National CPD Distance Learning Programme 2010
© Citizenship Foundation and Birkbeck, University of London
Unit 1c What is Citizenship Education?
Having looked at the nature of citizenship, let us now look at what is
entailed in education for citizenship, with particular reference to the
model that has been developed in the UK following the Crick Report
(Advisory Group on Citizenship, 1998), whose full title is Education for
citizenship and the teaching of democracy in schools.
The report both made a case as to why citizenship education is important
for the country and recommended what shape it should take. The report
was accepted by the government and citizenship became a statutory part
of the curriculum in 2002. (Schools were given a two-year lead-in time,
which in practice was used well in some schools but ignored by many
others).
Justifying a place in the curriculum for Citizenship
It is worth looking at the language of the Crick Report in its
recommendations to the government. It becomes clear that this
document not only makes recommendations as to the content of the
subject but also offers a justification for it. The principle author,
Professor Bernard Crick, was a Professor of Politics and in the 1980s had
been very involved in the Political Literacy Programme which for a while
was made an influential case for the inclusion of Political Education in
the curriculum of all students. However, this attempt had largely failed
and Crick was aware that he had to make an unanswerable case for
citizenship to be made a statutory part of the curriculum. Historically, (as
we shall see in Unit 2) there has been no great tradition of citizenship
education in this country.
Crick was well aware that, for citizenship education to be successfully
introduced it would have to command ‘the confidence of the general
public and the teaching profession’ (para. 1.2). This was why Crick
ensured that on the Advisory Group were representatives of all the
mainstream political parties. The fact is that for very many years,
particularly during the cold war, political education had been regarded by
the political establishment as providing teachers with golden
opportunities to unduly influence young people’s views (in the direction,
it was assumed, of socialism). This was why the conservative
government, suspicious of the presence of controversial issues in schools,
had already introduced a legal duty on teachers to deal with political
issues in a non-partisan way. This is also why, in para 1.4, Crick proposed
1
National CPD Distance Learning Programme 2010
© Citizenship Foundation and Birkbeck, University of London
a monitoring body to oversee citizenship education. This body should
include representatives of the public and parents as well as teachers and
public authorities. [p7]
Such a committee would act rather like a national version a Standing
Advisory Committee on RE (SACRE) whose job it is to see that local RE
syllabuses fairly reflect the religious make-up of the area. This proposal
was never implemented.
Crick advanced a number of reasons for citizenship education – the most
basic being that it is an entitlement.
We state a case for citizenship education being a vital and distinct
statutory part of the curriculum, an entitlement for all pupils in its own
right. [para 3.1, p.13]
This is a fundamental point – in our society ignorance of the law is no
excuse, but until recently, who has been responsible for introducing
young citizens to what the law says, what their rights and duties are, or
the nature of justice in our society? Every state should, surely, take steps
to induct its young into its fundamental rules. You would not expect
anyone to play a game for the first time without explaining to them the
rules – why should this be acceptable in any society? Modern societies
are highly complex, and to cope with it, forms of education for the
responsibilities of adult life are necessary, especially for young people
who may not receive adequate help in these matters from the home and
are therefore more vulnerable than they need be. So the individual is an
important beneficiary of citizenship education.
On the other hand, society also benefits – it needs an educated citizenry.
Crick argued that the Labour government’s concern’s about low levels of
voting and a general retreat from public involvement in political life
could be addressed through a new form of citizenship education, broader
than merely political literacy as he himself had proposed two decades
earlier:
We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country
both nationally and locally: for people to think of themselves as active
citizens, willing, able and equipped to have an influence in public life
and with the critical capacities to weigh evidence before speaking and
acting; to build on and extend radically to young people the best in
existing traditions of community involvement and public service.
In this way, Crick hoped that citizenship education would impact on the
‘worrying levels of apathy, ignorance and cynicism about public life’,
quoting the then Lord Chancellor who said,
2
National CPD Distance Learning Programme 2010
© Citizenship Foundation and Birkbeck, University of London
‘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.’ (Crick Report, para. 1.5)
Crick was rightly concerned to anticipate opposition from both parents
and from teachers. He moved to reassure parents that controversial
issues were a necessary part of education and can arise across the
curriculum. Besides the legal safeguards, he argued that
‘Teachers are aware of the potential problems and are professionally
trained to seek for balance, fairness and objectivity.
Crick knew that widespread public opposition to these proposals would
kill off any prospects of introduction. Equally, he knew that entrenched
opposition to a new subject from the profession would be equally difficult
to overcome. No teacher wants to lose time for their own subject or be
asked to teach a subject they are not trained or confident to teach. For
these reasons, he argued that citizenship, the subject, would bring greater
clarity to the coordination of citizenship activities across the school,
including making more sense of the long tradition of community focused
activities often found in English schools. However, he cautioned that
citizenship education should take ‘no more than five per cent of curriculum
time’ (para 4.5, our emphasis) and that, whilst citizenship needed to be
distinctive, particularly in respect of Personal, Social and Health
Education, ‘schools should consider combining elements of citizenship
education with other subjects’ (para. 4.6).
Crick argues for the introduction of a new subject into the curriculum
that is at once, less than a mainstream subject like history or English (in
fact, rather more like RE in its curriculum positioning including being
compulsory at Key Stage 4) and yet at the same time more than a subject
(Breslin, 2004) with its content and values permeating the life of the
whole school and its promotion of skills and practices of community
involvement. And whilst it needs to be seen as a distinctive subject in its
own right, having intellectual rigour and challenge (para. 1.7), some
elements of it can also be delivered in a cross-curricular fashion, argues
Crick, no doubt hoping to avoid a curriculum ‘turf war’.
The recommendations of the Crick Report were not rigidly implemented
insofar as the curriculum framework was developed by working parties
under the guidance of professional staff at the Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority (QCA). Nonetheless, the Crick Report remains the
seminal document of the contemporary English citizenship curriculum
and every teacher of citizenship would benefit from being familiar with
its contents. The Crick Report has been widely read internationally and
has influenced thinking in many countries, with its critical emphasis on
integrating the teaching of skills and attitudes into what otherwise
3
National CPD Distance Learning Programme 2010
© Citizenship Foundation and Birkbeck, University of London
threatens to be boring and irrelevant teaching about political structures,
divorced from the realities of everyday living.
When the National Curriculum 2000 was published it was prefaced by a
statement of values, aims and purposes (DfEE/QCA (1999). This stated
that the purpose of the curriculum as a whole was to promote:
pupil’s spiritual, moral, social and cultural development and, in
particular, develop principles for distinguishing between right and
wrong. It should develop their knowledge, understanding and
appreciation of their own and different beliefs and cultures, and how
these influence individuals and societies. The school curriculum should
pass on enduring values, develop pupils’ integrity and autonomy and
help them to become responsible and caring citizens capable of
contributing to the development of a just society.
And similarly, the recently revised curriculum framework is prefaced by a
‘big picture’ statement which suggests that the curriculum should aim to
develop



successful learners
confident individuals, and
responsible citizens.
In order to become responsible, students should be helped, amongst
other things, to respect others and act with integrity, challenge injustice,
live peaceably with others, sustain the environment, take account of the
needs of present and future generations, and change things for the
better1.
Thus the aims of the curriculum are far more than knowledge-based. As
far as the making of citizens is concerned, this is not to be regarded as an
open-ended project. There is a very definite kind of citizen in mind, who
needs to be possessed of the kinds of virtues which will result in the
maintenance of our democratic institutions. Every citizenship curriculum
in the world contains an element of ‘nation building’, and social
reproduction and ours is no different.
References
Advisory Group on Citizenship (AGC) (1998) Education for citizenship
and the teaching of democracy in schools (The Crick Report). London,
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)
Downloaded from: http://curriculum.qca.org.uk/uploads/Aims_of_the_curriculum_tcm81812.pdf?return=/key-stages-3-and-4/aims/index.aspx%23page3_p
1
4
National CPD Distance Learning Programme 2010
© Citizenship Foundation and Birkbeck, University of London
Breslin, T. (2004) Citizenship: new subject; new TYPE of 'subject' in
Teaching Citizenship, Issue 8, London: Association for Citizenship
Teaching
DfEE/QCA (1999) The National Curriculum for England. London
Department for Education and Employment/Qualifications and
Curriculum Authority
Study Tasks





Read and make notes on Part 1 of the Crick Report.
Do you think Crick was right – at the time – to suggest that
citizenship education would not be difficult to integrate into the
curriculum and would take up little time? Do you think this position
has led some schools to believe they are ‘doing it already’ when they
are not?
Which of the arguments in favour of citizenship education do you
personally find the most persuasive and motivating? Those
prioritising the needs of the individual, or those prioritising the needs
of others and the state?
Some countries (e.g. Singapore) use their citizenship education
programmes as a way to create national solidarity and a strong sense
of civic pride in the nation. Turkey is currently using its citizenship
education (and its wider curriculum) to create more independently
and critically minded democratic citizens. How far is it inevitable that
citizenship education will be used as an instrument of the state? Do
you think the balance of priorities in the English curriculum is a fair
one?
What kind of society would you personally like to see and to what
extent do you feel justified in using the citizenship curriculum to
achieve this?
5