Education for Citizenship, responses to the written consultation analysed by the University of Aberdeen
Download the full report
PDF file: Education for Citizenship in Scotland: An analysis of responses to the consultation paper (605 KB)
Read the full report completed in May 2001.
Read the report summary
Introduction
Almost all respondents agreed wholeheartedly that schools and pre-5 centres had a role to play in educating young people for active and responsible citizenship. Many were keen to point put that the school should not be seen as the sole provider, emphasising the role of the family and other agencies.
Section 1: What is 'citizenship' and why is 'education for citizenship' important?
Generally the broad view of citizenship was greeted with approval, but it provoked a number of criticisms. The view of young people as "citizens of today rather than citizens in waiting" was seen to be too simplistic, as young people do not have the same legal rights as adults. Some felt that the document stressed rights at the expense of responsibilities. The focus of the definition was criticised for being too middle class, and was seen to be aimed at the nuclear family. More emphasis on inclusion of disadvantaged groups was requested. A number of commentators urged a more global view of citizenship, focusing on sustainability.
The key characteristics of effective, responsible citizenship were not met with unqualified approval. It was pointed out that many young people would be unable to meet all the criteria, yet could still be effective citizens. The document was criticised for its naivety in promoting co-operation towards a common good, since conflict and struggle are a legitimate and important feature of democracy. It was pointed out that some opinions and actions are unacceptable and must be challenged rather than respected.
Section 2: What should education for citizenship seek to achieve?
The stated overall goal received considerable support, although there was concern over the emphasis on active citizenship. Not everybody, it was felt, is either willing or able to participate actively. The goal of political literacy was controversial, with some feeling it was the essence of citizenship and others feeling that it had no place in our schools. The lack of a spiritual dimension was criticised. A suggested addition to the stated goals was explicit reference to leaving home without crisis, referring to the link between homelessness and exclusion from citizenship.
The approach to defining and exemplifying knowledge and understanding was criticised for being daunting, unwieldy, and aspirational. There were concerns of this becoming simply a "tick list" and calls were made for more exemplification with age related guidelines. A large number of suggestions were made for possible additions.
It was widely felt that the skills and competencies were already covered in our schools. However, a number of respondents pointed out that they were not the sole preserve of citizenship, but part of education generally. Additionally they could be put to destructive as well as constructive use.
The values and dispositions were generally met with approval although problems of interpretation were envisaged, as they were thought to be subjective and open to debate. There was seen to be an important issue associated with whose values would be promoted, and how "desirable" values could be identified.
There were differences of opinion relating to the usefulness of including creativity and enterprise. Some respondents felt these attributes were vital to good citizenship, whilst others rejected this view, suggesting that whilst society needs creativity and enterprise, they are not requirements of all citizens.
Section 3: Effective education for citizenship in practice
There was virtually universal support for education for citizenship for all young people, however the term "entitlement" provoked some reaction. Some problems were envisaged with the introduction of an inclusive participative ethos in schools, as many felt there would be resistance from the schools and teachers themselves. Additionally such a model could be seen to be at odds with the current emphasis on central control of the curriculum and management of schools.
Within the 3-5 curriculum, it appeared that much good practice in this area already exists. Similarly, in primary schools, citizenship education seemed to correspond with much that was already provided within the 5-14 curriculum. It was in secondary schools that problems were envisaged, partly due to the fragmentation of the curriculum, which made any permeation model difficult to manage. Additionally, subject choices at 14 created problems for ensuring equity of provision. Within the secondary sector concerns were expressed that modern studies would either carry an unfair burden of the responsibility, or that some of the subject material in the modern studies course would be taught by non specialists elsewhere in the curriculum.
Section 4: Implications and next steps
Whilst there was widespread agreement that citizenship should not be taught as a separate subject, there were also misgivings about the success of cross-curricular initiatives in the past. Many respondents referred to the need for careful audit both of the existing curriculum, to find where citizenship education is already delivered, and of any future curriculum to ensure all pupils had access to appropriate experiences.
Assessment or accreditation of citizenship was widely rejected, as it would narrow the concept of citizenship and in any case be difficult to administer. Additionally concerns were expressed at the idea of some young people leaving school as "failed citizens".
Enthusiasm and commitment of teachers could be maintained, it was suggested, by recognising existing good work, developing a sense of ownership of the initiative amongst teachers, by introducing citizenship education over a sensible time scale, and by providing sufficient resources, support and training.