It is a pleasure to have been invited to be with you at this Conference, and I am grateful to those who have organised this event.

Let me begin with 2 reflections.

2 days ago I returned from India where I have been asked to take part in a review of government education in India on behalf of UNICEF. It was a most interesting visit. It is my third visit to Delhi, and Bihar State to the east of the Ganges Plain in the last 8 months. Among many memorable events I visit schools, and in a class of 7/8 year olds there were 207 children in a room which would comfortably have taken 25 children.

I was interested in what they were doing, or able to do. They were reading the book which had been developed by that State, and it consisted of chapters such as

My concern is not to discuss this as a model of the curriculum for 7 and 8 year olds, but to indicate what the different "culture of learning" was being created there. A school was a place of instruction for the transmission of rules, from society or of the culture, or of the government, or some combination of these.

It had become a culture where there was deprivation, and especially the deprivation of hope. Education was an irrelevance, and it had no impact on a society which is dominated by the social conditions pre-determined by the caste system.

Let me offer you another example..

The University of Glasgow this year celebrates its 551st anniversary. In the charter which was written by Pope Nicholas V in 1451, he indicated that the University be specifically established to address issues of the day - the education of the poor; education in support of the economy; education for the values of the society that are both timely and timeless. To quote some very important lines from the Bull establishing Glasgow University

I suspect this was among the first written statements of what is now thought of as "social inclusion". Today we might do well to reflect on the wisdom and the fortitude of those who had both vision and courage - for each is impotent without the other. We ought not to forget the courage which is contained in those words.

These are distant examples of the establishment of cultures of learning. They are characterised by being communities where there is a need for courage, and a drive for a better life. They are based on an implicit or explicit philosophy of education and of learning itself. In a world which too readily has been compliant with government philosophies of education, courage is a commodity that needs to replace the fearful heart in so many aspects of educational leadership in our time.

My challenge to head teachers is to be in a position to look at educational development and change beyond the politics of the present. This means establishing a culture which will support the formation and growth of individual children and their contribution to society – for both are necessary. This will require innovation, flexibility and imagination.

Beneath it all we could say that there are three main areas which we need to consider above all others:

These form the basis of our educational system… but, they can be incompatible.

There is a duty on any profession to transcend the political imperatives of our time, and to consider education as having a more pervasive and lasting role in transforming society. A vision of education has to be beyond the immediate political imperatives of our time, and be inspired by a vision that is "in the common good". We educate young children to have the capability of acting in the common good.

Education is about engaging people in communities of interest to transform society and to make the world a better place. This needs to be begun from the earliest stages of education. Education is not a remote formal system of involvement in classrooms and in the curriculum. It is a conversation from generation to generation. It takes place with different people in different places.

There is a need to consider the following qualities of life in terms of citizenship:

Education must have a focus on learning. That is, fairly obviously, a process. A way of thinking of a process is to consider it to be a journey…. In this case we are looking at the journey of education.

Learning is not to be narrowly defined, but consists of "a hierarchy of learning". A "culture of learning" only makes sense when we are aware of the purposes of that learning. I believe that increasingly education will be seen as a means of transforming societies. It is a means of developing citizens who are active participants in democratic processes. They must understand concepts of "the common good", and that democracy is more about developing society for benefit of each person, all people without exception, rather than some naïve notion of majority rule.

A culture of learning has therefore got to raise issues abut the purpose and the nature of learning, and the place of both the individual and the community in this.

This hierarchy might be usefully articulated as

• Learning how to repeat.

Effective education will support all aspects of these ways of learning, and it will pay particular attention to the higher order aspirations of learning. That is what gives good education a distinctiveness. It addresses all aspects of learning. I should emphasise that these levels in the hierarchy are not sequential and progressive. They represent a grading of the order of learning, and should be present in all education, even from the earliest points in education.

Let me for a moment analyse this model of learning. I wish to suggest that the State is mainly interested in the lower elements of learning. It is concerned with Learning how to repeat, and Learning how to learn. Sometimes it is interested in Learning how to do. It is not concerned with Learning how to be, and Learning how to become. These have much more of a spiritual dimension to them, and they are concerned with the personal development of the individual.

Now this raises some very fundamental questions about whether the State is really interested in educating the whole person, or is simply permissive at the higher levels of learning. I think there are some very taxing questions to be asked here.

It seems to me that the State is particularly effective in the lower forms of learning, but must find ways of becoming more fully involved in more flexible and creative ways of looking at learning. There are some important issues about how the ways we learn are valued in different settings. I believe there to be a trajectory of spiritual learning which develops from the State to the individual. We cannot leave all learning to the State.

There is a distinctiveness to be found in this vision of education, and in the implicit values, and in the style of achieving what they set out to accomplish. Through this the school is a counter to the contemporary values of the marketplace. There are places to be other than in the marketplace, and one of them may be in that community of learning which is the school. We have a duty to move beyond the political imperatives of our time, and to see that education is not a political concern alone. It is the development and even the formation of the person, giving meaning to their lives and hope for their present and future.

This principle of education being about formation is very important. Education is not a matter of transmission of knowledge or concepts or ideas. Education is the conversation from generation to generation about matters of significance. It is a process which changes, moves, is flexible and is infinitely varied. In previous generations there was the likelihood of children learning from parents or adults. That was the basis of education and of educational structures. For a variety of reasons, including the rapid advancement of technologies, knowledge and changes of attitudes we are facing generations in which we learn much from our children. Of course, I would not wish to exaggerate this, but neither would I wish to neglect the trend in education which is bound to raise serious questions about teaching and learning styles and methods. We are likely to be learning from generations yet to be born.

One of the besetting sins of education in our time has been to see the means by which we educate to become the ends of education. The purposes of education are to raise the dignity of each child, to bring to distinction all children, and indeed all people. The means by which we do this are through the curriculum, through what we learn and what we teach, and how that learning takes place. This is the curriculum. The central purposes of education, however, lie beyond these means, beyond the curriculum. The curriculum is the means, but the essential purposes lie beyond the curriculum.

The central need in education for young people, and older people too, to be exposed to the feelings of love, beauty, compassion, goodness, care and the other positive human emotions and feelings. Educational practices should not stop with an awareness of the principles, because without related experience these are empty. It is also our duty to bring people to experience these qualities of life, and through these to form their values systems and dispositions in relation to others. It is this experience which currently represents the greatest challenge to education, partly because it is this which leads to formation of the mind and the person. It is not the words of a concept which are formative, but the experiences which give power and meaning to the person. A culture of learning has to actively engage people in the joy of learning, and the experience of it. It is not good enough just "to know about" things; we also need to experience them if we are to truly "know" and to truly "learn".

Forming active citizens therefore values each individual for the gifts and talents which each has, as well as providing a means of empowering each person to contribute to the benefit of all society.

The tendency to describe education in terms of outcomes and targets; to turn each perspective into "a problem", to use the language of the marketplace - is to fail to engage the hearts and souls of those who learn. Forming citizens is as much about restoring and maintaining a sense of passion, joy and motivation as it is about some "performance".

Participation in democracy must therefore focus on relationships and processes and not on outcomes and products.

The suitability and effectiveness of forming active citizens will relate to:

The vision of Citizenship is based on service and on the development of attitudes and ways of thinking concerned with peace, and the care of self and of others. It does not easily offer a body of knowledge to be learned, but is concerned with learning how to learn, and learning how to be at peace with oneself and one’s community.

This requires an orientation to peace; a sensitivity to the culture of care; and sensitivity to the environment, the economy and to human growth and dignity.

It requires us to act responsibly and with a sense of mission for the improvement of society.

There should be clarity about the essential core values which characterise citizens, and that these should be revisited in new and challenging situations suitable for the age and stage of development of the learner. As with all effective education these contexts should be relevant, balanced and suitable for discussion and consideration by the learners at whatever point these matters are raised in the lives of the learners.

There is, in this regard, a debate to be conducted as to whether all issues ought to be open to debate and discussion so long as they are subjected to the guiding light of truth. Then, of course, there is the perennial debate about the nature of "truth". Of course, there is also a need to monitor, even control, the contexts to which younger people are exposed. We all have a particular responsibility for maintaining the dignity and respect of the human being, while avoiding the accusation of "not facing the real issues in the lives of young people".

Schools need to give experiences to learners and to have these experiences as real and meaningful. They also deal with matters "beyond the curriculum" … the ethos of the school, the spiritual development of individuals and the community, and the sense of friendship within the communities of the school. Children need to feel the experiences of these and to find meaning and purpose in these experiences. Learning and service are at the heart of education, but these are not to be narrowly defined or limited in scope.

When you teach, there are 2 things you teach…. You teach children the principles, ideas and processes of a subject. You also teach the child to love or hate that subject; a disposition to that subject. These are two different aspects of learning. They are intertwined and not separable. It may be in India, for example, that a child can read in a functional kind of way. Because of the reading material it is more difficult to see an enjoyment of reading coming with ease. What is also difficult to accept, is that his dimension of enjoyment is not an issue either for the teacher or for government. Yet what is more important, to read or to enjoy reading? The disposition to learning is more important than the learning itself.

By our vocation in education, and by our very humanity we are called upon to love one’s neighbour. This is to bring all people to a better understanding of their own belief system. To love one’s neighbour is to promote the gifts and talents, the beliefs and values, the ways of living of all peoples. This requires a form of learning which is sympathetic and supportive.

Schools, and other places of learning are in the real world and not divorced from it. In striving for their expression of distinctiveness they will seek to be a voice in the face of other influences in education. This is the real world - and there is no other - but it is to suggest that there needs to be a balance to this. A philosophy of education that does not celebrate variety and plurality of ideas and views based on truth and integrity is doomed. It is very important that education is not to be considered an adjunct to the commercial world. It has its own integrity and ways of looking at learning, and these are not just utilitarian and functional. A culture of learning at its best engenders and creates a kind of "community intelligence". This is the quality which derives for the corporate spirit of a community which has a sense of shared vision and values.

It is the active participation of both learning and teaching which characterises an effective education. The educator is most effective as "a witness" or "role model", and this has a profound impact on the learner. In so many ways the educator is also a learner.

Ways of promoting and forming citizens should be concerned not only with the content and skills of education, but with the human dispositions of dignity, humility, liberty and freedom in a world which does not always promote these as vital to the human condition. This may mean putting dignity before price, and humanity before economy. These are some of the marks of global citizenship.

We have a duty to be courageous and brave in what we believe, and in how we put our thinking into action. We need to be true to our principles with this bravery. Those with a passion for education ought to be adventurous in seeking ways in which they can model their values, and not be continually influenced by the tyranny of measurement. One of the problems of our times is the dominance of measurement, and the way in which this external accountability determines the objectives of our work. To comply with an external agenda is to run the risk of diminishing the respect for the autonomy of the person. Learning also requires us to hold, respect and develop our own autonomous thinking.

It is this which takes us beyond the curriculum. We have a responsibility to work with the wholeness of each person, and with all the gifts and talents which they have and which can be put in the service of humanity. Being a teacher is not primarily about knowing about something; it is being actively engaged in life itself for the enlightenment of our society. It is about being a person of peace and action.. This is the courage of the person who sets into the unknown, and who is yet at peace with uncertainty. How we need those qualities in education today ... being at peace with uncertainty.

Have courage for the journey on which you are embarked. Have peace for your efforts in this world of uncertainty. You do your most important work beyond the curriculum. Continue with this and the harvest will be great. Active citizenship is not just a way of life, it is a way of living. It is not susceptible to complete description by measured outcomes and identifiable targets. It is the engagement of the heart in the conversations and voices of educational debate.

You cannot give what you do not have. What seems obvious is that if you want what you have always had, then do what you have always done. As we look to the future in valuing young citizens in our charge that does not seem to be a wise option. We have to re-orientate our concerns in education towards a world of care and love and compassion … towards developing citizens who value and are valued.