www.developingcitizenship.org.

uk

taking stock of a
Development Education
project:
‘outside’ organisations supporting ‘in-school’ change

A report of the Developing Citizenship project by:

Oxfam, Save the Children, and UNICEF UK

taking stock of Developing Citizenship
“…education must enable us to respond positively
to the opportunities and challenges of the rapidly
changing world in which we live and work …”
‘The National Curriculum’, QCA, 1999

This report details the history of an education project, from its roots in three independently
designed projects to its implementation as a collaborative exercise over 3 years, between 3
international development agencies, 3 development education centres, 5 education authorities
and 16 secondary schools.

Developing Citizenship took young people's entitlement to education with a global dimension as
a starting point. A major challenge for the schools was, and is, to make this entitlement a
relevant and constructive reality for young people growing up in different localities in the UK.

In meeting this challenge, Developing Citizenship drew on the global dimension present in a
variety of education perspectives and interests, including those focused on children's rights, on
international sustainable development, peace and conflict mediation, on anti-racism and inter-
cultural understanding, and environmental education. These perspectives contributed to a 'core'
of enquiry-based, active learning that developed and informed students’ views and their
involvement in local, national and international society.

The Developing Citizenship project involved teachers, education advisers, development

education centre staff, NGDOs and young people in developing:

ideas and understanding – of key concepts that illuminate practical links between local and
global issues;

values and attitudes – relating to social justice, human rights, and diversity;

skills and capabilities – of critical thinking, communication, collaboration and action;

experiences – of active citizenship in a globalised society.

This report candidly reflects on what took place, what was achieved, and what lessons can be
drawn that might enhance the impact of similar development education projects in the future.

This report of the Developing citizenship project addresses issues relevant to organisations that are
external to the education system, but plan to work in partnership with it.
It does not provide a detailed account of the many positive experiences of the project ‘in-school’, amongst
teachers and students, but describes and reflects on how such projects are organised and implemented.
For information on the ‘in-school’ work, developments in curriculum content, classroom activities, and
other experiences please refer to the project website, www.developingcitizenship.org.uk, to the project
evaluation reports developed by Aileen McKenzie (available on the website).
The principal author of this report is the Developing Citizenship project coordinator Harm-Jan Fricke, with
contributions from members of the project management group and the project evaluator.

The Developing Citizenship project has been funded by the Department for International
Development’s (DfID) Development Awareness Fund, Oxfam, Save the Children and UNICEF.
PD March 2006

2
Contents
Page

Introduction 2

Contents 3

taking stock: a partial affair 4

Developing Citizenship 2002 – 2006; the what? and the why?

starting points: organisations 5

Once there were three projects …..

collaboration: possibilities and purpose 6-7

Education: what’s it for?
Concept note to project plan

approach: supporting teachers and schools 8-9

Project timetable

project intentions and management 10

content: development, rights, and a global dimension 11

implementation: organisations working together 12

Project staff
Managing the process
Financial resources

communication: spreading the word 13

working together: the good and the challenging 14

evaluation: learning for development 15

project learning: issues and questions for organisations 16

Educational intent, Collaborating in development
Questioning content, Building communities
Value for money, Learning for the future

project finance: value for money? 17

sustaining development: what’s next? 18

benchmarks for secondary schools in a global context 19 - 22

Developing Citizenship project evaluation 23 - 29

acknowledgements 30

notes and references 31

3
taking stock: a partial affair
Developing citizenship A key characteristic of the Developing citizenship project
2002 – 2005 was its relatively ‘open-ended’ approach to working with
secondary schools. Although broad parameters regarding
focus and extent existed (see left-hand column), the
WHAT? collaborating organisations did not pre-set outcomes to be
achieved, or requirements for specific issues to be covered.
The Developing Work on these was deliberately left to the initiative and
citizenship project involved creativity of participating teachers.
teachers in creating whole-
school approaches to: This report provides a review of that approach: it reflects on
some of the issues and dilemmas facing ‘outside’

the Citizenship development education organisations when they want to
curriculum: developing support and not dictate ‘in-school’ change.
young people’s
experiences of The review is partial because it does not reflect on the
citizenship in a notable and positive effects of the project amongst
globalised society participating teachers and schools. Project evaluation
reports give attention to that.1

active citizenship:
participation of young
people in learning, in From the outset one of the aims of the Developing
school, and in society Citizenship project was to promote ‘project learning’,
and to use that learning in disseminating the

the school ethos: approach and outcomes of the project. This report
reflecting the global is an attempt to contribute to that aim.
relevance of local
school concerns. Secondly, reflection on and debates about the
broader purposes of ‘education with a global
WHY? dimension’ or about approaches to supporting
schools do not feature much amongst national or
The project aimed to local organisations involved in such work. It is
contribute to: hoped that this report will be a small contribution to
encouraging such reflection and debate.

Citizenship education
and the motivation and Discussing the issues and dilemmas of a project inevitably
capabilities of learners draws attention to perceived or real shortcomings of that
and teachers project. The following pages can therefore imply that the
actual results of the Developing Citizenship project fell short

delivering on young of the intended outcomes. That impression would be far
people’s entitlement to from the truth, as the feedback from teachers, pupils and
an education that senior management team members in project schools
develops their testifies.
understanding, attitudes
and skills for living in a
changing local and
global society

encouraging
education policy
makers to place
development
perspectives, human
rights principles and a
global dimension at the
heart of quality
education.

4
starting points: organisations
Against the background of a once there were three projects …
new statutory Citizenship
curriculum in England,
Developing citizenship During 2001 each of the three development agencies
was initiated by the designed plans for projects that in one way or another
education programmes of: related to the new Citizenship curriculum in England.

Oxfam GB, At Oxfam, Heather King had recently completed her Action
Research for Global Citizenship pilot project. The

Save the Children UK,
organisation wanted to build on her findings as well as on

UNICEF UK. their successful Curriculum for Global Citizenship by
initiating a new, whole-school, project.
Financially supported by
these NGDOs and by the
Save the Children was busy with developing its Global
Department for International
Child Rights Education initiative. As part of it the
Development, three
organisation wanted to implement a project to promote and
development education
explore student participation in schools.
centres were contracted to
provide support to sixteen
UNICEF’s plans built on the initial findings of Aileen
secondary schools:
McKenzie’s Citizenship Education Monitoring Project and

Cheshire Development aimed to extend its education department capacity to
Education Centre, promote the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Chester (4 schools) (CRC).

Development Education
Project, Manchester (4 All three project plans were independently submitted for co-
schools) funding to DFID’s Development Awareness Fund.

Norfolk Education and
Action for Development, The stumbling block for DFID was not just about its own
Norwich (8 schools). limited grants budget for major Development Education
projects. The thematic overlap between the three project
Each of the local proposals was problematic, and more fundamentally, it was
organisations enjoyed the felt that the plans reflected too much the agencies’ own
collaboration of education agendas and priorities, and not sufficiently those of
advisers in authorities and education.
healthy schools partnership
in: In addition, DFID was at the time developing an interest in

Cheshire encouraging voluntary and public sectors to collaborate in

Manchester education work, with the aim of embedding development

Norfolk awareness in the education system. (This interest led to

Trafford the Enabling Effective Support strategy*). It was felt that
the three agency applications did not embody such an

Suffolk.
approach.
An invitation to take part
The advice from DFID was that the agencies should explore
was sent to secondary
schools in these localities. the possibility of developing a joint project. A combined
From those who expressed application addressing the criticisms of the original plans
an interest sixteen were would be ‘sympathetically considered’.
selected.
This proposal for a ménage a trois did not automatically
The selected schools guarantee successful project development let alone
represented a diverse range implementation. Written as three distinct operational
of educational projects, development of a joint project needed not only
environments, including new operational planning but also strategic re-assessments
rural, urban, academic, and developments. This process eventually required some
specialist, relatively well and 40 days input.
less-well resourced.

5
collaboration: possibilities and purpose
The NGDOs took five steps education: what’s it for?
to explore the possibilities
for a joint project.

Although the subject matter Any ‘outside’ organisation involved in education makes an
(citizenship, children’s implicit or explicit assumption about what it sees as the
rights, a global dimension) purpose of education and its own contribution to it. At the
was specific, the steps risk of being over-simplistic, within the development
themselves were not education field there appear to be three different positions:
untypical of any process of
exploring opportunities for
For some, education will
collaboration between be a means to gain “A better informed … civil
3
different organisations. support for specific, society … is actively
identified political aims. supportive of the UK
1. Identifying shared Either implicitly or
Government’s commitment
concerns, interests and explicitly the aim of
to implementing the MDGs
needs of the three education is to instil or
draw out pre-identified and the expansion of
organisations.
(political) behaviours official development
2. Identifying ‘education and skills that will steer assistance. …
system’ (teachers/ (or keep) society in a … Development Education
schools/DFES) needs particular direction. activities aim to empower
and concerns regarding … young people … to
2
Citizenship education. become active in making a
“Young people become an informed reality of children’s
3. Identifying convergence and competent constituency for rights.”
and divergence in the pro-poor change.”
above.

4. Assessing which of the
For a second group,

4
varied and varying education is a means to
concerns and needs inform and raise “… works to raise
met NGDO awareness of an issue. awareness of issues facing
opportunities and The broader purpose of children around the world
requirements best. education is largely
….
immaterial as long as
5. Deciding whether to … provides expertise on
awareness raising of the
continue joint planning particular issue is children’s rights and global
or not: could each addressed. citizenship for young
agency’s core needs people and those involved
and concerns be met in their education.”
better through
collaboration, and was
there sufficient trust
For a third group, education should aim to increase
between the agencies capabilities and capacities that enable the making of
for them to collaborate? informed choices with regard to the present and to the
future. For organisations involved in development
education those choices are primarily focussed on global
and local change.

The first position –and to some extent the second- has little
to do with education, and can be better described as
campaigning - i.e. “organised actions around a specific issue
seeking to bring about changes in the policy and behaviours
of institutions and/or specific public groups.” 5 The success
of a campaign depends on a narrow focus, on limited
concept note to options with regard to proposed solutions, and opportunism
– all characteristics that are far removed from what is
project plan usually meant by ‘education’.

Based on the assessment of Of course, NGDO education programmes would argue that
possibilities for a joint their work is not primarily single issue, policy change
project, a two page focussed, and that instead it does develop student
Developing citizenship capabilities through techniques that are open-ended,
concept note was written. questioning, and exploratory. Some parts of the quotes on
the previous page perhaps imply this.
Circulated to education
authorities and development Nevertheless, at least at ‘headline’ level many agencies
education centres, the appear uncertain about their sustained role in education.
concept note was used to Providing an educational response to issues of development,
obtain comments, rights and responsibilities of world citizenship, exploring the
suggestions and dilemmas in those issues, and encouraging the development
expressions of interest in of thought about and for development amongst young
the project. people in the UK, forms a minor part of NGDO activities. So
minor for some that it often comes across as optional and
Building on received ‘tacked on’ to an organisation’s work.
comments a project plan
was developed using two During the planning and initial implementation phase,
more-or-less concurrent various aspects of the broader purpose of the project were
planning approaches: discussed and how the project aims related to that.
However, only limited discussions took place (and no
1) a systematic approach conclusions were drawn) on how we, as outside
which identified: organisations working with schools, saw (i) the overall
purpose of education or (ii) our (organisational)

issues of concern to be contributions to that purpose.
addressed

the purpose of the Such a discussion and its conclusions could, during the
project project, have helped to clarify a) the real and potential

scope, approach to be benefits to education of a project such as this, and b) the
used and aimed for relevance of such a project to NGDO or DEC broader aims
outcomes for, and interest in, education.

organisational and
educational context and In relation to the Developing Citizenship project the lack of
its relevance exploration about how we (as NGDOs and DECs) saw our

available and not yet contribution to ‘education’ – however defined – implied
available information general agreement on the purpose and concept of education
– that ‘education’ is ‘neutral’. We did not debate it. With

tasks to be carried out
hindsight (those excellent spectacles!) such a debate could

support and have strengthened the project’s intentions and plans.
implementation roles

monitoring and Although a project logic was designed that was relevant to
evaluation requirements the global dimension, debate about this would have helped

the budget. in creating a more broadly educationally relevant ‘logic’ too.
This would have provided greater clarity about our reasons
2) a logical framework for involvement, improved our strategies, and sharpened
approach which developed: the perception of our aims and objectives. This in turn
would have helped us in being clearer about which actions

a hierarchy of project would meet the project’s third purpose in particular: “to
objectives inform and influence policy decision makers.”

related success
indicators and means of Last, but not least, it could have helped too in showing the
verification relevance of this work to broader NGDO and DEC concerns,

assumptions interests and strategies.
underpinning the
activities and objectives.

7
approach: supporting teachers and schools
Developing citizenship In any particular project, development education
timetable organisations tend to use one of three approaches in their
contacts with teachers:

the organisations supply ideas, e.g. through publications

or in-service training
2001 • Oxfam, SCUK,
summer Unicef explore
they test ideas developed by their staff, e.g. activities or
term possibility for joint approaches before they are published
education project
they develop with teachers new activities, approaches or
curricula.

On the part of the teachers the process of involvement is

2001-02 • feasibility study generally one of the following (apart from the option of
autumn • contacts with LEAs
and DECs
ignoring what is offered):
term
• project plan
development
adoption and application of ideas within the context of
existing frameworks and processes

engagement with and adaptation of ideas to improve
spring • project plan existing frameworks and processes
submitted to DFID for
co-funding, and

internalisation of ideas and combining them with others
approved for three to make new frameworks and processes.
years
In many if not most development education projects the
focus is on supplying and testing: innovation and
development of new approaches and ideas with teachers is
relatively rare.
summer • DECs start
involvement in the
project– formal
Although supplying and testing may lead, on the part of
agreements with teachers, to engagement and to internalisation of ideas, this
LEAs/HSP is likely to be incidental.

For the Developing Citizenship project there were various

2002-03 • termly project reasons to go for a ‘development with teachers’ option,
autumn workshops with aiming not just for teacher engagement but also for
term project staff, internalisation of developed ideas in the school.
education advisers
and agency
managers
Project NGDOs (and DECs) had a limited number of
• project publicity and comprehensive ideas to offer with regard to the new
school recruitment statutory Citizenship curriculum;
spring • agreements with
schools: SMT support
NGDOs and DECs had relatively little recent experience
and project contact of working over a longer period with secondary schools
teacher assigned
• start of school

The ‘embedding’ of a global dimension across the
involvement whole-school would require internalisation of ideas. It
• website launched would also require creative thought from teachers in
finding answers and approaches that are relevant to
summer • DECs organise (in
most cases twice
them and their situation.
yearly) workshops
with local teachers Given these considerations and the aims of the project a
• schools develop ‘business as usual’ approach – with NGDOs doing the
initial action plans
• teacher and pupil
innovative/creative work and teachers testing it - was
‘baseline’ surveys therefore seen as inappropriate.

8
project timetable
Finally, the NGDOs also wanted to explore what
2003-04 • residential project ‘engagement for development’ might mean, and what it
autumn workshop: global
dimension concepts,
might lead to.
term
what do we want
young people to As a result the project was based on a challenge (to
gain? teachers and their schools) and a promise (from NGDOs and
• school based work:
mainly on curriculum,
DECs).
and participation

The challenge:
spring • development of how can teachers and schools provide an education and
benchmarks:
‘signposts for experiences that engage young people as citizens in a
success?’ globalised society?

The promise:
DECs (backed up by Oxfam, Save the Children and
UNICEF) working with education advisers, will support
summer • school based teachers and schools in addressing this question.
implementation and
development
continues with The remit of DECs and education advisers was to ‘provide
support from DECs support’, i.e. information, advice, liaison between schools
and advisers locally, providing a framework for teachers and schools to
address the task. DECs’ job was not to ‘hold hands’, to
2004-05 • planning whole- advocate specific courses of action, or actively to guide
autumn school inset in all schools in a particular direction.
term schools
• conference planned
• teacher and project Such a task required mutual trust and understanding of
staff start writing up each others needs and motives. Because teachers and DEC
of project staff did not generally know each other before the start of
experiences the project, building that understanding and trust took time
– at least two or three terms – and longer than anticipated.
spring • staff workshops
• teacher and pupil By deliberately limiting the ‘hands-on’ involvement of
‘end-line’ surveys project staff, the project was able to support 16 schools
• school based
implementation and over a 2½ - 3 year period through the equivalent of less
development than one full-time post. Leaving aside involvement in
continues ‘national’ project events, such as project planning, reporting
and administration, support for teachers took up
approximately 80% of a full-time post amongst the three
summer • final workshops DECs together. Advisers in the five authorities offered a
with project teachers further 15% full-time equivalent input.
• conference
cancelled
• project feedback
meetings with
teachers and SMT
members

2005-06 • project report

autumn • evaluation report
• publication
development
involving teachers
and project staff

spring • draft publication

term
• Pupils Voices

▪ Taking stock of a
Development
Education project

9
project intentions and management
The intention of the The management of the project during implementation
Developing citizenship followed the intentions of the project plan:
project was to:
“Development education centres in Chester (Cheshire DEC),

gain practical Norwich (NEAD), and Manchester (Manchester DEP) will
experience of whole- engage local schools and LEAs in developing and testing
school policy and ideas that meet the objectives of the project.
practice change, based
on the applications of a This school based work will be supported by project workers
global dimension, appointed by the Development Education Centres in
development Chester, Manchester and Norwich. They will work closely
perspectives and human with LEA, Healthy Schools and other advisers in Cheshire,
rights principles Greater Manchester, Norfolk and Suffolk.

encourage secondary A project coordinator will manage coordination between the

schools and education different project staff and with the relevant education work
professionals to apply a of the three agencies. The Project Co-ordinator will
global dimension, participate in, and report to a Project Management Group
development (PMG), comprising representatives from Oxfam, SCUK,
perspectives and human UNICEF, and the DECs.”
rights principles to the [source: final concept note, January 2002]
design and
implementation of
school policies and local (and one national) project workshops
teaching and learning
practice Project Contact Teachers &
SCHOOLS

encourage policy
makers to place a global
dimension, development
perspectives and human DEC project staff Education Advisers
rights principles at the
heart of quality
education.

The project wanted to do Coordinator

this through:

work with secondary

schools
NGDO education managers

enabling participants
eight national project workshops
and other interested
parties to exchange and
build on each others’
experiences

applying ‘project Project Evaluator

learning’ to enable Management
dissemination of the
Group
project’s approach and
outcomes to
practitioners and policy
makers. This model ensured that all ‘project actors’ could contribute
to various levels of the project.

10
content: development, rights and a global dimension
Starting point for the content The challenge that the project presented to teachers left the
of the Developing ball very much in their court. Nevertheless, some content
citizenship project was parameters were set within which organisations could
Developing a Global promote the project and supply their support.
Dimension in the School
Curriculum: Guidance to In early meetings and workshops, project teachers were
Headteachers, Senior introduced to the global dimension concepts listed on this
Manager, Governors and page. Other relevant resources, including those mentioned
LEAs, pub. DfEE, DFID, on this page, were also provided.
6
DEA et al, Sept. 2000.
In practice there were two problems with the approach we
The publication suggests adopted:
that “Underlying the notion
of a global dimension to the 1. we supplied too much information at once, and
curriculum are eight key 2. we didn’t encourage questioning of the materials
concepts”: supplied.

citizenship The result was that participating teachers did not explicitly

sustainable assess or expand their understanding of, for example,
development ‘development’, ‘human rights’ and ‘a global dimension’ until

social justice later in the project. Although attention to these issues was

values and perceptions given at local and residential workshops, exploration of the
concepts was largely left to teachers’ own initiative, through

human rights
practical classroom and whole-school activities, (and their

conflict resolution independent thinking and research).

interdependence

diversity. This is not to say that what was needed was for us to come
in and say “this is what development/rights/a global
These concepts, according dimension is about” - i.e. supplying the assumed ‘right’
to the booklet, “underpin answer. But what was needed was more space for teachers
subject areas and help us to:
clarify what the global
dimension means.”
question ideas (including their own) relating to each
concept,
Teachers were introduced to
develop an understanding of various perspectives on the
the booklet and were given concepts, and
copies of a number of other
publications, including:

develop their own framework and principles to provide a
professional response.

Time for Rights, Unicef By allowing insufficient time to discuss these issues we
& SCUK 2002 probably focussed too much on exploring the ‘how?’ of

A Curriculum for Global education with a global dimension and not enough on the
Citizenship, Oxfam 1997 ‘why?’ and the ‘what does it actually mean to me – and to

80-20: development in my students?’
an unequal world, 80:20
& Tide 2002 In going about it in this way we failed to question a well-

Local and Vocal: established, but often fallacious, argument: we assumed
promoting young that information about or exposure to an issue leads, as if
people’s involvement in by osmosis, to understanding, then to personal reflection,
local decision making, and finally to personal action.
SCUK & NYA, n.d.

Citizenship Schools,
Campaign for Learning
& Unicef 2001

11
implementation: organisations working together
project staff established formal agreements with NEAD, DEP and
Cheshire DEC. The DECs in turn developed contracts with
education authorities and, in Manchester, with the healthy
DEC staff involvement in
schools partnership. In most cases contracts were also
the project was planned at
developed between DECs and schools.
c. 0.5 full-time equivalent
(fte) for NEAD (supporting 8
Without predetermining the exact needs that would have to
schools), and 0.25 fte for
be met, the arrangements established frameworks for
each of Cheshire DEC and
collaboration and clarified expectations and obligations.
Manchester DEP (each
Where formal agreements did not exist, implementation of
supporting 4 schools).
the project was often more difficult and time consuming.
Education advisers in
Cheshire, Norfolk and The three year project plan became the basis for the
Suffolk provided development of annual and termly workplans. The latter
approximately 12 days per identified key areas of work and those responsible for
year each to the project. In carrying this out. The manner of implementation was
Manchester and Trafford largely left to the relevant individual(s). Informal and
this was approximately 6 formal exchange of information between the DECs greatly
days per year each. helped in developing ideas for local plans.

The project coordinator Although this level of delegation worked well, it got a
was allocated c. 0.5 fte to significant boost once DEC project staff met regularly on
provide liaison between the their own to discuss issues of particular concern to them.
different localities, organise
national workshops, project Delegation of responsibility also applied to the local use of
administration and planning, the project budget. Within a project-wide framework,
and to act as the central each DEC was given funds that were intended to meet the
point of contact. objectives. Barring a number of ‘national’ guidelines the
actual use of this delegated budget was up to each DEC.
Apart from DEC staff the
Project Management Group A system of regular reporting and joint planning developed
also involved heads of through termly meetings between each of the DEC project
education of Oxfam, Save staff members and the Coordinator, through national
the Children and UNICEF. workshops, and through Project Management Group
Their time involvement meetings. Locally this approach was replicated through
fluctuated over the three regular meetings and workshops involving DECs, advisers
years but on average it and schools.
involved approximately 0.1
fte per agency. Initially, quarterly monitoring forms and accounts provided
written feedback. During the second year, once systems
had been established, this was reduced to half-yearly
financial resources
reports.

In addition to personal The one gap that has been noted in this process was the
support from project staff absence of scheduled opportunities for informal sharing of
and advisers, each school experiences and issues between PMG members, although e-
had access to a total of mail correspondence was extensive, regular, and wide-
£2,500 over the three years. ranging. Annual review meetings (involving PMG, Education
This sum of money assisted advisers, Evaluator and Coordinator) were generally too
schools in implementing structured to accommodate informal sharing in depth.
their action plans:
purchasing relevant
resources, contracting
specialist outside support,
and obtaining supply cover.

Oxfam, Save the Children

and UNICEF jointly
communication: spreading the word
Communication about the A project leaflet was produced during the late autumn of
project was planned to 2002. Providing information about the project’s aim and
include: intentions, it was circulated to all secondary schools in the
five authorities, to all DECs and education authorities in

a project leaflet England and to the NGDOs’ secondary school mailing lists.

a regularly updated The leaflet can still be used as a discussion starter on
website ‘developing citizenship with a global dimension’.

contacts with relevant
statutory and voluntary The first version of the project website was launched
education bodies during the spring term of 2003. It developed the key issues
outlined in the leaflet through examples taken from existing

a project conference
publications. The purpose was partly to inform and partly

other project
to provide ‘starter ideas’ to teachers interested in
documentation,
introducing a global dimension to Citizenship education.
including reports for
Initial thoughts of using the site as a means of exchanging
external use
ideas between project teachers were dropped when it
became clear that many were not into internet
Responsibility for planning
communications. To date the site has been updated twice
and for much of the
to include examples of project school experiences.
implementation rested with
the coordinator, with
Development and particularly promotion of the website was
implementation supported
regularly de-prioritised: other activities took up more time
locally by the DECs and
than planned and were felt to be of greater importance or
nationally by the three
urgency. This meant that a) use of the site has not been
NGDOs.
extensive and b) we did not create a ‘community’ of
interested teachers outside the project. In turn this means
that the website will not have met its potential in the
dissemination of project learning. Although NGDO websites
may be able to rectify this to some extent, resources should
have been made available – as originally planned - to
develop the use of the site.

Contacts with relevant education bodies and organisations

were largely developed on an incidental basis. Until the
spring of 2005 no significant project experiences had been
collated, and it would have been difficult to promote the
project’s learning for example to education policy makers
earlier than that.

One of the aims of the conference (July 2005) was to take

this aspect of the project forward. The conference aimed to
attract a minimum of 120 paying participants (incl.
teachers, curriculum coordinators and policy makers).
However, despite extensive publicity to all secondary
schools, key policy makers, and education authorities, the
conference was a ‘no show’. The timing of the event (just
before the summer holidays), a relatively narrow focus (on
the project alone), and the inability of teachers to obtain
day release were possibly key reasons why the take up was
very low – too low to make the event viable.

Two booklets were published in May 2006; Taking Stock is a

history, reflection and critique of the Developing Citizenship
project, Pupils’ Voices is a synopsis of pupils’ views and
comments from their participation in the project’s activities.
working together: the good and the challenging
Local Education Authority advisers, development education centre (DEC) staff and
development organisation (NGDO) managers gave the following feedback on the collaboration
of organisations in the Developing citizenship project.

What have you found useful or worthwhile What are or have been key challenges for
about the collaboration of organisations in collaboration in this project?
this project?

Building up whole-school interest for the

Collaboration between the voluntary DE ‘global dimension’ when this is not a school
sector and the statutory education sector: priority and has to compete for time and
building experiences relevant to the DfID attention with numerous official – and often
funded Enabling Effective Support disparate - initiatives and priorities.
initiative.

Working with a wide range of schools,

Experience of working with secondary agencies, DECs, advisers, project plans and
schools - practical insight into how reports: “… the most stressful project I’ve
Citizenship is organised in different ever been involved in… Such a hell of a lot
secondary schools. to get your head around.”

Realisation that “teachers know what they
Change in schools takes time – much longer
can do within their school setting … than anticipated, and three years is
External agencies should not … come in and probably too short for new ideas to be
offer what they think are ‘the answers.” embedded.

Getting to know development agencies/
Drawing attention to specific issues – such

DECs as partners, instead of as funders/ as children’s rights – when, in a project such
grant recipients. as this, the choice of issue is with teachers.

Developing practical and close working
The need for more thorough discussion on
arrangements between DECs and evaluation and its practical use during and
LEAs/Healthy Schools Partnership and a after project implementation.
good understanding of mutual strengths and
purposes.
Sustaining the interest and motivation of
project teachers and schools and supporting

Building ideas for future collaborative work them in developing these issues further
with schools. after the project is finished.

Scaling up and replicating the approach of

the project to involve other teachers and
schools.

14
evaluation: learning for development
The Developing Evaluation provides “a means to enhance our learning, to
citizenship project plan share our practice, … to maintain the change and to identify
identified various indicators more effective ways of practicing …” 7
that should help monitor
the progress of the project. Attention was already given to the need for evaluation
Verbal and written reports during the project design phase: the log-frame in particular
from the various ‘project identified various indicators to be used. Details of the
actors’, helped to develop approach to evaluation were, however, left vague. A reason
the project during its for this was given in the project plan: “Because this project
implementation. relies significantly on collaboration between various actors
… detailed monitoring and evaluation planning can only take
Evaluations would give place once those actors can be personally identified.”
further indications of project
progress. These would not Although in itself a valid statement it provided an excuse for
only draw on internal reports not getting to grips with the kind of evaluation that would
and assessments but also be most appropriate. The result was an evaluation process
obtain information through: that project actors felt was not as useful as it could have
been – at least not during the implementation phase of the

interviews and surveys project.
with a range of
stakeholders, and Nevertheless, the wealth of project information collated by
project actors and analyses carried out by the evaluator

baseline and endline offer significant learning opportunities for schools, advisers,
surveys. DECs, and NGDOs.

It was the intention that For development education organisations there are various
monitoring and evaluation learning points and questions to address. The project has
assessments would be the started to address these points but further thought, action
basis from which to promote and reflection is needed on each of them.8
‘project learning’:

Participating schools have made a range of positive
“disseminating the changes as a result of their involvement in the project.
approach, development and However, change in schools i) takes time and ii) is
outcomes to other varied and variable. Which ‘drivers’ are most likely to
practitioners, and [informing stimulate whole-school change and what role can DE
and influencing] policy organisations play in that process?
decision makers”.
Teacher and student perceptions of student participation
in teaching and learning and in the school vary
significantly. How can outside agencies support the
development of meaningful student involvement in
school life and school development? How can the use of
‘rights’ education encourage and enable meaningful
student participation?

Students, teachers and schools benefit from problem
posing and solving, in both teaching and learning. How
can development education organisations support
schools in this without imposing their own solutions (to
development, to rights, to introducing a global
dimension)? How can this approach help to develop
‘learning schools’?

Valuable lessons can be learned from the Developing
Citizenship experiences. How this learning is made
explicit, and incorporated into planning cycles and
dissemination plans of participating organisations, local
education authorities and schools is the next challenge.

See also pages 23 - 29

15
project learning: issues and questions for
organisations
Based on the experiences of the project this is a summary of selected issues, conclusions and
questions relevant to the role of ‘outside’ organisations who aim to support ‘in-school’ change.

educational intent
Organisations outside the education system, who offer support to teachers and schools, need
to be clear about their interest in education. What do they see as the broader purpose of
education, and how does their involvement contribute to that purpose? This clarification helps
organisations 1) to be honest with those who are responsible for the education of young
people, 2) to develop a rationale and purpose for the projects they offer, 3) to define and
deliver projects that contribute to the educational aims of schools as well as to the
organisation’s own broader aims.

collaborating in development
Outside organisations are not responsible for the day to day education of young people –
“teachers know what they can do within their school setting … external agencies should not …
come in and offer what they think are ‘the answers’.” They can offer perspectives, teaching
and learning resources, skills and experiences of value to teachers and young people.
Through genuine collaboration and mutual learning new education frameworks and
approaches can be developed which benefit teachers, students, schools and outside
organisations.

questioning content
Sustained educational or personal action on local and global development, human rights or
relationships with the wider world requires an understanding of the complexity of the issues.
Outside organisations can offer different perspectives on the issues, and provide evidence of
the impact that policies and conditions can have on basic human rights and sustainable
development. But if they promote the ‘right’ answers that does not help project participants to
develop their own understanding, points of view and commitments to educational and
personal action. Projects need to support participants in this process.

building communities
Projects should explicitly aim to contribute to building communities of teachers interested in
education with a global dimension. How can follow-on projects sustain the developments
started in one project and build on them by engaging with new participants and different
perspectives? How can a broad community be created across a range of programmes and
projects - without necessarily having recourse to face-to-face participation or to a one-size-
fits-all approach?

value for money

The Developing Citizenship project experience suggests that collaborative projects, involving
NGDOs, working with DECs and statutory education bodies, give better value for money in
supporting ‘in-school’ change than either NGDOs or education authorities working on their
own.

learning for the future

N.B. Project implementation without evaluation is like reinventing the wheel again and again.
How can learning derived from a project be made explicit in the planning of future work?
What are the most effective measures for disseminating learning to colleagues and
counterparts across their own, and to other organisations involved in development education?
Are organisations genuinely interested in putting lessons learned from project evaluations into
the planning cycle of future projects and collaborative programmes?

16
project finance: value for money?
The Developing During the first three years of the project expenditure
citizenship project plan and totalled £446k. Since some expenses were postponed (see
budget of January 2002 left hand column) cash expenditure has been below budget,
envisaged a three year but in-kind expenditure (largely relating to input provided
project costing £450k, of by NGDOs and education advisers) was well above budget:
which approximately two- an indication of the commitment to the project by the
thirds would be provided by individuals and organisations concerned.
DFID’s Development
Awareness Fund and one- Leaving aside ‘national’ project expenses, cash resources
third by the three NGDOs devoted to local work with schools have been £6,000 per
(some of these latter costs school per project year: significantly lower than would have
were in-kind contributions). been the case if this work had been done by either NGDO or
education authority staff.
Cost allocations were
budgeted as follows: Average expenditure per school per year
Theoretical Theoretical
Management [in-kind] 9% Actual NGDO LEA or HSP
Coordination & admin 20% expenditure expenditure expenditure
Local project staff 38% Project staff: 10 days input £2,060 £2,750 £4,000
School based work 12%
Education Advisers: 2 days
Local workshops &
input £800 £800 £800
meetings 7%
School action plan £939 £939 £939
National workshops &
Local workshops & meetings £408 £408 £408
meetings 4%
Website 4% Share of project coordination
Publications & reports 2% and administration (estimate) £1,800 £1,800 £1,800
Evaluations 4% Expenditure
£6,007 £6,697 £7,947
per school per year
Towards the end of the
second project year it The sums shown include those activities that involved or
became clear that objectives directly benefited project teachers and schools and include
relevant to the an estimated share of overall project coordination and
dissemination of project administration costs.
experiences and learning
would not be achieved Within the context of a secondary school budget £6,000 per
within the three year period. year is a relatively insignificant sum for a project that:

raises teachers’ confidence and expertise
As a result, project funders
increases a school’s familiarity with the relevance of
agreed to a nine-month a global dimension to education
extension until March 2006:
illustrates the value of Citizenship education in
focussing on the school improvement.
dissemination of project A similar approach spread across all secondary schools in
experiences whilst working England would, in theory, cost around £18 million per year.9
within the original budget.
However, value for money calculation not only needs to
That work is in progress and take into account money spent, but also achievements –
involves the writing and and to compare these achievements with ‘industry
development of a standards’. Given the paucity of evaluations in the
publication and the development education field, comparisons of the
organisation of local effectiveness of this ‘global dimension project’ with others
dissemination events during are unfortunately difficult to make. In their absence we are
2006. left – as I hope will become clear in this and in the
evaluation reports – with an added value due to a
collaborative, school needs focussed approach, involving
teachers and senior managers working with voluntary and
statutory sector support, backed up by NGDO programmes.

17
sustaining development: what’s next?
Since the autumn of 2002 much has been achieved by schools collaborating with ‘outside’
organisations in the Developing citizenship project. Schools have developed a number of
tools (such as the ‘benchmarking’ exercise10) with which to continue their development of the
curriculum, student participation and school policies. These tools, if applied, can help sustain
attention, motivation, learning and expansion of a global dimension in the Citizenship
curriculum and in school organisation.

Unfortunately when the pressures of other initiatives and work are massive, sustaining
motivation can be a difficult business - particularly where teachers feel isolated. As with
enhancement or other one-off activities in the classroom, inspiration from a one-off project
can enthuse and motivate - but the inspiration may only last a short time and the impact may
be short-term.11

Ideally what is needed are follow-on projects or regular exposure for schools to the range of
services, resources and training that local development education centres or the education
teams of NGOs can offer, that can continue to support former project teachers, and also bring
in other teachers, perspectives and experiences.

Based on the experience of Developing Citizenship, the characteristics of such projects and
provisions would include:

collaboration: with clear terms of reference and sustained contact between voluntary
DE organisations and the statutory education system

collaborative development and learning: building a framework of understanding,

shared perspectives and action

agreement: that outside organisations will support teachers and schools but are not
doing their job for them

acknowledgement: that the educational needs and contexts of teachers, schools and
young people are the starting points for these projects

self-awareness: recognising the reasons why we are involved in education, openness

about these reasons, and willingness to debate them

embedding: of what is gained and learned in school so that it can positively influence
organisational policies and practices – development education projects are not meant to
be one-off, time limited exercises without continuing impact and follow up.

Time and effort, on the part of both organisations and schools, will be required to develop
ideas for the future into feasible, fundable and funded programmes. If outside organisations
wish for and expect sustained attention to the global dimension in schools, with its important
complex of inter-related issues, they need to ensure that they are, first of all, effectively
addressing the impact of past programmes on their own work.

HJF October 2005

18
Developing citizenship
benchmarks for secondary schools in a global context

Global connections in young people’s lives are increasing rapidly: through societal changes,
exposure to different cultures, economics, politics, religion, travel and mobility, media and
communications.
This poses challenges and creates opportunities for teachers and schools: providing learning
experiences and an environment that reflect the local relevance of global issues, and the
provision of a global dimension within which local issues and experiences can be understood.

The challenges and potential of global connections are relevant to the whole school as well as to
individual subjects.

The following pages provide a series of signposts or benchmarks that can help teachers
and schools to

reflect on,

evaluate current practice against,

plan responses to

these global-local challenges and opportunities.

Three core areas have been selected. They reflect the emphasis of the Developing citizenship
project: working with secondary schools on introducing whole-school development perspectives,
human rights principles and a global dimension through:

curriculum planning and delivery – providing young people with active

experiences of citizenship in a globalised society

young people’s participation and action – creating opportunities for young

people in their school and local community

school ethos and policy development – reflecting the global context of local
communities

The following pages are not a once and for all ‘standard’ against which all ‘global practice’ in
secondary schools can be tested. Instead they aim to provide guidance and realistic measures
that can be taken in school for developing educational experiences that are relevant to young
people as local, national and global citizens.

19
Curriculum planning and delivery

Recognised Established Sustained

A global dimension: The school: The school: Pupils:
making local-global • audits the whole • is able to identify • are managing
connections; curriculum against the delivery of a the delivery of
developing relevant the Citizenship global dimension global
understanding and orders and across its citizenship
skills; providing against different subject activities and in
experiences of active opportunities for areas exceptional
citizenship promoting a • provides cases, the
global dimension opportunities for curriculum
• identifies staff all teachers to Teachers:
professional be engaged in • have integrated
development professional a global
needs in development dimension in
Citizenship opportunities their teaching
education with a • has identified a and learning
global dimension specific person strategies and
• seeks whole to monitor are developing
school input on implementation and delivering
opportunities for and to enable these
‘global citizenship’ whole staff
experiences in the learning and
school development of
a global
dimension
Learning approaches The school: The school: The school:
and teaching • recognises the • offers • has established
resources importance of opportunities for teaching and
enquiry based, all pupils to be learning
participatory involved in and methodologies
learning experience that focus on
approaches active learner
• seeks to build and citizenship participation
develop staff • uses teaching • involves pupils
confidence in and learning in planning,
being creative in resources that delivering and
the delivery of the focus on making evaluating the
curriculum local-global curriculum
• recognises the connections, • has an effective
need for specific understanding assessment
budget allocations and skills process in place
and applies
learning from
this
External agencies The school: The school: The school:
• seeks to involve • has a policy for • works in
relevant external engagement partnership with
agencies and the with external young people to
local and agencies in enable them to
international curriculum manage the
community in development participation of
supporting its and delivery external
curriculum work • ensures that agencies in the
staff are aware delivery of the
and make use curriculum
of support from
external
agencies and
communities
20
Young people’s participation and action

Recognised Established Sustained

Participation The school: The school: Pupils:
• recognises the • encourages and • participate in
relevance of enables pupils to peer education
Article 12 of UN translate their work and
Convention on learning into support systems
the Rights of the active • contribute to the
Child for the participation in school governing
operation of the the school and body
school [“Children local community • are members of,
have the right to • has a structure or contribute to,
say what they and process in the Young
think should place to facilitate People’s
happen when participation, for Parliament
adults are all pupils, at all • develop and
making decisions levels in the manage their
that affect them, school. own democratic
and to have their • has established a contributions to
opinions taken framework and the organisation
into account”] processes for and structures of
• recognises the regular and the school
educational structured pupil
value of representation at
promoting pupil senior school .
involvement in management and
local-global governor level
interests and
activities
• carries out an
audit amongst
the whole school
population to
establish
opportunities for
and interest in
pupil
participation and
action in the
school and local
community
• is aware of
different
strategies and
models for
encouraging
participation

21
School ethos and policy

Recognised Established Sustained

School improvement The school: The school: The school:
planning • improvement plan • mission and/or • monitors and
includes reference ethos statement evaluates the
to the value of a makes clear global
global dimension references to the dimension
in the education of importance of a annually with
young people global dimension the whole
• improvement plan in the education school
includes plans to of young people community
develop • consults all staff
opportunities for and pupils, or
pupils and staff to their
develop their representatives,
understanding of in devising and
the global informing the
dimension and of inclusion of a
citizenship in a global dimension
globalised society in the school
improvement
plan.
The school The school: The school: The school:
environment • provides a • has an • has established
welcoming and established structures and
clean environment process for processes
• displays positive regular which enable
images of people environmental pupil
from various audits of the representatives
cultures, different school and its to co-manage
genders, age grounds the care and
groups and • enables all development of
abilities young people to the school
contribute to environment
managing the .
school displays
and
environment
Wider Community The school: The school: The school:
(local & global • recognises the • allocates staff • develops and
community) contribution which and pupil’ time, makes
the wider and relevant educational use
community can resources to of a sustained
make to develop and link with a
enhancing the initiate school in
global dimension community links: another area or
in the education of locally, nationally country and has
young people and a programme in
• seeks to involve internationally place for joint
the local and • organises an learning
international annual open day Pupils:
community in celebrating the • work with others
highlighting its school in the in the school in
connections with local and managing
the wider world international relationships
community with local and
international
communities

22
 Developing Citizenship project evaluation
1. Preamble

What follows has been distilled from the end of project evaluation document, the Developing
Citizenship Project Evaluation Report (McKenzie, 2005)1. The end of project evaluation
drew from a number of sources of information including:
• a focus group conducted with participating Norfolk and Suffolk teachers;
• exit interviews with senior managers and contact teachers in participating schools;
• senior manager and/or contact teacher interviews2;
• pupil interviews;
• school documents including policies, improvement plans and schemes of work;
• benchmark assessments of participating schools by the DEC staff involved in the
project;
• exit interviews with DEC, agency and LEA staff associated with the project.
A number of questions and recommendations emerged out of the evaluation, each is
amplified below by extracts from either the school or pupil reports.

The evaluation explored a number of considerations.

First and foremost was the question of whether, and in what way, the project had addressed
its core aim of implementing ‘whole school change’ in participating schools?
Second was the question of whether project-induced change that had been achieved was
sustainable?
Third was the question of what the diverse actors involved in the project had learnt from it and
whether they felt able to take forward such learning into future work?
Fourth was the question of what the pupils who had been interviewed felt they had learnt
about global issues, questions and problems, and whether they noticed any changes that
might be attributed to their schools having been involved in Developing Citizenship for three
years?

Developing Citizenship retained a project evaluator from start to finish of the project. Once
the focus of the evaluation had been agreed it was possible to collect and analyse a
substantial amount of base and endline data from participating schools. Such data indicated
what change had taken place among the different secondary schools taking part in the project
and whether such change was likely to be sustainable. While what was accomplished would
undoubtedly ‘enhance young people’s experiences of citizenship in a globalised society’ (cf.
this report page 4), across one or more subjects and one or more years, ‘whole school
change’ in the sense of achieving comprehensive and coherent change remained at the level
of aspiration rather than reality. That said, an appreciable number of participating schools
have put in place practices and policies likely to sustain the legacy of Developing Citizenship
and most actors involved in the project have learnt a great deal about how to secure
widespread and lasting change in secondary schools. Project actors at the ‘chalk face’ of the
project, such as staff from the three DECs involved, have already started to carry forward
‘project learning’, while others may still need to devote time to reflexive learning to make long-
term use of project experience.

The pupil base and end-line surveys were hampered by DEC staff being unable to talk to the
same groups of pupils across all schools in 2003 and 2005. Even so, it soon became clear
that pupils and teachers do not always share the same perspectives on change in schools.
This suggests that schools need to explore how they can find out what their pupils genuinely
think and feel about whatever changes are taking place. Finally, the implementation of pupil

1
Pdf versions of the full Developing Citizenship Project Evaluation Report and Developing Citizenship Pupil Evaluation
Report can be obtained by e-mailing: [email protected]
2
These replicated, in 2005, the questions posed in the senior manager and teacher baseline survey conducted in the
summer of 2003. A pupil base- and endline was also conducted at the same time.
23
 democracy across the curriculum in its broadest sense remains a challenge. Yet secondary
pupils are adept at spotting tokenism and are well aware of less than ‘root and branch’
approaches to pupil participation.

2. Key questions

Despite ‘whole school change’ having been an important emphasis in the Developing
Citizenship Project it is important to recognise that the changes implemented have varied
widely from school to school. Some schools participating in Developing Citizenship have
made or are in the process of making substantial changes across a broad array of subjects
and curriculum activity3. Others have affected or are affecting more modest changes in fewer
subjects and areas of provision.
The critical question is what ‘drivers’ are most likely to stimulate whole school change at
secondary level, and can the Developing Citizenship project model help us to identify drivers
likely to be common across the range of schools?

Norfolk and Suffolk teacher focus group

The East Anglian teachers thought that the most significant change was in ‘curriculum and teaching and
learning’ and that the quality of such change could be assessed by ‘curriculum review’ involving teacher
observation of such factors as pupil participation/discussion/attitudes. All thought such change could be
replicated in other schools. Having a supportive senior management team was seen as important to getting
the work done and including global citizenship/perspectives in school improvement programmes (SIPs) was
seen as key to sustaining the changes that are made. OFSTED inspections might help teachers make the
case for improvements to citizenship – and by implication – global citizenship teaching and getting change
embedded in SIPs. The value of policy received a more diffuse response. School governors’ involvement in
writing policy could provide added-value but the devil was not so much in the detail, but the implementation
and review of policy. Developing Citizenship Project Evaluation Report (2005a:7)

• Though participation in Developing Citizenship has clearly led to a great many changes in
participating schools, it is difficult to discern how, particularly from the documentary
evidence provided, such change will be sustained. How can policy and practice change be
made more prominent and be kept subject to review in school documents and planning
cycles?

Shortcomings of documentary evidence

It is important to note that school documents vary widely. School Improvement or

Development Plans (SIPs) can be informative or work at such a broad brush-stroke level
that their significance evades outsiders. Some SIPs adopt a whole-school emphasis and
detail department objectives and planned action, while the more general SIPs may be
complemented by departmental plans. Policy documents can, similarly, take very
different forms. Some adopt a procedural stance (as in how race equality will be
defended) while others are more concerned with curricular intervention (as in how
Citizenship will feature across the curriculum). Last, but by no means least, school
documents have variable ‘shelf-lives’; some are put in place (and presumably kept under
review) for five years while others seem to be expected to last only a year. Many give no
indication of the review process. This means that documents intended to showcase
systemic commitment to global citizenship/perspectives may not do so particularly well.
No schools supplied any documents associated with Specialist School Status, yet a
number of interviewees said that global citizenship/perspectives was an important
feature in bidding for such status and one said that Specialist School Status plans could
have a shelf-life of up to eight years. Ibid (2005a:9-10)

3
Seen here as the curriculum in its broadest sense i.e. a total structure of ideas and activities developed by
participating secondary schools to meet the learning needs of their pupils.
24
 Three types of change

Data collected at the East Anglian focus group plus the reading and re-reading of the exit
interviews conducted by DEC staff made it possible to distinguish three types of change:
1. Short or long term curriculum change: whole school/year, specific/subject, specific/extra-
curricular;
2. Possible indicators of sustainability: plans to associate global citizenship with Specialist School
Status bids (which, as one teacher pointed out, could be made for a period as long as eight
years), inclusion in the SIP/s (whole school and/or departmental) cycle; the presence of
‘champions’ such as Citizenship Co-ordinators and/or other key staff; Citizenship taught as
core/discrete lessons; Short-course GCSE Citizenship (the EdExcel syllabus has a strong
emphasis on global perspectives);
3. Curriculum enrichment activities that may or may not be of lasting value: one off/collapsed
curriculum days/events, visits and assemblies.

In general, the teachers/SMT interviewed did not comprehensively describe the change that had
taken place, so the fact that an interviewee did not speak of a particular change does not mean
that it has not taken place. Nor was it generally possible to discern whether, for example, the
curriculum change described is embedded in any sort of systemic planning and review process
(however the documentary evidence of Developing Citizenship Project (DCP) impact supplied by
the schools, which will be dealt with in Section 1.2, throws some light upon this).

However, most interviewees were able to cite examples of change and it was clear that while year
and subject-specific change had taken place, whole-school change continues to be both a
challenge and part of an ongoing process. Interviewees tended to cite changes that they
themselves have been involved in: developing schemes of work (SOW/s); organising special days
and events; establishing Fair Trade initiatives; so change associated with colleagues’ endeavours
may have been missed out. Possible indicators of sustainability emerged from time-to-time, but
were not generally discussed as strategic aspects of change. Where such indicators did emerge,
they tended to crop up in relation to Specialist School Status and/or core and GCSE Citizenship
teaching rather than SIP/s. Ibid (2005a:7-8)

o Pupil opinion seems, at times, to be at variance with the perceptions expressed by

teachers and senior managers (SMT) participating in the Developing Citizenship Project.
How can pupil participation in the learning process and school life in general
not only be improved but be regularly reviewed by both staff and pupils?

Pupil perspectives on school councils

What can schools do to ensure that all pupils feel part of and have access to the democratic workings of
their schools? Dissatisfaction with the school council was another frequently-aired interview topic. Lower
ability pupils tend to be more dissatisfied with their level of involvement in school life than higher ability
pupils, suggesting that pupil democracy needs to be made more inclusive. Counterbalanced against this,
many pupils said that they would welcome the opportunity to become more involved in the workings of
their school. Developing Citizenship Project Pupil Evaluation Report (2005b:4)

The DEC staff involved in Developing Citizenship believe that most participating schools have
reached the ‘recognised’ and/or ‘established’ points in the global citizenship benchmarking
tables4. The ‘sustained’ benchmark level has, by and large, not been attained by project
schools. This raises two interrelated questions.
(1) Is it realistic to expect sustainable secondary-level whole school change to be achieved
over a three year period?
(2) Should secondary whole-school curriculum development projects apply for a longer
term of funding?

25
Staff perspectives on the benchmarking exercise

The Developing Citizenship benchmarks were developed at the February 2004 project workshop as a
means of enabling project participants to consider what advances had been made in the process of
introducing global citizenship into project. It was agreed at the project staff interviews in summer 2005
that it would be a useful exercise for DEC staff to complete a retrospective (2002/03) and an end-line set
of benchmark tables for each school. These could be compared and contrasted with data collected from
teachers/SMT and pupils.

DEC staff believed that the majority of schools participating in Developing Citizenship had reached the
‘recognised’ and/or ‘established’ points in the DCP benchmarking tables. They considered that a ‘sustained’
level of response has, by and large, not been attained by project schools. Progress has been slow and can
be attributed to a range of factors including: the experimental and evolutionary nature of Developing
Citizenship; the project’s emphasis on whole school change; the customary pace of change in secondary
schools; the size of the schools involved and associated communication difficulties; competing professional
and curricular demands; the lack of time to meet, plan and carry out agreed change; the peripheral status
of Citizenship and, specifically, global citizenship. Op.cit (2005a:12)

Sample ‘recognised’ global dimension benchmark

criteria
• Developing Citizenship was
based upon a series of evolving
The school: ‘partnerships’ with Development

Audits the whole curriculum against the Citizenship
Education Centres (DECs) being
orders and against opportunities for promoting a very much at the core of
global dimension relationships with schools and

Identifies staff development needs in Citizenship local education authorities
Education with a global dimension

Seeks whole school input on opportunities for (LEAs).
‘global citizenship’ experiences in school • Did the project’s flexibility over-

Recognises the importance of enquiry-based, emphasise organic working
participatory learning approaches

Seeks to build and develop staff confidence in relationships at the expense of
being creative in the delivery of the curriculum end results?

Improvement plan includes plans to develop • Would the setting of coherent
opportunities for pupils and staff to develop their
understanding of the global dimension and of policy and practice goals at the
citizenship in a globalised society outset have constrained the
work or led to clearer and more
Sample ‘established’ global dimension benchmark
criteria
coherent impacts across
participating schools?
The school:

Is able to identify the delivery of a global

dimension across its different subject areas

Has identified a specific person to monitor
implementation and to enable whole staff learning
and development of a global dimension

Uses teaching and learning resources that focus on
making local-global connections, understanding
and skills

Ensures that staff are aware and make use of
available support from external agencies and
communities

Mission and/or ethos statement makes clear
references to the importance of a global dimension
in the education of young people

Allocates staff and pupil time and relevant
resources to develop and initiate community links
locally, nationally and internationally.
Op.cit (2005a:29-40)

26
 The challenge of implementing whole- The challenge of implementing whole-
school change school change

Project staff perspectives Contact teacher and senior management

perspectives
…having learnt how to work toward whole school
change in secondary schools, project staff had no Most interviewees were able to cite
illusions about the difficulties associated with examples of change and it was clear that
maintaining such change. while year and subject-specific change had
However, human resources, internal provision taken place, whole-school change1 continues
and climatic factors were all seen as helping to be both a challenge and part of an
maintain change. Having a sympathetic SMT, ongoing process.
working with more than one contact teacher Interviewees tended to cite changes that
(champion) and maintaining effective working they themselves have been involved in:
relations with LEA advisers were all seen as key developing schemes of work (SOW/s);
human elements. organising special days and events;
Internal provision including schemes of work, establishing Fair Trade initiatives; so change
policies, INSET/CPD, continued working contact associated with colleagues’ endeavours may
with DECs and global education being seen as have been missed out. Possible indicators of
‘good education’ were all seen as significant. sustainability emerged from time-to-time,
but were not generally discussed as strategic
The DFES, OSFTED and the LEA have the aspects of change. Where such indicators did
capacity to create favourable conditions in which emerge, they tended to crop up in relation to
global emphases can flourish. Specialist School Status and/or core and
Op.cit (2005a:14) GCSE Citizenship teaching rather than SIP/s.
Op.cit (2005a:8)

The majority of project participants are able to offer examples of the learning they have
experienced. How can such learning be disseminated in such a way as to not only impact upon
the future plans of project participants and their colleagues but also statutory and non-statutory
counterparts?

3. Recommendations

o Teachers and senior managers associated with the Developing Citizenship Project should
compare and contrast their perceptions of the impact of the project with what sample
groups of their pupils have said about ‘global citizenship’, ‘citizenship and pupil
participation’.
o Project schools should also compare and contrast base and end-line pupil data.

Pupil base - and end-line plan and questions

Groups of pupils were selected for interview by the contact teachers in each school. Participating schools
were asked to provide two Year 8 groups comprising (up to) six pupils judged to be of ‘higher’ and of
‘lower’ ability1 for interviews who could be interviewed again in Year 10. Co-educational schools were
asked to supply groups with a 50:50 male to female ratio. Semi-structured (multiple choice) questions
were posed enabling interviewers to explore:
o the contribution that, pupils say, their school makes toward their global learning
o the contribution that, pupils say, they would like their school to make toward their global learning
o the form and content that, according to the pupils, Citizenship takes in their school
o the form that, according to the pupils, pupil participation and democracy takes in their school
o ways that pupils consider themselves to be actively involved in school life Op.cit (2005b:6)

27
 Pupil perspectives on citizenship teaching

Pupils don’t always seem clear about why they are working on particular topics and what the relevance of
such topics is to their lives. An appreciable number don’t seem happy with the way Citizenship lessons are
taught, noting that teachers’ approaches can vary substantially, from those who rely on worksheets and
videos to those who try to engage the class (rather than more manageable small groups) in discussion.

…’We do videos and worksheets and exercises – not enough discussion.’ ‘Want to discuss more in
smaller groups.’ ‘Then you don’t get criticised and it’s easier to give your view point.’…

It would seem that here too is another aspect of work in need of further attention in project schools. Op.cit
(2005b:9)

Pupil participation and ability

School councils are regarded with varying degrees of enthusiasm by the pupils interviewed. It is not
possible from the pupil base – and the end-line surveys to detect whether Developing Citizenship has had
any impact on these school councils. As with the UNICEF pupil surveys (McKenzie, 2001a, 2002) it would
seem that higher ability pupils tend to engage more in the life of the school than lower ability pupils:

Interviewer observation: ‘Three of the (higher ability) pupils interviewed have been pupils of the
month, two have been used to do peer mentoring and three are prefects who report on and
mediate problems as well as keep corridors clear.’

The majority SMT and teacher interviewees described pupil action/participation and increased
commitment/enthusiasm on the part of pupils and staff as important benefits deriving from participation (in
Developing Citizenship). Op.cit (2005b:11)

Learning derived from Developing Citizenship should be clearly and visibly embedded in the
policy and practice plans of participating schools and should be actively disseminated to
colleagues who were not so closely involved with the project. The Developing Citizenship end of
project evaluation reports should be made widely available and discussed in project schools.

‘Project learning’ – LEA advisers

All considered that Developing Citizenship had enhanced relationships with participating schools and helped
cement DEC – LEA partnerships which were seen as important and rewarding. The teachers taking part
were generally seen as increasing in confidence and competence in the delivery of global perspectives.
That said, it was also agreed that the success of LEA partnerships are very much predicated upon the
presence of supportive advisers rather than structural arrangements:

All three advisers agreed that their LEA had made some sort of contribution toward (the) DCP but
most of what had taken place had been driven for their support for the project.

However global citizenship was introduced into Cheshire LEA’s Healthy Schools Standards, suggesting that
individuals in LEAs could initiate changes capable of producing sustainable effects. All valued the
knowledge and expertise of the DEC workers they had been working with and hoped to maintain and
develop collaborative relations into the future.

Learning points included the need to conduct better initial research into opportunities in schools and LEAs
and ensuring that participating advisers have dedicated time to work on future projects. The advisers had
used various means to disseminate Developing Citizenship to LEA colleagues as well as to schools in their
LEAs and seemed to see this as something that could be built upon. Op.cit (2005a:15)

The development education centres (DECs), agencies (Oxfam, Save the Children and UNICEF)
and local education authorities (LEAs) involved in Developing Citizenship should likewise
consider how learning derived from the project can be built into their planning cycles as well as
being actively disseminated to colleagues and counterparts across their own and other
organisations and authorities.

28
 ‘Project learning’ - project staff

Though participating in a large-scale and long-term educational project and of experiencing ‘creativity with a
reality check’ was seen as valuable to all concerned, it was regarded, by project staff, as being especially
useful to Oxfam, Save the Children and UNICEF. Success hinged upon building interlocking networks of
working relationships, such as between the agencies and project staff, the Project-Co-ordinator and the DEC
workers, between the DEC workers, participating schools and LEA advisers. The DEC workers said they had
learnt a lot from this process and hoped to build such learning into future work. Capacities developed
included: diplomacy and negotiation skills; being able to mobilise teachers without doing the work (for them);
networking and task-sharing. Dispositions developed included: increased confidence; feeling of success – of
being part of something bigger; enjoyment – through, for example, taking part in project management
meetings. Though the DEC staff felt that their local level work had been largely successful, having a national
co-ordinator (Harm-Jan Fricke) to keep the bigger picture in sight was commended and appreciated.

However, having learnt how to work toward whole school change in secondary schools, project staff had no
illusions about the difficulties associated with maintaining such change. However, human resources, internal
provision and climatic factors were all seen as helping maintain change. Having a sympathetic SMT, working
with more than one contact teacher (champion) and maintaining effective working relations with LEA advisers
were all seen as key human elements. Internal provision including schemes of work, policies, INSET/CPD1,
continued working contact with DECs and global education being seen as ‘good education’1 were all seen as
significant. The DFES, OSFTED and the LEA have the capacity to create favourable conditions in which global
emphases can flourish. Op.cit. (2005a:13-14)

‘Project learning’ – agency staff (Oxfam, Save the Children, UNICEF)

(The staff interviewed) believed that agency sponsorship/association added status to Developing Citizenship
and helped DEC staff gain better access to senior management in schools. Conversely, the agencies
recognised that this local-level legitimacy had enabled them to gain practical insights into the workings of an
array of secondary schools across five LEAs. Surprise was expressed that the pace of change in schools
seemed to be no faster now than twenty years ago. Teachers’ knowledge of contemporary world affairs and
how to teach about global issues, questions and problems was also regarded with some surprise by agency
staff as having not progressed much. Op.cit (2005a:14)

While the agencies had taken advantage of some of the opportunities on offer to interface with participating
schools and pupils, it was tacitly acknowledged that visits, especially in the first year of operation, were a lost
opportunity. This resulted in the agencies being more conversant with the managerial workings of the project
than its practical application. Though agency staff could point to a number of ways that ‘success’ had been
achieved this tended to be generalised rather than specific. Op.cit (2005a:15)

All parties reading this report might consider how the questions raised above can inform the
planning, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of current and future formal education sector global
perspective programmes and projects. Since ‘project learning’ has been an important outcome in
Developing Citizenship it is essential that the lessons learnt and questions raised should impact
upon comparable initiatives.

-----oo0oo-----

Bibliography
Handscombe G and Macbeath J (2003) The Research Engaged School, Chelmsford: Essex County
Council

McKenzie A (2001a) Work in Progress: Education for Citizenship in Four Jurisdictions – interviews with
teachers and pupils in schools in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, London: UNICEF

McKenzie A (2002) Work in Progress II: Education for Citizenship in Four Nations – follow-up interviews
with teachers and pupils in schools in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, London: UNICEF

Aileen McKenzie 9.3.06

29
acknowledgements
The Developing citizenship project involved a wide range of people, including teachers, students,
education advisers, agency and development education centre staff. Thanks are due to all of them and in
particular to:

development organisation and development education centre staff

Sandy Betlem, NEAD, Norwich Heather Jarvis, UNICEF, London
Pete Davis, Oxfam, Oxford Topsy Page, DEP, Manchester
Ange Grunsell, Oxfam, Oxford Anne Strachan, DEP, Manchester
Andrew Hutchinson, Save the Children, London Heather Swainston, Cheshire DEC, Chester

education authority and healthy schools partnership advisers

Vanessa Brown, Healthy Schools Partnership, Pat Simmons,
Manchester Cheshire Children’s Services
Carol Garrett, Suffolk Education Department Vanessa Tucker, Trafford Education Service
David Sheppard, Norfolk Children’s Services Christine Woods, Norfolk Children’s Services
(assigned to Suffolk Children’s Services)

project coordinator evaluator

Harm-Jan Fricke Aileen McKenzie

teachers
Alex Atherton, Jill Napier,
Hethersett High School, Norfolk Flegg High School, Norfolk
John Awty, Annie Reyburn,
Stoke High School, Suffolk Hethersett High School, Norfolk
Lynn Brindley, Clare Rogers,
Eaton Bank High School, Cheshire Stoke High School, Suffolk
Jane Cawood, Janet Smith,
Newall Green High School, Manchester Congleton High School, Cheshire
Mike Copperwheat, Janet Spurrell,
Diss High School, Norfolk Altrincham Girls’ Grammar School
Donna Dodson, Jane Townsend,
Benjamin Britten High School, Suffolk Whalley Range High School, Manchester
Maggie Eldridge, Martin Wilcock,
Hartford High School, Cheshire Broadoak High School, Trafford
Rosanna Ellis, Brian Singleton,
Diss High School, Norfolk Hartford High School, Cheshire
Janet Forster, Phil Spencer,
Rudheath High School, Cheshire Kirkley High School, Suffolk
Patrick Harrison, Chris Sweetman,
Notre Dame High School, Norfolk Notre Dame High School, Norfolk
Scott Holder,
Chantry High School, Suffolk

funders
Department for International Development, Oxfam, Save the Children and UNICEF for cash support.
Participating education authorities and healthy schools partnership for in-kind support.

and
Is Allen and Lucy Stephens (Oxfam, for administrative support), Kathy Bramble (for critical support and
editorial comments), Catherine Casolani (NEAD, for pupil surveys and critical support), Laura Gilchrist
(M.E.E.N., for school support in particular the ‘Earth Summit’), Kay Humphrey (Golden Orb, for website
maintenance), Kelvin Jenkins (Oxfam, for leaflets and website design).

30
Notes:
1
See the project website, www.developingcitizenship.org.uk for evaluation reports developed by Aileen
McKenzie.

2
DFID - Oxfam Partnership Programme Agreement 2005 – 2011, section on ‘Development Education’,
source DFID website August 2005
3
DFID - Save the Children Partnership Programme Agreement; 2005 - 2011, section on ‘Development
Awareness’, source: DFID website August 2005
4
UNICEF website, page: ‘About Us’, August 2005.
5
The Good Campaigns Guide: campaigning for impact, Tess Kingham & Jim Coe, NCVO 2005
6
A new edition of these guidelines was published in March 2005 (DFES, DFID, DEA, et al). It replaces the
concept of ‘citizenship’ with that of ‘global citizenship’.
7
Evaluating to Strengthen Partnerships, Ann McCollum, Development Education Centre (Birmingham),
1999
8
See the evaluation reports for details (note 1 above)
9
That is compared with a reported input into ‘Enterprise education’ of £60 million.
The £18 million mentioned in the text is ‘in theory’ since a) not all schools would want to take advantage of
the project’s approach, and b) not all DECs would have the expertise, capacity or inclination to develop
such support.
10
The benchmarking exercise provides an overview of issues for schools to consider in developing a global
dimension to Citizenship in the curriculum, in student participation and in whole-school action. The exercise
is posted on the ‘School policy development’ pages of the project’s website.
11
It would be interesting to do follow up research in project schools in the autumn of 2006 on, for example,
Citizenship schemes of work, school policies and school development/improvement plans.

* Enabling Effective Support strategy was introduced and funded through DfID to provide teachers
throughout the UK with effective and sustained support to incorporate a global dimension in their
teaching. It supports the development of regional strategies implemented through partnerships
between local development education centres, education authorities and other service providers,
operational in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.

Please note:
This report of the Developing citizenship project addresses issues relevant to organisations that are
external to the education system, but plan to work in partnership with it.
The report does not give a detailed account of the many positive experiences of the project ‘in-school’,
amongst teachers and students, but describes and reflects on how such projects are organised, managed
and implemented.
For information on the ‘in-school’ work, developments in curriculum content, classroom activities, and other
experiences please refer to the project website (www.developingcitizenship.org.uk), and to the project
evaluation reports developed by Aileen McKenzie (available on the website).
The principal author of this report is the Developing Citizenship project coordinator Harm-Jan Fricke, with
contributions from members of the project management group and the project evaluator.
Pete Davis, March 2006

31
The Developing citizenship project is an initiative of

Oxfam GB, Development Education Programme, John Smith Drive,

Oxford OX4 2JY www.oxfam.org.uk/coolplanet

Save the Children UK, Education Unit, 1 St John’s Lane, London EC1M 4AR
www.scfuk.org.uk/education

th
UNICEF UK, Education Department, Africa House 5 floor, 64-78 Kingsway,
London WC2B www.unicef.org.uk/education

in collaboration with

Cheshire Development Education Centre, Campbell Community Hall,

Chester CH3 5BR www.cheshiredec.org

Development Education Project, c/o Manchester Metropolitan University,

801 Wilmslow Road, Manchester M20 2QR www.depman.org.uk

Norfolk Education and Action for Development, 38 Exchange Street,

Norwich NR2 1AX www.nead.org.uk

with financial support from

DFID Development Awareness Fund, Abercrombie House,

Eaglesham Road, East Kilbride, Glasgow G75 8EA
www.dfid.gov.uk

www.developingcitizenship.org.uk

32