Citizenship education in England and Wales: theoretical critique and practical considerations

Abstract

This paper presents a theoretical critique of citizenship education in England and Wales, as a means of raising pedagogical considerations for teachers, and policy issues for curriculum makers and planners. Drawing on a range of recent empirical studies, we construct an analysis of practice and suggest that differences between dominant models of citizenship in England and Wales owe much to their histories. We suggest that such differences create opportunities for new curriculum‐making practices as well as democratic possibilities in the context of citizenship education, at a time when curricula in both England and Wales are under revision. Considering school councils/forums as an exemplar of practice common to both contexts, we question the wisdom of schools employing a narrow conception of active citizenship, via forums, in order to demonstrate they are satisfying the relevant requirements of the Order for Citizenship in England, and aspects of the Personal and Social Education curriculum in Wales. While the exemplars are both from the UK context the arguments apply beyond these borders and to more general concerns regarding the development of global citizenship.

Keywords:

• citizenship education
• school councils
• school forums

Acknowledgements

Thanks to JP for comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. According to Crick (2000), democracy is a promiscuous word, archetypically difficult to pin down with as many meanings as there are uses for the term. We acknowledge its conceptual complexity and wish to preserve the essentially contested nature of the term.

2. This has been further enhanced with the introduction of a range of GCSE short courses in Citizenship Studies (key stage 3 = age 13/14; key stage 4 = age 15/16).

3. The dominant conception of citizenship education in Curriculum Cymreig focuses upon the cultural influences of language, religion and traditional practice, rather than membership that is based purely on residency (Andrews & Lewis, 2000).

4. Our indication of a preference for an approach which privileges input from the child should not be taken to imply a full acceptance of a ‘childhood as a state of grace’ philosophy. Rather we are concerned that ‘citizenship’ is one area that each generation should be allowed to consider for themselves. If citizenship is moulded by elders, it ensures a reproduction of the same, i.e. the maintenance of the status quo. School councils that are a mask for directed learning obviously risk a self‐defeating cynical response.

5. For Said (2001, pp. 502–503), the scholar‐teacher has a critical disposition but one in which s/he is receptive to understanding, interpreting and questioning others, as well as the status quo. The wisdom of the scholar‐teacher is ‘not to consolidate authority, but understand, interpret and question it … [examining] the moral questions that may be hidden in the clamour and din of the public debate’, in this case on matters concerning citizenship.