Since the global financial crisis of 2007, key and vital services, such as education, have been at risk. With the Coalition Government coming to power in May 2010, a series of austerity measures have been enacted, including an 80% cut to Higher Education, yet ‘free schools’ and academies have been readily enacted by Education minister Michael Gove. With equity in education already distorted, the hopes of a more equal educational society appear to have diminished. In this essay, I will explore the meaning of social justice in education as well as highlighting key inequitable concerns in education. Furthermore, I will argue how extra funding, as opposed to cuts, would improve social justice and equity in education, along with arguing for the importance of the Comprehensive school system.
When understanding the meaning of social justice and equity, I believe it is important to evaluate the context of key areas such as class, race and gender, along with the impact in these areas. The themes of equality opportunity and a fair teaching curriculum, along with consideration of social differences are significantly encompassed in social justice and equity. For example, does one’s background, along the lines of class/race/gender, affect opportunities both in education and in later life? In this sense, the purpose of Government and the ability to address wider societal and ideological issues become apparent. Furthermore, with Government changing hands, it seems a necessity for the incoming party to make a stamp on education, whether it is ideological or pragmatic; but is this of benefit to improving social justice and equity? In “Education for all” (Pring et al, 2009), it is noted that the UK is 24th out of 30 countries when it comes to participation amongst the 14-19 age group despite its strongly developed nature (with a participation rate of 79%). It is further noted that, despite its significant economic difficulties, participation in Greece has increased “from 62% in 1995 to 97% in 2005” (Pring et al, 2009), despite having had “historically...poor participation” (Pring et al, 2009). Therefore, when understanding social justice and equity, it is key to look at results in the face of rhetoric and action as well as the meaning of social justice and equity.
A key area of educational inequity is the impact of a child’s upbringing. With social class often a determiner of future success, it would seem that children from a working class background are “at a disadvantage before they even get to school” (Evans 2007, p.2). Despite New Labour possessing large majorities throughout most of their time in office, it could be said that their “third way” policy did not do enough to reverse the policies of the Conservative Party (such as a ‘market’ style system, where choice may be reserved for the privileged), with some of their policies forming a seemingly confusing amalgamation of “neo-liberal authoritarian humanism”, linking both a “neo-conservative strand of New Right thinking” and “a social democratic stance” (Gewirtz 2002, p.156). Therefore, in this sense it could be said that despite the rhetoric and “fresh legislation at a frenetic pace” (Gewirtz 2002, p.155), the chance for better attainment and equity is diminished due to contradictory and interchangeable methods, despite Tony Blair’s pledge of “Education, education, education” as his top priority in office.
Another significant area of educational inequity is the recent educational cuts. The recent row over the increase of tuition fees at University to as much as £9000 a year towards the end of 2010 has not only divided MPs (with the Liberal Democrats a notable element due to their promise not to vote for an increase), but it has significantly decreased justification due to the 80% cut in the teaching budget, as opposed to the increase being an additional source of revenue for Higher Education. Linking back to the elements of participation noted in “Education for all” (Pring et al, 2009), it could be said that the combination of cuts and an increase in fees would significantly deter the poorest students from applying for University. Furthermore, the cut to Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA), a support system of up to £30 a week for the poorest students to continue at A-Level, could have a detrimental effect on students taking and completing Sixth Form, and therefore being a significant obstacle to University. Despite the justification of cuts being made in the context of the structural deficit (estimated at over £140 billion), the ‘market system’ of choice being reserved for the privileged (an aspect of education not being progressive) could be said to be prominent, as the cuts would not impact upon the privileged as severely. Even during New Labour’s early years, to an extent market forces had “been preserved, with resources still distributed to schools primarily on a per capita basis” (Gewirtz 2002. p. 158). Therefore, the severity of educational cuts further highlights inequity in social justice, along with continuing inequitable trends.
As well as austerity measures having a key impact on social justice in education, inconsistent measures taken during times of relative economic well-being are also interesting aspects to highlight and consider. Tony Blair’s description of school selection in his autobiography highlights an inconsistent trend; he says that “the whole of the Labour Party programme since the 1960s had been to abolish academic selection and bring in comprehensive, non-selective schooling” (Blair 2010, p. 88), yet he refers to a member of his own party (Harriet Harman) selecting a grammar school for her children, despite them being “by and large cordially detested by the party”, with the decision “a real shocker” (Blair 2010, p.88). This highlights an educational problem as it shows that even those who have the power to make major decisions can have inconsistent and contradictory elements amongst themselves. Blair (2010) also states that equity in education should never be at the expense of academic excellence. To an extent, a concentration on academic excellence would entail and increase attainment, enabling equity and excellence to combine. However, if highlighting the importance of academic excellence means focusing resources on high performance schools with academic excellence at the expense of schools suffering from poor funding (and therefore low academic excellence), then the issue of inequity in education is highlighted and augmented further still.
Michael Gove’s introduction of ‘Academies’ further raises concerns about social justice in education. Academies are described as having “total freedom over their budgets, the curriculum and the length of the school day and term” (Shepherd and Wintour July 29th 2010, The Guardian). This would appear to be positive on the surface due to the increase in autonomy for schools, without mass intervention from top-down targets enacted by local authorities. However, “under Labour only failing schools were turned into academies”, possibly a sign of tackling underachievement, yet under the new proposals “schools rated outstanding will be allowed to quickly switch to academy status and have their applications pre-approved” (Shepherd and Wintour July 29th 2010, The Guardian). Furthermore, hundreds of the accepted academies “being offered a fast-track to academy status are the most socially exclusive”, with research by The Observer finding that “secondary schools judged as "outstanding" by Ofsted are taking 40% fewer poor pupils than the national average” (Asthana, Flyn, and Shepherd June 6th 2010, The Observer). Therefore, it would appear once again that academic excellence is the top priority of social justice, therefore highlighting how the academies can make social justice in education more inequitable, due to its socially exclusive nature and prioritizing of the schools that do well as opposed to offering extra help to the schools which suffer.
With social class being such a significant determiner of how children do in later life, even at a young age, I believe a more equitable approach would be to concentrate significant funding (a more redistributive approach) at this crucial stage in order to reverse the inevitable convention of relative failure in adult life. To an extent, the ‘Pupil Premium’, a Liberal Democrat policy enacted by the Coalition Government, has done this. It has focused £7 billion to be spent on the poorest students over the course of parliament (2010-2015), with 15 hours a week of free nursery education for the poorest two year olds. The money spent on the Pupil Premium would equate to roughly an extra £430 per student, to be used at the school’s discretion. However, despite Labour’s criticism of the policy being more of a political battle than anything else, the claim by shadow schools secretary Andy Burnham that “there is no extra money for schools”, and that the premium will “recycle funds from one school to another” to rob “Peter to pay Paul” (Curtis December 13th 2010, The Guardian p.1 and 2) nevertheless raises concerns about whether the premium goes far enough, and to what extent it aids attainment. Furthermore, as opposed to having a fixed sum placed upon focused funding, I believe that strong consideration, evidence and cooperation on should be enacted first, concentrating on concluding what and how much it will take for more equity and attainment to be achieved in education, before then eliciting a far more substantial sum as opposed to a ring-fenced or restricted figure.
Furthermore, I believe a more equitable approach would be to focus attention and performance on Comprehensive schools. The issue of private and public education can be very divisive, but it can be said to a considerable extent that with Comprehensives teaching students from all backgrounds (and regardless of ability), an equitable approach and method to teaching is significantly displayed. Comprehensives also pay dedicated attention to students with special needs, with teaching assistants (TA’s) paying individual attention to the students in question both inside and outside of lessons, therefore displaying a strong equitable approach as children are not being left behind despite difficulties. In addition, a study carried out for the government (by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) and published by The Guardian states that, when tracking 8,000 A-Level candidates over a five year study, “a comprehensive pupil with the grades BBB is likely to perform as well in their university degree as an independent or grammar school pupil with 2 As and a B”, therefore strengthening “demands for university admissions tutors to give more favourable offers to candidates from comprehensives” (Vasagar December 3rd 2010, The Guardian). Therefore, the value of Comprehensive schools is highlighted, as stated by a research director in the article who says that Independent and Grammar schools receive significant support as they are being pushed to their limits, whereas with comprehensive pupils they aren't fulfilling their full potential, and this shows up at degree, where they fly” (Vasagar December 3rd 2010, The Guardian).
Overall, when observing the meaning of social justice in education, with background such a key determiner of future success and with clear dividing lines in terms of class/race/gender, concerns about how equitable the educational system is become strongly apparent. I strongly believe that my approach is more equitable as it focuses on key areas; not only is it more redistributive in its approach by not having a restrictive figure, but it focuses on a crucial period of a child’s educational development, where the tone is often set for them to either flourish or fail. Furthermore, it also focuses on a broader picture of Comprehensives, where to an extent there is already equity in terms of the system teaching children from all backgrounds. With a bleak economic climate as the Coalition Government took power in mid-2010, cuts to education, whilst eliciting stinging criticism, carry more weight and justification. However, the objective response to this is that educational development is a risk, with people in education being directly affected (much in a similar way to how cuts in the NHS would affect people concerned there). I believe it could be said that this elicits an argument that there are certain areas, especially in education, which should never be cut or restricted. With key concerns, such as attainment and performance, already an issue even during times of relative economic well-being, it would seem that these areas need more help than ever during times of financial hardship, as opposed to a ‘needs must’ approach. Therefore, for social justice in education to improve, consideration, both financial and evidential, needs to be strongly implemented and maintained.
-Ben
-Ben
References
Asthana, A, Flyn, C and Shepherd, J (2010) Michael Gove's academies plan 'will exclude poorer children', The Observer, June 6th
Blair, T (2010), A Journey, Hutchinson, London
Curtis, P. (2010) Coalition’s extra pupil cash a con, says Labour, The Guardian, December 13th, p.1 and 2
Evans, G. (2007) Educational Failure and Working Class White Children in Britain, Palgrave McMillan, Hampshire
Gerwirtz, S (2002) The Managerial School; Post-welfarism and Social Justice in Education, Routledge, USA/Canada
Pring, R., Hayward, G., Hodgson, A., Johnson, J., Keep, E., Oancea, A., Rees, G., Spours, K. and Wilde, S. (2009). Education for all: The future of education and training for 14-19 year olds. Abingdon: Routledge.
Shepherd, J and Wintour, P (2010) Michael Gove's academy plan under fire as scale of demand emerges, The Guardian, July 2010
Vasagar, J (2010) State school pupils 'do better at university', The Guardian, December 3rd
No comments:
Post a Comment