Crick Report and Beyond. Citizenship Education

Citizenship Education in England:
The Crick Report and Beyond

TERENCE H. McLAUGHLIN
Citizenship education is being formally introduced into
schools in England as a matter of national policy for the first
time. This article offers a critical evaluation of the report of
the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship and the
Teaching of Democracy in Schools which was chaired by
Professor Bernard Crick, and which has been influential in
shaping current educational policy in relation to these
matters. An assessment is also offered of the challenges and
prospects which confront citizenship education in England in
the light of these developments.
Citizenship education is being formally introduced into schools in
England as a matter of national policy for the first time. From August
2002, citizenship will become a statutory National Curriculum founda-
tion subject at secondary level for students at Key Stage 3 (1114 years
of age) and Key Stage 4 (1416 years of age). The programmes of study
for citizenship at these Key Stages are complemented by non-statutory
guidelines for Citizenship and Personal, Social and Health Education at
primary level for students at Key Stage 1 (57 years of age) and Key
Stage 2 (711 years of age), and for Personal, Social and Health
Education at Key Stages 3 and 4 which are to be taught alongside the
revised National Curriculum from September 2000.
1
Several guidance
documents have been issued by the Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA) to assist teachers and others to implement these
developments coherently and effectively.
2
The formal introduction of citizenship education into schools in
England has been preceded by a process of consultation and debate in
which the work of the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship
and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, chaired by Professor
Bernard Crick, has been prominent. The formation of the advisory
group was announced in the 1997 White Paper Excellence in Schools
3
and the group was set up in November 1997 under the management of
the QCA by Rt Hon David Blunkett MP, the Secretary of State for
Education and Employment, with wide ranging terms of reference
relating to the provision of advice on effective citizenship education in
schools.
4
The group produced an initial report in March 1998 and its
Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 34, No. 4, 2000
&The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2000. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108
Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
final report (hereinafter referred to for convenience as `The Crick
Report') in September 1998.
5
The timing of both reports was carefully
judged to enable the work of the group to be fed into the consultation
process relating to the revision of the National Curriculum for 2000, and
its recommendations have had a significant impact on the national
policy for citizenship education which has emerged.
The broad approach and emphases of the Crick report were generally
well received during its consultation process
6
and its recommendations,
and the subsequent policy developments relating to citizenship edu-
cation, have received, on the whole, a similarly favourable reception.
There is a significant consensus, at least in many quarters, that the
introduction of citizenship education into the revised National
Curriculum is a positive step.
7
Whilst citizenship education is clearly
not a sufficient condition of active citizenship in a healthy democracy, it
is seen by many as a necessary one.
8
Anthony Giddens, for example,
has called the initiative èxtraordinarily important'.
9
The initiative has
stimulated much enthusiasm and commitment, and Bernard Crick has
indicated that à sense of mission' underlies it.
10
It is clear, however, that the formal introduction of citizenship education
into schools as a matter of national policy gives rise to `. . . substantial and
critical intellectual questions about the definition, purposes, and
intended outcomes of such education'
11
as well as to related questions
of a more practical kind concerning its realisation. A critical appraisal of
both the report and the subsequent policies relating to citizenship
education is therefore timely, and will be attempted in this article.
The article has four sections. In the first section, I offer a sketch of
some background considerations relating to the introduction of citizen-
ship education into schools in England. In the second section, a brief
outline of the Crick Report is offered in the form of nine central claims
and recommendations identifiable in the report. A critical appraisal of
the report is offered in the third section. In the final section,
consideration is given to a range of issues and obstacles relating to the
successful implementation of citizenship education.
It is important to note at the outset that many different forms of enquiry
and research, including the practical insights of teachers themselves, are
needed for a complete illumination of the matters addressed in this article.
The present discussion concentrates on broadly philosophical issues, and
can therefore offer at best a partial insight into, and evaluation of, the
matters at stake. It is also worth noting that whilst the focus of the present
discussion is on citizenship education in English schools, a number of the
issues raised have wider reference, interest and application.
CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION IN ENGLAND: BACKGROUND
CONSIDERATIONS
Several features of the general background relating to citizenship
education in England
13
are worthy of attention. Four are considered
here, each of which has particular significance for the present discussion.
542 Terence H. McLaughlin
&The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain 2000.
First, it is clear that, in contrast to many other countries,
14
England
(and Britain more generally) has been slow to provide a systematic form
of citizenship education as a matter of national policy. David Kerr
observes that, in England, `(T)he avoidance of any overt official
government direction to schools concerning political socialization and
citizenship education can almost be seen as a national trait'.
15
A full
explanatory account of this `British exceptionalism'
16
requires attention
to a number of factors. These include inter alia the fact that control of
the school curriculum was decentralised in England for much of the last
century, that it was widely believed that formation for citizenship could
be adequately achieved through general processes of schooling (such as
`school ethos'), and that concerns about bias in the handling of political
issues in the curriculum were prevalent.
17
One particularly interesting
factor for the purposes of our discussion is the relative insignificance in
Britain of the notion of the `citizen' compared to that of the `subject'.
18
David Miller, for example, has argued that the concept of citizenship has
not played a significant role in our political tradition. Apart from the
`formal passport-holding' sense, the concept of citizenship is, he claims,
badly understood in Britain and is seen as something slightly `foreign'
and ùnsettling'.
19
Elizabeth Frazer points to the fact that British
political culture lacks `. . . any widely assented to narrative of the
distribution of political power'
20
which is a consequence of the
uncodified and in practice obscure nature of the British constitution.
In Britain, she argues, political culture and public discourse `. . . embody
only the vaguest ideas of constitutionality'.
21
These points made by
Miller and Frazer are significant because they are reflected in continuing
uncertainty and disagreement about how the notion of `citizenship'
should be interpreted and evaluated, which is one of the central issues
arising in relation to citizenship education.
Secondly, it is interesting to note the varied reasons which are invoked
in explanation and justification of the emergence of citizenship in
political and educational discourse in England over the last fifteen years
or so. Many of these reasons appeal to the notion of `civic deficit', but
this notion can be interpreted in different ways. On one interpretation,
the notion expresses a concern about such matters as `good neighbourli-
ness', basic social morality and the prevalence of phenomena such as
crime and drug taking. Here, the central concern is with `. . . the seemingly
pervasive erosion of the social, political, economic and moral fabric of
society in England in the face of rapid economic and social change.'
22
On
another interpretation, `civic deficit' is seen more in terms of inadequate
levels of political understanding and involvement.
23
The Crick Report
has a particular concern with `civic deficit' in this latter sense and
considers the situation in relation to it to be one which is `. . . inexcusably
and damagingly bad, and could and should be remedied.'
24
The differing
reasons invoked for the relatively recent emergence of the notion of
citizenship provide a further indication of uncertainty and disagreement
concerning the concept, especially the degree of political understanding
and involvement which are seen as central to it.
Citizenship Education in England 543
Thirdly, the uncertainty and disagreement about citizenship which has
been noted is transposed into the notion of citizenship education, the
history of which in English schools has been illuminated by a number of
researchers and writers.
25
One persistent feature of this history has been a tendency over the
years for the area covered by the notion of `citizenship education' to
be treated in schools in a diffuse and unco-ordinated way in various
forms of curriculum structure, pedagogic strategy and school
organisation. Consistent with the factors noted above, specifically
political questions have tended to lack sustained and systematic
attention. Courses concerned generally with the personal and social
domains (such as `humanities' courses
26
and programmes concerned
with Personal and Social Education (`PSE') ) have been prominent, as
has the belief, alluded to earlier, that preparation for citizenship could
be accomplished through general processes such as the èthos' of the
school. Courses and programmes with more explicitly political
concerns and dimensions have often been àdjectival' in character
(such as `peace education', ànti-racist education' and ànti-sexist
education').
27
An exception to these trends were courses and
programmes relating to `political literacy' supported by the Hansard
Society and associated with the Politics Association
28
which were
launched in the 1970s as part of what Bernard Crick now alludes to
as `the false dawn' of the citizenship movement.
29
This initiative
attempted to do justice both to the requirements of significant
engagement with fundamental political concepts and reasoning and
with issues of objectivity and bias. Initiatives from central agencies
with respect to citizenship education (such as those which took place
in the early 1990s)
30
confirm Kerr's description of `. . . noble
intentions, which are then turned into general pronouncements,
which, in turn, become minimal guidance for schools'
31
and have
tended to be overlooked because of their non-compulsory character.
Among the questions raised by these historical observations concern
the justification, requirements and implications of seeking a more
coherent and systematic approach to citizenship education in schools,
the best way in which citizenship education can be located in the
curriculum and life of schools, and the extent to which specifically
political understanding should be emphasised.
Fourthly, philosophers of education, political philosophers, political
theorists and educationalists have been articulating and debating the
general case for the provision of a form of political or citizenship
education as part of the educational entitlement of young people in a
liberal democratic society for some time.
32
In many ways, the Crick
Report and subsequent policy provisions in England represent, as a
result of advantageous circumstances in the policy-making sphere,
33
a
belated recognition of arguments long advanced. The central questions
which arise here concern the nature and extent of the obstacles which
stand in the way of the realisation of any philosophically articulated
conception of citizenship education in practice.
THE CRICK REPORT: CENTRAL CLAIMS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The essential elements of the Crick Report relevant to the present
discussion can be captured in nine central claims and recommendations:
1 Citizenship and the teaching of democracy (in the broad sense
defined in the report) is so important for schools and for society as
a whole that there should be a statutory requirement on schools
that it should be part of the educational entitlement of all pupils
and young people, constituting no more than five per cent of
flexibly distributed and school determined curriculum time across
the Key Stages. Schools should be required to show how they are
meeting this obligation with respect to citizenship education.
Variable and uncoordinated local initiatives in relation to this
matter are no longer adequate.
34
2 All those involved in citizenship education should be provided with
a clear statement of what is involved in citizenship education and
their role in it.
35
3 Education for citizenship involves three interrelated and mutually
dependent elements, each requiring distinctive educational atten-
tion:
36
social and moral responsibility,
37
community involvement
38
and political literacy,
39
each of which in `habitual interaction' with
the others, constitutes àctive citizenship.'
40
4 Education for citizenship requires more than knowledge, since it
involves behaving and acting as a citizen.
41
In addition to
knowledge it therefore involves the development of skills, values,
attitudes, dispositions and understanding.
5 Citizenship education requires a range of forms of learning both
within and without the school.
42
Although citizenship education
can draw upon, be enhanced by, and contribute to, other subjects
and aspects of the curriculum
43
and there is a significant
commonality of values, approach and method with personal,
social and health education and with whole school approaches to
the promotion of spiritual, moral, social and cultural develop-
ment,
44
citizenship education must be distinctive (at least at
secondary level) since explicit knowledge of social and political
institutions and processes must be achieved. Citizenship education
must therefore be separately specified within the national edu-
cational framework.
45
6 Teaching about citizenship necessarily involves teaching about
controversial issues and guidelines are needed to guard against bias
on the part of teachers and to assist them to achieve balance,
fairness and objectivity.
46
7 The entitlement should be established by outlining specific learning
outcomes for each Key Stage which should be tightly enough
defined so that standards and objectivity can be inspected by the
Office for Standards in Education. This òutput' model based on
`tightly defined learning outcomes' is favoured rather than the
prescription of detailed programmes of study in order to give
schools flexibility in their provision of citizenship education in the
light of local conditions, opportunities and existing good practice,
to allay fears that a single way of teaching politics is being
proposed and to lessen the dangers of future ministerial interven-
tions in relation to precise content. The `learning outcomes' are
also seen as valuable in securing clarity, co-ordination and
confidence in citizenship education and a basis for the assessment
of pupil progress and progression.
47
8 The framework for citizenship education should be governed by
the guiding principles of breadth and balance, coherence,
continuity and progression, relevance, quality and access and
inclusion.
48
It should consist of the aim and purpose of citizenship
education in schools (including a rationale and justification for
citizenship),
49
the strands (social and moral responsibility, commu-
nity involvement and political literacy),
50
essential elements
(concepts, values, dispositions, skills and aptitudes and knowledge
and understanding) which are implicit within, and underpin,
citizenship education and which provide the basis for the learning
outcomes
51
and finally the learning outcomes themselves.
52
9 There should be a Standing Commission on Citizenship Education
appointed by the Secretary of State with a quasi-autonomous
relationship to the Department for Education and Employment
and the QCA and a membership including cross-party representa-
tion in order to monitor the progress of citizenship education and
to recommend amendments in due course.
53
THE CRICK REPORT: AN APPRAISAL
The various claims and recommendations outlined above are reflected in
the sub-headings under which I shall attempt a critical appraisal of the
Crick Report: compulsoriness and entitlement (relating to 1), the
concept of citizenship and citizenship education (2, 3 and 4), the
realisation of citizenship education (5 and 8), the teaching of
controversial issues (6), learning outcomes (7), and control (9). There
are, of course, limitations in any appraisal which confines itself too
tightly to the precise text of the report, statutory Orders or guidance
documents. Bernard Crick insists that `the sense of mission' underlying
the initiative must sometimes be seen to òverride' as well as to
ùnderlay' any `too rigid or literal' reading of these.
54
Compulsoriness and entitlement
The claim that there should be some form of entitlement relating to
citizenship education which should be compulsory for all children and
young people (hereinafter `students') in schools seems intuitively
plausible. According to this intuition, whilst there is room for debate
about precisely what such an entitlement should consist in, and about
how it should be provided, the claim that it should exist is well founded.
In the absence of such an entitlement, continues the intuition, how can
the associated benefits be secured for all individuals (in the form, say, of
equality of opportunity to achieve democratic agency) and for a
democratic society (in the form, say, of an informed and active
citizenry)? This intuition has, however, been challenged by James
Tooley, who, in his recent book Reclaiming Education
55
has developed a
trenchant critique not only of the specific form of compulsory
entitlement for citizenship education developed in the Crick Report but
also of the very idea of a compulsory entitlement to citizenship
education itself. Tooley's rejection of the particular account of citizen-
ship and citizenship education contained in the report, which he
considers to be politically biased, will be considered in the next section.
Here, attention will be focused on Tooley's more fundamental
objections to the notion of a state regulated `compulsory entitlement'
of any kind in relation to citizenship education, which are related to his
well known wide ranging general opposition to state involvement in
education and, in particular, to `. . . any attempt to bring higher-order
values into the curriculum through government edict'.
56
Tooley's
arguments, if correct, would render the basic project embodied in the
Crick Report fundamentally unacceptable.
Tooley notes the concern of the Crick Report that leaving
citizenship education to variable and unco-ordinated local initiatives
would result in its having an unacceptably ad hoc and ùntidy'
character. Tooley develops a series of arguments to the effect that the
ad hoc and the ùntidy' in these and other educational matters should
be accepted and that any attempt to counter them through state
intervention is unjustifiable.
Tooley points to the fact that there are a wide range of resources outside
the school (local, national and international) which can contribute to
education for democracy: the family, the media (newspapers, magazines,
television and radio, the internet), political institutions, political parties,
lobby groups, societies, and discussions and debates of many kinds in
many contexts.
57
Why, Tooley asks, should we not see these resources,
engaged with ad hoc by students, as adequate for citizenship education?
Tooley argues that the evidence voiced in the Crick Report and elsewhere
about the inadequacy of these resources is inconclusive and contra-
dictory. Political apathy and alienation among young people, he claims, is
a complex phenomenon which may have been overestimated in terms
both of extent and significance and which cannot be assumed to be
straightforwardly associated with a lack of compulsory citizenship
education.
58
Indeed, Tooley continues, it would be impossible in principle
to show that such ad hoc resources were inadequate, given their
multifarious character and the significance of confounding variables.
59
Tooley claims that there is no reason to think that all the aspects of
citizenship education outlined by the Crick Report would be better learnt
outside school through the ad hoc processes he draws attention to.
60
This claim seems counterintuitive. A feature of the ad hoc and the
ùntidy' in relation to these resources is that it is highly likely that there
will be a variability of student access to, and engagement with, them.
For various reasons, not all students will encounter these resources to a
significant extent, and even significant engagement will not necessarily
satisfy demands of breadth, balance, coherence and the like. Some
initiative designed to ensure appropriate forms of engagement, such as
that proposed in the Crick Report, seems, therefore, to be justified. Will
Kymlicka, for example, argues that due to the limitations of the market,
the family and the associations of civil society in teaching civic virtue, a
role for the school in this process is unavoidable.
61
Some of Tooley's lines of argument in reaction to this sort of claim
embody important truths. He points out that compulsory citizenship
education in schools may not succeed, due to such contingent variables
as various kinds of failure on the part of schools and lack of student
motivation and capacity.
62
Further, he insists that compulsory schooling
should not merely be taken for granted as an optimal or even necessary
educational context: its various disadvantages need to be acknowledged,
which include the possibility that features of schools themselves may
cause some of the alienation about which concern has been expressed.
63
In addition, Tooley argues to some effect that the learning outcomes
specified in the report are open to significant criticism with respect to
their coherence and usability
64
and that any report of this kind, given the
constraints of time and the imperatives of consensus, is likely to produce
inadequate conceptualisations of such matters.
65
Notwithstanding these
important points, however, it seems open for defenders of the principle
of a compulsory entitlement to a form of citizenship education to re-
state their arguments in a way which acknowledges the need to be alert
and to respond to these warnings and dangers. Such a re-statement
would continue to maintain that, as a matter of practical judgement, it
seems likely that, at least at present, schools are the most promising
contexts in which all children and young people are likely to engage to
an adequate extent and in an adequate way with resources relevant to
the achievement of citizenship. This re-statement should gain support
from recognition of the point that we live in an imperfectly democratic
society which requires a detailed and realistic identification and fostering
of that which is likely to support democracy.
66
Some of Tooley's arguments are over-stated. He argues that the
committee which produced the Crick Report, `. . . clearly assumes that
the only way that young people can acquire the conditions required for
citizenship is through schooling, and it all has to be accomplished by the
time they reach age 16'.
67
Further, Tooley claims that it `doesn't occur'
to the committee that some of these conditions may be better satisfied
outside schooling.
68
In fact the report acknowledges the significance of a
wide range of extra-school contexts and resources in which citizenship
can and should be developed, including community involvement,
69
and
it insists that citizenship education cannot be confined to the pre-16
period.
70
Further, the report is not complacent about schools, indicating
the sorts of developments necessary within them for effective citizenship
education to take place.
71
Nor is Tooley strictly correct in imputing a
`neat and tidy' perspective to the report. The report acknowledges the
need for considerable flexibility in (for example) teaching strategies and
arrangements.
72
Tooley's attempt to show that any programme of
citizenship education of the kind proposed in the Crick Report should be
rejected because it leads to the unacceptable conclusion that only those
who have gained a `political proficiency certificate' should be allowed to
vote
73
fails to compel acceptance.
The Concept of Citizenship and Citizenship Education
If the principle of a compulsory entitlement to a form of citizenship
education is accepted, attention can then be focused on the specific
conception of citizenship and citizenship education which is embodied in
the Crick Report. The breadth and multi-dimensionality of this
conception is reflected in the three interrelated and mutually dependent
elements of social and moral responsibility, community involvement and
`political literacy,' where `political literacy' is seen as involving not only
the acquisition of political knowledge but `. . . pupils learning about and
how to make themselves effective in public life through knowledge, skills
and values'.
74
As Will Kymlicka points out `Citizenship education is not
just a matter of learning the basic facts about the institutions and
procedures of political life; it also involves acquiring a range of
dispositions, virtues and loyalties that are intimately bound up with the
practice of democratic citizenship'.
75
However, the concept of citizenship, and the related notion of citizen-
ship education, are significantly controversial. Pearce and Hallgarten
note that `The process by which governments, schools and individuals
define citizenship is unlikely always to be consensual'
76
and the Crick
Report itself notes that there is no agreed sense of exactly what
citizenship entails.
77
Some of the factors relevant to hesitations and
reservations about the notion of citizenship and citizenship education in
the English context have been noted earlier. Kymlicka sees the virtues
required by citizens in a liberal democratic society as additional to those
general and economic virtues (such as law-abidingness, the ability to
defer gratification and to be adaptable in the face of economic
demands), which are necessary to any political order. The more specific
virtues required of citizens in a liberal democracy include, in his view,
public spiritedness (including `public reasonableness'), a sense of justice,
civility and tolerance and a shared sense of solidarity or loyalty.
78
Disputes arise, however, about the precise nature, extent, focus and
justifiability of these `more specific virtues' which take a philosophical
form in familiar debates such as those between liberalism and
communitarianism
79
and, within liberalism itself, about such matters
as the defensibility and scope of application of Rawlsian `political
liberalism'.
80
One way of conceptualising different conceptions of citizenship and
citizenship education, which I have developed elsewhere,
81
is in terms of
`minimal' and `maximal' interpretations of the notions, located on a
continuum rather than in terms of discrete conceptions, and related to
the identity that citizenship is seen as conferring upon an individual, the
virtues of the citizen that are seen as required, the extent of the political
involvement on the part of the individual that is thought to follow, and
the social prerequisites which are seen as necessary for effective
citizenship. This way of conceptualising relevant differences requires
no detailed re-statement here, although it should be noted that the
conceptualisation has not always been accurately interpreted and
applied by some commentators. A number of such conceptualisations
of differences in conceptions of citizenship and citizenship education
have been proposed, and each conceptualisation has its strengths and
limitations.
82
David Miller, for example, has proposed a distinction
between `liberal', `consumer' and àctive' citizenship (and, by implica-
tion, citizenship education).
83
Miller's conceptions of `liberal' and
`consumer' citizenship are locatable at the `minimal' end of the
minimal/maximum continuum which I characterise. Miller's `liberal'
notion of citizenship embodies `. . . a set of rights and obligations that
gives every citizen an equal status in the political community'
84
but
which requires no more activity on the part of a citizen than that of
`. . . defending her rights by voting in periodic elections.'
85
Miller's
`consumer' citizenship embodies the notion of `. . . rights of redress
against service providers'
86
and therefore involves less passivity on the
part of citizens, but the activity in question lacks a communal and
democratic character. Miller's àctive' citizenship, in contrast, is
locatable at the `maximal' end of the continuum. Miller's àctive'
citizen is not only `. . . a rights-holder and a claimant' but also one who is
`. . . actively involved in shaping the way that his or her community
functions' with a spirit of public responsibility.
87
It seems clear that, although the Crick Report seeks to embody a broad
conception of citizenship and citizenship education, the conception does
contain marked evidence of `maximal' or àctive' elements. This is
apparent in the following frequently quoted passage from the report:
We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country
both nationally and locally: for people to think of themselves as active
citizens, willing, able and equipped to have an inuence in public life and
with the critical capacities to weigh evidence before speaking and acting;
to build on and to extend radically to young people the best in existing
traditions of community involvement and public service, and to make
them individually condent in nding new forms of involvement and
action among themselves.
88
According to the report, such an aim involves the formation of
citizens who can `. . . participate in society effectively as active, informed,
critical and responsible citizens'
89
constituting `. . . an active and
politically-literate citizenry convinced that they can influence govern-
ment and community affairs at all levels'
90
able, for example, to
distinguish between law and justice and with the political skills to change
laws peacefully and responsibly.
91
The Crick Report's delineation of this
kind of `. . . highly educated ``citizen democracy''
92
is not a bland or
neutral one. It can be expected to have an impact on our political life,
making, for example, local government `. . . more democratic, open and
responsive'.
93
These `maximal' elements of citizenship are discernible throughout the
report. They are reflected, for example, in the claim that, whilst
voluntary and community activity is a necessary it is not a sufficient
condition of full citizenship
94
since `political' citizenship is important
and must never be taken for granted: citizens must be helped and
prepared to shape the terms of their civic engagements by `political
understanding and action'.
95
It is also reflected in the range and
significance of the matters which students are invited to address,
96
the
kinds of personal qualities that are seen as requiring development
97
and
the insistence that controversial issues should not be avoided but should
be tackled systematically by students.
98
Bernard Crick has described the view implicit in the report as `civic
republicanism'. In Crick's hands, this notion does not carry with it any
necessary rejection of the monarchy, but rather specifies a democratic
society in which `. . . the public have . . . rights to be involved in the things
that are of common concern . . . and cannot merely exercise these rights
but are presumed to have a civic duty to do so'.
99
The notion reminds us,
continues Crick, that `. . . democracy is not simply the counting of
opinions, but is reasoned public debate'.
100
For Crick, the `good citizen'
(in contrast to the `good subject') is one `. . . with civic rights in a
democratic form of government, thus rights in law, who actually
exercises them; and exercises them reasonably responsibly'.
101
The
historical origins of `civic republicanism' as described by Crick under-
score its emphasis upon critical political understanding and engagement.
`Civic republicanism', he notes, `. . . first arose in the world only when
real differences of values and interests came to be accepted as natural or
inevitable within a complex society. The business of politics and
citizenship education alike then became not one of reaching some
conclusive determination of values and of the ends of public policy, and
then enforcing them; but to find morally acceptable compromises within
agreed ways of conduct and acceptable procedures to resolve conflicts
and difficulties'.
102
Although Bernard Crick observes that the ideal of
citizenship embodied in the report is seeking a balance between more
`traditional' and more àctive' conceptions
103
the overall `maximal'
thrust of the report remains.
104
The conception of citizenship embodied in the Crick Report is a
potentially controversial one. Three main kinds of argument pointing to
illicit bias in the conception can be distinguished, although there are
overlaps between the arguments. The first kind of argument alleges that
the conception embodies biased political values and commitments on
particular substantive matters. James Tooley, for example, argues that
terms used in the report such as èthical trading', `peace-making and
peacekeeping', `poverty', `disease' and `human rights' are `building
blocks' of a political creed which is `. . . focused on the problems of
underdevelopment, the evils of global capitalism and how the United
Nations can put it all right'.
105
Similarly terms such as `prejudice',
`xenophobia', `discrimination,' `pluralism', `the environment' and
`sustainable development' are in his view indicative of left-wing and
`. . . anti-capitalist agendas'.
106
Tooley considers that `. . . members of the
committee either weren't self-reflective enough to realize their particular
political creed was exploding through on every page, or that they were,
and didn't care anyway'.
107
This seems to go too far. A number of
elements in the report can be appealed to in reply to Tooley's arguments
here, most notably the position taken on the teaching of controversial
issues and the guidance offered in relation to this matter.
108
The second kind of argument detects illicit bias in relation to
particular substantive matters, but claims that this bias arises not
through the presence of controversial `building blocks' but through
omission. A prominent issue in relation to which this claim arises is
multiculturalism and racism, which is seen by some as lacking adequate
treatment in the report.
109
There are, however, resources in the report
relevant to these matters. The report quotes with apparent approval the
recommendation of a recent survey that an explicit idea of `multi-
cultural citizenship' should be formulated for Britain and that an
appropriately plural response to racial disadvantage requires forms of
citizenship `sensitive to ethnic diversity' and which offer respect to
individuals and their social groups.
110
The report also refers to the need
to develop an inclusive `common' citizenship embracing the plurality of
nations, cultures, ethnic minorities and religions in the United Kingdom
and seeking `common ground' between them.
111
The report does not,
however, develop these matters at any length. Bernard Crick has
recently emphasised the importance of an indirect approach to
racism.
112
Another omission in the report is any treatment of the topic
of gender, which is rich in implication for citizenship and citizenship
education.
113
A failure to sufficiently emphasise the notion of human
rights has also been criticised in some quarters.
114
One reaction to these omissions is to regard the report as being unable
to deal with every topic relevant to the broad questions it was
addressing, but as having created `space' within educational policy
and practice within which topics such as multiculturalism, racism and
gender can be subsequently pursued. As Bernard Crick notes of the
subsequent curriculum Order `What is not ruled in is not ruled out.'
115
This reaction is confronted by claims that the various omissions have a
significant impact on the conceptualisations embodied in the report.
Stuart Hall, for example, argues (at least by implication) that the report
shares in a general blindness to the culture-loadedness and false
assumption of homogeneity which is characteristic of à common
British way of life', and therefore fails to bring into clear focus the full
challenge to citizenship of cultural diversity, including the need to
develop skills of ìntercultural evaluation'.
116
With regard to gender, it
has been argued in some quarters that the conception of citizenship
embodied in the report, with its emphasis on activity in the public
sphere, is essentially a male one.
The third kind of argument detects illicit bias in the conception of
citizenship embodied in the Crick Report not in the presence of
controversial `building blocks' nor in omissions, but in its imposition of
a more `maximal' conception of citizenship than can be justified. Miller
notes that àctive' citizenship in his sense is a `minority view' among the
general public in England and is very demanding, raising questions
about `. . . whether many people really want to, or are able to function as
citizens in this sense'.
117
Further, Miller doubts whether British people
have the strong sense of ìnclusive national identity' which alone (in his
view) can provide the motivation for responsible active citizenship.
118
Kymlicka holds that we have a justification for encouraging all citizens
to be active political participants only when the requirements of justice
demand it (as in, for example, a situation where concerted and
widespread action by citizens is needed to protest against injustice or
to defend democratic institutions against collapse). For Kymlicka,
`. . . there will be times and places where minimal citizenship is all that we
can or should require'.
119
The conception of citizenship embodied in the
report also gives rise to potentially controversial implications for wider
social and economic policies, not least in relation to the `social' rights of
citizenship delineated by T. H. Marshall, which are related to pre-
requisites for equality in the exercise of formal rights of citizenship.
120
It
has been argued by Melanie Phillips that the conception of citizenship in
the report gives too much weight to rights at the expense of duties.
121
This, however, overlooks the very considerable balancing of `rights' and
`duties' which is apparent throughout the report. Anthony O'Hear
argues that the report involves `. . . a particular conception of rights and
responsibilities . . . which does not favour our traditional British sense of
freedom or of history, or of traditional morality'
122
and that the report
will encourage endless and superficial debate among students which is
likely to undermine necessary and proven forms of belief, practice and
value.
123
This general line of argument can be given powerful support by
views such as those developed by Michael Oakeshott
124
about the nature
of politics and political education, and it requires a detailed response.
The conception of citizenship and citizenship education contained in
the Crick Report is therefore open to challenge on a number of grounds.
It is worth noting that during the consultation process for the report 83
per cent of those consulted thought that the definition of citizenship
education was àbout right'.
125
It is interesting to speculate about why
this should be so. The report did not articulate its conceptions in
theoretical terms, which could have invited incomprehension or
disagreement. Bernard Crick observes that the language of `civic
republicanism' is not yet a term common in political and public
discourse
126
and the report offered no detailed treatment of the notion of
`democracy'.
127
A more obvious factor explaining relative acceptance of
the conception of citizenship in the report is that interpretation of its
precise character requires judgements to be made about how balances
are to be struck between the different strands of citizenship which are
outlined. Despite the `maximalist' thrust of the report, there is room for
the differing elements to be balanced in different ways, and therefore for
the report to achieve wide acceptance. Bernard Crick, in earlier writing,
has cast doubt on any crude advocacy of àctive' citizenship in the sense
of `participation', which he concedes is impractical for most people. For
him, political knowledge and understanding on the part of citizens is as
important as participation.
128
This realisation is implicit in his more
recent observation that what is needed is a balance between `good' and
àctive' citizens.
129
It is important to note that, given broad agreement
on the principles of the report, the precise judgements about the aspects
of citizenship to be emphasised will need to be made at school level. The
various controversies which have been identified will therefore surface
and require attention there. The extent to which the resultant form of
citizenship education is (or is intended to be) primarily `re-constructive'
in Geraint Parry's sense (ie intended to be significantly transformative of
individuals and of society)
130
is a matter which cannot be read directly
off the conception of citizenship outlined in the report but will emerge in
the detailed judgements and strategies relating to citizenship education
adopted at school level.
The Realisation of Citizenship Education
The report is surely right to emphasise the range of forms of learning
both within and without the school which citizenship education requires.
The relationship between citizenship education and other aspects of the
curriculum, and the extent to which citizenship needs to be separately
specified within the national educational framework, give rise to some
interesting questions.
Initiatives relating to citizenship education have been taking place at
the same time as similar initiatives relating to personal, social and health
education (PSHE) and to the promotion of spiritual, moral, social and
cultural development, and there have been tensions between these
initiatives.
131
The Crick Report holds that PSHE is a necessary but not a
sufficient condition for citizenship education
132
because of the need
(especially in the later years of schooling) for a distinctively political
focus to what is to be learnt, with implications for teachers, teaching and
the curriculum. Richard Pring has pointed out the extent to which
political education, and by implication, citizenship education, should
take place in other subjects (particularly those concerned with the
humanities) and in the more general life and work of the school, rather
than in a distinctive separate subject. For Pring, there is no reason for a
`subject set apart.'
133
One of the important points made by Pring is that
the humanities can and should critically illuminate many of the
fundamental questions with which politics and education are concerned,
and he takes as a model here the work of the Humanities Curriculum
Project led by Lawrence Stenhouse in the 1960s. The central issue at
stake here, however, concerns not the labels given to curriculum units,
but the overall coherence and richness of the learning proposed,
attempted and achieved. The Crick Report's concern about preserving
the distinctively political focus of citizenship education is well taken, and
this may require, under present circumstances, a claim for separateness
of specification in the national curriculum arrangements. This concern
may be underscored by recalling the difficulties experienced by teachers
in relation to the implementation of the Humanities Curriculum Project
and more general difficulties experienced in relation to integrated and
cross-curricular initiatives generally.
The framework presented in the Crick Report for the realisation of
citizenship education, involving `guiding principles' such as breadth and
balance, and featuring `strands', èssential elements' and `learning
outcomes' is offered with the aim of ensuring a programme which is
`. . . coherent, both in intellectual and curriculum terms, as part of
stronger, co-ordinated approaches . . . '.
134
Whilst particular attention
will be given below to `learning outcomes', it is worth noting here the
very considerable general difficulty of securing `coherence' as well as
other aims such as `breadth' and `balance' in programmes such as
these.
135
This difficulty will be explored below in relation to the notion
of `taxonomic bite'.
The Teaching of Controversial Issues
As indicated earlier, the Crick Report places considerable emphasis on
the need for citizenship education to embrace the discussion of
controversial issues, and the report offers a well judged section of
guidance relating to this topic which covers a range of relevant
considerations including an account of how a `controversial issue'
should be understood, an indication of attitudes and practices on the
part of the teacher which are related to bias, and an outline of
appropriate teaching strategies.
136
With regard to the latter, the report
sensibly recommends a judicious mixture of methods determined by
pedagogic `common sense'.
137
It should be noted that whilst this aspect
of citizenship education (and of education more generally) can muster
considerable justificatory support, it poses considerable challenges to
teachers, especially when it is borne in mind that the scope of the
`controversial' extends to the responsibility of the teacher to develop in
students a nuanced understanding of concepts such as `tolerance' and
`respect'
138
as well as other `procedural values' of the sort which
Bernard Crick sees as central to citizenship education.
139
Such an
understanding is part of the aim of a teacher educating in a way which
satisfies the demands of moral (and political) texture and
complexity.
140
Learning Outcomes
One of the most noteworthy features of the Crick Report is its
recommendation that the statutory entitlement for citizenship education
be established by setting out `tightly defined' specific learning outcomes
for each Key Stage in the interests of promoting flexibility for schools in
the provision of citizenship education, lessening fears of government
dictation of detailed programmes, ensuring clarity and providing a basis
for co-ordination and for student progress and progression. The
learning outcomes are designed `. . . so that pupils will be encouraged
to develop and apply the skills and aptitudes through the contexts and
content provided in the knowledge and understanding components at
each key stage'.
141
The learning outcomes proposed are open to a number of significant
queries. Four queries will be raised here. The first query concerns the
relationship of the learning outcomes to the four èssential elements'
which `have to be reached' before the end of compulsory schooling. Only
two of these elements, `skills and aptitudes' and `knowledge and
understanding', are directly specified in the characterisation of the
learning outcomes. Of the other two, `key concepts' seem to be embraced
by `knowledge and understanding' whilst `values and dispositions' seem
to be presupposed, if not directly brought into focus, throughout.
Presumably, the decision not to make `values and dispositions' an
explicit part of assessable learning outcomes was due to hesitation about
ethical and other concerns arising from a specification of such matters as
`commitment to equal opportunities and gender equality', `commitment
to active citizenship', `commitment to voluntary service' and `concern
for the environment' as assessable òutcomes'.
142
Two aspects of concern
come into focus here. One is that the personal qualities at stake in such
matters could lead to unease that students as people are being assessed.
Whilst such personal assessments are unavoidable in an educational
context, a decision to encapsulate them in `learning outcomes' is
problematic. It is in relationship to such matters that concerns about the
awkwardness of a `qualification' for citizenship arise. The second aspect
of concern relates to accusations of illicit `moulding'. Some of the `values
and dispositions' concern matters of legitimate controversy, where scope
for individual assessment and response seems appropriate. In the light of
points made earlier, for example, `commitment to active citizenship'
would seem to fall into this category. The report urges students to
`reflect' upon the proposed `values and dispositions'.
143
Presumably, any
`learning outcomes' in relation to at least some `values and dispositions'
would need to be stated in a nuanced way to leave room for legitimate
diversity of response as a result of such reflection.
The second query concerns the extent to which the learning outcomes
proposed are, and can be, as `tightly defined' as the report claims. The
proposed outcomes are of different logical kinds, and vary in the extent
to which they are apt for `tight' definition and assessment. Some
proposed outcomes refer to participation in readily specifiable activities
and to the achievement of delimited factual knowledge. Many of the
outcomes, however, have the form of telegraphically indicating
achievements which require much more detailed specification if they
are to serve as `tightly defined' outcomes. This is true, for example, of
the following `learning outcomes' proposed as part of `knowledge and
understanding' at Key Stage 2: `. . . understand the meaning of terms
such as rights and responsibilities, right, wrong, fair, unfair, . . . justice . . .
freedom of speech . . .'.
144
The third query concerns the question of precisely how the `learning
outcomes' can be used às a fair and rigorous basis for assessment,
reporting and inspection' in various contexts.
145
These purposes seem to
require specification of how achievements in relation to the various
learning outcomes can be regarded as displaying such features as
`progression'. James Tooley is correct in pointing out that the existing
framework of learning outcomes is imprecise in these matters.
146
Any
detailed approach to these issues would seem to require in many cases a
greater specification of particular achievements and criteria for
progression, continuity and the like in relation to them. This may be
particularly difficult in relation to (say) an understanding of complex or
disputed concepts and ideas.
A fourth query concerns the danger that the `learning outcomes'
outlined in the report constitute a very heavy programme of learning to
be achieved, which may endanger the aspiration of the subject to avoid
the danger of descending into what Bernard Crick has described as
`. . . safe and dead, dead-safe, old rote-learning civics'.
147
The danger
here is that the spirit of the subject as envisaged in the Crick Report will
be subverted by an emphasis on learning outcomes, especially if the
subject is represented in the public examination system at the end of Key
Stage 4
148
and if it is dominated in different ways by the assessment-
driven character of the rest of the National Curriculum.
149
The `learning outcomes' approach adopted in the Crick Report is not
without value. It does, for example, seek to offer some specificity about
what is being aimed at, whilst seeking to meet the demands of flexibility
of `delivery'. It should be borne in mind also that the report was no
doubt constrained by the reality that areas of study which are not
assessed in school are not systematically taught and taken seriously.
150
It
seems crucial that teachers should not use the framework too literally
and inflexibly. As a tool used by teachers, the difficulties and dangers of
the framework which have been noted may be ameliorated or avoided.
The centrality of the notion of a form of `pedagogic phronesis'
151
to
what is required here will be discussed below.
Control
The suggestion in the report that there should be a Standing
Commission on Citizenship Education to overview the progress of
citizenship education and to recommend amendments in due course
reflects the aversion of the report to any source of authoritative guidance
in relation to citizenship education.
152
A central worry here is expressed
by Bernard Crick in the following terms `. . . politically, in a free country,
unlike in an autocracy, a citizenship education must not be centrally
directed in detail, only in broad but clear principles. Government creates
it, but keeps it at arm's length'.
153
For this reason, the proposal for a
Standing Commission is a valuable and interesting one.
BEYOND THE CRICK REPORT: CHALLENGES AND PROSPECTS
Any attempt to outline the full range of challenges to, and prospects for,
citizenship education in England in the light of developments since the
Crick Report involves attention to a wide range of considerations.
154
Some of these involve severely practical matters. It seems clear that
much effort in relation to citizenship education must take a non-utopian
and piecemeal form.
155
It is widely recognised, for example, that much
work which is relevant to citizenship education is already going on in
schools. Attention will be focused here upon some central issues relating
to the implementation of citizenship education which have broadly
philosophical dimensions to them. The matters addressed will be general
in character, and no attempt will be made to examine the details of
National Curriculum programmes of study and other provisions.
As mentioned earlier, there is quite a close relationship between the
report and the subsequent policy recommendations for citizenship
education expressed in the statutory Order, which, in Bernard Crick's
opinion, follows the report `to an unusual extent'.
156
In one respect the
recommendations go beyond what was recommended in the report, in
making community involvement part of the new statutory Order.
157
There are some points of difference: the Order refers to `contemporary
issues and problems' rather than `controversial issues'
158
and, as Bernard
Crick observes, there is a difference in style, the Order (in keeping with
its mandatory character) being `terse' and `prescriptive' whilst the report
`. . . offers justifications and explanations of its recommendations'.
159
The idea of a Standing Commission on citizenship education has not
been pursued in subsequent policy development.
One general set of considerations relating to challenges and prospects
for citizenship education involves various kinds of possible `gap'
between the recommendations of the Crick Report and the provisions
of the Order. Bernard Crick has insisted that both documents need to be
read together.
160
This is because the Order is not self-explanatory with
respect to its rationale and values: it is in the nature of such a document
that it offers only a `formal' statement of aims and a justification which
is implied rather than fully articulated. Attention therefore needs to be
paid by teachers to the rationale offered in the Crick Report. In the
context of the implementation of citizenship education as part of the
National Curriculum, attention is needed also to the statement of values,
aims and purposes of the National Curriculum as a whole located at the
beginning of each of the National Curriculum handbooks and the
statement of values by the National Forum for Values in Education and
the Community located at the end.
161
Whilst these statements are not
without significance
162
they do not embody with sufficient precision and
clarity a specific rationale for citizenship education of the kind found in
the Crick Report. Teachers and educational leaders involved with the
implementation of citizenship education therefore face (in no particular
temporal order) four preliminary tasks. The first task is the general one
of reading and absorbing the statements at the beginning and end of the
National Curriculum documents. Steve Bramall and John White raise a
concern that the statement of values, aims and purposes may turn out to
be no more than a form of `window dressing' which does not really
percolate into, and govern, the National Curriculum.
163
The second task
is one of reading and absorbing the rationale for citizenship education
offered in the Crick Report together with the amplificatory guidance
provided by the QCA.
164
The third task is one of relating the statements
involved in the first task to the rationale involved in the second task and
interpreting the former in the light of the latter. The fourth task is that of
applying all the understanding gained to the work to be undertaken in
the school in relation to the provisions of the National Curriculum.
Bernard Crick writes that the Citizenship Order has `strong, bare bones'.
Details of curriculum provision and methods of teaching and learning
are left to subsequent guidance from the QCA, although this will not
specify matters of detail.
165
Crick observes: `The virtue of the Order is
that the generality of its prescriptions will leave the school and the
teacher with a good deal of freedom and discretion, possibly more than
in the other statutory subjects.'
166
Whilst this `light touch' approach has its virtues, it has its dangers
too.
167
These relate to the possible incoherence in provision which
was alluded to earlier. It seems clear that the incorporation of
citizenship education into schools calls for very considerable planning,
co-ordination and leadership on the part of teachers. The complexity
of the tasks confronting teachers here is illuminated by, for example,
the initial guidance offered to teachers in relation to citizenship
education at Key Stages 3 and 4.
168
Despite the well conceived and
helpful character of this guidance, the complexities which are exposed
are very extensive.
169
The general danger here is that the resultant
provision, especially given the need to take account of overlaps and
complementarities between citizenship education and PSHE and
spiritual, moral, social and cultural development, will result in a
confusing and incoherent overall provision. At worst, citizenship
education may collapse into the `. . . safe and dead, dead-safe, old
rote-learning civics', which Bernard Crick and others fear.
170
For
Crick, the essence of a political education is that students should have
an `. . . inquisitive turbulence about the manifold relationships of ideas
to institutions and to circumstances . . .'.
171
Another danger is that the
overall provision of citizenship education will lack focus and
definition. Elizabeth Frazer draws attention to the fact that `sheltering
under the umbrella' of citizenship education are a range of interest
groups with a range of differing and possibly conflicting interests and
concerns. In this situation, she observes, there is a danger that the
specifically political matters emphasised by the Crick Report may be
underplayed.
172
At the heart of the general worries here are questions about the
extent to which a fully articulated conception of an educational
programme can be realised in practice, and, in particular about what is
required if the aims, values and principles of the programme can be
grasped, and applied, by teachers and educational leaders in a
significant and non-platitudinous way. This can be described as the
problem of `taxonomic bite'.
173
The Crick Report insists that teachers
and others be provided with a clear conception of citizenship
education
174
and Nick Tate has pointed to the importance of teachers
having a `shared sense of what a subject is for' if they are to teach it
well and not merely follow a prescribed set of procedures.
175
What is
involved in this, however, may be more difficult to achieve than is
generally realised, particularly given the complexity and controversi-
ality of the notion of citizenship which was noted earlier and the need
for complex balancing judgements to be made in relation to it. This
difficulty generates extensive requirements for teacher formation and
development relating to both classroom teachers and school-based
educational leaders more generally.
176
Relevant to these requirements
is the need for teachers to embody their understanding of the matters
at stake in a complex form of `pedagogic phronesis'.
177
This requires
that teachers be certain sorts of people
178
as well as merely the
deployers of teaching techniques. Further, in order that they can
handle in an adequate way the complexities of notions such as
`tolerance', `respect' and the like, teachers need to have a broadly
philosophical grasp of the matters at stake which is professionally
operationalisable. In addition, teachers need to be able to make the
appropriate forms of balancing judgements alluded to above. These
judgements have many aspects. One aspect concerns the weight that
should be given to different aspects of citizenship in the work of the
school as a whole. It will be recalled that crucial judgements about
these matters need to be taken at school level. Another, related, aspect
can be roughly expressed in terms of a balance between encouraging
`criticism' on the one hand and `solidarity' on the other in work with
students. Citizenship, after all, requires more than the critical
autonomy of individuals.
179
Research into the attitudes and knowledge
of teachers with respect to citizenship and citizenship education reveals
that much work needs to be done in this area.
180
Important lessons
from earlier experience in curriculum development need also to be
borne in mind. These include the significance of the development of
`communities of practice' to enable teaching to be appropriately
informed by specific aims and values and to be òwned' by teachers. In
this, and other matters, the experience of the Humanities Curriculum
Project is instructive. In the absence of attention to such matters as
these, it seems unlikely that citizenship education can avoid dangers of
the sort outlined above.
Another line of difficulty for the implementation of the proposals of
the Crick Report is the possibly distortive effects of the assessment
arrangements which are associated with the National Curriculum. As yet
these are somewhat unclear
181
although the danger that they may, in
stressing matters of `knowledge', reinforce a merely ìnformational'
approach of a traditional `civics' kind has been widely voiced. As
Bernard Crick has observed, the real measure of success of citizenship
education will not consist in assessments relating to subject matter, but
will be the consequences for social behaviour.
182
Other issues of concern
relate to the decision not to proceed with the suggestion in the Crick
Report about a Standing Commission on Citizenship Education. This
leaves the control of citizenship education to forces which may not be
wholly compatible with it in various ways.
183
It hardly needs to be emphasised that education alone cannot expect
to bring about the development of the sorts of citizenship which have
been envisaged. Nick Tate rightly draws attention to the important fact
that citizenship education cannot be considered in isolation from the
existing and changing social, cultural, economic and political structures
of the country in which it is taking place, and it also depends on broader
educational developments.
184
One aspect of these wider considerations is
the extent to which sources of communality and civic solidarity can be
identified and secured.
185
A number of developments seem necessary if
citizenship education in any `maximal' form is to be achieved. David
Miller argues that `. . . there are certain material conditions without
which equality of citizenship cannot thrive.'
186
Anthony Giddens insists
that citizenship education must be seen as part of wider programmes for
political change which the Labour Party and other parties are urging,
such as devolution of power and constitutional reform (part of a process
he describes as `Second Wave Democratisation') which are aimed at
recovering legitimacy for the political process.
187
Further, according to
Giddens, various forms of structural reform are also presupposed to
citizenship education, including the entrenchment of responsibilities for
the powerful and a framework for the regulation of corporate power.
Giddens points to the need for new policies relating to a robust sense of
social justice attuned to modern conditions and needs.
188
In the absence
of these developments, he suggests, those most in need of citizenship
education are least likely to be interested in it because the structure of
society does not give relevant forms of responsibility and support.
Miller's insistence that the motivation for responsible active citizen-
ship requires a strong sense of ìnclusive national identity' will be
recalled from earlier in this discussion. This claim, and more general
arguments regarding the relationship between citizenship and national
(and European) identity, require attention in a fuller discussion.
189
So
too do the various relationships between citizenship and religion.
190
It seems clear that the Crick Report and the subsequent policy
developments which have flowed from it represent an opportunity to put
into practice a number of aims and ideals which many philosophers and
philosophers of education have been advocating for some time. In
raising critical questions about the report itself and the challenges and
prospects which relate to the implementation of its vision of citizenship
and citizenship education, it is necessary to acknowledge the promise
which these initiatives embody. The extent to which the arguments and
recommendations of the Crick Report are successfully implemented
remains to be seen. Few, however, can doubt the potential significance
of this implementation, not least for our surer grasp of the meaning and
value of the aims and ideals in play.
Correspondence: T. H. McLaughlin, University of Cambridge School of
Education, 17 Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1QA. email
thm1000@cam.ac.uk
NOTES
1. Department for Education and Employment (hereinafter DfEE) and Qualications and
Curriculum Authority (hereinafter QCA) 1999a, 1999b.
2. QCA 2000a, 2000b, 2000c.
3. DfEE 1997 Ch 6 para 42.
4. QCA 1998 p. 4.
5. QCA 1998.
6. On views expressed during the consultation process see QCA 1998 Appendix C.
7. See for example, Pearce & Hallgarten 2000a p. 3.
8. Pearce & Hallgarten 2000a p. 5.
9. Giddens 2000 p. 23.
10. Crick 2000 p. xi.
11. Pearce & Hallgarten 2000a p. 5.
12. On relevant empirical work see, for example, Hahn 1998, 1999; Emler and Frazer 1999.
13. On this wide ranging background see, for example, Alton 2000, Beck 1998 esp Ch 4, 5, Bentley
1998 Ch 6, Crick 2000, Kerr 1999a, Pearce and Hallgarten 2000b, Tate 2000. On the
relationship between Èngland' and the rest of the United Kingdom with respect to citizenship
education see Crick 2000 pp. xi, 120 cf pp 176182.
14. On citizenship education in other countries see, for example, Hahn 1998, 1999, Ichilov 1998,
Torney-Purta, Schwille and Amadeo, 1999.
15. Kerr 1999a p. 204.
16. Frazer 1999 p. 20.
17. On these matters see, for example, Carr and Hartnett 1996 esp Ch 5, 6; Scruton, Ellis-Jones and
O'Keee 1985, Pring 1999.
18. Bernard Crick describes the central dierence between a `subject' and a `citizen' in this way:
`. . . a subject obeys the laws and a citizen plays a part in making and changing them' (Crick 2000
p. 4).
19. Miller 2000 p. 26 cf QCA 1998 2.2, Crick 2000 Ch 1.
20. Frazer 1999 p. 17.
21. Frazer 1999 p. 18 cf Frazer 2000, Crick 2000 Ch 10, Greenaway 1998.
22. Kerr 1999a p. 206.
23. QCA 1998 1.5, 3.33.10.
24. QCA 1998 3.10.
25. On the history of citizenship education in England see, for example, Beck 1998 Ch 5, Crick
2000, Davies 1999, Graham with Tytler 1993, Davies, Gregory and Riley 1999 Ch 1, Frazer
1999, 2000; Kerr 1999a.
26. Pring 1999.
27. Davies 1999 pp 128130. On accusations of political bias to which such courses were subject see,
for example, Scruton, Ellis-Jones and O'Keee 1985.
28. Crick and Porter 1978, Crick 1999, 2000.
29. Crick 2000 p ix.
30. National Curriculum Council 1990a, 1990b, Great Britain House of Commons 1990.
31. Kerr 1999a p. 204.
32. See, for example, Carr 1991, Callan 1997, Crick 2000 esp Ch 2, Gutmann 1987, Kymlicka 1999,
Levinson 1999, McLaughlin 1992, 1996, Macedo 2000, O'Hear and White 1991, White 1973,
1996, Wringe 1992.
33. It is well known that David Blunkett has a long interest in, and commitment to, citizenship and
citizenship education. He was a member of the Speaker's Commission on Citizenship which
reported in 1990 (Great Britain Parliament House of Commons 1990), and is a former student
of Bernard Crick. Crick was particularly well placed to chair the advisory group because of his
reputation as a political theorist and his earlier involvement in initiatives relating to political
education (see Crick 2000). On the background to the Crick Report itself see Kerr 1999b.
34. QCA 1998 1.1, 3.11, 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, 4.12. On the need to include young people beyond 16 see 1.3,
4.8, 5.5. On the benets of citizenship education see 1.10.
35. QCA 1998 4.10.
36. QCA 1998 2.102.12.
37. QCA 1998 2.11 (a), 2.12.
38. QCA 1998 2.11 (b).
39. QCA 1998 2.11 (c).
40. QCA 1998 2.7.
41. QCA 1998 3.1.
42. QCA 1998 4.10, 5.3, 6.3.
43. QCA 1998 3.1, 4.6, 6.3, Sections 7,8.
44. QCA 1998 3.2, 3.18, 4.7, 9.1, 9.2.
45. QCA 1998 3.18 cf 3.203.22, Section 7, Appendix A.
46. QCA 1998 1.9, 5.4.1, Section 10.
47. QCA 1998 4.24.3, 5.1, 5.6, 5.8, Section 6.
48. QCA 1998 6.2.
49. QCA 1998 6.5.1, 6.6.
50. QCA 1998 6.5.2, 6.7.
51. QCA 1998 6.5.3, 6.8, 6.9 incl gures 1 & 2.
52. QCA 1998 6.5.4, 6.106.14.
53. QCA 1998 4.13, 5.11.
54. Crick 2000 p. xi.
55. Tooley 2000.
56. Tooley 2000 p. 147.
57. Tooley 2000 p. 148 cf pp 3161.
58. Tooley 2000 pp. 148150.
59. Tooley 2000 pp 149150.
60. Tooley 2000 p. 152.
61. Kymlicka 1999 pp. 8588. Bernard Crick observes Àdmittedly one can take a horse to water
and it may not drink. But unless water is provided it cannot drink at all. The civic drink must be
a universal entitlement, clearly there for all' (Crick 2000 p. 117).
62. Tooley 2000 p. 152, 154.
63. Tooley 2000 p. 149. On `the tyranny of schooling' see Introduction and Session One.
64. Tooley 2000 pp. 145147.
65. Tooley 2000 pp. 146147.
66. cf White 1995.
67. Tooley 2000 p. 150.
68. Tooley 2000 p. 150.
69. See, for example, QCA 1998 2.8, 4.11, 5.3.1, 5.3.3, 5.3.4, 5.3.6 and (3) above.
70. QCA 1998 1.3, 4.8, 5.5.
71. See, for example, QCA 1998 5.3.1.
72. See, for example, QCA 1998 10.14, 6.9.1, Section 7.
73. Tooley 2000 pp. 153160.
74. QCA 1998 2.11 (c). cf Crick 2000 p. 115, Ch 4. Bernard Crick holds that what distinguishes
political education from citizenship education is community involvement (Crick 2000 pp. 115
116). On the signicance of forms of practical competence for democratic citizenship see
Bridges 1997.
75. Kymlicka 1999 p. 79.
76. Pearce and Hallgarten 2000a p. 14. See also Beck 1998 Ch 5.
77. See, for example, QCA 1998 1.8, 3.17, 3.18.
78. Kymlicka 1999 p. 81.
79. On these debates see, for example, Mulhall and Swift 1996.
80. On this matter, see, for example, Callan 1997 esp Ch 2, Galston 1989, Halliday 1999, Macedo
2000, Mulhall 1998.
81. McLaughlin 1992.
82. See, for example, Heater 1999.
83. Miller 2000.
84. Miller 2000 p. 27.
85. Miller 2000 p. 28.
86. Miller 2000 p. 28.
87. Miller 2000 p. 28.
88. QCA 1998 1.5.
89. QCA 1998 1.10.
90. QCA 1998 1.10.
91. QCA 1998 2.4.
92. QCA 1998 2.1.
93. QCA 1998 1.11.
94. QCA 1998 2.5.
95. QCA 1998 2.3.
96. QCA 1998 3.19, 4,4, Section 6.
97. QCA 1998 10.6.
98. QCA 1998 Section 10.
99. Crick 2000 p. 5. On the `civic republican' tradition of citizenship see also Heater 1999 Ch 2.
100. Crick 2000 p. 5. cf Crick 2000 Ch 11.
101. Crick 2000 pp. 56.
102. Crick 2000 p. 8.
103. Crick 2000 pp. 114115.
104. On the underlying theory relating to Crick's approach see Crick 1993, 1999, 2000 esp Chs 4, 5,
6, 9, 11. Crick describes himself as, in European terms, a social democrat or a democratic
socialist (Crick 1993 p. 9). See his À footnote to rally fellow socialists' (Crick 1993 pp. 195
241) and also his allusion to himself as a `truculent moderate' (Crick 2000 p. 2) and as a `left-
wing Oakeshottian' (ibid p. 167).
105. Tooley 2000 p. 145.
106. Tooley 2000 p. 145.
107. Tooley 2000 p. 145.
109. See, for example, Hall 2000, Osler 2000 cf Edwards and Fogelman 2000.
110. QCA 1998 3.15.
111. QCA 1998 3.14. See also 3.16.
112. Crick 2000 pp. 130136.
113. See, for example, Arnot et al 2000, Phillips 2000, Walby 1994, Enslin 1993/4, 1997.
114. On this see Crick 2000 pp. 126127.
115. Crick 2000 p. 118.
116. Hall 2000.
117. Miller 2000 p. 29.
118. Miller 2000 p. 31. On the relationship between citizenship and national identity see, for
example, Enslin 2000.
119. Kymlicka 1999 p. 83.
120. Marshall 1950.
121. Phillips 1999.
122. O'Hear 1999.
123. O'Hear 1999.
124. Oakeshott 1962.
125. QCA 1998 Appendix C.
126. Crick 2000 p. 120.
127. Crick 2000 Ch 11.
128. Crick 2000 pp. 3032. Crick observes `Governments are as much restrained by knowing that
their acts are publicized as by participant devices themselves' (Crick 2000 p. 31). cf Crick 2000
Ch 6, Crick 1999 pp. 337339.
129. Crick 2000 p. 2.
130. Parry 1999.
131. On the relationship between citizenship education and PSHE see QCA 1998 Appendix A. See
also Department for Education and Employment 1999. On the initiative relating to spiritual,
moral, social and cultural development see Talbot 2000, Tate and Talbot 1997, Beck 1998
pp. 8595, cf Ch 3, 4. On the values implicit in citizenship education see Tate 2000. For a recent
review of research on values in education see Halstead and Taylor 2000.
132. QCA 1998 Appendix A.
133. Pring 1999 p. 81.
134. QCA 1998 1.10.
135. See, for example, McLaughlin 1994.
137. QCA 1998 10.1110.15.
138. On some of these concepts see Crick 2000 pp. 135136. Crick argues that `toleration' implies
the recognition of `genuine dierences' `. . . even to feel or state some disapprovals, but to limit
one's reactions . . . I restrain my behaviour while not abandoning my beliefs, nor expecting
others to abandon theirs'. Crick insists that `respect' cannot require that we think that all
sincerely held beliefs are equally true and their consequences equally acceptable to all. Such a
requirement, he insists, would undermine the notion of a pluralistic society (ibid.)
139. Crick 1999 (also in 2000 as Ch 9).
140. On these matters see, for example, McLaughlin 1995. See also Beck 1998 Ch 4, Crick 2000 Ch
3.
141. QCA 1998 6.10.1.
142. QCA 1998 6.9.3 Fig 1.
143. QCA 1998 6.8.2.
144. QCA 1998 6.12.2. Emphases in original.
145. QCA 1998 5.6.2 cf 6.4.1.
146. Tooley 2000 pp. 145146.
147. Crick 2000 p. 119.
148. QCA 1998 6.4.2.
149. On these dangers see, for example, Pring 1999. On concerns raised about matters of assessment
in the original consultation see QCA 1998 Appendix C.
150. Cross 2000 p. 104, Crick 2000 pp. 138139.
152. QCA 1998 5.10.4.
153. Crick 2000 p. 9.
154. On these see, for example, Kerr 1999a, Pearce and Hallgarten 2000b, Clarke 2000.
155. Cf White 1995.
156. Crick 2000 p. 119.
157. QCA 1998 5.3.2 cf Crick 2000 p. 119.
158. On this matter, Bernard Crick comments: `Does this worry you, Bernard? Couldn't care less:
teachers are not blind horses' (Crick 2000 p. 119).
159. Crick 2000 p. 119.
160. Crick 2000 p. 19.
161. DfEE & QCA 1999a pp. 1013, pp. 147149; 1999b pp. 1013, pp. 195197.
162. On the aims and values of the National Curriculum and their function in relation to practice
see Bramall and White 2000. Bramall and White observe that, despite some deencies (such as
its presentation in the form of a catalogue and the presence of a number of underinterpreted
notions such as `spiritual development') the aims and values represent a considerable advance
on the meagre aims associated with previous education acts.
163. Bramall and White 2000 esp Ch 3.
164. QCA 2000a, 2000b, 2000c.
165. Crick 2000 p. 80.
166. Crick 2000 p. 80.
167. On the dangers of `light touch' provisions see Bramall and White 2000 Ch 3.
168. QCA 2000a.
169. For a discussion of a similar set of complexities from an earlier period of curriculum
innovation see, for example, Hargreaves 1991. On the relationship between dierent kinds of
learning and dierent models of citizenship education see Rowe 2000a. cf Rowe 2000b, 1998.
170. Crick 2000 p. 119.
171. Crick 2000 p. 15. For more discussion of the inadequacy of a merely informational approach
to political education see Crick 2000 Ch 2.
172. Frazer 2000 pp. 99100.
174. QCA 1998 4.1.
175. Tate 2000 p. 69.
176. On these matters see QCA 1998 5.9; Davies, Gregory and Riley 1999, Kerr 1999b pp. 280281.
178. On this see, for example, White 1995 pp. 236237, 1999.
179. On the limitations of the notion of individual autonomy in relation to citizenship see Smith
1997.
180. See, for example, Arnot et al 2000, Davies, Gregory and Riley 1999 esp Part II, Kerr 1999a
pp. 214215.
181. See, for example, DfEE and QCA 1999b p. 49.
182. Crick 2000 p. 82.
183. On such incompatibilities see, for example, Pring 1999 pp. 8487.
184. Tate 2000 pp. 6667, 7273. See also Kerr 1999b, Davies 2000. On the tension between existing
educational arrangements and appropriate forms of political education see Pring 1999.
185. On these matters see, for example, Sacks 2000. On the implications of extensive disagreement
for citizenship education see Giarelli 1995; cf White 1995.
186. Phillips 2000 p. 42.
187. Giddens 2000 pp. 2324.
188. Giddens 2000 pp. 2425. On tensions between capitalism and citizenship education see Harris
1995; cf White 1995.
189. On these matters see, for example, Arnot 1998, Enslin 1999, 2000, McLaughlin and Juceviciene
1997, White 1997.
190. On these matters see, for example, Sacks 2000, The Islamic Academy 1998.
REFERENCES
Alton, D (2000) Education for citizenship in: J. Haldane (ed.) Philosophy and Public Aairs
(Cambridge, University Press) pp. 175188.
Arnot, M (1998) European citizenship and education, in: S J Ormrod (ed.) Cambridge Contributions
(Cambridge, University Press) pp. 143168.
Arnot M, Araujo H, Deliyanni-Kouimtzis K, Ivinson G & Tome A (2000) `The good citizen':
cultural understandings of citizenship and gender amongst a new generation of teachers', in: M
Leicester, C Modgil and S Modgil (eds) Education, Culture and Values. Volume VI: Politics,
Education and Citizenship (London, Falmer), pp217231.
Beck, J (1998) Morality and Citizenship in Education (London, Cassell).
Bentley, T (1998) Learning Beyond the Classroom. Education for a Changing World (London,
Routledge).
Bramall, S and White, J (2000) Will the new National Curriculum live up to its aims? IMPACT
pamphlet No 6 (Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain).
Bridges, D (1997) Personal autonomy and practical competence: developing politically eective
citizens, in: D. Bridges (ed.) Education, Autonomy and Democratic Citizenship. Philosophy in a
changing world (London, Routledge), pp. 153164.
Callan, E (1997) Creating Citizens. Political Education and Liberal Democracy (Oxford, Clarendon
Press).
Carr, W (1991) Education for citizenship, British Journal of Educational Studies 39, 4 pp. 373385.
Carr, W and Hartnett, A (1996) Education and the Struggle for Democracy. The politics of
educational ideals (Buckingham, Open University Press).
Clarke, C (2000) Creating listening schools, in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow's
Citizens. Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London, Institute for Public Policy
Research), pp. 8489.
Crick, B (1993) In Defence of Politics Fourth Edition (Chicago, University of Chicago Press).
Crick, B (1999) The presuppositions of citizenship education, Journal of Philosophy of Education
33,3 pp. 337352 (also in Crick, B (2000) Ch 9).
Crick, B (2000) Essays on Citizenship (London, Continuum).
Crick, B & Porter, A (eds) (1978) Political Education and Political Literacy (London, Longman).
Cross, M (2000) Key assessment issues, in N Pearce and J Hallgarten (Eds) Tomorrow's Citizens.
Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London, Institute for Public Policy Research)
pp. 101110.
Davies, I (1999) What has happened in the teaching of politics in schools in England in the last three
decades, and why? Oxford Review of Education 25, 1/2 pp. 125140.
Davies I, Gregory I and Riley S C (1999) Good Citizenship and Educational Provision (London,
Falmer Press).
Davies, I (2000) Political learning and values education: problems and possibilities, in: M Leicester,
C Modgil and S Modgil (eds) Education, Culture and Values. Volume VI: Politics, Education and
Citizenship (London, Falmer) pp. 2736.
Department for Education and Employment (1997) Excellence in Schools Cm 3681 (London, The
Stationery Oce).
Department for Education and Employment and Qualications and Curriculum Authority (1999a)
The National Curriculum. Handbook for Primary Teachers in England. Key Stages 1 and 2
(London, HMSO).
Department for Education and Employment and Qualications and Curriculum Authority (1999b)
The National Curriculum. Handbook for Secondary Teachers in England. Key Stages 3 and 4
(London, HMSO).
Department for Education and Employment (1999) Preparing Young People for Adult Life. A
Report by the National Advisory Group on Personal, Social and Health Education (London, DfEE).
Edwards, J & Fogelman, K (2000) Citizenship education and cultural diversity, in: M Leicester, C
Modgil and S Modgil (eds) Education, Culture and Values. Volume VI: Politics, Education and
Citizenship (London, Falmer) pp. 93103
Emler, N and Frazer, E (1999) Politics: the education eect, Oxford Review of Education 25, 1/2
pp. 251273.
Enslin, P (1993/4) Education for nation-building: a feminist critique, Perspectives in Education 15, 1
pp1326.
Enslin, P (1997) The family and the private in education for democratic citizenship, in: D Bridges
(ed.) Education, Autonomy and Democratic Citizenship. Philosophy in a changing world (London,
Routledge) pp. 225236
Enslin, P (1999) The place of national identity in the aims of education, in: R Marples (ed.) The
Aims of Education (London, Routledge) pp. 100111.
Enslin, P (2000) Education and democratic citizenship: in defence of cosmopolitanism, in M
Leicester, C Modgil and S Modgil (eds) Education, Culture and Values. Volume VI: Politics,
Education and Citizenship (London, Falmer), pp. 149156.
Frazer, E (1999) Introduction: the idea of political education, Oxford Review of Education 25, 1/2
pp. 522
Frazer, E (2000) Citizenship education: anti-political culture and political education in Britain,
Political Studies 48 pp. 88103.
Galston, W (1989) Civic education in the liberal state, in: N L Rosenblum (ed.) Liberalism and the
Moral Life (Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press), pp. 89101
Giarelli, J M (1995) Educating for public life, in W. Kohli (Ed) Critical Conversations in Philosophy
of Education (New York and London, Routledge) pp. 201216.
Giddens, A (2000) Citizenship education in the global era, in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds)
Tomorrow's Citizens. Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London, Institute for Public
Policy Research), pp. 1925.
Graham, D (with Tytler, D) (1993) A Lesson for Us All. The Making of the National Curriculum
(London, Routledge).
Great Britain Parliament House of Commons (1990) Encouraging Citizenship. Report of the
Commission on Citizenship (London, HMSO).
Greenaway, J (1998) The citizenship debate and British politics, Talking Politics 10, 3 pp. 179183.
Gutmann, A (1987) Democratic Education (Princeton, University Press).
Hahn, C L (1998) Becoming Political: comparative perspectives on citizenship education (Albany NY,
State University of New York Press).
Hahn, C L (1999) Citizenship education: an empirical study of policy, practices and outcomes,
Oxford Review of Education 25, 1/2 pp. 231250.
Hall, S (2000) Multicultural citizens, monocultural citizenship? in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds)
Halliday, J (1999) Political liberalism and citizenship education: towards curriculum reform, British
Journal of Educational Studies 47,1 pp. 4355.
Halstead, J M and Taylor, M J (2000) Learning and teaching about values: a review of recent
research, Cambridge Journal of Education 30,2 pp. 169202.
Hargreaves, D H (1991) Coherence and manageability: reections on the National Curriculum and
cross-curricular provision, The Curriculum Journal 2 pp. 3341.
Harris, K (1995) Education for citizenship, in: W Kohli (ed.) Critical Conversations in Philosophy of
Education (New York and London, Routledge) pp. 217228.
Heater, D (1999) What is Citizenship? (Cambridge, Polity Press).
Ichilov, O (ed.) (1998) Citizenship and Citizenship Education in a Changing World (London, Woburn
Press).
Kerr, D (1999a) Re-examining citizenship education in England, in: J Torney-Purta, J Schwille and
J-A Amadeo (eds) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-four National Case Studies from the
IEA Civic Education Project (Amsterdam, The International Association for the Evaluation of
Educational Achievement), pp. 203227.
Kerr, D (1999b) Changing the political culture: the Advisory Group on Education for Citizenship
and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, Oxford Review of Education 25, 1/2 pp. 275284.
Kymlicka, W (1999) Education for citizenship, in J M Halstead and T H McLaughlin (eds)
Education in Morality (London, Routledge), pp. 79102.
Levinson, M (1999) The Demands of Liberal Education (Oxford, Oxford University Press).
Lister, I (1998) Citizenship and citizenship education in Britain, in O Ichilov (ed) Citizenship and
Citizenship Education in a Changing World (London, Woburn Press), pp. 254266.
McLaughlin, T H (1992) `Citizenship, Diversity and Education: a philosophical perspective' Journal
of Moral Education 21,3 pp. 235250.
McLaughlin, T H (1994) `Values, Coherence and the School' Cambridge Journal of Education 24,3
pp. 453470.
McLaughlin, T H (1995) `Liberalism, Education and the Common School' Journal of Philosophy of
Education 29,2 pp. 239255.
McLaughlin, T H (1996) Èducating Responsible Citizens' in: H. Tam (ed.) Punishment, Excuses and
Moral Development (Aldershot, Avebury), pp. 181195.
McLaughlin, T H (1999) `Beyond the Reective Teacher' Educational Philosophy and Theory 31,1
pp. 925.
McLaughlin, T H (2000) Philosophy and Educational Policy: possibilities, tensions and tasks,
Journal of Educational Policy, 15,1 pp. 441457.
McLaughlin, T H and Juceviciene, P (1997) Èducation, democracy and the formation of national
identity', in D Bridges (ed.) Education, Autonomy and Democratic Citizenship. Philosophy in a
changing world (London, Routledge), pp. 2335.
Macedo, S (2000) Diversity and Distrust. Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy (Cambridge
MA, Harvard University Press).
Marshall, T H (1950) Citizenship and Social Class (Cambridge, University Press).
Miller, D (2000) Citizenship: what does it mean and why is it important? in: N Pearce and J
Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow's Citizens. Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London,
Institute for Public Policy Research), pp. 2635.
Mulhall, S (1998) `Political Liberalism and Civic Education: The Liberal State and its Future
Citizens' Journal of Philosophy of Education 32,2 pp. 161176.
Mulhall, S and Swift, A (1996) Liberals and Communitarians Second edition (Oxford, Blackwell).
National Curriculum Council (1990a) Curriculum Guidance 8: Education for Citizenship (York,
NCC).
National Curriculum Council (1990b) Curriculum Guidance 3: The Whole Curriculum (York, NCC).
O'Hear, A (1999) Ènter the new robot citizens' Daily Mail 14 May
O'Hear, P and White, J (1991) A National Curriculum for All: laying the foundations for success
(London, Institute for Public Policy Research).
Osler, A (2000) `The Crick Report: dierence, equality and racial justice' The Curriculum Journal
11,1 pp. 2537.
Parry, G (1999) `Constructive and Reconstructive Political Education' Oxford Review of Education
25,1/2 pp. 2338.
Pearce, N and Hallgarten, J (2000a) Ìntroduction' in N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow's
Citizens. Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London, Institute for Public Policy
Research), pp. 316.
Pearce, N and Hallgarten, J (eds) (2000b) Tomorrow's Citizens. Critical Debates in Citizenship and
Education (London, Institute for Public Policy Research).
Phillips, M (1999) `The Indoctrination of Citizen Smith Jr' The Sunday Times 7 March.
Phillips, A (2000) `Second class citizenship' in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds) Tomorrow's Citizens.
Critical Debates in Citizenship and Education (London, Institute for Public Policy Research),
pp. 3642.
Pring, R (1999) `Political Education: relevance of the humanities' Oxford Review of Education 25,1/2
pp. 7187.
Oakeshott, M (1962) Rationalism in Politics and other essays (London, Methuen).
Qualications and Curriculum Authority (1998) Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of
Democracy in Schools. Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship (London, QCA).
Qualications and Curriculum Authority (2000a) Citizenship at key stages 3 and 4. Initial guidance
for schools (London, QCA)
Qualications and Curriculum Authority (2000b) Personal, social and health education and
citizenship at key stages 1 and 2. Initial guidance for schools (London, QCA).
Qualications and Curriculum Authority (2000c) Personal, social and health education at key stages
3 and 4. Initial guidance for schools (London, QCA).
Rowe, D (1998) `Moral and Civic Education: The Search for a Robust Entitlement Model'
Curriculum 19,2 pp. 7483.
Rowe, D (2000a) `Value Pluralism, Democracy and Education for Citizenship' in: M Leicester, C
Modgil and S Modgil (eds) Education, Culture and Values. Volume VI: Politics, Education and
Citizenship (London, Falmer) pp. 194203.
Rowe, D (2000b) `Common schools, good citizens: towards a public discourse model of moral
education' in: R. Best (ed.) Education for Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development
(London, Continuum) pp. 6879.
Sacks, J (2000) `The Judaic vision of citizenship education' in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds)
Policy Research) pp. 5563.
Scruton R, Ellis-Jones A and O'Keee D (1985) Education and Indoctrination. An Attempt at
Denition and a Review of Social and Political Implications (Harrow, Education Research Centre).
Smith, R (1997) `The Education of Autonomous Citizens' in: D Bridges (ed.) Education, Autonomy
and Democratic Citizenship. Philosophy in a changing world (London, Routledge) pp. 127137.
Talbot, M and Tate, N (1997) `Shared Values in a Pluralist Society?' in: R Smith and P Standish
(eds) Teaching Right and Wrong: moral education in the balance (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham
Books).
Talbot, M (2000) `Developing SMSC for the school curriculum' in R Best (Ed) Education for
Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural Development (London, Continuum), pp. 1321.
Tate, N (2000) `Citizenship education in a liberal democracy' in: N Pearce and J Hallgarten (eds)
The Islamic Academy (1998) Citizenship, Education and Religion. Areas of Agreement (Seminar
organised by The Islamic Academy, Cambridge and the School of Education, University of
Cambridge) (Cambridge, The Islamic Academy)
Tooley, J (2000) Reclaiming Education (London, Cassell)
Torney-Purta J, Schwille J and Amadeo J-A (Eds) (1999) Civic Education Across Countries: Twenty-
four National Case Studies from the IEA Civic Education Project (Amsterdam, The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement).
Walby, S (1994) Ìs Citizenship Gendered?' Sociology 28,2 pp. 379395.
White, J (1997) National myths, democracy and education, in: D Bridges (ed.) Education, Autonomy
and Democratic Citizenship. Philosophy in a changing world (London, Routledge), pp. 1522.
White, P (1973) Education, democracy, and the public interest, in: R S Peters (ed.) The Philosophy
of Education (Oxford, Oxford University Press), pp. 217238.
White, P (1995) Education for citizenship: ostacles and opportunities, in: W Kohli (ed.) Critical
Conversations in Philosophy of Education (New York and London, Routledge), pp. 229238.
White, P (1996) Civic Virtues and Public Schooling. Educating Citizens for a Democratic Society
(New York and London, Teachers College Press)
White, P (1999) `Political Education in the Early Years: the place of civic virtues' Oxford Review of
Education 25,1/2 pp. 5970.
Wringe, C (1992) `The ambiguities of education for active citizenship' Journal of Philosophy of
Education 26,1 pp. 2938.

Crick Report and Beyond. Citizenship Education

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Crick Report and Beyond. Citizenship Education

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Citizenship Education in England:

The Crick Report and Beyond

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen