The rise and fall of human rights in English education policy: inescapable national

interests and PREVENT

Robert A. Bowie

bob.bowie@canterbury.ac.uk

First Published February 1, 2017 in Education, Citizenship and Social Justicehttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1746197917693020

Abstract

The article interprets changes in human rights education (HRE) in English school policy

on values which have increasingly been framed by PREVENT and a move from

international to national expressions of values. It reveals the extent of the impact and

nature of this change on HRE in school policy for the first time. It reports changes from

minimal to maximal expectations compounded by an increased focus of school

performance. It broadly illustrates the extent to which values is politically framed and

significantly how recently ‘sudden’ political changes in the UK can be seen as part of a

change trend which is almost 10 years old. It draws on Schwartz’s theoretical structure

of values, Baxi’s conceptualisation of rights and Lohrenscheit’s notion of learning

about and learning for human rights as these respectively reveal conceptual clarity in

values, human rights and pedagogy.

Keywords:

Human rights, British values, curriculum, policy, civic, national, values, prevent

Robert A Bowie is Principal Lecturer in the Faculty of Education at Canterbury Christ

Church University, UK.

The rise and fall of human rights in English education policy: inescapable national

interests and PREVENT

Human rights education in English school policy

Robert A. Bowie*

Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University, UK

*Corresponding author. Faculty of Education, Canterbury Christ Church University,

Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK. Email: bob.bowie@canterbury.ac.uk

Dr Bowie is Principal Lecturer in Education at Canterbury Christ Church University.

Oscillation, ambivalence, fear and performance management: an interpretation of

human rights education changes in English school policy

The paper examines human rights education in curriculum guidance and policy

for English schools over 25 years, a period marked by oscillation between national

and international/ universal conceptions of rights. It interprets the policy change

as an indicator of political moral ambivalence towards rights in the context of a

time of uncertainty, anxiety and perceived national existential threat. These

changes are more significant because of the growth of strong structural

frameworks to enforce values education. However, the key conclusion of this paper

is that there is a consistency in the moral messages in the school policy guidance of

the last three governments. Far from a radical departure the statement of

fundamental British values is consistent with all previous policy.

National and international interest groups and actors increasingly use legislative

and performance management instruments for moral enforcement. In a time of

increased concern over extremist and terrorism moral education is enlisted as a

tool. Human rights and values may both protect the individual from the state and

defend the state from the individual.

Keywords: human rights; curriculum; policy; civic; national;

values;Rights, out of focus

Though 2016 was marked in the UK by political changes that seemed to suddenly and

unexpectedly overturn development towards an international rule based approach to

governance and values, through the referendum vote to leave the European Union, this

article shows that this political change was clearly signposted by the the PREVENT and

Fundamental British Values policy agenda.

It was said that this was the age of universal human rights (Henkin, 1990: xvii), a

binding global ethic founded on universal values and mutual respect. However, the

professed universality of human rights is implicitly and explicitly questioned in

international human rights statements themselves (UN General Assembly, 1993) and by

scholars who identify their western nature and origin and limitations (for example Baxi,

2003:104; Pannikkar and Sharma, 2007: 61-63). Nevertheless, the hope that many

cultures could find commonality with aspects of commonality in western articulations

of human rights (Pannikkar and Sharma, 2007; UNESCO, 2015) and a worldwide rise

in human rights education was a feature of this age (Ramirez et al., 2006). This

impacted on English education policy since the signing of the Convention of the Rights

of the Child (hereafter CRC) (UN General Assembly, 1989) but a period of change has

interrupted the internationalizing march of this ‘age’ in the UK fuelled by concerns

linked to international and terrorism PREVENT. The article draws on national This

article traces human rights education in education policy and ccurriculum guidance

including for English schools over the period since the signing of the CRC (UN

General Assembly 1989). It examines human rights in major English curriculum

documentation and guidance from UK governments from 1997 onwards. To try to

capture a sense of the moral aims in English education policy this article draws on

references to rights in National Curriculum documentation and non statutory guidance

on RE, and Ofsted advice from Ofsted (the inspection agency for English schools)

which bringson Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (hereafter SMSC) as

Ofsted has at times been used to inspect aspect of moral education. It is possible to draw

moral conclusions from almost any school guidance document but a study analyzing all

school documentation over such a period would be a monumental task. The research for

this article examined prominent policies with inspection implications, and legal

requirements of schools.

policies which schools were assessed against. References to rights and human rights are

examined and interpreted with a focus on words and phrases drawn from international

human rights documents, but given the substantial size of this literature, the key focus is

around mentioning of rights and human rights. What explicit message have recent

policies given English schools about human rights and the place it should have in any

moral formation of pupils? This question aims to reveal the extent to which the spirit of

the Convention of the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC) (ratified by the UK in 1991)

and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ article on education (UN General

Assembly 1989, Article 26) have been embraced in the UK, as both include specific

expectations that signatories promote human rights and fundamental freedoms within

education. It is said that this is the age of human rights, the universally accepted

political-moral idea of our time (Henkin 1990, xvii), the “binding global ethic founded

on universal values and mutual respect” which crosses cultural boundaries (UNESCO

2015). It is also said that aA worldwide rise in human rights education is one a feature

of this age (Ramirez, Suarez and Meyer 2006). This article questions whether this is true

of English education policy.

This article e investigation utilises a number ofthree interpreting lenses to interpret how

the policy documentation addresses moral question and how theand situates references

to rights or human rights, . These lens have conceptual links with one another, of

increasing specificity to this taskoffering conceptual clarity in important ways. Shalom

H. One lens is Schwartz’se s research on universal values offers a theoretical scheme

structure of values (1992, 2005) that interprets . His work on samples from 35 000

respondents to the European Social Survey in 2002-3 from 67 nations revealed

underlying motivations values by their motivations. His scheme informed values

systems incorporatesing conflicts and congruities andincluding an integrated structure.

The motivations he identified were originated into self-transcendence (universalism and

benevolence), conservation (conformity, tradition and security), self enhancement

(power, achievement and hedonism) and openness to change (self-direction, stimulation

and also hedonism). Applying Schwartz’s scheme to rights references in policies reveals

their conceptual framing This analysis seems to be sensitive to the key factors behind

this policy area. Particular value sets may be combined with differing motivations with

differing responses to the conflicts and congruities and this is apparent when rights are

considered. Rights can one the one hand be conservational, as articulations and

expressions of national identityvalues and expressions of national ethos and character or

on the other. , tThey may come to denote the liberties of the citizen freeing them from

state oppression.of a particular country empowering those individuals, as opposed to a

citizen of another country, or those not classed as citizens who by definition are

disempowered. This lens is useful in scrutinizing a landscape for generic qualities of

value, particularly around interplays between national and international

conceptualizations of values.

A second conceptual lens overlaps Schwartz’s scheme with specific historic concepts of

rights. It iis informed by theUpendra Baxi’s broad analysis of the characteristics of

rights and his distinction between ‘the rights of man’ and ‘universal and international

rights’. TheThe ‘rights of man’ of the seventeenth17th, eighteenth18th and

nineteenth19th centuries in European philosophy and political thought were conceived

as civil or national rights of citizens. They sought to emancipate (male) citizens and

sometimes could be linked to international movements, the clearest example being the

link between France and America with Thomas Payne and the Declaration of the Rights

of Man and the US Constitution (Baxi, 2003; Moran, 2013). However, rights can also be

seen as revolutionary or empowering for all if they are universal and international (Baxi,

2003). It is , as is the professed intention of the UN declarations and conventions on

human rights that they should have this revolutionary or empowering force. They

should encourage the individual to transcend their situation and national interests and

situations context to enablinge and empowering thean individual offering basic legal

protections from their government against the abuses of the state. Their ey profess an

intergovernmentalitly and universal recognition express aspirations that that supersedes

national sovereignty toin the hope of safeguarding citizens from the abuse by

government. Whether these aspirations are fulfilled is debated. Some argue their

generality and lack of precision permits much wider diversity at the level of

implementation even to the extent of undermining their universality and power (Posner,

2014). Others reject this criticism (Hannum, 2015) on the grounds it fails to recognize

that the key purpose behind contemporary international human rights was to

safeguarded those excluded from legal protections. .

Baxi’s account of contemporary international human rights is a maximal vision of

rights for humanity, involving the protection of rights for The self ise every human

being, irrespective of citizenship, nationality, culture, creed or any other distinguishing

feature and the responsibility to protect extends transcends national boundaries. The

ideal of this total emancipation is thatIn this international vision of rights, all can come

to the table and share their stories of injustice and suffering in the contemporary human

rights era (Baxi, 2003). Baxi’s lens complements Schwartz’s theoretical scheme This

complimentspecifically focusing on the contours of rights discourses in recent timess

the first lenses general categories of values overlaying them with theories of human

rights. One lens illuminates features of the other. Baxi (2005) concludes that human

rights are the product of struggle which includes resistance against some features of

global capitalism while Osler claims (2015) HRE is a site of struggle for human rights

and democracy. A key dynamic in changes in education policy identified in this article

is the movement from reluctance to an embrace of the internationalism and universalism

of human rights, followed by a return to a more nation focused conserving conception

of rights.

A third interconnecting lens illuminates the educative dimension with the is drawn from

human rights pedagogies which make distinctions between learning about rights and

learning from or for rights. Lohrenscheit Lohreinsheicht (2002) describes learning about

rights in terms of knowledge and understanding of the origins, history and relevance of

human rights, rights controversies and debate and human rights practices and processes.

Tibbits (2002) sees two variants within this. O, one which concerns values and

awareness of rights and the other professional accountabilitiesy. Learning for from

rights enriches and brings change, even transformation which entails empowerment,

solidarity, resistance and struggle. Such education is a matter of justice and is

essentially political for it seeks to redress power imbalances. This pedagogical lens

compliments both the theories of human rights and the categories of values, articulating

the kind of transformational change education might realise.

.

These lenses provide a general interpretation of the kind of values in which

morals in education policy may be set, a specific interpretation around the question of

national and international human rights, and a further interpretation around the

conception of rights education implied.

TheThe possibility of an age of rights in education

The Convention of the Rights of the Child (hereafter CRC) (UN General Assembly,

1989) (ratified by the UK in 1991) brings brought a legal duty to uphold the articles of

the convention and the . There are education obligations for all children which include

the development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms (UN General

Assembly, 1989:, Article 29 1 a-e) as well as respect for parents, cultural identity,

language, national values and for civiliszations different from his or her own

background. This education, the convention continues, should prepare the child for life

in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and

friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of

indigenous origin, as well as respect for the natural environment. This ese moral

educational aims areis what is commonly referred to asmeant as Human Rights

Education (hereafter HRE) , part of a number of worldwide initiatives and a an

burgeoning educational discourse (Lenhart and& Savolainen, 2002; Reardon, 1995;

UNESCO, 1998; UNHCR, 2005).

However, human rights are not universally praised and in some countries, such

as the UK, they have come under pressure. Whilst human rights may have become an

international language of morality, there are attitudes and arguments that temper the

internationalising and universalising themes of rights suchThere are as concerns over

the loss of national civic identity and duty (Glendon 1993; Etzioni 1993). Others worry

that human rights are colonising or western (Wang 2002) undermining any local

embrace (Al-Daraweesh and Snauwaert 2015). There are signs that the age of human

rights is faltering. In the UK there have been political moves to replace the Human

Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights (The Conservatives 2015; Cabinet Office and

Her Majesty the Queen 2015) suggesting that there is discomfort with the existing legal

settlement. The faltering status of human rights is reflected in recent changes to

education policy that affect the universal and international vision of HRE.

H

This article traces human rights education in moral education policy and curriculum

guidance for English schools over the period since the signing of the CRC (UN General

Assembly 1989). It examines human rights in major English curriculum documentation

and guidance from UK governments from 1997 onwards. It focuses on National

Curriculum documentation and non statutory guidance on RE, and Ofsted advice on

Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (hereafter SMSC) given the

significance of the inspection frameworks in the English state education system (ref?).

References to rights and human rights are examined and interpreted

. How is the duel commitment to a national values education and an international vision

of human rights negotiated?

HRE incorporates a diaspora of moral educational projects from including peace

education (Tibbitts, 2008) to , citizenship (Osler, 2000), from education for sustainable

development (Jensen et al., 2015) andto personal moral development (???? add(Covell

and Howe, 2001). Whilst arguably utopian and perhaps cosmopolitan (Starkey 2012).,

Studies have shown that the commitment to the CRC and the effectiveness of

implementation is affected in local contexts by constitution and culture. Bromley’s

(2011) study of civic education text books used in British Colombia in Canada saw

human rights framed within national identity. Al-Nakib’s (2012) study of a school in

Kuwait reveals the difficulty of developing education for human rights and democracy

in an authoritarian structure. The engagement was thin and perceived to be a threat, such

that the initiative was quickly curtailed. Ince’s (2012) study of civic education textbooks

in Turkey identifies the difficulty of developing rights in a context where policy

emphasises the dominant identity at the expense of significant minority groups. These

illustrate aspects of the distinct multilayered national and international dynamics within

HRE. Human rights can be conceived as a foundation of national identity (Canada), as a

superficial covering of distinct national politico-cultural structures (Kuwait) or as a

threat to national identity (Turkey).

Establishing the balance between respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms

and national values in education policy is challenging. There is a risk of a democratic

deficit brought on by the loss of national civic identity and duty (Etzioni, 1993;

Glendon, 1993), and a risk of western colonial reach (Adelman, 2011; Wang, 2002).

Universal human rights may undermine local embrace (Al-Daraweesh and Snauwaert,

2015). This research suggests that insecurity around national values creates a desire to

assert or consolidate established traditions and undemocratic forms of government are

resistant to the democratising and inclusive agenda implicit in HRE. It suggests HRE

depends upon genuine change in governmental structures in matters of democracy or

lessons taught will always be subverted by a reality that pupils perceive.

TIthese international priorities for education are situated alongside national

priorities. Pedagogical development is situated in particular political contexts creating

multilayered dynamics with national and international strands. Studies have shown that

the commitment to the CRC and the effectiveness of implementation is affected in local

contexts by constitution and culture. Bromley’s (2011) study of civic education text

books used in British Colombia in Canada showed that human rights are framed as part

of its national identity. Al-Nakib’s (2012) study of a school in Kuwait shows the

problem of trying to develop education for human rights and democracy within an

authoritarian structure. The engagement was thin and yet still perceived to be a threat

such that the initiative was quickly curtailed. Ince’s (2012) study of civic education

textbooks in Turkey identifies the difficulty of developing rights in a context where

policy emphasises the dominant identity at the expense of significant minority groups.

These illustrate aspects of the distinct multilayered national and international dynamics.

Human rights within educational settings can be conceived as a foundation of national

identity (Canada), as a superficial covering of distinct national polite-cultural structures

(Kuwait) or as a threat to national identity (Turkey). Establishing the balance between

respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and national values is difficult.

Insecurity around national identity creates and desire to assert or consolidate established

traditions and undemocratic forms of Government are resistant to the democratizing and

inclusive agenda implicit in HRE, HRE depends upon genuine change in governmental

structures in matters of democracy, or the lessons taught will always be subverted by the

reality that pupils perceive but one would not expect this t be a factor in a liberal

democracy such as the UK. The question of national identity is more relevant to this

article, nt least because of the shift in the last five years towards a consolidation and

articulation of national values and the consequences this has for HRE ambitions.

In the UK, the signing of the CRC coincided with the establishment of a National

Curriculum for English Schools in the 1988 Education Reform Act. A commitment to

an international notion of moral education was made as the government took national

control over curricula. This was the beginningan of athe period in which different UK

gGovernments engaged with human rights educationHRE within national education

policies and wider public life. Human rRights were linked to English law through

international conventions and through the Human Rights Act (1998) and the Equality

Human Rights Commission, an independent part of government.

At times the English National Curriculum has included the moral aim to serve human

rights (QCA 2007a). However moral education policiesy areis also tool for the

formation of national identity and civic attitudes (McLaughlin in Carr, et. al. 2008, p79).

Rights may be conceptualized in national or international terms.

Interpreting the moral messages in education policy

Whilst human rights may have become an international language of morality, there are

attitudes and arguments that temper the internationalising and universalising themes of

rights such as concerns over the loss of national civic identity and duty (Glendon 1993;

Etzioni 1993). Others worry that human rights are colonising or western (Wang 2002)

undermining any local embrace (Al-Daraweesh and Snauwaert 2015). In the UK there

have been political moves to replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights

(The Conservatives 2015; Cabinet Office and Her Majesty the Queen 2015) suggesting

that there is discomfort with the existing legal settlement.

This article traces human rights education in moral education policy and curriculum

guidance for English schools over the period since the signing of the CRC (UN General

Assembly 1989). It examines human rights in major English curriculum documentation

and guidance from UK governments from 1997 onwards. It focuses on National

Curriculum documentation and non statutory guidance on RE, and Ofsted advice on

Spiritual, Moral, Social and Cultural development (hereafter SMSC) given the

significance of the inspection frameworks in the English state education system (ref?).

References to rights and human rights are examined and interpreted. How is the duel

commitment to a national values education and an international vision of human rights

negotiated?

The investigation utilises a number of interpreting conceptual lenses. One draws

on Schwartzes theoretical structure of values (1992, 2005). His work on samples from

35 000 respondents to the European Social Survey in 2002-3 from 67 nations revealed

underlying motivations informed values systems incorporating conflicts and congruities

and an integrated structure. The motivations he identified were originated into self-

transcendence (universalism and benevolence) conservation (conformity, tradition and

security), self enhancement (power, achievement and hedonism) and openness to

change (self-direction, stimulation and also hedonism). This analysis seems to be

sensitive to the key factors behind this policy area. Particular value sets may be

combined with differing motivations with differing responses to the conflicts and

congruities and this is apparent when rights are considered. Rights can be

conservational, as articulations of national identity and expressions of national ethos and

character. They may come to denote the liberties of the citizen of a particular country

empowering those individuals, as opposed to a citizen of another country, or those not

classed as citizens who by definition are disempowered.

A second conceptual lens understands these debates around the characteristics of

the rights. The ‘rights of man’ of the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in

European philosophy and political thought were conceived as civil or national rights of

citizens. They sought to emancipate (male) citizens and sometimes could be linked to

international movements, the clearest example being the link between France and

America with Thomas Payne and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the US

Constitution (Baxi 2003; Moran 2013). However rights can also be seen as

revolutionary and empowering for all if they are universal and international (Baxi

2003), as is the professed intention of the UN declarations and conventions on human

rights. They encourage the individual to transcend their situation and enable and

empower the individual, against the abuses of the state. They profess an

intergovernmentally that supersedes national sovereignty to safeguard citizens from the

abuse by government. The self is every human being, irrespective of nationality, culture,

creed or any other distinguishing feature and the responsibility to protect extends

transcends national boundaries. The ideal of this total emancipation is that all can come

to the table and share their stories of injustice and suffering in the contemporary human

rights era (Baxi 2003).

Education in rights might in principle promote one or other of these

conceptualisations with their respective motivations, but human rights pedagogy makes

the distinction between learning about rights and learning from or for rights.

Lohreinsheicht (2002) describes learning about rights in terms of knowledge and

understanding of the origins, history and relevance of human rights, rights controversies

and debate and human rights practices and processes. Tibbits (2002) sees two variants

within this, one which concerns values and awareness of rights and the other

professional accountability. Learning from rights enriches and brings change, even

transformation which entails empowerment, solidarity, resistance and struggle. Such

education is a matter of justice and is essentially political for it seeks to redress power

imbalances.

From reluctance to ardent advocacy of human rights

Three phases ofR rights in and change in moral curriculum guidance for English

schools

National and Civic Rights and Responsibilities

There was no mention of human rights in the national education documents on moral

education produced under the Conservative Government in the period after the 1988

Education Reform Act. Though the UK had signed the Convention on the Rights of the

Child (CRC) in 19890, and ratified it a year later, policy on moral education and values

did not adopt the language of the CRC. English schooling should have civic and

national moral qualities and . Sir Ron Dearing, chairman of the School Curriculum and

Assessment Authority (SCAA), published his report in 1993, suggesting the curriculum :

‘“… should develop an appreciation of the richness of our cultural heritage

and of the spiritual and moral dimensions to life. It must, moreover be concerned

to serve all our children well, whatever their background, sex, creed, ethnicity or

talent’.” (Dearing, 1993:,18).

Spiritual and moral life was linked to historic notions of culture and identity. The 1995

publication following the Dearing review suggested school values should include

respect for the rights and property of others (SCAA, 1995:, 5) a feature of the British

human rights tradition with its connotations of ownership and privilege. Spiritual and

moral development was not human rights education per se, and property rights with its

connotations of ownership and privilege featured as a key element. However the rights

and responsibilities of the citizen found a home in the newly emerging subject of

citizenship education. [more here? – Andrew?]

Prior to the election of Tony Blair in 1997, English curriculum documents did not

specify human rights in guidance on moral education. Rights and responsibilities (of the

citizen) remained the main articulation of any kind of rights education well into the New

Labour gGovernment period. In 1999, a stated aim of the curriculum referred to

responsibilities and rights (DfES/QCA, 1999) as part of children’s spiritual, moral,

social and cultural development (hereafter SMSC).

The curriculum should help pupils understand their responsibilities and rights and

promote their self-esteem and emotional wellbeing. It should support them in forming

relationships, based on respect for themselves and for others, and should develop their

ability to relate to others and work for the common good.

The general moral idea of civic rights and responsibilities was located in SMSC policy

documentation which contained the more developed guidance on moral education for

English schools. and Citizenship Education guidance (add specific references –

something to clearly state what these documents are.). but Tthese notions differed from

the wider ranging a

nd expansive notions of a global moral code conjured by the UN Universal Declaration

of Human Rights (UN General Assembly, 1948).and Expansive and socially

transformative commitments that feature prominently in the UN documentation and

wider international discourse on human rights, go beyond property rights and civic

duties and emphasisze protections and entitlements that the state is held accountable to

rather than a concept of national rules. The curriculum did not specifically require the

study of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the CRC Convention of the

Rights of the Child.subsequent conventions (add references). A conceptualisation of

citizenship education as education in rights and responsibilities, could be understood as

entitlements and duties of a subject of the Crown, something restricted to a geo-political

region and context rather than a universal claim for all humanity. Expansive and

socially transformative commitments that feature prominently in the UN documentation

and wider international discourse on human rights, go beyond property rights and civic

duties and emphasize protections and entitlements that the state is held accountable to

rather than a concept of national rules (find and add references from existing

blibliography).

It would be incorrect to characterise these SMSC and Citizenship Education documents

as did not advanceing a strong ‘statist’ vision of national rights. Theyse did not assert a

detailed account of national morality with particular virtues, values or moral norms

aligned to a particular system or national narrative but there were some suggestions of

the essential ideas that English schools should promote. An extract from the Statement

of Values of National Forum for Values in Education and the Community was

incorporated into the National Curriculum Handbooks published in 1999. It National

Curriculum Handbooks articulated these values: ‘We value truth, freedom, justice,

human rights, the rule of law and collective effort for the common good’ (DfEE and

QCA, 1999: 147-149). The guidance saidsuggested there was general agreement about

the values that schools could base their teaching and ethos on and expect the support

and encouragement from society about, .

“Schools and teachers can have confidence that there is general agreement in society

upon these values. They can therefore expect the support and encouragement of society

if they base their teaching and school ethos on these values.” (DFES & QCA, 2004:

219) Amongst these values is language that is familiar in light of current debates around

fundamental British values and also human rights educators. The NC Handbooks, again

drawing on the National Forum for Values in Education and the Community, included

the following text: “Society. We value truth, freedom, justice, human rights, the rule of

law and collective effort for the common good. In particular, we value families as

sources of love and support for all their members, and as the basis of a society in which

people care for others.”

Particular value sets were emphasized:

“The self. We value ourselves as unique human beings capable of spiritual,

moral,intellectual and physical growth and development.”

“Relationships. We value others for themselves, not only for what they have or what

they can do for us. We value relationships as fundamental to the development and

fulfilment of ourselves and others, and for the good of the community.”

“Society. We value truth, freedom, justice, human rights, the rule of law and collective

effort for the common good. In particular, we value families as sources of love and

support for all their members, and as the basis of a society in which people care for

others.”

“The environment. We value the environment, both natural and shaped by humanity, as

the basis for life and a source of wonder and inspiration.'

(Statement of Values by the National Forum for Values in Education and the

Community' in The National Curriculum: Handbook for Primary Teachers in England.

London, DfEE and QCA, 1999. Pages 147 - 149. An identical statement appears in

other handbooks.)

However, the guidance of the time was not suggestive of a strong drive to articulate

clearly a framework of national values, or a strong human rights culture. The The 1999

Inspection Handbook did not define a set of morals to be tested or looked for. Thealso

focusfocused instead was toon encouraginge students to develop their own values sets

and leave them able tolearn to manage living in a society with managethe different

value setss around them. This was to entail:

. In other words surviving in a plural and relativist environment. Tthere clearly are areas

where there is a broad range of opinion and there will always be debate about moral

values, about their relativity to certain historical eras or cultural contexts and about the

possibility of universal moral standards. Such debate is at the heart of moral education.

Schools, teachers, pupils and parents will differ as well as agree on some values but

they generally help pupils understand the reasons for this. In consequence, the 1999

Inspection Handbook did not define a set of morals. Instead, it defined the 'essence of

moral development' as the building of:

'a framework of moral values which regulate personal behaviour... through teaching and

promoting principles rather than through reward or fear of punishment.' 16 (Handbook

for Inspecting Secondary Schools. London, OFSTED, 1999. Page 68. A similar

statement appears in other handbooks.)

This involves:

[…] “

• extending pupils’ knowledge and understanding of the range of accepted values in

society;

• developing relevant skills and attitudes, such as decision-making, self-control,

consideration of others, having the confidence to act in accordance with one’s principles

and thinking through the consequences of actions; and d

• promoting,at at an appropriate level, an understanding of basic moral philosophy and

the skills of analysis, debate, judgement and application to contemporary issues.

(Ofsted, 1999: 68)

Instead there wasThe focus of of moralthe policy was development was on the

development of individual pupils’’s own morals systemas well as and an awareness of

diversity inof moral lifeviews in Britain rather than the promotion of a strong shared

national consensus around values or indeed a universal moral culture of rights. The

focus was on negotiating a plural and relativist environment as an individual and

regulating personal behaviour through the teaching and promotion of principles rather

than reward or fear of punishment. There was not a strong sense of transcendental

aspiration, change or transformation. an individual focus on pupils developing their own

account of morals

but rather the

Moral education was not framed through the language of human rights. Human rights

were mentioned but the international documents were were not mandated. and the

studyP of particular historical narratives of liberation (for example anti-slavery and

women’s emancipation) were not linked to an national account of nationally interpreted

rightss though they are part of the development of human rights (Freeman, 2002; Hunt,

2008) part of an broad and loose account of aspects of British moral life containing

many different moral notions such as XXXXXX. The idea of promoting common

values in a heterogeneous society seems to have presented a significant challenged for

the policy developers. (reference? 1996:19).

Rights did not play a central part to moral education in the guidance, and moral

education was not expressed in a strongly nationalistic way, though there is a clear

connection between the ideas captured in these documents and the constitutional

development of moral thought with consideration of property rights (which were

expressed in law – reference ) and also with the notion of civic rights and duties. The

universal or emancipatory reach of human rights as understood in the historical

struggles for equality (for example slavery, women’s emancipation, or the emancipation

of Catholics and Non-Conformists). These might have been conceptualised as important

influencing indicators of national moral values linked to human rights values. That these

links were not made is striking given the profile of democracy and human rights in the

contemporaneous events at that time with of the collapse of the soviet union, the

liberation and spread of democracy throughout much of Eastern Europe, the

reunification of Germany and globally with the end of Apartheid South Africa. There

seems to have been a general reticence towards proscrieither a strong promotion of

national values or a radical universalismbed moral education in any more than the most

general terms and a political reluctance to recognizing or anointing such movements as

contributing to national values.

Towards a human rights English school curriculum

Under the period of Labour Government 1997-2010) change in policy on moral

education significantly occurred with theThere was not a significant change with the

Change did not come quickly. In 2003, Ofsted inspection issued detailed guidance on

teaching guidance on Spiritual Moral Social Cultural (SMSC) . Guidance for Schools.

This encouraged schools to give opportunities to pPupils were across the curriculum to

explore and develop moral concepts and values and these includinged personal rights

and responsibilities (Ofsted 2003, 17) as things as concepts to be valued and,

appreciated and seen as indications of social awareness (Ofsted, 2003:Ibid. 17, 20). In

this guidanceE education about rights wais portrayed as an important component of

moral education alongside the other important moral values mentioned previously,

including truth, freedom, justice, law and collective effort for the common good.

Specifically human rights were not given prominence in the SMSC documentation.

Moral education was continued to be seen as supporting the pupil’s own knowledge of

their own principles and those of others, along with a shared sense of respect and

consideration but this did not amount to either a maximal vision of national consensus

on values to be enforced, or participation in the global project of international and

universal human rights. The SMSC development training resource (ref????) produced

with the new guidelines had a significant focus around managing the plurality of moral

opinions. This Instead the emphasis seems to have been reflective ofs a personally-

subjective, and culturally- relative approach to moral education, where . Ppupils would

clarify their values learning about more than fromfor, without no emphasis on a

particularly concrete articulation of a shared moral vision.

Universal and international human rights were absent from guidance for schools on

moral education but not frompresent in other parts of the curriculum. The introduction

of theFrom its introduction to secondary schools in 2000, citizenship education

curriculum to secondary schools from 2000 provided a focus (Banks, 2007;). Human

rights became a key feature of CE in the UK (Gearon, 2003, 2007; Smith, 2003) for .

The CE curriculum documentation expressed LohrenscheitLohreinsheicht’s learning

about human rights as it largely concerned the ‘“knowledge of the genesis, history and

relevance of human rights and central humann rights documents and instruments and

the differing controversies and facets of them’ (National Curriculum Handbook, 2002:,

176). The curriculum documentation focused on knowledge and understanding rather

than social transformation although there was some personal development expressed in

Religious Education (hereafter RE). RE engaged with human rights in the 2004 non-

statutory National Framework for Religious Education (QCA/DfES 2004) which was

intended to guide the different local and religious bodies that determine RE curricula

(Bowie 2011a). RE is described as having a key role to play in supporting children's

moral development - rights education through an exploration of rights, responsibilities

and duties (Ibid. 14-15) was cultivate recognition of such ideas (Ibid. 30). Rights here

are linked both to an idea of civic responsibility and personal moral conduct. Beliefs

influence attitudes or approaches to human rights and pupils should explore ‘what

religions and beliefs say about human rights and responsibilities, social justice and

citizenship.’ (Ibid. 29) Matters of human rights are relevant to the RE curriculum area

and the moral development of pupils. However, Research suggests the translation of this

national guidance to statutory curricula was limited and inconsistent (Bowie 2011a)..

A curriculum for human rights

By

The 2007 the policy was changing with a clear move emphasizing a self transcendence

and openness to change towards an international vision of rights and a commitment to

societal transformation. The National Curriculum (QCA, 2007a) shows articulated the

most the most developed promotion of a human rights culture in moral education

policyed a marked change. Producing people who were for hHuman rights were

afforded the a central status as ofwas a a curriculum aim. Young people should become

responsible citizens who make a positive contribution to society, challenge injustice, be

are committed to human rights for all and strive to live peaceably with others.

Citizenship Education would address issues relating to social justice, human rights,

community cohesion and global interdependence, and encourage pupils to challenge

injustice, inequalities and discrimination (QCA, 2007b:, 27). Students would explore

different kinds of rights, obligations and responsibilities including political, legal,

human, social, civic and moral. This move towards learning for human rights

(LohrenscheitLohreinsheicht, 2002:, 176) drew together respect, responsibility,

solidarity, and personal and social transformation. The motivations for these human

rights values were about change and liberation. Pupils would ‘explore contested areas

surrounding rights and responsibilities, for example the checks and balances needed in

relation to freedom of speech in the context of threats from extremism and terrorism’

(DCSF, 2007: , 29). Pupils They were encouraged to explore topical issues as a way of

engaging with values and principles underpinning human rights, specifically equality

(QCA, 2007b). There is here both an aspiration is is consistent with the values and

awareness ‘about’ model which aims to ‘“transmit basic knowledge of human rights

issues and to foster integration into public values’” (Tibbits, 2002:, 164) but it extends

the emphasis towardswith a hope for societalally transformational HRE. This

constituted a change from the lighter touch and less proscribed approach to national

values education that included rights and responsibilities amongst other things to a more

clearly articulated and narrowly defined concept of international and universal human

rights. By the end of the last Labour administrationgovernment, there was a closer

alignment than ever before between the English curriculum and the professed aims of

HRE; a closer explicit correlation between the commitment expressed in the signing of

the CRC and gGovernment education policy which cast British pupils and citizens as

global champions of human rights. The reticent relativity that marked earlier

expressions of moral education had been replaced with a stronger moral purpose for

education – that of social and global change – a universal perspective of human rights

with values that transcended local circumstance. This could be considered the high

water mark of a curriculum in favour of international human rights, but the tide was

about to turn, as a change of government was to bring about a reversal, or at least

interruption, to the rise of human rights and HRE. .

The return to a national conception of rights and moral education

British rights for British schools (in England)

In 2010 theThe Conservative- led cCoalition gGovernment, with Michael Gove as

secretary of state of education, reviewed the national curriculum, launcheding a new

national curriculum for children from in September 2014. The new NC curriculum

continued to emphasise that, ‘"Every state-funded school must offer a curriculum which

is balanced and broadly based and which: promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental

and physical development of pupils at the school and of society, and prepares pupils at

the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.’" (DfE,

2013: 5). The curriculum stated that moral education would provide pupils with an

introduction to the essential knowledge they need to be educated citizens but this did not

includewithout particular reference to human rights.

Citizenship Education retained its place in the National Curriculum, and its including

content areas continuedaround to refer to the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and

also should teach them about "local, regional and international governance and the

United Kingdom’s relations with the rest of Europe, the Commonwealth, the United

Nations and the wider world". This included human rights and international law. CE

retained a human rights dimension but overall there was a change in the tone about the

moral education of citizens. The new curriculum stepped back from the language of the

global and social change and towards a language that expressedbut focused on the

conservation of shared national values. previous Labour government. The new

curriculum made no reference to eEnsuring young citizens challenge injustice and or

becomebe committed to human rights was no longer thea priority.

The transformational and transcendent dimensions had been removed. The political

right had been making noises to scrap thewanting to remove the Human Rights Act for

some time and replace it with a British Bill of Rights (Horne and Maer, 2011). This was

a Conservative policy pledge for both 2010 and 2015 elections (Conservatives, 2015).

The Liberal Democrat coalition partner prevented its replacement initially (Klug, 2010)

but the 2015 Conservative majority government has proposed its abolition with and

Michael Gove as Justice Minister to oversee its replacement with a British Bill of

Rights. PREVENT, It isf fundamental British values, extremism and anti-terrorism that

have markeds the debate around the values schools should promote in recent years. and

Tthis has led to some complex negotiation of how national interests stand in relation to

human rights and education. In a speech about Islam and British values, the then Prime

Minister David Cameron said:

I believe a genuinely liberal country [...] believes in certain values and

actively promotes them. Freedom of speech, freedom of worship,

democracy, the rule of law, equal rights regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

It says to its citizens, this is what defines us as a society: to belong here is to

believe in these things. Now, each of us in our own countries, I believe, must

be unambiguous and hard- nosed about this defense of our liberty.

(Cameron, 2011)

Cameron argued human rights were an essential component of liberal values and

stressed they were compatible with Islam. This articulation of 'Britishness' is made at a

time of heightened concern about and terrorism and the radicaliszing of young people.

Cameron refers to human rights as part of the conservation of Britain's liberal values

and , national identity and traditions, rather than as an expression of a shared

international solidarity. He articulates human rights as things that emerge through

British traditions.

Though a strong comprehensive national values definition is not found in the early

curriculum documentation, new Teacher’s Standards (DfE, 2012) required teachers to

show tolerance and respect for the rights of others, and prohibited them from

undermining fundamental British values ‘“including democracy, the rule of law,

individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those of different faiths and

beliefs’” (DfE, 2013: p.14). Derived Linked to from the Prevent Strategy (cf. Bryan,

2012), this was bolstered by revised SMSC requirements that schools would be

inspected on (SMSC, 2014). Schools must now promote these values as a form of child

safeguarding to protect them from radicalisation. Sir Michael Wilshaw, Chief Inspector

of Ofsted, gave notice about changes to forthcoming inspections. Under the title

‘“Achieving a broad and balanced curriculum’” his letter stated,

A school’s curriculum must comply with the legislation to give pupils the

opportunity to study a wide range of subjects. In addition, provision for

pupils’ spiritual, moral, social and cultural (SMSC) development should

promote tolerance of and respect for people of other faiths, cultures and

lifestyles. Good teaching in a broad and balanced curriculum, underpinned

by an effective approach to the SMSC development of children and young

people, will help to prepare them for life in modern Britain. (Wilshaw,

2014)

From 1 September 2014, inspections started to paypaid greater attention to the breadth

of curriculum in this regard, and commented in more detail on its effectiveness in

inspection reports. Developing tolerance and respect for others of different faiths (both

key features of HRE) was retained in general policy language and education policy.

This came alongside a more traditional notion of civic or national rights as part of the

notion of fundamental British values which inhabited the core of a British approach to

human rights, rather than advocating children become global champions to transform

the world. The pendulum had swung from the late Labour Government emphasis on

education for universal and transformational rights for all, to national and

conservational rights of the citizen.

Reframing values in education

3. DiscussionAmbivalence towards human rights or saying

more with less

It took half a century for the United Nations’ idea of HRE (Article 26,UN General

Assembly Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: Article 26) to appear as a

priority for the explicitly in the curriculum aims of English school curriculum education

in 2007. The multiple undertakings given in international declarations, conventions and

agreements had strong backing in the mid to late phase of the last the Labour

GovernmentThe earlier phase of the Labour government seemed more relativistic in its

approach to moral education with minimal expectations around national moral

agreement but towards the end of the Labour period human rights and the commitment

to social and global change were expressed as moral aims of education.. A clear

expression of HRE was integrated into the national curriculum, citizenship education,

religious education and SMSC policy. However, rights may be conceptualised in

national or international terms. At times the English National Curriculum has included

the moral aim to serve human rights (QCA, 2007a) but since 2010, under Conservative-

led Governments, education policies have focused on national and civic attitudes

(McLaughlin in Carr et al., 2008: 79). TSince 2010, under Conservative led

Governments, there have has been a changes to promote a national and parochial

moralvalues education agenda.

CThese changes in moral education guidance for schools, or oscillations, exist along a

number of polarities in the values language. One There isshow a move from a focus on

social change towards valuesis between conservation, from international values to local

and national understandings of rights and values, and from a a more individualist and

libertarian attitude towards personal moral beliefs, towards a collectivecommunitarian

expectation. and openness to change. Another is between a parochial and

internationalist conception of values and morals in education - a conception of human

rights inhabiting the traditions of the country, and human rights as an international tool

to challenge and change societies. A third is between minimal and maximal ambitions

for values and moral education.

It would be easy forThere is a advocates of human rights education to castigate this

change and characterize it as retraction from the commitments madea high water line

underin the Labour government’s curriculum in 2007, but a more nuanced range of

factors should also be observe. Whilst the political reality of left and right wing

philosophies and ideologies might support such a characterization, this should not

obscure other significantd factors.

First, the international human rights education project is itself one that has to negotiate

difficulties, in particular around accusations that human rights are historically and

philosophically western (Gearty, 2008; Pollis and Schwab, 1979: , 4; Wang, 2002;

Gearty 2008). Whilst this isThe western ‘accusation’ is rejected opposed by others (eg

Donnelly, 2007 and. Ramcharan, 1998 and Donnelly 2007) although there are well

documented disagreements regarding cultural diversity and universality in international

human rights conferences and statements particularly in HRE that advocates of HRE

acknowledge (Baxi, 1997). Asserting national values on grounds of tradition is arguably

easier than trying to promote global universals in a time of global uncertainty, terror and

conflict.

Second, key themes from HRE remain in guidance on moral education, notably around

tolerance and respect for those of different faiths. There are some striking similarities

between in the language of some of the text in the values labelled ‘fundamental and

British’ and the language of HRE in international documents, which both refer to

tolerance, respect, freedom and democracy (UN General Assembly, 1989; DfE, 2014).

Compare the following extracts:

…enable students to distinguish right from wrong; encourage students to accept

responsibility for their behaviour, … contribute positively to … the locality of the

school and to society more widely; further tolerance and harmony between different

cultural traditions … acquire an appreciation of and respect for their own and other

cultures; encourage respect for other people; and encourage respect for democracy and

support for participation in the democratic processes …

(Promoting fundamental British values as part of SMSC in schools: Departmental

advice for maintained schools, DfE 2014)

The development of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms …The

preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of

understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples,

ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin; (Convention of

the Rights of the Child, UN General Assembly 1989)

Both have shared interests in tolerance, justice, respect for differences and

responsibility. The context around this language might lead to differing interpretations

but t but the language is not significantly different.

A third observation relates to the focusing, labelling and framing of fundamental British

values ias national, rather than international, and particular, rather than universal and

shared. The substantive difference is not in the text, but the differing frameworks

implied by the policies. International human rights are monitored and enforced by the

intergovernmental superstructure of declarations and conventions, inter-governmental

bodies and courts. This stands over and above local laws and systems. With

fundamental British values, national structures facilitate the policy: PREVENT officers

and school inspection agencies judge compliance with government values policy, and

school leaders monitor the professional aspects of teacher’s’ standards which refer to

British values, through the training, appraisal and other employment procedures. These

systems and structures create a distinction as they locate the concepts within the

national conception of moral guidance, rather than international human rights

authorities. It makes a significant application of enforcement through accountability

tools of performance management and organisational control of schools (West, Mattei

and Roberts, 2011)A fourth related observation is the consolidation of these values,

found in HRE around accountability systems focused on line and performance

management and organizational control: . Ofsted inspections, league table positions,

school appraisal, leadership and governance improvement/replacement models,

ostensibly brought in to improve academic standards, might constitute a new moral

inquisition where clarity of moral purpose and organisational management systems

combine forces to address the climate of public fear and uncertainty.

Values do not simply exist in the sphere of ideas and opinions, but in the decisions

made in the systems that apportion responsibility and authority. These systems /

instruments are where concepts are translated into judgments, operating as carriers,

transmitters and even enforcers of the concepts in particular situations and contexts. The

focusing of the selection of values mentioned in the new The change in English policy

reframes the moral messages in terms of state within a wider function of professional

accountability and national security, rather than individual liberty and emancipation.

This is quite different from what is proposed by those who conceive HRE as an

expression of the voices of the oppressed (Baxi, 1997, 2003) although it is a recognized

form of HRE (Tibbits, 2002:, 165) and could offer a more realistic balance between

national and international interests and aspirations. .

Nevertheless, tThis will trouble those who hold maintain that rights discourse does and

should focus on restraining the power of the postmodern leviathan state (Baxi,

1997:143). The power of states to define national curricula mean that though human

rights exist to protect individuals from the state, government defined HRE may curtail

that protection by distorting or limiting human rights (Bowie, 20161b: 49). However, to

negotiate national agreements around rights into meaningful and embraced practices

requires some interconnection between locally held values and internationally

pronounced laws. This negotiation must also interconnect with the many traditions

found in any nation that has experienced significant migration. Internationalist hopes

and ambitions have been curtailed by PREVENT and its associated national concerns

and fears, and the balance between these two priorities has been changing in education

policy, perhaps more quickly and significantly than was generally realized.

A fourth related observation is the consolidation of these values, found in HRE

around accountability systems focused on line and performance management and

organizational control. Values do not simply exist in the sphere of ideas and opinions,

but in the decisions made in the systems that apportion responsibility and authority.

These systems/ instruments are where concepts are translated into judgments, operating

as carriers, transmitters and even enforcers of the concepts in particular situations and

contexts. The change in English policy reframes the moral messages within a wider

function of professional accountability and national security, rather than individual

liberty and emancipation. This is quite different from what is proposed by those who

conceive HRE as an expression of the voices of the oppressed (Baxi 1997, 2003)

although it is a recognized form of HRE (Tibbits 2002, 165) .

There are multiple different possible causes for the oscillation of policy in the period

examined. One factor may simply be theThe UK’s ambivalence towards human rights is

long standing. -The 1998 Human Rights Act triggered vociferous debate (Gordon et al.,

1996) and a media backlash (Clapham, 2007, : 2). Foreign policy problematics around

interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya may have tempered claims about British

citizens as leaders against universal injustice. Governments once pursued policies that

advanced universal rights but now policy seeks to replace the Human Rights Act and the

oversight of the European Court of Human Rights with a British Bill of Rights and a

restatement of national sovereignty (The Conservatives, 2015; Cabinet Office and Her

Majesty the Queen, 2015). The international and universal reach of human rights has

encountered resistance from national democratic interests and fears around the

PREVENT agenda have tempered educational goals.

Conclusion

An analysis of human rights in education policy reveals quite different political

conceptions around what the moral formation of children in schools should encourage,

in terms of social change or conservation, local or international allegiances, and moral

education as state protection or advocacy around protection from the state. Different

governments, at different times and facing different situations, come to different

conclusions about what values education should encourage or facilitate. Policy change

indicates underlying change, inconsistency and uncertainty around the negotiation of

national and international values in English schools. It is clear that there has been a

significant change of direction in education policy since the curriculum of 2007 driven

by PREVENT and fundamental British values and the concerns around international

terrorism and cohesion. However much there might be a feeling that the 2016 political

events reflect a sudden unexpected change towards nationalism and away from

internationalism, education policy was a signpost towards that direction of travel.

Whether this marks an abandonment of human rights education, or a new phase of

development towards a locally, nationally conceptualized HRE remains to be seen. This

need not necessarily be interpreted as a loss of an ideal or indeed an obituary for HRE.

Advocates of human rights like Baxi have identified key concerns about human rights

development in the interests of global business (2006) and critics have questioned

whether they have delivered all they set out to (Posner, 2014). The 21st century may still

be an age of human rights and an age of HRE. The possibility might be that this age is

framed not by internationalist cosmopolitan conceptualizations of values but national or

republican conceptualizations of values.The failure to establish cross-political party

consensus around the framing of the moral values the curriculum should promote is

another factor and anxiety around terrorism is a possible third. In a time of increased

concern about the threat of terror and the radicalisation of young people, politics and

context define moral education policy narrative.

However a final factor may simply be the difficulty of embedding locally embedded

shared values in diverse contexts with transnational allegiances. Whether national

values initiatives such as fundamental British values, or international initiatives around

human rights education succeed may depend on the strength of transnational allegiances

present in cultures and communities (Peterson 2011, 153) and the practical effectiveness

of attempts at changing attitudeshow they are negotiated in local contexts. Until these

factors are addressed, moral education policy may be left defined in minimal terms as

protection of people and the state from terror.

This study of English school moral policy is and example where national conceptions of

rights and responsibilities, entitlements or expectations that are not internationally

assured but locally defined, take precedence over global or universal aspirations. The

time for an understated moral climate in schools that leaves moral convictions to home

and community to resolve, seems to have past for the moment. In 2007 the Labour

government advanced a strong moral concept of education based around international

human rights. In 2014 the Conservative led coalition government advanced a strong

moral conception of education based around national values. The two clash in terms of

allegiance and the broader conceptualization of identity but both place morality at the

centre of the schooling project and both may be conceptuqlised as HRE.

Nevertheless, iInternational human rights, as conceived in the shadow of the second

world war and with the ongoing presence of mass killings by states, are there to protect

citizens from the states. Fundamental British values intend to protect citizens and the

state from ideological enemies. The Conservative Government links values to

conserving national stories, local traditions and identities. This may conflict with a

HRE impetus grounded in an international narrative of shared values or in stories of

struggle and liberation but both can be understood as conserving and protecting a vision

of a modern liberal and democratic state. This may be the underlying values consensus

in British politics that inspires differing values education policies. Whether a nationally

conceived strong moral identity will be embraced or rejected by Britain’s diverse and

plural populations remains to be seen. It’s success may come down to the strength of the

school management and performance systems. Ofsted inspections, league table

positions, school appraisal, leadership and governance improvement/replacement

models, ostensibly brought in to improve academic standards, might constitute a new

moral inquisition where clarity of moral purpose and organizational management

systems combine forces to address the climate of public fear and uncertainty.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes on contributor

Robert A Bowie is a principal lecturer in the Faculty of Education at the Canterbury

Christ Church University. His research focuses on human rights education, religion and

education and beliefs and values in education.

References

Adelman, S (2011) Cosmopolitan sovereignty. In: Cecilia Bailliet C, Aas K F (Eds)

Cosmopolitan Justice and Its Discontents. Abingdon: Routledge, pp.11-28.

Al-Daraweesh, F. and D.T. Snauwaert, DT (2015). “Toward a hermeneutical theory of

international human rights education.” Educational Theory 63 (4): 389-411.

Al-Nakib, R (. 2012). “Human rights, education for democratic citizenship and

international organisations: findings from a Kuwaiti UNESCO ASPnet school.”

Cambridge Journal of Educationn. 42(:1):, 97-112.,

Banks, J. (2007). Diversity and Citizenship Education: Global Perspectives. New York:

John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Baxi, U. 2003. The future of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baxi, U. (1997). Human rights education: The promise of the third millennium? In: G. J.

Andreopoulos GJ and& R. P. Claude RP (eEds.) , Human rights education for the

twenty-first century. Philadelphia, PAa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.143-154.

Bowie, R. 2011a. “Human rights and religion in the English secondary RE curriculum.”

Journal of Beliefs & Values:Studies in Religion & Education 32:3, 269-280.

Baxi U (2003) The future of human rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baxi, U (2005) Market Fundamentalisms: Business Ethics at the Altar of Human

Rights. Human Rights Law Review 5(1): 1-26.

Bowie, R. (20161b). The primacy of dignity and human rights education. PhD

ThesisOxford: Peter Lang.

, University of Kent.

Bromley, P. (2011). “Multiculturalism and human rights in civic education: the case of

British Columbia, Canada.” Educational Research. 53(:2): : 151-164 (14).

Bryan, H. (2012). “Reconstructing the teacher as a post secular pedagogue: a

consideration of the new Teachers’ Standards.” Journal of Beliefs & Values: Studies in

Religion & Education 33(:2):: 217-228.

Cabinet Office and Her Majesty the Queen. (2015) Queen’s Speech. 27 May. Accessed

20 July 2015 Available at:. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/queens-

speech-2015 (.accessed 20 July 2015).

Cameron, D. (2011). PM’s speech at Munich Security Conference. 5 DateFebruary?

2011. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-at-munich-

security-conference (accessed 1 October

2016).http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2011/02/pms-

speech-at-munich-security-conference-60293.

Clapham, A. (2007). Human RRights, a Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Conservatives (2015) The Conservative Party Manifesto. Available at: https://s3-eu-

west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf (accessed 20

July 2015).

Covell K and Howe RB (2001) Moral education through the 3 Rs: rights, respect and

responsibility. Journal of Moral Education 30(1): 29-41.

Conservatives 2015. The Conservative Party Manifesto. Accessed 20 July, 2015.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/manifesto2015/ConservativeManifesto2015.pdf.

Dearing , J. (1993) Review of QQualifications for 16-19 yYear oOlds. London: HMSO.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007) The National

Curriculum. London: DfE.

Department for Education (DfE). (2012). The Nnew TTeachers’ SStandards. London:

DfE.

Department for Education (DfE) (. 2013). The National CurriculumThe National

Curriculum. London: DfE.

Department for Education (DfE) (2014). Promoting fundamental British values as part

of SMSC in schools: Departmental advice for maintained schools. London: Crown

Publishing.

DfEE and QCA (1999) The National Curriculum: handbook for primary teachers in

England. London: DfEE & QCA.

Department for Education and Science/ Qualifications and Curriculum Authority

(DfES/QCA). (1999). The National CurriculumThe National Curriculum. London:

Crown.

Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). 2007. The National

Curriculum. London: DfE.

Donnelly, J (2007. ) The rRelative uUniversality of hHuman rRights. Human Rights

Quarterly, 29(:2): 281-306.

Education Reform Act. (1988). London: Crown..

Etzioni , A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the

Communitarian Agenda. New York: Crown Publishers.

Freeman, M (2008) Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity

Gearon , L. (2003). Learning to Teach Citizenship in the Secondary School. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Gearon, L. (2007). A Practical Guide to Teaching Citizenship in the Secondary School.

London: RoutledgeFalmer.

Gearty, C. (2008). Essays on human rights and terrorism: comparative approaches to

civil liberties in Asia, the EU and North America. London: Cameron May.

Glendon , M-. A. (1993). Rights talk: The impoverishment of political discourse. New

York: The Free Press.

Gordon, R. J. F,., R. Wilmot-Smith R and T.H. Bingham TH (eds) (. 1996). Human

Rights in the United Kingdom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hannum H (2015) The Twilight of Human Rights Law by Eric A. Posner (review).

Human Rights Quarterly. 37 (4): 1105-1109.

Henkin, L. (1996). The Age of Rights. New York: Columbia University Press.

Human Rights Act 1998. London: HMSO.

Horne , A. and Maer, L. (2011). From the Human Rights Act to a Bill of Rights?

House of Commons Library Research. Available at:

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/key_issues/Key-

Issues-From-the-Human-Rights-Act-to-a-Bill-of-Rights.pdf (accessed 1 September

2016)..

Human Rights Act (1998) London: HMSO.

Ince, B. (2012). “Citizenship education in Turkey: inclusive or exclusive.” Oxford

Review of Education. 38(:2):: 115-131.

Hunt L (2008) Inventing Human Rights. New York: Norton and Co.

Jensen S, Corkery A and Donald K (2015) Realizing rights through the sustainable

development goals: the role of national human rights institutions. Briefing paper of the

Center for Economic and Social Rights. Danish Institute for Human Rights. Available

at: http://www.humanrights.dk/files/media/dokumenter/udgivelser/research/

nhri_briefingpaper_may2015.pdf (accessed 1 September 2016).

Klugg, F. (2012). The Human Rights Act is a British bill of rights. The Guardian,.

December 13, 2012. Available at:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/dec/13/human-rights-act-british-

bill-rights (accessed 1 August 2016).

Lenhart, V. and K Savolainen K. (2002). “Human Rights Education as a Field of

Practice and of Theoretical Reflection.” International Review of Education 48 (3-4):

145-158.

Lohrenscheit, C. (2002). “International Approaches to Human Rights Education.”

International Review of Education, 48 (3-4): 175-185.

McLaughlin, T. H. (2008). “National Identity and the Aims of Education.” In: D. Carr

D,, M. Halstead M,, and R. Pring, R (eds) Liberalism, Education and Schooling: Essays

by T. H. McLaughlin, edited by D. Carr, M. Halstead, and R. Pring., 79-93. Exeter:

Imprint Academic, pp..79-93.

Moran, G. (2013). Uniquely Human: The Basis of Human Rights. USA: Xlibris.

OFSTED (1999) Handbook for Inspecting Secondary Schools. London: Ofsted.

OFSTED (2003). Promoting and Evaluating Pupils’ Spiritual, Moral, Social and

Cultural Development: Guidance for Schools. London: Crown.

Osler, A. (2000). Citizenship and Democracy in Schools: Diversity, Identity, Equality.

Stoke-on- Trent: Trentham.

Osler A (2015) Human Rights Education, Postcolonial Scholarship, and Action for

Social Justice. Theory & Research in Social Education 43(2): 244-274.

Peterson, A. 2011. Civic republicanism and civic education: The education of citizens.

Chippenham: Palgrave.

Pollis , A and& Peter Schwab, PA (eEds) (1979). Human Rights: cultural and

ideological perspectives. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Posner E (2014) The Twilight of International Human Rights Law. Oxford:OUP.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA)/Department for Education and Skills

(DfES). (2004). Non statutory national framework for religious education. London:

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007a) . Curriculum Aims, Values

and Purposes. London: Crown.

Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). (2007b) . “Citizenship pProgramme of

sStudy for Key Stage 3 and aAttainment tTarget.” The National Curriculum. London:

Crown.

Pannikkar, R and Sharma, A (2007) Human Rights as a Western Concept. New Delhi:

Printworld.

Ramcharan , B G. (1998) A dDebate aAbout pPower rRather tThan rRights. IPG

Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft 4/98: 423-428. Available at:

hthttp://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-1998-4/debate.pdf (accessed 1 September 2015).

Ramirez, F., D Suarez D , and J. W. Meyer JW. (2006). “The wWorldwide rRise of

hHuman rRights eEducation, 1950-2005.” In: edited by A. Benavot, A and C.

Braslavsky C (eds) The Changing Contents of Primary and Secondary Education:

Comparative Studies of the School Curriculum. , edited by A. Benavot, and C.

Braslavsky, 25-52. Hong Kong: Springer-Kluwer, pp.. 25-52.

Reardon, B. (1995). Educating for Human Dignity: Learning About Rights and

Responsibilities. Philadelphia, PA: University oOf PennsylvaniaPennsylvania pPress.

SCAA (1995). Spiritual and mMoral dDevelopment: SCAA dDiscussion pPapers: No.

3. London: The School Curriculum and Assessment Authority.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and

empirical tests in 20 countries. In: Zanna M (ed) Advances in experimental social

psychology (Vol. 25),. edited by M. Zanna, 1-65. New York: Academic Press, pp.1-65. .

Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Basic human values: Their content and structure across

countries. In :A. Tamayo A and & J. B. Porto JB (eds) Valores e comportamento nas

organizações [Values and behaviour in organizations] Edited by A. Tamayo & J. B.

Porto. 21-55. Petrópolis, Brazil: Vozes, pp.21-55..

Smith, R. K. M. (2003). “Making the Grade: The UK, Citizenship and Human Rights

Education.” Education and the Law 15 (2/3): 135-147.

Starkey, H (2012). “Human rights, cosmopolitanism and utopias: implications for

citizenship education.” Cambridge Journal of Education 42(:1):, 21-35.

Tibbitts, F. (2002). “Understanding what we do: Emerging models for human rights

education.” International Review of Education 48, (no. 3–4):: 159–171.

Tibbitts, F. (2008). Human Rights Education. In: Bajaj M (ed) Encyclopedia of Peace

Education, ed. M. Bajaj, 99-108. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing, pp.. 99-108.

UN General Assembly. (1948.) Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 10 December,

217 A (III), UNHCR. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b3712c.html (accessed 1 August 2016).

UN General Assembly (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. 20 November,

United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577.

UN General Assembly, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. 12 July 1993,

A/CONF.157/23. Available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39ec.html

(accessed 20 December 2016)

UNESCO (1998). All Human Beings: A Manual for Human Rights Education. Paris:

UNESCO.

UNESCO. (2015). Culture and Human Rights. UNESCO Website. Accessed July 20,

2015Available at:. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/culture-and-

development/the-future-we-want-the-role-of-culture/culture-and-human-rights/.

(accessed 20 July 2015).

UNHCR. (2005). World programme for human rights education. G.A. res. 59/113 A, 10

December, UNHCR. Available at:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/programme.htm (accessed

20 July 2015)..

Wang, Z, (2002)2. “Toward a postmodern notion of human rights.” Educational

Philosophy and Theory 34 (2): 171-183.

West A, Mattei P, and Roberts J (2011) Accountability and Sanctions in English

Schools. British Journal Of Educational Studies 59 (1): 41-62.

Wilshaw, M. (2014). July Letter to all Maintained Schools. London: Oftsted.