England

Ian Davies

There has been a consistent official emphasis on young people’s engagement in society (e.g., National Citizen Service).

Young people’s engagement may be influenced by 4 factors:

  • the financial crisis;
  • fears about radicalisation (see the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 and related official guidance (DFE, 2015a,b; HEFCE, 2015));
  • national identity: 2014 Scottish referendum on independence and the 2016vote to leave the European Union;
  • young people’s relatively low voting patterns.

Levels of engagement and associated factors

Almostone half of young people have experience ofvolunteering (Gaskin 2004; and research in 2015 - accessed 11 September 2016).

Some research has suggested that those from lower socio-economic backgrounds may be less likely to engage in traditional forms of civic action (Andrews, 2008).

Engagement occurs if resources are available to the young person (in terms of time and money) (Cusworth, 2009; et al.). Civic capital is relevant, i.e., “whether or not the young person has the knowledge, networks, and skills to be able to act upon a civic issue of concern” (Cremin et al 2009).

Various factors may promote engagement including peer group advocacy (Cremin et al, 2009); an inclusive ethos; and youth workers who use high level interpersonal skills.

Education

The Crick report sees citizenship as social and moral responsibility, political literacy and community involvement. From 2010 there has been a return, officially, to civics, financial literacy, volunteering and character.

Relevant legislation includes the 1996 Education Act (guidance on teaching controversial issues), the Equality Act (2010) and the Prevent Strategy (June 2011), (British values are democracy; the rule of law; individual liberty and mutual respect; tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs).

Whiteley (2014, p. 1) argues that:

citizenship education had a positive impact on three key components of civic engagement: efficacy, political participation and political knowledge.

Effective implementation depends on clear understanding, high level support, discrete delivery. Topics such as politics and voting and diversity, identity and global issuesas well as assessment may be challenging for teachers. Open discussion is favoured by many but not always practised.

Conclusion

We need to:be clear about the meaning of our key terms (while allowing for dynamic and flexible work); pay attention to key contexts, to review what seems to be relevant to the levels and types of engagement; and explore what is being done educationally, formally and otherwise.

References

Andrews, R. (2008). Civic Engagement, Ethnic Heterogeneity, and Social Capital in Urban Areas: Evidence from England. Urban Affairs Review OnlineFirst(

Cremin, H., Warwick, P., Harrison, T., Mason, C. (2009). Building Voice, Civic Action and Learning: what can we learn from young people living in socio-economically disadvantaged communities? Unpublished paper.

Cusworth, L., Bradshaw, J., Coles, B., Keung, A. and Chzhen, Y. (2009). Understanding social exclusion across the life course: youth and young adulthood. Social Exclusion Task Force, Cabinet Office.

Department for Education (DfE). (2015a). The Prevent duty: Departmental advice for guidance: for schools and childcare providers. London: DfE.

Department for Education (DfE). (2015b). Prevent duty guidance: for higher education in England and Wales. London: DfE.

Gaskin, K. (2004). Young people, volunteering and civic service. A review of the literature. London, Institute for Volunteering Research.

HEFCE. (2015). The prevent duty: Monitoring framework for higher education. London: HEFCE.

Whiteley, P. (2014). Does Citizenship Education Work? Parliamentary Affairs. 67(3), 513-535.