Aspirations, Education and Social Justice

Applying Sen and Bourdieu

Caroline Sarojini Hart

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN: 9781472572028
• eBook ISBN: 9781441165459
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Research in Education

Caroline Sarojini Hart presents a radical new paradigm for thinking about the role of education in the development of human flourishing. Aspirations, Education and Social Justice applies Amartya Sen's capability approach to understanding the nature of aspirations, in the light of a critical analysis of policies to widen participation in education. Sen's work is synthesised with key concepts from Pierre Bourdieu to develop an analytical framework for understanding the processes influencing the development and realization of aspirations. Drawing on empirical studies, involving over 1, 000 young people, aged 14-19, this text explores the hopes and dreams of these young people for the future. The young people's voices challenge dominant discourses of aspiration, well-being and advantage, and invite readers to rethink their own positions on these issues.

1

Education Policy Issues

Introduction

There is a current global trend to expand participation in education by people from diverse backgrounds. Expansion has involved extending provision from preschool to tertiary education and increased attention to addressing social inequalities. This is taking place against a backdrop of globalization manifested in the development of global systems of communication, governance, finance, transportation and markets.

In this book, the nature of young people’s participation in formal education settings comes under scrutiny, with a particular focus on secondary education and transitions to life beyond school and sixth form college.¹ In seeking to contextualize the discussion this chapter considers different ideas about the role of education in society and some key issues in education policy in England.

The role of education

In different times and places, the role of education in society has been interpreted in diverse ways reflecting competing ontologies. Within sociology there are competing ideas about the role of education. For example, consensus theorists such as functionalists may argue that the role of schools is primarily to sort and prepare young people to support society by taking on roles commensurate with their ability and skills. Conflict theorists on the other hand, such as Marxists or feminists, may argue that the filtering and sifting that takes place during schooling processes work to oppress and disadvantage some individuals (e.g. working classes, females) whilet unfairly advantaging others (Freire, 1972; Willis, 1977; Gillbourn and Youdell, 2000). Some governments aim to use educational institutions to maintain the status quo, others to promote social mobility or to reinforce oppressive regimes. The perceived goals of education are wide-ranging from social control and serving the needs of industry to knowledge transmission and human flourishing.

Current trends in British education policy are fuelled by the government’s economic instrumental goals. The government commissioned report, Unleashing Aspirations, has estimated that in the United Kingdom, ‘we will need up to seven million new professionals in employment by 2020’ and this has driven officials to consider ways of encouraging talented non-traditional students into the professions (Milburn, 2009: 5). The report, focused on building aspirations towards the professions but this neglects those who do not aspire to join the professions. It aimed to broaden representation of different social groups across a range of professions but this was to pursue economic growth rather than human development. The Chair of the Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, Alan Milburn, claimed, ‘in a globally competitive economy, the key to success depends on unlocking the talents of all our people’ (Milburn, 2009: 27). The report was strongly driven by the economic motive of preparing individuals to work in the imagined global economy of the future envisaged by the British government (Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, 2009).

The 2010 general election in the United Kingdom led to the formation of a Coalition government led by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties (henceforth, ‘the Coalition’). A wave of new CEP signalled a renewed claim for the importance of the role of education in building a globally competitive and socially just society. CEP is characterized by a neo-liberal outlook, supportive of the marketization of education, devolvement of responsibility away from local authorities, and central government, and towards schools. This appears to signal a shift in the locus of control away from the state. However, a raft of accountability measures, inspections and upgraded surveillance of teaching professionals, together with an open invitation to the private sector to step in where government has stepped out, ensures that the autonomy of schools will remain limited (Department for Education, 2010; BIS, 2011a, 2011d).

The Coalition government has clearly stated that the number one priority on forming the government was to address and reduce the fiscal debt. Thus Coalition education policy (CEP) exists in a web of tensions between the state, institutions and individuals, between rich and poor, social and economic needs and among other policy priorities jostling for centre stage. The Coalition government has been challenged on a number of fronts, on welfare, health and education reform, regulation of the press and the implementation of the 2010 Spending Review (HM Treasury, 2010).

In 2012, opposition to the Coalition plans for health reform, alongside debate over the proposed Bill of Rights, sidelined some controversial educational policy issues regarding a new education bill. So the physical timing of education policy debates in relation to other policy debates is significant. Similarly, the wider austerity climate plays a hand in the shaping of specific reforms that may have very long-term effects. Coupled with this complex arena of policy debates is the challenge of the implementation of policy in the context of diverse cultures of different stakeholders. Such dilemmas can reduce the focus of policy to narrow issues of ‘getting the job done’ and overcoming or managing resistance.

In order to expand the sphere of thought on the diverse roles education might play in society I have drawn on the perspectives of two pioneers in education and human flourishing, namely Rabindranath Tagore and Alexander Sutherland Neill.

In 1901, Nobel laureate, Rabindranath Tagore (1861–1941) founded a school in Shantiniketan in India. He proposed that the object of education was to give man the unity of truth comprised of spiritual, intellectual and physical elements. The emphasis was on harmony, sympathy and the educational experience of body and soul.

Tagore argued that, ‘We devote our sole attention to giving children information, not knowing that by this emphasis we are accentuating the breach between the intellectual, physical and spiritual life’ (Tagore, 1999: 399). Tagore was resistant to education which failed to acknowledge the importance of play and freedom in human development. Indeed, as a parent I have experienced school consultation evenings where my child is reduced to a basic set of mechanical operations related to reading, writing and numeracy skills. There is no mention of her social, emotional, spiritual or physical well-being. Progress is relayed in numerical ranked sequences according to national and school averages and my child’s place in relation to these norms. I am expected to be pleased if she is on the high achieving side of these averages but actually I am left with a silent antagony towards a system that reduces a beautifully vivacious lively child into a set of assessment indicators devoid of any meaningful form of life. This stripped down, mechanized version of human being is far removed from Tagore’s ideas of childhood which he regarded as, ‘the period when we have or ought to have more freedom – freedom from the necessity of specialisation into the narrow bounds of professional conventionalism’ (Tagore, 1999: 399).

A. S. Neill provides us with another interesting perspective on the role of education which he put into practice by opening Summerhill school in England, in 1921. At Summerhill, ‘pupils are free to choose whether or not they attend lessons. When not in lessons, pupils can be involved in whatever activity that captures their interest. These include making films, organising and performing in musical or dramatic events, and learning different languages. Physical activities include trampolining, skateboarding, riding bikes and climbing trees’ (Ofsted, 2011: 4).

This outlook contrasts with the thinking behind much CEP which assumes individuals make rational decisions based on the pursuit of long-term economic rewards for labour market participation. In this sense the policy rhetoric is both decontextualized and dehumanized, failing to recognize the multi-faceted nature of human being.

Summerhill was subject to an Ofsted inspection in Autumn 2011 and judged to be outstanding on a number of measures including, ‘helping to achieve well-being and enjoy what they do’ and, ‘spiritual, moral, social and cultural development’ (Ofsted, 2011). Interesting, Summerhill’s school aims include, ‘allowing children to be free from compulsory or imposed assessment, allowing them to develop their own goals and sense of achievement’ and, ‘allowing children to be completely free to play as much as they like’ (Ofsted, 2011: 1). Exploring alternative approaches to the holistic develop of children may help to balance the slim-lined view of humanity inherent in CEP.

Interestingly, Andrew Pollard and Mary James (expert panel members responsible for reviewing the English National Curriculum in 2011), in a personal comment on the review, noted that it was disappointing that the terms of reference for the National Curriculum review omitted the subject area of personal, social and health education. This is indicative of the focus on traditional academic subjects and the exclusion of scope for personal reflection and holistic development. They also remarked that the focus of the curriculum strategy on levels, ‘diverts attention away from what is being taught’ (2011: 2).

Overall the Coalition policy strategy on education is hard to define, partly due to what Michael Gove, Secretary of State for Education (henceforth, ‘Gove’), describes as his ‘magpie’ approach to policy development (Gove, 2011b). He looked at other countries and took the ideas that seemed to him to work. Unfortunately divorcing policy from social context may be a mistake and this pick ‘n’ mix strategy is potentially high-risk and lacks a clear ideology. Examination of Gove’s policy rhetoric gives more insight into his position on education as he identified the English education system as a ‘cure for unemployment and welfare dependency’ (Gove, September, 2011b).

The last two years have seen an overhaul of the National Curriculum, with a return to an emphasis on traditional subjects. Gove, has vociferously outlined his belief that examination results are the best way to judge an individual’s ability, stripping away the social contextualization of differential achievement. In 2011, Gove argued that, ‘A-levels should help universities select the students best equipped to succeed, by the simple and old-fashioned expedient of giving the most able students the highest grade’ (Gove, 2011c). The perceived economic and social needs of society are privileged above individual freedom to pursue well-being.

It is important to question whether the assessment measures are measuring what we think they are measuring, in other words their validity, and whether the measures are equitable, whether different kinds of assessment would allow different individuals to demonstrate learning, for example in an applied situation. Gove adopts a confrontational approach to a suggestion that social context should be taken into account alongside examination grades when considering university admissions. He remarks on, ‘the deluded notion that background matters more than ability . . .’. However, there is an interesting comment in the Students at the Heart of the System White Paper (SHS) which accepts ‘exam grades alone are not the best predictor of potential to succeed at university’ (BIS, 2011a: 58). The question is whether it is the most able students who achieve the highest grades. Do student–teacher ratios, class discipline, study facilities, caring responsibilities at home make a difference to the capability of an individual to secure top examination grades? If these conversion factors do impede the achievement of the highest grades does this mean that the B grade comprehensive student is less able than their A* privately educated peer?²

Gove has also instigated a review of the school examination system, deriding the present provision and standards. He argues, ‘what is taught is determined as much if not more by examinations as by the National Curriculum. This means we need to consider GCSE reform alongside the development of the new curriculum’ (Gove, 2011b). The attention to detail of how we measure students’ ‘intellectual effort’ and the assimilation of the class-based, ‘treasure house of wonder’ Gove endorses, ambushes attempts to question how we address the deep social inequalities that disadvantage young people before, during and beyond their formal schooling (ibid.). It also underlines the fact that while the new free schools, advocated by the Coalition, may appear to have more freedom in the design of their school curriculum, in fact Westminster will effectively retain control via the examination system.

One of the key aims of this book is to vividly portray the social context that is silenced in a policy discourse focused on promoting examination achievement by raising aspirations, ambitions and standards of teaching. Specific attention is given to youth transitions from school and college to higher education along with related decision-making processes. The arguments put forward in the SHS White Paper (2011a) suggest that increased competition will both improve the quality and value of higher education and that increasing participation in HE will promote social mobility. The policy discourse of pairing competition with quality diverts attention from the crucial issues of the differential experiences, risks, benefits and outcomes in relation to education. Social mobility is a complex matter that requires more than widening participation in education to generate long-term change. Each of these issues is explored in the ensuing chapters.

Policy theory

The dominant focus on the generation and implementation of policy has tended to reinforce the ideologically powerful construction of policy as a linear process. It suggests policy is initiated by government and implemented by practitioners where the former is privileged (Bowe et al., 1992; Fitz et al., 1994). Ball (1990, 1997) has suggested that a more accurate view would be to consider policy as cyclical, rather than linear, where policy is created and recreated throughout its journeys between policy authors, practitioners and recipients. Thus Bowe et al argue, ‘policy is not done and finished at the legislative moment, it evolves in and through the texts that represent it . . . texts have to be read with and against one another – intertextuality is important’ (Bowe et al., 1992: 21). They argue that through interpretations the policy is recreated and in this sense policy can be seen as constantly in motion. In relation to this the intended and actual goals and outcomes of policy are also in flux; while an initial policy aim may be one thing the actual processes and outcomes which occur may be something quite different. Thus policies which aim to give greater access to education, qualifications and job opportunities may in fact act to legitimize an unequal system where the power and agency of dominant groups are reproduced and strengthened.

In summary, the traditional linear model of policy encourages an emphasis on outcome-based evaluations whereas the cyclical model favours an emphasis on evaluating the processes of policy. Hence our understandings of how policy works both informs and shapes the development of policy and its evaluation. Ball’s cyclical model seems to work well within a capability paradigm that focuses on processes as well as outcomes. Understanding education policy is crucial because policies give voice to government interpretations of the way educational institutions may be used as instruments of the state.

Policy encounters resistance and acceptance. It is used in different ways with intended and unintended consequences. The creation of policy may in practice be left very much up to educational practitioners in schools and colleges and thus Weatherley et al argue that ‘street-level bureaucrats are the policy-makers’ (1977: 172). The term, ‘policy’, has been variously described as text, as discourse, as an intervention in practice or as something which leads to practice (Ball, 1994). Policy documents certainly do not exist in isolation and there are conflicts within and between documents. Policy is commonly understood as something which is ‘put into practice’. Although this conceptualization is somewhat limited it does suggest that there are certain changes or transitions that must occur in order for a ‘policy’ to have meaning in the world. In this sense, it is useful to think of policy as something which is dynamic and changing.

Different local education authorities under diverse policy regimes may be better or less able to negotiate local policy; central government may be able to achieve objectives more easily in some areas rather than others. It has been argued that although school practitioners may tend to implement policies in ways which meet the needs of students, the extent to which this might be achieved depends to some extent on institutional needs and the mode of management of a given school (Foskett et al., 2004). In addition, individual students have diverse needs. Individual teachers in different institutions at different levels of management may feel more or less powerful or able to exert influence. Therefore power differentials may still exist both within and between institutions (Weatherley and Lipsky, 1977: 172).

International policy context

International policy directives relating to education such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and the Millennium Development Goals have strived to provide better access to all for education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels (United Nations (UN), 1990; Department for International Development (DfID), 2006). In terms of education, the UNCRC recognizes, ‘the right of the child to education’ (Article 28) and directs that this right should include access to, ‘Different forms of secondary education (general and vocational)’ and higher education accessible, ‘on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means’ (United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 2007). However, access and participation in a formal educational setting does not indicate the quality or meaning of the experience for a given individual. The UNCRC states, ‘. . . the education of the child shall be directed to . . . the development of a child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’ (UN, 1990: 9). This can only be carried out with the active and willing participation of children. There are numerous examples of students recounting negative experiences of schooling and higher education, particularly relating to class but also other aspects of individual identity (Archer et al., 2003; Power et al., 2003; Unterhalter, 2003; Reay et al., 2005). This evidence suggests that the nature of children’s participation and well-being in education needs to be scrutinized more closely if we are to pursue an education agenda in the interests of social justice.

Over the last 25 years there has been a growing interest in the study of well-being and this has gathered momentum over the last few years. Ben-Arieh reports that, ‘some 200 experts from more than 30 countries have been trying in the last ten years to re-define the concept of children’s well-being and to find more appropriate indicators’ (Ben-Arieh in Medchild, 2006: 77). Key contributors have included international organizations such as the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), the World Health Organisation (WHO), Save the Children and the European Union (EU) as well as policymakers and researchers worldwide (Bradshaw et al., 2005; Unicef, 2005; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2006). There seems to be greater recognit...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Introduction
• 1 Education Policy Issues
• 2 Sen’s Capability Approach
• 3 Blending Sen and Bourdieu
• 4 Evolving Theory into Method
• 5 The Nature of Aspirations
• 6 The Genesis of Capabilities
• 7 Aspirations, Capabilities and Choice
• 8 The Promise of Higher Education
• 9 The New Pursuit of Justice
• Appendix I Example of Group Stimulus Material
• Appendix II Example of a Higher Education Mind Map
• Appendix III Four Sequential Stages of Quantitative Data Analysis Used in Study S2
• Appendix IV Summary of S2 Individual Interviewee Backgrounds
• Notes
• References
• Subject Index
• Author Index