A PLACE FOR FUNDAMENTAL (BRITISH) VALUES IN TEACHER EDUCATION IN
NORTHERN IRELAND?
*Alan McCully & Linda Clarke
School of Education, Ulster University, Coleraine, County
Londonderry,UK.
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
30
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the distinctive locus of teacher education
in Northern Ireland (NI) in respect of Fundamental British Values
(FBV). It is written from the perspective of teacher education
tutors in a PGCE programme that explicitly subscribes to pursuing
the Shared Future agenda as outlined by NI Government policy in
2005. First, it establishes the inappropriateness of pursuing a FBV
agenda in Northern Ireland where the historical and contemporary
context has been characterized by division expressed through
opposing British and Irish identities; and, emerging from conflict
where future political progress requires greater accommodation
between these two often hostile positions. Second, using data from
a previous Teaching and Learning Research Programme (TLRP ) study
(2005) on Values in Teacher Education as an indicator of student
teacher social and political attitudes it draws on later NI census
(2011) and Life and Times Survey data (2005 and 2008) to identify
the challenges and opportunities facing teacher educators wishing
to encourage a more nuanced awareness amongst student teachers as
to how identity issues impact on education. Finally, one teacher
education initiative designed for this purpose is examined and its
approaches offered as a means that Initial Teacher Education might
contribute to producing teachers better equipped to contribute to a
more accommodating society in NI in the future.
Keywords: identity, teacher education, Northern Ireland,
Fundamental British Values
INTRODUCTION
In examining the case for Fundamental British Values (FBV) in
teacher education in Northern Ireland (NI) it should be noted from
the outset that Northern Ireland’s current connection to the
Fundamental British Values (FBV) advice (Department of Education,
2014) is distinctively tangential, involving relatively little
association with national security and Islamism as framed by the
Prevent Strategy (Home Office, 2011). Indeed the strategy document
itself acknowledges that:
unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, the principal threat from
terrorism comes from Northern Ireland-related terrorist groups ….
the Prevent strategy does not directly apply to Northern
Ireland-related terrorism
(HM Government, 2011, p 105)
There are several reasons for this. First, NI has a very small
degree of ethnic heterogeneity in comparison to all other parts of
the UK. In 2001 just 0.8% of the resident population of
Northern Ireland belonged to minority ethnic groups, although this
has increased substantially to 1.8% in 2011 (NISRA, 2011).
Nonetheless, racism and xenophobia are relatively common (Knox,
2011) but, to date, there has been no internal threat to security
emanating from “newcomers”: indigenous security issues are of much
greater concern. Second, the distinctive historical context of NI
means that Britishness (and indeed Irishness and, more recently,
Northern Irishness) have connotations which are often contested and
emotive, being reflective of both traditional and evolving notions
of political and cultural identity. Third, devolution is
accentuating policy divergence in education between the constituent
parts of the UK (Phillips 2003; Andrews and Mycock 2008; Gray and
Birrell 2014). For example, the revised NI curriculum (CCEA,
2007: Gallagher 2006) was designed partly to meet the needs of a
divided society emerging from conflict. Schools in NI are largely
segregated by religion and, whilst there are no local teacher
shortages, two of the four initial teacher education providers are
also largely segregated on religious grounds (Clarke &
Magennis, 2016). The General Teaching Council for Northern
Ireland’s Competences (cf. Standards elsewhere) does contain a Code
of Values (GTCNI, 2007) but does not make any mention of FBV, nor
would this be appropriate, due to the controversy which surrounds
notions of ‘Britishness’ in NI. From the perspective of
teacher educators working on a PGCE programme which explicitly
supports the Shared Future agenda (OFM / DFM 2005) this paper
examines how societal attitudes have evolved in relation to
people’s sense of national identities in NI and the implications
this has for teacher education there. It is the contention that
promoting the FBV model in this context is inappropriate for
NI.
Parekh (2000, 230-231) characterises national identity as ‘bound
by common ties of affection, interests and obligations’, and in a
multicultural society, a ‘shared view of national identity has a
particularly important role… because of its greater need to
cultivate a common sense of belonging among its diverse
communities’. Arguably Britishness, in Great Britain, can fulfil
this role, but in NI this is not possible, for reasons which will
be explained.
The remainder of the paper begins by providing the reader with
outlines of two salient elements of the distinctive NI context. The
first outlines the role of identity politics in Northern Ireland’s
past and the impact of political accommodation in the wake of the
signing of the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement (GFA) in 1998, and
also the effect this has had, to date, in challenging people’s
national identifications. This section concludes by examining key
statistics around national identity which were revealed by the 2011
census. The following section explores the distinctive educational
context in respect of the challenges facing Initial Teacher
Education (ITE). It then examines the part ITE should play in
helping young teachers (and by implication their students)
re-imagine the nature of NI society when experiencing the NI
Curriculum (2007) including its Local and Global Citizenship
dimension. However, teachers are products of a divided society and,
therefore, may be expected to reflect the partisan values of that
society (Montgomery and Smith 1997). Data from a Teaching and
Learning Research Programme (TLRP) study conducted in 2005 is used
to map an established profile of Post Graduate Certificate in
Education (PGCE) students onto wider societal trends thus providing
an indication as to how far teachers require to be convinced of
their distinctive role in helping young people to clarify issues of
cultural and political identity. For this to happen they must
absorb a professional ethos which enables them to work ethically
and effectively in a divided society. The competency model offered
by the General Teaching Council of Northern Ireland (GTCNI, 2007
see Figure 2) is critiqued in that light. Finally, informed by the
TLRP findings, the paper highlights innovative practice developed
by one ITE provider (McCully 2011) in an effort to challenge and
clarify student teachers’ beliefs prior to entry to the profession.
This asks them to consider the impact that contested identities
have on education in NI.
CONTESTED IDENTITIES
Much has been written on the underlying causes of conflict in
NI. Academics may argue about the relative influences of religion,
culture, territoriality, economics and colonial legacy as factors
but few would challenge the view that the conflict manifests itself
in the expression of deeply contested national identities (Whyte
1990, 94-111; Morrow 1996, 56-64; O’Dowd 1998). Clearly, there is a
very real political issue at stake as to whether one wishes to
remain part of the United Kingdom (unionists / loyalists) or to
re-unify the six counties of NI with the Irish Republic
(nationalists / republicans). However, identifying oneself as
British or Irish often carries deep emotional associations which
transcend rational argument and fuel confrontation (Muldoon et al.
2007; McAuley 2016). In recent years communal division has
highlighted again the inflammatory impact of symbolism, linked to
displays of flags and marching regalia associated with Britishness
or Irishness. This came to the fore in the international media
towards the end of 2012 when protests erupted around the removal of
the Union Flag from Belfast City Hall following a vote by Belfast
City Council to limit the days that the Union Flag is flown from
the building. There was a dramatic response from loyalists who held
street protests throughout NI almost daily throughout December and
January leading to violent clashes with police. In 2016, the “flags
protest” remains unresolved. Nor is this sense of being British or
Irish confined to the overt proclamations of loyalty in the
streets. At all levels of this divided society constructs are
fostered within families and communities, and are reinforced
through structures and institutions, which are often mutually
exclusive and this includes education (Akenson 1973; Gallagher
2004, 119-135).
In such a seemingly dichotomous situation definitions of
identity, British and Irish, might be expected to be clear,
straightforward and contrasting. However, the complex history of
Ireland belies that view. The ‘imagined communities’ (Anderson,
1991) associated with unionism and nationalism might coalesce
evocatively with the symbolism of the British and Irish states,
respectively, with the symbols displayed on the streets often used
to express mutual antipathy, one to the other. However, in the past
and present, in sporting, cultural and political contexts, the
attitudes and actions of the two communities to Britishness have
often been more complex and ambivalent. For example, in the pre
First World War period, on the home rule issue, unionists defied
the democratic authority of the British parliament and threatened
armed revolt. Again, in the 1980s unionists waved Union Flags in
defiance of the Downing Street Agreement signed by Her Majesty’s
Conservative government with the government of Ireland. Conversely,
many northerners from the nationalist tradition willingly took up
arms in two world wars to fight for the British cause in defence of
democratic values. Today, individuals frequently find themselves
crossing supposed identity boundaries in pursuit of cultural and
sporting expression, sometimes courting controversy in the process;
witness the reaction to golfer Rory McIlroy’s decision to declare
for the Irish rather than British Olympic teams (ESPN 2015). This
complexity is further evidenced by increasing numbers from both the
main traditions who are choosing to identify as Northern Irish.
This “hybrid” nomenclature is explored later in the paper.
Arguably, much of this ambivalence, at least on the part of
unionists, stems from vagueness as to what the concept of
Britishness and associated values represent (Muldoon et al. 2007,
100-101; McAuley 2016, 2-3). Unionists might identify with the
monarch but, at the same time, may reject decisions of her
parliament, which espouses democratic principles. Meanwhile,
nationalists are hardly pre-disposed to interpret “British” values
benignly in the light of an historical narrative of perceived
persecution. Each grouping can find cause for their attitudes in
the events of the recent past. Nationalists can point to many
instances during the Troubles when British justice was deemed to
fall well below its hallowed rhetoric including Bloody Sunday,
‘shoot to kill’ and security force collusion with loyalist
paramilitary groups (Dillon 1991; Taylor 2002). Unionists might
identify the proroguing of the Stormont parliament in 1972, the
signing of the Anglo Irish Agreement in 1985 and the inclusion of
the Irish Government in the 1998 peace settlement as treacherous
and against the will of the democratic majority in Northern
Ireland.
The GFA offers a somewhat radical “solution” to the national
identity question in the sense that a referendum may be held at any
time there is deemed a realistic possibility of achieving a
majority in favour of Irish re-unification. Yet, it is likely that
this prospect would only perpetuate traditional divisions by
emphasising cultural difference. The challenge facing NI is to
reach a level of cultural and political accommodation which enables
society to progress socially and economically while acknowledging
its longer term constitutional status may change (Belfast Agreement
1998, p.3)
The Prevent Strategy identifies FBVs as ‘the values of
democracy, rule of law, equality of opportunity, freedom of speech
and the rights of all men and women to live free from persecution
of any kind.’ (HM Government 2011, 44). If these values have a
place in mediating NI’s future, association with Britishness is
unhelpful in the circumstances outlined above; rather, their worth
rests on them having a universal status to which both communities
can subscribe (Smith 2003).
The 2011 Northern Ireland census was the first to ask a question
about national identity and its findings reveal a more interesting
and a more nuanced pattern than might be expected. The identity
data shows some remarkable results concerning the blurring of
traditional identities (Figure 1): whilst the figures show that 40%
of residents had a British only national identity, 25% had Irish
only national identity. The most remarkable and remarked upon
figure was the 21% of people who self identified only as Northern
Irish. A further 9% claimed composite identities made of
combinations of British, Irish and Northern Irish. Almost
three-fifths of those with a Northern Irish only national identity
belonged to or had been brought up as Catholics (58%), while 36%
belonged to or had been brought up in Protestant denominations.
Across the whole population, 40.8% claimed a Catholic affiliation
and 41.6% Protestant. The raw figures disguise considerable
intra-regional variability, in particular, a distinctive west-east
split, with most of those claiming British identity only in the
north and east of the province and those claiming Irish or Northern
Irish identify only mostly in border regions. There were also
variations with age such that the proportion of people with a
British only national identity tended to increase with age, ranging
from 35% of those aged 0-34 to 50% of those aged 65 and over. In
contrast, those with an Irish only national identity had a younger
age distribution, ranging from 28% of those aged 0-34 to 18% of
those aged 65 and over. There was, however, little variation by age
group among those with a Northern Irish only national identity.
This might suggest that some young people, particularly from a
Protestant background, are displaying greater fluidity in their
conception of national identity but, also, that others, from a
Catholic background, are becoming more confident in expressing
their Irishness as inferred in other studies (Fury et al. 2016;
Muldoon et al. 2007).
There may be something of value to social educators here. Social
Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) research over the last
three decades has established that individuals simultaneously hold
multiple social identities depending on role and circumstance; and
they may develop new identities in response to new situations
(Deaux 1996). This provides educators with the possibility of
encouraging the recognition of additional identities and, in fact,
in Northern Ireland, the possible utility of a Northern Irish
superordinate identity for reducing sectarian attitudes has long
been discussed (Trew, 1998). The emergence of a Northern Irish
identity has been interpreted by some as a hopeful sign for the
future with Garry and McNicholl pointing to survey evidence that
Northern Irish group identification “is associated with greater
tolerance for mixing and for the culture of out-group religious
members” (Garry & McNicholl, 2015, 5), although it is entirely
possible to identify with a superordinate Northern Irish identity
while simultaneously maintaining a strong affiliation to a
traditional national identity.
FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE
A further illustration of the complexity of identity is that
those born in NI can choose to hold an Irish or a UK passport, or
both. The figures here show further variations in identity with 59%
holding a UK passport, 21% holding an Ireland passport (19% hold no
passport). Another data source, The Northern Ireland Life and Times
Surveys (2005) 46% declared themselves fairly or very interested in
politics and in 61% said that they had voted in the last election.
It is likewise relevant in the context of this study, to note that
that the 2008 Survey found that 74% had not lived outside Northern
Ireland for longer than six months and that 58% of respondents
declared that they were somewhat, very, or extremely interested in
religion.
The period 1998 to the present in Northern Ireland, in
peacebuilding parlance, can be equated to the struggle to move from
negative to positive peace (Galtung, 1964). The transition has been
a slow and fraught one with frequent political crises, and the
continuing presence of paramilitary activity threatening the
fragile power structures put in place by the GFA. Meanwhile, the
first post-peace agreement generation has gone through formal
education and are now entering the teaching profession. As the
peace process has evolved education’s role has been both reactive
and, to an extent, proactive. However, the emphasis has been on
addressing attitudinal relationships between the two dominant
traditions rather than assimilating, or transforming, students’
sense of national identity.
EDUCATION AND IDENTITY
Historically, Northern Ireland education has reflected these
identity divisions. In the years following Partition in 1921 the
structure of schooling consolidated around a segregated system with
state schools catering largely for the Protestant population and
the Catholic Church opting to run its own schools. Not only did
these two sets of institutions reflect the religious outlooks of
their students’ parents/guardians but they also promoted their
dominant cultural allegiances. Thus, it has become established that
state schools reflect this in their practices and symbolism while
Catholic schools maintain a strong sense of Irishness, particularly
through sporting and cultural activity (Atkenson 1973; Murray,
1985; McCully & Waldron, 2014). This segregation also extended
to teacher education with separate training colleges preparing
teachers to work in schools of their own tradition (Farren, 2012).
The advent of post graduate teacher education programmes in the
provinces’ two universities has resulted in teachers from both
traditions being trained together but the current reality is that
most teachers still seek employment in schools associated with
their own background.
When violence broke out after 1968 the binary nature of Northern
Ireland’s education system came under deep scrutiny as a potential
driver of conflict. Whether it fuelled division, or merely
reflected it, progressive educators sought ways that schools might
contribute to a more peaceful future (Skilbeck 1976; Crone and
Malone 1983; Robinson 1983; Richardson and Gallagher 2011). The
responses were both structural and curricular. Structurally,
schemes were put in place which brought pupils from existing
schools together on a cross community basis to foster dialogue and
by the 1980s this emphasis on “contact” led to the creation of
common, integrated schools which today cater for about 7% of the
school population. A curricular initiative, Education for Mutual
Understanding (EMU) (Richardson 2011a, 23-61), was included as a
cross curricular theme within the first NI Curriculum in 1991. EMU
concentrated on fostering personal and inter-group relationships
and cultural understanding but avoided direct exploration of issues
of national identity (Smith and Robinson 1996, 15). Even then it
encountered public criticism from both communities, being accused
of engaging in “social engineering” by diluting religious and
cultural values (Richardson 2011b, 145-159).
Arguably, educational initiatives in the field of community
relations prior to the signing of the GFA, 1998 were “holding
operations”. The prospect of a permanent cessation of violence
offered educationists more realistic opportunities to work with
young people in a new climate of optimism. The Agreement itself
included a statement that, “an essential aspect of the
reconciliation process is the promotion of a culture of tolerance
at every level of society” (Belfast Agreement, 1998, 18). In the
succeeding years the revised NI Curriculum has given greater
emphasis to students’ ‘contribution to society’ including the
introduction of a Local and Global citizenship programme.
Structurally, increasing weight is being placed on a recently
developed concept of Shared Education (Boorah & Knox 2015;
Loader & Hughes 2016), the building of systematic and sustained
links at all levels between schools from different cultural
traditions. However, as the paragraphs below outline, it is
problematic as to how effective either of these curricular and
structural initiatives can be in reconciling conflicting
identities.
The reality is that the sectarian divide around identity is such
that no Northern Ireland education minister, of whatever political
hue, could assert that encouraging pupils to espouse exclusively
British values should be part of the school curriculum. To do so
would be to provoke a massive political reaction. For official
policy to follow this would be to alienate and aggravate those
nationalists who, historically, see the imposition of Britishness
as central to the problem. Smith (2003, 15), seeking a model for
Citizenship education in Northern Ireland after the signing of the
GFA , came to the same conclusion that, “neither British nor Irish
national identity provides the basis for a ‘patriotic’ model of
citizenship that could be accepted in all schools”. Smith (2003,
24) argues for educational responses which go ‘beyond national
identity’. He suggests “concepts of citizenship based on rights and
responsibilities’ have the potential ‘to transcend the two
nationalisms in Northern Ireland’ (Smith 2003, 24-25). Citizenship
must be regarded as ‘problematic and contested’ thus encouraging
young people to interrogate and challenge simplistic notions of
identity inherited in families and communities (2003, 25). This
rights based framework underpins the enquiry focused, pluralist
orientated, revised NI Curriculum introduced in 2007 and its
concomitant Local and Global Citizenship programme (Gallagher
2012). The latter is underpinned by the core concepts of Diversity
and Inclusion, Equality and Social Justice, Democracy and Active
Participation and Human Rights and Social Responsibility. Thus,
resolution of the identity question is “parked” with the emphasis
instead on the right to express one’s identity but, crucially, to
respect the right of others to identify differently. Those
optimists who follow peace theorists such as Lederach (1995) hope
that by initiating a societal transformation in attitudes and
relationships, this may develop so that such debates around the
national question are no longer conducted in an atmosphere of
mutual enmity, and ultimately, the national issue is resolved
democratically. The revised history curriculum, does ask teachers,
directly, to engage students in exploring “how history has affected
their personal identity, culture and lifestyle” (CCEA 2007, 1).
Again, this may lead to a more nuanced understanding of the role of
identities in NI with the outcome as likely to be an affirmation of
existing allegiances as a reorientation of position (Barton and
McCully 2005). Similarly, the relationship building implicit in the
newly developed principles of Shared Education may cause students
to reconsider their group identifications but they will still be
located in institutions which are representative of each cultural
tradition.
Profile of PGCE Students
In 2005 a research team at the Ulster University engaged in a
project entitled A Values Approach to Teacher Education (TLRP,
2005-2007). The project’s aims were wide ranging but one focused on
investigating student teachers’ responses to the values dimension
of citizenship within the (then) proposed NI curriculum and their
engagement with inclusive practices related to the handling of
contentious and controversial issues.
The full year group of PGCE students were surveyed (N=190, with
130 post primary, 60 primary) and follow up interviews carried out
with a representative sample of 40 students. An interesting
collective profile emerges from the data which demonstrates
similarities with the wider social trends recorded above. The TLRP
researchers explored further students’ attitudes to citizenship and
cross-community issues through survey and interview questions, as
they impinged on their own lives and their classroom practice.
Follow-up interviews were also conducted as part of this study
involving a representative sample of thirty students tracked over
the next two years of their career, Here the results of this study
will be used to show how the profile of PGCE students matched with
the wider curricular and structural trends.
50% of the students surveyed identified themselves as from a
Protestant background and 45% as from a Catholic background with 5%
either from outside NI or identifying with neither grouping. When
questioned on their nationality 54% described themselves as
British, 35.3% as Irish and 10.2% as Northern Irish. In terms of
social background the students were predominantly clustered in the
middle socio-economic groupings according to parental occupation.
Over two thirds (70.2%) had never lived for a sustained period
outside NI (cf. 74% in the Life and Times Survey, 2008). 57%
declared themselves very or quite interested in politics (cf. 46%
who declared themselves fairly or very interested in the Life and
Times Survey , 2005), with 52% who ‘always voted’ (cf. 61% in the
2008 Life and Times Survey who had voted in the last election).
More than four out of five students religion was deemed very or
quite important in their lives, suggesting that these PGCE students
were more religious than the sample in the Life and Times Survey
(2005) where 58% of respondents declared that they were somewhat,
very, or extremely interested in religion. Thus, the overall
picture has similarities with the census results of 2011 and some
similarities with the 2005 and 2008 Life and Times Surveys.
However, there is some evidence of a superordinate Northern Irish
identity, though this is much smaller in the student sample as
compared to the census. If, as is speculated, this phenomenon is on
the increase then it is possible that subsequent student groups
since 2005 may more clearly reflect this trend. The teaching
profession in Northern Ireland has a reputation for being
conservative in outlook and the TLRP data relating to economic
background and attitude to religious belief indicates that the 2005
PGCE group may fall in line with this description. The prevalence
of students drawn from the grammar school sector was a feature of
the 2005 intake though there was evidence of an increasing number
of mature students, and those from Further Education and the
non-selective sector, indicating some diversity in the socio
economic profile. Only one PGCE student in the TLRP study was self
identified from a minority ethnic background and several tutors
interviewed as part of the research expressed concerns about the
lack of diversity in the intake and the extent to which it
represented wider society.
Students overwhelmingly welcomed the opportunity to experience
teacher education in an integrated environment which contrasts with
the two largely segregated teacher university colleges in Northern
Ireland. However, the extent to which this desire to mix actually
was reflected in their everyday lives is less certain. Interaction
with those from other cultural backgrounds to date in their lives
varied. Over two-thirds (65%) claimed to have many friends from
different religious backgrounds. A third (34%) had no friends from
minority ethnic groups. These figures suggest that up to a third of
students had a restricted friendship network in religious and
ethnic terms and this, again, reflects the segregated nature of
society. As products of an academically selective education system
as well as a largely segregated one it is notable that 81% of
respondents wished to see academic selection ended. Again, however,
there was ambiguity in that 67.6% declared themselves in favour of
retaining grammar schools. The concept of integrated education at
primary and secondary level had overwhelming support (92.5% in
favour) and when asked whether they would accept a job in the
educational sector other than the one in which they were educated
when the course was over a majority indicated that they were happy
to seek employment wherever it was available. Yet, in the follow-up
interviews over the next two years of their career, it became
apparent that religious affiliation remained a key factor
influencing where graduates pursued teaching posts. Overall, then,
there is a picture of trainee teachers who welcome the
dispensations, potentialities and aspirations afforded by the GFA
in the years after its signing but, nevertheless, continue to be
influenced and constrained by the social mores and structures of a
divided society. Thus, the majority appeared content to ascribe to
the normative identities associated with their community
backgrounds as was the conclusion of an earlier study conducted
with an institution wide sample of students in the same university
(Hargie et al. 2003).
A VALUES FRAMEWORK FOR TEACHERS
The call for the adoption of fundamental British values by
politicians implies that teacher educators in the United Kingdom
have operated in a values vacuum, or that previous values
frameworks have been ignored or become anachronistic. As with the
other UK jurisdictions, NI has teacher education programmes based
on standardised competence or standards frameworks and, as recently
as 2007, the General Teaching Council of Northern Ireland engaged
in a consultation process which resulted in a substantial revision
of its competence framework and Code of Values (GTCNI 2011). This
reduced the number of benchmark statements from 92 to 27.
Competence models are criticised for their instrumentality but it
has been noted that these NI statements are more ‘explicitly
expressed than previously’ in relation to desirable teacher
attitudes and dispositions (Moran 2009 51). The document places its
central emphasis on creating ‘the reflective and activist teacher’
who promotes the core values of trust, honesty, commitment,
respect, fairness, equality, integrity, tolerance and
service (GTCNI 2011, 2). The rationale expressly links these to the
political context of a transforming society, as echoed in the
Shared Future policy and programme (OFM/DFM 2005):
This along with the Charter commits the profession to enabling
our young people not just to develop as rounded individuals able to
prosper in the world but, as importantly, to live together in a
culture characterised by tolerance and respect for diversity (GTCNI
2011, 8).
Clearly the values identified have universal application but
they are intended to have special resonance for a divided society.
As part of its Better Embedding Community Relations Principles in
Initial Teacher Education initiative, 2005-2009 (McCully, 2011)
teacher educators at Ulster University cooperated with Community
Relations / Citizenship support staff from the Western Education
and Library Board to identify those competences particularly
appropriate to effective community relations practice. An analysis
was done to ascertain which of the 27 competences were relevant
and, then, to customise them to specific qualities deemed essential
in an effective practitioner. The outcome was a chart identifying
five core competences (numbers 2, 6, 8, 12 and 23) and their
application (Figure 2).
FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
Progression in each aspect of the competences was mapped across
the four stages of teacher development, Initial Teacher Education,
Induction, Early Professional Development and Continuing
Professional Development (see Figure 2). The ITE column presents a
profile of a teacher who:
· has an understanding of core ideas relating to inter-cultural
learning, human rights education and conflict resolution;
· is someone who is becoming reflexive, is sensitive to cultural
difference, comfortable with the emotional dimensions of learning,
develops open and respectful relationships with pupils and is
gaining confidence at applying a range of teaching and learning
approaches to facilitate greater understanding around sensitive and
controversial issues;
· above all, is a practitioner who has a commitment to social
justice and democratic practice and envisions him/herself as an
agent of social change capable of making a difference in the wider
community.
APPROACHES TO BUILDING A VALUES FRAMEWORK
The Better Embedding Community Relations Principles in Initial
Teacher Education initiative (2005-7) gave PGCE Course teams at
Ulster University the opportunity to pilot a variety of strategies
aimed at preparing student teachers to deal with controversial
community relations issues, including issues of identity, in the
classroom. The emerging aims, structure and values of the revised
NI curriculum were in accord with this initiative. Central to
development was the principle that student teachers should clarify
their own thinking on sensitive and controversial issues through
discourse, prior to working with pupils, and aspire to becoming
Skilbeck’s agents of change (1976) in a contested society.
In primary PGCE, the work began with the basic step of ensuring
that student teachers’ workshop seating arrangements were organised
in “mixed” (Catholic-Protestant) groups, and that they were
likewise paired in a mixed “buddy” system which for some students
led on to optional school exchanges (12 of the 40 in one cohort but
only 2 in 40 in the next) allowing them to spend one week of their
teaching practice in a school within the “other” religious/cultural
tradition. Foundation level workshops placed some emphasis on
acknowledging similarity and difference but the main focus was to
build trusting relationships within groups, and to encourage open
communication as a pre-requisite for work later in the year. At Key
Stage One (pupils aged 5-7) the students were introduced to new
teaching resources introducing key community relations concepts and
provided with an opportunity to explore their personal biographies
and personal value systems. At Key Stage Two (pupils aged 7-11) the
programme evolved toward a sharper engagement around themes of
Human Rights, Democracy, Law and Order, Local and Global Diversity,
Cultural Symbolism and Sectarianism, Racism, Disability and
Stereotyping.
The PGCE Secondary Programme also gave students opportunities to
explore both diversity and conflict in a range of ways: through
whole cohort lectures introducing and exploring key curricular
concepts and themes in community relations, an elective specialist
course in Local and Global Citizenship, some special plenary events
and a range of initiatives in subject cohorts.
PGCE post-primary students identify strongly with their subject
specialism and seven of the eight subject tutors took the
opportunity and funding offered by this project to produce an
initiative in at least one of the three years of the project’s
duration. For instance, the Art and Design cohort designed and made
a collection of puppets which were used as resources in lessons
exploring the themes of prejudice, stereotyping, racism and
sectarianism. The History initiative arose from research evidence,
that a significant number of History teachers in Northern Ireland
avoid making direct connections between the past and contemporary
events when teaching Irish History (Barton &McCully 2005). A
field visit was organised around the iconic events of 1916, the
Easter Rising and the Battle of the Somme. On day one the group
tour Kilmainham Gaol, the site of the 1916 executions, and after an
overnight stay in Dublin, on day two they travel to the Somme
Interpretative Centre, near Newtownards. At one level the students
are being asked to evaluate the sites as possible educational
resources but, more fundamentally, they are encouraged to step off
their professional pedestal and explore their emotional reactions
to the experiences. Data gathered over each of the years indicates
that the field experience had a significant impact on deepening
students’ understanding of the interface between history learned
informally in the community and that learned in the History
classroom (McCully & Montgomery 2009)
At post-primary level effort was also put in to encouraging
students to follow a teaching practice in a school of another
tradition. In practice, only a small minority, around six to ten
(out of a total of 120) in each of the three cohorts took up this
challenge, though those that did found it a rewarding venture. As
noted above, research from the concurrent TLRP project concluded
that while students profess to have no difficulty with teaching in
the “other” school system the prevailing norm is to assume that one
will only be employed in your “own” system. Therefore, there is
perceived to be little point in applying to the “other” system.
Each year between ten and twenty-five students still choose to
follow the elective specialist course in Local and Global
Citizenship. Its aim is to introduce participants to the knowledge,
skills and dispositions (or competences) required to teach
Citizenship effectively in the Northern Ireland Curriculum. The
time available (30 hours) is long enough only to provide a
foundation of training but it is envisaged that from this group
“change agents” will emerge, that is, teachers who are prepared to
engage in the challenging practice required to model inclusive,
democratic and evidence-based discourse for young people; teachers
with the confidence to deal with the emotional reactions that often
accompany the expression of deeply held values and identities.
During sessions, this group are encouraged to explore controversial
and sensitive issues for themselves, including racism and
sectarianism, and to clarify their own positions in class
discussion. Further, they are encouraged to take on a peer
education role as citizenship “tutors” for the full cohort
Contemporary Issues Day and the three day Residential programme.
The residential experience has been demonstrated to be highly
valuable in helping students to engage in challenging conversations
with each other, including those relating to national identity
(McCully 2011).
CONCLUSION
This paper has demonstrated that the position of Britishness in
NI is highly contested. In states where ethnicity or identity is a
driver of internal communal violence education can be both a
positive or negative contributor (Smith & Vaux 2003, Bush &
Saltarelli, 2000; Gallagher 2004; Tawil & Harley 2004; Davies
2004; Paulston 2011). If a force for positivity, it is recognised
that, when it comes to implementation in classrooms, conflict
sensitive curricula accompanied by teacher education fostering the
knowledge, aptitudes, dispositions and skills to interpret the
latter in practice, are of crucial importance. Implicit within this
is that teachers and teacher educators have a duty both to
understand the complexities of conflict situations from different
perspectives and a duty not to lead young people in directions
which might enflame sensitivities. Therefore, the attribution of
worth exclusively to one cultural identity or tradition within the
education system is, by implication, a rejection of the other (Bush
& Saltarelli 2000; Smith & Vaux 2002). Davies (2004,
76-80), in analysing the role of education in handling contested
identities in conflict contexts highlights that it is insecurity
that leads individuals to adhere to exclusivist ideologies. Rather
they should be encouraged to recognise that identity formation is
fluid and ‘self-making’. Davies (2004, 76-80) argues for
‘ambiguity’ and ‘hybridity’ as ways of understanding ‘our multiple
overlapping ‘layers’ of identity’ from the personal to the
international’. Thus identity should not be conceptualised as fixed
or mutually exclusive. Education in post conflict societies is
obliged to encourage young people to examine existing situations in
new ways and envision new possibilities.
As GTCNI moves towards revising the professional values and
competences for teachers in NI, this paper has refuted any notion
that a policy of adopting FBVs in initial teacher education would
benefit Northern Irish society, or in any way be appropriate.
Instead, it has argued that many of those values are, in fact,
universal to the pursuit of democratic and socially just
objectives, and should be recognised as such. Therefore, they
should be central to the curriculum, and the teacher education
system that supports it, in a contested society. Whether in the
longer term NI remains British or secedes to the Irish Republic,
that decision by referendum, should be rationally reached by
well-taught and informed citizens who show critical awareness to
both the positive and negative implications of cherishing their own
sense of national identity.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the valuable advice of Professor Jane Seale
(University of Exeter) and Dr Jessica Bates (Ulster University) in
the preparation of this paper.
REFERENCES
Akenson D.H. 1973. Education and Enmity: The Control of
Schooling in Northern Ireland,1920-1950, Newton Abbot: David &
Charles.
Anderson, B.R. O'G. 1991. Imagined communities: reflections
on the origin and spread of nationalism (Revised and extended.
ed.). London: Verso.
Andrews R. and Mycock A. 2008 Dilemmas of Devolution: The
‘Politics of Britishness’ and Citizenship Education, British
Politics, 3, 139-155
Barton, K. C. and McCully, A. W. 2005. History, Identity and the
School History Curriculum in Northern Ireland: An Empirical Study
of Secondary Students’ Ideas and Perspectives, Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 37(1): 85-116.
Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-belfast-agreement.
Accessed 12.4.2016
Borooah, V. and Knox, C. 2015. The Economics of
Schooling in a Divided Society: The Case for Shared Education,
London: Palgrave Macmillan.
CCEA 2007. The Northern Ireland Curriculum
http://ccea.org.uk/curriculum
Bush K. and Saltarelli D. 2000. The Two Faces of Education in
Ethnic Conflict, Florence: Innocenti Research Centre.
Clarke, L. and Magennis, G. 2016. Teacher Education in Northern
Ireland, Imperatives, Initiatives and Influences in Teacher
Education in Times of Change edited by Gary Beauchamp, Linda
Clarke, Moira Hulme, Martin Jephcote, Aileen Kennedy, Geraldine
Magennis, Ian Menter, Jean Murray, Trevor Mutton, Teresa O'Doherty,
and Gillian Peiser, 75-90. Bristol: Policy Press.
Crone R. and Malone J. 1983. The Human Curriculum, Belfast:
Farset Co-operative Press.
Department for Education 2014. Promoting fundamental British
Values as part of SMSC in schools: Departmental advice for
maintained schools,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380595/SMSC_Guidance_Maintained_Schools.pdf
Davies L. 2004. Education and Conflict: Complexity and Chaos,
Oxford: Routledge.
Deaux K. 1996. “Social Identification” in Social
Psychology:Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by E.Tory. Higgins
and Arie W. Kruglanski, 777-798. New York: Guilford,.
Dillon M. 1991. The Dirty War, London: Arrow Books.
ESPN 2015. Olympic Choice Weighed heavily on Rory McIlroy,
http://espn.go.com/golf/story/_/id/13360027/olympic-choice-weighed-heavily-rory-mcilroy.
Accessed 20 Nov. 2015
Farren S. 2012. Should we ignore our past? Reflections on the
Development of Teacher Education in Ireland. GTCNI Annual Lecture,
Belfast: GTCNI
Furey A., Donnelly C., Hughes J. and Blaylock D. 2016.
Interpretations of national identity in post-conflict Northern
Ireland: a comparison of different school settings, Research Papers
in Education, http://dx.doi.org.1080/02671522.2016.1158855
Gallagher C. 2006. Education matters: the process of educational
reform and the creation of a more pluralist curriculum under
devolution, Google Books.com
https://www.academia.edu/1556979/Curriculum_matters_the_process_of_education_reform_and_the_creation_of_a_more_pluralist_curriculum_under_devolution
Gallagher C. 2012. Curriculum Past, Present and Future: A study
of the development of the Northern Ireland Curriculum in a wider UK
and international context, PhD Thesis, Ulster University
Gallagher A. 2004. Education in Divided Societies, Basingstoke:
Palgrave MacMillan
Galtung J. 1964. An editorial, Journal of Peace Research, 1 (1):
1-4.
Garry J. and McNicholl K. 2015. Understanding ‘Northern Irish’
Identity, Briefing Paper, Knowledge Exchange Seminar Series (KESS),
Belfast: Northern Ireland Assembly / QUB
General Teaching Council of Northern Ireland (GTCNI) 2011.
Teaching: The Reflective Profession, Belfast, GTCNI.
Gray, A.M. and Birrell, D. 2014. Welfare Reform and
Devolution: issues of parity, discretion and divergence for the UK
government and the devolved administrations, Public Money and
Management, 34 (3): 205-212.
Hargie O., Dickson D. and Nelson S. 2003. A lesson too late for
the learning? Cross Community Contact and Communication Among
University Students, in Researching the Troubles: Social Science
Perspectives of the Northern Ireland Conflict edited by Owen Hargie
and David Dickson, 85-106. Edinburgh : Mainstream Publishing.
HM Government 2011. Prevent Strategy, London, TSO.
Hughes, J. and Loader, R. 2016. “‘Plugging the Gap’: Shared
Education and the promotion of community relations through schools
in Northern Ireland”, British Educational Research Journal 41 (6):
1125-1142.
Knox, C. 2011. “Tackling racism in Northern Ireland: “The race
hate capital of Europe”’, Journal of Social Policy, 40 (2):
387–412.
Lederach, J.-P. 1995. Preparing for peace: conflict
transformation across cultures, Syracuse:
University Press.
McAuley J.W. 2016. Very British Rebels?; The Culture and
politics of Ulster Loyalism, London: Bloomsbury.
McCully A. 2010. Better Embedding Community Relations Principles
in Initial Teacher Education: Concluding Report to Funders,
Coleraine, International Fund for Ireland / UNESCO Centre,
University of Ulster.
McCully A. and Montgomery A. 2009. Knowledge, skills and
dispositions:
educating history teachers in a divided society, International
Journal of Historical learning, Teaching and Research, 8 (2):
92-105
http://www.history.org.uk/resources/secondary_resource_2593_8.html.
Accessed 12.4.2016
Montgomery A. & Smith A. 1997. Values in Education in
Northern Ireland, Belfast: Northern Ireland Council for the
Curriculum and Assessment (CCEA).
Moran, A. 2009. ‘Can a Competence or Standards Model Facilitiate
an Inclusive Approach
to Teacher Education?’ International Journal of Inclusive
Education 13 (1): 45–61.
Morrow D. 1996. “In search of Common Ground” in Northern Ireland
Politics, edited by A. Aughey and D. Morrow (Eds.) 56-64. London:
Longman,
Muldoon O., Trew K., Todd J. and McLaughlin K. 2007. “Religious
and national identity after the Belfast Good Friday Agreement”,
Political Psychology, 28 (1): 89-103.
Murray D. 1985. World’s Apart: Segregated Schools in Northern
Ireland, Belfast: Appletree Press.
Nolan P. 2013. Northern Ireland Peace Monitoring Report: Number
2, Belfast: Community Relations Council.
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/nipmr_2013-04_full.pdf.
Accessed 3 December, 2015.
Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency NISRA 2013.
Census 2011: Detailed Characteristics for Northern Ireland on
Health, Religion and National Identity..
http://www.nisra.gov.uk/Census/detailedcharacteristics_stats_bulletin_2011.pdf
Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey (2005, 2008) (Accessed
August 2013)
http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/2007/Identity/BRITPROT.html
O’Dowd L. 1998. “Constituting Division, Impending Agreement: The
Neglected Role of British nationalism in Northern Ireland”. In
Dis/Agreeing Ireland: Context, Obstacles, hopes, edited by J.
Anderson and J. Goodman, 108-125. London: Pluto Press.
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFM/DFM)
2005. Shared Future: Policy and Strategic Framework for Good
Relations in Northern Ireland, Belfast: OFM/DFM
http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/asharedfuturepolicy2005.pdf Accessed
23 August, 2013.
Parekh, B. 2000.Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity
and Political Theory, New York: Palgrave.
Paulston J. ed. 2011. Education and Reconciliation: exploring
conflict and post-conflict situations, London: Continuum.
Phillips R. 2003. “Education Policy, comprehensive schooling and
devolution in the disunited Kingdom: an historical ‘home
international’ analysis” Journal of Education Policy,18 (1):
1-17.
Richardson N. 2011a. “Education for Diversity and Mutual
Understanding|: Context and Rationale”. In Education for Diversity
and Mutual Understanding edited by, N. Richardson and T. Gallagher,
23-61. Bern: Peter Lang,.
Richardson N. 2011b. “Critiques and Objections”. In Education
for Diversity and Mutual Understanding, edited by N. Richardson and
T. Gallagher, 145-160. Bern: Peter Lang.
Robinson A. 1983. The Schools’ Cultural Studies Project: A
contribution to Peace in Northern Ireland, Coleraine, NUU.
Skilbeck M. 1976. “Education and Cultural change” Compass:
Journal of the Irish Association for Curriculum Development, 5 (2):
3-23.
Smith, A. 2003. “Citizenship Education in Northern Ireland:
beyond national identity?” Cambridge Journal of Education, 33 (1):
15-31.
Smith A. and Vaux T. 2003. Education, Conflict and International
Development, London: DFID.
Smith R. & McCully A. 2013. “Organisational self-evaluation
and teacher education for community relations in a transforming
society?” European Journal of Teacher
Education, 36(3): 320-345.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2012.757302
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J. C. 1986. “The social identity theory
of inter-group behavior” in Psychology of Intergroup Relations
edited by S. Worchel and L. W. Austin, 7-24. Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Tawil S. and Harley A. 2004. Education, Conflict and Social
Cohesion, Geneva: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.
Taylor P. 2002. Brits: The War against the IRA, London:
Bloomsbury.
The Guardian Data Bog (accessed August 2013)
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/12/northern-ireland-census-national-identities-mapped
TLRP 2008. Teaching and learning: A Values Approach to Teacher
Education Research Briefing No.35.
http://www.tlrp.org/pub/documents/smith%20RB%2035%20FINAL.pdf
Accessed 3 December, 2015.
Whyte J. 1990. Interpreting Northern Ireland, Oxford, Clarendon
Press.
FIGURES
Figure 1 Northern Ireland Census 2011: Population and National
identity – Source NISRA
