Testing citizens. MODELs of assessment for citizenship.

Mary Richardson

Centre for Research in Beliefs, Rights and Values Education

Froebel College

Roehampton University

Roehampton Lane

London

SW15 5PL

020 8392 3022

Email:

Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Glamorgan, 14-17 September 2005

This research is funded by a studentship from the ESRC.

Important: No part of this paper should be cited or used without permission from the author.

Mary Richardson, Roehampton University- 1 -

Testing citizens. MODELs of assessment for citizenship.

Abstract

Citizenship Education has featured prominently on political and educational agendas in England in recent years. Since 2002 Citizenship has been a statutory, core subject in the National Curriculum for maintained secondary schools in England. Whilst there are few who can doubt the value of educating young people about the responsibilities of citizenship; concerns related to the introduction of citizenship are emerging. QCA described the new programme of study for citizenship as “light touch” (QCA, 2001), meaning that its implementation would be necessarily flexible for teachers. But, despite the flexibility proposed in the implementation of the Citizenship curriculum, there is research which suggests that some schools are experiencing difficulty with the assessment of the subject. Consequently, attitudes towards students’ achievements in citizenship education deserve some further investigation.

This paper presents some of the models of assessment for Citizenship currently in use in English secondary schools and discusses the tensions associated with their development and implementation. The paper also considers the attitudes of both teachers and students towards Citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4 and discusses how this might affect their perceptions of Citizenship assessment.

Introduction

The notion of some kind of civic education providing some kind of solution to English society’s ills is as many authors, for example Greenwood and Robins (2003) and Faulks (2000) have noted, nothing new. Citizenship has been documented in various guises, for example civic or moral education, and has featured within English schooling since the middle of the eighteenth century (Grosvenor and Lawn, 2004; Heater, 2001). Yet it is only relatively recently, following the publication of the White Paper Excellence in Schools(Department for Education and Employment, 1997) that the decision was taken to make citizenship a statutory feature of the National Curriculum in England. The Final Report of the Advisory Group on Citizenship, from hereon known as the Crick Report (Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1998), formed the basis of the National Curriculum Citizenship Order (Department for Education and Employment, 1999) and from this Order; a Citizenship Curriculum for England was created. It has been suggested that the aims of the Citizenship Order were political as much as educational, Gearon (2003). Indeed, the Crick Report proposed that apathy amongst the young, especially in relation to political and community involvement was of grave concern and required action through education. It is acknowledged that there are issues which have arisen from the decision to make citizenship a mandatory subject in maintained secondary schools and some of these issues are addressed in the wealth of research both national and international, which is continuously conducted in the area of citizenship education (Lawton, 2000; Heater, 2002; Steiner-Khamsi, 2002; Kerr, 2003a & b; Heater, 2004; Kerr and Cleaver, 2004). However, there is at present a paucity of literature which focuses on a key area of citizenship education, the assessment of the subject.

This research seeks to developknowledge and understanding of the assessments used for measuring and rewarding achievement in citizenship education in maintained English secondary schools2; to develop an understanding of the general perceptions of these assessments by their primary user groups – teachers and students; and finally, to augment an evidence base for policy in regard to the citizenship curriculum and its assessment. The research will centre upon the construction of citizenship assessments within the framework of the National Curriculum. It aims to evaluate the current models of assessment of citizenship and consider how assessment has been implemented since 2002. In addition, the research will interrogate the rationale for assessment procedures currently in use and consider why particular methods have been selected in order to assess citizenship. The research aims to answer five key questions:

  • How is the citizenship curriculum for secondary education in England assessed?
  • What is the rationale for assessment of citizenship education in secondary schools?
  • What is the rationale for the modes of assessment currently used for citizenship?
  • How is assessment of citizenship perceived and valued by its primary users - teachers and students?
  • What impact does assessment have upon the implementation of the citizenship curriculum?

The study will provide a unique evaluation of citizenship assessment from the perspective of teachers and students. An empirical study will record the ways in which some teachers currently implement assessments and will provide a picture of teachers’ and students’ perceptions of the design and content of citizenship assessments. The research aims to develop an understanding of the value which users attribute to qualifications arising from assessment of the citizenship curriculum and how this might affect their perception of the subject.

In order to discuss the assessment of citizenship education, it is necessary to have an understanding of its composition. There are three discrete subject areas; Citizenship, Assessment and Curriculum which comprise Citizenship Assessment and I refer to these as the Citizenship Education Trinity. The ‘trinity’ is presented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Citizenship EDUCATION Trinity – a summary of the research project

The research will be informed by the literature of three perspectives on education. Philosophy will inform the conceptual analysis of definitions of citizenship; curriculum theory will underpin an evaluation of teaching materials, policy and curriculum development documentation; and the literature of assessment will inform the interrogation of specifications (syllabuses), examination papers and assessment documentation from awarding bodies (formerly know as examination boards), Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) and the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). The literature and the plans for research are outlined in the following sections.

Discussing citizenship

Even a cursory skim through the literature on citizenship shows that the term has a plethora of meanings. If I asked each reader of this paper to define citizenship, I would undoubtedly collect many different responses. The dictionary definitions of citizenship do no more than propose a bare, legal notion of what it means to be a citizen. It ensures that on one level, the notion of a citizen is clear cut yet it precludes any suggestion that the individual is expected to shoulder responsibilities as a result of being a citizen. The second definition states that one must behave in a way “expected of you”, but it does not recommend any sense of social responsibility; rather it suggests that individuals should mould themselves according to their “area of town”. This goes someway to implying that a sense of common identity is required in order to create a notion of citizenry. Thus, the legal definitions suggest that conformity is a prerequisite for citizenship and therefore this definition of citizenship does not vary dramatically from that described by Aristotlewho maintained that man was by nature a political being who had to participate in the affairs of the polis or city-state (Heater, 2001; Porter, 1995). It appearsthat the modern notion of citizenship is influenced by social, political and environmental factors and consequently its meaning is constantly debated and disputed (Lawson, 2001).

The earliest notions of citizenship were founded in ancient Greece (Brubaker, 1992, Turner, 1994, Heater, 2004). A citizen was enrolled into what can be aptly compared to a gentlemen’s-only club whose members were expected to demonstrate political responsibility and loyalty to a city state in return for a small stake in decision making (Heater, ibid.). The political tradition of the Greek city states and the Roman republic founded a notion of citizenship that allowed a chosen few to control laws and decisions affecting all members of the city state. One might assume that contemporary notions of citizenship are radically different to those of ancient Greece, in some respects this is not so. The essence of modern common understanding comprises a conditional relationship between rights and responsibilities (Lawson,op cit).

Documents cataloguing the development of the citizenship curriculum include many references to the importance of assessment(Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, 1998; Department for Education and Employment, 1999). The only consensus regarding an actual definition of citizenship appears to be that it is inherently difficult to define (McLaughlin, 1992; Turner, 1994; Lister, 1997; Evans, 1998; Kerr, 1999; Benn, 2003). If we accept that there are difficulties in pinning down a definition, then it is likely that the general, public perception of citizenship is, at best, unclear. Therefore, it is also likely that there is uncertainty surrounding the value of learning about citizenship and students might be reluctant to take a formal qualification in it (Holden, 2004). Such uncertainty suggests that assessment of citizenship requires some close scrutiny, not only to understand the rationale for use of particular assessments, but also to consider the value ascribed to assessments of the subject.

Contemporary literature generally agrees there are essential components of citizenship: identity, a sense of community, acceptance of both rights and responsibilities and the idea that a citizen both governs and is governed (Heater, 2004; Lawson, 2001). Citizenship is a value-laden word and one which Evans (op.cit.) suggests takes on different meanings according to a social location or when used to support a particular ideological construct. Benn (2003) argues that even though the concept of citizenship underpins that of democracy, it (citizenship) is in conversational terms, still unfamiliar to the general public. However, it seems that British attitudes towards and knowledge of citizenship are not as bleak as they might first appear. Pattie, Seyd and Whiteley (2003) believe that there is a strong sense of civic obligation within the British public: their research found that contrary to the claims of political apathy, respondents frequently participated in activities designed to influence political outcomes or undertook voluntary work within their local community. Indeed, some research suggests that there is no political apathy, but a conscious political reaction, a choice made by individuals who feel that politicians have nothing to offer them (Potter, 2002).

One of the most commonly cited writers linked to citizenship is TH Marshall (1950). Marshall proposed a tri-partite model of citizenship comprising: civil, political and social rights. The civil referred to legal rights of the individual (for example, owning property or access to a fair trial), the political included voting rights and participation in government, and the social included the right to education, healthcare, etc. (the emerging post-war welfare state). As Turner (1994) and the Crick Report (QCA, 1998) argue, there are many more rights that could be added to Marshall’s somewhat simplistic model. We should however be cautious that the modern, liberal approach to citizenship does not become what Lister (1997) describes as an “impoverished” version; that is, one which provides rights to passive recipients who retreat to pursue individual interests. It would seem that a key component of modern citizenry is some level of active participation, but again, this is a subject that generates continual debate.

Educating citizens

It has been suggested that the introduction or re-emergence of citizenship education has usually been fuelled by events that have a national - and often, international – impact (Low, 1997; Kerr, 2003a; Torney-Purta, 2004). Identification of citizenship as a valid and valuable part of the English school timetable is highlighted in the reforms of education which happened towards the end of the Second World War. The document “Citizens Growing Up” (Ministry of Education, 1949) warns of

“the increase in juvenile delinquency; the growing recognition that we are members of a society that needs to rediscover it moral bearings and its sense of purpose” (1949:3)

and proposes that action is taken to encourage “active citizenship”. This document details the co-responsibility of schools and parents in teaching citizenship to the young; it discusses how the subject might be taught, presented and the importance of continuing education for citizenship.

Kerr (2003a) suggests that citizenship education has never been very far from the top of the political and educational agenda and historical accounts of citizenship education, such as Heater (2004b) recount varying degrees of success in attempting to introduce it into mainstream education. Such attempts were often followed by the sidelining of citizenship in order to increase the emphasis on so-called useful subjects (namely English, mathematics and science) or subjects leading to nationally recognised qualifications (for example, General Certificate in Education: GCE). The Commission on Citizenship (1990) found that the term citizenship was not in common use in English schools and even where it did exist, there was widespread confusion regarding its meaning. The decision to make citizenship a core subject and an attempt to describe what it should comprise appeared well-overdue. The Crick Report (1998) introduced its findings with the oft quoted statement:

“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 influence in public life.” (QCA, 1998:7)

The Advisory Group was forced to consider ghosts of citizenship education past and decide what could usefully be adapted, recycled and applied to a modern curriculum. Crick chose to follow the lead of T H Marshall (1950) and borrowed heavily from the tripartite model comprising civil, political and social elements. However, Crick’s model, unlike Marshall’s, made active civic participation an explicit and central theme of citizenship education (QCA, 1998; Lawson, 2001; Kerr, 2003a). This was an important feature of the Advisory Group’s proposals because as research conducted by Fogelman (1990) showed, in schools where a civic education was already in place, students were commonly involved in extra curricular activities within their community or with school-based organisations such as school councils. Active participation was seen as integral to the notion of civic responsibility. Thus, the aims and purpose of a citizenship curriculum are described as,

“…to make secure and to increase the knowledge, skills and values relevant to the nature and practices of participative democracy; also to enhance the awareness of rights and duties, and the sense of responsibilities needed for the development of pupils into active citizens; and in doing so to establish the value to individuals, schools and society of involvement in the local and wider community”. (QCA, 1998:40)

Crick’s approach to the introduction of an education for citizenship is viewed as a positive step for England, however, there are those who disagree and have been critical of the Crick Report. Tooley (2000) suggests that any group charged with the task of researching a new subject for the National Curriculum is bound to come to a conclusion that recommends its introduction. He goes on to say that there is in fact, little evidence to support the proposed need for citizenship education. Tooley is sceptical of any government intervention in order to educate for democracy (or indeed any other facet of citizenship) and questions why such a curriculum is best learned in schools and is it viable to expect citizenship education to be achieved by the age of 16?

Five years on from the publication of Tooley’s book and a large amount of research has, and continues to be conducted into reforms of post-16 education (e.g. Kerr et al, 2004). In response to questions raised about the ‘future’ of citizenship, a substantial guide, Citizenship beyond 16, has been produced by the QCA (2004) in conjunction with the Community Service Volunteers (CSV). The guidance for post-16 citizenship includes comprehensive support for the development of citizenship programmes in both education and workplace contexts. Post-16 citizenship has been mentioned in the recent report from the working group on 14-19 reform - the Tomlinson Inquiry- (2004). The report identified citizenship as part of the so-called core for all learners and recommends that citizenship be retained as a key component of the proposed diploma for 14-19 learning. Whether this happens remains to be seen.

Assessment and standards

Since assessment involves the gathering of information (Desforges, 1989), then setting an appropriate standard in order to measure this information-gathering, is critical. It has been suggested that assessment is more difficult to measure in subjects such as citizenship than in other curriculum subjects, for example, mathematics (Lyesight-Jones, 1998). The trick of good assessment appears rooted in getting the right information from the student in the most efficient way. There is now a wider range of assessments than ever before and it is important to clarify the terminology because there appears to be much confusion over the construction and use of assessments (Gipps, 1994). In recent decades, assessment has taken on a high profile in England and testing is a major part of the curriculum (Rowntree, 2001). The result of this development is, as Gipps (op. cit.) suggests, that a new assessment paradigm is emerging, one which recognises that there is a widening audience and context for assessments in England. Broadfoot (1998) recommends that a serious debate is initiated to address the ways in which assessments now have an ability to ‘drive’ some aspects of curriculum development. Torrance and Pryor (1998) argue that the classroom is a place of social control and the results of their research with teachers, indicated that assessment was perceived as a “negative rather than positive activity” (1998:43). They suggest that performance goals are detrimental to student learning; the directly competitive nature of performance goals adversely affects student motivation. In light of such findings, it is crucial to consider how teachers might feel about the implementation of an assessment which is led by its outcome; one aim of this study to find out how teachers manage the citizenship curriculum and the associated assessments.

Assessment of National Curriculum subjects appears to be riddled with tensions, for example if there is no assessment for a subject, particularly if there is no nationally recognised qualification, then there is evidence to suggest that public perception of the subject is poorer (Blair, 2004). In recent years, much discussion has arisen in the UK news media concerning ‘soft’ subjects (O’Hara, 2003), for example, psychology or history both of which are deemed to be less-academic than say, mathematics or science. It is difficult to tell at this stage whether citizenship will be labelled in this way too. However, in such assessment-focused circumstances it would seem sensible that students who are obliged to take a statutory course of study do so with the aim of attaining some kind of qualification. The GCSE specifications (formerly “syllabuses”) offered by the different awarding bodies all claim to meet the necessary criteria for the learning outcomes required at key stage 4 and they give the student a qualification at the end of the course of study. The inference here would seem to be “if you’ve studied the course, you may as well take the examination”. Those who are responsible for delivering nationally recognised assessments of citizenship seem to be in an invidious position due to the rather stormy relationship that the English media has with qualifications. There is a growing body of literature which discusses public perceptions of assessment (Murphy, 2003; Warmington and Murphy, 2003) and this indicates less than positive attitudes. An improved understanding of attitudes towards citizenship assessments and qualifications is therefore central to this research.