• No results found

What does the future hold for citizenship education in secondary schools? This is not an easy question to answer definitively at this stage of CELS Further data will be

Mine Road School

6. Challenges and recommendations

7.2 Conclusions

7.2.2 What does the future hold for citizenship education in secondary schools? This is not an easy question to answer definitively at this stage of CELS Further data will be

collected from schools and students, and, any conclusions drawn at this stage can only be preliminary. However, what is clear from the latest CELS data, particularly that from the case-study schools, is that citizenship education policy and practice is still evolving in schools and at varying rates. As Chapter 6 underlined, although there have been many successes in embedding CE in school policies and practices, considerable challenges remain.

Some schools are clearly in a much stronger position than others to meet these challenges and to continue to embed CE in policy and practice. However, as noted in the previous section, the unknown in all this is the combined impact of the common factors (at individual, collective and structural level) on the trajectory of CE in schools. The trajectories of the case- study schools (see Appendix 3) reveal that the progress of CE in schools is not linear but rather more uneven, bumpy and fractured. These factors can work, in combination, to strengthen and weaken CE at particular points in time.

For example, the accumulated CELS evidence would suggest that those schools classified as Type 4 ‘citizenship-rich’ and Type 1 curriculum focused are in the strongest position to take CE forward positively. They can continue to build on their existing successes and strengths and rise to current and forthcoming challenges. However, much will depend on how these common factors play out in practice. The situation at Elm Tree School puts this

into sharp perspective. The school remains classified as Type 4 ‘citizenship-rich’ and has done much since 2002 to embed CE in the curriculum, to strengthen democratic structures and processes in the school, and to make some links to the local community. It would appear to be in a strong position concerning the future of CE in the school. However, the latest case- study visit revealed that major changes are currently afoot in the school and potentially for CE. Not only is the school about to become a new Academy but the longstanding CE coordinator, who has been the glue that has held CE together, is taking early retirement. Academy status brings with it a new governing body, new funds for buildings and staff, a reshaped senior management team, a revised ethos (and, by extension, values), and the promise of curriculum innovation. The retirement of the CE coordinator brings with it the opportunity to review CE policy and practice and appoint a new coordinator. What is as yet unknown is the combined impact of these changes and how far it will alter the current, upward trajectory of CE in the school. The changes have the potential to reinvigorate CE in the school but also to undermine it. What happens, in practice, in the school is something that we will be following up in the final year of CELS.

It is also important to recognise the gap between policy formation and implementation at national and individual school level. The over time perspective in this report highlights a certain time-lag between shifts in policy for general education and citizenship education and their take-up and impact in schools. This has been the case, for example, with the emphasis on strengthening student participation and pupil voice and, more recently, on personalisation and the spread of Assessment for Learning (AfL). As the data from the case-study schools reveal, some schools have been quicker and more assiduous in reacting to these policy shifts than others.

This time-lag in policy implementation is important when attempting to look forward for CE provision in schools. There are considerable challenges to, and opportunities for, developing CE in current policy developments. As was outlined in the opening chapter, there are

considerable current shifts in policy for general education and citizenship education, notably with the introduction of a new National Curriculum in schools from September 2008, which includes a revised and updated Citizenship curriculum with a new fourth strand on Identities and diversity: living together in the UK that looks to strengthen community cohesion in and beyond schools. Meanwhile, recently, through the Primary Curriculum Review (Rose, 2009) and MacDonald Review (Macdonald, 2009), there are also suggestions to make citizenship education statutory in primary schools and make PSHE statutory in secondary schools.21 What is evident in reviewing the latest CELS data is that schools are at various stages of awareness of these policy shifts and at differing points of reflection in considering their implications for current policy and practice in the school towards citizenship education. The revised Citizenship curriculum and new fourth strand

Looking forward, there is evidence that case-study schools are continuing to review their practice with regards to CE in the curriculum, and that, in some cases, this is under the impetus of the revised and updated Citizenship curriculum. In some case-study schools, forthcoming timetable changes mean that there will be (a move towards) the introduction of a specialist team forCE and/or the increase in the time allocated to the delivery of CE in 2009-10. In the specialist citizenship school (Humanities High School), the planned increase in time allocated to CE is a result of the perceived need to have more lessons to cover the revised curriculum and the new fourth strand of Identity and Diversities.

21

It was not possible to elicit views on these two reviews because they came after the collection of the latest CELS data. However, these and other policy developments will be followed up in the final round of data collection in the case-study schools.

However, unsurprisingly, in schools where CE is affected by lack of status and momentum and by pressures on the timetable from core subjects, no increases in time for CE seem planned, despite recognition that too little time is dedicated to it. In fact, in Woodford Road School, an exam-rich school where CE is being pushed out of curriculum, the new

curriculum is not expected to have much impact due to low status of the subject. In the words of the coordinator, the new curriculum is expected to have ‘Very limited [impact on the

school’s practice], because I know we can’t do it and no one’s going to check up on us'. This suggests the inspections of the new curriculum may not necessarily ensure the quality of CE provision (see also Chapter 4).

At the time of the visits (Summer term 2008), most of the case-study schools were still to identify what exact changes would be required as a result of the introduction of the revised and updated curriculum for CE that was to be introduced the following September. This is something that CELS will follow-up in its final stage (see Postscript). For the moment, the (preliminary) data about the introduction of Identities and Diversity as a fourth strand of the CE curriculum indicates that:

• Students are, in the main, positive about it and see the value in covering these topics, for preventing or addressing racism, prejudice and bullying.

• Staff and students across schools believe that Identities and Diversity is already covered as a topic to some extent in the existing Citizenship curriculum.

• Some staff lack confidence in how to address these topics, particularly in relation to the background of students and in the context of the nature of the local community, and will require training.

• Community contexts are likely to have an impact on how schools address issues of identities and diversity, with some community contexts (particularly those that are monocultural) proving more challenging than others.

Whilst these findings are generally positive, in one school students warned that, as topics relating to identities and diversity are already covered, if more of the same is added, it may become boring. Also, overall, staff and students tended to discuss identities and diversity in relation to multicultural society, race and ethnicity. Other aspects of diversity connected to the citizenship, equal opportunities and community cohesion agendas (e.g. socio-economic diversity) might not be being considered.