Plan de mejoras para la Gestión de los servicios de Telefonía Básica en

In the DfES White Paper, 14-19 Education and Skills (2005), the Secretary of State reported that there was a need for students at KS3 to develop foundation skills and gain, ‘a good general education by the age of 14 […] Most importantly, they need to begin the 14-19 phase with the skills and knowledge to make the most of the opportunities available’. Further, in the Towards Consensus report, Ofsted (2006) noted that a well- considered PSHFE and Citizenship programme should ‘broaden pupils’ understanding and skills development’ (n.59).

Strengthened by being one of the three foci for learning on the QCA’s ‘big picture of the curriculum’ (2007c), the development of ‘skills’ appeared to be the new educationalist’s zeitgeist. If twentieth century educational emphasis leant towards the functional skills of English, Maths, and the Sciences, then twenty-first century pedagogy appeared to be including the development of learning and social skills.

Through study of citizenship, young people develop as informed and responsible citizens with the knowledge, skills and attitudes to play an effective role in society. Through personal, social and health education (PSHE), they develop the knowledge, skills and understanding they need to lead healthy, confident and independent lives. (DfES, 2005, section 4.10)

From the above quote it can be deduced that though policy-makers still think in subject specific boxes - ‘Citizenship’ and ‘PSHE’ were clearly delineated - there is a shift in emphasis towards transformation teaching (Clarke et al., 1997). The dominant epistemology appears to be moving away from Bernstein’s (1973) European collection code - pedagogy based ‘within a received frame’ (p.241) - and towards a more integrated curriculum which recognises that ‘there is a unity in the natural world [which] suggests that knowledge is inter-connected’ (Clarke, 1997, p.13. my brackets). For further evidence of inclusive pedagogy, the DfES (2007) noted that

Citizenship and PSHE are similar on their emphasis on values and attitudes and concern to empower young people to act effectively and with self-confidence. They are also similar in some of the themes they explore, such as drug abuse and equal opportunities - and their emphasis on active learning techniques like role play and discussions’ (cited in Brett, 2006, p.4).

All the above references encourage joined-up thinking and indicate that a conflation of Citizenship and PSHFE pedagogy could be mutually beneficial. And Brett’s (2006) conclusion that there were more similarities than differences in the five basic skills being taught in Citizenship and PSHFE, namely: ‘self identity; empathy; power; conflict resolution; and informed decision making’ (p.11), was a helpful contribution. In parallel with Aristotle’s model of how the State is formed, if learners develop understanding of their own psyche through PSHFE they can start to become active citizens within the classroom, active citizens within the school and then active citizens within the wider

community (Lighthill, 2008). Thus the classroom becomes the prototype for the wider community:

Q: “What makes a community work best?”

…a community does not work unless everybody works as a team; it is very difficult to do things with everybody’s interest at heart; I learnt that a community is more than a group of people living in the same place its (sic) how

the people communicate and act towards others.

(Year 7 home thinking, October 2007. cohort B.)

As (Ord, 2003) wrote, ‘Children are citizens’ (p.46) ‘Young people under the age of 16 have the same civil rights as those over 16’ (Huddleston, 2006, p.121) and should be involved in how they can contribute to society - and have that contribution recognised (4.6). Therefore it is a legal and moral responsibility for educationalists to provide the best platform for young learners to know themselves because, ‘The proper study of mankind is Man’ (Pope, 1944, p.301a). If learners understood the progressive interconnectedness between PSHFE and Citizenship then the following question would not have been asked by a Y7 student:

Why are we discussing about the community in social education?

Still more confusion on the requirement for two learning-for-living subjects on the curriculum (rather than a combined one) was generated by the QCA’s (2001) report on Performance Indicators which noted that there were clear links between Citizenship and PSHFE topics. This report was followed in 2003 by a QCA report which acknowledged that, ‘There is confusion about what is PSHE and what is Citizenship’ (p.5), and finally in 2005 Ofsted admitted that,

One particular problem is in defining the line to be drawn between Citizenship and PSHE […] Topics like bullying, teenage pregnancy and drug abuse, which are naturally the content of PSHE, take on a citizenship dimension when the questions addressed are to do with topical local and national issues, policy, and what can be done to bring about change (HMI 2335).

Learners need clarity. Learners need to understand the interconnectedness of PSHFE and Citizenship - that the two subjects are symbiotic; that differentiation should not be of concern to them; that Socratic discussions on relevant PSHFE and Citizenship topics is the primary objective because, as the Lord Chancellor wrote in a speech thought important enough to be quoted at the start of the Crick Report (1998),

We should not, must not, dare not, be complacent about the health and future of British democracy. Unless we become a nation of engaged citizens, our democracy is not secure (Falconer cited in Crick, 1998, section 11.1)

Is there is an argument for returning to attitudes held during the early development of the Citizenship curriculum, when PSHFE was readily accepted under the umbrella of citizenry - for the ‘long term health of the community’ (Edwards and Fogelman, 1993, pp.14, 32)12? The American Educational Research Association (2001) concluded that a comprehensive, holistic, school approach to pro-social and citizenry issues increased student knowledge of the community; developed social, cognitive and citizenship participation and helped develop positive attitudes towards self, family, the school and peers (cited in Solomon et al., 2001; ). And this research was supported by the Institute of Education, University of London, EPPI report (2005) which noted that citizenry lessons taught in school had

...an impact on personal and social affective outcomes, as well as on cognitive learning outcomes […] increased self-confidence […] more positive behaviour […] more positive attitudes to society […] greater empathetic and impartial reasoning […] an increase in motivational levels to participate and get involved […] a greater sense of autonomy, working diligently, increasing a firmer sense of self […] decreases in absence levels […] The programme interventions helped students get along with, and care about, others (by) developing increased feelings of respect for other opinions (p.63. my brackets).

12_{Best’s (2006, pp.54-67) analysis of the past, present and future of PSHFE and Citizenship pedagogy is a} very helpful contribution when considering questions on the Executive’s commitment and clarity of thinking on an integrated PSHFE/Citizenship curriculum.

The body of research and commentary already cited indicates that for clarity and gravitas amalgamating Citizenship with PSHFE, under a combined title of Citizenry Education (Lighthill, 2008) or Personal and Social Development (PSD)13, would be a productive exercise and go some way to answering the Y7 student’s apposite question “Why are we discussing about the community in social education?”

Student confusion is reinforced by a lack of clear understanding of “why we’re doing SE?”

Q: Is PSE a waste of time - just a bit of a doss?

We don’t have a GCSE in SE so it’s not seen as important.

(Y7 student Class Interviews, June 2007. cohort A.)

Student perception appears to be that a subject which is not assessed is not of value?

In Mansell’s (2007) forensic dissection of the dominant education system’s obsession with ‘hyper-accountability’ (p.81) he notes that neither the students nor future employers are served by the testing system. Mansell’s (2007) argument is that examinations do not test the key elements employers need to see displayed in their future workforce, namely - pupil’s agency and motivation. 44% of parents polled for Parentline

13 _{It was not until the third year of action research that I made the semantic change from what the host} school called Personal and Social Education (PSE) or SE (Social Education) to Personal and Social Development (PSD). Throughout the rest of this thesis, unless I am quoting another source, I will refer to the combined PSHFE and Citizenship subjects as PSD.

Plus (2006) deemed that ‘academic performance’ and the reputation of the school are important - but 53% were more concerned with the school’s attitude to social disruptions - bullying, disturbances in class, drinking, smoking and drug abuse (cited in Mansell, 2006, pp.155-6) - topics explored on the KS3 PSD curriculum.

The construction of this conceptual framework is not only based on ‘readings, reflection, assumptions and experience’ (Trafford and Leshem, 2008, p.86, Figure 5.2) but has also been developed over five years of observations and action research in my host school. Though I will analyse the action research in Chapter 4I feel the need, in order to enable this chapter to ‘grow to a point’ (Bottom, Midsummer Night’s Dream, I.2.8), to refer to two seminal classroom observations.

The first has already been mentioned in 2.5 and took place during an informal interview with a PSD teacher in January 2008. The Y7 PSD students (cohort B) were working from different work sheets in a booklet which had been collated by the non-specialist PSD coordinator. As a group, this Y7 class were unfocused because they were individually working on a myriad of valid but diverse topics - ‘Bullying’, ‘Healthy Eating’ and ‘First Aid’. There was no sense of a class community, or of group exploration.

During the lesson the teacher voiced an opinion that, “there had to be a better way to teach PSE”. Teacher R admitted that he would not want his specialist subject, Science, to be taught this way and that he did not know what the point of PSD was.

Based on my readings, nothing said by this teacher came as a surprise or seemed inconsistent with pedagogic practice across the country (NFER/DES, 2007). There is a lack of understanding by teachers of both the epistemology behind the PSD curriculum and how best to deliver this subject. Durkheim (1979) wrote that ‘morality can only be taught or, in other words, explained, if it is related to a reality which the child can be made to feel to be a reality’ and a failure to make this connection makes ‘moral teaching ineffective’ (pp. 132, 135). This is an example of how combining observation and readings led me toward, in this case, a realisation that ‘relevance’ was a key constituent of PSD delivery.

My second observation arose from the lack of understanding by students of where PSD fits into the education ‘big picture’. I felt that delivery of this subject could be deemed to be doing more harm than good. Contradictory messages were being received by the students who, on one hand were aware that educationalists (QCA, 2007c) and politicians (Cabinet Office, 2010) were promoting the importance of ‘the big society’ (Cameron, 2008) but, on the other hand, were delivering an ad hoc scheduled curriculum which was devoid of gravitas. Because of the pressure of ‘a seemingly never-ending barrage of tests’ (Mansell, 2007, p.3) the students judged that if a subject is not assessed it is not important.

My discovery was that these KS3 students, at a time when they needed encouragement to participate and engage in society (NFER, 2003), were being offered sub-standard tools with which to develop personal and social sensibilities.

The question which develops from the above discovery is, ‘How can educationalists best deliver PSD to their students in order to develop the ability to, ‘think critically, creatively, reflectively (and) develop the skill of philosophising on the core questions that appertain to (the) learners’ (Drake, 1998, pp.7-8. my brackets)?’