Teaching citizenship in the faith school: qualitative evidence from separate schools in Northern Ireland
Author(s):
Caitlin Donnelly (presenting / submitting) Stephanie Burns
Conference:
ECER 2017
Format:
Paper

Session Information

07 SES 05 A, Citizenship Education

Paper Session

Time:
2017-08-23
13:30-15:00
Room:
W3.09
Chair:
Kerstin von Brömssen

Contribution

The main objective of this paper is to examine how teachers in faith based schools, which mainly enrol pupils from one identity group facilitate children to learn about the values of the ‘other’

There are two central research questions: how do teachers situated in different types of faith-based school teach children about the ‘other’ community a theme that is embedded within the citizenship curriculum in NI?  How do children located in faith based schools in NI interpret the ‘other community’.

The paper is influenced by theoretical debates on faith schools and multi cultural-education. Much of the literature suggests that schools have a ‘double potential’ to both constrain pupils to conform to a particular belief system and to encourage emancipation from the restrictions of dominant (religious/cultural) perspectives (Kalekin-Fishman 2004). Hence, when governments decide to offer public funding to, for example, faith schools, there are often fears that these schools are more constraining than ‘emancipatory’ and so are likely to produce ‘intolerant’ pupils (Beckett 2003). Contact between groups in ‘integrated’ schools is thus preferable because, it is argued, they allow individuals from different groups to meet and to foster friendships, and this, in turn, allows them to overcome their negative perceptions of the group. Referencing Northern Ireland, and other conflict areas, Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, and Christ (2011, 278) argue against the ‘strict segregation’ of students into different school types on the basis that it can foster resentment and reinforce divisive mind-sets, and propose that the ‘remedies’ for equality ‘generally involve intergroup contact’. Whilst it is difficult to dispute the value of contact between diverse groups, it is interesting that not all theorists accord it the priority afforded by Pettigrew et al. (2011). Proponents of separate schools tend to place less emphasis on the potential of contact and group interaction for challenging division between groups.  Instead, they argue that the protection which faith schools offer minority groups holds considerable importance for group relations particularly where that society is politically and socially divided. Banks (2001) explains that when diverse cultural communities and values are acknowledged, respected and given voice (acknowledgement which is perhaps facilitated by the existence of the separate-identity school in a nation state), then the national civic culture is seen as legitimate by all citizens and cultural, national and global identifications become dynamic and interactive. Separate and/or faith-based schools can thus instil a sense of in-group confidence that allows members to more effectively reach out to others in a tolerant way (Short 2003; Halstead and McLaughlin 2005; Halstead 2009). The schools also potentially provide a safe and secure space which may be pivotal to the exploration of the difficult and contested issues with which students of citizenship will have to grapple.  Whilst research frequently laments the extent to which teachers in mixed settings engage in avoidance behaviours around sensitive and controversial issues, (see Donnelly 2004; McEvoy 2007; Gamage 2008), it might be argued thus that the safety of the separate school, where teachers and pupils are (broadly) drawn from the same community/faith background may offer a more conducive place for the exploration of these contested and emotive issues.  The dearth of research in the field however prompts the need for further investigation and the purpose of this research was to contribute to these debates by drawing on teacher and pupil perspectives in Protestant and Catholic schools in NI.

Method

A qualitative research approach was adopted. Data were collected through a series of 10 focus groups comprising 3-4 friends with pupils aged 11-12 (Year 8). There were several reasons for the inclusion of this age group in the sample. Firstly, pupils from Year 8 had recently completed the primary-level area of learning, ‘Personal Development & Mutual Understanding’ and had started the learning area of ‘Learning for Life and Work’ at post-primary level; they were therefore at an important juncture of their citizenship education. Secondly, theories of social identity development in children (such as socio-cognitive theory (Aboud 1988), developmental intergroup theory (Bigler and Liben 2007), social identity development theory (Nesdale, Maass, Durkan, and Griffiths 2005), and the theory of social mind (Abrams, Rutland, Pelletier, and Ferrell 2009) recognise middle childhood (typically 9 to 11 years old) as a vitally important stage in either prejudice acquisition or diminishment. It was anticipated that an examination of the ways in which this age group of children referred to their immediate social contexts and past experiences with individuals and groups who are different from them could illuminate how children engage with issues of conflict and identity within the citizenship curriculum. The focus groups were constituted on the basis that groups of friends may feel empowered and supported in the co-presence of those they know (Lewis 1992). The shared experiences and positive relations between the students seemed to create a more relaxed environment that prompted the students to speak more freely than perhaps they may have done in a single interview format. In addition, focus groups by their very nature make visible the nature of relationships and illustrate how issues can be negotiated and developed during group interviews (see Morgan 1996). Two semi structured interviews were also undertaken with the citizenship teacher and the principal in each school. These multiple participant perspectives (from two comparison schools) thus enabled a detailed understanding of how these complex issues of identity and the conflict in Northern Ireland were tackled within the classroom. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and each focus group interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. The interviews sought to examine perceptions of the school types in Northern Ireland, teaching and learning about conflict and perceptions of self and ‘other ‘identity. The research project was granted ethical approval by the School in which the authors are located.

Expected Outcomes

The data show that the teachers in the different schools responded to the obligations of the citizenship curriculum in distinct ways and that the separate schools in NI are microcosms of the cultures and communities that they serve. As other literature has shown that Protestant-unionist and Catholic-nationalist identities have developed in different ways in the post-Agreement period (Mitchell 2003; Tonge 2015) the data show that these divergent patterns are also evident within the schools. Hence, the Catholics tended to speak with pride and optimism when discussing their Irish-Catholic identity, whilst for Protestants their sense of identity seemed to be more difficult to define and was often framed in negative terms. The data has shown that these broader trends with respect to the conceptualisation of their respective identities may position the schools differently when teaching and learning about citizenship. The sense of group esteem evident amongst the Catholic participants appeared to allow them to openly engage with the issues allied to the citizenship curriculum; whilst the sense of uncertainty and negativity with respect to the ‘protestant’ identity seemed to act as a barrier to the open and confident discussion of difference. The differential experiences reported across both schools epitomize the demands placed upon citizenship teachers and the challenges that citizenship education presents, particularly in a divided society. That neither of the teachers in this study had been specifically trained to teach citizenship is of obvious importance. Preparation and support seems critical particularly for a subject that is mired in complexity and infused with controversy. Such training has the potential to instil a professional confidence that will encourage teachers, regardless of their identity or the school in which they are located, to employ the critical pedagogies that can prepare pupils to live within a pluralist society.

References

Aboud, F.E. 1988. Children and Prejudice. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Abrams, D., Rutland, A., Pelletier, J., and Ferrell, J. 2009. Children’s group nous: Understanding and applying peer exclusion within and between groups. Child Development 80, no. 1: 224-243. Banks, J. A. 2001. Citizenship education and diversity: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 52, no. 1: 5-16. Beckett, F. 2003. Teaching tolerance. The Guardian. October 14. http://www.theguardian.com/education/2003/oct/14/faithschools.schools Bigler, R., and Liben, L. 2007. Developmental intergroup theory: Explaining and reducing children’s social stereotyping and prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 16, no. 3: 162-166. Donnelly, C. 2004. What price harmony? Teachers’ methods of delivering an ethos of tolerance and respect for diversity in an integrated school in Northern Ireland. Educational Research 46, no. 1: 3-16. Gamage, S. 2008. Current thinking about critical multicultural and critical race theory in education. In Interrogating Commonsense: Teaching for Social Justice, ed. I. Soliman, 11-131. Australia: Pearson. Halstead, J., and McLaughlin, T. 2005. Are faith schools divisive? In Faith schools: Consensus or conflict? ed. R. Gardner, J. Cairns, and D. Lawton, 61-73. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Halstead, J. 2009. In defence of faith schools. In Faith in education: A tribute to Terence McLaughlin, ed. G. Haydon, 46-67. London: Institute of Education. Kalekin‐Fishman, D. 2004. Diagnosing inequalities in schooling: Ogbu’s orientation and wider implications. Intercultural Education 15, no. 4: 413-430. Lewis, A. 1992. Group child interviews as a research tool. British Educational Research Journal 18, no.4: 413-421. McEvoy, L. 2007. Beneath the rhetoric: Policy approximation and citizenship education in Northern Ireland. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice 2, no. 2: 135-157. Mitchell, C. 2003. Protestant identification and political change in Northern Ireland. Ethnic and Racial Studies 26, no. 4: 612-631. Morgan, D. 1996. Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 129-152. Nesdale, D., Maass, A., Durkin, K., and Griffiths, J. 2005. Group norms, threat, and children’s racial prejudice. Child Development 76, no. 3: 652 – 663. Pettigrew, T., Tropp, L., Wagner, U., and Christ, O. 2011. Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35, no. 3: 271-280. Short, G. 2003. Faith Schools and Social Cohesion: Opening up the Debate. British Journal of Religious Education 25, no. 2: 129-141. Tonge, J. 2015. Shared identity and the end of conflict? How far has a common sense of Northern Irishness replaced British or Irish allegiances since the 1998 Good Friday Agreement. Irish Political Studies 30, no. 2: 276-298.

Author Information

Caitlin Donnelly (presenting / submitting)
Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom
Queen's University Belfast
School of Education
Belfast

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.