Our Primary has a mixture of pupils from different backgrounds, but who are predominantly white European. We have some Polish children, and some Spanish and Italian, but the vast majority are British and from a range of different socio-economic backgrounds. We have about 7% of pupils having free school meals (the national average is currently 18% according to Department of Education figures).

I was interested in finding out more about pupils’ attitudes and values and decided to ask them questions about Human Rights, to find out whether there were areas of this work that needed attention. I chose a group of Year 5/6 pupils (age 9 to 11) and divided them into pairs. Each pair had a collection of the Human Rights cards, and I asked them to consider which human rights were the most important to them. Their most popular choices were the right to food and water, to healthcare, to protection from harm and to an education. Very few chose the right to leave and enter the country. Their discussion about the right to a family led to some insights into the criteria they were using for choosing their cards. Most pupils thought that because some people don’t have a family, they are able to choose not to have a family, then it isn’t a human right. This suggests that pupils were confusing the fact of having the right with the regularity of accessing it. It seemed that they thought rights were something you had to have. If you are able to choose not to have it, then it is not a right.

Then we thought about it again, substituting the word ‘me’ for the word ‘immigrant’. The pupils were in agreement that an immigrant also has the right to food and water and healthcare, but they were unsure about the other rights. A prevailing view was that if you choose to leave your country and go to another country, you forfeit your rights. They believed that most immigrants come here illegally, and in containers, and so they should not have the same rights as indigenous people. They identified a difference between children and adults, in that children who emigrate may not have chosen to leave their country. They were quite adamant that as we live here in the UK, we have more rights than someone who has moved here for work.

After some discussion, pupils began to think about people who might have left their country without much choice. They talked about people born in African countries, and they fell back on stereotypes of poverty, believing that there is no food, it’s too hot and the healthcare is inadequate, so people are forced to leave their countries, and they are less at fault in that circumstance. They also felt that in Africa, the laws that would protect human rights aren’t as good as they are in this country.

Then the conversation moved to talking about the rights of a British person who is in poverty or is homeless. The pupils believed that poverty in this country is due to someone being naughty, or not behaving properly, and that justifies those people’s lack of rights.

The conversation quickly moved to prevailing stereotypes about immigrants in the UK; the pupils were clearly repeating tabloid headlines and attitudes from parents at home. They expressed the view that an immigrant in the UK can work very little but earn lots of money, take food from food-banks and get free housing.

I was concerned about the lack of critical awareness in the pupils at this point and was keen to keep the conversation going, in order to encourage them to question and problematise the issues as much as possible. I asked the pupils whether they applied the same feelings to me, an immigrant to the UK. They were shocked to be reminded that I was from a different country, but they decided it was a different situation: because I speak English and have a job and a family, those factors automatically gave me more rights. They didn’t see me as fitting in to the narrative of the illegal immigrant.

To move their views on, we explored different types of immigration. We talked about the Polish children in their school and all the different reasons that they had moved here. We explored different reasons for migrating: for work, for family, or to try somewhere new.

We also talked about refugees. The pupils were doing a significant project on refugees at school at the time, but they were failing to make connections between the media headline attitudes they held about immigrants, and people who leave home due to conflict and danger.

At the end of this conversation, I sent the pupils off to the playground and asked them to think carefully about the conversation. During break time, two pupils came back and said that they had changed their minds, they felt that we are all people and we all have rights. They were children who were previously vocalising the opposite of that view, so the conversation alone, the opportunity to discuss the issue, had really changed their perception.

Long term, our plan is to address some of these attitudes through our work on Fair Trade and living standards, trying to help them understand the causes of poverty, that it is more than just laziness or bad behaviour. We want to challenge the idea that immigration is illegal and all immigrants come from poor countries, by focussing our work on issues of social justice, looking at the many different reasons for the choices people make in their lives, and exploring diversity in the UK more.

When I considered whether the extensive work we do on refugees was having the impact we wanted it to, I identified that the children were failing to make links between aspects of their learning and the world around them. So, when we plan our WW1 topic, we will make links to current issues and contemporary conflict. When we talk about refugees we will broaden the topic out to include other global and local issues, to encourage children to make connections.

The thing that really stood out was hearing the children repeat things they had heard on the news, or heard their parents say, without any criticality or questioning, and with complete certainty to start with. The impact that one classroom discussion had, where I problematised the issue for them, was surprising. We are going to use Philosophy for Children techniques to continue to explore these issues, and to enable the children to think critically about the media and the views they hear expressed by others.

We’re a Catholic school and it’s a basic Christian value to welcome people and integrate people, to respect others. This is something we want to run through all the work we do here.

I teach at a Secondary Grammar school of 350 pupils in the Czech Republic. Most pupils come from villages and small towns, rarely coming in contact with people from different backgrounds or experiencing extremes of poverty or luxury.

Selection of activity and class

I selected the activity focused on home to discover what pupils considered the most important thing in their homes and whether they understand that home may be represented by very different conditions. I hoped they would gain increased understanding of different socio-cultural backgrounds, and appreciate that the different environments presented can meet basic human needs: access to water, food, security and safety.

14 first year pupils (age 11 to 12) participated in the activity. I had had no experience of teaching Global Education and measuring attitudes. I assumed that pupils would enjoy this exceptional activity.

First activity audit (Initial audit)

I recounted a story about returning from an excursion, asking students to imagine coming home. I asked them to list what they most looked forward to; these were their parents, a brother, dog, bed, fridge, TV, clean water and keeping warm. They next worked individually on those things they considered to be necessary at home.

Pupil reactions were focused. They tried to answer questions in a way that conveyed how important the feeling of being at home was. All agreed that the most important thing was the people: parents and siblings first, with some mentioning their grandparents. Home was, above all, a place where we love each other, or where people love us.

I presented pupils with a selection of photos of homes. Pupils studied each photo and decided if it represented a home. They were to position themselves on the scale yes; no; I cannot decide.

I asked pupils to justify their decisions and explain which characteristic features of each home were present or absent from each. I noted the answers on the recording sheet, checking that the pupils approved what I’d noted down. All considered the living conditions of the inhabitants of the photos, as well as the reasons they considered such housing a home, thinking carefully about the questions.

The pupils decided the basic attributes of a home were family relations, security, privacy, freedom (to leave anytime), keeping warm, light, water and cleanliness. Previously they had reflected on what they personally needed at home; now they showed a better understanding of various life situations. Even very poor housing was better than nothing. As for a prison cell, some thought it might offer housing for the homeless over winter. They considered some situations so serious that they were willing to reduce freedom in favour of basic needs such as water, food or warmth.

In the refugee camp, they ignored the fence, focussing on practical issues: it was clean, offered a supply of food and water, and kept families together. Surprisingly two pupils claimed that a released prisoner starting from zero was better placed than inhabitants of the block of flats.

The pupils´ comment: It is the only home they have (of the homeless shelter) seems a reflection on the limited choices of those who have little say in their way of life. They were aware of the social isolation of homeless people – the opposite of their own need for close family relations.

Pupils remarked on a decreased feeling of security with regard to homes atypical of the Czech Republic such as slums. They suggested that the inhabitants could easily lose their homes but simultaneously emphasized that the slum met the social needs of its inhabitants. They perceived the way of life as communal and relations in the community as close. They were also satisfied that there was access to water.

They suggested that For people in Africa it is fine because they are used to it, they can be quite satisfied even if it is dirty. Pupils could thus not imagine this housing for themselves, but assumed it was sufficient for those who were used to it. They did think that inhabitants of slums were disadvantaged compared to people living in an urban zone, who had job prospects and access to food and drinking water.

Mid-phase teaching

This was the first time the pupils had thought about slums or refugee camps. I decided to focus primarily on increasing their awareness of the complex life situations of people in different parts of the world. We discussed what might be important in a home for different countries and social groups, in comparison with pupils’ own original lists. They recognised that they could live without a TV or computer, but that these things represented comforts and a connection to the civilized world. They would not want to lack money, and a bed, table, toilet, running water, pets and garden were very important to them.

Second audit (final audit)

Here pupils chose between 16 different attributes of home: Books, People, Bed, Toys, Money, TV, Water, Food, Garden, Pets, Computer, Light, Warmth, Table, Door, Toilet.

There was no significant shift from their original: Home is where people love me, which stressed human relations: unconditional acceptance by the family, safety and stability.

Two more stressed money, believing it key for ensuring good housing. One chose TV, as a place where the whole family meets. All circled water (compared to 12 in the first round) and food, influenced by those Homes where access to drinking water and sufficient food was not straightforward. Light was circled by nine pupils (compared to seven in the first round) and warmth by all. Toilet was circled by only three (compared to eight in the first round) because pupils focused on things providing security, comfort and essentials, although it was clear that they would not want a house without a toilet.

I presented pupils with a second set of photos of homes that fitted into the same categories as in the first round. I chose:

Pupils worked independently, instead of in groups, deciding for each photo if they considered it to represent a home and noting down their justifications. Responses varied more than in the first round. All liked the Luxury house best. The Slum’s proximity to a town for some gave its inhabitants a chance to find a job and thus a way out from this unsatisfactory housing. But most insisted that it was not a home because it lacked privacy, security, clean environment, access to water and food. The Block of flats was now more acceptable to pupils: they felt most of those living in the other housing would be grateful for this type of flat, arguing that flats which seemed unattractive from the outside could be well-equipped and that one could live in privacy in a flat. Some also decided that it was a relatively cheap way to live while families saved some money in order to move to better housing.