Table of Contents
Section 1
Introduction: What is Community Cohesion?
Section 2:
The Philosophy behind the Community Cohesion Agenda: Cantle
Report (2001)
Section 3:
Setting Community Cohesion Recommendations
in the context of the Cantle Report
Section 4:
Beyond Cantle: Building Cohesive Communities
– John Denham’s Report (2001)
Section 5
Introduction of Community Cohesion Guidance
Section 6
Parallel Lives:
The Report of the Community Cohesion Panel (2004)
Section 7:
The Community Cohesion Education standards for Schools (2004)
Section 8:
Our Shared Future (2007)
Section 9:
Guidance on the Duty to Promote Community Cohesion
Section 10
Conclusions from the Government Guidance
Wyche CE School
School Commentary on Community Cohesion
Endnotes
1
Section 1
Introduction: What is Community Cohesion?
Ever since the quintessential rural idyll of a school set around the focal point of a village
green with the church and pub to either side, schools have always had a well defined sense of
community. The “catchment area” principle was established to bring an element of social
cohesion to the local area and whilst elements of this have been eroded by the introduction of
“parental choice” into admissions policy through the Education Reform Act (1989) 1 the
recent desire to educate all children with SEN needs within their local mainstream school 2
simply underscores the view that school’s have an important role to play in building a sense
of community in their immediate locality.
The Wyche like most primary schools in the country has a strong community ethos. This is
driven by the Headteacher’s belief that schools should be a strong reflection on the values of
the families they serve. They should offer strong pastoral support, promote a secure sense of
well being within the context of a rich learning community. This ethos is strengthened by the
school’s particular link with the local church that not only builds a further construct into the
community but reflects the values of the Anglican Church.
In one sense there is nothing unique in what The Wyche is seeking to achieve, many schools
would sign up to the same values. However the principles of the Community Cohesion
agenda go beyond the walls of the school and out into the wider community in a unique
manner. It is important to appreciate that the building of (what the government calls)
“Community Cohesion” has, in some senses, a very narrow remit, a foundation based on
incidents that occurred in recent history and being politically driven they relate to one specific
element of community well being.
Section 2:
The Philosophy behind the Community Cohesion Agenda: Cantle Report (2001)
The Community cohesion agenda was established on the back of a number of disturbances in
towns and cities (predominantly in the north of England) in the Spring and Summer of 2001.
Many of the relevant towns and cities set up their own reports3 to look into the issue. The
government commissioned its own report chaired by Ted Cantle published in 2002.4 The
report drew attention to the polarised and segregated communities that lived in these areas
and introduced the phrase “parallel lives” to describe the community lives of many. 5 The
report made 67 recommendations but most were based on one philosophical premise. This
being that where local communities were divided by race, faith or culture they could be
brought together by developing a shared sense of community.6 His premise was that
communities, no matter how diverse, could find common ground to further relations based on
the notion that they both had a vested interest in the well being of the local area in which they
lived.16 The report also suggested that the simplest observable measure of community
cohesion ‘would be of groups who live in a local area getting together to promote or defend
some common local interest’. Beyond that the report also wished to foster a primary loyalty to
the nation as a whole in all its citizens.7 He recognised that the issues of integration and
separation were often complex and multi faceted and in that sense not easy to solve.8 Where
segregation had occurred in a small geographical area, for example in mono-faith schools, the
report called for there to be fresh moves to positively discourage discriminatory admissions
policies.9 Not without due cause the report then makes the generic point that “all schools
should promote and foster an understanding of other cultures”10 Alongside this it propagates
the “twinning of schools”11 and the understanding of teaching and ethos of each school
reflects the different faiths and cultures in the wider community. 12
2
Section 3:
Setting Community Cohesion Recommendations in the context of the Cantle Report
Reflecting on where the Cantle Report has taken us some years hence now, there have been
conclusions drawn and applied to schools which, whilst seemingly cogent and well reasoned
are not rooted in the philosophy of the report. Whilst it cannot be denied that many of these
are worthy in their purpose and may well be admirable as stand alone objectives they seem to
have become written into policy without due reference to their original context. This has
caused many schools to pursue paths, in the name of community cohesion which when set
back in their original context are found to be at odds with the primary philosophy. That is not
to say that any of the projects in and of themselves are inherently wrong but simply that if
these initiatives are being used to fulfil the Community Cohesion agenda they may well be
flawed in their conception. I offer the following three recommendations as examples:
The obligation on schools to foster an understanding of other cultures
This is a laudable goal in any community. However it is to be noted that in the report this
comment is set clearly in the context of differing schools within the same locality. The
report goes on to say in the same paragraph that schools should “ensure some diversity in
their intake”10 It would be the reader’s own extrapolation of the text that would take this
comment out of its context and apply it as a general principle for teaching citizenship
throughout the country as a whole.
The Twinning of schools
There are many schools which on the back of this statement have sought to build working
relationships with schools in often differing socio, economic or racial areas. However
when one looks into the detail of what Cantle proposes it is quite clear that the links he is
imagining are not over a wide geographical area but are there to promote cohesion in a
given locale.13 The twinning for instance, involves students spending “part of the week in
another school” (Cantle Report p35 5.8.12). Whilst long distance twinning may be a
valuable experience for both schools it is not fulfilling the spirit of community cohesion
as Cantle propagates.
The teaching of Different Cultures
Again, whilst a laudable aim, this proposal was set clearly in the context of the specific
issues in the towns where the original disturbances were caused. Hence Cantle’s
recommendation was set firmly in the local context not held as a generic statement to
schools in general. His ultimate goal was that each school should reflect the “differing
cultures within the school and the wider community” (Cantle Report p35 5.8.13). He later
qualified his definition of the “wider community” describing it as “the cultures in the
school and the neighbouring areas” and that this should “involve cross cultural contact”
(Cantle Report p36 Recommendations).
Working with Cantle’s Recommendations
It will become readily apparent that many of Cantle’s recommendations are not applicable for
a mono-faith, white cultural area such as Malvern. Moreover it is in fact virtually impossible
to implement at a local level due to the lack of diversity within the immediate community.
This is an area that later reports such as “Our Shared Future” (2007)14 readily acknowledged
and is therefore an area we will address later in some detail. The fact is that as Professor
Shirley Ali Khan stated in her “Review of Responses to the Community Cohesion Review”
“Community participation was considered vital to the creation of community cohesion.”(page
58 paragraph 1.3). If you live in a community that for whatever reason is naturally cohesive in
its cultural make up it seems incongruous to seek to fabricate or search for differences to fulfil
the community cohesion agenda. As Rosalyn Lynch states “Community cohesion, is about
helping micro-communities to gel or mesh into an integrated whole.”15 If there are no micro
3
communities locally then schools that seek to fulfil the community cohesion agenda could
find themselves philosophically compromised before they even start. For this reason many of
the recommendations of the Cantle report and subsequent government documents are not
workable in a mono-cultural setting and there needs to be some acknowledgement of this in
government thinking. The truth is that Cantle’s work was a direct response to an issue that
beset our inner cities (namely Bradford, Burnley and Oldham) and to be fair the solutions he
proposed where designed to resolve the issues in these unique culturally diverse urban areas.
Section 4:
Beyond Cantle: Building Cohesive Communities – John Denham’s Report (2001)
The subsequent report from John Denham follows in the same vein and does not seek to hide
the fact that his work is rooted in the context of the inner city and in response to the riots in
the Summer of 2001.17 Indeed by his own admission his work focuses in one chapter “on
Bradford, Burnley and Oldham” (Building Cohesive Communities p10 2.2) He outlines
clearly the factors that led to the issues, they gravitate around deprivation, racial tension, far
right political organisations and the backdrop of an area “fractured on racial, cultural and
religious lines” (Building Cohesive Communities p7 1.1-1.6) Therefore whilst not
discounting any of his recommendations out of hand they must be seen in the context in
which they were written and formulated. Like Cantle before him, Denham outlines solutions
cogent for a multi ethnic, inner city culture but not many of them are readily adaptable to a
mono-cultural, semi rural setting in Malvern.
Section 5
Introduction of Community Cohesion Guidance
After the reports in 2001, came the first of a series of documents which offered guidance on
the implementing of the Community Cohesion agenda. The first of these was “Guidance on
Community Cohesion” published by the Local Government Association et al in 2002.
Looking ahead it was not until 2004 that the first guidance for schools was published
“Community cohesion standards in schools” produced by The Home Office Community
Cohesion Unit. This was followed in 2007 by the “Guidance on the duty to promote
community cohesion” as a precursor to Community Cohesion being inspected by Ofsted from
September 2008.
The Guidance offered in 2002 was in the same vein as the Cantle report. It clearly saw
Community cohesion as set firmly in a clearly defined local area and saw it as drawing
fragmented and divided communities into one development strategy.19 The section on
Education recognises that education has a powerful role to play “introducing positive values”
(Guidance on Community Cohesion LGA et al. p 33) however the rest of the
recommendations rest on the need to “close the achievement gap between pupils of different
ethnic origins” (Guidance on Community Cohesion LGA et al. p 33). The guidance also
acknowledges that all too often schools “reflect the segregation within their housing and
wider community” and much of the resulting guidance calls upon schools to break down the
ethnic and social barriers within their own schools. Once again there is not much that is
readily transferable to the mono ethnic, white, middle class school in other areas of the
country.
Then in 2003 a document was produced as a guide for local authorities 20 The message of the
local solution was re-emphasised 21 and the document hinged around a series of questions that
were to be used by local authorities as an Index of Indicators of Community Cohesion 22 The
most interesting aspect is that for the first time the a document tried to quantify in spatial
terms the meaning of the “local area”. It was defined as an “area within 15/20 minutes
walking distance” Annexe A p11). Thereby providing some geographic and spatial limits to
4
the philosophy and providing a tangible boundary in which Community cohesion in its purest
sense can occur.23
Section 6
Parallel Lives: The Report of the Community Cohesion Panel (2004)
The next stage in the process was the publication of Ted Cantle’s review of his initial report
in 2001. This was “The end of Parallel Lives” and for the most part reported on the progress
made on the original cohesion agenda. Where fresh recommendations were made they were
again in the same philosophical vein of the preceding documents outlining the issues and
proposing localised and defined solutions.24
Section 7:
The Community Cohesion Education standards for Schools (2004)
At first glance the standards25 seem quite straightforward and it might appear that the
majority of schools could ascent to them with a fair degree of confidence. However as our
previous study has shown the community cohesion debate is not about national standards it
relates to the application of these principles at a local level and seen in that light they present
fresh challenges for certain schools. For mono-cultural schools the requirement to “provide
opportunities to develop common values” may seem to present little difficulty but for their
inner city counterparts this may present an awesome challenge. The truth is that the real
community cohesion challenge lies in areas where a plethora of diverse communities reside
within a single catchment area.
Section 8:
Our Shared Future (2007)
By far the most extensive work (it runs to over 170 pages) on the subject of Community
Cohesion is, the report “Our Shared Future”. It re-establishes the government thinking on the
subject and was a precursor to the document “Guidance on the duty to promote community
cohesion” produced by the DfES in late 2007. In many ways the document has the clearest
statement on the need for any development to be locally based26 The report acknowledges
that the “one size fits all” model is not appropriate on a national level and that “all localities
have unique qualities”27 There is also for the first time a recognition that some areas have
little internal community tension28 and therefore “the amount of effort that goes into
cohesion” will be determined “by local circumstances” (Our Shared Future 2007 page 50
4.22) To this end it is even suggested that “local areas should be encouraged to develop their
own local indicators of integration and cohesion”29 (Our Shared Future 2007 page 53 4.27).
Interestingly the report outlines communities where cohesion is likely to be below average
and targeted action may be needed. Interestingly enough Malvern falls into none of these
categories.30
In an Appendix to the report there is a Annex entitled “Our response to the DfES on the Duty
to Promote Cohesion. Many of the messages are repeated here, including the local uniqueness
of each community31 The twinning of schools is revisited but it is underscored again that
these are links “between schools and the neighbourhoods that feed them”32
Section 9:
Guidance on the Duty to Promote Community Cohesion
One would suspect that with the welter of reports and written material that had been
undertaken for the six years prior to the publication of this document then there would be few
surprises held within this document.
5
The introduction is ambiguously written for those not steeped in the philosophy of Cantle et
al.; phrases such as “showing how different communities can be united by shared values and
common experiences” appear to imply that linking with any school and any community
allows shared values to develop. Cantle had never argued this. He stated that shared values
were delivered simply by the nature of the fact that the disparate members of each cultural
group shared the same local community.33
The document also speaks of community being on four levels; school, community of the
school, UK and global. Whilst no-one could disagree with these, the reality is that the
description of the school community has extended itself from 15-20 minutes walk to “not just
the immediate neighbourhood but also to the city and the local authority area”. This may well
be the case but this alters drastically the principles and philosophy behind Cantle’s vision of
Community cohesion. It may be natural to feel part of the same community as the school with
which you share an immediate catchment area but to feel a sense of community with a school
in as diverse a location as Redditch, Worcester or Tenbury Wells is hard to imagine even as
an adult let alone a child.34
The linking has extended not just to the immediate local community but to “other schools
regionally or internationally”. As I shall illustrate later this is fraught with issues and often
accentuates differences rather than similarities thereby having the propensity to create
community division rather than community cohesion. The nature of many historical school
links is to focus on the differences which then in turn enrich each school. Community
cohesion was never about this; instead it was about schools serving the same community,
finding common ground simply by means of their geographical location, perceiving how they
could work together for the community’s well being despite their differences.
The emphasis has switched from the local to the national without a reasoned rationale
underpinning it. The implied rationale is that of Cantle but much of what is proposed flies in
the face of his position. For instance it is stated that for “schools where the pupil population is
less diverse or predominantly of one socioeconomic, ethnic, religious or non-religious
background, more will need to be done to provide opportunities for interaction between
children and young people from different backgrounds.”(Guidance for the Duty to promote
Community Cohesion 2007 p7) There may well be merits in this but not under the
Community Cohesion agenda, this contradicts the advice published in the “Share our Future”
document published in the same year which states that where schools had a predominantly
mono-cultural intake “The important thing is that local areas think about their population,
how it is divided and how it is changing;” (Share our Future 2007) The starting point in the
Community Cohesion debate is always local not national.
Section 10
Conclusions from the Government Guidance
There appears to be a divide of sorts between the advice and reports being published by the
Home Office and the Community Cohesion Unit which, to be fair, appear consistent in their
philosophy and rationale and show a clear progression in thinking form Cantle’s original
report in 2001 through to the seminal work of the “Share our Futures” document in 2007.
Conversely the documents produced by the education department seem to lack a sense of
philosophical underpinning and are disingenuous in their rationale. At best they are
misleading for schools on how they might fulfil their statutory duty to promote community
cohesion, but at worse may well be taking schools down a path that Cantle and subsequent
authors have all shown to be fatally flawed in building a sense of community cohesion.
6
Wyche CE School
School Commentary on Community Cohesion
The disjointed nature of the educational message relating to the Community Cohesion agenda
has thrown many, including myself, into some confusion in our attempts to implement what
we erroneously believe to be cogent government policy on the subject. The following
commentary seeks to untangle the philosophy from the guidance and then attempts to chart a
way forward for The Wyche.
Issues related to the DfES stance on Community Cohesion
The key shift in emphasis within the educational stance on Community Cohesion is the
removal of the local cohesion principle. Without the unifying factor of this local dimension
the entire dynamic of the Community Cohesion debate shifts markedly. This philosophical
change creates the following imbalances within the cohesion argument.
(i) The emphasis switches to one of difference not similarities
The truth is that most of us study other races, faiths and cultures to explore the differences
between them. By definition, if all faiths were the same there would be no need to study Islam
alongside Christianity, or a need to teach children about the Hindu faith. In similar vein the
geography curriculum encourages teachers to study geographical areas looking at their
“similarities and differences” In reality these studies often focus on a central similarity e.g.
the study of Malvern and its hills with a study of the Scottish highlands. Whilst the core
similarity is the landscape the majority of the study will then focus on the differences. The
school’s African link is not designed to explore similarities although there are elements that
are identical, such as we both have schools; however the whole purpose of the link is to
explore differences and bring the strengths of these back into our own culture.
Where the unifying factor of the local shared community is removed such a study may well
enhance divisions between the two communities rather than cohesion as the children will have
a natural tendency to focus on the areas of difference. There are huge differences culturally,
ethnically and religiously between Malvern and the inner city. The danger is that the process
alienates one set of children from another rather than drawing them together
Cantle’s vision for community cohesion side-stepped all of these issues by drawing the two
school groups together through the unifying factor of the local community. In Cantle’s vision
Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims and Christians could all work together within their community in the
belief that the cultural differences would fade into insignificance as they seek together to
enhance the community in which they all reside.
(ii) School Links outside a locally shared community
Whilst such links may have the power to promote understanding of how others live and to
develop an appreciation of how other communities function there are also inherent dangers
held within them when the unifying local factor is removed. There is a risk that in linking
with a school that is so diametrically culturally opposed to your own that (once again) the
differences are accentuated at the expense of any sense of cohesion. The visit of our children
to a school in inner city Birmingham would be an eye-opener on many levels; from the racial
mix, and the economic status through to the built up urban environment. Whilst this may be
beneficial in broader educational and social terms (but it is to be noted this is not the debate
we are having here, ours is solely limited to that of community cohesion) it would do little in
my opinion to further the cohesion between the two communities. For primary children in
particular the differences would be very tangible, concrete and obvious the similarities such
as ethos, values and a shared “Britishness” are more abstract and would therefore be more
hidden from children. The retort will be that these attributes need to be taught and brought out
by the quality of the visiting teacher, and in a more general educational debate they may well
7
be, but within the context of community cohesion the overriding principle of cohesion at a
local level has been compromised and this is what has the potential to create this tension.
When the philosophy is drilled down to practicalities some of the options do seem somewhat
patronising. The feeling of pupils going to see a group of people, simply because they are
different somehow seems a little distasteful and as someone once said has a similar feel to “a
visit to a zoo or a museum” about it. There is little that links the schools outside of their desire
to find out how different their catchment areas and cultures are. This approach may have
worked well under the “multi-cultural” agenda of previous years, and may (despite the
comments above) have some value for children now, but again in the context of the
community cohesion debate how does it add to a sense of cohesion?
(iii) The development of joint projects
This is often proposed as a means through which schools can link and build a sense of
commonality, again whilst this works seamlessly in a shared community the issue maybe
fraught with difficulty when tackled in contrasting geographical and social areas. There is
great value in a shared community on working on projects involving aspects of community
regeneration. However to seek to deliver the same project over two differing social contexts
lays both groups open to the snare of direct comparison. The danger is that the study of the
differences in the perceived quality of the environment has the potential to cement stereotypes
rather than break them down. The Cantle report noted that respondents within the report were
“strongly against geographical segregation… because it created a rather polarised “us and
them” mentality” and projects undertaken out of a local shared arena has the potential to drive
the “us and them” principle deeper into our society. The truth is that geographical segregation
makes community cohesion in its purest sense, impossible.
(iv) The philosophical issue of the outsider
There is a general principle that has run throughout the history of mankind; namely that it is
hard if not impossible to change a community from the outside. From the white missionaries,
who took not only the gospel but also the white western culture to the shores of the
developing world, there has been a constant stream of examples where cohesion attempted
externally has only sought to heighten differences and raise social tensions. The home office
reports recognised this and commented regularly on the need for the driving factor to be the
empowerment of the communities themselves. The pure form of community cohesion never
sought to develop “cohesion from without” but always saw it as a regeneration process from
within.
Premise 2: A Proposed Way forward
The truth is that we live in a multicultural society and we owe it to our children as well as to
society as a whole to educate the children to live in harmony with those who reside
throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. This document has focused on the issues
specifically related to the introduction of the Duty of to Promote Community Cohesion and
has therefore emphasised the mixed messages within government policy but this does not
mean the school is not committed to building a cohesive and harmonious society, it is simply
that we believe some of the central messages for implementing the cohesion strategy are at
best confused and at worse flawed.
(i) Acceptance and Celebration of Differences
If we accept that community cohesion can only be built and sustained within a local
geographical area then some might argue that the context of our own school makes this
impossible in the purest sense. Using the governmental guide of a local area being a 15-20
minute walk23 the only schools we might link with would be Malvern Wells and Malvern
Parish. The former has an almost identical catchment make-up to our own (see Acorn data)
8
whilst the latter shares our catchment area. Does this mean that we should not engage with the
debate at all?
With regard to the issue of Community Cohesion in it purest philosophical form the answer is
probably yes, but we have a statutory obligation written into the National Curriculum that we
should nurture each child’s moral, social, cultural and spiritual well being and it is incumbent
upon us to equip all our children for the world in which they will live and work. How do we
do this?
In essence it would appear to me that the way forward is to distil the issues that originally led
to the community cohesion agenda becoming policy and then to fashion a curricular response
appropriate to our own needs in the light of the recognition at national level that there is not a
“one size fits all” model.35
The key to community fragmentation is people’s desire to live and socialise in homogenous
community groups. Whilst at one level this may be a natural process the danger is that it
crosses over a line into segregation which in turn creates feelings of fear, mistrust and
isolationism. At it’s heart the key building block within any community is a ready acceptance
of others, indeed not only an appreciation of difference but to celebrate and enjoy these,
viewing them as an enrichment of the wider society in which we all live.
At this level building a sense of community (not community cohesion) involves acceptance of
all people’s whatever their colour, race or culture. However in essence it can extend to any
difference manifest within any given community, this may be related to ability, weight,
height, choice of clothes, musical preferences or even whether a child wears glasses.
It would appear to me that if we want to build children that will be robust in a multi-cultural
society we need to build within them a strong feeling of their own self worth, which in turn
will give them a strong sense of self-esteem thereby providing them with a confidence that
will not be threatened by those who view some aspects of life differently.
Similarly they must come to appreciate that society is stronger than the individual and that
“the whole is greater than the sum of its parts” This will bring them to a place where they
readily value the contributions of others to a community. I believe these are generic attributes
that can be instilled in any child, in any community and that these values can be internalised
and taken into any future community where a child finds him/herself. This view is endorsed
in the document Our Shared Future 36
As a church school we are well placed to deliver on this agenda. The Christian church holds
to the belief that all men are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26) and that they are all
part of a global family of whom God is the Father (Ephesians 3:14-5) This theological stance
presents a picture of a global community of which the whole of mankind are members
together of the global community and is a totally appropriate vehicle through which to teach
the acceptance and tolerance towards others which are the bedrock of community cohesion.38
(ii) Towards a Curriculum for Community Cohesion
It would be my contention that the school currently takes a strong lead in this area already
mainly through the following areas:
The School Curriculum
The School curriculum has a strong emphasis on teamwork and working together. In truth this
is not predominantly to fulfil the community cohesion agenda but because there was a
recognition by the school’ stakeholders that the development of children’s interpersonal and
intrapersonal skills were fundamental to their ability to succeed in life. Therefore the
9
curriculum abounds with opportunities for children to explore difference and acceptance in a
multiplicity of situations.
Community Links
The Wyche Curriculum hinges on the development of vehicles for its teaching themes. An
increasing element of these is that the link often drives the school deep into the community.
Examples abound of links that the school has built within the local community over the past
few years.
Tanzanian Link
The Tanzanian link provides a rich opportunity for a study of a different culture at the closet
level the study of the country and (more importantly) the visiting teachers provide a very
positive role model of cultural awareness for all the children in the school.
The RE Curriculum
The RE in the school was recently graded as “outstanding” by the SIAS inspector. The wealth
of opportunity not only for children to study other religions but to visit their places of worship
thereby interacting with those of other faiths was felt to be exemplary.
The School Ethos
The school (mainly under the guidance of the head) sees itself as a community rather than an
academic institution. The staff find support for each other in this community not just for
curriculum and teaching but also for pastoral needs and general friendship. Parents testify that
for them the school operates as an extended family and children appreciate and enjoy the
richness of relationships they develop with one another.
Areas for Development
In truth it is hard to see where the school could readily go next in this area. One area that has
been proposed is for the school to set up a link with a school with the sole purpose of
exploring together the concept of “Britishness” The link is created on the basis of looking at
one issue that unites us over a (rather large) single geographical area. This would have an
academic focus but would allow children to engage and see that whilst other areas of the
country are remarkably different from our own and yet at the same time we all watch the
same TV stations, learn from the same curriculum and will all support England in the coming
world cup. This would sidestep the issue of studying “difference” as opposed to similarities
outside of a local context and may well be classed as “true community cohesion” albeit
beyond the local remit. Another option would be to arrange football matches and other
sporting events where the uniting factor of sport defines the link rather than the difference
between the cultural backgrounds of the competitors. How this might work practically would
need to be well thought through as would the key question of “What are we trying to achieve
through this?”
(iii) How effective is the current provision?
As part of the process of assessing this I asked the teaching staff the following question;
If one of our children relocated to an ethnically mixed area of inner city Birmingham how
would they fare?
Their answer was two fold:
1. They were all unanimous in their opinion that the school’s own inclusive curriculum
would stand the children in good stead. They felt that no children would demonstrate any
systemic racism in their approach to other cultures. In fact more than that, it was their
contention that they would find any hint of racism as a little strange and would struggle to
come to terms why one person would want to ostracize another human being on the basis
of colour, culture or faith.
10
2. However they also felt that, in colloquial terms, the children would “be eaten alive”
through their lack of social awareness of other cultures. There was a general consensus
that in terms of being streetwise the inner city children would have seen more of life than
those who live, in what I have described as, “The Wyche Bubble.”
Whilst these views are by definition subjective and unproven I would feel them to be an
accurate reflection of where the school is at present. Whilst the former is an obvious strength
the latter comment has, in the past, left me with an amount of undue concern. This was further
evidenced this year when some of the year 6 children filled in a national survey for the DCSF.
One of the questions related to bullying; the year 6 child proudly announced that she had
never been bullied and created a new category of “non-bullied”. The same child confided in
me later that some of the questions were a little facile, as they asked her if she had ever
smoked; “For goodness sake we are only 10” was her response. Whilst it is great to think that
a child who has been in the school for 7 years has never been bullied and it has never crossed
her mind that a ten year old child might even think of smoking, there is an element of naivety
which some might find a little disturbing. I have long wrestled over this issue and have drawn
the following conclusion; I believe it is the school’s responsibility to deliver a community that
children can look back on in later life and say “they were the happiest days of my life”. They
may have cause in later life to ponder and reflect on why these days were happy and draw the
conclusions that the acceptance of others, the care they showed others and was shown to
them, the depth of relationships they were able to build were key. They may then wish to
establish and nurture these values in their factory, office, family, organisation or wherever
they find themselves in adult life. To shatter the joy of community life they currently
experience so they can know what it is like to live in the real world seems totally alien to all
we are seeking to build. In the same vein most of us believe effective parenting creates a
stable, warm and loving family where children feel safe and valued. It is my belief that
schools should be no different in this regard, even if it does have the unfortunate offshoot of
creating a slight element of social naivety within the child.
(iv) Community Cohesion and the Ofsted Inspection
In terms of Ofsted it would be expedient to demonstrate clearly that the school has fulfilled
the statutory obligations of the “Duty to Promote Community Cohesion”. Under the guidance
from the Ofsted document “The Evaluation Schedule for Schools 2009” (see Appendix 1) we
are required to undertake a study of our own religious, ethnic and socio-economic mix as well
as that at national level. From this we should establish a clear rationale for the development of
the Community Cohesion agenda as it relates to our own local context. From this it should be
able to chart a clear way forward for the school in terms of cogent action planning. This
should then be documented over time with clear evidence provided to demonstrate the impact
of the school’s work in terms of outcomes attained.
Summary
Whilst not being able to fulfil the Community cohesion agenda in its purest form due to our
location and social intake I believe the school does much to promote a sense of community by
preparing children emotionally for the society in which they will live and work in the future.
Indeed when I read the introductory paragraph to the “Sharing our Future” document
(reproduced below) I feel it was a fair reflection of all we were seeking to achieve as a school.
One example will suffice to demonstrate this. As part of their recent topic on the History of
the School Orange class has sought to contact ex-pupils with a view to using them as a
historical source for their topic. The arrival last week of 12 elderly ladies, one aged 92,
returning to share their experiences of the school with the children, was wonderful. However
the visit was not purely academic both Vicky and I had numerous discussions about how the
school could host the guests in such a way that they left still feeling that they were part of the
11
school community. So the children made cakes, teaching assistants laid on cups of tea and the
ladies were given time on their own to chat and reminisce about their school days together;
the belief being that, albeit 70 years on in some cases, the school was (and still is) the
community that bonds these people together. That is a very powerful concept.
To this end I would commend the school’s work and whilst there may be areas we wish to
pursue further I would have little hesitation in stating that the school provides a rich
emotional and social environment where acceptance and tolerance thrives.
“Imagine the open communities of 2020 ... thriving and prosperous places where people from
all different backgrounds are equal, and where everyone matters – whether old or young,
settled or new, Black or White. There are local places where all groups feel that they are
treated fairly, and that they have a responsibility to others that transcends the differences
between them. Places where people are not fearful of meeting their neighbours, and where
they don’t see individual differences as a barrier to the success of the whole community”
(Our Shared Future 2007)
12
Endnotes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Education Reform Act 1989
1981 Education Act (based on recommendations from The Warnock Report
published in 1978
One Oldham, one future, David Ritchie, Oldham Panel, 2001 (The Ritchie Report);
Burnley speaks, who listens? Report of the Burnley Task Force, Tony Clarke, 2001
(The Clarke Report); Community pride not prejudice - making diversity work in
Bradford, Sir Herman Ouseley, 2001 (The Ouseley Report)
Community cohesion, report of the Independent Review Team, 2001 (The Cantle
Report)
“Whilst the physical segregation of housing estates and inner city areas came as no
surprise, the team was particularly struck by the depth of polarisation of our towns
and cities. The extent to which these physical divisions were compounded by so
many other aspects of our daily lives, was very evident. Separate educational
arrangements, community and voluntary bodies, employment, places of worship,
language, social and cultural networks, means that many communities operate on the
basis of a series of parallel lives. These lives often do not seem to touch at any point,
let alone overlap and promote any meaningful interchanges.” (Cantle Report p9 2.1)
“We believe that there is an urgent need to promote community cohesion, based upon
a greater knowledge of, contact between, and respect for, the various cultures that
now make Great Britain such a rich and diverse nation.It is also essential to establish
a greater sense of citizenship, based on (a few) common principles which are shared
and observed by all sections of the community. This concept of citizenship would
also place a higher value on cultural differences.” (Cantle Report p10 2.12; 2.13)
A meaningful concept of ‘citizenship’ needs establishing – and championing – which
recognises (in education programmes in particular) the contribution of all cultures to
this Nation’s development throughout its history, but establishes a clear primary
loyalty to this Nation. This is, after all, the responsibility of citizenship and a clearer
statement of allegiance, perhaps along the lines of the Canadian model (see Appendix
C) should be considered. (Cantle Report p20 5.1.15)
We do not see ‘integration’ and ‘segregation’ as necessarily opposed. The complete
separation of communities based on religion, education, housing, culture,
employment etc., will, however mean that the lack of contact with, and absence of
knowledge about, each other’s communities will lead to the growth of fear and
conflict. The more levels upon which a community is divided, the more necessary and
extensive will be the need to foster understanding and acceptance of diversity. (Cantle
Report p30 5.7.3)
8.
Integration and Separation These concepts are often posed as alternatives and can
therefore hinder a sensible debate. In fact, there are many different layers which need
to be separated and considered. For example, communities can often be divided into
distinct housing areas and many schools (including the existing faith schools – mainly
Christian) can appear to foster separation. Such divisions are unlikely to be
problematic in themselves and will reflect individual preferences in some cases.
However, difficulties are more apparent when the separation is multi-faceted – eg
when geographic, educational, cultural, social and religious divisions reinforce each
other to the extent that there is little or no contact with other communities at any
level. This appears to allow ignorance about each community to develop into fear,
particularly when fostered by extremists attempting to demonise a minority
community. Of course, some minorities choose to live within their own communities.
For example, some would choose to live in a distinct area dominated by one culture
and to ensure that there is a sufficient critical mass to support facilities such as shops
and places of worship – and to try to ensure safety of community members. Some
13
9.
choices are not, however, always freely made and may simply reflect housing policies
or the real constraints imposed by the deprivation of some groups or individuals.
(Cantle Report p28 5.6.1-5.6.3)
In terms of community cohesion, however, a significant problem is posed by existing
and future mono-cultural schools, which can add significantly to the separation of
communities described above. The development of more faith based schools may, in
some cases, lead to an increase in mono-cultural schools but this problem is not in
any way confined to them. We believe that all schools owe a responsibility to their
pupils to promote, expand and enrich their experience, by developing contacts with
other cultures (also set out below), or by ensuring that, as far as possible, they are
represented within the school intake. Contact with other cultures should be a clear
requirement for, and development of, the concept of citizenship education from
September 2002 – and possibly a condition of funding. This should be seen as a
demanding responsibility. Certainly, the promotion of such knowledge and
understanding about cultures outside the school would be easier where the intake had
a better mix of cultures and faiths, as this would also allow friendship and parental
networks to naturally develop more easily. We are concerned that some existing faith
schools appear to be operating discriminatory policies where religious affiliations
protect cultural and ethnic divisions. (Cantle Report p33 5.8.3-5.8.4)
Nevertheless, schools can and must make themselves attractive to other cultures and
ethnicities from a wider area (many parents are prepared for travel of some distances
at present to schools of their choice) over a period of time. This will be difficult at
first but the offer of places on a more inclusive basis is the first step and a positive
action programme will be necessary to underpin it. It is suggested that this will, in
any event, be required in order to comply with the new duty under the race relations
legislation. Catchment areas boundaries, feeder school systems and school families,
can also be changed over time, if a positive role is played by schools, the Local
Education Authority (LEA) the Local Authority (LA) and housing agencies. In any
event a review of them will again be necessary to comply with the new race relations
duty. Each Local Admissions Forum should be asked to review these matters and to
embrace the spirit of this report. Housing policies should also be reviewed as they
seem to be reinforcing existing patterns in some areas and this could have a
fundamental effect on the composition of catchment areas (Cantle Report p34 5.8.7)
10.
11.
Many people expressed views about ‘segregated’ or mono-cultural schools, including
those which are faith based. Most people we spoke to felt that more such schools
would add to the lack of contact and understanding between communities and we
need to break that down. Nevertheless, there was also a clear recognition that as faith
based Christian schools were already supported, fairness demanded that the same
facility should be available to the Muslim and other communities. (Cantle Report p34
5.8.8)
In any event, the simple extension of faith schools raises questions about the nature of
all such schools. What is needed is a change of emphasis so that all schools promote
and foster an understanding of other cultures. It should be noted that some faith
schools draw in a range of different cultures at present and some non-faith based
schools can have a very narrow range of pupils, based around one culture. The issue
is therefore not whether we should restrict or extend faith based provision, but how
all schools ensure some diversity in their intake, or that other means are adopted to
promote contact with other cultures. (Cantle Report p35 5.8.10)
However, we believe that immediate steps should be taken to address the problems of
mono-cultural schools by: The creation of inter-school twinning between schools
representing the principal cultures. This could involve 3 or 4 schools. (Cantle Report
p35 5.8.12)
14
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
There is also a need to ensure that the teaching and ethos of each school reflects
different cultures within the school and in the wider community. Further, a respect for
different faiths and cultures throughout the day to day activities of the school also
essential. Despite previous advice to schools on this matter, a rather euro-centric
curriculum and pervasive Christian worship (even in schools with few, if any,
Christians), is still evident. British history, in particular, should be taught in a way in
which young people from ethnic minority backgrounds, feel a sense of belonging and
ownership. But, everyone should share and value the historical achievements of all
nations and cultures that now make up the United Kingdom. A failure to have a
shared history is to condemn some sections of our nation to be forever strangers in
their own country. It is understood that the forthcoming CRE report on integration
and segregation will make proposals about the curriculum content of teaching in our
schools and that should be welcomed.
The above proposals would impact on a large number of schools, but some would
remain single ethnicity or culture because the area itself reflects this, or because of
perceived cultural barriers by parents. One alternative to this in the short term would
be the bussing of children but this is unsatisfactory in many more respects. Parents
may, of course, opt to travel where standards were high enough, or where there were
other positive aspects to attract them. It is also possible that this might be achieved if
funding incentives were provided to promote particular schools, possibly as a
transitional programme. However, we believe that immediate steps should be taken to
address the problems of mono-cultural schools by:
a) The creation of inter-school twinning between schools representing the
principal cultures. This could involve 3 or 4 schools.
b) The development of joint sports, arts and cultural programmes between these
schools
c) Teacher exchanges and joint working
d) Joint curriculum activities and learning programmes, with perhaps, part of the
school week spent in another school
e) Joint parental activities – eg cultural events and skills programmes
f)
Planned intake across the partnered schools, so that joint activities may
eventually lead to a more mixed intake for each school
g) Technological links between schools, including video conference and internet
work.
Again, this should be done within the context of citizenship education and in certain
circumstances could attract additional funding from regeneration and other
programmes, such as Excellence in Cities and Beacon School programmes. (Cantle
Report p35 5.8.12)
In this vein, a question we have discussed from the outset is: should a small
predominantly rural authority care about cohesion given that their population is likely
to be almost entirely white, and that they will by necessity be preoccupied with wider
questions about the challenges faced by agricultural communities, for example? Is
integration and cohesion something for urban areas only? Is it only something for
those areas that have experienced disturbances in the past, or where local low-level
tensions are apparent but managed? Should authorities in the Cotswolds think about
integration and cohesion? (Our Shared Future p50 para 4.20)
Community cohesion, as indicated earlier, is about helping micro-communities to gel
or mesh into an integrated whole. These divided communities would need to develop
common goals and a shared vision. This would seem to imply that such groups should
occupy a common sense of place as well. The high levels of residential segregation
found in many English towns would make it difficult to achieve community cohesion.
(Cantle Report p70)
Modood makes the point that ‘equality and social cohesion cannot be built upon
emphasising ‘difference’ in a one-sided way… The emphasis needs to be on common
rights and responsibilities… It has to be a form of citizenship that is sensitive to
15
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
ethnic difference and incorporates a respect for persons as individuals and for the
collectivities to which people have a sense of belonging.’ (Modood 1997:359)
The violent community disorders which erupted in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham
during the summer of 2001 were some of the worst in 20 years. There was less
serious disorder in a number of other places and many more towns, mainly in the
North, were identified by the police as being at significant risk of serious disorder.
There have been sporadic incidents of further community disorder since the summer.
The disorders involved hundreds of mainly young people, inflicted injuries on over
400 police, and caused millions of pounds worth of damages The first outbreak of
serious disorder was in Bradford on Sunday 15 April. This was followed by those in
Oldham, on 26-29 May and Burnley, on 24-26 June, and finally the second outbreak
in Bradford on 7-10 July. Serious disturbances also occurred in Leeds on the 5th June
and Stoke-on-Trent on the weekend of the 14-15 July. 395 people were arrested in
conjunction with the disorders in Bradford, Burnley and Oldham. In Oldham, court
proceedings have now begun against the 12 men charged with violent disorder in
relation to the initial incident. In Bradford, 58 people are awaiting trial on charges
which include rioting, and violent disorder. Court cases in Burnley are still pending.
(Building Cohesive Communities p7 1.1-1.4)
Nonetheless, it is worth highlighting a number of features which, to a greater or lesser
extent, all the disturbances shared: all of the wards affected were amongst the 20%
most deprived in the country – and parts of Oldham and Burnley rank in the most
deprived 1%2 All have average incomes which are amongst the lowest in the
country3. Many of the areas involved also had low education attainment standards in
schools4; the participants were overwhelmingly young men. Those arrested were
predominantly between 17-26; both white and ethnic minority young men were
involved. Most were local to the area. The ethnic minority young men involved were
largely of Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin; disturbances occurred in areas which had
become fractured on racial, generational, cultural and religious lines and where there
was little dialogue, or much contact, between the various groups across those social
divides; in many, but not all cases, trouble arose after months of racial tension and
widely reported racial attacks – both Asian on white, and white on Asian the
disorders themselves took place either in, or on the margins of areas inhabited
predominantly by Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities; far-right organisations had
been active in some, but not all of the areas, although rumours of far-right activity
were reported by the police to have raised tensions in other areas; the arrest or failure
to arrest certain individuals, assaults and other criminal activities often played a part
in spreading disturbances; and the disorders escalated as word of them was spread
(e.g. by mobile phones) and others joined in. (Building Cohesive Communities p7
1.6)
It is essential that the local approach to community cohesion is developed and owned
by all local agencies and organisations. They should work in partnership, and
integrate the issues within the community strategy and service planning systems in
order to sustain progress and achieve positive benefits. Involvement of different
sections of the community is essential. Real cohesion and real change will only
happen if this occurs. (Guidance on Community Cohesion LGA et al. p 10)
Building a Picture of Community Cohesion – A guide for Local Authorities and their
partners (Home Office Community Cohesion Unit 2003)
Community cohesion is important to the success of strategies and initiatives which
aim to improve the quality of people’s life. It is to a large extent built locally and to
do this, local authorities and their partners should be prepared to invest in
understanding their communities.
The following are the Index of Indicators used to assess Community Cohesion
a) The percentage of people who feel that their local area is a place where
people from different backgrounds can get on well together
16
The percentage of respondents who feel that they belong to their
neighbourhood/town/county/England/Wales/Britain
c) Key priorities for improving an area
d) The percentage of adults surveyed who feel they can influence decisions
affecting their local area
e) The percentage of people who feel that local ethnic differences are respected
f)
Number of racial incidents recorded by police authorities per 100,000
g) Local concentration of deprivation
h) The percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more GCSEs at grades A*-C or
equivalent
i)
The percentage of unemployed people claiming benefit who have been out of
work for more than a year
j)
The percentage of people from different backgrounds who mix with other
people from different backgrounds in everyday situations
Question taken from Annex A:
b)
23.
Title
Collected by
Definition
The percentage of people who feel that their local area is a place
where people from different backgrounds can get on well together
A local residents’ survey
"To what extent do you agree or disagree that this local area
(within15/20 minutes walking distance) is a place where people from
different backgrounds get on well together?"
(1) Definitely agree
(2) Tend to agree
(3) Tend to disagree
(4) Definitely disagree
(5) Don’t know
(6) Too few people in local area
(7) All same backgrounds
This definition is the same across all sources
Relevance
This question is aimed at getting an overall measure of community
cohesion based on whether residents as a whole think they live in an
area which has good community relations. The question does not
specifically focus on race and therefore could be used to capture
tensions that may exist as a result of other factors such as religion or
belief.
A community is likely to be more cohesive where the majority of residents agree with
this statement.
Building a Picture of Community Cohesion – A guide for Local Authorities and their
partners (Home Office Community Cohesion Unit 2003 Annexe A page 11)
24.
Community Cohesion Education Standards for Schools In taking forward this
work, the Group considered a framework which could not only be used by schools to
assess themselves in terms of promoting and mainstreaming community cohesion, but
could also take into account race equality. The Standards have been designed to help
schools better consider the impact that their working practices and policies may have
in addressing the values and needs, not just of their pupils, but of their local
communities through teachers, governors, families and community partnerships. A
key aim of the Standards is to provide advice on how best to promote community
cohesion within schools. The purpose of the standards is to provide schools with a
framework for promoting community cohesion through tackling discrimination,
promoting good race relations by breaking down barriers whilst also focusing on
17
25.
raising educational attainment levels. The Standards are framed by four strategic aims
and their related objectives:
a) Closing the attainment and achievement gap
b) Developing common values of citizenship based on dialogue, and mutual
respect and acceptance of diversity
c) Contribution to building good community relations and challenge all types of
discrimination and inequality
d) Removing the barriers to access, participation, progression, attainment and
achievement
Parallel Lives: The Report of the Community Cohesion Panel (2004) page 26
The standards are framed by four strategic aims and their related objectives: (Our
Shared Future 2007 page 4)
I. Close the attainment and achievement gap.
a) Assessment arrangements enable all pupils to attain at the highest level
possible and do not put any group of pupils at a substantial disadvantage.
b) All staff have an equal opportunity for promotion to all levels within the
school.
c) The school contributes to capacity building within the community.
II. Develop common values of citizenship based on dialogue, mutual respect and
acceptance of diversity.
 Curriculum content contributes to an appreciation of cultural diversity, and
challenges prejudice, bias and stereotype.
 The mainstream curriculum provides pupils with opportunities to learn about
and become involved in the life of their communities.
 Behaviour and discipline policies and procedures reflect the commitment to
developing mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.
 All staff and governors have the knowledge and understanding to provide
opportunities to develop common values of citizenship based on dialogue,
mutual respect and acceptance of diversity.
III. Contribute to building good community relations and challenge all types of
discrimination and inequality.
 The school works with the Local Education Authority and other providers to
train its staff and governors on their responsibilities under relevant
legislation.
 All staff and governors have the knowledge and understanding to promote
good community relations and challenge discrimination.
 The school takes positive steps to promote good community relations.
 Partnership arrangements are conducted in line with the school’s equality
policies.
IV. Remove the barriers to access, participation, progression, attainment and
achievement.
 The criteria and terms of offering a place at school, or placement at a college
or work-based learning reflect the local ‘catchment area’ or produce a broad
intake that is representative of the community and that complies with
legislation on equal opportunities and school admissions (including specific
provisions for faith schools).
 The school excludes the minimum number of pupils with no significant
differences in exclusion rates between different social or ethnic groups.
 All pupils have access to the full-curriculum and no one group is overrepresented in vocational routes or disapplied from the National Curriculum.
 The staff profile represents the diversity of British society.
 The governing body reflects the communities it serves.
 All pupils, parents and community members have equal access to education
and training provision in the local area.
18
26.
(Community Cohesion Education Standards for Schools 2004 page 5-6)
That is why integration and cohesion are crucial at a local level. It is at a local level
that leaders can understand in detail the profile of the population, the changes that are
taking place, the impact of these changes on the local economy and services. And
most importantly it is only at this level where specific initiatives can be crafted and
delivered to build better integration and cohesion (Our Shared Future 2007 page 4)
Firstly, that when we face challenges to integration and cohesion as a nation, they are
often very local in their characteristics – so the solutions are often also local. (Our
Shared Future 2007 page 8)
A key message for us therefore is that improving cohesion in the long term is about
local action: local areas have the expert knowledge about particular local
circumstances; and local actions are what will result in integration and cohesion. Our
challenge to local government is therefore to set out their own shared vision. (Our
Shared Future 2007 page 49 section 4.18)
27.
28.
29.
A strong theme running through this report is that place matters and that all localities
have unique qualities. This does mean that a one size fits all range of solutions cannot
be prescribed from a national level. It also means that a new social contract between
citizen and government needs to be developed at local, regional and national levels.
The challenges facing different areas and therefore the solutions will be influenced by
a range of factors including: history of migration and settlement, levels of poverty
and wealth, de-industrialisation and the current population profile. We strongly
believe in tailored and bespoke local activity to build integration and cohesion. (Our
Shared Future 2007 page 4)
In this vein, a question we have discussed from the outset is: should a small
predominantly rural authority care about cohesion given that their population is likely
to be almost entirely white, and that they will by necessity be preoccupied with wider
questions about the challenges faced by agricultural communities, for example? Is
integration and cohesion something for urban areas only? Is it only something for
those areas that have experienced disturbances in the past, or where local low-level
tensions are apparent but managed? Should authorities in the Cotswolds think about
integration and cohesion?
Our answer is yes. Partly because there may always be change on the horizon – we
have seen how demographic change in particular can cause friction among
communities – and disturbances can crop up in the unlikeliest areas, triggered by
unpredictable rumours or crises. Partly because even in rural communities, there are
tensions around anti-social behaviour, and challenges around transport, for example,
and partly because all areas have newcomers at some stage – be they second home
families, or new migrants looking for work in agricultural or tourist centres.
Of course, the amount of effort that goes into cohesion will clearly depend on local
circumstances. There may be no need to set out a detailed cohesion strategy, or to
have a dedicated cohesion officer working separately from other policy areas. But
some form of integration and cohesion policy should exist, and it must be based on
knowledge about the local population and any tensions between different groups.
Some areas will need or want to do more than others; some will prioritise differently
from others. The important thing is that local areas think about their population, how
it is divided and how it is changing; and take into account other factors such as local
history and media. (Our Shared Future 2007 page 50 4.20-4.22)
With this in mind, we recommend that:
 There should be a single national PSA target for community cohesion, measured
consistently over a reasonable length of time in order to determine national
trends.
19

30.
31.
32.
Local areas should be encouraged to develop their own local indicators of
integration and cohesion. These would not be monitored nationally, but could be
included in local strategies and plans and shared and compared through an online
database of integration and cohesion indicators.
 The Audit Commission should ensure that locally determined integration and
cohesion measures are clearly incorporated into the Comprehensive Area
Assessment regime, particularly where areas are identified as being at risk (via
the BVPI data). This should be supported by clear guidance concerning how key
lines of inquiry might be achieved and assessed, avoiding a “one size fits all”
comparison. The CAA should be capable of recognising the variability of
experience at a local level, and how individual localities have recognised
particular local challenges and crafted strategies to deal with them.
More broadly, in terms of particular types of area our analysis suggests that there are
four family groups, where current perceptions of cohesion in some areas are likely to
be below average and targeted action on integration and cohesion may be needed. We
list them below, with examples of the sorts of areas included in these groups
(‘Changing’ or ‘stable’ in the list below relates to the level of immigration to these
areas):
a) Changing less affluent rural areas – typically areas experiencing complex
patterns of immigration for the first time, with Eastern European migrants
coming to work in agriculture or food processing.
b) Stable less affluent urban areas with manufacturing decline – these are spread
across the North and Midlands – this includes some where manufacturing
was textiles – the classic cohesion example where longstanding White and
Asian communities are living parallel lives.The majority of these areas do not
fit this model and the primary issue will be deprivation.
c) Stable less affluent urban areas without manufacturing decline – these are
spread across the country, but there is an interesting group in the South East,
where house prices in these areas are comparatively lower, and are attracting
newcomers. This is causing clashes with the existing community. Where the
newcomers are from BME communities this conflict becomes racialised, and
there may be growing support for the far right. The majority of these areas
though, do not fit this model and the primary issue will be deprivation.
d) Changing less affluent urban areas – these are spread across the country –
some are coastal towns, some are places reliant on manufacturing – they tend
to be places with high demand for low skilled labour, resulting in increased
numbers of migrant workers, so issues may relate to competition for jobs.
In addition, through comparison of BVPI perceptions with predicted perceptions in
these areas, the research identified some ‘outliers’ with much lower levels of
cohesion than the model would predict. On further study, these areas were those
experiencing ‘acute’ problems due to a single issue which was causing tensions. This
has given us a fifth cross-cutting family group, reflecting that there can be poor
perceptions of cohesion in any area linked to a specific issue:
e) Towns or suburban areas which are not deprived, but in which there is a
single issue such as terrorism arrests or a proposed centre for asylum seekers
which is causing tensions. (Our Shared Future 2007 page 58 4.39).
We recognise that just as each school is different, each school’s contribution to
community cohesion will be different – and whilst there is therefore a need for this
strong national framework, we would also urge schools (in partnerships with Local
Authorities where possible) to make a local commitment to select from this menu in a
way that will ensure that the specific needs of their children are met. The current
pressure on standards means that the new duty may seem to some an additional
burden – but our local visits suggest that instead it
That a new national programme of school twinning should be established, which
makes use of new technology to keep schools in touch with each other, and outlines a
20
clear “business case” for work in schools on integration and cohesion – recognising
that twinning will work in different ways and that not all schools will want to take
exactly the same approach. To deliver this, we recommend that DfES:
a) Should set up a central website with guidance on effective twinning,
including local case studies, and user forums to enable schools looking for
“twins” to make contact online.
b) To launch the website, should distribute user-friendly and approachable
guidance on school twinning, developed in consultation with young people –
we recommend that any guidance follows the excellent example set by the
Scottish Executive
c) Should consider how to twin schools using the curriculum rather than just
focusing on extra-curricular activities. In Northern Ireland, we saw how
schools were legally required to offer access to more subjects than they had
capacity to teach, in order to make them twin with other schools to share
teaching. Our view is that this would be a way of making school twinning
more sustainable, as the interactions between different groups of
schoolchildren would be in a more “business as usual” context.
At a local level we recognise that many schools are already doing good work in this
area, and that many schools are already ensuring that their overall ethos reflects a
genuine commitment to respect for diversity and good relations across communities.
But in addition to the national structures outlined above, we can see three high level
things that could push this progress further locally:
33.
34.
Local Authorities and schools should develop clear partnerships that make use of the
school’s status as a community hub. This is not only about support for school
twinning, or a way to facilitate inputs from Local Authorities that can give citizenship
education a genuine local focus, although both are important. It is also be about
cementing the links between schools and the neighbourhoods that feed into them. In
the best areas, this already includes headteachers being involved with LSPs, schools
being used as premises for neighbourhood activities and festivals, or involvement of
Local Authorities with developing engaging citizenship days for the whole
community. This recommendation should also be supported by closer working
between DfES and Communities and Local Government at a national level.
(Our Shared Future 2007)
Every school – whatever its intake and wherever it is located – is responsible for
educating children and young people who will live and work in a country which is
diverse in terms of cultures, religions or beliefs, ethnicities and social backgrounds.
Different types of schools in different communities will clearly face different
challenges and globalisation means both that the populations of schools are often
more diverse, and that they might also change at fairly short notice. The staff and
pupil populations of some schools reflect this diversity, allowing their pupils to mix
with those from different backgrounds. Other schools, often by nature of their
location, serve a predominantly monocultural population. As all children and young
people can benefit from meaningful interaction, schools will need to consider how to
give their pupils the opportunity to mix with and learn with, from and about those
from different backgrounds, for example through links with other schools and
community organisations. Through their ethos and curriculum schools can promote
discussion of a common sense of identity and support diversity, showing pupils how
different communities can be united by shared values and common experiences.
(Guidance for the Duty to promote Community Cohesion 2007 p1)
For schools, the term ‘community’ has a number of dimensions including:

the school community – the children and young people it serves, their parents,
carers and families, the school’s staff and governing body, and community users
of the school’s facilities and services;
21
the community within which the school is located – the school in its geographical
community and the people who live or work in that area. This applies not just to
the immediate neighbourhood but also to the city or local authority area within
which a school is located;

the UK community7 – all schools are by definition part of this community; and
the global community – formed by EU and international links.
In addition, schools themselves create communities – for example, the networks
formed by similar or different types of schools, by schools that are part of the
specialist schools network, or by schools that work collaboratively in clusters or in
other models of partnership. (Guidance for the Duty to promote Community
Cohesion 2007 p5)
A move away from a “one size fits all” approach
4.34 The analysis in Chapter 1 shows that cohesion takes different forms in different
areas, and is affected by a number of factors which interact with each other. But to
date, work on community cohesion has been largely driven by work explicitly based
on issues that existed in Bradford, Oldham and Burnley in 2001.
4.35 If, as we have set out above, cohesion is about a complex interlocking of local
factors, then national policy based on one specific set of those factors will not work
everywhere. When we suggested in our interim report that the focus on residential
segregation was a red herring, what we were saying was that it is an important issue
in some areas, but not in others – and that national debates on integration and
cohesion should not be boiled down to one specific issue. (Our Shared Future 2007)
The Broader context of community cohesion is just about good citizenship
In the face of local and complex change, we therefore argue that citizenship can better
be understood as an acknowledgement that we all belong to the same society – and
that, as citizens, we are co-owners of it and jointly responsible for its future. We want
to recognise the importance of how individuals, people and communities identify
with particular places, generating both local and national responses to issues around
what is expected of them, and what they can expect from others.
The concept of citizenship is therefore developed into something that can stand as a
wider contract of rights and responsibilities for all citizens. And to get to that, we
need to openly debate forms of citizenship that prioritise integration and cohesion.
5.6 Our proposal therefore is that we use integration and cohesion policy to generate a
working sense of citizenship that is based on a set of rights and responsibilities
appropriate for the changing UK of the 21st century, and one that chimes at national
as well as local levels
Community Cohesion is cultural in basis not economic
Initially, community cohesion was defined largely in economic terms. Now, however,
it is clearly accepted that to achieve community cohesion it is necessary to consider a
broad range of issues including access to education and employment, poverty and
social inequalities, social and cultural diversity, and even access to communication
and information technologies.
(Cantle Report Appendix C An analysis of the concept of community cohesion
written by Dr Rosalyn Lynch of the Home Office Research, Development and
Statistics Directorate)
“Every school – whatever its intake and wherever it is located – is responsible for
educating children and young people who will live and work in a country which is
diverse in terms of cultures, religions and beliefs, ethnicities and social backgrounds”
(Guidance for the Duty to promote Community Cohesion 2007 p1)

35.
36.
37.
38.
22
Appendix 1
The effectiveness with which the school promotes community cohesion
Inspectors should evaluate:
 the extent to which the school has developed an understanding of the religious,
ethnic and socio-economic characteristics of its community in a local, national and
global context
 the extent to which the school has taken an appropriate set of planned actions based
on an analysis of its context and is evaluating the impact of its work
 the extent to which the school’s actions have a positive impact on community
cohesion within the school and beyond.
Outline guidance
Inspectors should take account of:
 the quality of the school’s analysis of its context
 the extent to which leaders and managers have placed due emphasis on each of the
three strands of religion, ethnicity and the socioeconomic dimension in shaping the
school’s response to its analysis.
 the extent to which the school has taken appropriate actions to contribute to
community cohesion within the school and beyond
 the quality, and use made, of the school’s evaluation of its work across the three
strands
 evidence of the impact of the school’s work on outcomes, for instance in the quality
of the pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural development
 evidence of the impact of the school’s work in the local community.
The effectiveness with which the school promotes community cohesion: grade descriptors
Outstanding (1)
The school acts vigorously and successfully, using information from an incisive analysis of its religious,
ethnic and socio-economic context at local and national levels to focus its exceptional contribution to
community cohesion. It evaluates its work rigorously in order to build on its many strengths. The
school’s actions have a markedly beneficial impact on community cohesion within its local community
and beyond. The school community is highly cohesive and the pupils have a strong understanding of
what is required to maintain this state.
Good (2)
The school demonstrates that it makes a strong contribution to promoting community cohesion based
on a clear analysis of its religious, ethnic and socio-economic context. It evaluates its contribution to
community cohesion and can identify clear impact but this may be uneven across the three strands.
There are effective plans that promote engagement with a range of community groups beyond the
school and the immediate community. The impact of its work is felt strongly within the school and
pupils from different backgrounds get on noticeably well with each other.
Satisfactory (3)
The school has taken a set of actions based on an informed understanding of its religious, ethnic and
socio-economic context. It is actively promoting community cohesion within the school community and
is reaching out to other communities. Its work has a generally positive impact within the school, which
is a largely cohesive community, but there may be only limited evidence of its success in promoting
community cohesion beyond the school. Evaluation of its work is patchy but provides some relevant
information.
Inadequate(4)
The school has an inadequate understanding of the religious, ethnic or socio-economic factors which
define its context.
Or… It does not plan or evaluate its contribution to community cohesion either within or beyond the
school.
Or… The school’s work makes little effective contribution to community cohesion so that the school
itself is not a cohesive community.
23
Appendix 2
The Church Response to Community Cohesion
At the heart of the Christain faith are three unshakable convictions about the nature and destiny of
human kind:

We are created in the image of God

We are created to be in relationship with God, each other and the created order

We are fellow citizens of the Kingdom of God
(Quote from Transformation Strategic Objectives 2010-2015: The National Society 2009)
24