As part of an EU-funded Interreg III project, teacher trainers at IUFM de L'académie de Rouen and Canterbury Christ Church University shared insights and experiences in training teachers in relation to environmental issues, European languages, literacy and European Citizenship. Four cross-national groups have worked together to find common ground as well as to learn from our different approaches. The differences in relation to Citizenship were considerable, not least due to curricular history the nature and focus of each country’s national curriculum, and to the structure of teacher training and are outlined here

Leighton, R.

Pink, R.

English

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment

Some insights into Citizenship Teacher Training in FranceRalph Leighton, Canterbury Christ Church UniversityRichard Pink, Holmesdale Technology CollegeLord Kilclooney: My Lords, what kind of citizenship is being taught? Is it citizenship of the European Union, citizenship of the United Kingdom or both? Lord Adonis: My Lords, the United Kingdom.Hansard, 12 October 2005, column 281A fourth ‘strand’ should be explicitly developed, entitled Identity and Diversity: Living Together in the UK . . .The following areas should be included:• Contextualised understanding that the UK is a ‘multinational’ state, made up ofEngland, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales• Immigration• Commonwealth and the legacy of Empire• European UnionAjegbo et al (2007) p12As part of an EU-funded Interreg III project, teacher trainers at IUFM de L'académie de Rouen and Canterbury Christ Church University have been sharing insights and experiences in training teachers in relation to environmental issues, European languages, literacy and European Citizenship. While there are clearly significant overlaps between these ostensibly separate curriculum areas, four cross-national groups have worked together to find common ground as well as to learn from our different approaches. The differences in relation to Citizenship were considerable, not least due to curricular history (roughly 200 years of Citizenship Education throughout schooling in France, approaching five years in secondary schools in England), the nature and focus of each country’s national curriculum, and to the structure of teacher training.In France, Citizenship is not a discrete curriculum discipline but is part of the remit of Geography, History and Philosophy teachers, and it is an intrinsic element of the training of primary as well as secondary teachers. This rootedness of citizenship in French geography and history was clearly demonstrated on our visit to Rouen to a panoramic viewpoint overlooking the city, with an exposition of topography, history, economic development, literary heritage, population movement and future development. It is, however, consciously and explicitly French citizenship, intended to generate and substantiate civic and national pride and a common identity, to the exclusion of awareness and celebration of diversity. If Gillborn (2006), Ostler and Starkey (2003; 2005), Ajegbo et al (2007) and others raise pertinent points about the narrow ethnicity and identity implications of the Citizenship curriculum in England, their concerns are even more apt in relation to France (Osler and Starkey 2001) – something about which our French colleagues were greatly concerned.While the proscriptive and historical text-bound nature of the curriculum in France can limit innovation, it does mean that government and ministerial policies have to be implemented – given the piecemeal response to Citizenship as a National Curriculum subject in England, there might be some benefit to having the same proscription here. There appear to be fewer resources available for teaching Citizenship in France, although we saw no evidence that this inhibited pupils’ development and understanding. Primary pupils observed were able to discuss significant issues of the causes and effects of migration with empathy and awareness, stimulated by a dvd of people living in France but born elsewhere explaining why they had come to France and the diverse meanings which being French had for them. Discussion showed the sort of sophisticated multicultural awareness and insights which Ajegbo et al (2007) see as essential for the well-being of Britian. More teaching materials are being developed, and those we saw were clearly designed to stimulate pupil awareness. As in England, the problem can be more with how teachers are sometimes over-reliant on resources than with the resources themselves. Classroom discipline seemed less of an issue than in many UK schools – whether the class we saw was typical we cannot say, given factors such as being chosen to be observed, possibly prepared re behaviour and representing the school, and having eight visitors, a student teacher and the class teacher in the room. It is the position in the French education system that religion should not be present in schools, yet we witnessed a primary school council discussing a Christmas party. It was unclear to us whether faiths other than Christianity were allowed school-based celebrations. If so, there clearly is a faith presence in schools; if not then one faith is being given prominence over others. We were also struck by the wholly secular perception of Christmas being discussed – those members of the Canterbury group with a strong Christian faith felt this devalued the meaning of Christmas, while those of no religious conviction saw it as a way of reinforcing Christianity without questioning it. The focus of Citizenship in France is specifically and explicitly on French nationality – classroom displays and resources, as well as lesson content, make this clear – much more than the English National Curriculum celebration of diversity and reference to European citizenship. Given the likely introduction of the Ajegbo et al (2007) recommendation that a ‘Britishness’ strand be added to the national curriculum, this might be one aspect about which we can usefully learn from our French colleagues, at the same time as sharing with them our more wide-ranging perspective.The training programme in France is more proscriptive than in England, but still much less so than in our preconceptions. Academic study is over a longer period, with initial CPD being compulsory. Significantly, much less time is spent in the classroom during training, even though that training is over a longer period. Qualification is based on performance in competitive examinations rather than summative assessment and profiles. We understood the IUFM emphasis to be on ‘good’ teaching, while we perceive the Canterbury emphasis is on enabling learning. The use of experienced classroom teachers as professional trainers with significant input into academic as well as practical training, while continuing as classroom practitioners, seemed very effective.  There is much which can be done co-operatively in relation to enhancing European awareness in both regions. While neither institution, nor the schools with which they work, have control over the curriculum to be delivered, we are all aware that much more can be done to develop the European dimension. We also found a great enthusiasm in France for developing pupil voice – the primary school council we met comprised pupils across the school’s age, ethnicity and ability ranges, and its members clearly felt a responsibility to their peers and that they had an impact on the school.Given the relatively close proximity of these institutions, it will be possible to organise regular and beneficial exchanges. While the structure of training programmes might serve to limit the time opportunities when such exchanges could be most beneficial, there is little doubt that we have a considerable amount to learn regarding levels of achievement and curriculum development from colleagues in France while they perceive opportunities to adapt and develop some good practice from England. Bibliography/ReferencesAgegbo K, Kiwan D, Sharma S (2007) ‘Curriculum Review – Diversity and Citizenship’ http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/ (​http:​/​​/​publications.teachernet.gov.uk​/​​)  Faulks K (2006), ‘Education for citizenship in England’s secondary schools: a critique of current principle and practice’, Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 21 No. 1Gillborn D (2006) ‘Citizenship Education as Placebo: ‘standards’, institutional racism and education policy’, Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 1 (1), 83 – 104 Hansard, 12th October 2005Kerr D, Cleaver E, Ireland E and Blenkinsop S (2003) Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study: first cross-sectional survey 2001-2002 DfES Research Report 416 London: DfESKerr D, Ireland E, Lopes J and Craig R, with Cleaver E (2004) Making Citizenship Real: Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study Second Annual Report. First longitudinal Survey.  DFES Report 531 London: DfESLeighton R (2004) ‘The nature of citizenship education provision: an initial study’, Curriculum Journal 15 (2), 167 – 181 Ofsted (2006) ‘Towards Consensus? Citizenship in Secondary Schools’ http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/Internet_Content/Shared_Content/Files/towardsconsensus.doc (​http:​/​​/​www.ofsted.gov.uk​/​assets​/​Internet_Content​/​Shared_Content​/​Files​/​towardsconsensus.doc​) Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2001) ‘Citizenship education and national identities in Franceand England: inclusive or exclusive?’ Oxford Review of Education 27(2),287-305Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2003) ‘Learning for cosmopolitan citizenship: theoreticaldebates and young people's experiences’ Educational Review 55(3), 243-254.Osler, A. & Starkey, H. (2005) Changing citizenship: democracy and inclusion ineducation Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Some insights into Citizenship teacher training in France

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/download/ecb2ee6d4d2a292598bdf81fed94d5c7d3b9e5d4b9616317163c9a2a61af1dc3/45568/Some_insights_into_Citizenship_Teacher_Training_in_France.doc

Some insights into Citizenship teacher training in France

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment