To promote, or not to promote fundamental British values? Teachers’ standards, diversity and teacher education

Abstract

In this article we seek to problematize the presence of the requirement within the teachers' standards (DfE, 2012), that they 'should not undermine fundamental British values' in the context of initial teacher education in England. The inclusion of this statement within the teachers' code of conduct has made its way from the counter-terrorism strategy, Prevent and raises questions about Britishness, values and the relationship between the state and the profession more generally. We argue that the inclusion of the phrase within a statutory document that regulates the profession is de facto a politicization of the profession by the state thereby instilling the expectation that teachers are state instruments of surveillance. The absence of any wider debate around the inclusion of the statement is also problematic as is the lack of training for pre-service and inservice teachers since it means this concept of fundamental British values is unchallenged and its insidious racialising implications are unrecognised by most teachers.

Political assumptions underlying pedagogies of national education: The case of student teachers teaching ‘British values’ in England

“…Five of our participants manifested their commitment to actively promoting British values. In line with previous research (Elton‐Chalcraft et al ., ), these student teachers reported an uncontroversial understanding of Britishness shaped by an amalgam of cultural and civic aspects that did not allow space for competing interpretations. Elton‐Chalcraft et al .…”

“…We agree that the role of education and teacher education is essential in preparing student teachers from all specialisms to fulfil their role as civic educators (Peterson et al ., ; Elton‐Chalcraft et al ., ). We argue for a teacher education curriculum that focuses not only on the cognitive but also on the affective domain of citizenship education.…”

“…Elton‐Chalcraft et al . () express their concerns about how the open nature of the guidelines allow ‘stereotypical’, ‘naïve’ and ‘unsophisticated’ interpretations of Britishness, and suggest that teacher educators and other academics should play a more significant role in helping student teachers and teachers to critically engage with more ‘sophisticated’ understandings of Britishness. The question is whether this proposal only works on the assumption that there are ‘right’ and ‘sophisticated’ (real) and ‘non‐right’ and ‘non‐sophisticated’ (unreal) understandings of Britishness.…”

The impact of the Prevent duty on schools: A review of the evidence

“…For example, the other half of Elton‐Chalcraft et al . 's () respondents did not think there were particular values associated with being British, with one student teacher arguing:

I don't personally believe it is possible to identify British people as having specific values, as ‘British’ is an umbrella term for many different classes, communities and sub‐cultures that preside within Britain… (p. 38)

…”

Disrupting colonial discourses in the geography curriculum during the introduction of British Values policy in schools

“…Schools are required by law to actively promote BV and teachers are required to identify, monitor and report students considered as vulnerable to radicalization to the authorities. But BV are conceptually unclear, interdependent and limited (Pangwani, 2016); they marginalize non-Western epistemologies (de Sousa Santos, 2014); imply an 'insider'-'outsider' distinction (Elton-Chalcraft, Lander, Revell, Warner, & Whitworth, 2017) and cannot be described as 'British' since they can be applied to other countries (Tomlinson, 2015). Richardson argues that they lack definition, explanation, justification, discussion or examples (2015, p. 41).…”