone’s just messing around, we just made
posters and just hang them on the wall so we never really done
anything more so no-one engaged probably, we used to just doss
around.
174
The Needs of BME Young People and how Citizenship Education can
Meet these needs More Effectively
The Needs of Pupils
As has previously been the case, key points raised by school pupils and
community group members were generally compatible, most of the points
raised were centred around teaching methods. Although pupils were asked
specifically about the needs of BME pupils within citizenship education, some
pupils additionally commented on the general educational needs of BMEs, these
responses were also included in this analysis.
With regards to pupil needs in terms of the subject matter incorporated within
citizenship education, one of the key themes that emerged was the need to
gain everyday practical life skills and acquire knowledge about every day issues.
These included knowledge and skills in relation to; paying bills, accounting,
resuscitation and effective interaction with others. Such skills were described
by two pupils as things that would ‘help people practically and the ‘day to day
things’. In one of the groups, these issues were contrasted with other wider
issues such as how many people are drinking within certain age brackets. It is
again clear from the statements made within the following extract that pupils
desired to engage with topics that they could relate to their everyday life
experience as opposed to abstract facts or issues they already knew about:
AS
[W]hat do you think you need to learn about, or what do you
need to be able to gather from citizenship education?
1
Normal life, like sometimes when you’re small you don’t
understand; when I was small I didn’t understand how to pay a
bill or nothing. Stuff like that, you could learn that in citizenship
which could help you as you grow older.
….
2
I think it’s good when you’re really young, like Year 2, Year 3,
what’s that drugs, and things like that, but when you get to a
certain age you’ve seen it, some people have tried it, some people
have already done it stuff like that so it’s nothing new.
.…
3
Yes, something that will help people practically.
2
Day to day things rather than big issues like how many people
drinking at whatever age and stuff.
Another group additionally emphasised the need to be made more aware of key
issues within the outside world, such as racism and voting:
AS
What do you think you need from citizenship?
175
2
I think we should be more aware of things like racism and stuff.
3
They need to, like they, say they’re trying to make us more aware
of the outside world, that’s why we’re doing citizenship, they need
to like teach us more about it, like the voting, racism, equality and
all that stuff.
2
Nobody really knows about voting, we don’t really know about it.
1
Maybe if they took us to the thing in town, that parliament thing
….
3
I think to make people more aware about racism and equality and
that because people just don’t agree and we don’t learn the facts
we just learn what people think and other opinions, and that’s all
we have just have discussions.
The importance of raising awareness of race and racism was also highlighted
within a second group. Within this group it was thought that there was a need
for pupils to ‘learn about other people’ who were different to themselves, to
enable effective interactions and to avoid unnecessary conflicts. Within this
group one pupil also suggested that pupils should learn about human conflict,
namely. ‘why people bomb each others counties and stuff and have wars’. This
statement indicates that ‘everyday’ issues can encompass events that are
happening far away but yet are viewed by pupils as having an impact on their
lives.
In specific relation to the ethnicity of the pupils involved in the group
discussions. Within one group in particular the need for black and Asian role
models was highlighted. Pupils in a second discussion group also spoke about
the need for more black teachers, who they believed could better understand
and explain things to black pupils simply because of their shared experience as
a black people themselves.
Within this group it was also thought that there was a need for more emphasis
to be placed on certain celebrations and events related to BME community
groups. Pupils in this group claimed that the school was biased in its emphasis
on and promotion of certain events and not others.
Ramadan and anything. School don’t do nothing when like the Muslims
are fasting or anything they don’t do anything for them, but when it
comes to Jeans for Genes day and stuff like that it’s a big thing and it’s
just one day when someone else has a whole month or a whole season
or something a whole week they don’t do anything for it.
176
Within two of the groups it was indicated that there was a need for pupils to be
taught citizenship in more effective and innovative ways. One group in
particular mentioned the ineffective monotonous methods through which they
were currently being taught, indicating that they felt the need to be taught
more effectively. Here again the issue of teacher effort is brought to the
foreground as a key factor in the effectiveness of citizenship education:
2
Citizenship, they’re in there now and basically all the teachers are
doing now you’re just getting grilled asking questions; watching it
on DVD
1
Mr X records the thing on DVD off tv now and then he plays it and
it’s about drugs and stuff and it’s just like we know it already and
he’s like, oh it’s just boring.
3
Then he gets annoyed when we just switch off
4
It gets annoying when you’re lying there.
1
I think it was better in Year 9 though because the teachers put
more effort into it.
2
Stuff like, in our class when we did the presentations we all kind
of got into it, all of us did it properly and thought that
1
She thought a bit more. Right now the teachers hand sheets out
and that’s it.
These comments stand in contrast to effective teaching, described by pupils.
Students in two groups advocate the increased implementation of external
speakers who are able to share knowledge on certain key issues. In the second
group it was also suggested that practical outings and the use of drama within
lessons would also be effective.
Although not all groups mentioned teaching methods in the context of student
needs, the above comments strongly correspond with those made pupils when
discussing the preferencing of lessons and the importance of citizenship
education.
In one of the groups, pupils emphasised the need to acquire general
information about citizenship such as what it actually means and how it
changes people lives. These pupils seemed to be unsure about even the most
foundational aspects of citizenship education and felt that they needed some
very basic information about the subject before they could fully engage in this
area of learning.
177
Meeting of Pupils Needs
The majority of the pupils envisaged that their needs were not being met
effectively within citizenship education. In fact only one pupil gave a clear
indication that their needs were actually being met. In one of the schools
students envisaged that their needs would not be met in the future simply
because they perceived the school to be a target driven institution in which
citizenship was low priority.
When asked about how these needs could be met more effectively two of the
groups focused on the improvement of teaching methods. Pupils in one of
these groups specifically highlighted their preferences for external speakers and
practical outings such as visits to the local fire station. These comments
correspond with students’ desires for practical and interesting lessons. In one
of he groups it was also suggested that the pupils and teachers meet together
so that pupils have an opportunity to put their points across. Pupils were
however quite sceptical about this idea because in their experience the pupil
voice often goes unheard despite the pupil empowerment initiatives that have
been incorporated into the school.
This group also mentioned that more attention should be paid to significant
events and festivals connected to BME communities. Another group suggested
that the issues of racism and equality should be explored more frequently and
that more black teachers were needed both within the context of citizenship
education and throughout the entire school simply because they were seen to
have the ability to understand and explain things in a more relevant manner to
black pupils.
Within one of the groups pupils stated that BME pupils simply ‘can’t be
bothered’ with citizenship education and that they amongst ‘quite a lot of
people’, didn’t want to do citizenship. It was also suggested that the teachers’
attitude has a strong influence over pupils’ responses to citizenship. In
particular one of the pupils mentioned that when a teacher has clearly put no
effort into the lesson this then determines a negative response from pupils who
‘can’t be bothered’. Here the extent to which BME pupils were able to relate to
citizenship education was again connected to the teaching methods used.
BME Needs in the Context of Citizenship Education: Responses from
Community Group Members
With regards to the specific needs of BME young people in relation to
citizenship education, the young people questioned, pinpointed a number of
issues that they envisaged, were important for young people like themselves, to
learn about. These were centred around politics and race. In one of the
discussion groups, young people felt that Black culture and black history were
important topics. Within the second group, the young people thought it was
important to know about the workings of the political system and the rights of
the individual. This was also reflected in the comments of the third group who
178
advocated that it was important to learn about politics and the government.
This group also thought it was important to learn about different races and
having respect for different racial groups.
It is apparent from responses within the above sections, that both pupils and
community group members perceived great value in citizenship education, even
to the extent that two young people who admitted not appreciating citizenship
education whilst in school, commented that in retrospect, they now realised the
importance of the subject. It was clear however, that pupils’ perceptions of
citizenship education were not unconditional. Key factors, which impacted on
concepts of citizenship were the topics covered and the teaching style and
method employed. In particular, pupils felt that they needed to tackle relevant
issues in practical and innovative ways. In addition, community group
members stressed the need to learn about issues centred around politics and
race.
Pupils felt that their needs were not being met within citizenship education.
Suggested ways in which these needs could be met, mainly involved
innovations in the teaching methods used. Within the overall responses of
pupils and community group members we again detect a strong sense of
ambivalence. Whilst the young people clearly valued the concept of citizenship
education, perceived downfalls in the practical delivery of the subject stood in
strong opposition to such views. This disparity perhaps explains the low
preferencing and stigmatising of citizenship education and its lack of
effectiveness perceived by pupils.
UNDERSTANDINGS AND VIEWS OF BRITISH DEMOCRACY
Responses from School Pupils
When questioned about their knowledge of politics and British democracy, most
of the pupils indicated that they had minimal knowledge on the subject. Only
within one of the groups did pupils indicate that they had considerable
knowledge within this area. Although most pupils felt that they did not have
sufficient knowledge on democracy and political systems, all agreed that it was
very important to learn about these areas.
One of the groups emphasised the need for young people to know about
decisions that affect their everyday lives such as the age limits for driving,
voting and smoking. They also thought they needed to know about current
regulations such as the ban on smoking in public places and the fines for
driving whilst talking on a mobile phone. These pupils also envisaged that it
was important to know about the people who ‘running the country’ simply
because of the power they had to make decisions that could affect their
everyday lives.
179
Similarly, in a second group, it was thought that individuals needed to be aware
of any alterations to financial budgets that affect personal living, knowledge
which could influence an individuals voting choice. This group advocated that it
was important for the individual to be able to consider their own life situation
and make the voting choice that would be best for their welfare. This is a
choice that can only be made with adequate knowledge. Two of the members
from this group further suggested that if an individual remained ignorant to
such knowledge, they could make uninformed choices for political parties who’s
policies could have negative effects on their lives.
The issue of voting was also raised within group discussion 3-1 in which pupils
specifically related the importance of knowing about democracy and democratic
systems with greater knowledge of and access to the voting system. These
pupils perceived voting as an opportunity to initiate change and make a
difference and therefore welcomed the concept of gaining more knowledge
about the democratic system. When asked about their interest in studying
democracy and democratic systems these pupils stated that their interest was
dependant on the teaching methods used.
In another group it was suggested that it was very important to know about
what Britain stands for in order to care about the country and appreciate it. It
was also thought that individuals need to know a bit about the people in the
country in order to appreciate them too. These pupils however, were also
sceptical about the effectiveness of the political system because of the lack of
improvement that they perceived.
At the end of the day no matter what the government is, be it
Labour, be it Tory, be it BNP whatever at the end of the day they
might make it temporarily better but it’s never going to be
permanent because as soon as they get voted off someone else
comes in and changes all the rules again, and its never…
This scepticism was also reflected in the responses of another group where it
was thought by two pupils that the frequency of government leadership
turnover was confusing and unsettling because each time a new party gains
power, changes have to occur in the ethos and workings of society. To these
pupils this meant that there was little or no point in voting.
Within group 3-7, politics was very strongly associated with scandal within the
lives of politicians. The views of these pupils towards politics was somewhat
tarnished, due to the surplus of political scandal with which they felt they were
bombarded. When discussing political issues these pupils placed considerable
emphasis on the actual politicians as opposed to the political system. Whilst
these students did express a desire to know more about the political system,
they felt that it was impossible to escape unwanted and unnecessary
information about the lives of the politicians at the centre of this system. These
pupils expressed a clear distrust for politicians. One pupil described politicians
180
as ‘celebrities’ who instead of running the country, just went around doing ‘silly
things’.
Responses from the Community Group Members
With regards to the perceptions British democracy, there was a certain amount
of ambivalence amongst the young people questioned. Responses throughout
the discussion revealed a predominantly negative perception of politics and
democracy that the young people suggested was also reflective of the wider
views of their peers. On the other hand however, there was also some
appreciation for the centralised positioning of such issues.
Similar to the community representatives, the young people viewed the
democratic system to be both dishonest and deceptive. In particular the young
people viewed the British democratic system as one which failed to listen to the
voices of the public, despite claiming to thrive on this ethos. Not surprisingly,
politicians were also looked upon negatively. The following are some extracts
that reflect these sentiments:
2
You see something beautiful, like a rose, but you touches the
thorns on it and it hurts you, it’s like that, democracy is like just a
bag of thorns it’s not really there; it’s something that looks good
but when you go near it’s nothing.
1
there’s no point trying to have your opinion, its not like Gordon
Brown’s going to care, so there’s no point.
More specifically, two of the discussions also revealed perceptions of the
government failing to listen to BME voices in particular and failing to have
adequate concern for these groups. The below extract gives a portrayal of the
government as a body that has no respect for the views and opinions of the
people.
1
I want to add protests against the war in Iraq. Everyone protested
but nobody ever heard us. We did go, we had a protest go for a
walk but nothing happened. They still carried on with the plans,
they don’t want to listen to us, so there’s no point.
2
If it’s something for the government then they listen to you but if
it’s against then they don’t listen to you, no matter what, no
matter how many people, how many petitions are signed they just
ignore it, just put it in the dustbin.
In addition to the above comments another young person postulated that if the
recent flooding was to have occurred in the Newtown or Aston areas of
Birmingham (areas that are highly populated by BME communities), the
181
government would not have contributed as much money as they have done to
the areas currently affected across England. This young person was clearly
implying that the welfare of BME communities is of low importance to the
government.
All the community group members questioned, indicated that their knowledge
on British democracy was minimal and somewhat lacking. The young people
also indicated that their peers also had little knowledge of the system. Two
young people stated that they would like to know more whilst another stated
that if it was necessary, she would be willing to learn more about it. Two other
young people however, suggested that they had no interest in learning more
simply because they didn’t care about it.
This apathy towards issues of politics and democracy was also reflected in the
responses given to the question of how important it was to learn about politics
and democracy. Here, three young people suggested that it was not important
to learn about politics and democracy issues with two of these young people
stating that it would be a waste of time to do so. These and other similar
comments are clearly reflective of the largely negative outlook of British
democracy and its representatives, that was expressed by the young people
involved in the discussions. Despite these negative perceptions of the British
democratic system, there was still for all, some realisation of the importance of
such issues in the functioning of British society.
The responses of the pupils and community group members concerning British
democracy clearly reveal some level of respect for the system and for the most
part a keenness to learn about a system that affects their lives. The majority of
young people from the schools and community groups, agreed that it was
important to learn about British democracy. In particular, school pupils
envisaged that it was most important to learn about current issues that affected
their lives. Most pupils and community group members also saw adequate
knowledge of the system as a prerequisite to making the correct voting
decisions which they viewed to be of high importance, lest a person makes a
decision that has negative effects. Despite this interest, however, both pupils
and community group members admitted that they had very little knowledge
concerning British democracy.
Perceptions of British democracy were seriously tarnished by their knowledge of
political scandal and its general lack of effectiveness as a system and also its
failure to listen to the voices of the people. In the context of the latter point,
community group members viewed the British democratic system to be highly
deceptive and biased. The overall outlook of the pupils and community group
members towards British democracy is one which is fundamentally ambiguous
in the sense that whilst pupils are able to identify multiple dysfunctions of the
system, it is still recognised as a central system that inevitably affects their
lives. Responses indicate that it is this aspect of democracy that is most likely
to appeal to BME young people and not the promotion of the British democracy
itself as an effective, just and well rounded system.
182
CHAPTER 5
PERSPECTIVES FROM COMMUNITY GROUP
REPRESENTATIVES
PERCEPTIONS OF CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION
As with the school pupils and young people from community groups, the views
of community group representatives of citizenship education were somewhat
ambivalent. In general, community group leaders were very sceptical about the
aims of citizenship education. Three of the representatives made strong
suggestions that citizenship education was in their view a political tool that is
being used to somehow standardise Britishness and ensure that everyone fits
with an idealistic traditional model of Britishness. In this view citizenship
education was seen to be particularly targeted at BME groups, particularly
immigrants entering into British society.
It’s just another one of those Tony Blair ‘everybody who comes into the
country has to be made British’ kind of thing, and if you don’t talk the
English language you’re not one of us
_______________
It’s just trying to standardise, having a norm for a citizen. How should a
citizen behave or be? That’s how I see citizenship to be.
________________
That type of thing was tried by the socialist states like Russia and China,
teaching people about these kind of things, citizenship and all that and
trying to put them in one little cabinet but that didn’t work, so why
should this system?
The implementation of citizenship into the school curriculum was also seen to
be problematic in that it was felt by some representatives that the structure and
foundation of citizenship education had not been given due consideration.
Representatives also perceived that citizenship was not given adequate
importance within schools.
It’s just another tick box exercise, with all the will in the world I don’t
think it’s really been thought through properly and put proper things in
place to be implemented adequately.
On the other hand however, community group representatives also realised the
usefulness of citizenship education in providing a forum for the exploration of
current social issues. In this sense citizenship was seen to be both necessary
and important.
183
Its far more important and needed than it seems now, it just seems that
schools are paying lip service to it because they’re supposed to.
It would be good if it was implemented and people did get greater
learning and understanding of each others cultures, but if it’s just
brought in, the foundations of it to me aren’t solid.
Needs of BMEs in the context of Citizenship Education
The two predominant needs that were highlighted within the responses of
community group representatives were the need to address identity issues
within groups and integration between groups. In terms of self-Identity, one of
the representatives also stated that there is a lack of identity amongst BME
young people who are unsure about who they are and their position within
society. This representative also suggests that these young people ‘don’t have
a sense of belonging’ and therefore need to be integrated. This correlates with
a response from another representative who stated that there is a need for
BME young people to feel a sense of belonging within England.
Needs I would think, first of all right, the need is to make, twist that
around a bit, make everyone feel wanted in this country and make
everybody feel they are part of this country. If you don’t feel part of
something you will have no respect for that
Here the suggestion is that without a sense of belonging or connection the
young person will not have respect for their country of residence. This
representative also suggested that the very title of ‘citizenship’ education
causes young people from BME communities to feel distanced and isolated from
Britishness and British society, because the integration of the subject in the
national curriculum suggests that BME young people are not British enough and
need to receive training in that respect. If this is the case then citizenship
would be undermining one of its key principles of equality and acceptance.
Other representatives also objected to the titling of citizenship education,
stating that it again bore connotations of a forceful indoctrination of pupils to
ensure that everyone fits into a narrow conception of Britishness.
On the other hand it was widely agreed among representatives that there was a
need for young people to gain knowledge and understanding of other
community groups and to have respect for other communities.
These
comments correspond with the strong suggestions from educators that BME
youth needed to integrate more with other groups beyond their own. One of
the representatives indicated that BME youth do not have a sense of belonging
and therefore need to be educated about the benefits of integrating and being
part of the wider society. The following statement further suggests that there
are stark divisions not only between BME communities and host communities,
but even between different BME communities themselves.
184
They live in these little enclaves, where the community would be
predominantly black and Asian and mixed-race and the minority would
then be white so they don’t get to socialise on a wider scale really
The above representative also commented that ignorance of other ethnic
groups causes young people to label others outside of their own community
group which may lead to undue fear or resentment of others.
Another representative supports this point by explaining that divisions between
BME groups is at times caused by mistrust which is born from the experiences
of individuals whilst living in their native countries.
We have a lot of Iranian people and the distrust they bring over with
them, that the secret police come over with them and torture that
they’ve suffered, they don’t readily mix, they don’t trust readily enough
to mix.
Also identified was the need for positive role-modelling within groups,
particularly male role models and a need for the reassertion of traditional
morals that are upheld within the BME communities. The lack of positive role
models was also recognised within the discussions held with community group
members.
Also highlighted was the need for young people to have active involvement in
community activities was also highlighted. In addition one representative also
pinpointed the need for understanding of political processes. This particular
respondent suggested that young people don’t vote simply because they do not
understand the voting process.
Meeting of BME Needs in Citizenship
Within the main group discussion it was suggested that the above needs could
possibly be met by the provision of more resources for teachers to use in the
classroom, as web resources are somewhat limited. It was also stated that
citizenship needs to be given a more prominent positioning within schools. In
particular, one of the respondents advocated that citizenship be made a
component of the main curriculum as apposed to a periphery subject and that
proper aims and objectives be integrated into the subject and lastly that the
subject be given proper certification. Another representative additionally
suggested that the lesson should be given more time within the curriculum due
to the vast remit of citizenship education. These responses are again reflective
of points made by the pupils concerning the disparity between the importance
of citizenship and its low status shown through its timetabling.
185
The words of the community group representatives corresponded very strongly
with those of the pupils and community group members. In particular, we see
a very critical outlook on citizenship education. In the case of the school pupils
the delivery and content of citizenship education were the main points for
concern, where as, the community group representatives were more critical of
the perceived covert purposes of citizenship education. In both cases there is a
strong sense of ambiguity in the sense that whilst there is still significant
appreciation for the importance and potential of citizenship.
Understandings and Views of British Democracy
Community group representatives generally harboured negative conceptions of
British Democracy.
Representatives were clearly very sceptical about the
system indicating that it was deceptive and manipulative. One representative
for instance suggested that the government use propaganda techniques to
push forward a particular scheme or law. This comment was supported by
another representative who gave the example of a particular scheme that was
implemented and financed by the government due to the involvement of a
politician’s wife. This suggests that decisions of the government are led by
ulterior motives that are not necessarily based on public opinion.
Representatives suggested that although the political system is referred to as a
democracy, the reality is that it compares more to a dictatorship in that the
voices of the public are not listened to.
It doesn’t matter who you vote for they’re all going to have the same
agenda.
This general conceptualisation of the British government was substantiated by
additional comments, which emphasised the lack of public power within
governmental decision-making. It was suggested for instance that if the public
don’t agree with a government idea, they simply are not listened to. It was
thought that deprived BME groups are at a particular disadvantage where the
voicing of their views and opinions is concerned in the sense that decisions are
often imposed on them as opposed to them being involved in the decision
making processes. This point was highlighted by one of the representatives
who commenting on his own BME community, stated that ‘if things are done
they’re done onto us rather than with us’ (Phase 4 follow-up interview 1). The
following representative expressed his perception of British democracy. This
statement gives a strong sense of disempowerment and subordination.
Its like were pawns in the game but were not actual players in the game
at all.
186
It was further suggested by one representative that even when political leaders
are themselves from a BME community BME communities are not guaranteed
adequate representation.
Another suggestion was that consultations between political leaders and the
public are infrequent and inadequate thus allowing individuals little or no
opportunity to be heard. Representatives also commented on the unreliability
and inconsistency of political leaders stating that despite changes in leadership,
the same social problems remain and that political leaders often seem
promising during the campaigning period but then once in power tend to ‘do
what they want’.
These comments were further compounded by the
suggestion from two of the representatives that the government have a set
agenda that is irrespective of public opinion.
Perceived Attitudes of BME Young People Towards British Democracy
The general consensus amongst representatives was that BME young people
were uninterested in politics and democracy and had little involvement in
democratic processes. Most of the representatives agreed that BME young
people lacked understanding and knowledge of the British democratic system,
with one representative suggesting that politics and democracy were not topics
that young people even thought about. Two of the representatives suggested
that this is due to the predominance of other activities or issues that are more
important to them. One representative commented that these other areas are
so engrossing that the young people do not even fathom democracy or politics.
Another representative commented that young people generally think that
British Democracy is ‘a waste of time’ simply because they don’t see themselves
as being capable of effecting change and rather perceive that things will always
remain the same regardless of who is in power.
According to this
representative, in order to get involved, young people need to know that they
can make a difference.
Whilst acknowledging that most BME young people are politically disengaged,
one representative pointed out that there are some young people who do have
a view about democracy and politics but eventually become discouraged with
the dysfunctional nature of the democratic system and become increasingly less
passionate about political issues until their passion disappears altogether.
Important Political Issues for BME Young People to Explore
Despite their critical outlook on British democracy, there were still some key
issues that community group representatives viewed as being important for
BME young people to learn about. Representatives thought it was important for
BME young people to gain knowledge of how the democratic system worked
and to be encouraged to vote and participate in democratic processes.
187
One representative cautioned however that if young people will be unlikely to
participate in the voting process if they don’t believe that their participation will
effect change.
Another representative thought that it was particularly important for young
people to know how to challenge government decisions or policies that they
disagree with and the methods they can use to impact change especially when
they are being discriminated against in some way.
In particular, this
representative pinpointed rallying and petitioning as two methods that BME
young people should be educated about. According to this representative BME
young people are often encouraged to vote but are not educated about how to
challenge governmental decisions. This representative also -emphasised the
importance of encouraging young people to think critically about impacting
change within society. One of the representatives additionally commented on
the lack of emphasis on democracy and political issues within youth projects
and after school activities and the fact that BME young people are not
encouraged to explore the possibility of becoming political leaders.
The responses of community group leaders reveal a collective perception of a
deceptive system that does not correspond with standard definitions of
democracy. In this sense one representative summarises the British democratic
system as a dictatorship in the guise of a democracy. These views again bear
similarities to the responses of the BME pupils and the community group
members. Community group representatives also envisaged that these views
were also held by BME young people. Whilst this was mostly true, it was also
apparent that the BME young people interviewed, placed great importance on
knowing about democratic and political issues than was indicated by
representatives. This illustrates the fact that whilst young people are commonly
perceived to be politically apathetic, this is very often not the case.
Even though community group leaders were highly critical of British democracy,
they still advocated the active involvement of BME young people in democratic
processes. This shows that like the young people, the community group
leaders had a somewhat ambivalent view towards British democracy, openly
expressing their negative perceptions of the system whilst also realising its
centrality and prominence.
188
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The wealth of data gathered from educators, pupils, community group
representatives and community group members have provided a rich resource
with which to explore the understandings and effects of citizenship education
and the positioning of the British democratic system among BME young people
and representatives within BME communities. Whilst this study in itself can not
be considered to be statistically comprehensive, it has nevertheless provided a
valuable qualitative insight into the realities of the issues covered.
It is clear from the responses gathered, that there was a strong sense of
ambivalence surrounding citizenship education. All four groups of participants
harboured very positive outlooks towards citizenship education in terms of its
importance and purpose and its potential to inform about pivotal everyday
issues. It is also apparent however, that this optimism was seriously challenged
by a number of factors. On this basic level, responses from the four groups
involved in the study, were largely similar.
With regards to the educators’ perspectives, there was a general enthusiasm for
citizenship and the potential of the subject within secondary education. There
seemed to be a distinct recognition among educators of the importance of
citizenship education both in the immediate term and in the future lives of
pupils. Educators’ viewed citizenship to be generally effective, engaging and
inclusive and expressed appreciation for both the structure and content of the
subject. In particular, educators pinpointed the flexibility of the citizenship
curriculum and their ability to have freedom within its boundaries. On the other
hand however educators also recognised that lack of planning and the general
reluctance of citizenship educators were key hindering factors to the successful
delivery of the subject. It was also widely recognised that the subject was
considered to be of low status amongst staff members, many of whom felt that
the teaching of citizenship education had been imposed upon them.
It was also clear from educators’ responses that the key terms of inclusion and
equality were some what perplexing, with some educators associating these
terms with the sameness of pupils. Some educators also proposed that there
were certain universal topics within citizenship that cause citizenship to be a
universally relevant subject in and of it self. These perceptions can be some
what detrimental in that there is a risk that educators will become less proactive
in implementing inclusive measures due to their own view of the homogeneous
classroom and an over reliance on the perceived ‘naturally’ inclusive nature of
citizenship education. The very concept of ‘inclusive’ topics employed by these
educators is concerning since it seems not to consider the differing cultural
interpretations of the same topics despite their seeming neutrality. These
considerations, coupled with the existence of some uncertainty and
apprehension surrounding the teaching of race and identity related issues,
raises concerns as to the competency of educators within this central area of
citizenship education.
189
In terms of the needs of BME pupils, educators particularly emphasised the
need for pupils to interact with other ethnic/cultural groups and also the need
to incorporate real and relevant issues that pupils can relate to.
Not all
educators however, accepted the notion of BME specific needs and this again
emerged as an area of some controversy. This notion was considered by a
minority of educators, to stand at odds with the ethos of equality. This is again
concerning since the understanding of pupil needs will inevitably effect the
manner in which citizenship education is delivered, particularly within the topic
areas of race, diversity and identity.
Educators perceived that their ability to meet the needs of BME pupils was
largely hinged on certain personal attributes such as their own ethnic
background and life experiences. Teachers mainly spoke of the need for more
time, knowledge and resources in order to meet the needs of BME pupils. This
considered alongside the low status of citizenship education, indicates that
there are perhaps certain fundamental needs that need to be fulfilled more
generally in order for educators to meet the needs of BME pupils in the most
effective way.
It is vital that citizenship educators develop more complex conceptions of
inclusion and inclusive education and that they develop a sufficient sensitivity
towards the possible differences between pupils from differing ethnic
communities. It is also important that educators are competent and confident
in the tackling of race and diversity topics within citizenship as there is a real
danger that pupils who sense a lacking in these areas, will become disillusioned.
These elements are integral to the delivery of citizenship education that is
comprehensive and meets the needs of all pupils.
In the case of the pupils and community group members, it is clear that these
young people were very enthusiastic about the concept of citizenship education
and considered citizenship education as a school lesson, to be of great value.
However, pupils were simultaneously disappointed with the delivery of
citizenship education and the attitude of teachers towards the subject. This
disparity was strongly reflected in the low preferencing of citizenship among
pupils, the stigmatising of citizenship education and its lack of effectiveness
perceived among pupils.
There were several key factors which impacted upon the conceptions of pupils
and community group members, mainly the topics covered, the teaching style
and the teaching methods employed. In particular, pupils felt that they needed
to cover relevant issues in practical and innovative ways. Pupils felt that these
needs were not being met within citizenship education. The main suggestion
for the meeting of these needs was the implementation of the teaching
methods used. These responses correspond with the concerns expressed by
citizenship educators themselves, with regards to the inadequate commitment
of educators and the consequent negative effects on delivery.
190
Responses of pupils and community group members concerning British
democracy revealed an ambivalent outlook.
On one hand, pupils and
community group members’ responses reflected some level of respect for the
system and expressed a keenness to learn about it and be aware of its effects
on their lives. Despite this however, pupils and community group members
perceived the British democratic system to be highly deceptive and biased and
generally dysfunctional.
The views of community group representatives were largely similar to those of
the young people form schools and community groups. Views of citizenship
education were again ambivalent in the sense that whilst there is a general
appreciation for the importance and potential of citizenship education,
responses also reflect a very strong critical outlook on the subject. Like the
young people, community group representatives held highly negative views of
the British democratic system, again viewing the system as one which fails to
fulfil its claims. However, even though community group leaders were highly
critical of British democracy they still advocated the active involvement of BME
young people in democratic processes.
Overall, responses throughout the research indicate widespread disappointment
both in the reality of citizenship education and that of the British democratic
system that it seeks to promote. The young people in particular, whilst
enthusiastic, are hindered by a number of structural challenges which ultimately
prevent them from experiencing the realisation of their own hopes and
aspirations for citizenship education. Similarly, the value that they detect in the
concept of democracy is lost in the actual experiencing of the British democratic
system. These conclusions indicate serious challenges for the remit of
citizenship education and emphasise the need for relevant and adequate
support for those by whom this education is delivered.
191
RECOMMENDATIONS

The integration of citizenship education values within the whole school
ethos so that pupils can experience citizenship in practical and tangible
ways.

General training for teachers on meeting pupil need within the
multicultural classroom

The development of clear and appropriate understandings of baseline
terms and concepts such as inclusion and equality, amongst educators,
to enable them to deliver citizenship education that is comprehensive
and meets the needs of all pupils.

The establishment specialised training for citizenship educators on the
handling of issues such as race and ethnicity and identity within the
multicultural classroom.

The implementation of active measures to increase the confidence levels
of citizenship educators in the teaching of ‘sensitive’ topics such as race,
diversity and identity.

The establishment of a collaborative forum for citizenship educators
whereby they can share and evaluate ideas.

Further research into the teaching of race and diversity specifically,
mapping teachers’ handling of such issues and the responses of pupils.

Research into the teaching of democracy issues in schools and how this
teaching can be made more accessible and effective and how it can
facilitate more open discussions/evaluations of the system.
192
193
REFERENCES
Abbas, T. (2002). ‘The Home and the School in the Educational Achievements
of South Asians’. Race Ethnicity and Education, Vol.5, No.3, pp.291–316.
Amin, K. Drew, D. Fosam, B. Gillborn, D. and Demack, S. (1997) Black and
Ethnic Minority Young People and Educational Disadvantage. London: The
Runnymede Trust.
Anwar, M. (2001) ‘The Participation of Ethnic Minorities in British Politics’.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. Vol.27, No.3, pp.533-549.
Arthur, J. Davison, J. Stow, W. (2000) Social Literacy, Citizenship Education and
the National Curriculum. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Barbalet, J. M. (1988) Citizenship. England: Open University Press.
Barnes, S. (2004) Political Participation in Post-Communist Central and Eastern
Europe. Centre for the Study of Democracy (University of California, Irvine).
Available on-line: http://repositories.cdlib.org/csd/04-10/ (date Accessed:
10/10/06).
Ben-Rafael, E. (1996) ‘Multiculturalism in Sociological perspective’ in Baubock,
R. Heller, A. Zolberg, A. (eds). The Challenge of Diversity: Integration and
Pluralism in Societies of Immigration. Aldershot: Avebury. pp.133-154.
Blair, M. (2001) Why Pick on Me? School exclusion and Black Youth. England
and USA: Trentham Books.
Christensen, K. and Levinson, D. (2003) ‘Communitarianism’ in Encyclopaedia of
Community: From the Village to the Virtual World, Vol.1, A-D. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Citizenship Foundation (2004) ‘Young People are not Politically Apathetic says
new
Research’.
Available
on-line:
http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/news.php?n83. (Date accessed:
10/10/06).
Clarke, B. (1994) Citizenship: London and Colorado: Pluto Press.
Codjoe, H. (2006) The Role of an Affirmed Black Cultural Identity and Heritage
in the Academic Achievement of African Canadian Students. Intercultural
Education. Vol.17, No.1, March 2006, pp.33-54.
Coffield, F. et al (2004) Should we be Using Learning Styles? What Research
has to say to Practice. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre.
Commission for Racial Equality (no date) Gypsies and travellers: A Strategy for
194
the
CRE
2004-2007.
London:
CRE.
http://www.cre.gov.uk/downloads/gt_strategy_final.doc
(date accessed: 09/10/2006).
Available
on-line:
Comission for Racial Equality (2002) ‘The Duty to Promote Race Equality: A
Guide
for
Schools’
(Non-statutory).
Available
online:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/duty_schools.pdf (date accessed: 12/05/06).
Cordeiro, A. Reagan, T.G. Martinez. L.P. (1994) Multiculturalism and TQE:
Addressing Cultural Diversity in Schools. London, New Delhi and California:
Sage Publications.
Delanty, G. (2000) Citizenship in a global age: Society, Culture Politics.
Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) ‘Introducing Citizenship Education:
A
guide
for
parents
and
carers’.
Available
online:
http://www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/resource.php?s256
(Date
accessed: 30/10/2006).
Department for Education and Skills (no date) Race Relations Amendment Act
2000. Available on-line:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/ethnicminorities/raising_achievement/76361
1/# (date accessed: 12/05/06).
Department for Education and Skills (no date) ‘What is citizenship?’ Available
on-line: www.dfes.gov.uk/citizenship/section.cfm?sectionId=3&hierachy=1.3
Fahmy, E. (no date) Young Peoples Political Participation – Results from the
1996
MORI
Omnibus
survey.
Available
on-line:
http://www.radstats.org.uk/no070/article3.htm (date accessed: 04/01/2006).
Faulks, K. (2000) Citizenship. London and New York: Routledge.
Foster, V. (1997) ‘Feminist Theory and Construction of Citizenship Education’ in
Kennedy, K. (ed) Citizenship Education and the Modern State. London and
Washington D.C: Falmer Press. pp.54-64.
Gardner, P. (2002) Strategies and Resources for Teaching and Learning in
Inclusive Classrooms. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Garrett, J. (2005) ‘Rawls Mature Theory of Social Justice: An Introduction for
Students’:
Western
Kentucky
University.
Available
on-line:
http://www.wku.edu/~jan.garrett/ethics/matrawls.htm,
(date
accessed:
29/11/2005).
German, G. (2002) ‘Antiracist Strategies for Educational Performance:
Facilitating Successful Learning for all Children’ in Dwivedi, K.N. (ed) Meeting
195
the Needs of Ethnic Minority Children: Including Refugee, Black and Mixed
Parentage Children, 2nd edition. London and New York: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers. pp.200-218.
Gillborn D. and Gipps C. (1996) Recent Research on the Achievements of Ethnic
Minority Pupils. London: Ofsted.
Greig, A. and Taylor, J. (2004) Doing Research with Children. London, California
and New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Hall, E. Moseley, D. Ecclestone, K. and Coffield, F. (2004) ‘Researching Learning
Styles’. Teaching Thinking and Creativity. Issue 13. Available on-line:
http://www.teachthinking.com/archive/TT13/ResearchingLearningStyles.pdf
(date accessed: 03/08/07)
Haque, Z. (2000) ‘The Ethnic Minority ‘Underachieving’ Group? Investigating the
Claims of Underachievement Amongst Bangladeshi Pupils in British Secondary
Schools’. Race Ethnicity and Education, Vol.1, No.2, pp.145-167.
Harty, S. and Murphy, M. (2005) In Defence of Multinational Citizenship.
Cardiff: University of Wales Press.
Hennessy, E. and Heary, C. (2005) ‘Exploring Children’s Views Through Focus
Groups’ in Greene, S. and Hogan, D (2005) Researching Children’s Experience:
Approaches and Methods. London, California and New Delhi: Sage. pp.236-252.
Huddleston,T. and Kerr, D. eds. (2006), Making sense of Citizenship: A CPD
Handbook.
London:
Hodder
Murray.
Available
on-line:
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk/main/resource.php?s215
Heater, D. (2004) A Brief History of Citizenship: Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Heater, D. (2004) Citizenship: The Civic Ideal in World History, Politics and
Education. Third edition. Manchester and New York: Manchester University
Press.
Heywood, A. (1999) Political Theory: An Introduction. Second edition. London:
Macmillan Press Ltd.
Hogan, D. (1997) ‘The Logic of Protection: Citizenship Justice and Political
Community’ in Kennedy, K. (ed) Citizenship Education and the Modern State.
London and Washington D.C: Falmer Press. pp.27-53.
Inman, S. and Buck, M. eds. (1995). Adding Value?: Schools responsibility for
pupils personal development. Staffordshire: Trentham Books Ltd.
196
Ireson, J. and Hallam, S. (1999) ‘Raising Standards: Is Ability Grouping the
Answer?’ Oxford Review of Education, Vol.25, No.3, pp.343-358.
Jacobs, D. Phalet, K. Swyngedouw, M. (2004) ‘Associational Membership and
Political Involvement Among Ethnic Minority Groups in Brussles’. Journal of
Ethnic and Migration Studies. Vol.30, No.3, May 2004, pp.543-559.
Janoski and Gran, (2002) ‘Political Citizenship: Foundation of Rights’. Isin, E.
and Turner, B. (eds) Handbook of Citizenship Studies. London California and
New Delhi: Sage. pp.13-52.
John, P. Morris, Z. Halpern, D. (2003) ‘Social Capital and Causal Role of
Socialisation’. Paper prepared for the ESRC Democracy and participation
Conference,
University
of
Essex.
Available
on-line:
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/polsoc/download/peter_john/essex_paper.pdf
Johnson, S. M. and Lollar, X. L. (2002) ‘Diversity Policy in Higher Education: The
Impact of College Students Exposure to Diversity on Cultural Awareness and
Political Participation’. Journal of Educational Policy. Vol.17, No.3, pp.305-320.
Kerr, D. (2003) ‘Citizenship in England: The Making of a New Subject’ On-line
journal for Social Science Education 2. Available on-line: http://www.sowionlinejournal.de/2003-2/england_kerr.htm (date accessed: 30/10/2006).
Kincheloe J. L. and Steinberg S. R. (1997) Changing Multiculturalism.
Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority
Rights. Clarendon Press: Oxford UK.
Lawton, D. Cairns, J. Gardner, R. (2000) Education for Citizenship: London and
New York: Continuum.
Learning and Skills Development Agency (2004) ‘Citizenship Programme at 16
Plus Gets go Ahead to Expand: Will this get Young People into the Ballot Boxes
for Tomorrows Elections?’ Press Release, 9th June 2004. Available on-line:
http://www.lsneducation.org.uk/files/pdf/press/9June2004.pdf (date accessed:
03/04/06).
Mahajan G. (1999). ‘Rethinking Multiculturalism’. Seminar journal, December
1999 edn. Available on-line: http://www.india-seminar.com/semframe.htm
May, T. (1997) Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Second Edition.
Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press.
McClurg, S. D. (2003). ‘Social Networks and Political Participation: The Role of
Social Interaction in Explaining Political Participation’. Political Research
Quarterly, Vol.56, pp.448-464.
197
Mehra, H. (2004) Racism in Education. Britain: Dr Harish Mehra.
Miller, J. and Glassner, B. (2004) ‘The Inside and the Outside Finding Realities
in Interviews’ in Silverman ed. (2004) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method
and Practice. 2nd edition: London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi. Sage.
pp.125-139.
Ofsted, (1999) Raising the Attainment of Minority Ethnic Pupils: School and LEA
Responses. London: Ofsted.
Olssen, M. (2004) ‘From Crick Report to Parekh Report: Multiculturalism,
Cultural Difference, and Democracy – the Re-visioning of Citizenship Education’.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.25, No2, pp.179-192.
Osler, A. (2000) ‘The Crick Report: Difference Equality and Racial Justice’. The
Curriculum Journal. Vol.11, No.1, pp.25-37.
Parekh, B. (1999) ‘What is Multiculturalism?’. Seminar Journal, December 1999
edition. Available online: http://www.india-seminar.com/semframe.htm (date
accessed: 30/10/2006).
Pattie, C. Seyd, P. and Whiteley, P. (2004) Citizenship In Britain: Values
Participation and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pocock, J. G. A. (1998) ‘The Ideal of Citizenship Since Classical Times’ in Shafir,
G. (ed) The Citizenship Debates: A reader. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press. pp.2-31.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2004) ‘Play Your Part: Post-16
Citizenship
Guidance’.
Available
online:
http://www.qca.org.uk/downloads/qca041313.pdf
(date
accessed:
30/10/2006).
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2002) Citizenship at Key Stages 1-4:
Guidance on Assessment, Recording and Reporting. London: QCA.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2000) Citizenship at Key Stages 3 and
4: Initial Guidance for Schools. London: QCA.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1999) Citizenship: The National
Curriculum for England. London: The Stationary Office.
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (1998) Education for Citizenship and the
Teaching of Democracy in Schools (Crick Report). London: QCA.
198
Ramakrishnan, S. K. and Espenshade, T. J. (2001). ‘Immigrant Incorporation
and Political Participation in the United States’. International Migration Review.
Vol.35, No.3, pp.870-909.
Rassool, N. (1999) ‘Flexible Identities: Exploring Race and Gender Issues
Among a Group of Immigrant Pupils in an Inner City Comprehensive School’.
British Journal of Sociology of Education. Vol.20, No.1, pp.23-36.
Reese, W. L. (1980) Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western
Thought. England: Humanities Press Ltd.
Rex, J. (2003) ‘The Concept of a Multicultural Society’ in Guibernau, M. and
Rex, J. (eds) The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration.
Oxford and USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. pp.205-219.
Rocker, D. Player, K. Coleman. J. (1999). ‘Young People’s Voluntary and
Campaigning Activities as a Source of Political Education’. Oxford Review of
Education. Vol.25, Nos1&2, pp.185–198.
Runnymede Trust (no date) Black and Minority Ethnic Issues in Teaching and
Learning: Briefing paper: Runnymede Trust
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/projects/education/BMEissuesDiscussionPaper.
pdf (Date accessed: 11/05/06).
Sanders, M.G. and Jordan, J. (2000) ‘Student-Teacher Relations and Academic
Achievement in High School’ in Sanders. M. G. (ed) Schooling Students Placed
at Risk: Research Policy and Practice in the Education of Poor and Minority
Adolescents. London and New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. pp.6582.
Segal S. (2005) ‘Political Participation as an Engine of Social Solidarity: A
Sceptical View’. Political Studies: Vol 53, pp.362-378.
Sanghera, B. (no date) ‘State and Society: Political Participation’. Available online:
http://ukgeocities.com/balihar_sanghera/saspoliticalparticipation.html,
(date accessed: 04/01/2006).
Schlosser, E. (2005) ‘Has Political Participation Become a Minority Activity?’ The
liberalist.
07/04/2005.
Available
on-line:
http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/theliberalist/entry/has_political_participation/, (date
accessed: 04/01/2006).
Stevenson, N. (2003) Cultural Citizenship: Cosmopolitan Questions. England:
Open University Press.
Tiryakian, E. A. (2003) ‘Assessing Multiculturalism Theoretically: E Pluribus
Unum, Sic et Non’. International Journal on Multicultural Societies (IJMS) Vol. 5,
No. 1, 2003,pp. 20-39.
199
Tomlinson, S. (2005) ‘Race Ethnicity and Education Under New Labour’. Oxford
Review of Education. Vol.31, No.1, pp.153-171.
Tomlinson S. (1998) ‘New Inequalities? Educational Markets and Ethnic
Minorities’: Race Ethnicity and Education. Vol.1, No 2, pp.207-224.
Verkuyten, M. (2005). ‘Immigration Discourses and their Impact on
Multiculturalism: A Discursive and Experimental Study’. British Journal of Social
Psychology. Vol.44, 223-240.
Warren, S. and Gillborn, D. (no date) Race Equality and Education in
Birmingham (Report commissioned by Birmingham City Council and Birmingham
Race Action Partnership).
Wilkins, C. (2000) ‘Citizenship Education’ in Bailey, R. (ed), Teaching Values and
Citizenship Across the Curriculum. London: Kogan Page.
Wilkinson, S. (2004) ‘Focus Group Research’ in Silverman, D. ed (2004)
Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. 2nd ed: London, Thousand
Oaks and New Delhi. Sage. pp.177-199.
WEBSITES
Commission for Racial Equality:
http://www.cre.gov.uk
Department for Education and Skills Citizenship:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/citizenship
Learning Skills Network:
http://www.lsneducation.org.uk
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority:
http://www.qca.org.uk
The Department for Education and Skills Standards Site:
http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk
200
APPENDIX I
Phase 1 Interview Schedule
Introduction
-Introduction of researcher
-Thank participant for coming
-Introduction of topic and purpose of research project.
Briefing
-Stress that this is only an informal discussion to help shape the research
-Encourage participants to speak openly
-Inform participants that discussion will be recorded (but encourage them to ignore
recording device)
-Assure participants that everything will remain confidential and that they will not be
directly quoted and that their views will not be linked to a named school in any way.
-Inform participants that they are free to leave at any point and do not have to answer
any questions they are uncomfortable with
-Ask if there are any questions/comments before starting
-Begin recording.
General Information
What is the title of your post here at ……school?
How long have you worked in this post?
How long have you worked here at the school?
How did you come to be responsible for citizenship? (ie: motives, did they choose to
apply, were they asked?)
What does your role here at the school involve?
How often do you teach citizenship classes?
How are citizenship lessons timetabled here at …..school?
How diverse would you say that the school population is?
What is your understanding of ‘diversity’?
The Citizenship curriculum
In your opinion, how effective is the citizenship education curriculum?
In your opinion how effective is citizenship education within this school?
201
What do you think causes the lessons to be so effective / ineffective?
Do you think the current citizenship education curriculum is adequate for the culturally
diverse school setting? (Examples?)
(If not) how do you think it can be made more adequate?
Do you think the curriculum is inclusive to black and minority ethnic young people?
Citizenship Lessons
In your opinion, how inclusive are citizenship lessons for black and minority ethnic
pupils?
Do you feel that the citizenship lessons that you teach are inclusive? (in what ways?)
To what extent do you think current citizenship education engages the pupils from
black and minority ethnic communities?
(If appropriate) How do you think the pupils from black and minority ethnic
communities can be more effectively engaged?
What kinds of activities are used in citizenship lessons? (Examples of good and bad
practice).
Citizenship Educators
What do you see to be the needs of black and minority ethnic pupils pertaining to
citizenship education?
How prepared do you think citizenship teachers at this school are, to meet the needs
of pupils from black and ethnic minority communities?
How prepared do you feel to meet these needs? (Why?)
What do you think needs to be done for you to feel more prepared?
Debriefing
- Thank participant once again
- Ask if there are any questions / further points they would like to add.
- Ask if they wouldn’t mind being involved in further stages of the project.
202
APPENDIX II
Phase 2 Interview Schedule
Introduction
-Introduction of researcher
-Thank participant for coming
-Introduction of topic and purpose of research project.
Briefing
-Stress that this is only an informal discussion to help shape the research
-Encourage participants to speak openly
-Inform participants that discussion will be recorded (but encourage them to ignore
recording device)
-Assure participants that everything will remain confidential and that they will not be
directly quoted and that their views will not be linked to a named school in any way.
-Inform participants that they are free to leave at any point and do not have to answer
any questions they are uncomfortable with
-Ask if there are any questions/comments before starting
-Begin recording.
-Ask if respondents would like to add anything to their responses to the general
questions.
General information
*How is citizenship education structured at your school? (ie: how many time a week,
discrete/ integrated etc)
(only to be asked to teachers of new schools)
Effectiveness
In your opinion, how effective is the citizenship national curriculum?
How effective is citizenship education within this school?
What do you think causes citizenship education to be effective / ineffective?
Diversity
Do you think the current citizenship education curriculum is appropriate for the
culturally diverse school setting? (In what ways?)
Are there any ways in which you think it can be made more appropriate?
Inclusion
What about the inclusiveness of the citizenship curriculum. In your opinion how
inclusive is the citizenship education curriculum to BME pupils?
Do you feel that the citizenship education that you deliver is inclusive to BME pupils?
(in what ways?)
203
Engagement
To what extent do you think citizenship education in general engages students
from BME groups?
To what extent are BME pupils at this school engaged in citizenship education?
Are there any ways in which you think pupils from BME communities can be more
effectively engaged in citizenship education?
Pupil Needs
In your view, do BME groups have specific needs in relation to citizenship education?
And if so, what are these needs? (If ‘No’: request further explanation)
How do you think these needs can be met? (If applicable)
How prepared do you think citizenship educators at this school are to meet the needs
of pupils from BME communities?
How prepared do you feel to meet the needs of pupils from BME communities in
relation to citizenship education? (In what specific ways do you feel prepared?)
What do you think needs to be done for you to feel more prepared?
Educator Needs
How prepared do you feel to teach citizenship education?
Are there any specific areas in which it might be useful for you to have more
training/resources?
Have you any idea of what form this training/resource material should take?
What training have you received so far, in relation to citizenship education (ITE or CPD
training)?
How useful was the training you received?
How could this training have been improved?
Did any of the training you received cover issues of cultural diversity and race?
How confident would you feel tackling issues of race and diversity?
What further support do you need in order to feel more confident?
Debriefing
- Thank participant once again
- Ask if there are any questions / further points they would like to add.
- Ask if they wouldn’t mind being involved in further stages of the project.
204
APPENDIX III
Phase 3 Images
205
*Mosque and Protest images could not be located.
206
APPENDIX IV
Phase 3 Group Discussion Questions
Introduction
-Thank participants for coming
-Introduction of researcher followed by introduction of interviewees.
-Introduction of topic
Briefing
-Encourage participants to speak openly
-Inform participants that interview will be recorded (but encourage them to
ignore recording device)
-Assure participants that everything will remain confidential (except in cases
where it is indicated that they or others are at risk).
-Encourage participants to also keep confidentiality among themselves.
-Inform participants that they are free to leave at any point of the interview and
do not have to answer any questions they are uncomfortable with
-Ask if there are any questions/comments before starting
-Begin recording.
PART1
Picture Exercise
Imagine that you were making a poster about citizenship for other young
people who didn’t know anything about citizenship. What images would you
use on your poster?
Get pupils to order the selected images in terms of the most to the least
reflective of citizenship.
Discuss the decisions of the pupils as the exercise proceeds.
General
If you were to list all your lessons from best to worst where would citizenship
come?
(Discuss reasons why)
How important is citizenship education?
What is the purpose of citizenship education?
Citizenship education
What topic areas have you covered in citizenship education so far?
Do you think that citizenship education has an effect on pupil’s lives?
207
Have you been affected by citizenship education? (in what ways)
What do you think you need to gain from citizenship education?
Do you think that these needs are being met in citizenship education?
How do you think these needs can be met more effectively?
(in citizenship education)
To what extent do you think BME pupils relate to citizenship education?
If you were in charge of citizenship education what changes would you make, if
any? (Why)
British Politics
How much do you know about British democracy and British democratic
systems?
How do you think British democracy works?
Do you think the British democratic system is effective?
Do you think it is important to learn about British democracy/political systems?
(why?)
PART 2
Debriefing (One-to-one interviews)
What did you think of the discussion that you were just involved in? (did you
find it interesting)
Did you have anything more to add to what you said in the discussion?
Considering the society that we live in, do you think it’s worth spending time
discussing the issues that we have discussed?
208
APPENDIX V
Phase 4 Group Discussion Questions
Introduction
-Thank participants for coming
-Introduction of researcher followed by introduction of interviewees.
-Introduction of topic
Briefing
-Encourage participants to speak openly
-Inform participants that interview will be recorded (but encourage them to
ignore recording device)
-Assure participants that everything will remain confidential
-Encourage participants to also keep confidentiality among themselves.
-Inform participants that they are free to leave at any point of the interview and
do not have to answer any questions they are uncomfortable with
-Ask if there are any questions/comments before starting
-Begin recording.
Citizenship Education
Give a brief outline of what citizenship education is and what it entails.
In light of the brief explanation that I have just given, what would you see to
be the particular needs of BME students within the context of citizenship
education?
Are there any particular areas of learning within the remit of citizenship
education that you think would be particularly important for BME pupils?
(What are these areas of learning?)
Whilst conducting interviews with citizenship educators, there were times when
the concept of BME students having particular needs was seen to be
problematic. Some teachers for instance stated that all pupils have the same
needs, what would be your response to such a statement?
Or to what extent do you agree or disagree with this point of view?
Democracy
What does democracy mean to you?
What are your views on British democracy as a political system?
In your view is it important for young people from BME communities to learn
about British democracy? (why?)
How much do you think young people actually know about British democracy?
209
From your experience what are the attitudes of BME young people towards
Democracy and democratic systems?
In your view, how willing are young people to participate in democratic
processes like voting?
Are there any politics or democracy based issues that you think are especially
important for young people from BME communities to learn about?
Any additional comments?
Debriefing
Thanks
Final stage of research with young people from community groups
210
APPENDIX VI
Phase 5 Group Discussion Questions
Introduction
-Thank participants for coming
-Introduction of researcher followed by introduction of interviewees.
-Introduction of topic
Briefing
-Encourage participants to speak openly
-Inform participants that interview will be recorded (but encourage them to
ignore recording device)
-Assure participants that everything will remain confidential
-Encourage participants to also keep confidentiality among themselves.
-Inform participants that they are free to leave at any point of the interview and
do not have to answer any questions they are uncomfortable with
-Ask if there are any questions/comments before starting
-Begin recording.
Citizenship Education
*General introductory discussion about citizenship education
How important is citizenship education to you?
(What makes it important or unimportant?)
Do you think that citizenship education is effective?
(does it effect pupils lives?)
What are your needs within citizenship education?
(What do you need to gain from citizenship education?)
Do you think that these needs are being met in citizenship education?
How do you think these needs can be met more effectively?
(in citizenship education)
To what extent do you think BME pupils (like yourselves) relate to citizenship
education?
Are there any particular topics or areas that you think are particularly important
for BME young people to learn about or discuss within citizenship education?
211
Democracy
How much do you think young people of your age actually know about British
democracy?
How much do you know about British Democracy/ democratic systems?
What are your views on British democracy as a political system?
(do you think that the British democratic system is effective?)
In your view is it important for young people from BME communities to learn
about British democracy? (why?)
From your experience, what are the attitudes of BME young people towards
democracy and democratic systems?
In your view, how willing are young people to participate in democratic
processes like voting?
Debriefing
Thanks
212