What does the coalition government‟s new
thinking mean for the citizen, for national
citizen identity and for the ongoing provision
of citizenship education?
A contribution from the Citizenship Foundation
Executive Overview
„Big Society‟ is an innovative phrase that has had political impact on two fronts: firstly it
signalled that the Conservative Party has an alternative to the (over) „Big Government‟ of New
Labour; and secondly as a rhetorical distancing device from Margaret Thatcher‟s now famous
“there is no such thing as society…” homily - indicating that this generation of Conservatives
strongly believe in society but wish to redefine it alongside redefining the State.
The phrase has a grand intention: aiming to address the essence of what society is in contrast to
what the state does, and what it therefore means to be a citizen. As a phrase its mystique might
add to its appeal: leaving people free to project their meaning on to it, but as part of the drive to
develop greater decentralisation its substantive thrust is to stimulate consideration of the nature
of community and democracy at a highly localised level. „Big Society‟ is personified more as the
path to decentralisation than its destination.
„Big Society‟ imagines a strengthening and renewal of civic society that starts with the agency of
the individual citizen and not with government. It is something that should happen by individuals
demanding to make it. This has an implicit dilemma: how can government make it happen if, by
definition, it must not impose its own dictats on the process? The answer is (in marketing terms)
to develop the right „push and pull‟: the „push‟ comes from government accepting less
responsibility for the nature and shape of local communities and so dispersing power back to
people, and the „pull‟ comes from generating or liberating the demand of local citizens for more
power and self-determination. This can happen through:
Conceptually recasting public services as co-produced between state and citizen rather than
provided by the state
Utilising the many kinds of social networks (geographical, interest, online) unique to different
localities and connecting them to local institutions, thereby generating more efficient,
targeted, citizen-led ways to deliver services
Where communities have fewer such networks (and thus less social capital or community
resilience) and there are no natural channels to build service delivery, to help to stimulate
relationship-building at a community level
Bringing community level agencies (charities, mutuals, even public sector worker „spin-outs‟
where local civil-servants set up their own enterprises to deliver the services that they
previously commissioned) into prominence in delivering local services
Getting rid of centralised, standardised, infrastructural solutions to local needs and
redeploying budgets to stimulate more local autonomy – for councils and civil society groups
Current aspirations to build the „Big Society‟ are centred on a mix of the state doing less for
citizens (and by default stimulating their autonomy) alongside stimulus to build local competence
to self-manage: allowing people to tackle the social ills in their midst.
For all that these ideas are presented as a new call to action many aspects are in continuity with
the previous government‟s activities to build grass roots community initiative, social
entrepreneurialism and devolved autonomy which received hundreds of millions of pounds in
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 2
‘Big Society’
state assistance. The new government intends to stimulate much of the same but without the
spending. Through cultural leadership and network building a sense of vanguard action among
new social visionaries may originate solutions for a more self reliant era. The „Big Society‟ is not
being presented as a government programme, but a collective surge of action that will infect
society from the local level upwards.
Many onlookers have noted that the emphasis on localism has been accompanied by a stripping
out of the middle tiers of government provision – in particular those responsible for
disseminating best-practice ideas and assuring a degree of equality of provision between the
nation‟s many and varied localities. Because of its focus on voluntary agency the Big Society
vision may not result in the same levels of participation or democracy if this is not somehow
supported in areas short on inclination or confidence. In short, self-reliance needs capability for
self-reliance and this is unequally dispersed around the nation. We urge the government to
address this systematically, and recognise in the provision of citizenship education a drive to
create an equal capacity to contribute through a curriculum that is not simply about academic
understanding but also skills and experience for local participation. If early indications are correct
then the government intends to remove the entitlement to education for citizenship from
secondary students doing away with a student‟s five years of education about the Law, Politics,
Economics and community participation just when that will find vital application in the new
powers.
We understand that the government has no great opposition to citizenship education per se but
rather that they have reservations to whether a centralised curriculum is too prescriptive to
develop citizens who have very different local experiences of growing up British. Some consider
that it has failed to deliver on its promise by being over prescriptive to teachers, others that it
has simply suffered from having too little support to establish itself as a new type of subject, not
just a new subject. We are in the latter category and we believe that the research supports this.
We would welcome a review of the curriculum‟s applicability to new conceptions of citizenship
and localism but believe that there is too much to lose by dropping it now.
The government‟s flagship alternative is the National Citizens Service: a coming-of-age
experience for 16 year olds. We thoroughly welcome this initiative to stimulate active citizens but
recognise that it cannot have the same reach or efficacy in building democracy partly because it
cannot be offered to all citizens in the foreseeable future. Yet similar visions underpin both
solutions:
“We aim at no less than a change in the political culture of this country both nationally and
locally: for people to think of themselves as active citizens … to build on and to extend
radically to young people the best in existing traditions of community involvement and
public service, and to make them individually confident in finding new forms of involvement
and action among themselves.” Bernard Crick, DfES intro. to citizenship education, 1998.
A similar speech outlines David Cameron‟s view:
“The „Big Society‟ is about a huge culture change… where people, in their everyday lives, in
their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in their workplace don't always turn to officials, local
authorities or central governments for answers to the problems they face, but instead feel
both free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities.” David
Cameron speech on ‘Big Society’, 19 July 2010
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 3
‘Big Society’
But this time the device to achieve the same effect lies in new devolved powers to communities
supported by social enterprise delivered by visionary leaders and a short gateway experience for
16 year olds.
The two do not amount to the same thing. The aspiration for citizenship education is not selfreliant communities but a new kind of nation where democratic know-how is in the grasp of
everyone, and by virtue of raising that baseline no one is excluded from the central endeavour of
nation-making. This nation-making includes a capability to critique the state, not just build local
resilience. By comparison „Big Society‟ resembles more of a dispersal of the central functions of
government to small local units with powers that can be grasped by people with local horizons.
The greater sense of national unity is less evident – so what does that mean for citizenship?
Our view is that a community-centred approach to citizenship has come into the ascendency
within this thinking: where citizens have a pre-supposed moral obligation to each other ahead of
a unity that comes from being part of a collectively negotiated nation-state. This allows
government to prioritise localism as it stimulates activity in the basic unit where the duty of the
individual should find expression: their neighbourhood. This is potentially at the cost of fostering
a national understanding of civic rights and responsibilities, and ahead of common expectations
of fairness, inclusion and cohesion in the social order.
This review details the value of education for citizenship as a penetrating and inclusive
contribution to building „bigger‟ citizens alongside elucidating our perception of the problems and
benefits of the new „brand‟ and approach.
Contents
Section 1: What is meant by the ‘Big Society’?? ....................................................................................... 5
Opening thoughts: a different use of ‘Citizenship’? ............................................................................. 5
A groundbreaking new idea or variant on old themes? ....................................................................... 6
‘Big Society’ versus ‘Big Government’ .................................................................................................. 6
Why different sizes of government?? ................................................................................................... 7
‘Active Citizenship’ and a ‘Big Society’ .................................................................................................. 9
The Big Vacuum or the Big Clone? How can this be achieved? ......................................................... 10
Section 2 – Civil Society, Civic Society, ‘Big Society’… what’s in a word, and what’s in the balance? .... 12
‘Private’, ‘public’, ‘third’: sectors are people, are we sure they’ll deliver? ........................................ 13
Section 3: National Education Policy, and the ‘Big Society’ .................................................................... 15
Education for Citizenship .................................................................................................................... 16
Entitlement and Enhancement ........................................................................................................... 18
Section 4: The ‘Big Society’ as a new ‘Localism’ ..................................................................................... 20
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 4
‘Big Society’
words of Cicero, „we are not born for ourselves
Section 1: What is meant by the
‘Big Society’??
alone, but our country claims for itself one part of
our birth, and our friends another‟. According to this
view, citizenship is not just about individual rights
Opening thoughts: a different use
of ‘Citizenship’?
and legal status, but about participating in
communities with a view to securing the common
We first heard the phrase „Big Society‟ during
good: we are citizens not only of a polity but of a
the last election campaign. It emerged as a
community.”1
novel and slightly unclear term whose main
resonance lay in its insinuation rather than its
Two things stand out in this definition: firstly
substance. People heard in it the suggestion
that we have a „duty to each other‟ and
that a big society is an option to a big
secondly that we are citizens of a community
government: a notion that gained traction with
as well as polity. As members of a polity (a
the electorate, many of whom were weary of
politically organised unit) it is possible to
the interventions of government. Since then its
meaning
has
been
made
clearer
as
negotiate and define what we belong to, but a
new
duty to each other and simply to „community‟
policies bring us the opportunity to discern the
(and what is this if it is not negotiated and
intention behind the phrase.
managed?) begs many questions. Who will
define the values and boundaries of that
For those familiar with a more „civic‟ related
community and who will give the definition of
definition of citizenship (where a citizen is a
the greater good (if not us)? Are there some
member of a politically organised unit and
citizenship
involves
acting
on
historical and unshifting constants that should
that
be assumed, (and are they „British‟?) and what
membership) the idea takes some probing.
happens when new cultures join older value
Within this „civic‟ usage the state is more of an
systems without immediate congruence? The
axis where the nature and expectations of
freedoms,
rights
and
responsibilities
„Big
are
negotiated and managed, leaving individuals to
proposes
a
change
to
the
state is smaller in power and the citizen is
enjoy creating a strong society based on their
priorities and values.
Society‟
relationship of citizen and state such that the
larger. If the citizen is first seen as a moral
Facilitating a capability
agent capable of delivering on that agency,
for this strong society has been the work of
then there may be an assumption that giving
many organisations like ours - we have always
more powers to citizens should enable them to
believed that we are building the capacity of
act into their moral obligations. As such we
the citizen for local and national participation.
might conclude that the „Big Society‟ use of
The current government‟s suppositions appear
„citizenship‟ will expect the distribution of more
to work from slightly different concept of
powers to lead to more social good rather than
citizenship. This extract from „Service Nation‟,
unmediated local chaos. Is this always true?
a Demos publication commissioned by the
This definition is historically contended as it
current administration, illustrates this point:
has at heart a view of the individual with a preexisting responsibility to use their agency
“The idea of civic service is grounded in normative
towards the greater good that precedes any
ideals of citizenship: the idea that we are a citizenry
of independent but interdependent citizens who have
social contract: if anything a more traditional
a duty to each other and the communities within
which we live, not just to ourselves. These ideas stem
1
back to civic republican political thought: in the
SERVICE NATION - Sonia Sodha & Dan Leighton
Demos 2010
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 5
‘Big Society’
faith-based definition. This is not the same as
showing how just, inclusive, and sustainable
being part of a state where the social contract
societies are formed through democracy.
is constantly determined through democratic
means –
giving
all
So what is bigger about „Big Society‟ than what
members explicit but
is already happening? Well, if the „Big‟ in „Big
negotiable rights and responsibilities. Whilst
Society‟ has a numerical inference (as it would
this latter version of Citizenship does not presuppose
normative
ideals
it
still
if it is pitted against „Big Government‟), then
expects
„society‟ becomes all those who are active in
citizens to bring their own values to society
the making the best of our collective life,
and these will inform their commitment to civil
reducing the need for government to take so
society organisations and to their democratic
much responsibility.
choices as an expression of their freedom.
In this sense a „Big
Society‟ would represent numerically larger
Critical to healthy democracies is the assent of
numbers contributing to community making –
the people to the collective understanding.
which is compelling but not unproblematic if
When agreed, this can create national bonds
citizens in your area just won‟t do their bit.
and thus reinforce the value of citizen identity
Alternatively it could be a qualitative term
rather than it being implicit and pre-supposed.
where „Big‟ refers to strong, robust, energetic,
In short, „all cards are on the table‟: the
government has no permissible hidden agenda.
vital etc. We might talk about a „Big Society‟
If it is the case that different view of human
or
obligations may lie behind the conventions
presence
within the „Big Society‟ rhetoric, this might
discernable qualities. A third meaning, which
explain why
seems to be distilling in government thought,
in the way we would talk about a big character
both political analysts and the
general public have failed to
big
personality:
felt
one
and
is
which
makes
recognised
by
its
its
take in its
is that „Big‟ is closer to „grown up‟ as in self-
intended meaning rather than its secondary
reliant, capable, socially discerning individuals
inference.
that
are
collaborating
vitally
separate
towards
but
optimum
gladly
collective
A groundbreaking new idea or
variant on old themes?
outcomes.
On first hearing, the aspiration to create a „Big
supporting the latter two kinds of strong
Society‟ has close resemblance to the terms
society, but the first numerical distinction of
used by supporters of education for citizenship.
„Big Society‟ begs questions as to “who is
We would contend that this form of education
society? Is it everybody or is it just those who
can
participate?”
universalise
the
capacity
The
for
„big
Citizenship
And
Foundation
if
it
just
has
those
been
who
citizenship‟ by equipping all people to be
participate… and they receive more powers
informed and critically engaged with their
simply by „turning up‟ – then are we still as
communities – giving fair and widespread
democratic?
access
to
democracy
and
community
engagement.
The
Citizenship
supporting
participation
dynamic
Foundation
education
in
society
a
as
the
been
preparation
proactive,
for
has
last
for
If the phrase „Big Society‟ served the intention
and
of differentiating between „Big Society‟ and „Big
years.
Government‟ then as David Miliband conceded2
strong
20
‘Big Society’ versus ‘Big
Government’
Educationally the term „citizenship‟ covers an
integrated understanding of how economics,
politics,
law,
and
social
co-operation
all
2
Harlow Constituency Labour Party meeting August
2010
contribute to shaping our public life. But the
subject comes alive when these are practised –
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 6
‘Big Society’
it
to
committed to this kind of „Big Society‟ would
differentiate between having a big or small
did
guide
the
public's
imagination
also commit to education for citizenship as a
Government machinery, in comparison to a
guaranteed
small or big Society. The implication is that a
generation.
entitlement
for
each
emerging
„Big Government‟ generates a smaller society
by virtue of the government operating in the
Why different sizes of
government??
spaces where society might naturally take
place, or a small government leaves space for
If we imagine society as
society to fill the gaps
and
therefore
having a finite size, the
is
size of government at
facilitative of a stronger
the
and more active social
could
order. In this sense –
purpose
Big Society rhetoric) is
allocated
they had imagined.
extended order of human cooperation‟.
One
The
What
does
this
the
boundary
of
a
willing
and
able
parties
is
that
illustrates this. In the past 13 years we have
to
become
by
mass
These
participation;
justice,
a
when
needed
attempts
and
for
all
the
This requires a large and
so
that
the
wealth
to
intervene
the
bigger
machinery of government usually is.
capable of demanding and monitoring robust
and
the
Liberal
governments may be smaller and have the
fairness,
main purpose of maintaining fair terms of
inclusion and cohesion. This is of course
social co-operation in a pluralist society. They
amounts to a lot more than just volunteering
often
your bit in your community, and a government
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
prosperity
to all members. The more the government
politically aware, capable of expressing their
support
shaped‟
opportunity in the nation is similarly accessible
institutions. This means that individuals are
that
„Labour
lively government to monitor and intervene
trustworthiness, fairness, and open and robust
bodies
equality,
for the vulnerable.
and strong governments - characterised by
process,
a
population and not just the few, and support
strong social bonds supported by civil action,
democratic
with
Labour understanding is to guarantee social
are
widespread capacity to engage in democracy;
the
familiar
government. The purpose of government in a
civil society. Our position would be that we
societies.
maintaining and enforcing the rule
of the approaches of the different parties
participate in its democratic structures and its
strong
all
these initial obligations. A simplified summary
state.
However it could grow qualitatively larger if
were
for
to relate to its functions above and beyond
numerically larger as it is all the people who
institutional
delivery.
the „size‟ of government after that point tends
In that sense society cannot grow
through
its
of law and preserving national security – but
citizens of a state, and all those who are their
will
to
constant
economy,
identify its constituents as all those who are
characterised
state
governments are committed to managing the
Citizenship-related definition of society might
in
the
amount to?
The dictionary definition of „society‟ is „the
believe
of
as to the size of the resources that should be
recognise that they are more powerful than
people
still
Different
to different conclusions
and perhaps steer their self-awareness to
more
is
distinctively, and come
to do less for them…
within
or
though
political parties view the
(a phrase now part of
reside
smaller
everyone.
create „bigger‟ citizens
society
even
„society‟
government
government could do to
of
be
larger
one of the best things a
guests.
heart
work
from
principle
of
protecting
freedoms for the most with each person
Page 7
‘Big Society’
charged with doing least harm to others, as
power or command of the state) becomes
opposed to the government intervening for the
smaller and individuals take less initiative or
greatest
responsibility for their part in building their
good.
Lastly
Conservative
governments aim to maintain the best of our
local community or wider society.
traditions and perpetuate the successes of the
not the only typology of „big government‟.
past in order to guarantee stability and order
Some might see Scandinavian countries as
so
be
having both big government and big societies.
rewarded. In this thinking, by generating the
How can the two coexist in cooperation in the
conditions that most fully support individual
same society?
that
individual
prosperity,
endeavour
benefit
comes
might
to
everybody
The past seven or eight years in the UK saw its
through the enterprise of the few engaging the
labours
of
the
governments
many.
usually
own answer to that in an innovative response
Conservative
spend
less
on
to
the
those
who
between
voluntary activity by creating a partnership
those with the greatest energy and initiative
by
partnership
the best out of government and the best out of
This is sometimes seen as a way to prevent
down
the
Third Sector [OTS]. This was designed to get
economy to prosper under its own devices.
dragged
balancing
government and civil society: the Office of the
apparatus of state in order to liberate the
being
But this is
arrangement
are
between
society organisations.
unwilling to co-operate or participate.
the
state
and
civil
It is worth noting how
strongly this stands in contrast to communist
We are probably witnessing one of the more
governments which traditionally would have
radical
smaller
little to do with civil society. In the OTS model
government right now. This has an ideological
a Big Government aims to stimulate a Big
element emerging from the beliefs of the
Society and the resulting aspiration is for all
coalition
economic
citizens to be drawn in to voluntary and
imperative relating to the need to reduce fiscal
statutory participation. In the longer term a
spending and bring down our national debt to
proactive civil society might have reduced
affect
government
transitions
parties,
our
from
and
larger
an
long-term
allied
economic
to
recovery.
spending:
developing
greater
Economists are divided over the necessity and
community cohesion, stimulating cooperation
speed of such a contraction and its impact on
and lowering the bill for crime, health or
our
welfare.
economic
stability.
Commentators
are
This
would
also
serve
a
wider
currently busy trying to discern the difference
democratic benefit of bringing more citizens to
between the pragmatic reduction in spending
understand and participate in the process of
and the ideological drive to create small
building community because local commitment
government. The speed of changes suggests a
often draws people into the wider democratic
large element of the ideological in the mix, and
dialogue. This too would be a stronger, „bigger‟
many departmental initiatives at the moment
society. We may now never know what might
seem characterised by a desire to demonstrate
have become of it.
the ideological values of the new parties while
the political honeymoon period is in operation.
The new government's approach to civil society
But is it true that a „Big Government‟ of
regenerate civil society but this time not so
necessity creates a „small society‟? Is it a
much by financial commitment but through a
„zero-sum game‟ where the size of one affects
culturally
that of the other?
inspirational
Certainly
communist
history
suggests
similarly
then
civil
society
(the
a
commitment
transformation
leadership
and
„open
to
including
source‟
the greater good. Here they may selflessly
share their best ideas and celebrate their
voluntary
collective vision.
endeavour of individuals acting outside of the
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
driven
with
network building to support those who work for
that
when the state takes over as an absolute
power
leads
Page 8
This has been joined to a
‘Big Society’
promise that charities, cooperatives etc will
revival”; “civic renewal”; “pushing decisions
now have greater opportunity to take part in
closer to people”; “more power for the citizen
the service delivery of government.
less
Although
power
for
the
state”
and
“making
this appears new as a theme within the
government more accountable”.
framework
can see expectations that citizens will take up
of
the
„Big
Society‟
it
is
a
continuation of the innovation of the previous
their
government and as yet does not stand as a
communities as the state passes over more
visible step change from the inherited position.
rights for local ownership and action. But if
If anything it could be a ramping down as the
citizens don’t take them up what will they get?
new methodology involves exhortation before
Fractured communities? Will the state then
expenditure (as cuts in spending are the
step back in or will things fall apart? Will your
imperative of the day). In that sense the size
quality of life depend on someone stepping into
of civil society may be big in rhetoric but
the vacuum?
smaller in practice unless the government can
duties
and
In these we
responsibilities
to
their
If anything, what appears to be missing in this
discern where national voluntary bodies are
talk is the role of government in creating the
critical to the success of local efficacy and to
strong institutions that monitor and preserve
support them in the way they have been doing
the equal rights and freedoms of individuals
for many years. The key question is can this
across the nation: the traditional upshot of
government through one means or other,
generate more activity and pay less?
paying your taxes. Will people still want to pay
‘Active Citizenship’ and a ‘Big
Society’
those in different localities belong to the same
Like
Citizenship
simply be subject to the benefits that relate to
Foundation has spent the last two decades
their own capabilities as local organisers, will
developing
„active
taxpayers across the country enjoy the same
This
kind of services? Most people expect parity
phrase refers to the capacity and willingness of
because central government has guaranteed
individuals to use their powers as citizens to
equivalence of delivery no matter where they
shape society through their own contribution.
live. What would this do to „citizenship‟ if the
It involves a critical awareness of the nature of
state moves away from safeguarding its value
law, politics, economics and social cooperation,
by denying a palpable sense of equity and
an
unity: one people under the national banner,
many
organisations
an
the
understanding
taxes if they don‟t sense the guarantee that
of
larger national community because they access
the same degree of provision? If they are
citizenship‟ and how to stimulate it.
active
participation
in
the
democratic
structures, and a willingness to commit one's
paying to the same exchequer…?
own time and energy to activity that supports
If what is at stake is the quality of policing,
strong society.
legal services, health and well-being provision,
So how does „active citizenship‟ equate to or
education, early years support and equality of
differ from the „Big Society‟?
democratic access (characteristics of a wellmanaged nation) and it takes locally „active
The immediate answer has to be that they are
citizenship‟
one and the same: but the degree of difference
emphasis
varying from “building a new generation of
everyone
to
unlock
better
“the
power
lives”;
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
then
an
has
shifted
towards
the
responsibilities.
Government ministers have been using terms
to
these,
out of our sense of British Citizenship, and the
„citizenship‟ that is becoming active.
organisers”
guarantee
element of equal social rights have been taken
in the new position lies in the definition of
community
to
It
of
has
been
the
understanding
of
the
Citizenship Foundation that active citizens need
“social
not only the willingness to take responsibility
Page 9
‘Big Society’
but
and
big spending government reminds us that 50%
support the flourishing of a democratic state
also
the
capability
to
recognize
of GDP now goes on government spending.
that ensures these rights and responsibilities
The
are met. Citizenship does not just amount to
anything like this high was the 49% under
what people do in their spare time. We would
Margaret Thatcher. So for all that it appears to
expect any „Big Society‟ to have a vision of an
be the Tory ideology that will mandate a cut in
informed and literate citizenry who can see the
spending there is a degree of pragmatism in
scope of this need and act collectively to want
the response to the existential crisis of the
and support national standards.
nation right now. This means that, ideology
last
time
government
spending
was
aside; it is time to spend less on government.
The question is how do you start to spend less
on government and still guarantee society to
The Big Vacuum or the Big Clone?
How can this be achieved?
be fair inclusive and sustainable; to maintain
the rule of law and economic conditions that
It would be easy to review the ideas of the „Big
can best assure future prosperity?
Society‟ and conclude that on balance we liked
the way that things were going before the
Below we consider some aspects of what the
recent election, and ask if they can they
government is currently proposing on this. On
continue
is an
one hand it looks like a vast reduction of
undoubted attraction to proponents of civic-
spending accompanied by strong rhetorical
centred citizenship to having a substantial
leadership that will inspire the right kind of
state because at least you know where you are
people to move into the vacuum left by
if so much is expected from a government,
government (with a careful watch over what
particularly one that says that it will deliver
then
and be transparent about how it does it. If
government
things are left to voluntary groups it‟s not clear
initiatives that seem to come into this space in
what you should be expecting in terms of local
order to build the „Big Society‟ rather than
services
leave the „Big Society‟ to build itself. The
that
or
way please?
neighbourhood
There
standards
of
upkeep.
ensues).
On
has
a
the
fair
other
hand,
number
of
the
new
choice of this government appears to be to
withdraw from social provision and „let a
But for as much as the last ten years have
thousand flowers bloom‟ or to create the „Big
seen recurrent press headlines demanding that
Society‟ in its own image in some way or other.
the government „fixes things, now!‟ it has had
They are probably choosing both: exhorting
as many demanding „it's time to end this
people to fill the gaps for provision we can no
nanny state!‟ Both are not possible: we cannot
longer afford whilst calculating a small menu of
have a highly interventionist government that
initiatives that stimulate the solution-bringers
takes care of maintaining social conditions to
into
everyone's benefit, and at the same one that is
action.
Interestingly
the
balance
of
initiative seems to be moving away from the
not perceived to be occasionally straying into
previous government‟s solution of supporting a
territory that is really the business of cultural
broad
traditions, families or extended communities.
base
of
society-makers
through
universal citizenship education and voluntary
The one thing that appears to be clear is that
social coalitions (charities) and favours building
the nation simply does not have the money left
a cadre of new social entrepreneurs whose
to carry on as we were.
Although the last
ingenuity and leadership holds the key. This
Labour government was proposing swingeing
mirrors familiar party political choices of the
cuts
individual and their enterprise over the power
in
public
expenditure,
the
incoming
and potential of the unified masses.
government has contracted to take that much
further. Its critique that its predecessor was a
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 10
‘Big Society’
An exception to this is the National Citizens
Service for 16 year olds. It is hoped that this
will one day be offered to all young people
although its cost appears prohibitive in the
short term. This has been designed to be a
personal social development experience that
will also create a rite of passage that is
culturally absent in our nation‟s transition to
adulthood. Whist we welcome the provision of
any such opportunity, there is no denying that
its cultural presumptions are bang in the
middle of what it would have previously called
„nanny
state‟
engineering
a
territory
(the
government
cultural
shift
through
a
conviction around preferable social practice),
showing that governments of all colours can
seldom
resist
what
they
perceive
to
be
meaningful and transformational interventions
into creating citizens of character.
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 11
‘Big Society’
Section 2 – Civil Society, Civic
Society, ‘Big Society’… what’s
in a word, and what’s in the
balance?
action and society has become „bigger‟ and
“The „Big Society‟ is about a huge culture
charities to have the opportunity to provide
3
more local.
This more radical shift of power to self-starting
local groups compliments orders for more
social enterprises, co-operatives, mutuals and
change… where people, in their everyday lives,
more public services. It could all amount to
in their homes, in their neighbourhoods, in
greater grassroots initiative growing from the
their workplace don't always turn to officials,
example of the residents association.
local authorities or central governments for
answers to the problems they face, but instead
This scenario was also seen as preferable by
feel both free and powerful enough to help
the
themselves and their own communities.” David
outgoing
Labour
government‟s
invested heavily in the same idea.
Cameron speech on ‘Big Society’, 19 July 2010
who
Research
and policy reviews from the Office of the Third
The ambition behind the „Big Society‟ appears
Sector have been supporting this kind of local
to intend exactly what this speech leads with:
autonomy for the past six years in order to
that our culture should change, not just our
stimulate greater degrees of active citizenship
society. By this we might understand that the
and
social
cohesion.
Many
of
the
new
instinctive responses and everyday interactions
that become traditional and normative should
somehow
evolve
sufficiency
that
into
the
kind
of
serves
our
needs
self-
3
without
reaching out for institutional support. This kind
of
cultural
shift
away
from
There are complexities here of course: civil society
groups are formed to answer to themselves and their
own motivations – sometimes out of shared values,
collectively
sometimes out of shared altruism, sometimes out of
self-
shared self-interest. A residents’ group is likely to be
reliance implies a widespread growth in social
the latter: it could be as ‘not-in-my-back-yard’ and
negotiated
solutions
to
unconscious
confidence.
parochial as it likes: not necessarily a charity, and
This intention is manifest in current proposals,
Conversely a local charity, say supporting refugees,
for
informed by the mood of those motivated to turn up.
instance
government
a
and
shift
of
removal
power
of
to
might soon find itself at odds with the residents
local
association. This group is a constituted charity and
bureaucratic
as such has small governance structure that must
hurdles to become self-sufficient could enable
report into government that they have complied with
more local initiative from voluntary groups.
their founding principles. Imagine that this group
Here‟s an illustration from what we could call
takes
„informed hearsay‟: a local residents group
government contract to deliver support services to
(non elected) decides that they want to oppose
refugees. Now it no longer simply answers to itself
plans to develop a former hotel into supported
but to the council and is in tension with the local
accommodation
country.
for
new
arrivals
to
up
the
opportunity
to
deliver
a
local
residents association in opposing its work. So much
this
for
Through new legislation the group
voluntary
autonomy
drawing
in
the
highly
motivated, they are in the thrall of the local council
can now hold a referendum in their area.
and under pressure from residents. Where does this
Under this principle if more than 50% of the
leave elected members in the local council if the
area‟s residents agree they can institute their
voluntary refugee body throw in the towel? It
preference
Such
remains to see whether reporting to local authority
powers are indeed transformative and they use
paymasters is an acceptable cultural stride for such
a new form of democracy that has empowered
groups: they might either abandon enthusiasm out
and
deny
the
proposal.
of frustration or simply turn into a badly paid service
delivery agency.
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 12
‘Big Society’
coalition‟s policy suggestions are in continuity
discussion with their clients, rather than in
with the activities of the previous OTS which
discussion with their paymasters, it is thought.
offered a mix of legislative opportunity and
A third benefit of civil society organisations
financial support to stimulate the growth of the
third sector into local spaces.
delivering services is that the cost of those
This new
services is likely to be less because of the kind
government has suggested a number of stand-
of partnerships involved.
out policy initiatives that will similarly work to
this effect:
All these principles have their accompanying
The „Big Society‟ bank;
downside.
Volunteer involving organisations
„Big Society‟ network;
because they cannot insist that the volunteers
find it very difficult to deliver statutory services
turn
Pilot „Big Society‟ communities:
up
According
or
a
deliver
to
service
quality
standards.
delivery
voluntary
organisation may be run very similarly to a
The National Citizen Service for 16-year-
private agency: with contracted staff and
olds
professional management. So as mentioned
Why does the government believe that civil
above, if our country opts to respond to the
society organisations can step into the breach
needs of a subgroup through state-assisted
of services that may no longer be affordable by
support (which might be their constitutional
civic/state means? (or that they can replace
right), then that right has to be guaranteed.
them with a better offer)
Their thinking is
Here the balance between voluntary service
fairly similar to that which formed the OTS in
and statutory provision is precarious as a
that it recognizes the invaluable role of civil
poorly managed voluntary provision would
society organisations to the well-being of the
violate the right to support. The extension of
nation.
this argument goes into the very question of
whether the government could possibly excuse
The
first
perception
society
itself from the provision of public services if no
organisations are more „in it‟ for the service
voluntary group is there to take up the
users
statutory
challenge? And if it can, does this not violate
In other words their heart is
the deal between taxpaying citizens and the
inclined towards the well-being of „clients‟
state? Another question might also emerge: it
because they are a gathering of those whose
is very possible that civil society organisations
voluntary endeavour is to support those in
end up benefiting from the delivery of public
need.
So for instance where in previous
services, and if they do it is reasonable for
situations a small private company might be
their Chief Executives, for instance, to earn
delivering welfare services to the elderly, now
three times as much as the Prime Minister? Or
a charity that supports the elderly will bring
is this adoption of nonprofits as deliverers of
that service. And it might bring to that service
public service a good way of keeping a cap on
a greater sympathy and commitment to the
public spending by virtue of the fact that they
needs of the elderly by virtue of the fact that it
cannot deliver great rewards or dividends to
has been voluntarily constituted out of a
their staff?
than
provision.
those
is
that
that
civil
deliver
passion for that very purpose.
redesign services to be more cost effective and
‘Private’, ‘public’, ‘third’: sectors
are people, are we sure they’ll
deliver?
user-friendly. By being in closer dialogue with
Another underlying issue relates to how this
their beneficiaries civil society organisations
expectation on civil society implies different
are more likely to shape their services through
work
The second perception is that civil society
organisations are more innovative and will
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 13
motivations
for
those
who
‘Big Society’
choose
employment
voluntary
in
the
sectors
private,
–
they
public
are,
in
and
contribute to charities when they are delivering
short,
fully
funded
public
services?
In
our
„different beasts‟. Is this realistic? It seems
organisation we have experienced the very
that an assumption is being brought to these
same problem: many Trusts and Foundations
three kinds of workplaces. The first group, the
will no longer give to our work in developing
private sector, thrives on competition, financial
the quality of citizenship education because it
reward, and self-interest. Although they might
is
face questions abut their corporate social
whereas previous to
responsibility, their central legitimate driver is
provision, it was seen as a justifiable area of
accepted
to
be
personal
financial
now
statutory
(the
government‟s
job)
it being a statutory
benefit.
social investment for those Foundations who
Differently to that the public sector is expected
recognised the value of supporting citizens to
to behave without personal motivation or bias
contribute to the greater good.
and deliver a fair day's work for a fair day's
pay relating to their administrative capabilities.
By contrast civil society players are welcomed
for their altruistic commitment to the greater
good.
They are expected to co-operate and
not compete, to consider submitting their own
altruism to the preferences of the state should
they accept a new service delivery deal, but to
maintain
their
own
self-reliance
and
commitment without economic incentive or
self-centredness,
save
for
the
reward
of
knowing that they are achieving a satisfying
social purpose that is true to their own values.
Will this work? Or is this differentiated view of
human
nature
workplace
not
and
just
the
a
sector-delineated
pious
hope?
What
happens when Third Sector employees start
delivering public sector jobs: how do they stay
„third
sector‟
in
spirit?
Once
government
provision has been dispersed along these lines,
will people fall into place? Or will they twig that
they‟ve simply been turned into public service
deliverers?
There
is
something
potentially
disingenuous and exploitative about the shift of
public services to charities. It is the very thing
that can damage a civil society organisation:
when people that are attracted to work to their
own social vision are drawn into someone
else‟s imperative the loss of integrity can be
dispiriting and counterproductive.
More critically for civil society groups, if they
take up statutory service provision will their
funding keep coming? (the kind of funding that
makes
them
cost-effective
as
service
deliverers) Why should people continue to
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 14
‘Big Society’
establishment: to what extent is inclusion a
Section 3: National Education
Policy, and the ‘Big Society’
measure
of
success,
or
educational
achievement a measure of success? So far the
public
The National Curriculum has
rhetoric
of
the
new
government
suggests that that they are heavily inclined
three statutory aims. It should enable all
towards educational achievement in preference
young people to become:
to inclusion.
This becomes a salient question in relation to
successful learners who enjoy
citizenship.
learning, make progress and achieve
members
confident individuals who are able to
success.
live safe, healthy and fulfilling lives
There is good evidence to suggest
likely to be academics. If this is the case then
further investment in the same approach will
belonging and a desire to be involved with
simply privilege one group and conversely
others that can sometimes be betrayed by the
disadvantage another. There is data to suggest
experience of failure within the educational
that an „inclusion-first‟ educational policy is
system. Before considering the role and value
more likely to serve overall achievement (and
of citizenship education as a discrete subject it
not alienate others) than an „achievement-first‟
is worth taking a quick look at how overall
policy which by definition must create a failing
policy in education in the recent years has
cohort.
served to facilitate social inclusion rather than
social
simply develop the educational attainment of
If participation is to be a driver of
success
then
an
inclusion-based
schooling system will serve that participation in
the individual.
the wider sense, rather than an achievement
based
The huge investment in education over the
period.
But
this
year-on-year
less
improvement
comparison to the early years‟.
resultant
lack
of
that the „Big Society‟ ought to be judged not by
In
how many it includes but by how many, and
latter years the same increased investment
and
with
By virtue of that argument we could conclude
incremental benefit slowed to the point that it
followed the law of diminishing returns.
system
participation.
past 15 years saw a rapid shift in attainment in
less
collective
most likely to achieve and alienate those least
The last of these three requires a sense of
yielded
and
on academic achievement will hot-house those
positive contribution to society.
first
participation
that an education system that simply focuses
responsible citizens who make a
the
An inclusive society prepares its
for
who, it leaves out.
by
„Big Society‟ may be a
central theme of educational policy if „big‟
The trend
means an inclusive society. At the very least
indicated that there was at first an educational
the two should not be divided such that the
deficit which could be quickly addressed by
educational
greater investment to address the „easier wins‟
happens
but the institutions that deliver education
approach
outside
to
the
schooling,
„Big
and
Society‟
is
simply
relegated to how well we induct people into
struggled to perpetuate the same degree of
what they can do in their spare time through
improvement once these had been supported.
the
Most of these measures to develop educational
National
Citizens
Service
and
local
voluntary endeavour.
attainment were not quite so concerned with
inclusion, rather they were measured by exam
The next section will consider the role and
achievements.
value of citizenship education.
In other words a successful
But in closing
school was not measured by how many pupils
with this short plea for an understanding of the
participated in the life or successes of the
effect of education in general on our social
school, rather in academic attainment.
This
formation, we should recognize that we need
educational
literate citizens, we need numerate citizens,
question
still
hangs
over
the
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 15
‘Big Society’
but most of all we need citizens who know how
its continued functioning. To be aware of this
to
the
is to be aware of the choices that face us
knowledge capacity and appetite to engage. If
rather than to see education as the rolling
one's experience of school as the formative
forward of the immutable mandate of previous
social community that inducts you into wider
generations.
be
citizens.
This
means
having
society has been to leave you on the outside,
A 60 year history…
then many of the above will fail in formation.
The history of citizenship education reveals this
awareness within many previous movements
around public education. There was a huge
push to get citizenship education on to the
curriculum in the 1930s. As the lights of
Education for Citizenship
democracy were going out all over Europe it
This section seeks to recap the role, purpose
and
value
of
„Citizenship‟
as
a
very nearly succeeded, and in retrospect its
discrete
mandate and purpose are now clear to us.
educational subject, not as an overall aim of
education.
After the world wars the British class system
The Citizenship Foundation has
was increasingly under scrutiny, being seen by
played a key part in developing a curriculum
for
citizenship
which
became
a
many to be outmoded and wrong. Citizens had
statutory
served side-by-side, suffered equal losses, and
entitlement in secondary schools in 2002.
were now judged to be more equal inheritors
Many believe that it is a recent innovation, but
of the benefits of that tragic endeavour. More
as we shall show it has been in gestation half a
century,
preceding
the
recent
distant political influences such as socialism
Labour
introduced the idea of the welfare state, and
administration, and having achieved all party
extended
support from the 90s onwards.
public
education
to
all
people.
Alongside this the spotlight again returned to
Is it
the benefits of citizenship education, asking if
just „another curriculum subject‟, parallel to
it might instil attitudes in the mass population
humanities
religious
of „humility, service, restraint and respect for
education, or does it have a different social
personality, diligence‟ as described in the
purpose?
Historically, and in other places
Ministry of Education pamphlet of 1949. Later
around the world today, citizenship education
on Christian values of willingness to serve
has been more than this. It is a more
others typified the British view of the good
conscious
state
citizen, which is one reason why RE was
shapes its future citizens into its preferred
recognized by many as perfectly adequate to
image.
This is not manipulation, quite the
do the job of creating the citizens we needed.
contrary. It comes from a realisation that our
Political literacy was not thought to be needed
values and aspirations unavoidably underpin
for the mass population.
the educational process. As such judgements
was happy that the „leadership class‟ had a
about
be
different kind of citizenship education by virtue
conscious and transparent in recognition that
of going to the kind of schools inculcated
the substance of our curriculum is neither
qualities of leadership through the generations.
So what is „Citizenship Education‟ for?
neutral
or
device
its
economics
or
through which the
nature
and
content
nor inevitable, but
should
is decided
by
As the century progressed the capitalist state
governments in order to develop the citizens of
the
future.
Some
writers
speak
of
had become engaged in the „cold war of ideas‟,
the
seeing socialism as an ideological enemy. This
„pedagogic state‟ referring to aspects of the
brought all forms of political education for the
work of the state which requires it to transmit
masses under suspicion in the 60s and 70s. As
knowledge or instil attitudes or values which
the „educated classes‟ (therefore potentially
the state endorses or sees as a necessary for
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Rather the country
more radical), teachers were dubious figures to
Page 16
‘Big Society’
be trusted with the transmission of ideologies
 The need to redress the growing „rights
to the young in their care, and education for
culture‟ with an awareness of responsibility
citizenship seemed best left unspoken.
particularly amongst the young
However, forms of „civic education‟ became
quite
common
in
the
Schools of this time.
Secondary
 Eventually
Modern
Grammar School pupils
provide
their
what
home
was
backgrounds
necessary.
QCDA
developed
its
make a positive contribution to society.
on the whole did not apparently need such
education;
the
description of how responsible citizens can
 Well-prepared for life and work
would
When
 Are enterprising
comprehensive schooling was introduced, the
grammar school model came to be the one-
 Able to work co-operatively with others
size-more-likely-to-fit-all, and civic education
waned.
 Respect others and act with integrity
However, sociology and integrated
humanities were on the rise and seen by their
 Understand their own and others' culture
advocates as having an important citizenship
and traditions, within the context of British
education function particularly in empowering
heritage, and have a strong sense of their
individual citizens to become active in political
own place in the world
life. Inevitably certain kinds of teachers were
attracted to such roles, which led to social
education,
and
progressive
 Appreciate the benefits of diversity
education
generally, to come under review leading to an
 Challenge injustice, are committed to human
unprecedented move to control the content of
rights and strive to live peacefully with
the curriculum.
others
Opposition
to
„citizenship
education
 Sustain
as
1990s and was replaced by a public willingness
into
schools.
the
environment,
 Take account of the needs of present and
to accept Crick's case for the introduction of
education
improve
locally and globally
indoctrination‟ largely disappeared through the
citizenship
and
future generations in the choices they make
This
addressed public anxiety about:
 Can change things for the better
 Rising crime and violence in society
This list denotes an overarching ambition of
education
 Loss of respect of a traditional forms of
in
„citizenship
authority e.g. Church, Law
relation
to
education‟
citizenship.
as
an
But
explicit
clarification brings this to clear focus and
efficacy in the school setting (which has been
 Falling voting rights and the general retreat
attested
from public life
to
by
the
NFER
study
into
the
introduction of citizenship education) and adds
 An apparent loss of social cohesion due to
the following competencies:
increasing levels of immigration

 Changing relationship between the citizen
Encourages engagement with topical
issues
and the state e.g. the hollowing out of the

state requiring the citizen to take more
Teaches students about their rights
and responsibilities, duties and freedoms
responsibility for their own welfare

 A growing awareness of the need to know
Encourages active roles in the life of
their schools, neighbourhoods, communities
one's rights e.g. in consumer affairs
and wider society
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 17
‘Big Society’

Addresses
issues
of
social
justice,
target audience as they have a legal right to
human rights, community cohesion, and global
in
the
interdependence
and
receive it.
encourages
Founding arguments behind this relate to the
students to challenge injustice, inequalities
very nature of the rule of law and the
and discrimination.
expectations
on
democratic
citizens.
If
It is obvious how these qualities connect to
ignorance of the law is no excuse in a legal
those that members of any „Big Society‟ will
case, then it is surely the duty of the state to
need. It is also clearly very close to the
inform citizens of the content of the law? If
rhetoric of David Cameron as quoted earlier. In
democratic life has rights and responsibilities
fact, look at these two quotes together:
the citizen should know what they are so that
they can act on them? If democracies have
values such as respect, tolerance, submission
“The „Big Society‟ is about a huge
culture change… where people, in
their everyday lives, in their homes,
in their neighbourhoods, in their
workplace don't always turn to
officials, local authorities or central
governments for answers to the
problems they face, but instead feel
both free and powerful enough to
help themselves and their own
communities.” David Cameron speech
on ‘Big Society’, 19 July 2010
to majority decision and equality before the
law how will citizens learn how to appropriate
these
to
a
changing
national
and
global
landscape?
And more than that, if we are in the process of
building a more engaged and incentivised
citizenry, who will support that engagement by
developing
the
understanding
and
knowledge,
confidence
skills,
to
engage?
Research is clear that this is not universally
inherited by all members of society. Some
come from environments where there is little
“We aim at no less than a change in
the political culture of this country
both nationally and locally: for
people to think of themselves as
active citizens … to build on and to
extend radically to young people the
best in existing traditions of
community involvement and public
service, and to make them
individually confident in finding new
forms of involvement and action
among themselves. Bernard Crick,
DfES introduction of citizenship
education, 1998.
tradition, belief or confidence in the processes
of
democratic
engagement.
Others
have
watched their parents‟ generation adopt the
right to rule such that it falls into their path as
naturally as all other manners of their family
environment.
purports
is
important
to
population
What
that
be
equally
citizenship
these
left
education
matters
to
chance:
enabled
to
are
that
engage
too
a
in
democracy is a founding principle of a fair
society,
and
needs
to
be
a
collective
endeavour. This requires an entitlement to
ensure that it is acted on.
What would seem incontrovertible is that the
And precisely because all children pass through
implied cultural shift of David Cameron‟s Big
their formative years in the school system this
Society is entirely consistent with Crick‟s own
has to be an effective way to support that
cultural shift: his description of the anticipated
specific need to induct children into their
results of citizenship education.
birthright as citizens. The school environment
can offer an entitlement to citizenship that is
Entitlement and Enhancement
different from enhancement opportunities for
Central to the introduction of education for
those who might be predisposed to taking
citizenship is the principle of „Entitlement‟. This
voluntary responsibilities.
means that its provision as mandatory for the
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 18
‘Big Society’
So the obvious question would be, are there
any reasons why education for citizenship is
not
secure
as
a
continuing
element
of
educational policy when it so strongly concurs
with the government‟s own flagship agenda?
We would argue that the case is clear, and that
citizenship
increasing
education
has
now
adoption,
professionalization
and
achieved
momentum,
evidence
based
educational efficacy such that it needs to be
supported and reinforced in favour of the
strong society of the future.
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 19
‘Big Society’
Section 4: The ‘Big Society’ as a
new ‘Localism’
third democratic benefit, and what will be the
We have already noted how the „Big Society‟
We have already observed that there is a
accompanying risks?
degree of jeopardy in seeing citizenship as the
vision shifts focus from the mass of central
preserve of those who have enough spare time
government to diversified local action. This is
to engage with decision-making or local social
sometimes called „localism‟ and in the current
action.
outline of likely new policy involves giving
communities more powers, encouraging people
need
to take an active role in their communities,
transferring
power
government,
from
supporting
central
to
co-ops,
local
as
decision-makers.
The
suitable to the local community. But this is not
how nation-states are constructed. There is an
expectation
manage their own responses to the facts at
that
an
equal
proportionate
contribution to the collective pot (taxes) will
their fingertips.
legislation
serve
locally might inevitably be wiser or more
mutuals,
government data so that local groups can
new
to
implication is of course that decisions made
charities and social enterprises, and publishing
The
If more responsibility moves into the
local arena then more local representatives
enable us to enjoy some kind of similarly
localism
is
designed
being
to
backed
promote
with
proportionate outcomes.
Critics of the new
increased
localism usually point out its risks relate
decision making from with local communities,
primarily to whether or not the locality enjoys
albeit by central mandate and design:
a level of capability for its own decision-making
needs.

Decentralism & Localism Bill

Review of Local Government Finance

Public Bodies Bills

Scrapping Regional Spatial Strategies

CAA abolished

Council tax freeze
For instance longer term depressed
communities tend to have more complex social
needs without having the understanding to
know how to address them. The „Big Society‟
solution not only involves this but also a shift
in government support to the voluntary sector
such that more money goes to voluntary
organisations at the front line in order to bring
much-needed support to these communities.
But it is seldom the case that small local
charities have an overview of the solution to
Which are designed to give greater powers for
issues of multiple needs, never mind the
local communities to protect & take over
competence to administer those from within.
facilities & services. These will be tested in four
So the question must be, will the solutions of
„Vanguard‟
to
localism meet local needs for all communities,
increase the general powers of competences to
or are they more likely to help those who can
Local
already help themselves?
communities
Authorities.
As
in
it
preparation
stands
the
only
indication that government might see a need
for up-skilling those in local communities to be
The critical pathway in all this probably relates
competent to take on this new responsibility is
to the how well the understanding that larger
a promise to help to train 5,000 community
national structures and institutions can bring
organisers, although this has been presented
will find its way to supporting to communities
as a model that is likely to command financial
that experience greater need (assuming that
support from the private sector, not statutory
they have not been abolished). In other words
funding.
how
can
experts
who
understand,
have
empathy with, and can help build solutions for
So, imagining that the these shifts in local
local communities get that expertise down
responsibility take place, what would be the
through regional to local bodies if they do not
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 20
‘Big Society’
have support? This is broadly similar to the
question around monitoring service provision.
Some elements of our social formulation need
that kind of consolidated insight that central
organisation can bring. For instance, we would
not attempt to administer our legal system
through localism in that it needs to gather
knowledge and precedent from national cases
in order to deliver a fair dispensation. The
same
legal
system
relies
on
tiers
of
management and information-sharing in order
to build the expertise of local deliverers. The
question therefore has to be answered, what is
it that is different about the needs of local
communities that means that they will not
need
the
support
of
a similar bodies
of
This document emanated from a ’thinking day’
expertise bringing understanding, skills and
confidence to local decision-makers?
involving all staff of the Citizenship Foundation.
The
Thanks go to all who worked so hard to crunch
citizenship foundation believes firmly in local
people
who
play
their
full
part
in
the
local
the
citizenry
to
support
a
on
that
day
and
day: Don Rowe, Ade Sofola, Tony Breslin, Tony
widespread
Thorpe and Molly Kearney. This summary and
competence in this so that all citizens can have
further
confidence that their country is a place of
thoughts
was
compiled
Thornton.
equality through democracy.
This critique also has a parallel in the way the
greater localism has brought about a drift
towards inequality in educational provision.
Without very tight central monitoring of the
right to high-quality education there is a
tendency
of
schools
in
areas
of
strong
governor /manager support to build that school
to
a
higher
depressed
standard
areas.
of
those
Success
then
in
more
breeds
success, in that people will move to that area
in
order
to
attend
that
school,
and
the
aggregate effect is that a few years down the
line
one
area‟s
educational
provision
far
outstrips the one in the next postcode along.
It is evident that tight monitoring of provision
and stringent central standards would be a
check on the risk of the system losing parity,
what is unclear is what will happen when local
areas are given the freedom to opt out of
central
accountability.
Particularly
if
infrastructural monitoring is removed how can
citizens know that fairness and inclusion are
values underlying their democracy?
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
thereafter.
Particular thanks are due to presenters on the
decisions; it also believes in the responsibility
of
issues
Page 21
‘Big Society’
by
Andy
www.citizenshipfoundation.org.uk
Page 22
‘Big Society’