Les Stratton

Director, Council for Education in World Citizenship

There is every reason to continue this work into the future; the need has not diminished. CEWC has however lacked any substantial core funding to support its mission since the British Government withdrew its grant in 1994. This led to a formal suspension of operations for the organisation from 2001 until 2003 when a legacy bequest from Margaret Quass, former Director of CEWC, permitted a resumption of activities, albeit on a more limited scale than previously.

Over the past five years much useful work has been accomplished including: Substantial citizenship educational programmes focusing on Human Rights, Corporate Responsibility, and Globalisation; Model United Nations General Assemblies; Instrumental support for the revival of the UNESCO Associated Schools Network in the UK; and the establishment of international partnerships and networks.

Whilst funding has been received to deliver some specific projects, CEWC, despite extensive canvassing, has not succeeded in attracting sufficient financial support for its central organisation and infrastructure costs, which have been met to date largely by drawing on its reserves. The current level of activity can only be sustained for a short period of time before the reserves are finally depleted.

CEWC Executive Board, after careful consideration, concluded that there is no realistic long-term prospect of CEWC continuing as an independent organisation. The purpose for which CEWC was established in 1939 has not lost its urgency or relevance, but new and sustainable means of achieving it had to be found. It was agreed that we should seek a collaborative arrangement with another organisation in the field which has similar purposes, and an extensive conversation has since taken place with the Citizenship Foundation, with whom CEWC shared offices in St Swithin’s Lane in the City a decade ago, and worked together to advise on the government’s Citizenship Curriculum.

The aims of the Citizenship Foundation are compatible with, and in many ways similar to, those of CEWC. It is also a substantial mature organisation with good infrastructure and governance. The Citizenship Foundation fortuitously is already seeking to widen its international remit and perspective, and CEWC would bring complementary reputation and experience. The Citizenship Foundation has welcomed the approach by CEWC, and has proposed to invite the appointment of a member of the CEWC Executive Board to their Board of Trustees, and to establish a joint advisory board to develop a future programme. The CEWC brand may well be used to promote appropriate activities in the future but that will be one of the various issues for the joint advisory board to consider.

The Executive Board is unanimously of the view that the best way forward available is for CEWC to be dissolved as an independent organisation and incorporated fully within the Citizenship Foundation. The proposed arrangement will be mutually beneficial to both CEWC and the Citizenship Foundation and will permit the continuity of the aspirations of the founders of CEWC and sustain its legacy.

I hope that you will wish to continue to be associated with, and support, the work of CEWC in this new context.

Professor David Miles, CEWC Chair

The Christmas Holiday Lectures at Central Hall Westminster were started in December 1944 with over two thousand sixth formers attending to listen to many speakers of note. CEWC became a thriving organisation with several thousand member schools in the UK. Schools from Belgium, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Italy and the USA attended conferences.

CEWC coordinated the UNESCO Associated Schools Project which now has about 8000 schools in 176 countries; the schools are encouraged to work on projects around themes such as human rights, peace, democracy, sustainable development and intercultural dialogue. It carried out UNESCO Co-action activities, where schools raised money for projects that UNESCO administered to help underdeveloped countries.

Model United Nations General Assemblies, where students research and debate on behalf of different countries, were an important activity. They emphasised that students needed to learn how to research, debate and take action rather than simply learn facts. This is in a similar tradition to Quality Circles. The Broadsheet with its junior version, other publications, an expanded speakers service, regional councils and conferences, seminars for teachers, and increasing partnership projects with other organisations enabled CEWC to have a voice at the highest levels. The UK government funded CEWC, and education ministers from all political parties were supportive.

Many people were influenced when students by CEWC’s activities. These include a current UK cabinet member and many past ones, some of whom are CEWC Vice-Presidents. It is difficult to even guess how many decisions have been influenced by CEWC’s message. CEWC and its members have helped the birth of many important organisations including Oxfam, Freedom from Hunger, Voluntary Service Overseas, Community Service Volunteers and the Association for Citizenship Teaching. CEWC was there at the first United Nations General Assembly in London. One of the major achievements of the United Nations was the creation of an international framework of law on Human Rights. Also in 1945 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was formed, and again CEWC facilitated the birth.

CEWC Cymru and CEWC Northern Ireland are sister organisations. CEWC Cymru works directly with young people and teachers on global citizenship. It organises educational events for student and, provides training and resources for teachers. CEWC Cymru receives its core funding from the Welsh Assembly Government, local education authorities, and over 100 school and college members.

Through its programme of Active Global Citizenship Projects, CEWC Northern Ireland enabled young people from post-primary schools and youth groups to understand and confront global issues and challenges. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child underpinned its work.

Citizenship is now taught in the curriculum in the UK. Every year the subject’s strength and importance grows, and influences students to be more tolerant, socially active and aware of their rights. However, the global dimension tends to be neglected.

In 1985 the UK government under Margaret Thatcher withdrew from UNESCO membership, so ASPnet activities ceased in the UK. This was followed by the withdrawal of government funding for CEWC in 1994. This has not been re-instated. Nonetheless its Diamond Jubilee celebration in 1999 was a spectacular event that reflected the true worth of CEWC.

Valiant attempts were made to keep going by running educational projects, but without government funding it became necessary to reduce CEWC’s staff down to two unpaid volunteers. In 2001 activities were suspended for two years. Then CEWC received a legacy as a result of the death of former director Margaret Quass. A Phoenix meeting was held, and CEWC rose from the ashes. An office was opened in a school and a director was appointed, and activities started again, though not yet on the previous scale. Placement students were employed for three years, and now the office has moved to Kingston University.

A delegation went to the 10th International Convention of Schools Quality Control Circles at City Montessori School, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India in November 2007 and our first office outside the UK was opened.

Other recent activities, especially human rights activities, are described in other entries on this blog. CEWC is about to become part of the Citizenship Foundation, so it is appropriate to list some of our supporters and to thank them for all they have done.

Patron: H.R.H The Duke of Gloucester

President: John Gordon

Vice-presidents

TWF Allan John Lockett

Lord Archer of Sandwell PC QC Rabbi Julia Neuberger
Lord Attenborough CBE Professor James O’Connell

Charles Clarke MP John Raisman

John Colclough Lord John Roper
Lord Judd Anne Sofer

Vivian Kerr OBE Lord Steel of Aikwood PC

Baron Neil Kinnock PC Professor Bill Wallace

Susan Kramer MP Baroness Williams of Crosby PC

Chair: Professor David Miles

Vice-Chair: John Waddleton

Executive Board:
Urszula Basini Kanbar Hosseinbor
Natasha Eggett Jude Smith Rachele
Professor Richard Ennals Professor Mary Stuart
Michael Freeston Christopher Wyld

29th January 2008

Corporate Responsibility is Human Rights - making the human link

This seminar drew together the strands of the first three seminars held in October, November and December 2007. Hilary Hunt, Visiting Fellow at the Kingston University Business School, summarised the first seminars. Seminar 1 covered sustainable communities, and the relationships between them, business and government. Seminar 2 was about the rights and well being of children, and seminar 3 explored the role of human rights education for world citizenship.

Dr Helen Johnson of Kingston University School of Education led the lively discussion, commenting that we had been analytical rather than descriptive in our approach. The participants included students from the Law School and representatives of the student’s union and CEWC. Many were from the Penrhyn Road campus (the seminar took place at Kingston Hill). One of the participants had been drawn to study law because of human rights. Another was an alumnus who worked in the corporate responsibility field.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 had an increasing momentum for good as time passed. It is not an imposition of Western values, but has been agreed by all nations. Justice is not a Western idea - the Hammurabi Code, over 3700 years old, was cited. It was noted that violence has lasting effects, e.g. Edward the First’s brutal conquest of Wales and invasion of Scotland around 1300 AD had an influence on the current relationships between British nations.

Businesses tend to want to project an image of compliance rather than implementing rights. Government often does what business wants, and neither do what the citizen wants. But what is the motivation for change while the rights of shareholders take precedence? Companies do have to obey corporate law. The state tries to decide everything for its citizens. Human rights should be a protection for the citizen against oppressive and controlling governments. Should responsibilities be given back to the citizen?

Students are not apathetic, neither are citizens, but they need to feel they will have influence or it is not worth the effort of being involved. Students have time to talk and are passionate about issues, and many of them participate in volunteering. But when students start work they leave these values behind. Why is this?

The UK and USA regard human rights as an imposition. Many countries are distanced from us because of our violations of international law (the next seminar is “The Enforcement of International Human Rights Law: the Challenges Ahead”. It is on 25th February 2008, 1600 to 1800h, Room 6032, Frank Lampl Building, Kingston Hill Campus and will be led by Paresh Kathrani of Kingston University Law School and Prof Richard Ennals of Kingston Business School).

Organisations should imbed human rights values. The education of professionals at Kingston (business, law, teaching etc,) should ensure that those professionals will act more in line with human rights than at present. Everyone has a role to play in society - engineers, businessmen and so on have an important role, they should be made aware by spreading the word about human rights and publicising events. We are all responsible and we all have rights.

All the participants had heard about the Convention on the Rights of the Child but only young people from other countries had learned about it through childhood education. In Sierra Leone it was a standard part of education. Others had learnt from parents involved in UNICEF or who had been aware of human rights violations in Chile. Another had learnt it when studying law in Russia. UK students had learnt about it from friends or through choosing to study human rights.

The university chaplain Stan Brown is collating a document for Bill Rammell the government minister - students should contribute. The government seems not to know how to address the social conflicts in the UK. Locking people up for 42 days without charge is not the way forward. There should be a voice for children in the UK as there is in Sierra Leone.

Privacy rights are violated in the USA. The prevalence of CCTV adds to the climate of fear in the UK. Announcements on trains such as “please keep your luggage in sight - there is a potential threat” do not help. Tee shirts such as “don’t freak I’m a Sikh” use humour in an attempt to overcome fear. The government talks about tolerance, but this is not the same as acceptance. Being pragmatic, tolerance is a start; people have feelings towards different communities which take time to work through. KU is much more diverse now. Over a hundred languages are spoken.

While religions hold that they know the revealed truth, it takes tolerance to interact in the community. The Islamic and Jewish societies issued a joint statement last year. KU has put measures in place to educate its community to be more tolerant; there generally seems to be good communication between students of different cultures and beliefs. One exception is the conflict between the Turkish and Greek societies.

The curriculum has been over specified - there is not enough space left for education to take place. Students have an opportunity to knock on open doors. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights should be part of students’ induction, and should be the backcloth against which all our work is conducted. If the Students Union endorses it then funds can be found.

One should be self critical and realise where we are having a negative impact. Despite the Race Relations Act there is still institutional racism. Can KU look at itself? Things bubble up that are not spoken of and stop realisation of full potential. We are all learning. Integration and learning from each other rather than coexisting requires self examination.

Helen asked “What will this group do? What will get you to come to the next seminar? Participants said that communications and leaflets are needed. Facebook groups should be set up (Facebook is OK but CCTV is not?!). We should focus on what people need to aware of in respect of their own rights. We can ask people what their role as a citizen of the world is by being e.g. an engineer. We need to understand why human rights affects us, and how will our future need to reflect the human rights agenda. Human rights should be introduced into the curriculum and be part of personal development plans. UN days should be celebrated. We should wear the tee shirt.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights announced through a number of specific human rights provisions the objectives contained in the UN Charter to reaffirm human rights and the dignity and worth of the human person.

Whilst the Charter decreed that such conditions were imperative to prevent repetition of the horrors that had occurred during the Second World War, it was left to the Commission on Human Rights to educate people through the Declaration on these rights. Therefore, Hilary Hunt and Jude Smith Rachele chose an appropriate day, the 59th anniversary of the Universal Declaration, to talk about the need for human rights awareness.

Human Rights Violations

It is a sad state of affairs that human rights discourse today in the UK often only arises when there has been a systematic violation. Most people are unaware that they have inalienable human rights and choose to objectivise them by referring to large-scale violations elsewhere instead. That is why it is often useful in human rights education to begin with a discussion of human rights violations in relation to universal standards and personal experience.

Hilary’s introduction on human rights breaches was particularly germane for this reason. By engaging in a discussion on the meaning of human rights violations, participants extrapolated the meaning of human rights. Everyone knows some of their rights; few know all.

It was discussed that hunger would not be a violation of a human right, unless the state had a duty to provide food. This emphasised that one of the facets of human rights is the positive and negative duty of states.

The Importance of Education

Having considered some of the facets of human rights, Hilary turned to how the international community has deemed it necessary for a peaceful world that children are educated about these rights. She described how she had met a group of 14-year old schoolboys in London who thought that torture and execution are reasonable, whereas a similar group from Bangladesh talked in India about the importance of learning about and respecting other people in order to live together peacefully. She posed the questions: “What kind of attitudes would we as adults rather have in our quest for a peaceful world? What kind of citizens are we creating? Are we creating children to be units of profit or citizens able to contribute actively to dignity, equality, justice and peace in the world.” The purpose of education is to break stereotypes. She described how this is particularly difficult when the authorities and media propagate stories that certain sectors of society are dangerous.

Education and International Instruments

The Universal Declaration recognises the importance of human rights education. Article 26(2) says that:

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child also recognises this magnitude. It says:

States Parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to:

1. The development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential;
2. The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and for the principals enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations;
3. The development of respect for the child’s parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, for the national values of the country in which the child is living, the country from which he or she may originate, and for civilizations different from his or her own;
4. The preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of the sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin
5. The development of respect for the natural environment.

Hilary emphasised that effective human rights education is ongoing, to enable people to realise their full potential. Everyone has the right to know their rights. However, this is undermined by the failure of some states to implement human rights instruments.

Human Rights Education in the Corporate World

It is not just children who need to be educated about human rights. Human rights are also important in other contexts. For example, several ILO treaties recognise the importance of human rights in the corporate environment, including the right to work, protection against unemployment, equal pay for equal work and right to adequate standard of living. Hilary referred to a question raised in the first seminar: “Do people leave their humanity at home when they go to work?” Jude then turned to consideration of corporate responsibility.

Although there are laws that protect people, there are barriers that prevent other people from respecting them. One way to overcome this is by educating people, including violators, about their rights and responsibilities.

She explained that she had organised a number of such workshops for the public, private and voluntary sectors. These enabled people:

• To realise that valuing diversity is not the same as equal opportunities
• To move away from a politically-correct blame culture
• To appreciate everyone has biases and prejudices that can get in the way of developing healthy human relationships
• To encourage everyone to take responsibility for their own actions
• To establish the importance of teamwork in achieving the organisation’s aims and objectives
• To encourage people to acknowledge, value and fully utilise the diversity of perspectives and opinions within the organisation
• To ensure there is a collective responsibility for creating a respectful work environment

The overarching purpose of these workshops is to enable people to overcome their prejudices and to take responsibility for their actions. It also encourages teamwork and a collective spirit.

The way in which this is achieved is, inter alia, by educating people on stereotyping. She said that people generally stereotype on the basis of three features: on the outer appearance, such as clothes and physical features, on the hidden features, such as age and intelligence and on the inner features such as aggression and human nature. It is necessary to explain that there is no need to rush to judgement on the basis of this stereotyping and that people should learn to value what is on the inside instead. However, she explained that this is difficult in our society. People are programmed to stereotype others. This is particularly exacerbated in a corporate environment where people are competing with each other.

Encouraging Diversity

Whilst it is important to break down stereotypes, it is also important that people maintain their individuality. They should not all be treated in the same way. It is necessary to respect one another’s differences, and appreciate that all are entitled to their own belief systems. It is important, however, to ensure that there are enforceable international laws to protect people’s fundamental human rights, and to protect all people against discrimination and persecution and gross human rights violations such as genocide. Education: Conclusion

It is important that businesses strike the right balance between safeguarding the rights of their employees and also business and cultural considerations. Whilst money is important and New Labour has economised rights, it is also essential to ensure that the human being is not lost in this melee. This can be achieved by greater human rights education.

The session ended with general discussions.

20 November 2007

The rights and well-being of children:the second successful CEWC seminar

Hilary Tompsett, David Hodgson and Helen Johnson of Kingston University talk about the rhetoric and reality of how, as expressed in governmental policy, we behave towards our children and how they are made to feel The second CEWC seminar, held on 20 November 2007, was chaired by Hilary Hunt.

Noting that this was the eighteenth birthday of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, she reported that the Children’s Rights Alliance of England (CRAE) had declared at their annual conference that government had made progress on only 10 of 78 recommendations made to them by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child concerning their implementation of the CRC in the UK. This was a damning assessment of UK government progress. Perhaps significantly, the British Government has chosen to implement its policies through the European Convention on Human Rights rather than through UK law and has taken a deliberate decision not to implement the CRC by translating it into domestic law. So if the first seminar focused on the corporate social responsibilities of business organisations (and the resulting impact on the rights and lives of the communities in which they operate), the purpose of the second CEWC seminar was to address national government policy - in its newest initiative, Every Child Matters - that could be about children’s rights - but had not been framed in those terms. The resulting impact on Britain’s children would be considered.

General issues about childhood

For Hilary Tompsett and David Hodgson, from the School of Social Work, KU, World Children’s Day is a focus of professional research interest. Through the use of photographs, Hilary and David have been prompted into review and reflection activity. The range of photographs displayed started with a baby, then a toddler and, finally, teenagers (as childhood continues to 18 years of age). Viewing these photographs provoked certain questions, such as:

• What does being a child mean?
  Protection, innocence, hope; Others make decisions for them, not listened to; Playfulness, having fun, but powerless; No worries; Growth

• Does it matter where in the world a child is a child?
  Situation is related to the context, and peers Survival, conflict situations, child soldiers; Responsibilities vary around the world; Children and work: contribution variesWith and without parents; Concept of family.

David Hodgson explored preconceptions, rights and policies. Psychology and biology have traditionally taken the view that the developing child is a blank canvas. But the important issue is the contribution that the child him or herself makes. Sociological accounts tend to raise questions about roles of adults, and the skills they need and acquire. However, new technologies challenge ideas of completeness and skills of adults - and importantly, today, children may sometimes be more capable than adults. Additionally, it is necessary not to be sentimental about children: they can be unruly. After all, as David reminded the seminar group, Socrates had complained that children can be tyrants.

Current governmental policies make assumptions about children. In the Children’s Act (1989), following the Butler Sloss Report in 1987) the child is seen as being:

• A threat (need control)
• A victim (need protection)
• An investment (need education)

General issues about human rights

Hilary then considered human rights and asked more questions:

• What are human rights? How do we define rights?
  Wish list, legal entitlement, right to redress, right to live and be free, Dignity, respect and freedom: keeping them in balance,Not everyone enjoys each right: it can be defined by its absence,Right to be treated equally, for example education,To have a voice, expressing oneself.
  Are rights different when considering children? What happens when we apply the idea of rights to children? What do we learn, from the Convention and Every Child Matters, about children as rights holders? What do children say? What are the implications for practice?
• How was the Convention constructed?
• Were children consulted?
• Is it essentially a document defined by adults?
• Is the CRC fixed in its time, 1989? Why have 192 countries adopted CRC, while 2 have not (USA and Somalia).
• What about the inconsistencies? (For example, in relation to child soldiers)

The resulting interplay of factors

David then turned to the interplay of rights, children, family and the state in the UK.

• Rights can relate to autonomy, self expression, non interference, as in the European Convention, objectivity and reason are assumed.
• The alternative is a basis of relationships: freedom to flourish, connection, interdependence, subjectivity, emotion.
• CRC combines civil, political, economic and social rights. The state, family and children have relationships, and are not just separate.

New government policy about the well-being and protection of children

He then addressed the relationship between Every Child Matters and CRC. The Outcome Framework forEvery Child Matters stipulates that every child be supported in these ways:

• Being healthy
• Staying safe
• Enjoying and achieving
• Making a positive contribution
• Economic well-being

UNICEF have matched the two together, taking 7 key principles from the CRC. The best interests of the child should be prioritised. The mapping is complex. Being safe was a preoccupation of CRC:

• Has the UK become complacent about its state in the world?
• Why is it that ECM does not deal with rights per se?

The rhetoric and the reality

David addressed the issues of rhetoric and reform, and questions of universalism and equity. Echoing Hilary’s earlier question about the voice of children in the defining of their human rights, an important question in the design of national governmental policy about children is:

To what extent were these Outcomes derived from children?

The Outcomes Framework for ECM needs to be explored. The CRC is a document of international law, and each State Party is legally bound to implement it through domestic legislation, policies and practice. The international mechanism for accountability is by regular reports to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child which makes recommendations for improved implementation. ECM has roots in national law, with overwhelming paraphernalia of enforcement. It is also an agenda for targeted support and action regarding children. There are parallel agendas, with interventions and surveillance. After all, at its widest (and perhaps deepest), child protection can be seen as personal integrity. Nevertheless, in Britain, children can still be subjected to reasonable physical punishment. Information sharing raises issues of confidentiality, and when the common law can be set aside.

The need for children’s voices in this discussion

Hilary ended with comments from children about living in England today. They talked about:

• privilege, free health care, free education.
• friends were priority of under 11s.
• older ones valued freedom; disliked unfair age restrictions, vulnerability and bullying. They wanted greater opportunities for leisure, more respect, and education for respect. They want safety, friends and fun, health and happiness.

The UNICEF 2007 Report “Child well-being in the richest countries” highlights loneliness and unhappiness among British children. How is childhood experienced today in the UK?

Seminar discussion

Comments were made:

• The voice of the child should be heard more.
• There has been media coverage of stress, and the value of self-esteem of children.
• We have a performance driven environment.
• All adults and children should know about CRC.
• How would ECM have been different if there had been more education on CRC?

The role of others in the education and protection of children

The first part of the seminar had focused on the role of formal, ‘authorised’ bodies in the education and protection of children. If children’s voices had been excluded from the design of the human rights stated in the CRC and in national governmental policy such as ECM:

• what was the role of ‘others’, some of whom where in the alternative sector of education?

Helen Johnson, from the School of Education, KU, was concerned that while it may be that the theory about children’s rights is clearly expressed - or at least, the rhetoric about them (e.g. the UDHR and CRC) is confident and vocal - there are difficulties with the practical. There are also significant issues - not withstanding the appointment of a Children’s Commissioner in England - about the implementation of ECM as a policy and organisational strategy.

The context

As mentioned by Hilary and David, the UNICEF report on childhood has resonated, and cannot be disregarded. English children came bottom for well-being, in a dog eat dog society.

In a society, in many ways similar to the UK, the Dutch are happiest. Here in the UK:

• Suicide rates are high.
• Children are unhappy and stressed.
• Much use of drugs and drink
• Violence is prevalent.

In many ways, the UK approach to the protection of well-being has been legalistic, based on the exertion of rights, with an emphasis on agency. But on a day-to-day basis:

• How do children exert their rights?
• How do CRC and ECM really impact?

The culture within schools

There are important questions, not about the abstractions of rights, but about happiness and how children actually feel when they are in school:

• the American writer, Nel Noddings, has asked why have so many creative people hated school?
• Is it repressive for the creative child?
• Is it repressive for many children?

After all, happiness is more than subjective well-being - it is about holistic growth, which is encouraged through the well-being of the children. Such well-being comes, in part at least, through committed teachers, whose own behaviour (and happiness) impacts on children. The children are watching. So rights in themselves are not enough. For example, UNICEF asked about children whether the children in their class were kind and helpful. In the UK and USA, with competition and materialism, there have been distortions, for example:

• Boundaries between child and adult have disappeared, with sexualisation of popular culture seemingly all-pervasive.
• What’s the effect of children spending less time with their parents?
• Do the extended schools offered in the name of child-centredness actually prove the opposite?
• As children spend more time with their peers how does this impact on their value systems?
• As children spend more time away from their parents, what is the basis of adult authority?
• State schools in the UK have become subject to:
• an intense performativity, with OFSTED audits.
• teaching has been technicised, with TDA checklists
• ironically, with the emphasis on performance, some children are ‘failing’ earlier
• children are seen as human capital.

There is a crisis in state education: fiscal, structural, social and educational. In Bernstein’s terms, schools cannot compensate for society and family. There is real complexity and difficulty for teachers.

Is there no other way?

Recognising the voice and role of others

An alternative view is that learning is about connections, and not being dispirited. There is a case for progressive holistic education, with education as the practice of freedom. American writers such as the Quaker, Parker Palmer, have argued for the need to go inward to find the inner teacher, the reflective practitioner. Spirituality is important, based on connectedness, with happiness, personal growth and self-actualisation. What do we want our children to be? Are there too many demands?

Quaker Schools as an example of the alternative

Helen Johnson gave as an example of a different type of good practice the seven independent Quaker schools, based on tolerance and conflict resolution. They are based on declared, elevated or transcendental aims, as in other experiments in progressive education such as those of Dewey, Steiner and Montessori. (In many cases, these were schools founded by parents themselves and others with a concern for the moral purpose of education).

There is suspicion of what has come to be called ‘faith schools’. But with the Society of Friends, there are no closed minds or fundamentalism. For though Quakers lack theology, they have strong culture. They respect diversity and minorities. The rights of the child, and ECM, are consistent with Quaker schools. The peace testimony and a calm atmosphere are vital, as an essential characteristic of the Quaker culture and of the Quaker school. In practical day-to-day terms, bullying is seen as failure in Quaker schools. This leads to the essential question in any discussion about the protection and well-being of children:

Why is bullying accepted and tolerated as a fact of life in other schools (including those being run by the state that in declares its adherence to children’s human rights and Every Child Matters)?

Why is this relevant?

Quaker schools are caring for the whole child, combining education, care and resilience. But most of all, they exemplify that there are alternative ways to the care and education of children, that there can be societies built on alternative values - and that alternative voices need to heard. Such schools declare their values. This allows them to be examined for consistency between their rhetoric and the reality about children’s rights and well-being.

Discussion

Many points were made:

• There was discussion of Bel Hooks, and the difficulty of teaching. It is hard to encompass all children, so that they are comfortable.
• Spirituality is important, when considering inalienable human rights. Rights can be seen as protecting the spirit.
• Human rights frameworks are useful for audit, assessing how we are doing.
• Is happiness or concentration more important?
• Disabled children should be covered by ECM, with equal access to education, without discrimination. There is a new Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Young disabled miss out, especially in developing countries. Legislation on the Disability Discrimination Act has changed in recent years, but people are unaware of the breaches in the law.
• It is difficult for individuals to have their rights respected.
• Teachers still need to be trained in delivering equal rights.
• Few employers were challenged over breaches in the 1947 legislation, with official quotas not enforced.
• Children in care, and their problems with education, are important.
• School culture has to combat other forces, such as advertising junk food.

Alternative values have to be presented. This is not easy. The home school movement suggests a level of dissatisfaction. In conclusionHilary Hunt saw CRC as a charter for both adults and children. (Article 29 of CRC concerns the aims of education. It is worth consulting). Referring back to the first seminar about corporate social responsibility of big business, she thought that the Quaker approach to education - the empowerment of the child through education and being encouraged to be socially active -was consistent with empowering communities to make change. She reminded the seminar group that there are dangers in excessive pessimism and how societal problems and issues are portrayed. People are trying to widen the agenda. There are positive scenarios. ***** Human Rights Broadsheet 1 is now available:United Nations Day24th October 2007Sustainable DevelopmentPaul Caulfield, BP AsiaIn conversation with Richard Ennals, Kingston Business SchoolChaired by Les Stratton, CEWC Human Rights Broadsheet 3 is now available:

Human Rights Day

10th December 2007

Human Rights Education for World CitizenshipHilary Hunt, CEWCJude Smith Rachele, Abundant Sun

Chaired by Prof Richard Ennals, Kingston Business School

FacilitatorHilary Hunt

Participants

Christoph Wyld,John Waddleton, Les Stratton, Natasha Eggett, Nazir Walji, Noura Moujahid, Zrinka Mendes, [Cynthia Jones was able to attend a small part of the seminar] Apologies: John Gordon, Jude Smith Rachele’ Michael Freeston, Richard Ennals’ Urszula Basini

Overview

The seminar arose out of strategic planning work and the Executive Board decision that human rights education is to be a main strand of CEWC’s approach. It was devised for those who have been involved in and are thus familiar with CEWC’s developing strategic plans.

The aims for participants were:1) to develop confidence in their grasp of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as a tool for education in world citizenship2) to develop a plan of action to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the UDHR in 2008 Part one of the seminar focussed on Getting to know the UDHR in a series of activities to stimulate discussion about internationally agreed human rights and become familiar with the UDHR and the international human rights treaty system. Part two of the seminar focussed on making links between the UDHR and CEWC’s vision of education for world citizenship, as a starting point for creating a programme of CEWC activities to celebrate the 60^th anniversary of the UDHR in 2008. Attached are participants’ recommendations; the seminar outline and list of handouts.

Evaluations

Participants’ evaluations

• Four people felt much more confident about the their grasp of the content, meaning and scope of the UDHR as a tool for education in world citizenship; two people quite a lot more confident and one person a little more confident.
• The most interesting things people learned were:
  • Understanding the basis of human rights
  • The indivisibility of rights
  • There’s still a lot of ground to be covered universally
  • How complicated it is!
  • The legal status of Declaration v ratification
  • The common aims of the group
  • Thinking about the negative connotations of human rights
• Challenges people found in learning about the UDHR included
  • The mechanics of the legal nature of the implementation of the UDHR
  • To think of the context in which I could apply human rightso Enforceability of the articles universally
  • Remembering all the articles
• All would attend a further CEWC in-house seminar, for example, on the Convention on the Rights of the Child Facilitator’s evaluation:My own aim was for all the key CEWC activists to have an opportunity to actively work and learn together, to have the common knowledge base essential to sound planning in what can be seen as a controversial field, to strengthen understanding of how complex the interrelatedness of human rights and life is.

Everyone participated in a challenging and thoughtful way throughout, demonstrating their engagement with the UDHR and the learning which arose from the various activity-based discussions. The depth of the wide-ranging discussions meant that we made a start on rather than complete the plan for 2008, but I considered the discussions were vital to give us a solid foundation from which to move forward with more confidence. The evaluations show how varied responses to human rights are, and thus support the appropriateness of the seminar content and methodology. Specific ideas elicited in activities and comments given in evaluations highlight areas to be further addressed and explored. It was most unfortunate that five key CEWC activists were absent. Last-minute invitations to non-mainstream CEWC people were mostly successful, but also partially disruptive.

Recommendations

Participants’ recommendations: See attached notes on1) A draft Bill of Rights for CEWC’s world of world citizens2) 2008 action planks Facilitator’s recommendations:1) Support Director’s suggestion for a similar seminar for those who were absent on 25 July; re-invite those who attended the CEWC strategic planning meeting and couldn’t attend this seminar.2) Plan a second in-house seminar, on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 3) Use participants’ recommendations to develop programme of hre work, with products to attract funding and promote CEWC.

Participants’ recommendations

A draft Bill of Rights for CEWC’s world of world citizens would:

• Have all rights included (UDHR Art 2[1]) And include the following specified rights Ø Life (UDHR Arts 1, 3)
• Freedom of expression (UDHR Arts18, 19, 22)
  • ideas
  • culture
  • religion
• Non-discrimination (UDHR Art 2)
• Basics for quality of life: water, energy, health, home, clothing, family (UDHR Arts 24, 25)
• Inclusion in decision-making (UDHR Art 21)
• To be a productive member of society (UDHR Art 23)
• Education (UDHR Art 26)Ø Equality, freedom, respect (UDHR Arts 1, 2 12)
• Peace (free from physical attack) (UDHR Arts 3, 5, 12, 14, 20, 30)
• Duty to be responsible (UDHR Arts 29,30) 2008 action planks should include
• Marketing the message that CEWC is in business (TES etc)
• Website materials for teachers
• Website materials for young people to access
• MUNGAs in schools (in collaboration with eg UNA)
• MQ lecture with an international human rights bigshot eg HCHR
• Easter and summer holiday workshops on human rights at KU
• Museums
• Ethics in education
• Education for the disabled
• Intercultural education
• Repeating this kind of workshop for others: organizations, teachers

Seminar outline

Getting to know the UDHR

1. Ice-breaker discussion: the relative importance of rights
2. Introductions
3. Dispelling the myths about human rights
4. What are human rights? Basic concepts
5. What is a universal human right?
6. History of UDHR and human rights treaty system incl ratification
7. Q&A
8. coffee

CEWC’s world of world citizenship

1. Which UDHR rights are most important to you as a person?
2. Create a new planet of active, ethical, responsible world citizens. Compare your Bill of Rights with the UDHR.
3. Start work on calendar and plan of action for CEWC to celebrate / promote UDHR in 2008 (60th anniversary)
4. WAR by Bob Marley - world citizenship
5. Q&A
6. Evaluation
7. Finish Handouts: What are human rights? (BCHRS)What is human rights education? (BCHRS and WPOA)Articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child

just remembered I forgot to include the Liverpool Parliament
presentation and ASPnet school teacher and child hre sessions
- will send amended version