Norman Richardson:
Schools
as Bridges
Norman
Richardson is Head of Teaching & Learning in Religious Studies at
Stranmillis University College, Belfast, Northern Ireland, and Secretary of the
Northern Ireland Inter-Faith Forum.
Norman Richardson,
Stranmillis University College, Belfast BT9 5DY. Tel: +44 (0)28 9038 4328.
Email: n.richardson@stran.ac.uk
The
understanding and experience of human rights is an important element of the
preparation of all young people for life in a democratic and pluralistic
society .... it involves intercultural and international education.
Someone once wisely observed that
“Schools should engage in lifting heads, not burying them”! Coming from a situation in which avoidance
and head-burying are all-too-easy and all-too-frequent I believe that this
offers a particular challenge to education.
Northern Ireland has lived through its decades of conflict, which have
sadly not yet come to a full stop, with a good deal of what has been called
“the culture of avoidance”. This has been seen as a coping mechanism by some,
and schools were often praised for being “oases of calm” in which children were
able to escape from the nastiness without.
Unfortunately avoidance is a very limited strategy for dealing with
problems, and one of the lessons from peace education work in a wide range of
contexts over many years has surely been that children must gain experience in
dealing constructively with conflict and with difference. In the mid-1990s a Belfast primary school
teacher was asked by a researcher if she would like to involve her class in a
programme which was set up to explore Protestant and Catholic religious and
cultural diversity in Northern Ireland.
She was emphatically negative about this, but when asked if, as an
alternative, they would consider studying other religions – which is still
sadly very uncommon in Northern Ireland – she was much more positive (Curran,
1995). It’s evidently harder to
consider diversity if you perceive it to have significant bearing on your own
life! These are issues which even some
teachers seem to prefer to avoid.
We
do not do our children any favours if we simply endorse the status quo by
failing to address real issues of diversity and conflict. This is just as true if our context is
sectarian violence in Northern Ireland or racial tension in Bradford or Oldham
or Kashmir or Birmingham, Alabama; it holds true for how we help children and
young people to understand conflict and diversity in relation to travelling
families in Ireland or Britain, or with refugees and asylum seekers throughout
Europe; it is crucially important if children are to make any sense of the
attacks on New York or Washington, or of ethnic and religious conflict in the
Middle East.
In the mid-1970s Malcolm
Skilbeck, then Professor of Education at the New University of Ulster in
Coleraine, made the offensive-sounding observation that teachers in Northern
Ireland were “naïve bearers of sectarian culture” (Skilbeck, 1976). He did not mean that most teachers were
expressing naked sectarianism in the classroom, but he was suggesting that when
we skirt around controversial and uncomfortable issues, or when we fail to challenge
overt prejudice, we risk conveying the message that these things don’t matter
or even that such attitudes are acceptable – sectarianism by stealth! Surely the very nature of education – educere: leading out – is such that
these are the very issues we should be addressing. This is a fundamental rationale for the concept of education for
peace.
I used to have a poster in my
room with a picture of a sailing ship and the caption: A ship in a harbour is safe, but that is not what ships are for! While it is an important role of schools to
give children a sense of security and calm, I would suggest that such security
should be based on reality, not avoidance.
I want to replace the imagery of the oasis with that of the bridge! The school should not be an inward-looking
place designed to defend or protect its community; rather it should equip its
pupils for creative engagement with the real, and sometimes nasty, world out
there. The task of peace education – or
whatever name we choose to give it – is to build the bridges between personal
formation (which we may call “inner peace” or “spiritual development” or simply
personal development – the P from
PSE) and engagement with a diverse and often conflicting world. This, I would suggest, is an important
element in the process of education for citizenship, locally and globally.
In this paper I want to
consider some of the ways in which we can offer children and their teachers
practical approaches to the issues of living peacefully with those from whom
they may differ and ways of dealing creatively with the conflicts which
inevitably arise from that diversity.
This will involve considering how can we help children in our different
societies to develop mutual respect for each other’s sense of identity and a creative
awareness of human rights and responsibilities. In order to do this I will examine some of the approaches and
strategies which we have been developing in Northern Ireland, because this is
the situation I know best. But I will
also relate these ideas more widely in order to offer some practical
reflections that I hope may have some resonances for others whose work is in
different national and local situations.
The fundamental issue here is
about how we respond to otherness in
our various contexts – racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious,
national, etc.. Research evidence
suggests that where there is inter-group tension of some kind children are
aware from a very early age of the language of difference, of a consciousness
of “us and them”. If this is reinforced
by group separation – separate schooling and housing as in Northern Ireland, or
apartheid, or de facto ethnic segregation in large cities, for instance – the
awareness of difference seems quickly to escalate towards prejudice,
stereotyping and scapegoating, often with resulting verbal or physical
violence. However, emphasis on
difference as negative does not even seem always to require separation for the
fuelling of aggression and antagonism, as we have seen from the horrors of neighbour
against neighbour in Rwanda and the Balkans.
It has sometimes been argued - naively, I would suggest - that young
children do not need to learn about differences; it is suggested that it is
more important for them to learn about human likeness and commonalities. I would counter this with the proposal that
children in all situations, not just those where there is overt conflict, need
to gain an awareness of human diversity, interconnectedness and reciprocity,
and this will certainly involve a significant degree of learning skills for
living with differences. This – what I
would call Education for Diversity –
is an important element of the inter-related family of values education concerns which may go under various headings such
as peace education, citizenship, conflict resolution, mutual understanding,
etc.. (See Appendix 1)
For a period of more than 30
years educators in Northern Ireland have struggled with these kinds of
questions. Undoubtedly some - perhaps
many - have chosen not to bother, maybe out of cynicism or fear or a sense that
the problems are way beyond the competence of teachers. Others - a growing number - have made a
personal and professional commitment to working at the problem and have found
various approaches and resources to assist them in the task. Many have recognised that there is much to
learn from the experience of others around the world who face similar issues in
situations of civil unrest, ethnic or racial tensions, oppression and violence,
inequality and injustice.
Over those years, and through
various processes of curriculum development and the initiatives of a range of
academic, voluntary and statutory bodies, the issues of conflict and diversity
have moved steadily in from the educational fringes in Northern Ireland. About 20 years ago several separate initiatives
in peace education, development education, education for international
understanding and community relations education were drawn together under the
terminology of Education for Mutual
Understanding (EMU). By the beginning of the 1990s EMU was a
statutory educational theme in the Northern Ireland Curriculum. As it took shape this model acquired four
main emphases:
-
fostering respect for self and others and building relationships;
-
understanding and dealing creatively with conflict;
-
developing an awareness of interdependence, locally and internationally;
-
understanding cultural diversity and learning to live with differences.
(Richardson, 1996; CCEA, 1997)
In theory at least this meant that
schools were finding ways of applying the model to various aspects of school
life - to the subjects of the formal curriculum, to teaching and learning
styles, to the caring (or pastoral) aspects of the school community and to the
overall ethos or atmosphere of the school (Richardson, 1996, 1999). Additionally, a great deal of emphasis in
developing EMU was placed on creating opportunities for contact between
children and young people across the divided community, which was not
surprising in a society where most children still attend separate schools according
to their community or perceived religious background. However, various identified weaknesses, especially in the
implementation of the model, have led to proposals for more focused units of
work in Personal Development and Local and Global Citizenship, with a
strong emphasis on the development of skills in dealing with controversial
issues. These changes now feature in
Northern Ireland’s Curriculum Review process and it seems likely that the
cross-curricular educational theme approach will disappear.
(For those who wish to know more about
the specifics of work in Northern Ireland additional information is available
as Appendix 2.)
This developing Northern Ireland model
has undoubtedly been informed and shaped in various ways and at different times
by awareness of the concerns, emphases and educational strategies employed in
other countries. North American
influences have tended to be more dominant than European ones, probably in part
due to linguistic factors. Insights
have been gained from the ways in which some countries approached issues of
ethnic, racial, cultural, linguistic and religious diversity, in relation to
indigenous “minorities” (often the legacy of a colonial past or the re-drawing
of borders after international conflicts) or in relation to migrant workers or
“travelling” communities. In such work
the emphasis has tended to be on developing multicultural or intercultural
awareness and the combating of prejudice with accurate information and,
hopefully, appreciation and respect.
Major changes in the Northern Ireland
Curriculum during the last decade have meant that potentially divisive aspects
of cultural life and experience which were formerly ignored and avoided -
controversial aspects of history, religion, literature and the arts, for
instance - now feature more significantly in curriculum programmes. Just as many multicultural education
programmes in the United States or Canada, for instance, have developed courses
for all students to explore Black, Hispanic or Native American history and
culture, there is now in Northern Ireland considerably more scope for learning
about similarities and differences between the Catholic and Protestant
communities and for deepening understanding of how these affect people’s
attitudes and behaviour. (This
Catholic-Protestant dominance, however, has sometimes been at the expense of
considering other aspects of cultural, ethnic and religious diversity.) Concerns about pressure from parents or
others outside school and a lack of training opportunities for teachers,
however, have resulted in a continuing reluctance on the part of many teachers
to deal with these issues (Richardson & Gallagher, 1997). Nevertheless, some excellent work has been
carried out to develop teacher skills and strategies in handling controversial
issues in the classroom, for example in the Speak Your Piece project
which was developed between the University of Ulster and Channel 4 Schools
(1996). The concept of “Creating Safe
Space” has been developed in order to establish a context in which everyone in
a group feels safe and comfortable to share their views and experiences. The approach emphasises well-prepared
facilitation, often based around circle work, to promote active listening, participation,
trust-building and honest, open group interaction. The increasingly popular technique of Circle Time (Mosley, 1996)
has been employed to good effect where teachers have recognised its particular
potential for building relationships and enabling open and safe exploration of
diversity. Some proponents have also
emphasised its importance as a framework for helping children to explore moral
and spiritual values (Bliss & Tetley, 1993). Like the concept of the bridge”, the symbolism of the circle
speaks of new relationships built on communication and inclusiveness.
It has been suggested (Montgomery, 2001,
p.28) that if children are to engage effectively in the process of
understanding otherness they need to develop a capacity to think for themselves
and to take responsibility for their own actions – autonomy. They must also
gain a sense of how others think, feel and respond – empathy. They also need to
gain an awareness of society beyond themselves and beyond individuals, which
has been termed transcendence. This approach has been applied in a
recently-piloted and well-received set of materials for primary schools in
Northern Ireland called Primary Values,
which is based on the ‘Community of Enquiry’ methodology, adapted from Matthew
Lipman’s Philosophy for Children
programme (Montgomery, 2000).
Some educators have promoted the
importance for understanding diversity of more formal teaching in political
education, citizenship and human rights, focusing on wider global issues rather
than just local concerns. Such work,
especially with post-primary pupils, can be very valuable, but the risk is that
it becomes too didactic and a means of avoiding encounter with the attitudes,
emotions and values which naturally cling to such issues. Another danger is that it could narrow the
focus into the mainly cognitive and formal, and may well alienate teachers of
younger or less able children by appearing to be overly-academic.
International topics have always featured
to some extent in this agenda. Some
teachers have focused on situations of international conflict - for instance,
apartheid in South Africa, race relations in the United States or conflict in
the Middle East - as a means of drawing parallels with application to
relationships in Northern Ireland. Such
teaching is very valuable in broadening the awareness and horizons of students,
but expectations of an impact on attitudes towards the more familiar situation
at home seem often to be disappointed.
Indignation at the injustice of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and
racism or genocide in Africa, for instance, may simply fail to translate into a
critique of personally-felt sectarian attitudes in Northern Ireland, and this
would undoubtedly be the case in reverse.
Regrettably, there can be little doubt that some teachers have opted to
teach about these topics as a way of avoiding having to deal with emotionally
charged local issues.
A good deal of work has been done in
relation to the processes of building up self-esteem and education in
relationships, many models of which originated in the United States. Such processes are fundamental if schools
are to be able to make any progress in helping children to deal constructively
with conflict. It is widely agreed that
affirmation is an essential basis for
such processes and that they must also involve the development of skills in communication and co-operation. The criticism
is sometimes made, however, that while some teachers have no difficulty
recognising the importance of developing a positive self-image within the
classroom they may be wary of applying this more broadly, and of building on
such work in order to deal with harder issues such as violence, bullying or
inter-community conflicts. Perhaps even
harder for some teachers is the application of the concept of positive
self-image to themselves and their colleagues, as a fundamental basis for
developing a happier, healthier and more co-operative atmosphere in the school
as a whole. Perhaps the most important
element of such work is its emphasis on emotional development. Goleman’s influential work on Emotional Intelligence (1997) has
highlighted the possibility of educating for greater emotional competence, and
Johnson (1998) has argued that emotion is vital in learning about
tolerance. Awareness of this strong
affective element in education for diversity is crucial; it cannot be tackled
by formal, didactic teaching alone.
Closely related to self-esteem and
relationships education is the area of creative, non-violent conflict
resolution (or conflict management).
This has been considerably influenced by work initially emanating from
North America which has been applied and adapted in many differing contexts
globally. It has been shaped by the
experience of the 1970s and 1980s in developing models of peace education and
prejudice reduction, and backed up by an increasing range of supportive
literature from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It has had a growing impact and influence on
the practice of some teachers and schools, and similar techniques have been
applied in other aspects of community relations work in Northern Ireland - in
youth work or community development work, for instance. Peer mediation programmes have been
developed very successfully in a small number of schools (Tyrrell, 2002) and an
increasing number of teachers has found ways of incorporating the principles
and techniques of handling conflict creatively into their everyday classroom
work as well as into whole-school concerns such as discipline and lunchtime
supervision. Yet even here it has been
felt that there are difficulties and limitations. Some critics have suggested that conflict management techniques
do not have a sufficiently strong encounter or contact agenda, and others that
they too easily ignore some of the divisive issues in society such as power and
domination, injustice and inequality.
Some of those most active in promoting these techniques in schools have
expressed concern that it is very difficult to wean many teachers away from
their dependence upon outside trainers and thus all too often schools fail to
take ownership of such work for themselves.
Work in inter-school contact-based
community relations has been based on the contact
hypothesis developed by social psychologists such as Allport (1954) and
Amir (1969) and relates to similar practice in other divided or segregated
societies. Some have argued, however,
that too much simplistic emphasis can placed on contact, pointing out that
there is limited evidence of success in such an approach. All too often, it is suggested, contact is
superficial and unsupported by other strategies, or fails to promote processes
in developing genuine awareness of diversity, or participants avoid
controversial discussions for the sake of preserving an outward appearance of
friendliness. Some good work in
Northern Ireland has been carried out by means of contact programmes, but
contact is not an end in itself and needs to be seen as just one dimension of a
broader strategy. However, it was most
interesting to hear a recent BBC Radio 4 programme which featured schools from
Oldham, the scene of serious racial tension in 2001, engaging in
cross-community contact programmes very like those of Northern Ireland though
without any conscious awareness of the striking parallels.
All of the elements so far discussed have
played a significant role in the shaping of the various models used in Northern
Ireland and elsewhere. One major
weakness in such work, however, has been that too many schools have taken just
one or two of these aspects and built all their work on them, maybe by
emphasising self-esteem, or conflict skills, or international understanding, or
inter-school contact, or directing their focus onto certain subjects in the
curriculum. My sense of the
international scene leads me to believe that this may be a problem in some
other countries, too. A broader picture
has too often been lost to sight, and so students or teachers may well be
uncertain as to the longer-term purposes of such work. I believe that we need to do more to make
that broader picture clear to teachers and learners alike, but also to
recognise that because such work is essentially long-term its relevance and
effectiveness may be obscure to young people at earlier stages in the process.
I believe that this emphasises the need
for a holistic and whole-school approach to education for diversity. The cognitive elements, the affective
elements, the formally taught aspects and the modelled and “caught” aspects
must be employed in a joined-up way.
The concept of the educational or cross-curricular theme was
problematical because it proposed that a particular concern should be
everybody’s responsibility but this quickly became everybody else’s or, indeed,
nobody’s responsibility. Nevertheless
for such work to have a real and lasting impact it must be a shared
professional responsibility. This is
the real challenge to our teachers and our schools – to ensure that such work
is done well by properly trained practitioners and at the same time is
supported and owned by the school as a whole, in formal curriculum and school
ethos. Where this has been taken
seriously it has had real impact. Some
have come to describe this whole-school approach as “The School Transformation
Model”, suggesting the potential for a considerable impact on schools which adopt
it (Tyrrell, 1997; Richardson, 2001, p.88).
I want to conclude by drawing together
these characteristics of the process of educating for diversity and returning
to the imagery of the Bridge which I used at the outset. This may enable us to propose a construct
which, I believe, reflects practice in a range of contexts. It enables us also to elaborate some basic
principles for such work. This is not
to attempt to create a uniformity of approach, nationally or internationally,
but it may enable us to maximise what we can learn from each other’s
experience.
It seems evident that the component
themes or objectives of any approach will prove to be very similar, even though
certain features will receive different emphases in different situations, and a
survey of this work in a number of countries would seem to bear this out. Northern Ireland’s particular menu of themes
is certainly not untypical. I regard
the key elements – the building blocks – as:
• an emphasis on personal development, starting
with the building of confidence and self-esteem as a basis for developing
positive relationships at a range of scales (personal, group, community,
national, international);
• the development of awareness and skills in
dealing creatively with conflict and prejudice, and exploring alternatives to
violence;
• an exploration of human diversity and an
appreciation of similarities and differences in a plural society, including
culture, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender, etc.;
• an awareness of human and cultural interaction,
dependence and interdependence, including issues of justice, equality, rights
and responsibilities.
Some of these objectives lend themselves
to a fairly cognitive approach -
“learning about” - and some to the development of inter-personal and social skills. It is particularly important, however, to emphasise that all of
these ‘building blocks’ are potentially very significant in the emotional and
attitudinal development of children and young people: “learning in”;
“learning from”.
If these formal components of the model
are to work well in a balanced and complementary relationship they have to be
at the heart of a school - and indeed of a school system - if we are to make
headway towards the high ideals that they represent. If the objectives or formal components are perceived as the building blocks of the model, then the
whole-school features might be perceived as the cement which holds them together to build the bridge which I spoke
about at the start. Such an holistic,
transforming approach will, I believe, include:
-
a
commitment to building a positive, inclusive, co-operative and participative
whole-school ethos, within and beyond the membership of the school community;
-
the
encouragement of a reflective approach to teaching which, according to Andrew
Pollard is concerned with “values, aims and consequences”, and with
“open-mindedness, responsibility and wholeheartedness” (Pollard, 1997);
-
an
emphasis on the ongoing personal and professional development of teachers, and
in particular on the building up of their own self-esteem;
-
a
recognition that such processes are ultimately the shared professional
responsibility of all (teachers and ancillary staff), not just the enthusiasm
of a few;
-
a
recognition that such processes must begin in the early years and continue
throughout life;
-
an
emphasis on the processes and values of teaching and learning,
not just on the products, outcomes or academic achievements;
-
a
participative approach to developing self-esteem, encouraging personal
responsibility and dealing with concerns, issues and problems, through
techniques such as Circle Time or the Community of Enquiry;
-
the
establishment of positive approaches to handling conflict and the development
of appropriate skills in dealing with controversial issues;
-
the
development of an outgoing social conscience;
-
the
encouragement of broad horizons and strong international perspectives.
It is widely recognised that the key to
progress with this area of education is very much bound up with teacher
education at all levels - initial and in-service training, opportunities for
whole-staff professional and personal development programmes. Yet relatively few such opportunities exist,
especially in the prevailing climate in Britain and Northern Ireland and
probably many other places where ultimate value is placed on measurable
academic results (see Montgomery & Smith, 1997, p.80). If we wish to promote reflective engagement
with these issues throughout the educational community, rather than mere
lip-service, then teacher development is crucial.
I have proposed an holistic model as one
which in my view most fully meets the needs of children, teachers and their
schools in preparing for life in a diverse society. I believe that we need to keep all those elements in balance - building
blocks and cement - if we are to build these bridges with integrity and
credibility. Central to the potential
for future development, however, is the teacher. I believe that it is no coincidence that some projects, in
Northern Ireland and elsewhere, which initially worked to provide activities
and programmes for children have now moved substantially into teacher education
and development. This is certainly now
our key task in Northern Ireland, if we are not to repeat the educational
mistakes of the past.
We have spoken of circles and of bridges
as symbols and pointers to the inclusiveness and co-operation for which we
work. Let me close with a final image,
not very remote from the others, which speaks of the same ideals. It’s a traditional Irish saying which I
quote often:
(It
is in the shelter of each other that the people live).
This, too, signifies the visions to which
we must hold, locally and globally, if our work is to go forward. Together with the circle and the bridge, it
is a symbol of the creative, caring, co-operative community - in the classroom,
the staff room, the school as a whole and beyond.
Norman Richardson
References:
Allport, G.W., 1954: The
Nature of Prejudice, Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley.
Amir, Y., 1969: Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic
Relations, in Psychological Bulletin 71, pp.319-342
Bliss, T. & Tetley, J., 1993: Circle
Time For Infant, Junior and Secondary Schools, Bristol, Lucky Duck
Publishing
CCEA, 1997: Mutual Understanding and
Cultural Heritage: Cross-Curricular Guidance Materials, Belfast,
Council for Curriculum, Examinations and
Assessment
Council
of Europe, 1985: Appendix to Recommendation No. R (85) 7 - Of the Committee of Ministers
to Member States on Teaching and Learning about Human Rights in Schools
Curran, C., 1995: Research
Report on the Breadth and Depth of Religious Dimensions in Primary School EMU
Programmes, Belfast, the Columbanus Community
Gallagher, A.M. & Richardson, N.,
1997: Teachers’ Experiences of Implementing EMU and Cultural Heritage,
Belfast, Queen’s University (unpublished chapter for forthcoming book)
Goleman, D., 1996: Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury
Johnson, P., 1998: Understanding the role of emotion in
anti-racist education, in Children as Citizens, Holden, C. &
Clough (eds), Rhys Griffiths
Montgomery, A., 2000: Primary
Values (piloting version), Belfast, Council for Curriculum, Examinations
and Assessment
Montgomery, A., 2001: Values
and Literacy in the Primary School, in Transforming Conflict: The Role
of Education (Papers from the 1999 ENCORE Annual Conference) ed.
Richardson, N., Belfast, European Network for Conflict Resolution in Education
Montgomery, A. & Smith, A.,
1997: Values in Education in Northern Ireland, Belfast, Northern Ireland
Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment
Mosley, J., 1996: Quality Circle Time in the
Primary Classroom, Wisbech, LDA Publishing
Pollard, A., 1997: Reflective
Teaching in the Primary School: A Handbook for the Classroom (3rd Edition),
London, Cassell Education
Richardson, N., 1996: An
Educational Rationale for Education for Mutual Understanding and Cultural
Heritage (chapter for forthcoming book), Belfast, Queen’s University
Richardson, N., 1999: Curriculum
Examples of Inclusiveness: A Case Study of EMU and Cultural Heritage in
School Improvement in the UK, Manchester, The British Council
Richardson, N., 2001: What’s
Right about Education for Mutual
Understanding … and what can we do to make it better? in Transforming
Conflict: The Role of Education (Papers from the 1999 ENCORE Annual
Conference) ed. Richardson, N., Belfast, European Network for Conflict
Resolution in Education
Skilbeck, 1976: Education and Cultural Change in Compass: Journal of the Irish association for Curriculum
Development, Vol.5, No.2, May 1976
Speak Your Piece (c.1996): Speak Your Piece: Exploring Controversial
Issues (A Guide for Teachers, Youth and Community Workers, Coleraine,
University of Ulster
Tyrrell, J., 1997: Transforming
the School Culture ... , in Key Issues, Vol.1, No.1, Londonderry,
EMU Promoting School Project, University of Ulster
Tyrrell, J., 2002: Peer Mediation: A Process for Primary
Schools, London, Souvenir Press (forthcoming)
Democracy
is best learned in a democratic setting where participation is encouraged,
where views can be expressed openly and discussed, where there is freedom of
expression for pupils and teachers, and where there is fairness and justice.
Recommendation on
Teaching and Learning about Human Rights in Schools
Appendix: paragraph 4.1
(Council of Europe, 1985)