National Union of Teachers Citizenship Survey

NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS CITIZENSHIP SURVEY

NATIONAL UNION

OF TEACHERS

THE CITIZENSHIP CURRICULUM: PLAIN SAILING

OR A DROP IN THE OCEAN?

/

THE CITIZENSHIP CURRICULUM: PLAIN SAILING

OR A DROP IN THE OCEAN?

/

INTRODUCTION

The National Union of Teachers (NUT) issued guidance to teachers in September 2000 on the introduction of the citizenship framework under the revised National Curriculum. The guidance, 'Citizenship Demystified', outlined some of the changes, the requirements on schools and the potential challenges to teachers.

Citizenship was included in the non-statutory framework for Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) at key stages 1 and 2 from September 2000 and is to be a statutory curriculum subject at key stages 3 and 4 from September 2002.

The NUT submitted evidence to the Government's Advisory Group on Citizenship and Teaching About Democracy and responded in detail to the citizenship proposals within the consultation on the revision of the National Curriculum. The NUT also established a Task Group on Citizenship, which has played an active part in developing the NUT's policies.

In its submissions to the Government the NUT emphasised that there should be no statutory requirement on schools to introduce citizenship and PSHE. Detailed compulsory guidelines would place increased strain on schools which already had to tackle the revised and still overloaded National Curriculum.

The NUT argued that schools should be trusted to build upon existing good practice and that encouragement rather than statutory requirement would be the best way to develop citizenship and PSHE.

The NUT recommended that if the Government were to go ahead with the proposals, teachers would need access to:

• training and professional development on the teaching of citizenship education , including training in exploiting the potential of ICT;
• time for planning;
• time to integrate the new curriculum area into other subjects; and
• time to prepare for, what for some would be , a new area of work.

The NUT also recommended that guidelines should be issued to schools on the delivery of the citizenship curriculum, that the implementation of the framework should be properly resourced and that the Government should take a staged approach to implementation. The NUT was particularly concerned that the implementation and teaching of citizenship should not place additional bureaucratic burdens on teachers.

To establish the impact of the introduction of the citizenship framework on schools and teachers, the NUT conducted a survey during the autumn term 2001 on the implementation of citizenship education within primary and secondary schools.

Questionnaires were received from thirty-one primary and forty-seven secondary schools from seventeen local education authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales. School representatives reflected the views of NUT members in each school. The selected LEAs included inner city and rural areas.

This report includes an executive summary of the overall results, recommendations to Government, and a list of the seventeen LEAs.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Contents

Executive Summary

Bureaucratic Burdens

Coordination and Implementation

Time and Resources

Training and Professional Development

Recommendations

Survey Analysis

Workload

Schemes of Work

Incorporation of the Citizenship Curriculum

Time and Resources

Training

Professional Development

Performance Management

Additional Observations and Comments

Appendix

ISample Questionnaire

IITable of responses from primary and secondary schools by LEA

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Questionnaires were sent to NUT school representatives in primary schools and secondary schools selected at random from seventeen local education authorities (LEAs) in England and Wales.

Bureaucratic Burdens

The survey of schools reveals that sixty-five per cent of primary schools and eighty-nine per cent of secondary schools considered that the introduction of the citizenship requirements, in addition to the revision of the National Curriculum, had placed extra demands on the school.

Thirty-two per cent of primary schools and seventeen per cent of secondary schools reported that the citizenship had meant that totally new schemes of work were necessary.

Forty-eight per cent of secondary school respondents expressed their concern that teachers did not have the time to implement properly the citizenship programme, to familiarise themselves with the framework and the appropriate materials, to develop schemes of work and to undertake assessment and monitoring.

Coordination and Implementation

Thirteen per cent of primary respondents commented either that they had 'heard nothing' about the school's proposals to implement the citizenship framework, that citizenship had not been discussed in the school, or that implementation would be delayed.

Ten per cent of primary schools reported that citizenship education would be taught as a distinct curriculum. Seventy-three per cent reported that it would be taught through other subjects as a cross curricular issue. Thirty-five per cent of primary schools proposed to use a combination of the two methods.

Of the secondary schools, twenty-six per cent reported that citizenship education would be taught as a distinct curriculum area and twenty-six per cent reported that it would be taught across the curriculum. Forty per cent of secondary schools proposed to use a combination of the two methods.

Where the citizenship curriculum was to be spread across other subjects, twenty three per cent of secondary schools reported that coordinators had been appointed to facilitate the provision of citizenship education across the curriculum. Fifteen per cent of secondary schools reported that they did not know how the provision would be coordinated across the curriculum.

Time and Resources

Fifty-eight per cent of primary schools reported that time and resources had not been made available for schools to establish links with community organisations working in partnership with schools while thirty-two per cent reported that time and resources had been made available.

Seventy-four per cent of secondary schools reported that time and resources had not been made available, while only fifteen per cent reported that time and resources had been made available.

Respondents did not express satisfaction with the materials and resources available for teaching citizenship education.

Training and Professional Development

Forty-eight per cent of responses from primary schools reported that their schools had not identified staff training needs for the delivery of citizenship education while forty-two per cent reported that they had.

In seventy per cent of secondary schools staff training needs had not been identified but in nineteen per cent of secondary schools, staff training needs had been identified.

Seventy-one per cent of primary school respondents reported that they had not been offered professional development on teaching citizenship education, including training in exploiting the potential of ICT. Twenty-three per cent reported that such opportunities had been offered.

Sixty-eight per cent of secondary school respondents reported that teachers had not been offered professional development on teaching citizenship education, thirty per cent reported that they had.

Respondents reported that the professional development opportunities on offer were not specific to citizenship education or were included within other in-service training. Respondents raised issues on the quality and availability of training.

Twenty-nine per cent of respondents from primary schools and fourteen per cent of respondents from secondary schools reported that their schools had considered including a reference to citizenship in a performance management objective with an agreed commitment from the reviewer to secure the necessary development as part of the objective.

RECOMMENDATIONS

A significant number of schools do not seem to have had the resources to take any steps to introduce the new citizenship framework. The results of the survey show very clearly that the curriculum is already overloaded. The majority of schools which have taken steps to introduce the citizenship framework have, therefore, found it difficult.

In addition, the Government is placing additional unreasonable demands on teachers by expecting them to teach a new subject or a subject with which they are not familiar, without offering cohesive training and allowing teachers time to digest the materials available.

The NUT recommends that the Government should:

• delay the statutory requirement on schools to deliver the citizenship curriculum at key stages 3 and 4 from September 2002 to allow schools adequate time to properly integrate the new curriculum into other subjects and to allow teachers sufficient time to familiarise themselves with the requirements and materials;

• devise a national strategy for meeting the training and professional development needs of teachers required to deliver the citizenship curriculum;

• provide additional professional guidance and resource materials for teaching citizenship education; and

• make available adequate funding to enable schools to appoint coordinators and to purchase resources and materials for the delivery of the citizenship framework.

SURVEY ANALYSIS

Workload

Respondents were asked whether the introduction of the citizenship requirements, in addition to the revision of the National Curriculum, had placed extra demands on schools.

Sixty-five per cent of primary schools and eighty-nine secondary schools said that the requirements had placed extra demands on the school. Thirty-five per cent of primary schools and six per cent of secondary schools reported that no extra demands had been placed on the school.

Respondents were asked to explain how the introduction of the citizenship requirements had placed extra demands on the school.

Primary Schools

The most common extra demand on primary schools (19%) was the additional planning, discussions and meetings required to implement the new citizenship requirements. Sixteen per cent of responses from primary schools cited having to revise the syllabus and another sixteen per cent stated that curriculum overload was placing additional demands on the school. Ten per cent of the primary schools responding stated specifically that having to implement the citizenship curriculum within the time limits of the school day was placing extra demands on the school.

Seven per cent of primary respondents mentioned that having to re-write RE and/or PSHE policy had placed additional demands on the school.

A number of schools were already delivering the citizenship curriculum and had to undertake additional work to make citizenship explicit or to identify existing strands of citizenship within the curriculum.

Other demands on primary schools were:

• liaising with outside agencies;
• staff training;
• planning extra curricular activities;
• monitoring undertaken by citizenship coordinator;
• general increase in workload; and
• providing resources for the programme.

Secondary Schools

Forty-five per cent of the secondary schools that responded to the survey reported that having to review schemes of work and review the curriculum was placing extra demands on the school. Fifteen per cent reported that assimilating the citizenship requirements into the existing curriculum was placing additional demands on the school.

The internal delivery of in service training and re-training to staff in school was reported by eleven per cent of secondary schools and the requirement for tutors to attend external in service training was reported by six per cent of secondary schools as placing additional demands on the school.

Seventeen per cent of secondary schools cited undertaking curriculum audits as the source of the additional demands on the school. Fifteen per cent of secondary schools reported that having to read curriculum literature and familiarise themselves with citizenship documentation was placing demands on schools. Thirteen per cent of secondary schools reported that staff had to attend additional meetings, often after school, to discuss the planning and implementation of the citizenship requirements. A further eleven per cent reported specifically that management planning and decision-making by senior managers was placing an additional demand on the school.

Additional demands on individual teachers were also apparent from the responses. One teacher gave a personal response, reporting that the introduction of the citizenship requirements had resulted in them having 'additional work to an already overloaded responsibility, i.e. head of yr 8, KS3 co-ordinator, PSHE (plus citizenship) and Child Protection'.

Another teacher said

'There is now a faculty of PSHE to include Health, Citizenship and Careers through years 9, 10, 11. Years 12 and 13 are undergoing activities that can be accredited to Citizenship. This is wonderful but there is no extra money for resources and manpower to enable it to be set up properly and to keep it going. As head of this faculty, the allotment of time needs to be greater as I also have teaching commitments with other subjects as well as PSHE.'

Additional demands reported by secondary schools were:

 collecting and assessing resources;

 increased workload;

• administration/paperwork;
• problems with coordination;
• need for extra resources and staff;
• contacting external agencies; and
• preparation.

Schemes of Work

Respondents were asked whether the introduction of the citizenship requirements in their school had built upon existing schemes of work or had necessitated totally new schemes of work.

Primary Schools

Of the primary schools, sixty-one per cent had built upon existing schemes of work and thirty-two per cent reported that the citizenship requirements had necessitated totally new schemes of work. Three per cent of respondents did not know.

Secondary Schools

Of the secondary schools, forty per cent had built upon existing schemes of work and seventeen per cent reported that the citizenship requirements had necessitated totally new schemes of work. Thirty-two per cent of secondary schools reported that both existing schemes of work and new schemes of work were used. Six per cent of respondents did not know.

Incorporation of the Citizenship Curriculum

Respondents were asked whether citizenship education would be taught as a distinct curricular area or as a cross curricular issue in the school.

Primary Schools

Of the primary schools, ten per cent reported that citizenship education would be taught as a distinct curriculum area while seventy-three per cent reported that it would be taught as a cross curricular issue. Thirty-five per cent of primary schools proposed to use a combination of the two methods.

Secondary Schools

Of the secondary schools, twenty-six per cent reported that citizenship education would be taught as a distinct curriculum area and twenty-six per cent reported that it would be taught as a cross curricular issue. Forty per cent of secondary schools proposed to use a combination of the two methods. Thirteen per cent of schools proposed to deliver citizenship education through the PSHE curriculum and six per cent said that they did not know how the citizenship programme was to be integrated.

Respondents were asked to explain how their schools proposed to coordinate provision where the citizenship curriculum was to be spread across other subjects.

Primary Schools

Responses from primary school teachers indicated a wide variance in planning for the implementation which ranged from clear strategies to vague and indistinct plans. Examples of the variety of the responses were:

• 'Citizenship has a policy in its own right but is incorporated into the planning for PSHE which has a dedicated time of 1hr per week which includes Circle Time. Whole school sessions with outside organisations is co-ordinated by the PSHE co-ordinator and community links co-ordinator (same person).'

• 'It is left up to individual teachers to link with other subjects where they find it appropriate.'

• 'With difficulty'.

Nineteen per cent of the primary schools that responded to the survey proposed that a coordinator, with specific responsibility for citizenship education, would coordinate the provision of the citizenship curriculum across other subjects.

Thirteen per cent of primary schools proposed to coordinate the provision by way of an audit of the school curriculum. Ten per cent of primary schools proposed to coordinate the provision of citizenship education through PSHE schemes. Ten per cent of primary schools proposed to take a whole school approach to implementing citizenship education across the curriculum. One respondent said that 'the school already works on cross-curricular topic themes…we already had a school council, etc. so a lot was already happening'.

Other strategies proposed to coordinate the provision were:

• monitoring the planning and delivery of lessons (10%);
• through involvement with the Healthy Schools Initiative (10%); and
• by incorporating citizenship into curriculum planning (10%).

Ten per cent of primary schools responding to the survey did not know how the school proposed to coordinate provision.

Secondary Schools

Twenty three per cent of secondary schools responding to the survey reported that coordinators had been appointed to coordinate provision of citizenship education across the curriculum. One of those schools proposed to combine the work of a citizenship coordinator with a cross-curricular working group. Another respondent advised that the school did not have a specific coordinator but did have a citizenship working group.

Nineteen per cent of secondary schools proposed to coordinate citizenship education provision by way of an audit of the school curriculum. Several respondents reported that the citizenship coordinator would be responsible for coordinating the curriculum audit.

Thirteen per cent of secondary schools reported that citizenship education would be delivered through the PSHE curriculum.

One respondent explained that the provision would be coordinated 'with a lot of good will and time out of school from the staff'.