Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education (Springer Reference) 3030146243, 9783030146245

Citation preview

Rosemary Papa Editor

Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education

Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education

Rosemary Papa Editor

Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education With 72 Figures and 52 Tables

Editor Rosemary Papa Soka University of America Aliso Viejo, CA, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-14624-5 ISBN 978-3-030-14625-2 (eBook) ISBN 978-3-030-14626-9 (print and electronic bundle) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

The possible’s slow fuse is lit by the Imagination. ― Emily Dickinson

In this Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, Dr. Rosemary Papa, as editor-in-chief, has assembled works from an international group of experts on social justice theories, issues, and practices across the educational landscape. The works are interdisciplinary in content and methods, providing a breadth of materials that are valuable for a range of readers. Throughout the three volumes, readers will find works that show what is possible, as well as offer cautions, for how our educational spaces can become more socially just, whether in brick-and-mortar schools, the online world, or the broader community. However, this handbook is more than a collection of academic work; it is a handbook of possibilities. As you read this handbook, I invite you to see the writings here as the educational community describing a future that includes the possibility of a socially just world. In the field of educational psychology, Markus and Nurius describe possible selves as, “the ideal selves that we would very much like to become. They are also the selves we could become, and the selves we are afraid of becoming. . . . [Possible selves] provide the essential link between the self-concept and motivation” (1986, p. 954). This handbook draws out the possible world-self as a socially just world. In the works you will encounter in this handbook, we are given a view of what other educational spaces have done and become, helping us create a new vision of our possible world. An individual that imagines their possible, future self as an advocate or as a leader provides a vision that can be used to evaluate the present self, as well as incentivize future behavior. Many of the works in these volumes are doing this for our communities by offering a view of the current state of our educational systems and providing ideas for achieving the selves we want to become. For example, the idea of collective determination of social justice goals and collective evaluation of present shortcomings are echoed in several works in these volumes including chapters by Erickson, Angelle and Cooper, Whitaker and McCown, Jiménez, and Abdulla. In other chapters, we observe an individual or small group struggling to pull the community into a shared vision of a socially just world-self, as in Hayes’ description of an art teacher negotiating for socially just educational spaces and in Mullen’s description of the power of Indigenous public art in Canada. v

vi

Foreword

In addition to positive visions, feared visions of future possible selves can be powerful drivers of behaviors. Markus and Nurius suggest that when a negative past self becomes salient, we can more easily imagine that negative becoming part of our future (1986). It is perhaps not surprising then that with the current political climate our negative visions have become more salient. Many of us can clearly picture school systems that denied the potential of many students based on a social identity marker in the past and may be continuing to deny into the present. We fear maintaining and perpetuating these worlds, that our path into the future will become a loop, where past and present inequalities persist into the future. Some works in these volumes document these feared selves, when power has been given to those who might not share the same collective vision. We can see this clash between the feared and hoped for world in chapters such as Oyarzún’s description of relations between schools and business within rural areas of Chile and Cobb’s description of privatization within school systems in Puerto Rico, Chile, and the United Kingdom. Yet, there is great value in reading these stories since holding that fearful model in mind can allow us to chart pathways away from that feared vision to a more hopeful possible world. Over time, a person’s possible selves change and can become shadows of childhood visions, for example, the dream of becoming a professional athlete develops into becoming a coach. In parallel, our collective dreams of a socially just world are something that can develop over time. While we may wish it to come sooner, we actively envision that socially just world-self in a future time and a future space. For example, in the part Refugees, Immigrants, and Undocumented, you will read works that show how, despite new and challenging circumstances, people maintain continuations of their possible selves. Candel and Marrun’s work documents mothers’ and children’s deportation narratives, and how access to education remains a vision, despite callous systems that have forced new versions of what that access might look like. Bogotch, Pappas, Kervin, and Silliman’s work on Syrian refugee students in Canada and Germany discusses the role of educators in helping students maintain an educationally orientated possible self in the face of historical trauma and current stress. More generally, this ability to envision a future space, both physical and emotional, as a place of social justice is explored in works by Nguyễn and Maxcy and by Carillo and Ender. The Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education is a work of imagination, of imagining possible selves not just for students or teachers or school leaders but different possible selves for our schools, our communities, and ultimately the world we live in. I hope it serves as a catalyst for discussions in your schools and classrooms about a shared vision of a socially just world and how we can all work toward that vision together. Assistant Professor, Educational Psychology Soka University of America

Karen Moran Jackson

Preface

Education enables the development of lifelong skills for democratic citizenry to thrive. The three-volume handbook explores the social justice elements across the global human continuum in the field of education. Education and the role of the educator are key in preparing students at all levels of schooling to embrace lifelong awareness and how school practices support students in socially just ways. Educators recognize that while they do not have control over the complexity of one’s nation/state and multi- or transnational organizations, and especially the diversity of context of family life, our role is still significant in that we represent how the common good citizenry and the individual interact in fair and just ways. What education does offer are the skills and ways of knowing, thinking, and acting to achieve a more equitable, caring, and fair world in pursuit of achieving the ends of social justice. Schooling can empower individuals through self-reflection on their role in society and teach issues of unequal opportunities/privilege and the skills to challenge, resist, and hope. Through education, an injustice for one is acknowledged as an injustice for all, serving students to understand their control of their lives: to live responsibly, to live with independence, and to develop socially just decision-making skills. As the neoliberal agenda has exacerbated social justice issues over the last 40+ years, the unregulated business and government economic interests have ensured that greed is a good and if others suffer, so be it. That stark reality can be found in the rising numbers of the “have nots” and the stratospheric rise of a 1% of the “haves” dictating the economic lives of the masses. Neoliberalism has affected numerous organizations that have long ascribed to protecting the lost, the hungry, and the disenfranchised. Organizations that respond to human rights have channeled the neoliberal perspective. One such example is the World Bank. In 2015, the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim believed in continuing to cite the failing of public education as the scapegoat to unparalleled capital growth. His solution was to adopt a results-based financing system where countries only get money if they meet agreed performance targets. UNESCO is another such organization that is transnational in focusing on the plight of lives in the world. UNESCO (June 7, 2015) noted the cost to educate children in all countries with needs “an extra $40 billion to provide 12 years of education to everyone in low and lower-middle income countries” (para. 7). In addressing how the shortfall will be addressed, “Donor countries must increase vii

viii

Preface

their aid to education by 600%. Instead, they are placing education lower on their list of priorities: half of donor countries decreased their aid to basic education from 2008–2010 and 2011–2013” (para. 7). And, now part of the 2030 standard to attain requires results that politicians have designed, not educators. It is in the act of creating a learning environment with social justice intentions where all students are measured by their successes and encouraged to act in fairness and equality. Education is a political activity (reflects the power of the society at large), a social activity (reflects the values of the society), and an economic activity (education is essential for economic independence). If the goal one accepts is of a secular democracy which Fraser (1996) identified as participatory parity, where no one is marginalized, these three volumes provide insights from scholars, across six continents, on the prevailing social justice issues faced in their countries of origin. Three major themes guided the solicitation for this handbook. The first theme was political inequality, secular democracy, religion, gender, race, and inclusive of all “isms.” The shaping of the political agenda in social justice has been framed by the pervasiveness of neoliberalism. Politics determines the legitimacy of governments to pursue economic imbalances affecting their constituents. It is within the political ideologies that drive an undercurrent of intended and unconscious bigotry. Chapters for this volume were sought with a political focus on compelling educational issues on the effects of inequality and hopeful remedies the authors suggest. Secular democracy requires a democracy that is “thick” and not “thin” to survive the societal and individual prejudices in order to maintain a former perceived world where oppression, such as misogyny, racism, LGBTQ+, ageism, ableism, classism, nationalism and xenophobia, religious prejudices, and all other forms prevail. The second broad theme was educational economic inequality and the role of various organizations: the World Bank Gini-coefficient “isms,” philanthropy, transnational organizations, etc. Chakrabortty quoted an article in the IMF (International Monetary Fund) that “more and more states have remade their social and political institutions into pale copies of the market” (2016, p.48). Within a multinational capitalistic country, it moves steadily toward inequality and what has been called the “democratic deficit” where more and more citizens are moved to the expanding economic bottom and have less and less to say about their lives. Examples of the polities shaping economic maldistribution are found, i.e., the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) which lead the “politico-legal attack on the unions; the encouragement of large-scale immigration in both the U.S. and Europe. . .to undermine the bargaining power of the domestic workforce; and the failure to retrain displaced workers” (Jacques, 2016, p. 2). What is the role of education to counter these injustices? The final theme included cultural inequality. This raised Eisner’s question to the same level: Can our education system[s] flourish without losers? (p. 171) Can our society become equal to all while acknowledging the contextual diversity as an enrichment to schooling strategies and not as purely a commodification of winners and losers? The increase in racism, misogyny, sexual orientation, environmentalism, and global warming, when

Preface

ix

compared to classism, has been uneven in its outcomes leading to the working class revolt as noted by the rise of Trumpism, Brexit, etc. The outcome for the solicitation of the above three themes led to over 100+ chapters from 22 countries across six continents, totaling approximately 184 authors. The challenge was how to organize the chapters in a coherent and readable manner. Thus, the organization chosen goes from the broad themes of social justice to social justice as it relates to the school setting and specific elements of social justice for the individual. Within the three volumes of the handbook, the broad realities of social justice are presented. Within this broad theme, Part 1 chapters range from the encompassing issue of defining social justice, developing how leadership through the political and economic lens affects social justice through poverty, political agendas, and specific examples within countries providing examples. More information are found across the 17 parts that organize this handbook. These include: Leadership Courage and Inspiration (Part 2); Community Culture, “It Takes a Village,” and Wellbeing (Part 3); Ethics, Care, Grace, and Safe Spaces (Part 4); Creative Curriculum, Resistance, and Innovation (Part 5); Socially Just Higher Education (Part 6); Teachers Pedagogy: Immigrants, Preparation, and Professional Development (Part 7); Critical Race Theory, Audism, Learning (Part 8); Digital Access and Stereotypes (Part 9); Gender Fairness (Part 10); Race and Gender, Resistance, and Hope (Part 11); Indigenous Peoples and Education (Part 12); Latinx Empowerment (Part 13); Refugees, Immigrants, and the Undocumented (Part 14); LGBTQ+ Safe Spaces (Part 15); Religion (Part 16); and Zero Tolerance and Incarceration of Youth (Part 17). Interspersed chapters are clear country examples which undergird international social justice research. Aliso Viejo, CA, USA February 2020

Rosemary Papa Editor-in-Chief

Acknowledgments

Thanks to everyone on the Springer International Publishing team who helped me so much. Special thanks to Melissa James, the most amazing supporter, cheerleader, and patient Senior Editor; Michael Hermann, Executive Editor; Aldeena Raju, my amazing editorial liaison; and the family of Springer Nature for entrusting me with this major reference work. Without the expertise and support from my section editors, this handbook would not exist. Your intellectual and technical assistance along with the opportunity to work with you lifted my soul. Thank you to Professors Marta Sanchez, Khalid Arar, Kadir Beycioglu, Aletha M. Harven, David Matheson, Fenwick English, and Jay Heffron. The intellectual space created happens through the broad breadth of authors. One hundred eighty-two chapter authors participated representing 22 countries from 6 continents (none submitted from penguins) including Australia, North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and Africa for an amazing near 10% of the countries in the world. My husband who reads drafts, reacts to all elements, and props me up when I need it most, including the beastly gnarly times associated with writing and producing under self-imposed pressures. This endeavor is for my three children, Jessica, Giselle, and Sophia, grandchildren Josephine, Dominic, Margaret, Nolan, Ethan, Dylan, and all humans, young and old, who experience their uniqueness as differences that shape ones high self-efficacy: may these brilliant writings give you light for a better future.

xi

Contents

Volume 1 Part I

.......................

1

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All . . . Saneeya Qureshi, Ratika Malkani, and Richard Rose

3

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through Activist Languages Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Lamb, Aniko Hatoss, and Shirley O’Neill

33

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education: Finding a Path and Making the Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duquesne Collective Action Network

71

3

4

Broad Realities of Social Justice

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A Postcolonial Perspective on Traditions of Humanistic Marginalized Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eugenie A. Samier

105

5

Political Agendas in Public Education Lynzi Stralek and Rosemary Papa

.....................

127

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a School Choice World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Casey D. Cobb and Jason Irizarry

153

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education . . . . . . . . . Duncan Waite and Khalid Arar

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The Neoliberal Stronghold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karen Ramlackhan

169

193

xiii

xiv

Contents

9

10

11

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stephen Newman

213

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robin Shields and Kalyan Kumar Kameshwara

233

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominique Groux

247

12

Language and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zuhal Okan

13

Tensions Between Education and Development in Rural Territories in Chile: Neglected Places, Absent Policies . . . . . . . . . Juan de Dios Oyarzún

283

Social Justice in Turkish Education System: Issues and Interventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yasar Kondakci and Kadir Beycioglu

309

14

Part II 15

16

17

18

19

20

Leadership Courage and Inspiration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

267

331

Prophetic Criticism in Educational Leadership: Navigating Its Cultural Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Darius D. Prier

333

Critical Development of Courage Within Social Justice School Leaders: Silence, Tempered Radicals, and Revolutionaries . . . . . Kendra Lowery

355

Social Justice Leadership and Navigating Systems of Inequity in Educational Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Marshall, Ronda Taylor Bullock, and Meg Goodhand

375

Leadership Practices for Supporting Equity in the PreK-12 Educational Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Denver J. Fowler and Sarah M. Jouganatos

399

School Leaders’ Political Identity-Advocacy in Addressing Social Justice-isms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jane Clark Lindle

413

..........

429

School Leadership: Implicit Bias and Social Justice Floyd D. Beachum and Gina L. Gullo

Contents

21

xv

Principal and School Counselor Collaboration Toward More Socially Just Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kendra Lowery, Lori G. Boyland, Rachel L. Geesa, Jungnam Kim, Marilynn M. Quick, and Kaylee M. McDonald

22

Exemplary Leadership in Diverse Cultural Contexts . . . . . . . . . . Dionne V. McLaughlin

23

Educational Reform in the USA: Superintendents’ Role in Promoting Social Justice Through Organizational Justice . . . . . . Lars G. Björk, Tricia Browne-Ferrigno, and Amanda U. Potterton

24

A Social Justice Challenge for School Leadership in Australia . . . Megan Kimber

25

School Leadership and Social Justice: A Conceptual Analysis with Some Observations in Hong Kong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yi-Lee Wong and Paula Kwan

Part III

Community Culture, “It Takes a Village,” and Wellbeing . . .

455

481

497 523

545

565

26

Culture and the Production of School Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frederick Erickson

567

27

Different Schools, Different Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Prince Paa-Kwesi Heto, Masumi Hashimoto Odari, and Wyse Koku Sunu

583

28

Grassroots Projects and Social Inclusion: Using Surplus Food to Facilitate Education, Reduce Deprivation, and Achieve Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Temple Clothier

29

30

31

32

609

Adult Community Learning, Wellbeing, and Mental Health Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lydia Lewis

627

Spatial Production and Hybrid Placemaking in Marginalized Communities: An Academic Love Letter to Our Sons . . . . . . . . . Thu Sương Thị Nguyễn and Brendan D. Maxcy

659

Reminiscence Therapy and Intergenerational Interventions for Enhancing Self-Identity and Social Inclusion of Older People and People Living with Dementia (PLDs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Matheson-Monnet Contribution of Schooling to Community Development in African Countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abdeljalil Akkari and Colleen Loomis

687

711

xvi

Contents

33

Vulnerable Children, Young People, and Families: Policy, Practice, and Social Justice in England and Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725 Michael Jopling and Sharon Vincent

34

Social Inclusion in Education in the Commonwealth Caribbean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zellynne Jennings

Part IV

Ethics, Care, Grace, and Safe Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

747

783

35

Ethical Decision-Making in Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . Eileen S. Johnson

36

The Aesthetic Pursuit of Educational Leadership for Social Justice: Grace in the Struggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vonzell Agosto and Gary Westberry

803

A Decision-Making Model for Promoting Social Justice Through the Ethic of Justice, Ethic of Care, and the Ethic of Grace . . . . . Glenn L. Koonce and Kurt Kreassig

825

37

38

Participatory Engagement and Outreach as a Safe Communication Space for School Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jennifer Wanjiku Khamasi, Rachel Lanoi Karei, and Hoseah Kandie Kiplagat

785

847

Volume 2 Part V 39

40

41

42

Creative Curriculum, Resistance, and Innovation . . . . . . . .

Role of Educational Leadership in Confronting Classroom Assessment Inequities, Biased Practices, and a Pedagogy of Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Connie M. Moss

861

863

The Middle Social Studies Curriculum as a Site of Struggle for Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Timothy Monreal

889

Social Justice in Educational Policy and Practice with Particular Reference to Early Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J. Eric Wilkinson

919

Artmaking as Sensemaking: A Conceptual Model to Promote Social Justice and Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christa Boske

943

Contents

43

44

45

46

xvii

The Art of Portraiture: An Urban School Art Teacher’s Use of Art as Creative Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleveland Hayes

961

The Power of Artmaking to Deepen Ways of Knowing and Responding to Injustices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christa Boske

979

The Art of Inclusion: Contradictions Affecting Theatre for Development Interventions in Malawi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sharifa Abdulla

999

Study Abroad Programs for Intercultural Competence, Equity Pedagogy, and Social Justice in US Educational Leadership Students: An Example from Ireland and Northern Ireland . . . . . 1021 Nicole L. Hacker and Regina R. Umpstead

Part VI

Socially Just Higher Education

......................

1049

47

K–12/Higher Education Bridge Approach Toward Social Justice: Leadership Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1051 Jeffery Wilson

48

Leadership Preparation for Social Justice in Educational Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1065 Corrie Stone-Johnson and Casandra Wright

49

Hegemony, Principal Preparation, and the Language of the Oppressor: The Elusive Preparation of Socially Just School Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1085 Jacob D. Skousen

50

Politics of Privilege in College Classrooms: Cultural Inequities and the Paradox of Safe Spaces in Critical Andragogy . . . . . . . . 1113 Jennifer Summerlin and Jennifer M. Ponder

51

Accrediting Prior Learning: Tensions Between Its Social Inclusion and Widening Participation Intentions and Current Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1129 Sean McCready

52

The Student of Color Attainment Gap in Higher Education and the Institutional Culture of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1153 Shirley Anne Tate

53

Preparing School Leaders to Confront Opportunity Gaps in Suburban Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1173 Deirdra Preis

xviii

Contents

54

Bullying and Harassment of Faculty in Higher Education . . . . . . 1209 Mary I. Dereshiwsky

55

Higher Education and Social Inclusion: Continuing Inequalities in Access to Higher Education in England . . . . . . . . 1229 Philip Woodward

56

Social Justice Programs in Higher Education: Affirmative Action in the USA and Reservation System in India . . . . . . . . . . 1253 Anmol Diwan and Aditi Lal

Part VII Teachers Pedagogy: Immigrants, Preparation, and Professional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1277

57

Social Justice and Teacher Professionalism in the United States in Historical Perspective: Fractured Consensus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1279 Diana D’Amico Pawlewicz and Jenice L. View

58

Community-Engaged Teacher Preparation and the Development of Dispositions for Equity and Social Justice . . . . . 1299 Eva M. Zygmunt, Kristin Cipollone, and Susan Tancock

59

Learning the Pedagogy of Potential: Social Inclusion and Teacher Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1321 Ian Thompson

60

Literacies of Interrogation and Vulnerability: Reimagining Preservice Teacher Preparation Designed to Promote Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1341 Marcus Croom, Tracey T. Flores, and George Kamberelis

61

Training and Recruitment of Teachers with Immigrant Backgrounds: Contribution Toward Creating Social Justice in the Swiss Education System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1383 Marie Anne Broyon and Myriam Radhouane

62

Education Reform in Mexico: Teachers’ Struggle for a Grassroots Educational Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1405 Lev Moujahid Velázquez Barriga

63

Alternative Teacher Programs for Social Justice in Chinese Education: Distribution, Relationship, and Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 1425 Wu Wei and Chen Shuangye

Part VIII 64

Critical Race Theory, Audism, and Learning

..........

1451

Inequality of Learning Disabilities: How Service Privatization Contributes to Educational Inequity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1453 Bibinaz Pirayesh

Contents

xix

65

Social Justice, Audism, and the d/Deaf: Rethinking Linguistic and Cultural Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1479 Timothy Reagan

66

Classroom and Behavior Management: (Re)conceptualization Through Disability Critical Race Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1511 Valentina Migliarini and Subini Ancy Annamma

67

Instructing Pre- and Inservice Teachers to Support Students with (Dis)abilities: Pillars, Practical Applications, and Students’ Intersecting Identities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1533 Aletha M. Harven and Ebony Perouse-Harvey

68

Development of Inclusive Education in England: Impact on Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities . . . . . . 1561 Zeta Williams-Brown and Alan Hodkinson

Part IX

Digital Access and Stereotypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1585

69

The Internet: An Educational System for Equalizing Educational Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1587 James E. Berry

70

Digital Equity: 1:1 Technology and Associated Pedagogy . . . . . . 1609 Maria D. S. Andrade Johnson

71

Organizational Social Networks and Implications for Inequality in Silicon Valley Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1641 Danielle Jarvie

72

Using Cultural Representations in Video Games to Confront Stereotypes and Misconceptions About Brazil: Favelas, Futebol, and Brasilidade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1663 Daisyane Barreto and Lucas John Jensen

Volume 3 Part X

Gender Fairness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1685

73

Gender Equality in Education from Kindergarten to Higher Education: Policies and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1687 Diğdem Müge Siyez and Kadir Beycioglu

74

Minority Women in Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1711 G. N. Okoli, T. A. Moore, S. L. Thomas, and T. T. Allen

75

Convergence of Gender and Sexuality in the History of Educational Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1729 Jackie M. Blount and Sin Guanci

xx

Contents

76

Women’s Empowerment from the Perspective of Female Omani Academic Leaders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1759 Anfal N. AlWahaibi

77

Women Leaders’ Career Advancement in Academic Medicine: A Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1779 Paula Cameron, Constance LeBlanc, Anna MacLeod, Tanya MacLeod, Shawna O’Hearn, and Christy Simpson

Part XI

Race and Gender, Resistance, and Hope

..............

1805

78

Social Justice Leadership Against Racism and Sexism: A Retrospective and Prospective Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1807 Fenwick W. English and Rosemary Papa

79

Education Success for Black Children in the Public School System: Parent Participation and Community Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1825 Alison Taysum and Carole Collins Ayanlaja

80

Identity Safety and Its Importance for Academic Success . . . . . . 1849 Aisha N. Lowe

81

American Principals of Color: Leading from the Collective We . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1883 Pamela S. Angelle and Ashton R. Cooper

82

Preparing Educational Leaders for Social Justice: The Case of Historically Black Colleges and Universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1899 Abul Pitre and Jocelyn Smith-Gray

83

Race Discrimination, the Politics of Knowledge, and Cultural Inequality in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1913 Paul Miller

84

Anti-Black Racism in Education: School Leaders’ Journey of Resistance and Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1935 Ann E. Lopez

Part XII

Indigenous Peoples and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1951

85

Indigenous Languages of Scotland: Poverty Culture and the Classroom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1953 David Matheson and Catherine Matheson-Monnet

86

Understanding the Right to Education: Challenges Facing the Indigenous Bedouin Population of the Al-Naqab Region . . . . 1975 Khalid Arar and Eman Abo-Zaed Arar

Contents

xxi

87

Indigenous Community Education and Its Role in Community Development: Sacred Mountain, Full of Wise Ones . . . . . . . . . . . 1995 María Luisa Santiago Jiménez and Oscar Barrios Flores

88

Research Regarding Indigenous Student Learning Outcomes in New Zealand, Canada, and the USA: Recurring Themes . . . . 2021 Richard Manning, Joseph Martin, Jon Reyhner, Larry Steeves, and Angus Macfarlane

89

Contemporary Canadian Indigenous Peoples on Tribal Justice as Decolonization: “Not All Narratives Begin in 1867” . . . . . . . . 2041 Carol A. Mullen

Part XIII

Latinx Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2069

90

Empowering Hispanics in Higher Education Through the Operationalization of Academic English Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . 2071 Alma M. Sándigo, Patricia Peterson, and Kathleen Abou-Rjaily

91

Vulnerable Praxis: Memory, Latino Manhood, and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2093 Juan F. Carrillo and Tommy Ender

92

The Schooling of Young Empowered Latinas/Mexicanas Navigating Unequal Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2107 Esmeralda Rodríguez and Claudia G. Cervantes-Soon

Part XIV

Refugees, Immigrants, and the Undocumented . . . . . . .

2135

93

Immigrants’ Efforts to Access Public Schools and Higher Education in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2137 Alejandra Rincón

94

Overcoming Educational Challenges: Resilience Factors Among Refugee Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2165 Clementine Msengi, Ann Elizabeth Marsh, and Sandra Harris

95

Undocumented Pre-health Students: Community Initiatives Toward Addressing Pipeline Gaps for Postgraduate and Professional Advancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2185 Erick Leyva Bedolla, Gloria Itzel Montiel, and Angela Chuan-Ru Chen

96

Global Citizenship Education and Social Justice for Immigrant Students: Implications for Administration, Leadership, and Teaching in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2203 Linyuan Guo-Brennan and Michael Guo-Brennan

xxii

Contents

97

US Immigration Policy and Its Impact on Immigrants: Reassembling the Stories of Deported Mothers and Their Transnational Children Through the Healing Spirit of Coatlicue and Coyolxauhqui . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2223 Sandra L. Candel and Norma A. Marrun

98

Towards a Socially Just System of Newcomer School Integration: Syrians in Canada and Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2243 Ira Bogotch, Dustin Pappas, Cole Kervin, and Emily Silliman

Part XV 99

LGBTQ+ Safe Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2265

The Politics of Gender Equality in the United States . . . . . . . . . . 2267 Patricia Traynor-Nilsen . . . . . . . . 2291

100

Queer Theory/Pedagogy and Social Justice Education Summer Melody Pennell

101

Effects of Anti-Immigration and Anti-LGBT Policies on K-12 Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2313 Tawannah G. Allen

102

Understanding Transgender Oppression in Higher Education Using Counternarratives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2343 Dana M. Stachowiak and Brian Gano

103

Undocuqueer Latinx: Counterstorytelling Narratives During and Post High School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2365 Juan A. Ríos Vega

Part XVI

Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2385

104

Challenging Christian Hegemony and Christian Privilege in Academia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2387 Warren J. Blumenfeld

105

Political Inequality, Secular Democracy, Religion, Gender, and the “ISMS” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2417 Farideh Salili

106

Promoting Social Justice in Africa Through the Education and Training of Catholic Sisters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2439 Sneh Akruvala, Jaime Herrmann, Tara M. Lopatofsky, Jennifer Mudge, and Rosemary Shaver

Contents

Part XVII

xxiii

Zero Tolerance and Incarceration of Youth

..........

2469

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2471

107

The Social Injustice of Zero-Tolerance Discipline Robert E. White and David C. Young

108

Challenges with School Re-entry for Incarcerated Youth and Inadequacies of Collaborative Service Provision by Schools and Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2487 Liliana Donchik Belkin

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2525

About the Editor

Rosemary Papa is the Founder of Educational Leaders Without Borders and the Comparative and International Professor of Education and Leadership, Soka University of America (Fall 2017–present). She served as the Del and Jewel Lewis Endowed Chair in Educational Leadership at Northern Arizona University (2007–2018). As well, she has served as a Principal/Chief School Administrator for two districts in Nebraska, system-level Assistant Vice Chancellor in the California State University System, Vice President for Sylvan Learning, and Professor and Faculty Director of a university-based Center for Teaching and Learning in California. In 2015, she was the recipient of the AERA 2015 Willystine Goodsell Award, Women in Education SIG for her research on women and girls, gave the SIG keynote address at AERA 2016, Washington, DC, and published Finding Her in History: Confronting the Traditions of Misogyny (2017). In 2012, she was the recipient of the Arizona School Administrators Outstanding Higher Education Administrator of the Year Award and was runner-up in 2019 for Innovative Curriculum Development Teaching Comparative Education SIG, Comparative and International Education Society (CIES). Dr. Papa has published 25 books and monographs in the areas of leadership, social justice, educational policy, sustainability, school effectiveness, and technology for school leaders and teachers. Additionally, she has one other major work in progress: Editor-in-Chief, Oxford Encyclopedia of Educational Administration (2020). She recently published School Violence in International Contexts: Perspectives from Educational Leaders Without Borders (2019) with Springer International. As well, Dr. Papa has published more than 80 articles in refereed academic journals/books.

xxv

About the Section Editors

Aletha M. Harven is Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology and Child Development at California State University, Stanislaus. Dr. Harven holds a Ph.D. in Education from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); a Master of Arts degree in Education and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Child Development from the California State University, Sacramento (CSUS); and an Associate of Arts degree in Liberal Studies from American River College in Sacramento, California. Dr. Harven’s areas of expertise include K-12 education, risk and resilience, psychosocial adjustment, and academic functioning, including achievement motivation, adolescence, and access and equity. Her research program has a social justice focus and explores the protective nature of psychological and social environmental factors on the relation between school-related risk factors and student adjustment. Dr. Harven has received prestigious grants, including a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that provides science faculty with training in inclusive classroom practices for the retention of underserved students. Dr. Harven’s international humanitarian work, as a teacher educator in impoverished communities, has further demonstrated her dedication to increasing the success of our most vulnerable students. Dr. Harven has received many academic accolades for her outstanding work and has published in journals such as the Journal of Educational Research and the Journal of Science Education and Technology. She has coauthored a book on careers in child and adolescent development, contributed chapters to critical books on social justice instruction and education policy, and written policy reports for the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).

xxvii

xxviii

About the Section Editors

David Matheson, born and raised in Glasgow, Scotland, is Scottish by birth and Swiss by adoption. Following his B.Sc. in Maths and Physics (University of Glasgow), he trained as a high school teacher and taught in schools in Scotland, Spain, and Switzerland before returning to Glasgow to undertake an M.Ed. in Comparative, Adult, and Community Education followed by a Ph.D. on Post-Compulsory Education in Suisse romande, both of which he undertook while teaching full time in a secondary school in an area of multiple deprivation in Glasgow. Over the years since then, David’s research interests have widened and now include not only areas of culture and identity but also health and healthcare education. Following a diagnosis of prostate cancer in 2012, he became a volunteer speaker for Prostate Cancer UK and hence a patient representative on the trial management group of STAMPEDE (Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy, a multiphase, multi-arm trial of prostate cancer therapies). In offering a patient perspective, he contributes to the design of the trial and is coauthor of various articles on the trial’s results, some of which have been hailed as game changers. Combining his experience as a patient and as an educationist, he currently works, with Catherine Matheson-Monnet who has supported and written with him throughout, on issues around patient voice, well-being, and patient education in the context of treatment choice and shared decision-making. Fenwick W. English is Professor and Chairperson of Educational Leadership in Teachers College, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana. Formerly he was the R. Wendell Eaves Senior Distinguished Professor of Educational Leadership in the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a position he held since 2001. He has served at five other universities in the capacities of department chair, dean, and vice-chancellor of academic affairs. As a practitioner he has served as a middle school principal in California, assistant superintendent in Florida, and as superintendent in New York State. He also has experience in the private sector where he worked as a manager/partner for 3 years at Peat, Marwick, Mitchell (now KPMG Peat Marwick) in Washington, D.C., and as an executive in a

About the Section Editors

xxix

national educational association (The American Association of School Administrators) in Arlington, Virginia. His record of publications includes over 40 books, numerous book chapters, monographs, and referred journal articles. Dr. English has presented his research at the University of Council for Educational Administration (UCEA), American Education Research Association (AERA) Divisions A and L, National Council of Professors of Educational Administration (NCPEA/ICPEL), British Educational Leadership Management Association Society (BELMAS), and the Australian Association of Research in Education (AARE). In 2013, he was named a Living Legend of the field from NCPEA/ ICPEL. He received his B.S. and M.S. from the University of Southern California and his Ph.D. from Arizona State University. John M. Heffron, Professor of Educational History and Culture, and Director of the M.A. Program in Educational Leadership and Societal Change. John (aka Jay) completed his doctorate in American history at the University of Rochester, working under the late cultural and intellectual historian Christopher Lasch. Prior to joining Soka University of America in 1996, Jay was Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations in the College of Education, University of Hawaii at Manoa. From the University’s opening in 2001, he served as a member of the Humanities Concentration and from 2005 to 2016 as Dean of Students. He also served as Associate Director of the Pacific Basin Research Center from 1997 to 2014, in which capacity he edited and coauthored four books, most recently The Evolution of Development Thinking: Governance, Economics, Assistance, and Security (2016). In 2019, he was awarded with the BELMAS Management in Education 2018 Best Paper of the Year Award. The year 2019 also saw the publication of his most recent book, single-authored, The Rise of the South in American Thought and Education: The Rockefeller Years (1902–1917) and Beyond. His research is situated at the intersection of cultural and intellectual history, social and economic development, and the transnational sources of schooling.

xxx

About the Section Editors

Kadir Beycioglu, Ph.D., works as Professor of Educational Administration at Dokuz Eylul University Buca Faculty of Education in the Department of Educational Sciences, Izmir, Turkey. He completed his B.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Inonu University, Turkey. His study topics are mainly on educational change, school development, and educational leadership. He is also interested in the ethical use of ICT in education. He is a member of the International Study of Principal Preparation (ISPP) project and International School Leadership Development Network – Social Justice Leadership Strand by BELMAS and UCEA. He has published several articles in leading international journals and in national journals. He has also acted as Guest Editor for some international journals and books and has published chapters in books. Dr. Beycioglu is the Founding Editor of the Research in Educational Administration and Leadership (REAL), the journal of the Turkish Educational Administration Society, and has been serving as a member of the editorial board or as a reviewer for a number of leading international journals. He has been a Council Member of the European Educational Research Association, the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society, and the Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration and Management. Khalid Arar (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Higher Education; the Associate Editor of the International Journal of Leadership in Education; and Middle East Regional Editor of the Journal of Education Administration and History. His studies focus on issues of diversity, equity, and ethnicity in educational leadership and higher education. Recently, he edited Education, Immigration and Migration: Policy, Leadership and Praxis for a Changing World (Studies in Educational Administration) with Jeffrey Brooks and Ira Bogotch for Emerald and a book with Kussai Haj-Yehia, David Ross, and Yasar Kondakçı titled as Higher Education Challenges for Migrant and Refugee Students in a Global World (Equity in Higher Education Theory, Policy, and Praxis) for Peter Lang Publishers as well as another book titled Turbulence, Empowerment and Marginalisation in International Education Governance Systems (Studies

About the Section Editors

xxxi

in Educational Administration) with Alison Taysum for Emerald. E: [email protected] Marta Sánchez is Professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington and a faculty affiliate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. She is a member of Educational Leaders Without Borders and the author of the book, Fathering Within and Beyond the Failures of the State with Imagination, Work and Love: The Case of the Mexican Father.

Contributors

Sharifa Abdulla Fine and Performing Arts Department, Chancellor College, University of Malawi, Zomba, Malawi Art and Global Health Centre Africa, Zomba, Malawi School of Education, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Kathleen Abou-Rjaily Northern Arizona University, Yuma, AZ, USA Vonzell Agosto University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Abdeljalil Akkari Faculté de Psychologie et des Sciences de l’Education, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Sneh Akruvala Higher Education for Sisters in Africa, ASEC, Scranton, PA, USA Tawannah G. Allen Leadership Studies Department, Stout School of Education, High Point University, High Point, NC, USA T. T. Allen University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Anfal N. AlWahaibi Center for Preparatory Studies, Sultan Qaboos University, Muscat, Oman Maria D. S. Andrade Johnson School of Education, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA, USA Pamela S. Angelle College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Subini Ancy Annamma Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA Eman Abo-Zaed Arar School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel Khalid Arar Faculty of Education, Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Baqa Elgharbiya, Israel Carole Collins Ayanlaja Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL, USA xxxiii

xxxiv

Contributors

Daisyane Barreto Instructional Technology, Foundations and Secondary Education, University of North Carolina-Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA Oscar Barrios Flores National Pedagogic University (UPN), Tlapa, Guerrero, Mexico Floyd D. Beachum Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA Erick Leyva Bedolla AltaMed Institute for Health Equity, Santa Ana, CA, USA Liliana Donchik Belkin New York City Department of Education and SUNY Empire State University, Brooklyn, NY, USA James E. Berry Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI, USA Kadir Beycioglu Faculty of Education at Buca, Department of Division of Educational Administration, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey Lars G. Björk Department of Educational Leadership Studies, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Jackie M. Blount The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Warren J. Blumenfeld Social Justice Education Program, University of Massachusetts – Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA Ira Bogotch Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA Christa Boske Educational Leadership (EDLE), Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA Lori G. Boyland Department of Educational Leadership, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Tricia Browne-Ferrigno Department of Educational Leadership Studies, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Marie Anne Broyon Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (at ERDIE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Paula Cameron Continuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Sandra L. Candel Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA Juan F. Carrillo Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Claudia G. Cervantes-Soon Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Angela Chuan-Ru Chen University of California, Irvine, CA, USA Kristin Cipollone Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Anne Temple Clothier School of Education, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK

Contributors

xxxv

Casey D. Cobb Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA Ashton R. Cooper College of Education, Health, and Human Sciences, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA Marcus Croom Brio Education Consulting, Oak Park, IL, USA Diana D’Amico Pawlewicz Educational Foundations and Research, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND, USA Mary I. Dereshiwsky Department of Educational Leadership, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Anmol Diwan University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Duquesne Collective Action Network Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Tommy Ender Rhode Island College, Providence, RI, USA Fenwick W. English Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Frederick Erickson University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Tracey T. Flores Language and Literacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA Denver J. Fowler Franklin University, Columbus, OH, USA Brian Gano University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA Rachel L. Geesa Department of Educational Leadership, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Meg Goodhand University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Dominique Groux Université des Antilles, Schoelcher, Martinique, France University of the French West Indies, Schoelcher, Martinique, France Sin Guanci The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA Gina L. Gullo Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA Linyuan Guo-Brennan Faculty of Education, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, PE, Canada Michael Guo-Brennan Department of Political Science, Troy University, Troy, AL, USA Nicole L. Hacker Department of Educational Leadership, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA Sandra Harris Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA

xxxvi

Contributors

Aletha M. Harven Department of Psychology and Child Development, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, CA, USA Aniko Hatoss University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia Cleveland Hayes Indiana University School of Education, Indianapolis, IN, USA Jaime Herrmann Sisters Leadership Development Initiative, ASEC, Scranton, PA, USA Prince Paa-Kwesi Heto INDIE Education Initiative, Irvine, CA, USA Alan Hodkinson Liverpool Hope University, Liverpool, UK Jason Irizarry Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA Danielle Jarvie Los Angeles, CA, USA Zellynne Jennings School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Kingston, Jamaica Lucas John Jensen Leadership, Technology, and Human Development, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA, USA Eileen S. Johnson Department of Organizational Leadership, Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA Michael Jopling University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Sarah M. Jouganatos California State University, Sacramento, CA, USA George Kamberelis Education Department, Western Colorado University, Gunnison, CO, USA Kalyan Kumar Kameshwara Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK Rachel Lanoi Karei University of Eldoret, Eldoret, Kenya Cole Kervin Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA Jennifer Wanjiku Khamasi Faculty of Education, Dedan Kimathi University of Technology, Nyeri, Kenya Jungnam Kim Department of Educational Psychology, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Megan Kimber Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Hoseah Kandie Kiplagat University of Eldoret, Department of Technology Education, Eldoret, Kenya Yasar Kondakci Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Contributors

xxxvii

Glenn L. Koonce Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA Kurt Kreassig Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA, USA Paula Kwan Faculty of Education, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Aditi Lal Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA Terry Lamb Westminster University, London, UK Constance LeBlanc Continuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Lydia Lewis Institute of Education, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK Jane Clark Lindle Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA Colleen Loomis School of International Policy and Governance, Balsillie School of International Affairs and Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, ON, Canada Tara M. Lopatofsky Higher Education for Sisters in Africa, ASEC, Scranton, PA, USA Ann E. Lopez Department of Leadership, Higher and Adult Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada Aisha N. Lowe American River College, Sacramento, CA, USA Kendra Lowery Department of Educational Leadership, Teachers College, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Angus Macfarlane Māori Research, University of Canterbury (UC), Christchurch, New Zealand Anna MacLeod Continuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Tanya MacLeod Continuing Professional Development and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Ratika Malkani University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Richard Manning College of Education, Health and Human Development, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand Norma A. Marrun Department of Teaching and Learning, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA Ann Elizabeth Marsh Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA Catherine Marshall University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Joseph Martin Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

xxxviii

Contributors

David Matheson Faculty of Education, Health and Well-being, University of Wolverhampton, Walsall, UK Catherine Matheson-Monnet Centre for Implementation Science, School of Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK Brendan D. Maxcy Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA Sean McCready ICS Learn, Glasgow, UK Kaylee M. McDonald Department of Educational Leadership, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Dionne V. McLaughlin North Carolina Central University, Durham, NC, USA Valentina Migliarini School of Education and Sociology, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK Paul Miller School of Education, University of Greenwich, London, UK Timothy Monreal University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA Gloria Itzel Montiel AltaMed Institute for Health Equity, Santa Ana, CA, USA T. A. Moore Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Connie M. Moss Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Clementine Msengi Lamar University, Beaumont, TX, USA Jennifer Mudge Program Evaluation, ASEC, Scranton, PA, USA Carol A. Mullen School of Education, VTCRC, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA Stephen Newman Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK Thu Sương Thị Nguyễn Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Indianapolis, IN, USA Shawna O’Hearn Global Health Office, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Shirley O’Neill University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia Masumi Hashimoto Odari University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya Zuhal Okan Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey G. N. Okoli Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Juan de Dios Oyarzún Centre of Advanced Research in Educational Justice, P. Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile Rosemary Papa Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA

Contributors

xxxix

Dustin Pappas Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA Summer Melody Pennell Truman State University, Kirksville, MO, USA Ebony Perouse-Harvey University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA Patricia Peterson Northern Arizona University, Yuma, AZ, USA Bibinaz Pirayesh The Association of Educational Therapists, Los Angeles, CA, USA Abul Pitre Educational Leadership, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC, USA Jennifer M. Ponder Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA Amanda U. Potterton Department of Educational Leadership Studies, College of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA Deirdra Preis Isabelle Farrington College of Education, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA Darius D. Prier Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Marilynn M. Quick Department of Educational Leadership, Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Saneeya Qureshi University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK Myriam Radhouane Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences (at ERDIE and LIFE), University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland Karen Ramlackhan University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL, USA Timothy Reagan The University of Maine, Orono, ME, USA Jon Reyhner Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Alejandra Rincón Department of Family and Community Medicine and Office of Diversity and Outreach, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA Juan A. Ríos Vega Department of Teacher Education, Bradley University, Peoria, IL, USA Esmeralda Rodríguez University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA Richard Rose University of Northampton, Northampton, UK Farideh Salili Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Order of Quebec Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

xl

Contributors

APA, Washington, D.C., USA AERA, Washington, D.C., USA Eugenie A. Samier University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK Alma M. Sándigo Northern Arizona University, Yuma, AZ, USA María Luisa Santiago Jiménez National Pedagogic University (UPN), Tlapa, Guerrero, Mexico Rosemary Shaver Higher Education for Sisters in Africa, ASEC, Scranton, PA, USA Robin Shields School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Chen Shuangye East China Normal University, Shanghai, China Emily Silliman University of Erfut, Erfut, Germany Christy Simpson Department of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Diğdem Müge Siyez Faculty of Education at Buca, Division of Counseling and Guidance, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir, Turkey Jacob D. Skousen University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, NV, USA Jocelyn Smith-Gray Early Childhood, Elementary, Middle Grades, Reading and Special Education, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, USA Dana M. Stachowiak University of North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington, NC, USA Larry Steeves University of Regina, Regina, Canada Corrie Stone-Johnson University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA Lynzi Stralek Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA Jennifer Summerlin Department of Curriculum and Instruction, School of Education, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA Wyse Koku Sunu INDIE Education Initiative, Accra, Ghana Susan Tancock Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA Shirley Anne Tate Sociology Department, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada Ronda Taylor Bullock we are (Working to Extend Anti-racist Education), Durham, NC, USA Alison Taysum University of Leicester, Leicester, UK

Contributors

xli

S. L. Thomas Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA Ian Thompson Department of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK Patricia Traynor-Nilsen National University, North Las Vegas, NV, USA Regina R. Umpstead Department of Educational Leadership, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA Lev Moujahid Velázquez Barriga Centro Internacional de Pensamiento Crítico Eduardo del Río (CINPECER - Eduardo del Río International Center for Critical Thought), Zamora, Michoacán, México Jenice L. View College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA Sharon Vincent Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK Duncan Waite Education and Community Leadership, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA Wu Wei Yunnan Normal University, Kunming, China Gary Westberry University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA Robert E. White Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada J. Eric Wilkinson University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan Zeta Williams-Brown University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, UK Jeffery Wilson Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA Yi-Lee Wong Department of Educational Administration and Policy, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China Philip Woodward School of Education, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK Casandra Wright Buffalo Public Schools, Buffalo, NY, USA David C. Young Faculty of Education, St. Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, NS, Canada Eva M. Zygmunt Ball State University, Muncie, IN, USA

Part I Broad Realities of Social Justice

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All Saneeya Qureshi, Ratika Malkani, and Richard Rose

Contents Seeking a Definition of Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Education for All? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Universal Primary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quality Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Social Justice in Education and Why Is Goal for Its Achievement Still Needed in the Twenty-First Century? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Obstacles to Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cultural Variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sociopolitical Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Addressing the Needs of Those with SEND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Asian Context: India – First-Generation Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Emerging Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Previous Experience of Schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Children’s Beliefs About the Focus NGO School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspirations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support and Obstacles to Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Positive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Negative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The West African Context: Sierra Leone – Developing Inclusion Policy for Learners with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 6 8 9 10 11 11 13 13 14 15 17 17 17 17 18 19 19 20 20 20 20 21

S. Qureshi (*) University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK e-mail: [email protected] R. Malkani · R. Rose University of Northampton, Northampton, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_129

3

4

S. Qureshi et al.

Research Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inhibitors of Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Latin American Context: Supporting Indigenous Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community-Driven Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing the Capabilities of Indigenous Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenges Around Social Justice in Education for Indigenous Learners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Framework for Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Concluding Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21 22 23 23 24 24 25 27 27 29 29

Abstract

The United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has placed an emphasis upon addressing poverty and inequality which are known factors in the marginalization of individuals and groups in all societies. This agenda and its intended initiatives recognize the critical correlation between education and transformative change. This chapter provides a discussion regarding some of the cultural and sociopolitical indicators necessary for the achievement of inclusive and equitable quality education for all. It investigates elements of social justice in the field of education. In so doing it defines the concept of social justice, in relation to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. Obstacles to social justice, such as cultural interpretation, sociopolitical issues, and addressing the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND), are explored through case studies from India, Sierra Leone, and South America. It is argued that it is possible for societies to become more equitable for all while acknowledging contextual diversity as an enrichment to schooling strategies and not as purely a commodification of winners and losers. A framework for social justice in education is proposed around the premise that capabilities are fundamental entitlements. Keywords

Capability approach · First-generation learners · Indian indigenous learners · Latin American community-driven development · Post-2015 Development Agenda · African policy

Seeking a Definition of Social Justice in Education The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has established universal primary education as a right for every child (United Nations, 2000). Yet in 2017 UNESCO reported that despite considerable progress, approximately 263 million children, adolescents, and youth remain out of school. 61 million of them were children of primary school age. The situation is particularly

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

5

challenging in sub-Saharan Africa and Southern Asia where there are millions of adults who are not able to read and write. The provision of even the most rudimentary education is essential for addressing socioeconomic injustice across societies as adults who lack basic literacy skills have more difficulty in finding sustainable employment and less chance of escaping poverty. Education for girls has major benefits as educated women have a potentially higher income, which gives them personal freedom in making choices (Hillman & Jenkner, 2004). Although some headway has been achieved in providing education for all children (UNESCO, 2017a), progress remains slow. A wide gap remains between school enrolment and completion rates, especially for children from the poorest households and marginalized groups. In 2018 the World Bank reiterated concerns about the poor learning outcomes and low quality of education, which persists in many countries making particular reference to exclusions due to poverty, gender, ethnicity, disability, and location as influential factors (World Bank, 2018). Universally, education is seen as essential for the development and improvement of all aspects of national identity, security, and prosperity – however, it is important to acknowledge the right of all countries to develop their own responses to educational provision. Historically, therefore, countries around the world have operated their specific policies on the concept of inclusion for all children, including those with SEND, without any external global policy guidance related to inclusion. In 1994, the Salamanca Statement called for schools to accommodate “all children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other conditions” (UNESCO, 1994, p.6). This was preceded by the World Declaration on Education For All, signed in 1990 at Jomtien, Thailand, which, while making no specific mention of inclusion for children with special educational needs, recognized that: Basic education should be provided to all children, youth and adults. . . (and that) to this end, basic education services of quality should be expanded and consistent measures must be taken to reduce disparities. (UNESCO, 1990)

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were affirmed by members of the United Nations in 2000 and included targets aimed to address issues of poverty which it hoped might be accomplished by 2015. The MDGs’ eight goals or “collective priorities” were officially established following the Millennium Summit of the United Nations (UN) in 2000. UN member states agreed to achieve the following by the year 2015: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger Achieving universal primary education Promoting gender equality and empowering women Reducing child mortality rates Improving maternal health Combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases Ensuring environmental sustainability

6

S. Qureshi et al.

8. Developing a global partnership for development Inevitably due to socioeconomic and political disparities, countries were at differing stages in terms of their progress toward achievement of each respective goal as detailed at a review meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2010 (United Nations, 2010). However, while progress was made, none of the goals were fully achieved on a global scale. This lack of achievement of the MDGs reflected the diverse and challenging nature of global development. At the Rio + 20 Conference, held in Brazil in 2012, in view of the variable progress made toward achieving the goals, world leaders and other organizational representatives debated and eventually agreed a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) which build upon the earlier MDGs and converge with the Post-2015 Development Agenda (United Nations, 2012a). This was summarized in a statement released on the Internet by the United Nations, which stated: Enormous progress has been made towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals, (MDGs). Global poverty continues to decline. More children than ever are attending primary school. Child deaths have dropped dramatically. Access to safe drinking water has been greatly expanded. Targeted investments in fighting malaria, AIDS and tuberculosis have saved millions. The MDGs are making a real difference in people’s lives, and this progress can be expanded in most of the world’s countries by the target date of 2015 with strong leadership and accountability. After 2015, efforts to achieve a world of prosperity, equity, freedom, dignity and peace will continue unabated. (United Nations, 2015, np)

Consequently, the United Nations’ member countries reviewed the global efforts toward the achievements of the MDGs, and in September 2015, they launched the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). World leaders adopted the Post-2015 Development Agenda SDGs following consultations coordinated by the UN Development Group, which recommended a greater focus on financing and other influences upon implementation at the national, regional, and global level (UNDG, 2017). This move was particularly significant for places such as India, Sierra Leone, and South America discussed later in this paper, where there are a plethora of sociocultural and economic issues that impact the most well-intentioned development initiatives.

What Is Education for All? In May 2015, the World Education Forum in Incheon (Republic of South Korea) brought together 1600 participants from 160 countries with the objective of establishing how to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for all by 2030. Delegates at this meeting acknowledged that despite rising enrolment rates in poorer countries and better access to primary education, the quality of education available was a concern that was not being addressed at national level in most countries. The ultimate goal of the agenda established for this meeting was to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

7

opportunities for all (UNESCO, 2015b). This required a policy that addresses and focuses more directly on the poorest communities in those countries which were perceived to be at greatest socioeconomic disadvantage. An urgent need for new approaches was identified. Because at that time, only 70% of children in low-income countries were perceived as being likely to complete primary school in 2030, a goal that it had been hoped might have been achieved in 2015. According to the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2016, a failure to address this issue “will not only adversely affect education but will hamper progress towards each and every development goal: poverty reduction, hunger eradication, improved health, gender equality and women’s empowerment, sustainable production and consumption, resilient cities, and more equal and inclusive societies” (UNESCO, 2016. p 1). The EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2018) stated that the ambitious target set by the Sustainable Development Goals for all young people internationally to complete good-quality secondary school looks daunting. This is because between 2010 and 2015, on average only 45% of young people were completing secondary school. The EFA Global Monitoring Report (UNESCO, 2015a) highlighted different approaches adopted by countries around the world for attaining their educational goals. It is interesting to see that although some had achieved their main goal of universal primary education, in some instances they had created a new set of issues, which needed to be addressed. These were mainly concerned with the experience of students in the classrooms and the quality of education provided. On the other hand, some countries had used innovative ideas, maximizing the use of resources to achieve similar goals with remarkable results. It is from these examples of success that many struggling countries can learn, with a hope that more countries will be added to the list of those who have successfully achieved the goal of universal primary education. A few issues addressed in the report are summarized below, with a focus on monitoring the educational challenges faced by countries and providing suggestions on how to improve the quality of education for children already in school. • Poverty: Poverty affects primary attainment, and most countries have a long way to go in order to achieve primary completion, especially for the poorest people. • Drop-out rates: School dropout from school is a serious problem in low-income countries, especially among students who enter school late and those from the poorest backgrounds (UNESCO, 2012). Children face pressure to begin working and generating income, which can lead to dropout from school. They can also create difficult multiage learning situations for teachers and other students (Lloyd, 1999; Wang & Zhao, 2011). Late entry is a problem of equity as well, as it has a greater effect on disadvantaged children (UNESCO, 2012). Research conducted by Nonoyama-tarumi, Loaiza, and Engle (2010) into late entry into primary schools in developing countries suggests that students who enter school late are more likely to repeat grades, drop out, and perform more poorly. • Quality of education provided: The commitment to education access must be equaled by a focus on learning and relevance so that it can have an impact on social mobility for disadvantaged populations.

8

S. Qureshi et al.

• Availability and deployment of trained teachers: To attract and retain goodquality teachers, governments need to improve teacher education and training programs, deploy teachers more fairly, provide incentives in the form of appropriate salaries, and create attractive career paths (UNESCO, 2014). Issues of quality and sustainability in respect of the training of teachers have been emphasized as an area in need of considerable attention (UNESCO, 2017b). • Fostering child-friendly school environments: Many children go to school in conditions that are not conducive to learning – lacking potable water, handwashing facilities, and safe, clean toilets. Children may also face discrimination, harassment, and even violence related to their social class, caste, or heritage, which can have an adverse effect on enrolment and attendance. Pupils of all ages should spend time in school not just for the sake of ticking a “Development Goal achieved” box but with the objective of the holistic development and qualitative expansion of their skills, to empower them as self-sufficient citizens, not just on a national but also on a global basis.

United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a set of 17 goals and 169 targets adopted by UN member nations at the United Nations General Assembly Summit in September 2015. The goals came into force in January 2016 and will continue to drive international development work until 2030. These goals which build upon the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were ratified at a particularly crucial juncture with regard to the educational plight of children. The 2016 State of the World’s Children UNICEF Report affirmed that inequity imperils millions of children and threatens the future of the world. The report contained the staggering statistics: • Almost 70 million children may die before reaching their fifth birthdays – 3.6 million in 2030 alone, the deadline year for the Sustainable Development Goals. • Children in sub-Saharan Africa will be 10 times more likely to die before their fifth birthdays than children in high-income countries. • Nine out of 10 children living in extreme poverty will live in sub-Saharan Africa. • More than 60 million primary school-aged children will be out of school – roughly the same number as are out of school today. More than half will be from sub-Saharan Africa. • Some 750 million women will have been married as children – three quarters of a billion child brides. (UNICEF, 2016a, p.vi–vii).

It is a fact that “Inequity is not inevitable. Inequality is a choice. Promoting equity – a fair chance for every child, for all children – is also a choice. A choice we can make, and must make. For their future, and the future of our world” (UNICEF, 2016a, p.vii). A 2018 report on the SDG Progress revealed that fewer than a fifth of fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS) are on track to “leave no one behind.” (Fragile

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

9

and conflict-affected states (FCAS) are those recognized by the World Bank as low-income countries with particularly weak policies, institutions, and governance. FCAS also include countries with political/peacekeeping and peace-building missions: http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/ harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations.) “Leave no one behind” is the commitment at the heart of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and identifies three key areas for action to avoid further excluding people caught in crisis, these being policy, finance, and data (ODI, 2018). The “Education Cannot Wait: Proposing a Fund for Education in Emergencies” study reported that 75 million children in 35 FCAS need educational support (ODI, 2016) and that more than half of all out-of-school children are located in FCAS (UNICEF, 2016b). One projected statistic in relation to SDG 4, Target 4.1 (completed lower secondary education) stated that: FCAS are currently are home to 49% of people in (low- and middle-income countries) without a lower secondary education. By 2030, estimates suggest that this share will rise to 58%. (ODI, 2018, p.21)

Universal Primary Education The fourth SDG relates specifically to education (and is directly linked with all other SDGs and in particular targets relating to no poverty (Target1); good health and well-being (Target 3); gender equality (Target 5); decent work and economic growth (Target 8); responsible consumption and production (Target 12); and climate action (Target 13)). Education is a fundamental human right and an enabling right. “Education is essential to individuals’ development as it is to the development of their families, of the local and national communities to which they belong, and to the world at large” (United Nations, 2012b, p.3). To fulfill this right, countries must ensure universal equal access to inclusive and equitable quality education and learning, which should be free and compulsory, leaving no one behind. The SDG-Education 2030 Steering Committee further goes on to define the SDG goal by stating “Education shall aim at the full development of the human personality and promote mutual understanding, tolerance, friendship and peace” (United Nations, 2016, p.1). Interestingly, the United Nations has refrained from proposing a definition of human personality, and therefore for the context of this chapter, it is assumed to be culturally determined, augmented by educational experiences. The SDG education goal proposes to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong sustaining opportunities for all. The United Nations recognizes that the SDGs need to be more robustly supported through grassroot integration into the planning and advancement of countries at varying stages of socioeconomic development. To aid this planning process, it is key for the identification of gaps, areas requiring urgent attention, and risks and challenges to underpin any initiatives in this regard. This is particularly important as children’s educational

10

S. Qureshi et al.

opportunities are increasingly impacted by obstacles to social justice, such as cultural variations, sociopolitical issues, and addressing the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Quality Education In addition to some of the obstacles to social justice, there is a lack of infrastructure present in many countries for the assessment of the effectiveness of those measures that have been put into place. This shortcoming, which might play a significant role in school-based inclusion, means that countries such as India, Sierra Leone, and South America do not have regulatory tools for inclusion which recognize that: . . .for future generations to be able to live in harmony, we all have a responsibility to ensure that we provide an inclusive education for every child. Every child is an individual, unique in every way, with the potential to shape the world in which they live. As educators we have to ensure that our young people develop an inclusive approach to others, however different they may seem... (Inclusion Quality Mark, 2018)

A 2018 ODI report maintained that in order for people in crisis to be optimally supported in relation to the delivery and attainment of the SDG of quality education, it is imperative for the following to be considered: • Access to education plays an important role in social integration, economic mobility and learning outcomes for children in crisis. (This is related to the Education SDGs 4.1, 4.2 and 4.5, Reduced Inequality SDG 10.2). • Eligibility for education can be tied to citizenship/residency status, which means that refugee/IDP children can be prevented from accessing education. In some cases, refugees are offered segregated education services, which may be of lower quality. (This is related to Education SDGs 4.1 and 4.2). • In conflict-affected areas, education facilities may be destroyed or regular attendance can be hindered by fighting. (This is related to SDGs 4.1 and 4.2) (ODI, 2018, p.72).

The Education SDGs mentioned above in relation to quality education, are: SDG 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes. SDG 4.2: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys have access to quality early childhood development, care and pre-primary education so that they are ready for primary education. SDG 4.5: By 2030, eliminate gender disparities in education and ensure equal access to all levels of education and vocational training for the vulnerable, including persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples and children in vulnerable situations.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

11

SDG 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.

What Is Social Justice in Education and Why Is Goal for Its Achievement Still Needed in the Twenty-First Century? International organizations such as the Global Partnership for Education (GPE) have done much work around the recognition of the centrality of education to the achievement of all the SDGs (GPE, 2015). Social justice in Education is a critical factor without which, therefore, the achievement of the SDGs will be an almost impossible task. Social justice can be defined as the distribution and capabilities that require a range of different ways of evaluating social justice in the provision of education (Unterhalter & Brighouse, 2007). More recently, Bell and Adams affirm that: Social justice is both a goal and a process. The goal of social justice is full and equitable participation of people from all social identity groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. The process for attaining the goal of social justice should also be democratic and participatory, respectful of human diversity and group differences, and inclusive and affirming of human agency and capacity for working collaboratively with others to create change. (Bell & Adams, 2016, p.21)

With this in mind, the framework of cultural and sociopolitical indicators necessary for the achievement of inclusive and equitable quality education for all and, indeed, for the achievement of the SDGs during this twenty-first century is discussed in the following sections of this chapter. The critical correlation between education and transformative change is acknowledged through a discussion of obstacles to social justice in education and various local contexts within which this issue is addressed.

Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements Sen (2005) and Nussbaum (2006) have suggested the need to articulate an approach to understanding influences upon the lives of people in disadvantaged situations. From their contrasting disciplines, Sen as an economist and Nussbaum as an ethnographer and sociologist have made a significant contribution to debates around social justice. These two writers have proposed a specific approach called the “capability approach” to understanding the influences upon the lives of individuals and communities. Sen, who initially developed the capability approach theory, supports the belief that it is best to see human rights or dignity as a set of ethical claims, which must not be identified with legislated legal rights. In order to claim their rights, individuals and communities need to be equipped to know these. This requires competences

12

S. Qureshi et al.

such as critical thinking and responsibility as central elements along with agency and empowerment. These competences are in various ways related to ensuring the provision of a quality education that leads to building the capability of the individual (Sen, 1980). Proponents of this approach believe that the focus should be on issues such as “What are the people of the group or country in question actually able to do and be?” Importantly, “the Capability Approach considers people one by one” (Nussbaum & Sen, 1993). The capability approach is a theoretical framework that encompasses two fundamental claims: first, the claim that the freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance and second that freedom to achieve well-being is to be understood in terms of people’s capabilities, that is, their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value. It does not group individuals into families and ignore the relations and unequal distributions of power within families (Nussbaum, 1998). for example, a girl from a Scheduled Tribe from a village in India who has to give up schooling because her family decides that it’s more important to use the limited family resources to educate the boy in the family, as he will in the future be able to financially support the family and the girl will be married at a young age. Although both belong to the same family, they do not have the similar opportunities available to them. As the focus of this theory is often strictly based on the evaluation of individual functioning levels, it becomes relevant in assessing situations like the one described above. This can then be employed in order to provide elements of understanding and explanations of social phenomena or to analyze these notions in descriptions of poverty, inequality, quality of life, and social change (Unterhalter, 2005). The importance of this perspective on development has also been emphasized recently by the United Nations in the report on the review of United Nations Economic Commission of Europe (UNECE) strategy for Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) (United Nations, 2005). The main aim of this strategy is to encourage countries to integrate ESD into all forms of their education system and covers all levels from primary to tertiary, including vocational and adult learning. ESD advocates the importance of sustainable development issues into teaching and learning like poverty alleviation, human rights, health, gender equity, peace, cultural diversity, corporate responsibility, and environment protection. It also encourages teaching and learning methods that promote critical thinking and collaborative decision-making skills to motivate and facilitate learners to change their behavior and take action for sustainable development (UNECE, 2005). In a narrower way, the capability approach tells us what information should be looked at to reach judgments about how well someone’s life is going or has gone. The capability approach provides us with a framework for understanding the life experiences of individual children. It does not concern itself with the distribution of resources alone, because resources have no value in themselves when removed from their promotion of human functioning (Nussbaum, 1998). According to Nussbaum, “capabilities refer to things a person can achieve or could have achieved in life. These are based on a set of real opportunities and not imagined ones. Capability Theory does not accept that access to resources is enough to achieve well-being but emphasises that people’s opportunities to make use of those resources is most important” (Nussbaum, 1998, p 275).

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

13

Although the capability approach provides a framework for the assessment of human development, it is also possible to consider what it has to offer to evaluations of specific areas of social policy, such as education. The capability approach is in principle multidimensional and comprehensive, and it can deepen and broaden the perspective on education; especially in countries which are diverse and where learners have different needs and interests (Saito, 2003).

Obstacles to Social Justice in Education A number of obstacles to social justice in education that are prevalent in socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts relate to the fact that pedagogic models do not fully contextualize the learning experiences of pupils within their local contexts. These issues relate to a lack of recognition of cultural variations, a minimal acknowledgment of sociopolitical issues faced within various geographic areas, and the challenges of addressing the needs of those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND).

Cultural Variations Cultural variables that recognize specific learning needs are crucial elements for the optimal delivery and outcomes of educational opportunities. These include recognition of the specific learning needs, preferences, and styles of learners. Research by McLoughlin and Oliver into the educational opportunities for pupils from indigenous Australian communities indicated that: in designing instruction, there may be a tension between the need to ensure access for a diverse student population, while at the same time taking into account the need for localisation to accommodate learners’ particular cultures, cognitive styles and preferences. Considering the micro and macro cultural levels of instructional design is therefore essential if appropriate learning environments are to be created. (McLoughlin & Oliver, 2000, p.58)

It is also important to recognize that the participation and support of pupils in formal educational settings are formed around particular epistemologies, learning theories, and goal orientations of the designers of the lessons themselves. Reeves and Reeves (1997) argued for the cultural dimension of curriculum design to acknowledge and provide culturally sensitive learning environments. It is acknowledged, for example, that the expectation that students will question knowledge or the teacher is a not a universally accepted form of interaction. This assertion is further reiterated by Sen who, when asked if there is not fixed list of capabilities provided to supplement the general capability approach that he proposed, queried the functionality of predetermined lists without public participation and reasoning (Sen, 2004).

14

S. Qureshi et al.

Unterhalter and Brighouse maintained that Sen’s capability approach alerts us to the need to describe not only access to, and very narrowly defined achievement in, education but also to assess aspects of education deemed valuable and hence issues about the distribution of resources, given complex class, gender, race, and ethnic inequalities (Unterhalter & Brighouse, 2007, p73).

Sociopolitical Issues Acknowledging the complexities of the socio-politico-cultural issues, Sen himself affirmed that: It would be a mistake to build a mausoleum for a “fixed and final” list of capabilities usable for every purpose and unaffected by the progress of understanding of the social role and importance of different capabilities. (Sen, 2004, p.77)

Indeed, contemporary researchers have evidenced how Sen’s capability approach offers an assertive alternative discourse to dominant human capital ideas in education, particularly in the context of non-Western educational contexts. Walker’s research into the implementation of a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy making discusses a draft ideal-theoretical, multidimensional list that recognizes the socio-politico challenges inherent in the achievement of social justice in education and achieving inclusive and equitable quality education for all. Walker proposes eight multidimensional elements that must be addressed in this regard. However, she acknowledges Sen’s contention about predetermined lists and therefore makes no attempt at a weighting or hierarchical of the various capabilities: 1. Autonomy, being able to have choices, having information on which to make choices, planning a life after school, reflection, independence, empowerment. 2. Knowledge. . . for critical thinking and for debating complex moral and social issues, knowledge from involvement in intrinsically interesting school societies, active inquiry, transformation of understanding, fair assessment/examination of knowledge gained. 3. Social relations. . . the capability to participate in a group for friendship and for learning, to be able to work with others to solve problems and tasks, being able to work with others to form effective or good groups for learning and organising life at school, being able to respond to human need, social belonging. 4. Respect and recognition, self-confidence and self-esteem, respect for and from others, being treated with dignity, not being diminished or devalued because of one’s gender, social class, religion or race, valuing other languages, other religions and spiritual practice and human diversity, showing imaginative empathy, compassion, fairness and generosity, listing to and considering other persons’ points of view in dialogue and debate in and out of class in school, being able to act inclusively. 5. Aspiration, motivation to learn and succeed, to have a better life, to hope. 6. Voice, for participation in learning, for speaking out, not being silenced through pedagogy or power relations or harassment, or excluded from curriculum, being active in the acquisition of knowledge.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

15

7. Bodily integrity and bodily health, not to be subjected to any form of harassment at school by peers or teachers, generally being safe at school, making own choices about sexual relationships, being able to be free from sexually transmitted diseases, being involved in sporting activities. 8. Emotional integrity and emotions, not being subject to fear which diminishes learning, either from physical punishment or verbal attacks, developing emotions and imagination for understanding, empathy, awareness and discernment. (Walker, 2006, p.179–180).

All the capabilities proposed by Walker “point to essential ‘processes’ and ‘opportunities’ as maintained by Sen in his discussion about the overall aspirations of the application of the capability theory to the social sciences such as education” (Sen, 2002).

Addressing the Needs of Those with SEND “Nussbaum endorses Sen’s concept of capability as the space for comparisons of freedom and quality of life, but refines the approach in some important ways” (Terzi, 2005, p.210). Nussbaum proposes functional freedoms, or ten central human capabilities, as a rubric of social justice. She recommends that these elements form the basis for constitutional principles to be adopted by all nations and affirms that the list of central capabilities is universal as it is the product of years of “cross-cultural discussion.” Nussbaum’s central human capabilities are: 1. Life, living a full human life of a normal span. 2. Bodily health, being adequately nourished and with shelter. 3. Bodily integrity, having freedom of movement, security from various forms of assault, and opportunities for sexual expression and reproductive choice. 4. Using one’s senses, imagination and thought, being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason in a ‘truly human’ way, informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. 5. Emotions, having freedom of attachment and association. 6. Practical reason being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one’s life. This entails protection of the liberty of conscience and religious observance. 7. Affiliation, being able to live with others in forms of social interaction like friendship and work, protected against discrimination and having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation, which entails provision of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, nationality, caste and ethnicity. 8. Other species, being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants and the world of nature. 9. Play, being able to laugh, play, to enjoy recreational activities. 10. Control over one’s environment, being able to participate in political choices and participation, having freedom of speech and association, being able to hold property, being able to work as a human being. (Nussbaum, 2006, p.76–78).

Nussbaum characterizes these entitlements as the central human capabilities and insists that they:

16

S. Qureshi et al. . . .should be respected and implemented by the governments of all nations, as a bare minimum of what respect for human dignity requires. The best approach to this idea of basic social minimum is provided by an approach that focuses on human capabilities, that is what people are actually able to do and to be, in a way informed by an intuitive idea of life that is worthy of dignity of the human being. (Nussbaum, 2006, p.70)

It is worth noting that Nussbaum’s approach has been criticized by authors challenging its validity in socioeconomically deprived contexts (Clark, 2002; Barclay, 2003; Robeyns, 2003a;). The purpose of this introduction to Nussbaum’s version of the capabilities approach is to position the education of children with disabilities within the social justice debate as this diverse group has been excluded from other philosophical and political formulations of social justice (Terzi, 2008). Research by Terzi offers fundamental insights via a capability perspective into the conceptualization of impairment and disability (Terzi, 2005). Terzi argues that “the capability approach is innovative with respect to the centrality of human diversity in assessing equality, and that the specific understanding of human diversity proposed, the democratic decisional process promoted and the normative account of disability those entail, all have the potential to take educational theory and inclusive education policies in fruitful directions” (Terzi, 2005, p.197). In this chapter, disability is acknowledged as being “inherently relational and circumstantial, or, in other words, a phenomenon of the interface between personal characteristics of the individual and the specific design of the social and physical environment that the individual inhabits” (Terzi, 2005, p.213). With this acknowledgment, it is argued that the capability approach sets aside the debate over whether the causes of disability are medical or social. Instead, the issue of individuals’ functioning is sought to be addressed and, in doing so, report on the social bases that form optimal or even satisfactory capability through which individuals can attain social justice in education. Indeed, this approach resonates with the revised WHO classification of Functioning, Disability and Health which states “As the functioning and disability of an individual occurs in a context, (the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) ICF also includes a list of environmental factors” (ICFDH, 2018). Terzi concludes that the capability approach thereby provides a criterion of justice that is sensitive to disabled people’s interests (Terzi, 2005, p.216). In this section, we have discussed the complexities associated with defining social justice in education and associated obstacles, such as cultural variations, sociopolitical issues, and the inclusion of those with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). In the following sections, we will illustrate these through case studies in Asian, West African, and Latin American contexts, respectively, with the intention of developing a framework for the diverse elements of social justice in education.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

17

Case Studies The Asian Context: India – First-Generation Learners Many children from the rural communities in India seeking an education are firstgeneration learners. These children at times find it difficult to cope with the school environment and learning the state language, which is unfamiliar to them. The parents of these children have no academic background or formal education at any level, which leaves them at a disadvantage as a significant part of their educational process occurs at home. The research described here presented an attempt to study and understand the problems which are being faced by first-generation learners and to assist them in achieving their educational goals. The study used a qualitative and flexible case study approach, reflecting the reallife complexities of first-generation learners. A flexible design with semi-structured interview method was employed, thus providing an opportunity to present the account of the journey and to refine and modify the original research intention to follow up issues that emerged during the process of data collection. The data was collected from an NGO-run school that operated in a deprived rural community in the state of Maharashtra. A purposive sample from within the community which included ten rural indigenous children, who were all first-generation learners and aged between 10 and 14 years, was selected. For each of the participants, a series of profiles were written, which included their background. These were drawn from staff, parent, and children interviews and helped in getting a deeper understanding of the choices they make regarding their education. These interviews helped in the process of constructing reality to which all parties involved could contribute.

Emerging Themes A number of key themes emerged from the data. In particular four recurring issues can been seen to have had particular significance for the children in the study, these being: • • • •

Previous experience of schooling Feelings about their current NGO school Aspirations Support and obstacles to learning

Previous Experience of Schooling The data suggests that student’s experiences at the government-funded Zilla Parishad School were characterized by low expectation and a lack of ambition for what they might achieve. Pupils described situations in which at this school teachers

18

S. Qureshi et al.

sometimes failed to attend, had not prepared lessons, did not give feedback, or mark pupils’ books and where they believed that little worthwhile learning occurred. There was little teacher accountability, resulting in pupils sometimes doing menial tasks or running errands for teachers. In a study of over 3000 public primary schools across 19 Indian states, Kremer, Muralidharan, Chaudhury, Rogers, & Hammer (2005) reported that over 25% of teachers were likely to be absent from school on any working day, a situation that has not greatly changed in the intervening years (Muralidharan, Das, Holla, & Mohpal, 2017). The statements made by the children in this study indicated that although teachers were frequently absent, pupils were expected to attend. Lack of accountability in government schools leading to teacher absenteeism and negligence are among the main reasons cited by pupils for the deterioration in the quality of education received by children from the village. Almost all children spoke about the use of corporal punishment in the government school. Corporal punishment is outlawed in Indian schools, though studies suggest that parents and indeed children are often ambivalent about its use (Morrow & Singh, 2014). The impression given was that being treated in an abusive way at their previous school had an alienating effect and they gradually lost interest in studies and dropped out. Drop-out rates from primary schools in India remain high, particularly among first-generation learners many of whom live in circumstances that do not provide effective support or infrastructure to enable them to study. However, as Govinda and Bandyopadhyay (2008 p38/39) state, “it is the responsibility of the school system to make the experience pleasant and interesting to the children, so what is required is to reform the contents and processes and make them more relevant to the lives of the children and linked to the environments in which they live.” Staff in the NGO school recognized this and had taken action to ensure a learning environment that was both welcoming and supportive.

Children’s Beliefs About the Focus NGO School Most of the children’s comments about the NGO school centered on teaching and learning. They spoke about how this school offered better facilities, an interesting choice of subjects, regular teacher attendance, and teachers with more relevant experience and qualifications. An important issue was the creation of an ethos that differed greatly from that previously experienced. Children felt safe in school because teachers were willing to accept their limitations and work within the confines of what they were capable of delivering. This did not indicate a lack of interest on the part of the teacher but rather recognition of the difficulties of working in the home environment. Another factor in motivating children to attend school was the provision of free meals. Although teaching and learning are key factors in determining academic outcomes and were valued and discussed by the children, free meals were important because for some they provided the only source of nourishment which they could guarantee on a regular basis.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

19

Mander in a study of tribal communities in India emphasized that children in this population are more likely to be hungry than those in other groups (Mander, 2015 p.138). There is, he suggests, a direct correlation between poor school attendance and inadequate nutrition. When children who are hungry attend, they often lack energy and are less likely to perform well. They are also more prone to illness which impacts negatively upon school attendance. The Government of India instigated a National Programme of Nutritional Support to Primary Education (NP-NSPE) in 1995, and research suggests (Drèze & Kingdon, 2001; Jayaraman & Simroth, 2011) that the provision of meals has encouraged increased enrolment and attendance, a finding that equates to that from evidence gathered during the study reported in this paper. While the free school meal scheme is available to all in India, including the Zilla Parishad School previously attended by children in this study, the NGO school had extended this to provide meals for children on arrival in the morning, believing that this was likely to improve attendance and academic performance. New experiences including field trips were important to children, and they enjoyed the opportunity to extend their horizon beyond their immediate environment. From their comments, it was evident that if circumstances would allow, they would have liked their siblings who were not at the school to have similar opportunities.

Aspirations The NGO school instilled in pupils a belief that they are capable of achieving anything they aspire to do or be and will have support from teachers to reach their goals. At this school staff believe that each time a student finishes school, the family wins and the community gains too. All children interviewed had a goal and were zealous in their belief that education was the only way to realize this. The school talks to pupils about junior college and university. This strategy changes pupils’ aspirations. Comments from students demonstrated school’s success in raising aspirations and helping pupils build their confidence to believe they can achieve their ambitions, as long as they work hard and progress to higher education.

Support and Obstacles to Learning All children participating in this research came from homes where parents were illiterate. A lack of access to resources to assist them with their studies, and limited support networks to help them negotiate an education and social system that is beyond the experience of earlier generations, can have impact negatively upon their opportunities to progress. Haque (2015), drawing upon evidence from the Indian National Sample Survey for 2007/8, identifies financial constraints, inability to cope with studies, commitment to activities essential to family income, and participation in household chores as among the main causes of children from impoverished rural communities failing in education.

20

S. Qureshi et al.

This assertion was in evidence from the data collected in this research. Some spoke about the obstacles to their desire to attend secondary school and circumstances, which might prevent them from progressing to higher education. These included the cost of travel or living expenses as the distance to secondary school was considerable. With limited time and little understanding at home, it was apparent that the support provided through school had a positive impact on educational achievements of students.

Findings Based on the emerging themes illustrated in the previous section, specific positive and negative aspects were extracted as overall findings of the research project. The interviews and observations provided insights on the real-life experiences of firstgeneration learners and their perspectives on schooling. The knowledge and understanding gained from this study can be summarized as the following factors affecting academic success:

Positive • Providing a relevant curriculum, which fosters creativity and curiosity • Involving the local community in school activities and develop an understanding of family traditions and obligations of students • Employing qualified and experienced staff who understand the realities of students’ lives • Support for parents to understand and navigate the school system • Additional support after school hours to supplement their education • All indirect costs of schooling supported by school administration

Negative • Lack of support at home as parents are not sufficiently literate to help them • Social stratification and discrimination along the lines of caste are demotivating and discourage children from continuing with their schooling • Poor quality of learning and teaching at village Zilla Parishad Schools.

Discussion Although this study has focused on a small cohort of children and could not represent all groups of first-generation learners, it has enabled the broadening of the information base needed to make judgments on equality and justice. With the

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

21

attention of government agencies shifting to the well-being and improvements in the life experiences of children in schools, it becomes important to focus on what children value so that they can achieve their educational goals while having a positive experience at school. According to Sen (1999), education is the fundamental part of children’s lives, and the physical experience of being in a school takes up a significant part of the time they have during childhood through to adolescence and is therefore central to their well-being. The role of education is seen as intending to develop the abilities and expand opportunities available to children, leading to the choices they make in life, based on their personal values and experiences (Sen, 1999). Education can have the potential to increase capabilities, if the children are provided with the right opportunities. It therefore becomes our duty to ensure that children are given these opportunities so that they can develop the competences to achieve a fulfilling adult life (Malkani & Rose, 2018).

The West African Context: Sierra Leone – Developing Inclusion Policy for Learners with Disabilities In response to international initiatives, the Government of Sierra Leone has given a commitment to address the requirements for ensuring universal primary education (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2007). Situated on the Atlantic coast of West Africa and having a population of approximately 6.1 million, in recent years Sierra Leone has suffered economically and socially as a result of war and a devastating outbreak of Ebola, both of which had a devastating impact upon the country’s infrastructure and stability. As a consequence, many children are out of school, and those with disabilities can be seen to be particularly disadvantaged (Nishimuko, 2007).

Research Context In 2016 a team of researchers from the UK was commissioned to undertake research to ascertain the current educational situation for children with disabilities within Sierra Leone and to provide advice and a draft policy document for presentation to the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. The Government of Sierra Leone, having made a commitment to developing a more equitable education system, required evidence on which to base the development of policy and the establishment of a long-term national education plan. Following a review of the literature, research instruments aimed at collating qualitative data were designed in consultation with colleagues in Sierra Leone, and a group of field workers were trained in situ. The decision to use a qualitative research approach was founded upon a belief that firsthand experiences from people with disabilities, parents, teachers, and other stakeholders would enable the research team to report fairly on the experiences of those most closely associated with the research focus. In order to facilitate this process, a team of field workers who were

22

S. Qureshi et al.

familiar with local languages and context were trained by a representative of the UK team. All instruments were translated, and the field workers assigned specific areas of the country from where they were to collect data. The principal investigator from the UK also spent a week travelling around the country conducting interviews and focus groups in order to gain firsthand experience of the research locale which was seen as important in ensuring a fair interpretation of data. Although Sierra Leone is a relatively small country, travel is not always easy, but national coverage was important, particularly as the researchers were anxious to access data from remote areas as well as the larger cities. All interviews were digitally recorded, translated, and transcribed prior to being analyzed by the research team through a process of thematic coding. A process of blind coding, whereby at least two members of the research team coded each transcript before comparing interpretation, was used to ensure trustworthiness of the data. This enabled the research team to identify a series of key issues and emerging themes. In total 121 interviews and focus groups were conducted with data collected from teachers, parents of persons with disabilities, disabled persons support groups, policy makers, NGO representatives, medical and paramedical professionals, and community leaders.

Inhibitors of Progress Analysis of the data revealed 16 influential factors which were seen as inhibitors of progress toward providing educational opportunities for learners with disabilities, these being: • Limitations of early assessment and provision of information about children’s needs to schools. • Lack of adequate teaching resources, to provide appropriate access to learning for children with disabilities. • Physical access a problem for some students. • Limitations of the national curriculum in providing appropriate access for children with disabilities. • Limited access to assistive technology (including hearing aids). • Limited availability of vocational education and training. • Allocation of government budget to education is inadequate to support development. • Training deficient at both initial teacher training and continuing professional development level in equipping teachers to address the needs of children with disabilities. • A lack of teacher skills inhibits confidence in addressing disability issues. • NGO support is currently critical in providing support for learners with disabilities and their families. • Communication across agencies (including ministries) responsible for supporting children with disabilities is limited.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

23

• There is a limited research base to inform development in the area of disability. • There are significant variations of educational infrastructure and pedagogical understanding across regions that may impact upon provision. • Children with disabilities are known to be not attending schools, and only a few disabilities are recognized (these tend to be sensory or physical). No recognition of intellectual difficulties, autistic spectrum disorders, or social and emotional problems. • Some schools are not recognized and teachers in non-approved schools are not paid. These schools have a good number of learners with disability. • Difficulties in enrolling and retaining girls in education.

Recommendations for Action Following completion of the field work and analysis of data, the research team provided a report of the findings in relation to each of the 16 issues which made recommendations for actions to be taken if a policy of inclusive education was to be developed in a manner that would be practicable. Limitations in terms of procedures (school enrolment, assessment of disability, communication between professionals and parents), resource provision (pedagogical materials, technological aids), school environment (toilet facilities, accessibility), and the awareness and competence of teachers and other professionals to meet the needs of learners with disabilities (teacher training and in-service training) were priorities established through the research. As a second phase of the research, the principal investigator returned to Sierra Leone and held presentation and consultation sessions in each region of the country. During these meetings key policy makers and representatives of disability organizations were presented with the findings of the research and engaged in discussion in order to ensure that these were clearly interpreted by those who are charged with moving the education agenda forward in the country. One day workshops were conducted in each region at which the researcher presented in detail a report which had been previously circulated to those in attendance. Each workshop provided an opportunity for attendees to ask questions and provide a critical commentary on the findings. This process was seen to be important in enabling the researchers to verify the quality of the data provided prior to issuing a final report and draft policy document for the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in Freetown.

Policy Development The process described here represents an important approach to assisting development of a policy to promote a more equitable education system in a country with poor socioeconomic indicators. Of greatest significance is the commitment made by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in Sierra Leone to develop policy through a democratic process based upon consultation with those for whom the policy is intended to be most beneficial. Unlike other examples of policy development in

24

S. Qureshi et al.

economically challenged environments, which have adopted a top-down approach with ministers determining policy, this approach demonstrated respect for service users and providers through a commitment to understand the reality of the lives of those who have been marginalized within the country’s education system. The researchers who conducted this work (Rose, Garner, & Farrow, 2019) suggest that policy is most likely to succeed in situations where the individuals for whom it is intended feel some ownership of its development. While it would be naive to suggest that all of the recommendations made through this research will be implemented in the short term, the Government of Sierra Leone does now have the foundations upon which it would be possible to begin to build a more inclusive education environment.

The Latin American Context: Supporting Indigenous Learners A report by UNESCO on “Indigenous Knowledge and practices in Education in Latin America,” reported that: (the indigenous peoples of) Latin America. . . have been historically underserved by education systems and overall social policy. . . indigenous populations lag behind in all social indicators in the region when compared to non-indigenous groups, and indigenous learners have consistently obtained the lowest results in learning achievement in the past ten years. Thus, achieving the (Sustainable Development) goal of leaving no one behind in the region translates into the need for more and better-quality education for indigenous peoples, but also for their recognition and representation in education policy. (UNESCO, 2017c, p.5)

The argument for developing the capabilities of ethnic and indigenous learners can be approached on the basis of two premises. The first is the necessary recognition of the “interdependence that exists between the individual and the collective capability for political self-determination” (Murphy, 2014, p.320). The second is the critical significance of indigenous groups of people being collectively empowered in the developmental process. This in itself has its challenges around the very notion of collective capabilities. Indeed, Sen (2002, p.85) himself is not an active proponent of the idea of collective capabilities and agency, because he argues that well-being can only be measured at the individual level, rather than on a communal scale. Instead, Sen offers the notion of socially dependent capabilities at the individual level (Dreze & Sen, 2002).

Community-Driven Development The secondary data reported in this section resonates with primary research about the quest for self-determination among the indigenous peoples in Latin America. The data reiterates the global commentary about the restrictions – if not virtual elimination – around the collective capability for self-determination, as a consequence of colonization and modern state-building (Diaz Polanco, 1997; Barreno, 2003 in

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

25

Nemogá-Soto, 2018). As a result of the challenges in relation to this, it is necessary to acknowledge that: . . . self-determination in the area of education policy offers indigenous communities the freedom to provide learning opportunities that support the capability of their members to live, work and participate politically in their own language—opportunities they most probably would never enjoy in the wider society. (Murphy, 2014, p.326)

The notions presented above can be further explored through “community-driven development” (CDD). CDD is a development paradigm that upholds collective community participation and empowerment of indigenous peoples, through initiatives including social justice in education. CDD is reported to bring better development results in terms of poverty reduction, good governance, effectiveness in delivering quality education, sustainability, and inclusive development (Pham, 2018, p. 166). Pham submits the capability approach an evaluation framework for the CDD measures, as the approach is in tandem with CDD’s principles of valuing agency and empowerment. The basic capabilities of education and knowledge are included in the proposed framework and are formulated on the basis of developing individuals’ capabilities: to be literate and numerate, to be able to pursue formal and informal education if one wishes to do so, indigenous communities are able to preserve and restore their traditional knowledge, heritage and customs. (Pham, 2018, p.176)

UNESCO research in relation to the achievement of the SDGs and the relevance of Latin American education to indigenous views and cultural practices, facilitating their replicability and sustainability, indicates the viability of specific practices through which the rights of indigenous people to social justice in education can be upheld. The report affirms the criticality of “recognising learners as ‘carriers’ and producers of culture, valuing the use of schools as centres of social and cultural activities and favouring the inclusive learning of indigenous and non-indigenous students” (UNESCO, 2017c, p.10). This is particularly significant in view of the fact that there are 826 distinct native groups in the region (Milesi, 2014).

Developing the Capabilities of Indigenous Learners The optimal and relevant practices for the development of capabilities and the inclusion of and dialogue with indigenous knowledge in education that are presented include the exemplification through case studies about: • The recognition of “opening pathways” (in Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia): educational opportunities without the negative consequences for the identity and selfworth of indigenous people to be questioned via the imposition of a “one-size-fitsall” educational curriculum (UNESCO, 2017c, p.37).

26

S. Qureshi et al.

• The promotion of bilingual, intercultural education (in Ecuador and Peru): taking into account the knowledge and social practices of indigenous peoples and building upon the strengths of “an intercultural bilingual education system with quality criteria, from early childhood to higher education, in accordance with cultural diversity, for the care and preservation of identities in line with their teaching and learning methodologies” (UNESCO, 2017c, p.43). • The productive community socio-education model (Bolivia): which proposes social participation as a key element in the education system for indigenous learners, including representation on key educational bodies (UNESCO, 2017c, p. 46). The key element that connects the aspects of capabilities that are presented above is the participation of the indigenous learners themselves in the discussions around the relevance of these capabilities to their experience (Pham, 2018, p.177). Those who have to climb the ladders are best placed to build them, and therefore, by virtue of this argument, it is the firsthand information and knowledge that the indigenous learners bring to help identify key capabilities that are essential to drive social justice in education. With this in mind, there are positive developments occurring at the grassroots level in Latin America that are worth acknowledging in view of the capability approach. These include the: • Construction of regionalized curricula in Bolivia: referring to the curricular content, methodological, and assessment criteria in a determined education subsystem that expresses the uniqueness and complementarity with a nation’s regular basic curriculum, giving special consideration to the characteristics of the sociocultural and linguistic contexts, • Reciprocity and community work, i.e., school mingas (Minga is a Quechua word that refers to mutual help among friends and within communities, relations, and neighbors for the attainment of a shared objective. It is derived from the concept of ayllu, a traditional form of a community and an indigenous local government model across the Andes region of South America, particularly in Bolivia and Peru.) occurring in schools in Ecuador: involving the communal sharing of different tasks like painting classrooms, sweeping yards, cutting the grass, and repairing of school materials and other collective activities that support the inclusive local educational systems, • Meetings of traditions via communal educational gatherings, i.e., tinkuys (Tinkuy is a Quechua word for meeting.) in relation to learning projects in Peru: promoting the collective well-being of groups of underrepresented individuals via involvement of the community in the process of producing and executing learning projects which incorporate indigenous wise men and women or community leaders that enrich the work with their knowledge,

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

27

• Development of indigenous calendars in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia: these aim to identify relevant community activities in the dates of the school year in relation to festivities, productive activities, or others related to indigenous knowledge or traditions, enriching the school process. (UNESCO, 2017c, pp. 56–65).

Challenges Around Social Justice in Education for Indigenous Learners The aforementioned progress toward social justice in education, notwithstanding, is worth discussing; the challenges and difficulties are presented by progressively establishing and including indigenous knowledge, tradition, dialogue, and exchange into the national education policies. These challenges require a synergistic approach – such as that proposed by the framework for social justice in education – to face them and sustain the progress made. These challenges, based on the outcomes of the UNESCO report (2017c), include the: • Acknowledgment of indigenous peoples in their diversity • Need for additional research into indigenous knowledge and tradition • Development around teacher recruitment, training, and inclusive approaches to ensure social justice in education • Reviewed institutional approaches toward the recognition of competence and merit-based systems • Inclusion of gender and indigenous women in the dialogue of knowledge • Dialogue with indigenous bodies in relation to national educational initiatives • Respect of and value for indigenous peoples’ knowledge and cultures by the state The operationalization of a capability framework in relation to the elements discussed above presents one key issue: a common critique of the capability approach is that it does not seek to specify any concrete steps on how to select relevant capabilities for a given undertaking. However, Sen argues that the approach’s broad nature is one of its strengths, allowing it to be applied flexibly for different purposes (Sen, 2004). On the basis of the information presented in relation to the Asian, African, and Latin American contexts as discussed in this section of the chapter, a framework for social justice education is therefore proposed on the basis of the notion of capabilities as fundamental entitlements.

A Framework for Social Justice in Education An acknowledgment of the diversity of human contexts is the mainspring of the theoretical framework within which the capability approach sits (Terzi, 2010). The capability approach has been acknowledged by academics to take human diversity

28

S. Qureshi et al.

into account from two perspectives. The first is through its focus on the recognition of individuals’ multiple capacities and capabilities. It does this by incorporating a wide range of dimensions in the formulation of outcomes, taking into account that some dimensions may be more relevant for particular individuals compared with others. Robeyns (2003b) exemplifies this in a gender-based discussion that evidences that woman are disadvantaged in standard outcome assessments compared with men. However, the application of a framework, such as the capability approach, takes into consideration additional elements that require the explicit discussion of aggregating different dimensions in relation to gender. Secondly, it is the personal and socio-environmental factors that the capability approach takes into account, analyzed in the context of social, institutional, and environmental elements that lead to the conversion of commodities and other tangible and intangible resources into capabilities. Indeed, “each individual has a unique profile of conversion factors, some of which are body-related, others of which are shared with all people from her community, and still others of which are shared with people with the same social characteristics (e.g., same gender or class or race characteristics)” (Robeyns, 2016, np). Within this context, therefore, framework for social justice in education is proposed that is based on the premise that capabilities are fundamental entitlements. The framework has been developed on the basis of data presented in the Asian, African, and South American contexts discussed within this chapter: 1. Inclusive and relevant curricula, which foster creativity and curiosity and address the issues around social stratification, discrimination, and cultural diversity. 2. Foci on what children value, so that they can achieve their educational goals while having a positive experience at school. 3. Involvement of the local community, in school activities and learning projects, incorporating an understanding of family and cultural traditions and obligations of students. 4. Employment of qualified, experienced, and competent professionals (teacher training and in-service training), who understand the realities of young people’s lives and the needs of learners who have unique backgrounds and/or disabilities. 5. Appropriate and optimal material resourcing, including the provision of pedagogical materials and technological aids. 6. Support for all stakeholders to understand and navigate educational systems, and the establishment of particular processes to address limitations in terms of procedures, e.g., school enrolment, assessment of disability, and communication between professionals and parents. 7. Additional support after school hours to supplement young peoples’ education. 8. Application of a broad information base, needed to make judgments on equality and justice. 9. Basic infrastructure of the physical school environment, such as toilet facilities and accessibility.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

29

Concluding Thoughts This chapter has explored elements of social justice in the field of education in the context of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2014). Three case studies have been presented to contextualize the obstacles to social justice in education in the Asian, African, and South American contexts. As indicated, by the proposed framework that is the outcome of this investigation, it is possible for societies to become more equitable for all while acknowledging contextual diversity as an enrichment to schooling strategies and not as purely a commodification of winners and losers. The framework for social justice in education presented in this chapter lays the foundations for inclusive and sustainable approaches that inherently address the priorities of the Sustainable Development Goals and the United Nations 2030 Agenda (United Nations, 2014, 2016; UNDG 2017). The framework presented requires engagement and clear interpretation by key policy makers and representatives of marginalized groups who are charged with moving the education agenda forward in their respective countries, particularly the fragile and conflict-affected states (FCAS), as discussed earlier in this chapter. Initiatives are most likely to succeed in situations where the individuals for whom it is intended feel some ownership of its development (Walker, 2006; Rose, Garner, & Farrow, 2019).

References Barclay, L. (2003). What kind of liberal is Martha Nussbaum? Nordic Journal of Philosophy, 4(3), 5–24. Barreno, L. (2003). Educación superior indígena en América Latina. In UNESCO-IESALC (Eds.), La educación superior indígena en América Latina (pp. 11–54). Caracas, Venezuela: UNESCOIESALC; In: Nemogá-Soto, G. R. (2018). Indigenous and intercultural education in Latin America: Assimilation or transformation of colonial relations in Colombia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 39(1), 1–19. Bell, L. A., & Adams, M. (2016). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 21–44). New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, D. A. (2002). Development ethics: A research agenda. International Journal of Social Economics, 29(11), 830–848. Diaz Polanco, H. (1997). Indigenous peoples in Latin America: The quest for self-determination. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dreze, J., & Kingdon, G. G. (2001). School participation in rural India. Review of Development Economics, 5(1), 1–24. Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80. Global Partnership for Education (GPE). (2015). Education and the global goals. https://www. globalpartnership.org/multimedia/infographic/education-and-global-goals. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. Govinda, R., & Bandyopadhyay, M. (2008). Access to elementary education in India: Country analytical review. New Delhi, India: National University of Educational Planning and Administration.

30

S. Qureshi et al.

Haque, T. (2015). Regional and social disparities in education in India. In M. Mohanty, V. C. Khanna, & B. Dhar (Eds.), Building a just world: Essays in honour of Muchkund Dubey. Hyderabad, India: Orient Black Swan. Hillman, A. L., & Jenkner, E. (2004). Educating children in poor countries (No. 33). New York, NY: International Monetary Fund. IQM – Inclusion Quality Mark. (2018). Every child matters inclusion quality mark (IQM)- treating pupils fairly: Steps for inclusion. https://iqmaward.com/about-us/. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. Jayaraman, R., & Simroth, D. (2011). The impact of school lunches on primary school enrolment: Evidence from India’s midday meal scheme ESMT working paper. Berlin, Germany: European School of Management & Technology. Kremer, M., Muralidharan, K., Chaudhury, N., Rogers, F., & Hammer, J. (2005). Teacher absence in India: A snapshot. Journal of the European Economic Association, 3(2/3), 658–667. Lloyd, L. (1999). Multi-age classes and high ability students. Review of Educational Research, 69(2), 187–212. Malkani, R., & Rose, R. (2018). Learning from the voices of first generation learners in a remote community of Maharashtra, India. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 14(2), 104–127. Mander, H. (2015). Looking away: Inequality, prejudice and indifference in new India. New Delhi, India: Speaking Tiger. McLoughlin, C., & Oliver, R. (2000). Designing learning environments for cultural inclusivity: A case study of indigenous online learning at tertiary level. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 16(1), 58–72. Milesi, O. (2014). Right to education still elusive for native people in Latin America. August 4, 2016. http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/08/right-to-education-still-elusive-for-native-people-in-latinamerica/. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. Ministry of Education, Science & Technology, Sierra Leone. (2007). Education sector plan: A road map to a better future. Freetown, Sierra Leone: MEST. Morrow, V., & Singh, R. (2014). Corporal punishment in schools in Andhra Pradesh, India: Children’s & parents’ views. Oxford, UK: Young Lives. Muralidharan, K., Das, J., Holla, A., & Mohpal, A. (2017). The fiscal costs of weak governance: Evidence from teacher absence in India. Journal of Public Economics, 145(1), 116–135. Murphy, M. (2014). Self-determination as a collective capability: The case of indigenous peoples. Journal of Human Development & Capabilities, 15(4), 320–334. Nemogá-Soto, G. R. (2018). Indigenous and Intercultural Education in Latin America: assimilation or transformation of colonial relations in Colombia. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 39(1), 1–19. Nishimuko, M. (2007). Problems behind education for all (EFA): The case of Sierra Leone. Educate, 7(2), 19–29. Nonoyama-tarumi, Y., Loaiza, E., & Engle, P. (2010). Late entry into primary school in developing societies: Findings from cross-national household surveys. International Review of Education, 56(1), 103–125. Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers for justice: Disability, nationality, species membership (The Tanner lectures on human values). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (1998). Cultivating humanity. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). (2016). Education cannot wait: Proposing a fund for education in emergencies. London, England: ODI. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/ resource-documents/10497.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. Overseas Development Institute (ODI). (2018). SDG progress fragility, crisis and leaving no one behind. London, England: ODI. https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/resource-documents/ 12424.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2019. Pham, T. (2018). The Capability Approach and Evaluation of Community-Driven Development Programs. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 19(2), 166–180. Reeves, T. C., & Reeves, P. M. (1997). Effective dimensions of interactive learning on the World Wide Web. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 59–66). New Jersey, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.

1

Achieving Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education for All

31

Robeyns, I. (2003a). Is Nancy Fraser’s critique of theories of distributive justice justified? Constellations, 10(4), 538–553. Robeyns, I. (2003b). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 61–92. Robeyns, I. (2016). “The Capability Approach”, The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/. Accessed 3 February 2019. Rose, R., Garner, P., & Farrow, B. (2019). Developing inclusive education policy in Sierra Leone: A research informed approach. In S. Halder & V. Argyropoulos (Eds.), Inclusive practices, equity and access for individuals with disabilities: Insights from educators across world. London, England: Palgrave. Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 17–33. Sen, A. (1999). Freedom as development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80. Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166. Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Terzi, L. (2005). A capability perspective on impairment, disability and special needs: Towards social justice in education. School Field, 3(2), 197–223. Terzi, L. (2008). Justice and equality: A capability perspective on disability and special educational needs. London, England: Continuum. Terzi, L. (2010). What metric of justice for disabled people? In H. Brighouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities (pp. 150–173). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. The World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018. Washington, D.C.: World Bank Group. UNDG (United Nations Development Group). (2017). Switching gears for 2030: Results of UN development coordination. http://undg.org/unsdg-results-report-2017/. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. UNESCO. (1990). World declaration on education for all. http://www.unesco.org/education/efa/ ed_for_all/background/jomtien_declaration.shtml. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. UNESCO. (2012). EFA global monitoring report. Education for all 2012: Youth and skill: Putting education to work. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2014). EFA global monitoring report. Education for all 2014: Teaching and learning: Achieving Quality for all. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015a). EFA global monitoring report. Education for all 2000–2015: Achievements and challenges. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2015b). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation of sustainable development goal 4. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2016). EFA Global Monitoring Report. Education For All 2016: Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All. Paris: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2017a). The sustainable development goals report 2017. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2017b). Background paper prepared for the 2017/8 global education monitoring report accountability in education: Meeting our commitments. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNESCO. (2017c). Indigenous knowledge and practices in education in Latin America: Exploratory analysis of how indigenous cultural worldviews and concepts influence regional educational policy. OREALC/UNESCO Santiago, Chile. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/ 002477/247754E.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. UNESCO. (2018). EFA global monitoring report. Education for all 2018. Paris, France: UNESCO. UNICEF. (2016a). The state of the World’s children 2016: A fair chance for every child. New York, NY: UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/publications/files/UNICEF_SOWC_2016.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019.

32

S. Qureshi et al.

UNICEF. (2016b) Education: The case for support. New York, NY: UNICEF. www.unicef.org/ publicpartnerships/files/EducationTheCaseForSupport.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations. (2000). United Nations Millennium Declaration Resolution 55/2 (18th September). New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly. United Nations (2005). The United Nationals, Economic and Social Council (UNECE) Strategy for Education for Sustainable development. http://www.unece.org/env/esd/welcome.htm United Nations. (2010). High-level plenary meeting on the millennium development goals. http:// www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/HLPM%202010_CRP_Side%20events.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations. (2012a). United nations conference on sustainable development, Rio+20. https:// sustainabledevelopment.un.org/rio20. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations. (2012b). UN system task team on the Post-2015 UN development agenda: Education and skills for inclusive and sustainable development beyond 2015. http://www.un. org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/4_education.pdf. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations. (2014). The road to dignity by 2030: Ending poverty, transforming all lives and protecting the planet. New York, NY: United Nations General Assembly. United Nations. (2015). We can end poverty: Millennium development goals and beyond 2015. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/beyond2015. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations. (2016). SDG-education 2030 steering committee. https://sustainabledevelopment. un.org/index.php?page=view&type=30022&nr=100&menu=3170. Accessed 3 Feb 2019. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). (2005). UNECE strategy for education for sustainable development. In: Report of the high-level meeting of environment and education ministries, Vilnius, Lithuania (pp. 17–18). New York, NY: UNECE. Unterhalter, E. (2005). Global inequality, capabilities, social justice: The millennium development goal for gender equality in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(2), 111–122. Unterhalter, E., & Brighouse, H. (2007). Distribution of what for social justice in education? The case of education for all by 2015. In A. Sen (Ed.), Capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 67–86). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Walker, M. (2006). Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-making. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 163–185. Wang, J., & Zhao, Z. (2011). Basic education curriculum reform in rural China: Achievements, problems, and solutions. Chinese Education and Society, 44(6), 36–46.

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through Activist Languages Education Terry Lamb, Aniko Hatoss, and Shirley O’Neill

Contents Introduction: Mobility and Superdiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenge 1: From Exclusion to Inclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Challenge 2: Enhancing Successful Integration Through Languages Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy Responses 1: Multicultural and Multilingual Education Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy Responses 2: Community Languages and Ethnic Schools – The Case of Australia . . . . Policy Responses 3: Anti-racist Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy Responses 4: Citizenship and the Monolingual Mind-Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policy Responses 5: New Spaces of Multilingualism in Education and Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 1: A Paradigm Shift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 2: Bottom-Up Language Planning Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 3: Education for Global Citizenship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 4: Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 5: Service Learning and Activist Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Strategy 6: Toward an Activist Languages Education Pedagogy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34 38 40 42 46 47 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 59 62 63

Abstract

In a current world of rapid change and immense global mobility, communities are experiencing unprecedented increases in population diversity that have dramatically heightened the challenge of ensuring social justice for linguistic minorities, T. Lamb Westminster University, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] A. Hatoss University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia e-mail: [email protected] S. O’Neill (*) University of Southern Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia e-mail: Shirley.O'[email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_46

33

34

T. Lamb et al.

including migrants, refugees, and people on the move, with implications for society as a whole. This chapter explores the rhetoric of related policies and practices and the ways in which they respond to the needs of superdiverse communities. The cases of the UK, Europe, and Australia, which all claim their multicultural status and multiculturalism as an important community resource, are discussed. Through an exploration of current research, the effectiveness of languages education policy and planning (LPP) is critiqued to provide a new paradigm that has the capacity to bring attention to and eliminate social injustice in linguistically diverse communities. The chapter argues for the nurturing of new spaces of language use that challenge the monolingual habitus and which can engage the collective autonomy of communities themselves. It conceptualizes how activist languages education can build community capacity and achieve socially just outcomes, thus simultaneously providing a better space for multilingualism and a foundation for peace. Keywords

Activist languages education · Languages education policy and planning · Multiculturalism · Multilingualism · Social justice · Superdiversity

Introduction: Mobility and Superdiversity This chapter’s argument presents a call to action to address social injustices present in superdiverse contexts. It critiques the rhetoric of related policies, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices highlighting the need for an urgent paradigmatic shift to reform education and to achieve more socially just outcomes. It challenges the success of multiculturalism as claimed by the official policies of countries such as the UK, other European countries, and Australia, drawing attention to the need for change to ensure social inclusion. The discussion is set in the context of some of the grand challenges that current western societies are facing partly in relation to the increased levels of linguistic diversity connected to the mobility of linguistically and ethnically diverse populations. This inward mobility encompasses all types of migration, such as economic migrants, sojourners, refugees, and asylum seekers, acknowledging that the latter two are grappling with multiple forms of disadvantage. Sydney and London are two global cities experiencing an unprecedented growth of linguistic diversity. This diversity is shaped by global migration flows, a phenomenon which is long-standing but nevertheless attracting much policy attention of late owing to the increased levels of forced migration particularly from the conflict zones of the Middle East and parts of Africa (Faiola, 2015; King’s College London, 2015). While migration is not new, the volume and nature of peoples’ movements have changed dramatically in the era of globalization. Europe is currently experiencing its largest volume of inward migration (Batsaikhan, Darvas, & Raposo, 2018; United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2017). According to the United Nations Refugee Agency UNHCR, there are currently 68.5 million people

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

35

displaced worldwide, and over 44,400 people are forced to leave their homes every day because of conflict or persecution (UNHCR, 14 August, 2018). While 85% of the world’s displaced people are resettled in so-called underdeveloped or developing countries (UNHCR, 14 August, 2018: http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance. html), significant and increasing numbers of refugees and asylum seekers are seeking resettlement in Western countries, with the USA, Canada, EU states, and Australia at the forefront (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2018). For Bauman (2011), modern migration consists of three phases. Following the first phase, which consisted of colonial migration from Europe, the present context appears to be straddling the second phase (migration to the West of previously colonized populations) and the third phase (the “age of diasporas”) (p. 35). Bauman describes this third phase as “an infinite archipelago of ethnic, religious and linguistic settlements, heedless of the pathways marked out and paved by the imperial/ colonial episode and steered instead by the logic of the global redistribution of living resources and the chances of survival peculiar to the current stage of globalisation” (p. 35). Such migratory flows have led to highly complex and dynamic social, demographic, and lingua-cultural changes, particularly in cities. Based on his research in London, Vertovec (2007) coined the term “superdiversity” as a way of describing the “diversification of diversity” (Rampton, Blommaert, Arnaut, & Spotti, 2015) that characterizes such urban spaces. Though critiqued by Rampton et al. (2015) as a largely descriptive construct, the focus of superdiversity is not just on diversification of ethnic groups but also within ethnic groups as well as the general population (involving, e.g., variation on the basis of generation, gender, class, age, language variety). This lends itself to a much-needed, more complex, analysis of a city than existing theorization, which has tended to be concerned with the extent to which “minorities” integrate into a “majority” group, would allow (Crul, 2016). It also acknowledges that many of the so-called migrants have not migrated at all but are from families who migrated generations ago. Wessendorf (2015, p. 6) cites Vertovec (2012) to help clarify terminology and define superdiversity: While the notion of super-diversity has been picked up across various academic disciplines to describe these processes of differentiation and their consequences in urban settings across the world, the term “diversity” has also seen an unprecedented proliferation in public and corporate language and discourse (Vertovec, 2012). I here refer to “diversity” in regard to “multiple modes of social differentiation and fragmentation” which are “re-ordering society,” economically, socially and culturally. (Vertovec, 2012, p. 308)

Superdiversity brings not only a multiplicity of languages and language varieties to live side by side in a city, but they can also be found entangled in complex linguistic repertoires, usages, and relationships; Lamb (2015, p. 3) describes them as: “palimpsestic relationships between [. . .] diversely plurilingual people, [which] move the field on to new ways of defining language use in what might be called post-multilingual cities.” Explorations of such contexts have led to the development of new constructs such as polylanguaging (Jørgensen, Karrebæk, Madsen, & Møller, 2011) and metrolingualism (Pennycook & Otsuji, 2015), building on more localized

36

T. Lamb et al.

studies of translanguaging practices, described by Garcia (2009, p. 45) as “multiple discursive practices in which bilinguals engage in order to make sense of their bilingual worlds.” These contexts are further explored by various researchers, including Blackledge et al. (2018) and Li Wei (2011). In particular, Blackledge et al. (2018, p. 3) advocate examining issues of social injustice in relation to superdiversity through a sociolinguistic lens. Furthermore, they point out that: Superdiversity departs from diversity as a descriptive, theoretical, methodological and practical term (Meissner & Vertovec, 2015). In doing so, it seeks to critique the ideological and structural apparatus of neoliberalism, to address inequality in all its forms, to situate its analysis historically, to be adaptable to different global contexts and temporal scales, and to have practical application to improve people’s lives. (p. 3)

In addition, taking an interdisciplinary perspective, they use London’s 2017 Grenfell Tower fire tragedy to illustrate how “the marks of inequality [to which the residents were exposed] were starkly evident” (p. 1). They describe the deep contrast between the living standards of the very wealthy district surrounding Grenfell Tower, where the fire took place, and the fact that the high-rise apartments in question were themselves situated in the “top 10 per cent most deprived areas in the country” (p. 1). Indeed, the building construction and safety features were found to be substandard since highly flammable cladding was used and water sprinkler systems were absent, and, when combined with only one exit door and safety advice that did not account for these issues, many lives were lost. Moreover, they discuss how the term “diversity” itself was used ideologically, in the ensuing discourse by media and government, to describe and differentiate the people and the area. While there was evidence in the discourse of diversity of it being construed as a “unifying power” in the way the community responded to the tragedy, at the same time, it revealed how the term seemed to have been reserved for the “diverse poor” (p. 1) and not the equally diverse communities such as the very wealthy neighbors of the Grenfell Tower occupants. Blackledge et al. (2018) emphasize that: The context in which the concept of superdiversity has thus far had most salience in academic and policy contexts is in Western European nation states (Hall, 2017). In 2015, 76 million international migrants were residing in Europe, the highest number of any global region (UNHCR, 2016). In that year, more than 2 million asylum applications were lodged in 38 European countries. (UNHCR, 2016, p. 4)

As with Western Europe, there has been a rise in the number of migrants in Australia. In 2017–2018, Australia accepted 162,417 migrants, and the Australian Humanitarian Program provided 16,250 permanent resettlement places for refugees with Australia being one of the world’s top permanent resettlement countries; in fact as few as 30 countries offer planned annual programs (Australian Government, 2018, p. 16). Similarly, in the UK there is a constant flow of applications, including settlement and resettlement, and in 2016, the number of applications for asylum was approximately 39,000 and counted toward a total of 600,000

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

37

immigrants who sought entry to study or work (Full Fact, 2017). These immigrants in total bring many different languages and cultures. For instance, although people migrate from many countries, the Australian Department of Home Affairs (2017) government report states that the top 10 countries providing the most permanent migrants to Australia in order of rank for 2014–2015 were India, People’s Republic of China, the UK, the Philippines, Pakistan, Ireland, Vietnam, South Africa, Nepal, Malaysia, with Indonesia being a regional source and with the top three countries for humanitarian entrants being Syria, Iraq, and Myanmar. In the UK Rienzo and Vargas-Silva (2018) specify: “there were 5.3 million foreign born people in 2004 which increased to 9.4 million in 2017. During the same period the number of foreign citizens increased from nearly 3 million to about 6.2 million” (para. 3). They note that the top ten countries by nationality were Poland, Romania, Ireland, India, Italy, Portugal, Lithuania, Pakistan, Spain, and France. However, like Australia, there are significant other languages and cultures represented, and they report an increase in those from the European Union: e.g., in 2017, 39% of the foreign-born population were EU born. The city of Birmingham in the UK Midlands is identified as superdiverse as reported by UK News (2018), citing the City Council’s (2018) Community Cohesion Strategy Green Paper. This paper notes that nearly 50,000 people in the city cannot speak English and that residents are from nearly 200 countries. Similarly, in Australia, 20.8% of the population speaks a language other than English at home, with Sydney at 35.8% being the most multilingual city. Against this backdrop of social change, the next sections will discuss some of the key challenges of linguistic diversity and the opportunities for intervention through policy and education reform. In acknowledging such increasingly superdiverse contexts, it is crucial to monitor from the policy perspective the linguistic fabric of world cities and explore how speakers negotiate their linguistic space. This will include not only the ever-shifting relationships between the various overlapping language groups and the late modern manifestations of “reflexive language and artful performance” (Rampton, 2006, p. 22) as referred to by Lamb (2015) above but also, from a more critical and structural perspective, attempts to “understand how creative activity is both enabled and constrained by the conditions in which it takes place” (Calhoun, Sennett, & Shapira, 2013). In other words, it is essential not only to benefit from the rich, ethnographic insights afforded by the increasingly hybrid “communicative practices and social formations that result from the increasing mobility of people, languages, and texts” but also “to address the asymmetrical power relations and penetrations engendered by such flows” (Jacquemet, 2005, p. 261). These migration flows provoke a number of changes throughout society in order to accommodate the new circumstances. A key and ongoing issue is social exclusion and inclusion, in which languages and communication play a key part. While minority groups include Indigenous groups as well as communities with a migration background that date back several generations, the focus here is on urban diversity through migration including forced and economic migration trends, although the issues and practices discussed remain relevant to the wider multicultural communities (Moore, 2016).

38

T. Lamb et al.

Challenge 1: From Exclusion to Inclusion Explorations of the ways in which societies can and do accommodate this increasing superdiversity, and how these ways have been and continue to be reflected in language and education policies, require a critical approach to the knowledge building processes involved. Attention needs to be paid particularly to the concepts of integration and social justice as argued by Bindé (2005) and Piller (2016). One challenge is to enhance social connectedness to combat exclusion. Taket et al. (2009) describe social exclusion as an “inability to participate effectively in economic, social, political and cultural life,” a “sense of social isolation,” and a process which “affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole” (Levitas et al., 2007, p. 9, cited in Taket et al., 2009, p. 8). These definitions raise important questions when considering the social models that arise in the context of superdiversity: To what extent is inequality attributable to linguistic factors? And how can we move from linguistic diversity as a problem toward linguistic diversity as a resource? Like other linguistic minority communities, new immigrants may experience feelings of exclusion and isolation having to conform to monolinguistic living and learning spaces that work for the established privileged, majority language speaking (English in Anglophone countries), and socially and politically empowered majority. This is exacerbated when there is no space for their home languages. Integration needs to be seen as a two-way process as the “local” environment can accommodate or hinder successful settlement. Horner and Weber’s analysis of EU sources and a range of texts (official policy documents, print media, and academic publications) from a number of European countries have revealed “the extent to which integration has become one of the cultural keywords (Williams [1976]1988) of our age of late modernity” (Horner & Weber, 2011, p. 44). Their study, however, highlights the various interpretations of this concept and argues that it can often be discriminatory, “constructed around an asymmetrical world-view in which only the ‘migrants’ or ‘foreigners’ are perceived as a problem – though, interestingly, foreign residents with high amounts of capital are not usually included in this category and are not seen as in need of integration” (p. 140). Indeed, it has been argued elsewhere, particularly in radical literature exploring education and diversity in the UK, that “integration” can mean nothing more than “assimilation” (Lamb, 1999). According to Mullard’s critique of assimilation with a focus on ethnicity: At the base of this model [. . .] rests the belief that the nation is a unitary whole, politically and culturally indivisible. Immigrant groups, black or white, should thus be absorbed into the indigenous homogeneous culture so that they can take an informed and equal part in the creation and maintenance of our society. (Mullard, 1982, p. 121)

In this model, the function of education is to ease the process of assimilation by teaching minority groups to be like the majority population, thereby enabling them to take an “equal part” in society. There is no place in the curriculum for the immigrants’ cultures, histories, or languages, as they are seen as problematic for

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

39

the development of a harmonious society. Mullard (1982, p. 121) continues his critique: While a certain respect should be encouraged for other cultures and social traditions, this should be only a secondary concern. In no way should it be encouraged to the point where it could possibly undermine the social and ideological bases of the dominant white culture, or threaten the stability of what was seen as the “host” society.

In parallel with the Australian experience, in the mid-1960s in the UK, the growing fear of ethnic unrest led to the emergence of the concept of integration in official discourse. However, from a historical perspective, this integrationist approach has been criticized for still involving a somewhat one-sided process, involving far more change on the part of the minority groups than on the part of the majority, whose role was simply to learn “tolerance” (Lamb, 1999). “Tolerance” indeed had a much more symbolic significance for the power-yielding majority than for the minorities, who needed to do far more than “tolerate” the majority’s values. Of course, this approach was more subtle than assimilationist approaches, as it did accept the fact that there are differences and, in, for example, educational terms, even involved some resourcing. However, the license to keep aspects of cultural diversity still only extended as far as it did not challenge majority values. Change was tokenistic, “an acceptance of that which is quaint in a minority culture but a worried rejection of those cultural aspects that seem not just alien but threateningly so” (Street-Porter, 1978, pp. 80–81). The aim was stability, not change, for the majority, and thus integrationist approaches, though no longer involving total subjugation of all minority cultural values, did subjugate selected ones and were based on the same philosophy as assimilation, namely, that the minority would slowly assimilate and lose most of their customs, history, and culture but this time more gently and therefore more harmoniously. In the Australian context, again, similarly to the UK, the policy of assimilation was replaced by “integration” in the 1960s, and like the UK policy, it was assimilation in disguise, as the main objective was to help immigrants become Australian and learn English as fast as possible (Bullivant, 1986; Lo Bianco, 2008). In schools this period saw the beginnings of multicultural education. At this early stage, however, changes to the curriculum were minimal. Cultural diversity was represented in schools by the appearance of steel bands, Indian dancing in assemblies, displays of “national costume,” “foreign” food, and the like, whereas central aspects of cultural identity, which Smolicz (1991) has referred to as “core values” and which included the languages of the minority groups, were excluded from schools, with schools instead focusing on the teaching of the language of instruction as a form of compensatory education. In many ways, this has persisted or at least returned, as will be explored later, and thus there is still a need for a new social model via a paradigm shift, where the current plight of superdiverse communities can be addressed in terms of how social justice can be achieved. The problem is clearly visible on the world stage, and the need to consider changes in how education is provided remains at the core of the problem.

40

T. Lamb et al.

Challenge 2: Enhancing Successful Integration Through Languages Education The concept of language having “an inherent double relationship” in acculturation processes (Silverstein, 1998, p. 402) is highly relevant to the social ecology of language development in linguistically superdiverse contexts, as language development is partly determined by, but also partly determines, the social processes surrounding the community. It serves as a reminder that, as Blommaert, Collins, and Slembrouck (2005) have emphasized, language use is not purely a choice made by the individual but is shaped by broader forces: “multilingualism is not what individuals have and don’t have, but what the environment, as structured determinations and interactional emergence, enables and disables” (p. 197). These authors have raised the pertinent question “How does space organize regimes of language?” and contend that “communication problems in such situations are the result of how individuals and their communicative ‘baggage’ are inserted into regimes of language [that are] valid in that particular space” (Blommaert et al., 2005, p. 198). Further to this they highlight that: people with highly developed multilingual skills can feel, and be, communicatively incapacitated when they are ‘out of place’. One can find oneself struggling with the most basic and mundane tasks in a foreign country because ‘they don’t speak your language’, ‘they don’t speak any language’, or, from a different perspective, because you lack the specific multilingual resources and skills required in that place. A change in spatial environment clearly affects our capacity to deploy linguistic resources and skills and imposes requirements on us which we may fail to meet – a quite common globalization experience which we accept as a sociolinguistic problem. (Blommaert et al., 2005, p. 198)

An additional educational challenge in refugee contexts is that displaced populations have been shown to have a high proportion of children and typically those children have had their education interrupted by war and have suffered from various barriers to education (Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Hatoss, 2013). According to the UNHCR 2016 Report on Global Trends, children below 18 years of age constituted about half of the refugee population in 2016, and more than 3.5 million refugee children of school age did not attend school (UNHCR, 2017, p. 8). Educating children from these backgrounds poses additional challenges as they often lack their first language literacy skills which makes developing literacy skills in any of their languages rather difficult. Indeed, many studies have shown how first language literacy can enhance second language literacy due to the transfer of academic language skills (Hamers, 2000). Furthermore, failure to embrace a multilingual approach can bring about negative consequences not only for the “minority” community itself, whether of long-standing residency or refugee background, but also the wider community (Lamb, 2015, p. 8). For the population as a whole, it would be neglectful not to benefit from the country’s multilingualism, which is reflected in the National Statement for Languages Education in Australian Schools (2005):

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

41

migration by people from across the globe has brought with it English and more than 150 additional languages. This is Australia’s linguistic and cultural landscape. It is a valuable base from which to develop the linguistic capabilities necessary for Australia to be successful in the international community of the twenty-first century. (Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs, 2005, p. 3)

More specifically for “minority” communities, however, the negative consequences of neglecting multilingualism arise principally in the form of disenfranchisement from the “majority” community. On the one hand, if “immigrants” have poor English language skills in an Anglophone country such as Australia, this can lead to long-term unemployment, issues of poor self-esteem, isolation, welfare dependency, and a feeling of exclusion from productive Australian society according to the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003). On the other hand, the loss of the home language in such communities can lead to the loss of ethnic identity and the breaking up of social network systems within the community. It can also deepen the generational gap between elders and youth (Hatoss, 2013). A major study conducted in the South Sudanese diaspora of Australia found that African tribal languages played a significant role as languages of communication in most language domains. These languages represented a significant social capital in the community (Hatoss, 2012a). Young people considered it important to develop their home languages for the future prospect of returning to South Sudan but also for assisting fellow South Sudanese who were not proficient in English. While English was a “passport” to educational and job opportunities, home languages provided important access to the social networks of South Sudanese communities. South Sudanese who arrived in Australia as vulnerable refugees were able to utilize their agency to organize language maintenance classes for the benefit of maintaining their language across generations (Hatoss, 2013, 2019a). The important agentive role language plays in migration contexts has also been emphasized by numerous other studies. Silverstein (1998), for example, states: language is at once an aspect of people’s focused concern as agentive subjects, as well as perhaps the very most central semiotic medium or modality through which those cultural processes are, as it were, articulable and articulated. Language seems potentially to bear an inherently double relationship to the larger cultural processes of which it is both emblematic and enabling. (p. 402)

The use of minority languages can be symbolic and emblematic of ethnic and cultural identities, but they can also be instrumental and enabling as they are keys to accessing people and services. Once we recognize these important functions of language, we can see why top-down policies fall short of social justice if they put their focus on the English (or other official language) monolingual ideology and ignore lesser used languages which fall outside their radar for economic or political gain. While there have been policy efforts to recognize language as an essential tool for social connectedness and social justice, as the examples in this chapter will demonstrate, top-down policies have put too much focus on English (although this

42

T. Lamb et al.

would be expected in Australia and the UK) and some other economically beneficial languages, while smaller languages have been largely neglected. We argue that this attitude is insufficient, multilingualism needs to be seen as a benefit for all, and communities need to be given more opportunities to practice their agency and manage their language resources to the best effect. Thus, it is important to consider the implications of policy regarding these challenges.

Policy Responses 1: Multicultural and Multilingual Education Policy The road from integration approaches to languages and education for social justice is represented by a recognition that the central values of minority groups are not going to go away and that cultural pluralism is the new reality. As such, it has been considered important that the majority population should be educated for such cultural diversity in a more thorough way, and from the 1970s to the 1990s, many countries, including Australia and the UK, adopted multicultural policies, which recognized the rights and identities of minority groups (Castles, 2014, p. 198). For example, in the 1970s UK schools experienced increasing changes to the curriculum as a whole. The content of the various subjects on the curriculum was reviewed to include a multicultural dimension, which would have the added effect of improving the “low self-esteem” from which minority children were assumed to be suffering, by including recognition of the contribution of cultures from across the globe to scientific development. In the Australian context, from 1972 onward, which marked the shift from a European migrant focus and White Australia policy to a nondiscriminatory immigration policy, the Australian Citizenship Act (coupled with the influx of refugees from the Vietnam war) opened immigration particularly to the Asia-Pacific (Inglis, 2004) and, as Czaika and de Haas (2014, p. 32) note, “increasingly non-European.” Multiculturalism was introduced as an overt national policy, and policies have since recognized the needs of immigrants, particularly the “new,” arriving from diverse linguistic backgrounds. Australia’s multicultural policy (Australian Multicultural Advisory Council, 2013, p. 6) “celebrates and values the benefits of cultural diversity for all Australians”; “is committed to a just, inclusive and socially cohesive society”; “welcomes the economic benefits of multiculturalism”; and “promote(s) understanding and acceptance while responding to expressions of intolerance and discrimination with the force of the law.” This policy explicitly supports equity and equal access to services responding to the needs of Australia’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities. It also aligns with the Government’s Social Inclusion Agenda where Australians of all backgrounds feel valued and can participate in our society (p. 6). Although the UK, Australia, and Europe have well-established claims to successful multiculturalism (Council of Europe, 2017; Office of Multicultural Affairs, 1995), it is also clear that problems related to social justice are present (Castles, 1992) and have become even more challenging in the context of new social

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

43

complexities associated with superdiversity. In the European context, this is illuminated in the Language Rich Europe report (British Council, 2013) where issues raised both nationally and regionally range from “the need for a campaign to convince policy makers of the importance of languages” through “low take up of language learning in Anglophone countries” to varied “developments such as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL)” (p. 3). Moreover, ten recommendations are reported, related to policy, education, media and press, public services, and public spaces. Besides a disconnect being identified between home/ community learning and that of school, the issue of languages education was central to concerns, including both students’ learning of languages other than English and the need for teachers of a wide range of languages to have access to professional development. The importance of language is reinforced in Recommendation 7 (p. 5): . . . the offer of languages other than the national language(s) should be adapted so that all students, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to learn the languages of their community, from pre-primary to university education. Where in-school support is not possible for less commonly spoken languages, education authorities should provide financial support for language learning outside of school and find ways to recognise the value of all these languages in the daily life of the school. Language skills should be developed for more inclusive societies and teaching should reflect the diversity of the student population.

In the Australian context, the National Curriculum has made provisions for languages, but languages education cannot keep up with the demands of over 300 languages spoken in Australian homes. While there has been a great deal of attention on economically important so-called trade languages, other languages simply do not make it to the curriculum, at least not in mainstream education. While linguistically speaking all languages are equal, when it comes to education, some languages are more equal than others. This also raises the highly controversial issue around Indigenous languages and their space (or lack of) in the Australian curriculum. Educational curricula have been designed to fit the English speaker, and little support is provided for those who do not fit this mold. In the UK context, in the 1980s, there were changes to languages education for minority children, with some recognition that a child’s first language was a resource rather than a liability and therefore should be used within schools either as a transitional medium of instruction or as a curricular subject. Building on developments in multicultural education, this approach was a major development in education policy, as for the first time it was also recognized that multicultural education was not simply to be targeted at minorities, whose deficit needed to be addressed, but that all children (including those in all white areas) needed to be prepared for life in diverse societies by experiencing changes in the curriculum. Reporting on changes in his languages department in London during the 1980s, Lamb (2011) has described how language awareness lessons were developed for all children to raise their awareness of the linguistic diversity in the school (where over 40 languages were spoken), drawing on the learners’ language expertise as a learning resource:

44

T. Lamb et al. Monolingual English speakers found themselves with a linguistic deficit compared with the bilingual pupils, and consequently sought to find family connections with speakers of other languages – for example, “My uncle has a girlfriend who speaks Greek” – in order to be able to “compete”. When offered the chance to choose their National Curriculum language on the basis of a series of (French, German, Greek, Turkish, and Urdu) language tasters, a significant number chose the language of their friends, since it connected more closely with their own lives than the European languages usually offered. Bilingual and plurilingual pupils moved from a position of denial with regards to their bilingualism or plurilingualism, to one in which they were ready to support their fellow pupils’ learning of these languages. Their cries of “that’s my language” contrasted remarkably with previous experiences in which they had not raised their hands to say that they were bilingual in response to teachers’ questions. (Lamb, 2011, pp. 86–87)

Similarly, in the Australian context, policies started to recognize the benefit of languages for all. In 1987 Australia’s first national policy of languages education identified “equality, including social justice and overcoming disadvantage” as one of the key motivations for learning languages in Australia. In the context of immigrant groups, in addition to developing competence in English, the policy emphasized the need of immigrant populations to have access to services in languages other than English. The policy, however, was not just focused on new arrivals but also called for languages education more broadly for the benefit of all Australians. Nevertheless, despite the fact that Australian languages education policy has encompassed languages and literacy needs in general, as well as having a strong focus on English as a second language and provisions for English language learning for all refugee immigrants, the impetus for teaching languages other than English in Australia, including Indigenous languages (Freeman & Stayley, 2018), appears lacking in terms of policy and curriculum implementation and teacher training, despite the strong advocacy on the part of those in the field (Liddicoat, 2014; Scarino, 2014). Reasons include the increased freedom for schools to decide whether to offer languages, contrary to the recommendations of federal government policy (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2018) and despite the research arguments for, for example, starting languages in preschool (Moloney, 2018). Significantly, there remains a lack of perceived need to learn other languages given the universality of English and the monolinguistic society in general (Piller, 2016; Yildiz, 2012), as well as an absence of a focused, cohesive approach and adequate resourcing. This has been evident in the Australian context over the last 30 years, though it is important to acknowledge that some important policy steps have attempted to address the issues faced by minority language speakers. These policies have largely focused on the provision of services for community languages or the teaching of English for better adjustment and integration into mainstream society. For instance, the Australian Language and Literacy Policy recognized community languages and argued for the benefits of keeping them based on four broad strategies: (1) the conservation of Australia’s linguistic resources; (2) the development and expansion of these resources; (3) the integration of Australian language teaching and language use with national economic, social, and cultural policies; and (4) the provision of

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

45

information and services in languages understood by clients. Language development of the individual (referring generically to the speaker’s first language) was seen as interrelated with intellectual, emotional, and social development. In addition to its primary communicative functions, language also was seen as serving a wide range of cultural, artistic, intellectual, personal, group identification, religious, economic, and social-political functions. In addition, the Commonwealth English as a Second Language (ESL) Program for schools (Department of Education Employment and Training, 1991) was introduced in its current form in 1982. The “General Support” element replaced a former “Child Migrant Education Program,” which had been established in 1970 under the Immigration (Education) Act. The “New Arrivals” element, introduced in 1982, represented a broadening of the former “Commonwealth Contingency Program for Refugee Children.” The ESL program’s overall objective was to improve the educational opportunity and outcomes, and participation in Australian society, of children from “non-English-speaking backgrounds” (NESB). To this end it aimed to develop students’ English language competence and facilitate students’ participation in mainstream school education. The “General Support” element assisted government and nongovernment education authorities to provide English language assistance to students permanently resident in Australia (including NESB children born in Australia and students whose first language is an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander language or Creole) in the course of their general schooling. The “New Arrivals” element assisted government and nongovernment education authorities to provide intensive ESL programs specifically organized for students newly arrived in Australia who had little or no English language skills and who were permanent residents of Australia. As part of immigration policy, English language tuition has continued to be provided for new ESL arrivals through the Australian Migrant Education Program (AMEP). The first Commonwealth Government-assisted program began at Bonegilla in 1948. Then in 1951 the States’ co-operation in AMEP programs was formalized by an agreement between the Commonwealth and the State governments. Today, immigrants are entitled to receive a minimum of 510 h of free English lessons, which includes various options for learning, including full-time, part-time, or home tutoring. However, refugee background learners are eligible for extra hours. Owing to pressure by advocacy groups and following the recommendations of the Refugee Council of Australia, the AMEP program has been reviewed and issues of accessibility such as for migrants living in regional and rural areas have been raised. For example, refugees were initially required to use up their English tuition hours in the first 12 months of their settlement, but this period was extended as many of them suffered from ongoing trauma, were grappling with financial pressures, and were involved in prioritized low-paid casual labor at the expense of learning the English language. Despite changes over the past 30 years, however, the constructs of multicultural and multilingual education described in this section could still largely be considered as based on the liberal notion of equal opportunities, where the focus is intended to

46

T. Lamb et al.

ease the transition to a multicultural society (though the additional focus on the core value of language diversity took this a step further). Recognizing that this may not be sufficient to address the structural racism and social injustice that was seen by some to underpin every aspect of education and society in general, more radical educationalists and politicians in the UK developed forms of anti-racist education in the 1980s, particularly in large cities such as London (ILEA, 1983), as will be explored later. In the Australian context, as we have seen, the focus in the past has mostly been on assisting immigrants to learn English (seeing linguistic diversity as a problem), and only when the Productive Diversity for Multicultural Australia (Department of Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, 1999) was released did the values of languages gain recognition as an important asset to the whole society, and thus languages education gained some momentum.

Policy Responses 2: Community Languages and Ethnic Schools – The Case of Australia In the Australian context, another policy initiative to address linguistic diversity was the introduction of community language schools or ethnic schools that teach immigrant languages on Saturdays. These schools depend on government funding and grants. Community Languages Australia (CLA) is an umbrella body of the ethnic schools/community languages schools of Australia, which oversees over 1000 community language schools that provide language maintenance in 69 languages to in excess of 100,000 school-age children (Community Languages Australia, 2017). While these ethnic schools fulfil an important role, however, they cannot fully cater for the diversity present in Australian society. Communities need to have a critical mass in order to successfully run and maintain their programs; over 200 languages spoken in Australian communities do not have ethnic schools as they do not have this critical mass in 1 locality. Another avenue of learning and maintaining the home languages is through the mainstream education program, which offers languages education during school hours. Languages other than English is one of the eight key learning areas in the National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century, which continues to guide curriculum policy and programs operating in Australian schools. Languages education in schools is primarily the responsibility of state and territory education authorities although it is included in the national curriculum. According to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (2003) Review of Languages Education in Australian Schools, approximately 50% of students were learning a language in mainstream schools. There were 146 languages being taught in mainstream and nonmainstream school settings. Of these, 103 languages (including 68 Australian Indigenous languages) were taught in government, Catholic, and independent schools in addition to 69 of them taught in after-hours ethnic/community languages schooling. Nevertheless, by the time students reach year 12 (age 16 to 17 years), there are very few who have continued learning a language other than English. Another issue is the equitability of

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

47

the provision of languages. The top six languages (Japanese, Italian, Indonesian, French, German, and Chinese) have accounted for 90% of all language learners. As referred to above, there are many additional small languages that do not have institutional support, and smaller communities are left without support to maintain their heritage language, leaving intergenerational language transmission largely confined to the home domain (Renzaho, Dhingra, & Georgeou, 2017). The complexity of the linguistic landscape of Australia’s community languages demands a solution that brings languages into the core of the curriculum, as opposed to being treated as an add-on. As noted earlier, it is difficult to ensure that the expected outcomes of top-down policy and planning initiatives can be equitable with over 300 immigrant languages needing support, not to mention the numbers of Indigenous languages. The main issue with this policy initiative, however, is that it treats languages as on the periphery (Hatoss, 2018), and, as we have argued, contrary to what is espoused in national top-down language education initiatives, language learning often remains optional and the uptake of languages varies across States.

Policy Responses 3: Anti-racist Education Australia’s multicultural policy explicitly opposes racism and any form of discrimination, stating that “racism and discrimination affects people’s health and wellbeing” (Department of Immigration and Citizenship, 2011). The policy also recognizes the importance of and the “rights” of people to maintain their ethnic identity, culture, and languages. This is made explicit in the statement: “[t]hese rights and liberties include Australians of all backgrounds being entitled to celebrate, practice and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within the law and free from discrimination.” However, contrary to this policy rhetoric, issues have continued to arise to do with racism, freedom of speech, inclusion, settlement policy, refugee status, and border protection, reflecting the global tensions and trends of unrest of those populations who are driven to seek a better life (Wright & Clibborn, 2017). Young people with a refugee background have been shown to experience everyday racism and “othering” in Australian contexts (Hatoss, 2012b). In the UK context, the introduction of anti-racist education in the 1980s represented a major paradigm shift in response to diversity and can be seen as a step closer to social justice in education. Many of its protagonists were concerned that, although multicultural approaches were a step forward and indeed needed to be maintained, they nevertheless ignored the historical, sociological, and political backgrounds to inequality and social injustice. As such, anti-racist education addressed issues of power (past and present) and power resistance. It recognized that racism ran throughout social institutions, causing economic inequality; discrimination in access to housing, education, and employment; and poor relations with authorities such as the police. It was seen to be insufficient (though essential) to try to change attitudes, since inequality not only stemmed from individual prejudices but was also built into social structures, though it was considered important to develop individuals’ awareness and criticality of institutional racism in order to prepare them

48

T. Lamb et al.

to combat it. Education, however, also needed to be subjected to structural changes, including the adoption of whole-school policies on anti-racism, ensuring consultation with and participation of local communities in education; the development of anti-racist curricula and pedagogies (to include the development of critical thinking and critique of the colonialist background of society), as well as anti-racist education as part of teacher education; and the development of strategies to diversify the teaching body at all levels of seniority. From the late 1980s onward, however, anti-racist education in the UK was attacked from all political directions. Obviously, right-wing critics were concerned with its threat to British values and traditions, and this influenced the development of the National Curriculum in 1987. Indeed, it was a factor in the abolition of the leftwing Greater London Council and the Inner London Education Authority (1983) at the end of the 1980s by the Thatcherite government. Left-wing critics on the other hand have accused it of oversimplifying the issues, arguing that a focus on racism ignores issues of class, the diversity of ethnic groups, and multiple, shifting constructions of identity. This is all the more pertinent in the context of the diverse diversities of superdiversity, which requires a more complex analysis of and response to social and educational issues. In a recent article, Crul (2016) has argued that the relatively descriptive concept of superdiversity itself may still be more appropriate than previous grand theories (he focuses particularly on different forms of assimilation rather than on anti-racism) to gain an understanding of current social models. Nevertheless, he calls for more nuanced approaches to analyzing the ways in which the diversification of ethnic groups is shifting to a diversification within ethnic groups, as well as for the need to move toward a multidimensional perspective. This anti-positivist approach to understanding complexity echoes an earlier position advocated by Chimni (1998) specifically in relation to the ways in which the position of refugees and asylum seekers has been interpreted by Western “host” countries. Offering a “view from the South,” he argues that legal responses to refugees and asylum seekers from developing countries have been influenced by a tendency to locate causes to simplistic political interpretations of the internal situations of the countries from which they were fleeing. In response to this, he draws on McGrew (1997, p. 232) and “squarely rejects the internalist explanation, for this is overly deferential to the boundaries of nation-states, refusing to come to terms with the idea that external social forces often crucially shape internal policies of states” (Chimni, 1998, p. 362). Instead he advocates a “‘new new approach’ [that] will embrace a conception of legal scholarship which has the potential of articulating a comprehensive and humane response to the contemporary refugee problem through dialogue” (p. 369). Crul’s response to the need for a more comprehensive approach to understanding the needs of superdiverse communities is to argue similarly for greater complexity and comprehensiveness in analysis. However, he does this by borrowing from intersectionality, according to which “divisions like gender, class, generation, age cohorts and ethnicity are considered to be interconnected (Crenshaw, 1989), thus promoting a holistic perspective in which different modes of differentiation are seen

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

49

as related without privileging any particular category of difference (Glick Schiller, Çaglar, & Guldbrandsen, 2006)” (Crul, 2016, p. 56). Be that as it may, however, it is impossible to ignore the major contribution made by the anti-racist movement to issues of social justice, recognizing as it did that the problem of social inequality, and thus underachievement and disaffection in schools, is not located in individuals or individual groups but in the education system and in broad social structures that can enable, or disable, particular social, economic, and linguistic practices.

Policy Responses 4: Citizenship and the Monolingual Mind-Set Rather than providing the much-needed support for immigrants in their endeavors to maintain their home languages (though there is more of this in Australia than in the UK), government policies have often focused on fixing the issue of inequality by assisting migrants to integrate into the monolingual English-speaking mainstream society, as has been seen above. This is echoed in Castles’ (2014, p. 198) broader argument that since the mid-1990s, there has been a “backlash against multiculturalism” that is largely founded on the social disadvantage of many minority communities, once again putting the blame on minorities themselves for insisting on maintaining their cultural identity and, as a result, failing to integrate. Castles suggests that this is closely connected to an increase in globalization and neoliberalism with their focus on individuals and markets resulting in greater inequality; in other words, the pressure from international markets has led to disparities in income while at the same time reducing the power of the state to address inequalities through taxation and social policy. From the turn of the millennium, civic unrest and the growth of Islamophobia have further led to an increased preoccupation with “civic integration, social cohesion and ‘national values’” in Europe. Even where multicultural policies still exist, Castles suggests, such as in Australia, Canada, and Europe, there is a parallel focus on citizenship and integration. Australia, like other countries, has recently introduced citizenship tests, which disadvantages long-standing residents for whom English continues to be a barrier. In the Australian context, tightening up citizenship laws was argued in relation to discourses of national security, but this is highly problematic as it can lead to a potential increase in xenophobia, which often goes hand in hand with linguicism. Across Europe, May (2014, p. 373) demonstrates how “multiculturalism as public policy is in apparent full retreat, as European states increasingly assert that minority groups integrate or accept dominant social, cultural linguistic and religious mores as the price of ongoing citizenship (Modood, 2007).” Such shifts are reflected in the persistence of a monolingual mind-set in many countries. Indeed, May (2014) also claims that such “public monolingualism” in an official or national language persists consistently across the world and that, even where there is more than one official language, there is nothing more than a “highly delimited form of public multilingualism,” meaning that “one language variety (at most two or three) still dominates in terms of its widespread use in the public

50

T. Lamb et al.

domain” (p. 372). He goes on to claim: “Those who (still) lack facility in a national language, most often recent migrants, are regularly chastised, and sometimes punished, by states for their ‘wilful’ failure to ‘integrate’” (May, 2014, p. 373). Australia has long been criticized for its monolingual mind-set which does not recognize the value of languages (Clyne, 2008; Hajek & Slaughter, 2014; Hatoss, 2019a, b; Ndhlovu, 2015; Scarino, 2014), and even today after 50 years of multicultural policy development, Australia has seen reports of negative attitudes toward the use of languages other than English in public domains (Hatoss, 2019b) reflective of a monolingual mind-set. In Australia, most Indigenous languages are endangered and have no space in mainstream education. Like in the USA, the long-standing bilingual education program was dismantled; from 2008 policy mandates that the first 4 years of school have to be exclusively in English. This mind-set, which affects the attitudes of individuals and groups as well as institutions and structures, can be seen in other countries, especially those which are predominantly Anglophone such as the UK, where the fear of multilingualism was reported in 2000 in a major review of the state of languages across the nation (The Nuffield Foundation, 2000). This review found that the UK “was neglecting the nation’s wealth” by neglecting its linguistic diversity, highlighting that “the multilingual talents of UK citizens are under-recognised, under-used and all too often viewed with suspicion” (p. 36). Indeed, echoing Horner and Weber (2011), this suspicion can be understood as a symptom of a “monolingual ideology,” which nurtures a problematization of multilingualism, as identified by Li Wei (2011): . . . public perception of minority ethnic children, especially those who speak languages other than English at home, is that of problems. Their multilinguality often seems to be a contributing factor; that is, the children’s apparent underachievement or the socioeconomic disadvantage they are experiencing has been attributed to the fact that they do not speak English only or all the time. (p. 371).

However, also in the European context, Baetens Beardsmore (2003) makes the connection between fear and problematization of bi- and plurilingualism and describes how this fear even exists among parents, a situation also reported by Souto-Manning (2006) in her research with bi- and plurilingual families in the USA, who also claims that professionals too share such assumptions. Quoting Hamers (2000, p. 86), she writes that “the stereotype of negative consequences still survives” and that “[p]arents and professionals in the area of education continue regarding bilingualism as a deficit in their philosophical beliefs (Hamers, 2000) and sponsor this idea by incorporating it in their narratives and advice” (Souto-Manning, 2006, p. 444). As can be seen here, the pervasiveness of the monolingual mind-set can even affect the multilingual communities themselves, as reported in the following study (Hatoss, 2019b) in Australia: (There is a) perception that public spaces are not appropriate for multilinguistic (sic) behavior, and that some languages should be used in the privacy of people’s homes. I remember in high school when a group of students would sit together and speak another language other than English, some students would find that uncomfortable or even offensive.

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

51

This comment suggests then that, even where there have been to some extent progressive policies, there is still, at least for some, a persistent monolingual mind-set; in Anglophone countries at least, English is still seen as the only legitimate code to be used in public spaces, and home languages should remain confined to people’s homes (Hatoss, 2019b; Lamb & Vodicka, 2018). Castles’ (2014) analysis goes some way to providing a potential reason for this, arguing that “it is important to note that multicultural discourses have often declined more than actual multicultural policies: measures to recognize the social and cultural needs of immigrants and minorities have often changed little, even as public discourse has shifted” (Castles, 2014, p. 198). As we have suggested, a monolingual mind-set can lead to the exclusion of home languages not only from educational contexts but also from other public spaces. Lamb and Vodicka (2018, p. 9) have highlighted that this means that “particular linguistic groups may be excluded from learning or even using their languages beyond the spaces of the home or linguistic community.” Furthermore, it also means that there are few opportunities to challenge the negative dispositions toward multilingualism, which are in this way “perpetuated across the population, as the value of other languages and, hence, the contribution of the diverse linguistic communities, to the common good remains unarticulated and invisible” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 9).

Policy Responses 5: New Spaces of Multilingualism in Education and Beyond For Lamb and Vodicka (2018), the limitations of macro-level policy to challenge the monolingual mind-set in the UK can be explained in two ways. Firstly, they describe how even 10 years of UK government policy to develop a progressive National Languages Strategy and provide significant funding and structures to enable multilingualism to be promoted and supported (Department for Education and Skills, 2002) can be completely reversed when a new government is elected (p. 13). Secondly, they draw on Bourdieu (1985) and Gogolin (2002) to explore the monolingual mind-set as a “monolingual habitus,” “an internalised set of cultural norms that shape individual thinking, identities, choices and behaviours, [and which] is constructed by power relations; [they] understand that it is not determined by structures but emerges from dynamic webs of dispositions that have been shaped by past and present experiences and practices” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 10). Seen in this way, it becomes clear that it is a challenge to shift the monolingual habitus. Nevertheless, insights from Bourdieu (1985), as well as interdisciplinary explorations of the constructs of space, place, and collective and critical autonomy in the context of struggle and resistance, enable Lamb and Vodicka to argue that multilingual cities can be conducive to such a shift. In order to do so, they suggest strategies to create “the conditions in which multilingualism can be normalised and interlingual encounters nurtured” through “changes in the education and everyday experiences of everyone, both formally in educational spaces and informally in public spaces, which must valorise, make visible and normalise the presence of the languages of our communities and develop a ‘plurilingual habitus’ through the

52

T. Lamb et al.

production of interlingual shared spaces” (Lamb & Vodicka, 2018, p. 10). This call to action addresses not only formal and informal educational spaces but also formal civic and informal local neighborhood spaces with their linguistically hybrid practices. Significantly, reconceptualizing the construct of autonomy, it also calls for collectively autonomous actions by grassroot groups and communities to resist the monolingual habitus. For Lamb and Vodicka (2018): Such groups and communities may inhabit physical urban spaces or virtual spaces in a global world, but collectively they will be living an autonomy that is in the present, shaping “the vision of the world,” developing their symbolic power themselves, and imposing recognition of the value of multilingualism and plurilingualism in a process of shifting the monolingual habitus. (Bourdieu, 1994, pp. 137–138) (p. 13)

One area that lends itself to working with rather than on local communities is the study of linguistic landscapes and the use of narratives of lived experiences in multilingual spaces. For example, Busch (2012) used a multimodal, biographical approach, to explore learners’ linguistic experience and linguistic resources and argued for a poststructuralist approach to the notion of “repertoire.” Narratives have also been used to study refugee experiences in diverse social and educational contexts (Baynham & De Fina, 2005; Hatoss, 2012b; Labov, 2010). Such findings from everyday public spaces can provide crucial empirical data to (1) address language-based discrimination, (2) promote linguistic diversity, and (3) advocate for plurilingual approaches in education. Such empirical research can inform policy and enhance the well-being of multicultural communities, who can also be involved in generating the narratives. Having critiqued the effectiveness of the way languages education policy and planning have responded to the needs of superdiverse communities, the following section outlines strategies for change. These strategies support the argument for the nurturing of new spaces of language use that challenge the monolingual habitus and which are able to engage the collective autonomy of communities themselves. It advocates a paradigm shift that has the capacity to bring attention to and eliminate social injustice in linguistically diverse communities by building community capacity through activist languages education.

Strategy 1: A Paradigm Shift To address the monolingual mind-set and the associated issues in relation to the lack of strategic consideration of languages education and superdiverse communities, O’Neill (2019) argues for a paradigm shift toward establishing an allocentric view using the metaphor of turning languages education inside out. This is illustrated in Fig. 1, which depicts the implications of this for community capacity building and the way Bindé (2005) envisions knowledge building communities across the world as part of global citizenship (Dahlgren, 2015) in keeping with McNiff’s (2013) notion of “cultural cosmopolitanism.”

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

53

Fig. 1 Graphical representation of the concept of “turning languages education inside out.” (With permission of the author, O’Neill, 2019, in press)

In arguing for “world’s best practice in collaborative, social capacity building,” this model highlights the need for new learning spaces that include workplaces, knowledge sharing, and pedagogies that facilitate learning languages, literacies, multiliteracies, intercultural knowledge, and skills that are integrated across the curriculum for all. Following Bindé’s (2005) advocacy for social justice in terms of peoples’ universal access to information, freedom of expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, and access to education for all, the need for a shift away from the standard traditional practices associated with the monolingual mind-set and accompanying policy rhetoric is reinforced in this metaphor and direction for pedagogical change relevant to multilingual, superdiverse communities.

Strategy 2: Bottom-Up Language Planning Initiatives As we have seen, top-down language policies are ineffective in ensuring sustained multilingualism and in addressing issues of social justice when it comes to linguistically diverse communities. While traditionally language planning was seen as a top-down activity, there is increasing focus on bottom-up micro-level and community-level language planning in local contexts (Barkhuizen & Knoch, 2006; Hornberger, 1996; Liddicoat & Baldauf, 2008). These planning initiatives have been shown to be more effective in mobilizing communities and taking action for the transmission of their home language to the next generation. Communities are enabled to be proactive and develop their language programs from bottom-up in their local context. In fact, bottom-up language planning

54

T. Lamb et al.

has been shown to equip communities with agency and control over the future of their linguistic heritage and has been shown to motivate community members and foster their uptake of activist roles in the education of their children (Hatoss, 2019a). Language policies also need to be backed by strong empirical data on language attitudes in those major global cities, which are experiencing high levels of inward migration from linguistically and culturally diverse populations. Secondly, there is a need to document grassroot language planning initiatives in order to showcase studies of what works and what does not work. Such studies can (i) evaluate the impact of top-down policy on small language communities and (ii) gather evidence of strategies that work for language planning from bottom-up.

Strategy 3: Education for Global Citizenship O’Neill (2019) advocates for languages education policy and practice to create much-needed educational change and subsequently community/social change where global citizenship and the responsibilities that this invokes would be the underpinning theme. She identifies examples of change in policy, curriculum, and pedagogy that have the potential to “afford[ed] maximum opportunity to use the target language in authentic, experiential, focused learning spaces” (in press). Firstly, she describes how one Australian state’s policy and curriculum has introduced the idea of “global schools” (Department of Education, Training and Employment, 2014) where schools are connected globally to develop global citizenship through students communicating in their respective L2 s in project- and experiential-based, student-centered language learning experiences, using the Internet and student exchange. School principal leadership of the initiative is seen as a necessary facilitator in ensuring its implementation in that the approach has the capacity to stimulate change in the traditional negative attitudes toward languages learning found in both schooling and community in monolingual societies (Scarino, 2014). This approach also has applicability to the need for languages learning in superdiverse communities where local minority and heritage languages would be a focus and languages learning would involve community collaboration in a similar collaborative pedagogical model. This would in turn stimulate cross-cultural awareness and help develop intercultural literacy. Secondly, she identifies how community members’ existing languages skills can be valued by enabling them to acquire competencies that are linked to competency-based industry training qualifications. She cites the work of O’Neill and Hatoss (2003) that reports on the development of language competencies for Australian Tourism and Hospitality Training Packages. Such an approach lends itself to Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) processes and provides a potential hook into training and building immigrants’ (and indeed more established linguistic communities’) capacity through valuing their existing language skills. Although applicable to other industry areas, the hospitality industry is particularly relevant since many recent immigrants are employed in the casual work

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

55

force in this way; and such an approach would link to a mapping of local workplaces and community spaces for work-integrated learning (Abbott-Chapman, 2011).

Strategy 4: Technology In terms of providing for the learning of English as the lingua franca (or other languages, e.g., French, Turkish) in superdiverse communities, the use of digital communication technologies is argued to be essential. Just as Bindé (2005) recognizes, a digital divide exists across the world between those who have universal access to information via the Internet and those who do not, emphasizing how this deprives the have-nots of being able to participate in a knowledge-building society. It can be argued that some members of superdiverse communities are similarly marginalized in spite of a general ease of access to technology in Western countries. Nevertheless it needs to be recognized that digital communication technologies offer significant options for authentic interactive-communicative projects in superdiverse communities not only to stimulate the authentic learning of English but also to provide additional opportunities for language groups to use their home language/s. Again, in keeping with Tochon’s (2014) project- and problem-based learning, using a thematic approach has been shown to foster language learning in a way that facilitates learner engagement and learner autonomy. Access to technology enables a bottom-up approach that operates in an expanded range of potential communicative interactions, which can be highly motivating and enabling for the learner, through their use of multimedia, multimodal texts, and social media. Many members of superdiverse communities are likely to have access to at least a smartphone, and they will become adept in its use as a mini computer for daily needs, including the opportunity to dialogue, search, and use services such as Uber and GPS. This access also provides the opportunity to interact and collaborate, use apps such as WeChat, and communicate on Facebook, which can immediately translate posts and supports free text messaging. It also supports the playing of computer games that can have language learning and educational benefits (Soyoof, 2018; Wright & Skidmore, 2010). Importantly, Chen (2013, p. 125) specifies the value of social networking in that it can “empower users to navigate across languages, cultures, and identities . . . [and its] use helps learners construct their L2 identity and build a relationship with the target culture.” Additionally, such applications have been found to help contextualize cross-disciplinary language use and encourage collaboration and learners’ use of media as an authoring platform (Lin, Warschauer, & Blake, 2016). O’Neill (2019, in press) concludes: The capacity of technology to improve pedagogy by facilitating a common language and meaning-making system for learning explicates metacognitive processes and enables dialogic practices that use new tools to ensure the development of collaborative skills. All in all, research demonstrates that digital communication technologies and social networking sites have provided a springboard for the transformation of languages learning, as well as facilitating glocal collaborative dialogic practices that have the ability to support knowledge-building communities.

56

T. Lamb et al.

Strategy 5: Service Learning and Activist Pedagogy With this in mind, the fifth far-reaching strategy, argued to be able to exert a significant positive impact on superdiverse communities, is the incorporation of service learning, across disciplines, into community initiatives, secondary schooling, and tertiary education (Long, 2016); this ensures mutually beneficial, shared learning, including language and literacy learning opportunities, and the fostering of intercultural awareness and development of intercultural literacy (Yorio & Ye, 2012). Service learning, as a community engagement pedagogy, is defined “as a pedagogy that promotes educational experiences in which students participate, provide meaningful work, and reflect upon organized activities that meet identified community needs” (Molderez & Fonseca, 2017, para., 2.3.2). Participants can be matched to workplace contexts where they can provide assistance, practice skills, utilize their home language, and learn new skills depending on the context. Service learning is typically organized through educational institutions working closely with their communities, where such work-based learning as an alternative pedagogy may be linked to course objectives. Identification of placements may be organized at the institutional level (Phillips Bolduc & Gallo, 2013) or initiated by the learner (Krebs, Katira, Singh, & Rigsbee, 2013). This can build confidence and provide mutual benefits for participants and hosts, and as a community engagement strategy addresses social justice issues and helps build social capital (Krebs et al., 2013). For instance, Camicelli and Boluk (2017, p. 132) emphasize that “service-learning can be the pedagogical approach that because of its incongruence with traditional pedagogies can disrupt the norm of individualism, teacher control and student passivity.” They go on to explain that as a result of service learning: it is possible to observe a relevant difference regarding […students’] social-cultural perspectives. Students engaged in our projects became more aware of the community around them, and the engagement with external groups together with the reflective approach created a space to acquire new skills that may not always be possible to do in class. Moreover, the reflective practice made students more aware of the social injustices in their communities and the importance to be proactively engaged in tackling such issues. Thus, service learning as a pedagogy has applicability to all the community and is well recognized as being able to promote social justice and be transformative in its educational outcomes. Camicelli and Boluk (2017, pp. 126–128) also argue its confluence with transformative critical pedagogy in relation to how this can transform students as social agents, noting that engaging in community service has been recognized as a way to prepare students to adopt an active citizenship role (Howard, 1998). As they challenge the traditional view of learning as “transmission of information,” their advocacy for service learning pedagogy is seen as providing a way of disrupting this traditional teacher-centered approach where students are passive receivers of information to one of students who are proactively engaged – “a student-centered pedagogical approach.” They illustrate their alternative activist pedagogy in Fig. 2. This pedagogical model presents a different trajectory for

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

57

Fig. 2 Counternormative pedagogy for social justice. (Source: Camicelli & Boluk, 2017, p. 132; Displayed with permission from the authors)

students and lends itself in principle particularly to this chapter’s focus on languages education (although developed in the context of physical education). Kirk et al. (2018) in keeping with Camicelli and Boluk (2017) also advocate an activist approach to learning in order to address the problem of adolescent girls’ disengagement with physical education. Their pedagogical model is in keeping with the above counternormative approach for social justice, but central to its implementation in this context is the importance of helping girls to “learn to value the physically active life” (Siedentop, 1996). Within this focus, Kirk et al. (2018, p. 222) describe the activist pedagogical model as “specifically a ‘pedagogy of affect’, working primarily in the affective rather than the physical domain (Bailey et al., 2009). The model has four critical elements: student-centredness; pedagogies of embodiment; listening to respond over time; [and] inquiry-based learning centred in action” (p. 222). McDonough, Forgasz, Berry, and Taylor (2016) note that an embodied pedagogical approach is yet another vital element that is seen as typically missing in traditional practice and teacher education in particular. Macintyre Latta and Buck (2008) define activist pedagogies as ones that “integrate the mind, body and emotions” thus “holistic” (Forgasz, 2015, cited in McDonough et al., 2016, p. 433). Kirk et al. (2018) outline several key strengths of their activist pedagogical model, which are highly relevant to languages education. Importantly, teachers and students had the freedom to co-construct curriculum through project work and link into community groups thus creating new holistic learning spaces where they could critically reflect together on their practice. In this activist model, students were provided agency such that the input of their voices into the pedagogy changed the nature of the discourse away from the

58

T. Lamb et al.

traditional instructivist language. Camicelli and Boluk (2017) also found, as mentioned above, that through engaging with the community, students became more aware of the issues and the need for social justice, and to approach the situation in a proactive way. This supports Oliver, Hamzeh, and McCaughtry, (2009) who found that involving students in developing their own curriculum facilitated their activist engagement and increased their autonomy as learners. The Change Agency (2018) also views activist education as promoting pedagogical strategies that can “effect justice-oriented social change.” Underpinned by the work of Freire (1970), their pedagogical principles include: • • • • • •

experiential and empowered learning listening and reflection mentorship questioning, not telling exercises linked to real and contemporary change work building a ‘container’ or learning environment characterized by trust, openness, honesty, self-critique, mutual respect and support (para. 2)

While these principles provide further insights into how activist pedagogy might be applied in practice, it is clear that, with regards to activist languages education for promoting social justice in superdiverse communities, and in keeping with Leeman, Rabin, and Roman-Mendoza’s (2011) stance, the importance of people’s “identity” is a core consideration. They note that students’ home identities have always been seen as synonymous with the teaching of home languages and bilingual education. Moreover, in line with the important point made earlier in this chapter, they note that data are available that support the necessity for education to take account of this: Study after study has found that the retention of non-English languages by secondand third-generation Americans, as well as other minority language and bilingual students, is correlated with greater academic and socioeconomic success, and there is now widespread consensus that the best educational programs recognize and value students’ home identities, building upon their existing linguistic and cultural knowledge (Leeman et al., 2011, pp. 483–484). Not surprisingly, their activist approach comprised a critical service learning model where pre-service teachers worked in the community to develop participants’ identities as Spanish home language speakers. This assisted in addressing the “dominant ideologies that construct bilingual and home language speakers as ‘limited’ or ‘deficient’ (p. 487), which is one issue that activist languages education can address. Leeman et al. (2011) note that this participatory and student-centered model is an alternative space for mutual learning: “[t]he on-site and online interactions among student teachers and with the children, all from diverse ethnic, sociolinguistic, and geographic backgrounds helped both groups to grasp the social constructedness of ‘identity’ and ‘culture’” (p. 492). Not dissimilar to the idea of the “flipped classroom” (Roehl, Reddy, & Shannon, 2013), this activist pedagogy provides a deeper learning experience for students by ensuring they are fully

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

59

engaged in meaningful and challenging learning environments in which they have agency in co-constructing their learning experiences (Tochon, 2014). The work of Preston and Aslett (2014) also exemplifies the implementation of activist pedagogy in relation to social work courses, but, as they note, their strategies could be applicable to any learning context/discipline. They highlight the relevance of the work of Giroux (2010a) in the need to create learning spaces where strong relationships can be built with personalized learning and open discussion based on anti-oppressive principles, therefore allowing discussion of social inequities. Thus, their approach to activist pedagogy involves critical pedagogical practices (citing Butte, 2007 and Giroux, 2010b, p. 514) as opposed to those emanating from neoliberalism. They highlight “[t]hese approaches seemed necessary to create a space in the classroom for dismantling entrenched but misinformed ideas and to opening new ways of thinking” (p. 510). In their aim to address social injustice issues in social work through activist pedagogy, their definition of this approach is highly relevant to the present chapter. Of note is that Preston and Aslett (2014) state: As a working definition, we propose activist pedagogy as: a complicating approach to education that exposes, acknowledges and unpacks social injustices, implicates personal and structural histories and currencies, and is founded in a commitment to personal and social change both inside and outside the classroom and the academy. It recognizes the historical material context but avoids reification of such context through fluid explorations of power, subjectivity and social relations. An activist pedagogical strategy attempts to do this through building a community of activist learners and educators in the classroom, with tangible and meaningful opportunities to initiate and advocate for change. Such an approach goes beyond the critical pedagogy stance, which can become mired in democratic principles ignoring fluid subjectivities and oppressive conditions of capitalism. Similarly, activist pedagogy expands a problem-posing education to a different level, situating constructivist knowledges in the material lived experiences of communities (p. 514).

Strategy 6: Toward an Activist Languages Education Pedagogy In summary, based on evidence of current activist pedagogical approaches and the present review of literature in the field of languages education and multiculturalism, the authors define “activist languages education” as: the provision of a critical and embodied pedagogical approach in education, workplaces and communities that enhances all community members’ capacity to build their capital to connect, communicate, collaborate, learn and construct their identities and to gain a sense of “being in place” from an allocentric perspective within the frame of multicultural/ multilingual society.

Thus, the following principles are derived and are argued to underpin this stance. Activist languages education requires:

60

T. Lamb et al.

1. Languages education policy, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices that create social connectedness, value home and home languages and cultures as key resources in inquiry-based contexts for learning, engage the collective autonomy of communities, challenge monolingual mind-sets, foster interlinguality, and nurture a plurilingual habitus 2. A multidimensional lens; multicultural, anti-racist, and intersectional approaches to education more broadly; and socially inclusive policy and practices, involving an activist approach for socially just outcomes 3. Valuing of all participants’ existing, knowledge, skills, needs, and aspirations 4. Participants’ agency and voice in active learning design 5. Mentoring, collaborative capacity building, and mutual benefits 6. Bottom-up, authentic, participatory, dialogic, and interactive learning spaces, supported by access to digital communication technologies and occurring beyond educational spaces to include other public urban spaces The intent of implementing these principles is to create a major change in monolinguistic societal attitude to one where there is a shift toward the allocentric, plurilinguistic view through the adoption of “activist” languages education. This is an approach that challenges the traditional mind-set of monolingual societies and also the traditional approaches to education in general. It draws attention to the importance of shifting both established members of communities and those considered as newly arrived members of superdiverse communities from their “out of place” perspective to that of “being in place” (Blommaert et al., 2005, p. 198). Although these two groups are out of place for different reasons, the journey toward a socially just society involves change for all. A socially just outcome requires members of monolingual communities to acknowledge that they also need to make changes and, moreover, that there are significant benefits in that. It is well established that the need to rethink Western education is more than overdue (Hargreaves & Fullen, 2012). The authors also argue that the concept of activist languages education, as defined above, is at the core of the paradigm shift needed to move on from the present stagnating industrial model to one of ongoing active, collaborative, social, and identity capacity building (Côté, 2006) that can cater for the everincreasing challenge of migratory flows. The beginnings of change are evident in Hurwitz and Olsen’s (2018) languages model applied to superdiverse, pre-K-3 classrooms where five or more different home languages are spoken. Teachers undertake professional development to teach, and the children are able to use their home language and learn the languages of their peers beside English. “Teachers create classroom environments and activities that incorporate the cultures and community experiences of their students, and that allow students to connect their life at home to their life at school, and design activities that engage families in teaching and learning related themes” (p. 6). Similarly, it has been found that where students in mainstream have learned community languages, they have excelled both in becoming bilingual and in their academic studies (Tovares & Kamwangamalu, 2017); other current initiatives that are in keeping with activist languages education include Clifford and Reisinger’s (2018) community-based language learning

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

61

framework that fosters languages learning through engaging with the community through service learning. Thus, in acknowledging the importance of the development of the requisite “languages” skills for members of superdiverse communities to be able to effectively communicate to meet their family, social, work-related, and academic needs, as well as to engage in convivial interactions with one another, the authors argue that such a shift requires changes to policy and practice in alignment with the above principles of activist languages education. It would seem that the established baseline of demonstrating “native speaker level” proficiency as the goal of languages learning, as noted by Creese and Blackledge (2010), needs to change to be flexible according to purpose. For instance, Moore (2016) emphasizes that “even knowing a few words or phrases of ancestral language – or perhaps more robust genres of performance such as traditional songs – enables younger people . . . to think of themselves, and in fact to be, something more than monolingual speakers of English” (Ikuta, 2009). Moore (2016) advocates moving beyond the notion of this baseline to a view where the collaboration and pooling of linguistics resources support a focus “on the way the role of speaker can be decomposed according to level of fluency speech-event rolefractions like animator, author and principal” (p. 86). Applicable to languages learning in contemporary settings of globalization and diversity, it adds to the understanding of the shift that is necessary to support the making of meaning in context/place. With this in mind, the authors propose a new understanding of a baseline communication target as one that reflects adaptability and flexibility according to communicative needs and purpose and which relates to the implementation of the principles of activist languages education. As shown in Fig. 3, this would ensure that, through activist languages education, all members of society would embark on a journey toward “being in place,” thus actively building the capacity of communities to benefit from their superdiversity. In this model the achievement of the baseline communication target would provide the way forward to enable the shift to a more level playing field with more socially just practices that

Fig. 3 The concept of baseline communication target for the growth and embedding of “activist languages education.” (Source: The present authors)

62

T. Lamb et al.

foster collaboration to achieve knowledge building multilingual/multicultural communities in keeping with the vision of Bindé (2005), so simultaneously providing a better space to foster peace.

Conclusion This chapter’s exploration of the need for activist languages education presents a call to action to address the social injustices present in superdiverse contexts. It critiques the rhetoric of related policies, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices, arguing the need for an urgent paradigmatic shift to reform education and move forward to achieve more socially just outcomes. It challenges the claims to multicultural status and to the success of multiculturalism made by monolingually minded countries such as the UK and Australia, as well as European states, and draws attention to the need for current systems and practices to change to ensure social inclusion. Interdisciplinary research and scholarship that address how an activist pedagogical approach is able to transform learning are used to define the concept of “activist languages education” and the development of associated pedagogical principles. Incorporating these into a model that promotes bottom-up, authentically participatory, dialogic, interactive learning spaces that provide access to digital communication technologies means that other significant changes are required. For instance, implementing the principle of “languages education policy, curriculum, pedagogy, and practices that create social connectedness, value home and heritage languages and cultures as key resources in inquiry-based contexts for learning, engage the collective autonomy of communities, foster interlinguality, challenge monolingual mind-sets, and nurture a plurilingual habitus” requires significant changes. It demands changes in attitude toward educational practices regarding the way both languages education and education in general are traditionally viewed in monolingual societies. The traditional perception that languages education is an “add-on” and unnecessary for most students/people/employees because “everyone speaks or is learning English” needs to be challenged. This demands attitudinal change, which is not easy given, as principle 2 highlights the need to change from a language lens to that of a multidimensional lens, where curricula include anti-racist education and are designed to ensure socially inclusive policy, practices, and active approaches to education to ensure socially just outcomes. Similarly, principles 3, 4, and 5 enlarge upon how activist pedagogy will be visible in practice. They emphasize how all participants’ existing, knowledge, skills, needs, and aspirations need to be valued and be at the core of practice and how participants’ agency and voice should be part and parcel of active learning design. Recognition of mentoring and bringing that to the fore will ensure critical pedagogies that enable collaborative capacity building and the accruing of mutual benefits to learners, teachers, workplaces, and communities. In turn, the “lifting” of the languages education achievement of superdiverse communities, including their monolingual counterparts, to the proposed flexible baseline communication target, provides a feasible step toward successfully challenging social injustice. It is argued that this new paradigm has the capacity to bring

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

63

attention to and eliminate social injustice in such communities through the adoption of “bottom-up, authentic, participatory, dialogic, interactive learning spaces, supported by access to digital communication technologies and occurring beyond educational spaces to include other public urban spaces.” In the long term, this will build community capacity and simultaneously provide a better space for multilingualism and a foundation for peace by addressing the monolingual mind-set. While a difficult challenge, it is recommended that policy be developed at all levels of government and that education curriculum and pedagogy, including the languages curriculum, are developed with wide consultation that includes a commitment to participatory approaches with cross-sector education, community, business, and industry stakeholders. There is a need for a review of and provision for both in-service and preservice teacher education in order to ensure that teachers across disciplines are educated and pedagogically equipped to acknowledge that languages education is at the core of communication and student capacity building for success, to implement activist pedagogy, and to challenge the monolingual habitus. To stimulate the level of transformation required, there is a need to consider more than the education sector and the community. The education of other professions such as police, health, and urban designers, as well as government departments and other services/service industries and workforces, is essential as change needs to occur beyond educational spaces. Finally, the use of digital communication technology as part of the glue that facilitates strong connectivity and its transformative potential as a catalyst for change should not be underestimated. It has the capacity to be the most powerful tool to influence the degree of change required to address social injustice and to prepare society for increasing levels of superdiversity and multilingualism, as it moves toward the third decade of the new millennium.

References Abbott-Chapman, J. (2011). Making the most of the mosaic: Facilitating post-school transitions to higher education of disadvantaged students. The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(3), 57–71. Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018). 3412.0 – Migration, Australia, 2016–17. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/ Latestproducts/3412.0Main%20Features52016-17?opendocument&tabname=Summary&pro dno=3412.0&issue=2016-17&num=&view= Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2018). Asia and Australia’s engagement with Asia. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/crosscurriculum-priorities/asia-and-australia-s-engagement-with-asia/ Australian Government. (2018). Annual report 2017–18. Department of Home Affairs. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. (2013). The people of Australia: Australia’s multicultural policy. Canberra, ACT: Australian Multicultural Advisory Council. Retrieved from http:// apo.org.au/system/files/27232/apo-nid27232-75716.pdf Baetens Beardsmore, H. (2003). Who’s afraid of bilingualism? In J.-M. De Waele, A. Housen, & L. Wei (Eds.), Bilingualism – Beyond basic principles (pp. 10–27). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

64

T. Lamb et al.

Bailey, R. P., Collins, D., Ford, P., MacNamara, A., Toms, M., & Pearce, G. (2009). Participant development in sport: An academic review. Leeds, UK: Sports Coach. Barkhuizen, G., & Knoch, U. (2006). Macro-level policy and micro-level planning: Afrikaansspeaking immigrants in New Zealand. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29, 1–18. Batsaikhan, U., Darvas, Z., & Raposo, I. G. (2018). People on the move: Migration and mobility in the European Union. Brussels, Belgium: Bruegel. Retrieved from http://bruegel.org/wp-con tent/uploads/2018/01/People_on_the_move_ONLINE.pdf Bauman, Z. (2011). Culture in a liquid modern world. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Baynham, M., & De Fina, A. (Eds.). (2005). Dislocations and relocations: Narratives of displacement. Manchester, UK: St Jerome Publishing. Bindé, J. (Coord.) (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report (UNESCO reference works series). Paris: UNESCO. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/ 001418/141843e.pdf Blackledge, A., Creese, A., Baynham, M., Cooke, M., Goodson, L., Hua, Z., . . . Wei, L. (2018). Language and superdiversity: An interdisciplinary perspective. In A. Creese, & A. Blackledge (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and superdiversity (pp. 1–29). London, England: Routledge. Blommaert, J., Collins, J., & Slembrouck, S. (2005). Spaces of multilingualism. Language & Communication, 25, 197–216. Bourdieu, P. (1985). The social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744. Bourdieu, P. (1994). In other words: Essays towards a reflexive sociology. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press (original work published 1990). British Council. (2013). Language rich Europe: Multilingualism for stable and prosperous societies. London, England: British Council. Bullivant, B. M. (1986). Ethnolinguistic minorities and multicultural policy in Australia. In J. Edwards (Ed.), Linguistic minorities, policies and pluralism (pp. 107–140). London, England: Academic. Busch, B. (2012). The linguistic repertoire revisited. Applied Linguistics, 33(5), 503–523. https:// doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams056 Butte, S. (2010). Freire: Informal education as protest. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8, 162–180. Calhoun, C., Sennett, R., & Shapira, H. (2013). Poiesis means making. Public Culture, 25(2), 195–200. Camicelli, S., & Boluk, K. (2017). The promotion of social justice: Service learning for transformative education. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 21(Part B), 126–134. Castles, S. (1992). The challenge of multiculturalism: Global changes and Australian experiences. (Working Paper 19, p. 109). Centre for Multicultural Studies, University of Wollongong. http:// ro.uow.edu.au/cmsworkpapers/17 Castles, S. (2014). International migration at a crossroads. Citizenship Studies, 18(2), 190–207. Chen, H-I. (2013). Identity practices of multicultural writers in social networking spaces. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 143–170. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/june2013/ chen.pdf Chimni, B. S. (1998). The geopolitics of refugee studies. Journal of Refugee Studies, 11(4), 350–374. Clyne, M. (2008). The monolingual mindset as an impediment to the development of plurilingual potential. Sociolinguistic Studies, 2(3), 347–366. Community Languages Australia. (2017). Language policy. Carlton, VIC: Australian Federation of Ethnic Schools Associations. Retrieved from http://www.communitylanguagesaustralia.org.au/ language-policy/ Côté, J. E. (2006). Acculturation and identity: The role of individualisation theory. Human Development, 49, 31–35. Council of Europe. (2017). Education and languages, language policy. Retrieved from http://www. coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Division_EN.asp Creese, A., & Blackledge, A. (2010). Translanguaging in the bilingual classroom: A pedagogy for learning and teaching? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 103–115.

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

65

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality and politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1), 54–68. Czaika, M., & de Haas, H. (2014). The globalization of migration: Has the world become more migratory? International Migration Review, 48(2), 283–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/ imre.12095 Dahlgren, P. (2015). Cosmopolitanism and international communication: Understanding civil society actors. In C.-C. Lee (Ed.), Internationalizing “international communication” (pp. 281–301). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Department for Education and Skills. (2002). Language learning. Nottingham, UK: DfES. Department of Education, Employment and Training. (1991). Australia’s language: The Australian language and literacy policy (Vol. 1–2). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service. Department of Education, Training and Employment. (2014). Global schools through languages. Brisbane, QLD: DETE. Retrieved from http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/framework/p12/globalschools.html Department of Home Affairs. (2017). Live in Australia: Country profiles. Canberra, ACT. Retrieved from https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about/reports-publications/research-statistics/statistics/livein-australia/country-profiles Department of Immigration & Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (1999). A new agenda for multicultural Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Australia. Department of Immigration and Citizenship. (2011). Fact sheet 6 Australia’s multicultural policy. Canberra, ACT: National Communications Branch. Retrieved from https://www.mia.org.au/ documents/item/232 Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. (2003). Report of the review of settlement services for migrants and humanitarian entrants. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/delivering-assistance/ government-programs/settlement-policy/review-settlement-services.htm Faiola, A. (2015, April 21). A global surge in refugees leaves Europe struggling to cope. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/new-migra tion-crisis-overwhelms-european-refugee-system/2015/04/21/3ab83470-e45c-11e4-ae0f-f8c46 aa8c3a4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3dc62af1f41 Forgasz, R. (2015). Bring the physical into self-study research. In A. Ovens & T. Fletcher (Eds.), Self-study in physical education teacher education: Exploring the interplay of scholarship and practice (pp. 15–28). Zug, Switzerland: Springer. Freeman, L. A., & Stayley, B. (2018). The positioning of Aboriginal students and their languages within Australia’s education system: A human rights perspective. International Journal of Speech Language, 20(1), 174–181. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.) New York, NY: Herder and Herder. Full Fact. (2017). Refugees in the UK. 6th March. Retrieved from https://fullfact.org/immigration/ uk-refugees/ García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA/Oxford: Basil/Blackwell. Giroux, H. A. (2010a). Bare pedagogy and the scourge of neoliberalism: Rethinking higher education as a democratic public sphere. The Educational Forum, 74, 184–196. Giroux, H. A. (2010b). Lessons from Paulo Freire. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(9), 15–16. Glick Schiller, N., Çaglar, A., & Guldbrandsen, T. C. (2006). Beyond the ethnic lens: Locality, globality, and born-again incorporation. American Ethnologist, 33(4), 612–633. https://doi.org/ 10.1525/ae.2006.33.4.612 Gogolin, I. (2002). Linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe: A challenge for educational research and practice. European Educational Research Journal, 1, 123–138.

66

T. Lamb et al.

Hajek, J., & Slaughter, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Challenging the monolingual mindset. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Hall, S. M. (2017). Mooring “super-diversity” to a brutal migration milieu. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(9), 1562–1573. Hamers, J. F. (2000). Bilinguality and bilingualism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hargreaves, A., & Fullen, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York, NY: Routledge. Hatoss, A. (2012a). Multilingualism as social capital in the Sudanese-Australian diaspora: Implications for policy. In C. Gitsaki & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), The future of applied linguistics: Local and global perspectives (pp. 390–408). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Hatoss, A. (2012b). Where are you from? Identity construction and experiences of ‘othering’ in the narratives of Sudanese refugee-background Australians. Discourse and Society, 23, 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419925 Hatoss, A. (2013). Displacement, language maintenance and identity: Sudanese refugees in Australia (Vol. 1). Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing. http://benjamins.com/catalog/impact Hatoss, A. (2018). Bringing home languages to the fore: Policy insights for superdiverse communities. In K. Harrison, S. M, & F. Tochon (Eds.), Displacement Planet Earth. Plurilingual education and identity for 21st century schools (pp. 96–114). Blue Mounds, WI: Deep University Press. Hatoss, A. (2019a). Agency in bottom-up planning: Motives of language maintenance in the South Sudanese community of Australia. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Researching agency in language policy and planning (pp. 35–60). London, England: Routledge. Hatoss, A. (2019b). Unpacking monolingual ideologies: Voices of young Sydneysiders. In A. Chik, P. Benson, & R. Moloney (Eds.), The multilingual city: Sydney case studies (pp. 66–78). London, NY: Routledge. Hatoss, A., & Huijser, H. (2010). Gendered barriers to educational opportunities: Resettlement of Sudanese refugees in Australia. Gender and Education, 22, 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09540250903560497 Hornberger, N. H. (Ed.). (1996). Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up. Berlin, Germany: Mouton. Horner, K., & Weber, J.-J. (2011). Not playing the game: Shifting patterns in the discourse of integration. Journal of Language and Politics, 10(20), 139–159. Howard, J. P. F. (1998). Academic service learning: A counternormative pedagogy. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 73, 21–29. Hurwitz, A., & Olsen, L. (2018). Supporting dual language learner success in superdiverse PreK-3 classrooms: The Sobrato early academic language model. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/supporting-dual-lan guage-learner-success-superdiversity/SuperdiversityTheSEALModel_Final.pdf Ikuta, H. (2009). Endangered language and performance art in an Alaskan Eskimo community. Paper presented at annual meeting of American Anthropological Association, Philadelphia, PA. Inglis, C. (2004). Australia’s continuing transformation. August 1. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/australias-continuingtransformation Inner London Education Authority. (1983). Race, sex and class: 2. Multiethnic education in schools. London, England: Inner London Education Authority. Jacquemet, M. (2005). Transidiomatic practices: Language and power in the age of globalization. Language & Communication, 25, 257–277. Jørgensen, J. N., Karrebæk, M. S., Madsen, L. M., & Møller, J. S. (2011). Polylanguaging in superdiversity. Diversities, 13, 23–38. King’s College London. (2015, September 04). Why do refugees and migrants come to Europe, and what must be done to ease the crisis? The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

67

uk/news/worldnews/europe/11845205/Why-do-refugees-and-migrants-come-to-Europe-and-whatmust-be-done-to-ease-the-crisis.html Kirk, D., Lamb, C. A., Oliver, K. L., Ewing-Day, R., Fleming, C., Loch, A., & Smedley, V. (2018). Balancing prescription with teacher and pupil agency: Spaces for manoeuvre within a pedagogical model for working with adolescent girls. The Curriculum Journal, 29(2), 219–237. Krebs, M., Katira, K., Singh, S., & Rigsbee, N. (2013). TEACHERCORPS: Transforming teacher education through social justice, service learning, and community partnerships. In V. M. Jagla, J. A. Erikson, & A. S. Tinkler (Eds.), Transforming teacher education through service learning (pp. 237–261). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Labov, W. (2010). Principles of linguistic change: Cognitive and cultural factors. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Lamb, T. E. (1999). Responding to cultural and linguistic diversity in the primary school. In P. Bertaux, F. Garcier, & C. Kerviel (Eds.), La Dimension Européenne dans l’enseignement: Enjeux, Réalités et Perspectives (pp. 25–36). Nancy, France: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Lamb, T. E. (2011). Reconceptualising intercultural education: A model from language education. Hermeneia, a Journal of Hermeneutics, Art Theory and Criticism, 11, 79–87. Lamb, T. E. (2015). Towards a plurilingual habitus: Engendering interlinguality in urban spaces. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 10(2), 151–165. Lamb, T. E., & Vodicka, G. (2018). Collective autonomy and multilingual spaces in super-diverse urban contexts: Interdisciplinary perspectives. In G. Murray & T. E. Lamb (Eds.), Space, place and autonomy in language learning (pp. 9–28). Oxon, UK/New York, NY: Routledge. Leeman, J., Rabin, L., & Roman-Mendoza, E. (2011). Identity and activism in heritage language education. The Modern Language Journal, 95(iv), 481–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15404781.2011.01237 Liddicoat, A. J. (2014). Pragmatics and intercultural mediation in intercultural language learning. Intercultural Pragmatics, 11(2), 259–277. Liddicoat, A. J., & Baldauf, R. B. (2008). Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Language planning in local contexts (pp. 3–17). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Lin, C.-H., Warschauer, M., & Blake, R. (2016). Language learning through social networks: Perceptions and reality. Language Learning & Technology, 20(1), 124–147. Retrieved from http://www.lltjournal.org/collection/col_10125_45832 Lo Bianco, J. (2008). Language policy and education in Australia. In S. May & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education: Language policy and political issues in education (pp. 343–353). Boston, MA: Springer. Macintyre Latta, M., & Buck, G. (2008). Enfleshing embodiment: “Failing to trust” with the body’s role in teaching and learning. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(2), 315–329. May, S. (2014). Contesting public monolingualism and diglossia: Rethinking political theory and language policy for a multilingual world. Language Policy, 13, 371–393. McDonough, S., Forgasz, R., Berry, A., & Taylor, M. (2016). All brain and still no body: Moving towards a pedagogy of embodiment in teacher education. In D. Garbett & A. Ovens (Eds.), Enacting self-study as methodology for professional inquiry (pp. 433–439). USA: Self-Study of Teacher Education Practices (S-STEP) https://research.monash.edu/en/publications/all-brainand-still-no-body-moving-towards-a-pedagogy-of-embodime. McGrew, A. (1997). Democracy beyond borders? Globalization and the reconstruction of democratic theory and polities. In A. McGrew (Ed.), The transformation of democracy (pp. 231–265). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. McNiff, J. (2013). Becoming cosmopolitan and other dilemmas of internationalization: Reflections from the Gulf States. Cambridge Journal of Education, 43(4), 501–515. Meissner, F., & Vertovec, S. (2015). Comparing super-diversity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(4), 541–555. Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2003). National report on schooling. Canberra, ACT: Author.

68

T. Lamb et al.

Ministerial Council of Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs. (2005). National statement for languages education in Australian schools: National plan for languages education in Australian schools 2005–2008. Richmond, SA: Hyde Park Press. Modood, T. (2007). Multiculturalism: A civic idea. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Molderez, I., & Fonseca, E. (2018). The efficacy of real-world experiences and service learning for fostering competences for sustainable development in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4397–4410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.062 Moloney, R. (2018, July 4). Learning languages early is key to making Australia more multilingual. The Conversation. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/learning-languages-early-iskey-to-making-australia-more-multilingual-99085 Moore, R. (2016). Taking up speech’ in an endangered language: Bilingual discourse in a heritage classroom. In K. Amaut, M. S. Karrebaek, M. Spottie, & J. Blommaart (Eds.), Engaging superdiversity: Recombining spaces, times and language spaces (pp. 65–89). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Mullard, C. (1982). Multiracial education in Britain: From assimilation to cultural pluralism. In J. Tierney (Ed.), Race, migration and schooling (pp. 15–27). London, England: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Ndhlovu, F. (2015). Ignored lingualism: Another resource for overcoming the monolingual mindset in language education policy. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 35(4), 398–414. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07268602.2015.1087365 Nuffield Foundation. (2000). Languages: The next generation. London, England: The Nuffield Foundation. O’Neill, S. (2019). New opportunities for languages learning through 21st century knowledge building communities. In R. Arber, M. Weinmann, & J. Blackmore (Eds.), Rethinking languages education: Directions, challenges and innovations. New York, NY: Routledge. O’Neill, S., & Hatoss, A. (2003). Harnessing a nation’s linguistic competence: Identifying and addressing needs for LOTE in the tourism and hospitality industry. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 31–45. Office of Multicultural Affairs. (1995). Productive diversity in the tourism industry: Capitalising on the language and cultural skills of Australians. Canberra, ACT: AGPS. Oliver, K. L., Hamzeh, M., & McCaughtry, N. (2009). Girly girls can play games/Las ni~nas pueden jugar tambien: Co-creating a curriculum of possibilities with 5th grade girls. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 28(1), 90–110. Pennycook, A., & Otsuji, E. (2015). Metrolingualism: Language in the city. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Phillips, A., Bolduc, S. R., & Gallo, M. (2013). Curricular placement of academic service-learning in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 17(4), 75–96. Piller, I. (2016). Linguistic diversity and social justice. An introduction to applied sociolinguistics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Preston, S., & Aslett, J. (2014). Resisting neoliberalism from within the academy: Subversion through an activist pedagogy. Journal of Social Work Education, 33(4), 502–518. https://doi. org/10.1080/02615479.2013.848270 Rampton, B. (2006). Language in late modernity: Interaction in an urban school. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rampton, B., Blommaert, J., Arnaut, K., & Spotti, M. (2015). Superdiversity and sociolinguistics (Working papers in urban language and literacies, paper 152). London, England: King’s College. Renzaho, A. M. N., Dhingra, N., & Georgeou, N. (2017). Youth as contested sites of culture: The intergenerational acculturation gap amongst new migrant communities – Parent and young adult perspectives. PLoS One, 12(2), 1–19.e0170700. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0170700 Rienzo, C., & Vargas-Silva, C. (2018). Migrants in the UK: An overview. Migration Observatory Briefing, COMPAS, University of Oxford, August. Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences., 105(2), 44–49.

2

Challenging Social Injustice in Superdiverse Contexts Through. . .

69

Scarino, A. (2014). Situating the challenges in current languages education policy in Australia – unlearning monolingualism. International Journal of Multilingualism, 11(3), 289–306. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.921176 Siedentop, D. (1996). Valuing the physical active life: Contemporary and future directions. Quest, 48(3), 266–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1996.10484196 Silverstein, M. (1998). Contemporary transformations of local linguistic communities. Annual Review of Anthropology, 27, 401–426. Smolicz, J. J. (1991). Language core values in a multicultural setting: An Australian experience. International Review of Education, 37(1), 33–52. Souto-Manning, M. (2006). Families learn together: Reconceptualising linguistic diversity as a resource. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 443–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-005-0051-1 Soyoof, A. (2018). Video game and culture: A case study of EFL student players’ views on their acquisition of cultural knowledge and sensitivity. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 13(2), 91–102. Street-Porter, R. (1978). Race, children and cities. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University Press. Taket, A., Crisp, B. R., Nevill, A., Lamaro, G., Graham, M., & Barter-Godfrey, S. (Eds.). (2009). Theorising social exclusion. New York, NY: Routledge. The Change Agency. (2018). Activist education. Retrieved from https://www.thechangeagency.org/ campaigners-toolkit/activist-education/ Tochon, F. V. (2014). Help them learn a language deeply – Francois Victor Tochon’s deep approach to world languages and cultures. Wisconsin, MI: Deep University Press. Tovares, A. V., & Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2017). Migration trajectories: Implications for language proficiencies and identities. In S. Canagarajah (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of migration and language (pp. 207–227). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. UK News. (2018). 27th June. White Brits set to become minority in Birmingham report reveals. Retrieved from https://www.rt.com/uk/431058-birmingham-muslim-ethnic-white/ United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2016). UNHCR global trends: Forced displacement in 2016. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/5943e8a34.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2017). Left behind: Refugee education in crisis. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/59b696f44.pdf United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2018). Figures at a glance. The UN Refugee Agency. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/figures-at-a-glance.html Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. Vertovec, S. (2012). Diversity and the social imaginary. European Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 287–312. Wei, L. (2011). Moment analysis and translanguaging space: Discursive construction of identities by multilingual Chinese youth in Britain. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(5), 1222–1235. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.035 Wessendorf, S. (2015). ‘All the people speak bad English’: Coping with language differences in a super-diverse context. IRiS working paper series, No. 9/2015. Birmingham, UK: Institute for Research into Superdiversity. Retrieved from https://languageforwork.ecml.at/Portals/48/ICT_ REV_LFW/Coping%20with%20language%20differences.pdf Wright, C. F., & Clibborn, S. (2017). Back door, side door or front door: An emerging de-factor low-skilled immigration policy in Australia. Comp. Lab. L. & Pol'y J, 39, 165. Wright, P., & Skidmore, D. (2010). Mutiliteracies and games: Do cybergamers dream pedagogic sheep. In D. L. Pullen, C. Gitsaki, & M. Baguley (Eds.), Technoliteracy, discourse, and social practice: Frameworks and applications in the digital age (pp. 220–231). Hershey, PA: New York Information Science Reference. Yildiz, Y. (2012). Beyond the mother tongue: The postmonolingual condition. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Yorio, P. L., & Ye, F. (2012). A meta-analysis on the effects of service-learning on the social, personal and cognitive outcomes of learning. Academy of Management Learning Education, 11(1). https:// doi.org/10.5465/amle.2010.0072

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education: Finding a Path and Making the Road Duquesne Collective Action Network

Contents Finding a Path and Making the Road: An Introduction Honoring Elders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Honoring Elders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operationalizing the Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Collective Action Network and Its Working Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The People and Their Workplaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Working Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nodes in the Network: Grassroots Efforts in Pursuit of Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Principal Preparation: (Re)purposing the Master’s Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Community as Text: Honoring the Power of Place and Wisdom of People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Police Training Inside-Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interrupting Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Improving Schools from Within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73 73 74 75 75 76 86 87 88 90 92 93

The Duquesne Collective Action Network (D-CAN), the authorship of this chapter, is a cross-sector partnership of school leaders, academicians, and community leaders focused on. The Initiative is supported by the Pierre Schouver, C.S.Sp. Endowment in Mission at Duquesne University and by a grant for Interdisciplinary Research from the Office of Research and the Office of the Provost at Duquesne University. The D-CAN members who contributed to this chapter are listed alphabetically: Norman Conti ([email protected]) Peter Mathis ([email protected]) Rick McCown ([email protected]) Matthew Militello ([email protected]) Amy Olson ([email protected]) Jacqueline Roebuck Sahko ([email protected]) Taili Thompson ([email protected]) Corresponding author: Ronald W. Whitaker, II ([email protected]) Duquesne Collective Action Network (*) Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_98

71

72

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Math Misplacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The MANUP Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

94 96 97 98

Abstract

The chapter uses lessons learned from the design, development, implementation, and improvement of a collective action network to focus on theory and practice at the nexus of educational leadership and social justice. A brief introduction honors those who came before in this work and operationalizes a challenge to reimagine the discourse and the practice of educational leadership for social justice. The challenge is then addressed in two sections. The first section “A Collective Action Network and Its Working Space,” addresses how and why a collective action network was formed to pursue social justice in education. In this section, the conceptual frameworks that underlie the cross-sector partnerships constituting the network are explicated. Additionally, the nature of the work space created by the diverse experiences and expertise of partners is examined, including how three theoretical frames – public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice – inform educational leadership for social justice. In the second section “Nodes in the Network: Grassroots Efforts in Pursuit of Social Justice,” examples of projects that have been undertaken across seven nodes in the network are provided as illustrations of the diversity of discourses and practices that can contribute to the synergy that exists at the nexus of educational leadership and social justice. Each node in the network represents not only discrete cross-sector partnerships, but also discrete efforts to improve systems of practice, address harm, and authentic practices of social justice. The grassroots work includes improvement efforts that range from school improvement to principal preparation to violence prevention to police training to prison education to Community Learning Exchanges to elementary math instruction to holistic African American male achievement. A brief concluding statement indicates why the reimagining the discourse and the practice of educational leadership for social justice is a challenge worth pursuing. Keywords

Collective action network · Educational leadership · Public scholarship · Improvement inquiry · Restorative justice · Cross-sector teams · Collaborative teams · Grassroots work · School improvement · Principal preparation · Violence prevention · Police training · Prison education · Community learning · Black male achievement · Educational systems · Cross-sector partnerships · Conceptual frameworks · System capacity · Design thinking · Research-practice partnerships · Networked improvement · Networked learning · Democratic design · Implementation space · Improvement research · Implementation

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

73

science · Positive deviance · Implementation science · Anti-deficit efforts · Educational professionals · Signature pedagogy · Scholar practitioners · Marginalized learners · Prison industrial complex · Improvement principle · Restorative practice · Black Activist Mothering · Fugitive principal preparation · Black Feminist Thought · White supremacy · Cultural racism · Constructivist learning · Inside-out prison exchange program · Violence prevention · Political activism · Human-centered design methods · InQuiry methodology · Masculinity development · Racial socialization · Twenty-first century skills · Self-efficacy · Global marketplace skills · Leadership development · Professional branding · Culturally sustaining pedagogy · Culturally responsive teaching · Culturally relevant pedagogy · Prophetic social justice · SAC partnerships

Finding a Path and Making the Road: An Introduction Honoring Elders This chapter addresses theoretical frames, empirical precedents, and design-based practices that live at the nexus of social justice and educational leadership. The work that is explicated in this chapter is viewed as finding a path forward and then turning that path into a road that can be traveled by others. The title of this chapter is meant to capture that view and to honor pioneers, named and unnamed, who have worked for social justice in education.

Honoring Elders Finding a path and then building a road to social justice in education can feel daunting, but there is encouragement – literally, the provision of courage – found in the work of pioneers such as Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Esau Jenkins, Thurgood Marshall, Bernice Robinson, Septima Clark, Rosa Parks, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Representative John Lewis, and Paulo Freire. Of course, there are many others who inspire the work, but the people listed in the previous sentence have something in common aside from their passion for social justice – they all labored with and learned with the same person. Their collaborator’s name was Myles Horton who helped established the Highlander Folk School in rural Tennessee in 1932. The Highlander Folk School – and, later, the Highlander Research and Education Center – played significant roles in the labor movement of the 1930s and 1940s and in the civil rights movement in following decades. Dr. King spent time at Highlander; he keynoted the institution’s 25th anniversary celebration. Highlander was instrumental in the development and training of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), chaired by future Member of Congress John Lewis. The work at Highlander was intentional, it was persistent, and – at it roots – it was educational (Horton, Kohl, & Kohl, 1998; Jacobs, 2003). To illustrate the educational work at Highlander, consider the common, but mistaken narrative that on the first day of December in 1955, Rosa Parks was so tired that she decided

74

Duquesne Collective Action Network

on the spot to not to give up her seat on the bus to a white man in Montgomery. She may have been tired that day, but her activism had already been tempered in her work for social justice and her intention established well before that fateful day. In 1943, Rosa Parks joined and was elected Secretary of the Montgomery Chapter of the NAACP, and by 1949, she had become advisor to the Chapter’s Youth Council. She was active, and she sought learning to advance her activism. She attended a workshop on implementing school desegregation that was held in August of 1955 at the Highlander Folk School where she met and was encouraged by Septima Clark. In December, Rosa Parks applied her demonstrated commitment to justice and her previous learning, and she applied it with great public consequence. The pioneers connected to Highlander were not just path-finders, they were roadbuilders. They found a way forward, but then – using education as a tool – they built the path into a larger throughway that others could travel as well. Paulo Freire and Myles Horton met 40 years after Highlander was founded. By that time, each had become known for his educational justice work and each was interested in learning from the other. Freire asked Horton if together they might speak a book. Horton agreed, and the two met on several occasions to have extended conversations, conversations that were transcribed and edited. The title of the book they spoke together was We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change (Horton & Freire, 1990). In the chapter that follows, the authorship seeks to show paths that have been found and roads that have been and are being built. Roads that are built by walking with real people in real places, co-laborers and co-learners who live and work in and rely on educational systems. The systems where the work is done have the best of intentions: they seek to help learners learn. The systems have helped some learners learn, but they have not effectively engaged all learners nor provided all learners equitable opportunities to learn. Indeed, even with the best of intentions, the systems have too often failed to meet the needs of learners, have marginalized learners, and have damaged futures. The people are real, the work is high stakes, and the consequences significant. In other words, the challenge is to find paths and build roads that advance social justice in education.

Operationalizing the Challenge The theory, research, and practice described in this chapter are driven by a challenge: to reimagine – in both its discourse and its practice – educational leadership for social justice. The topic of social justice has been part of the discourse for educational leadership preparation and practice for the whole of the twenty-first century (Bogotch, 2002; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Perry, 2016). Although social justice has become an increasing part of the conversation – witness this handbook – many of the conceptions of social justice that have been appropriated by educational leadership preparation programs and professional development practice have become somewhat vague and diluted (Dantley & Green, 2015). Much of what has been called social justice practice in educational leadership seems more aptly characterized as

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

75

community service. There is nothing wrong with community service, but perhaps simply increasing community service is not a sufficient goal for those who claim to teach, to research, and to practice educational leadership for social justice. Dantley and Green (2015) claim that social justice needs to be more radical and prophetic. Specifically, they issued “. . . a call for the rhetoric of social justice to become more radical in its demands for changes in educational institutions’ forms and practices and in the neighborhood communities that surround them” (Dantley & Green, 2015, p. 823). Their call was informed of a number of critical questions. Their first question asked about the impact that educational leadership practice and the scholarship of social justice has had on schools, on school districts, and on the communities in which schools are situated. That question reveals concern for schools that serve learners, for an academy that contributes scholarship, and for communities where learners live and strive. The conceptual framework for cross-sector collaborations described in the next section heeds Dantley and Green’s call for changes in both the form and the practice of educational institutions and the communities to which they are connected. But the collaborative framework underlying the network seeks more than change, it seeks change that demonstrates improvement in the systems that operate in educational institutions and in communities. Each effort to improve a system in which learners live and work is a collaboration, and each collaborative effort represents a node in a collective action network. In the next section “A Collective Network and Its Working Space,” the why and how of the Duquesne Collective Action Network (D-CAN) is explicated by examining the nature of the cross-sector partnerships that have been formed to pursue social justice work in education, the nature of the work space created by the partnerships, the theoretical frameworks that drive the work – public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice – and the working assumptions that have emerged from the collective. The network and its working space are presented not as the model for social justice work in education but as one model of that work – work that seeks to improve systems that have marginalized and harmed learners.

A Collective Action Network and Its Working Space This section describes the people and organizations who collaborate in a collective action network, the working space that supports the collaboration and how the collaborative work of the network is framed conceptually and theoretically.

The People and Their Workplaces The Duquesne Collective Action Network (D-CAN) is a cross-sector, research, and development collective focused on building system capacity in local schools and their communities. D-CAN includes local teams comprising educational leaders who work in the community school, researchers who work in academic institutions, and

76

Duquesne Collective Action Network

local community members. The community members of the collective include currently and formerly incarcerated citizens, community organizers and activists, government officials, clergy, high school students, undergraduate and graduate students, former police officers, lawyers, nonprofit executives, counselors, writers, documentary filmmakers, actors, and artists, among others. The network exists to build grassroots capacity that can be deployed in local schools and their communities to address educational inequity and marginalization and to improve educational futures. The network is concerned with all of a community’s learners: its children, its youth, and its adults, including those youth and adults displaced from the community by incarceration. In the end, the purpose of D-CAN is to engage with local expertise to engage a solution-driven model of inquiry and action in order to solve local, persistent problems of educational injustice. Using design thinking – especially the principles of design-based implementation research (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Dolle, Gomez, Russell, & Bryk, 2013, LeMahieu, Nordstrum, & Potvin, 2017) – and cross-sector collaboration based on democratic engagement (Saltmarsh, 2017), the network seeks to develop a process of improvement inquiry that will help schools and communities get better at getting better and to sustain that improvement mind-set for the long-term (Bryk, Gomez, Grunow, & LeMahieu, 2015; Peurach, 2016). As a collective action network, D-CAN connects not only individuals but teams of individuals that cross contexts as well as organizational and disciplinary boundaries. The collective’s work happens in different places, with different people, on different matters of social justice in education. While the work can be characterized generally as concerned with matters of social justice in educational contexts, there is diversity of people, of communities, and of issues and problems addressed in the network: that diversity is unified by the network’s working space.

The Working Space Anthony Bryk, at the outset of his presidency of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, called for a new research and development capacity to improve educational practice. He and his colleagues at the Carnegie Foundation noted that many professions allocate substantial amounts of their operating budgets to R&D, but that education invests less than one-quarter of one percent of its operating budgets in research and development (Bryk & Gomez, 2008). In addition to poor funding, they – and others – noted over a decade ago that the education academy continued to privilege theoretical over practical knowledge. Bryk–in an early Message from the President posted on the Carnegie Foundation website in 2009 – claimed “Designers, developers, and researchers need to work in close collaboration with educational practitioners from the beginning. We cannot achieve the improvements needed so long as R&D operates in accord with an if-we-design-it-they-will-come principle. The full range of stakeholders must be at the design table” (italics added). Some might argue that not much has changed in educational research, but there are reasons to think otherwise. There have been efforts to make the design table more

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

77

accommodating for a diversity of stakeholders and to form cross-sector partnerships focused on designing and delivering better education. The emergence of researchpractice partnerships is one example of such efforts. Research-practice partnerships (RPPs) seek to increase the role of research in improving educational practices and student achievement (Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Coburn, Penuel, & Geil, 2013). These partnerships provide opportunities to use research in decision-making that can improve educational outcomes (Fishman, Penuel, Allen, & Cheng, 2013). RPPs bring together practitioners and researchers for long-term collaborations that are focused by challenges that practitioners face as they seek to improve educational outcomes in schools and districts. Ideally, the collaborative work in RPPs is negotiated jointly and pursued under shared authority (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Studies of the benefits and challenges of RPPs have tended to focus on what practitioners learn when they work with researchers (e.g., Farrell & Coburn, 2017). But it is critical to understand that researchers learn from practitioners as well (Rigby, Forman, Fox, & Kazemi, 2018). As the Carnegie Foundation continued its work on new models for an enhanced R&D capacity for education, it advanced the Design, Educational Engineering and Development (DEED) model as a new way of thinking about R&D in education (Bryk & Gomez, 2008). The DEED model called for a cross-sector working space for solving problems in schools. The DEED model identified the need for collaboration among three expert groups: designers, developers, and researchers. The DEED model for R&D led to additional efforts to reimagine improvement inquiry. Improvement inquiry will be discussed later in this section, but one aspect of improvement inquiry requires mention here: Networked Improvement Communities (NICs) (Bryk, Gomez, & Grunow, 2011; Bryk et al., 2015; LeMahieu, Grunow, Baker, Nordstrum, & Gomez, 2017; Russell et al., 2017). A networked improvement community is a distinct network that arranges human and technical resources so that the community is capable of getting better at getting better (Englebart, 2003). It is an “intentionally formed social organization [that] imposes specific demands on the rules and norms of participation” (p. 10) that aims to address a high-leverage problem: i.e., a problem that, if addressed, would likely leverage other positive change within the organization. This notion of networked learning to improve practice fosters a sense of learning through doing which is a lens through which the improvement work of the Carnegie Foundation is now framed. During the timeframe that the NIC approach at the Carnegie Foundation was developing, a parallel effort was taking place at Duquesne University. Having found the DEED work significant to the education improvement efforts in the greater Pittsburgh area, a partnership vehicle for educational improvement was developed and a sequence of design efforts were undertaken. One such effort was Duquesne’s contribution to the Pittsburgh Emerging Leadership Academy (PELA), a component of the larger Pittsburgh Urban Leadership System for Excellence (PULSE) initiative (Dostilio, Perry, & McCown, 2011; Pittsburgh Public Schools, n.d.). The partnership vehicle that was developed is called School-Academy-Community (SAC) Partnerships and seeks to bring together stakeholders from local schools,

78

Duquesne Collective Action Network

from local universities, and the local communities (including nonprofits, for-profits, and organizations and individuals who hold an interest in improving outcomes for a community’s learners). SAC partnerships address problems that are high leverage, that bear on inequities in learning opportunities and achievement, and that stakeholders agree are worth the investment of time, energy, and other resources to address the problems. Within the SAC partnership model, this means (1) that the high-leverage problem are situated in a local context; (2) that the high-leverage problem is understood through a lens of social justice; and (3) there is consensus across the SAC boundaries that the problem – if effectively addressed – would render additional benefit to the school’s and community’s efforts to serve its learners. The purpose of a SAC partnership is twofold: first, to identify and understand obstacles that get in the way of learner success and second, to design, develop, and implement ways of overcoming those obstacles through co-learning and collaboration, bringing diverse ideas and input together at each stage of the process. Design-based research has emerged in the twenty-first century as a significant investigative approach in education (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Barab & Squire, 2004; Cobb, Confrey, diSessa, Lehrer, & Schauble, 2003; Collins, Joseph, & Bielaczyc, 2004). The working space of the Duquesne Collective Action Network is depicted in Fig. 1. The space is characterized as a democratic design, development, and implementation space and is consistent with most human-centered design approaches (the website of the d.school at Stanford University – https://dschool. stanford.edu/about – is a good resource for those interested in learning more about human-centered design). Figure 1 depicts the working space for D-CAN. Within the context of the crosssector, democratic collaboration, “design, development, and implementation” means • Understanding the design challenge (a.k.a. problem) • Creating solutions that respond to the understood design challenge • Implementing and improving (a.k.a. prototyping) solutions that successfully address the challenge

A Democratic Design, Development & Implementation Space Schools

Academy

Community

Fig. 1 Design, development, and implementation space, used by SAC partnerships in the Duquesne Collective Action Network. (Adapted from Fig. 8.1: A New Domain of Work: Design, Engineering, and Development to Advance School Improvement (Bryk & Gomez, 2008, p. 187) and from Dostilio et al., 2011)

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

79

Those who collaborate on the above steps engage across the boundaries of school, the academy, and the community. What is designed, developed, and implemented within the working space of SAC partnerships is public scholarship focused on improving educational systems that have caused or perpetuated harm to learners through unjust policies and/or practices. In other words, the work is framed by theories of public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice. The frames are described briefly in turn. Public Scholarship. In her Presidential Address to the American Educational Research Association in its centennial year, Jeannie Oakes celebrated the vast amounts of knowledge produced by educational researchers that has informed both policy and practice in the past 100 years. She then continued as follows: However, despite our best intentions then and now, new knowledge that documents and/or offers solutions to inadequate, discriminatory, or undemocratic practices is insufficient to drive policies and practices toward equity and inclusion. Social and educational betterment requires knowledge, science, and solutions to penetrate public perceptions and politics, and it’s clear that perceptions and politics don’t change just because they conflict with data. For research to matter, that is, to better society and schools, it must escape the ivory tower and engage in the public sphere. The public and policymakers need coaches, guides, collaborators, and translators to make such knowledge accessible, sensible, and usable. We can and must take on these important tasks as researchers and citizens. (Oakes, 2018, p. 91)

There is a long history of public scholarship in education. Oakes (2018) provides an excellent overview of that history and connects it to more recent efforts to advance agendas by institutions such as Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life, the Kellogg Commission, AERA, TEDx, and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Such agendas carry labels such as public scholarship, community-engaged scholarship, engaged institutions, and the scholarship of application. The Center for Community and Civic Engagement (CCCE) at Carleton College – a member institution of the Imaging America consortium – characterizes public scholarship as involving “. . . mutually-beneficial partnerships between higher education and organizations in the public and private sectors. Its goals include . . . addressing and helping to solve critical social problems and contributing to the public good” (https://apps.carleton.edu/ccce/scholarship/what_is/). The Carleton College CCCE website is a useful resource for those wishing to explore public scholarship within a supportive academic environment. It includes Imagining America’s definition of public scholarship: “. . . as scholarly or creative activity that joins serious intellectual endeavor with a commitment to public practice and public consequence” (see Ellison & Eatman, 2008). Looking at social justice issues in education through the frame or lens of public scholarship focuses the need for academics and school professionals to learn from and learn with community stakeholders to understand the public consequences of (1) a design challenge and (2) the designs that are developed and tested in a public context. The next frame, improvement inquiry, supports the need for cross-sector

80

Duquesne Collective Action Network

collaboration as well, but it also helps focus our design thinking on the educational systems in which public practice occurs. Improvement Inquiry. Improvement inquiry starts with a critical assumption, sometimes referred to as the central law of improvement: “Every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results it produces” (Langley et al., 2009, p. 79). If a system produces unacceptable results, then opportunities to design and test potential improvements are revealed. The central law also means that examining and investigating system structures and processes can reveal laudatory results that point to the assets in the system. Those who work across boundaries are aware of how the people who come together to collaborate in a common design, development, and implementation space differ in terms of background, experiences, and expertise. It is important to recognize that people are human, and that there is a human tendency to commit what is known as the fundamental attribution error (Langley et al., 2009; Ross, 2018). The error is that we tend to explain our own behavior as being influenced by our environmental circumstances, while attributing the behavior of others to some personal deficiency (e.g., lack of commitment, dedication, knowledge, etc.). The central law of improvement helps focus the work of the collective on the systems in which people live and work rather than on assumed deficiencies of others. An unacceptable result is an opportunity to improve the system rather than place blame. Six principles of improvement research have emerged from the work of Carnegie Foundation. The book Learning to Improve: How America’s Schools Can Get Better at Getting Better (Bryk et al., 2015) is organized around the six principles, which are summarized briefly below. The italicized statements are chapter titles in Bryk et al. (2015). 1. Make the work problem-specific and user-centered. It starts with a single question: Ask the question: What specifically is the problem we are trying to solve? Ask the question of those in the working space key and often. 2. Focus on variation in performance. The key question is not, What works? Rather, we need to know what works for whom and under what set of conditions. What is the efficacy of our designs and how can they be implemented at scale? 3. See the system that produces the current outcomes. It is hard to improve a system that you do not fully understand. Observing and collecting data about the system and from those in the system is necessary in order to learn how local conditions shape practice. 4. We cannot improve at scale what we cannot measure. It is critical to measure not just key outcomes but the processes by which designs are implemented. The idea of “practical measurement” is important here. 5. Use disciplined inquiry to drive improvement. Engage rapid cycles of improvement such as Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. Learning from the cycles means not just successes but also failures. To fail is not the problem, failure to learn from failure is. 6. Accelerate improvements through networked communities. Bring together diverse experiences, expertise, and commitments in a space that supports democratic engagement in the design, development, and implementation of agendas.

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

81

The above principles offer general guidance for learning how to improve an educational system. In a special issue of the journal Quality Assurance in Education (Volume 25, Issue 1) a comparative analysis of seven approaches to improvement in education is provided. The seven approaches follow: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Networked Improvement Communities Design-Based Implementation Research Deliverology Implementation Science Lean for Education Six Sigma Positive Deviance

After an introductory article (LeMahieu, Bryk, Grunow, & Gomez, 2017), each approach is analyzed to answer three questions: • How are problems identified, understood, and specified? • How are solutions designed, tested, and warranted as improvements? • How is improvement knowledge spread? The authors conclude that Deliverology and Implementation Science are helpful when the problem is managing and scaling well-planned interventions. Networked Improvement Communities, Design-Based Implementation Research, and Positive Deviance are approaches that serve well under conditions where the responsibility for the improvement of practice rests with those most engaged in the practice (e.g., in a school, teachers and principals). Improving processes in large organizations is consistent with Lean for Education and Six Sigma. One final comment regarding the conceptual frame for improving educational systems: this subsection is titled improvement inquiry. Some refer to the larger framework as improvement science (e.g., Langley et al., 2009) and by others as improvement research (e.g., Bryk et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2017). Consider the Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate (CPED). CPED is a consortium of over 100 universities focused on improving the preparation of educational professionals (CPED, n.d.). The consortium has been instrumental in advancing the notion that improvement inquiry/science/research should be a signature pedagogy – a distinctive element in a profession’s preparation of practitioners – in doctoral programs in education (c.f., Shulman, 2005). CPED refers to professionals who are capable of leading efforts to improve educational organizations and systems as scholarly practitioners (Perry, 2016). Thus, curriculums of many CPED institutions now include course work and field work that are informed by the six principles of improvement and the approaches summarized above. Some CPED curricula refer to science and some to research. The Duquesne Collective Action Network employs the phrase improvement inquiry rather than science or research. The terminology resulted from a lesson learned during a SAC partnership convening in May 2017. Community partners at

82

Duquesne Collective Action Network

the convening suggested that the terms science and research carry connotations that send the wrong message: that the knowledge of those who practice in the academy – scientists and researchers – should be privileged over the knowledge of those who practice in schools and/or the community. The use of improvement inquiry is an effort to better communicate a commitment of democratic engagement across the boundaries of school, academy, and community. Figure 2 below depicts a D-CAN design for improvement inquiry that is being used in several projects. The design is a prototype, the version below is version 2.3. The design is a protocol involving six general phases. Overall, the six phases are thought to be elements of an iterative cycle, but iteration also occurs within each element of the cycle. The elements are briefly characterized following Fig. 2. Story Mapping: Collecting stories from those who live and work and strive in the locale that will honor the wisdom of place, build relationships, and democratically Fig. 2 The iterative phases of the improvement inquiry prototype that is used in the Duquesne Collective Action Network

Story Mapping

Problem/Practice Focus Analysis

System Analysis

Theory of Practice Improvement

Measurement Logistics

Improvement Cycles

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

83

collect data that inform local assets for and challenges to educational success of all learners (Guajardo, Guajardo, Janson, & Militello, 2016; Tredway & Generett, 2015). Problem/Practice Analysis: In order to uncover, discover, and/or reveal the problem (or the focus of improvement inquiry), the stories collected and mapped will serve as data to inform the localized problem but also to prompt further consultation of extant data to understand how performance varies across users within the system. The problem analysis will document variations in practices and performances as revealed by mapped stories and other extant data. Additional data collection – deemed necessary by the problem analysis – will be completed and added to the documentation of the problem of practice. System Analysis: The problem of practice (focus of improvement) – as it manifested within the practice context – will be examined using tools of improvement inquiry. One example of an improvement inquiry tool that might be used is called a system improvement map. The tool situates problematic variation within system structures and processes and can generate additional data that supplement stories and practice analysis. Theory of Practice Improvement: Having investigated, characterized, and situated the problem of practice (or practice focus) in the localized context, cross-sector stakeholders generate (1) a root cause analysis and (2) a theory action that, in improvement inquiry, is called a theory of practice improvement (Bryk et al., 2015). The theory can be represented as a driver diagram that identifies potential actions that can be enacted and tested to improve educational practices, processes, and outcomes. Measurement Logistics: Using the theory of practice improvement, an action plan that prioritizes the improvement efforts (What comes first? What comes second?) is specified. Key to the action plan are (1) logistical arrangements that will embed key outcome and process measures (practical measurement) in the ongoing improvement effort and (2) help determine the scale of implementation that will initiate improvement cycles. Improvement Cycles: Change ideas are enacted through Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to test whether the changes are improvements. Small changes that enable rapid improvement cycles will be the modal starting point. As the local changes are made in the practice context, data from improvement cycles will be used to evaluate (1) the practice interventions and (2) the design of the improvement inquiry process within each local practice context and across the network. Improvement data will also be shared throughout the D-CAN so that feedback from other improvement teams can be used drive reflection and to refine actions in subsequent improvement cycles. To this point, the work of SAC partnerships has been framed as being concerned with matters of public practice and consequence that focuses on improving educational systems. The final framing concept focuses directly on promoting social justice in education. Restorative Justice. Although restorative justice can and has been defined in many ways, there is considerable agreement with criminologist and eminent

84

Duquesne Collective Action Network

restorative justice theorist, Howard Zehr, that restorative justice starts with concern for the victim of a crime and how to repair as much damage as possible (Zehr, 2015). Starting from a criminal justice perspective – where there are perpetrators and victims – it makes sense that the early work focused on the damage done to the victim, including efforts at victim-offender mediation (Zehr, 2004). As work in restorative justice has moved forward and spread to matters of public consequence beyond criminal justice – such as education – the issues of who and how many are harmed and how damage is perpetrated by systems as well as individuals or groups of individuals are refocused. Recalling the central law of improvement – that every system is perfectly designed to produce the results it gets (Langley et al., 2009) – we can ask of any system if there are unacceptable results. There are social and economic systems – including educational systems – that produce community violence, marginalized learners, school-to-prison pipelines, the prison industrial complex, rampant recidivism, broken families, and children and youth who are situated in poverty by criminal behavior and who, therefore, suffer adverse childhood experiences (Hunt, Slack, & Berger, 2017; Tough, 2012). Unacceptable damage has occurred and needs to be repaired. How do educators and educational stakeholders design, develop, and implement improvements that address the damage caused by systemic inequities and injustices? The systems that contribute to inequity and injustice must first be understood before they can be improved. The improvement principle – See the system – applies here (Bryk et al., 2015). Restorative work is complicated because seeing the system . . . requires making sense of who experienced harm, how the harm affected people and relationships, and how stakeholders can seek a community response to the harm as opposed to fueling further polarization of those involved. This is difficult work, which is one reason why many schools lean on the language of restorative practice rather than restorative justice. The harder work is establishing a mind-set or paradigm that views all children as valuable and worthy of affirming learning practices. (Winn, 2018, p. 7, original italics)

Seeing a system through the lens of restorative justice means, mean understanding what have been called the three pillars of restorative justice (Zehr, 2015). 1. Harms and needs: Who has been harmed and whose needs require attention? 2. Obligations: How do we avoid the tendency to blame people in the system and focus on designing that which educators are obliged to provide a culture that supports all learners (children, youth, and adults)? 3. Engagement: How do we design opportunities for democratic engagement for all who hold stake in just practices within an educational system? The three pillars have led to a model of restorative justice practice in educational systems. The practice is seen as having essential elements that align with core beliefs that human beings are worthy of respect and dignity and that they relate authentically with other through mutual concern. As a lens for designing, developing, and

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

85

implementing improvements to systems, restorative justice suggests that our practice should include designing, developing, and implementing just and equitable environments for learners, healthy interpersonal relationships, and intentional action to repair harm and transform conflict (Evans & Vaandering, 2016). Figure 3 shows the theoretical lenses that are used to focus the cross-sector work portrayed in Fig. 1. Thus, the design, development, and implementation work that is undertaken by SAC partnerships is informed by the imperative of public scholarship, the principles and methods of improvement inquiry, and the recognition that some of the unacceptable results of perfectly designed systems require restorative practices to address harm to the learners – children, youth, and adults – who live and work in local educational systems. As the partnerships in the network have designed, developed, and implemented efforts to improve, lessons about how to engage across boundaries have been learned. There is considerable evidence to document the failure of changes that are imposed on educational systems from the top down (Fishman, Penuel, Allen, Cheng, & Sabelli, 2013; Penuel & Spillane, 2014). One of the lessons learned through network efforts is that it is common educational practice for those who hold power and privilege in an educational system to impose solutions on those who live and work in that system. Those who work in and are served by educational systems are directed to implement solutions even when they play no role in identifying and describing the problem (Mintrop, 2016). This top-down mode of leadership contributes to social harm and damage. The collective action network seeks to challenge this normative practice by engaging with co-learners across the boundaries of school, academy, and community. Based on lessons learned from working within a space of democratic engagement (see Fig. 1) that is framed by public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice (see Fig. 3), a set of working assumptions have emerged. The working assumptions are influenced by the axioms underlying Community Learning Exchanges (Guajardo et al., 2016).

Public Scholarship

S

A Improvement Inquiry

C Restorative Justice

Fig. 3 The educational designs that are developed and implemented in the working space of D-CAN are focused by the frameworks of public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice

86

Duquesne Collective Action Network

• It is assumed that improvement inquiry includes powerful strategies for disrupting inequitable, ineffective, and inefficient educational policy and practice. We assume that Community Learning Exchanges include powerful pedagogies and andragogies that acknowledge and engage the culture in challenged contexts. And, we accept the common wisdom that “Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Therefore, it is critical to build local capacity for educational improvement through work that is primarily cultural and secondarily strategic. • It is assumed that local stakeholders are the best source of experience and expertise. Therefore, it is critical to engage local stakeholders as co-learners: as the experts on what needs to be improved and on the assets that can be brought to bear to achieve improvement. • It is assumed that educational equity precedes educational excellence. • It is assumed that the stakeholders who live and work in the practice context are the best source of data that can drive improvement. Therefore, it is critical to map the stories of stakeholders as a first step in understanding the provenance of the problem. • It is assumed the problems are opportunities to improve and that local assets to drive improvement exist. Therefore, it is critical to engage with stakeholders not just in “problem research” but also in “bright spots analysis” to inform improvement efforts. • It is assumed that the improvement of educational culture and outcomes takes time. Having framed the work and shared some of the lessons learned within the collective network, the next section presents overviews discrete cases of the some of the improvement efforts of separate cross-sector teams (SAC partnerships) in the network. Again, these cases are not models for doing this work but rather are models of efforts to improve systems that are in need of restorative justice and to do so in a public manner.

Nodes in the Network: Grassroots Efforts in Pursuit of Social Justice The seven case projects described in this section share (1) the challenge of improving both the form and the practice of educational institutions and their communities (Dantley & Green, 2015); (2) the working assumptions for engaging co-learners and collaborators across sector boundaries; and (3) the cases share the conceptual frames of public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice. Although there are some commonalities across the nodes of the network, there are also variations. As will be seen, the cases vary in terms of the problems identified and addressed, where those problems are situated, and the people and organizations who are engaged. The cases may represent efforts that share working assumptions in a collective action network, but the improvement partnerships do not all do the same things in exactly the same way. For example, the cases that follow are not in lock-

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

87

step in terms of the problems they seek to address. Not so incidentally, this aspect of D-CAN practice places the network outside of a key proscription for Networked Improvement Communities (Bryk et al., 2015; Russell et al., 2017). Even so, cases embrace much of the theory that has evolved from the NICs approach to educational improvement. The efforts described below do not use the same data collection and analysis tools nor do they engage the same kinds of communities or stakeholder groups. Out of the diversity of experience – reflected by the seven projects described above – the network has learned some common lessons. Lessons that we think will help those who are interested – individually and collectively – in building the road forward.

Principal Preparation: (Re)purposing the Master’s Tool Black Activist Mothering (BAM) serves the critical framework for fugitive principal preparation. Once that framework is aligned with learning methods of critical adult education (CAE), a “fugitive principal preparation” focuses the design, development, and implementation of the repurposed role of school principal. The framework, methods, and alignment are addressed briefly in turn. BAM rides on the continuum of the Black Feminist Thought ranging across the variety of perspectives of being Black, female, woman, African diaspora descent, and other mothers. As the lens through one’s leadership practice is developed, a BAM perspective changes the way one can understand the purposes of education, educational leadership preparation, and school. BAM is a processing lens that filters in liberatory, emancipatory, and spiritual militancy strategies learned through Black mothers (McDonald, 1997) and Black mothers as leaders (Edwards, 2000; Gilkes, 1983; Hill Collins, 1990, 1991; Horsford, 2012; Hudson-Weems, 1998, 2000; Isoke, 2013; James & Sharpley-Whiting, 2000; Keating, 2016; McDonald, 1997; Sakho, 2017) who have engaged. It is a type of collective transformative agency (Dillard, 1995; Rodela & Bertrand, 2018) that bridges the historicity of leadership and race across the collective knowledges of elders, parents, youth, and grassroots leaders inclusive of school leaders (Khalifa, 2012; Khalifa, Gooden, & Davis, 2016) involved in educative justice (Sakho, 2017). A leadership that is memetic of the great ancestress Ella Baker – who first coined and modeled consistently – groupcentered leadership (James, 1994). Hill Collins’ – as both elder and canon – revisit of Black Feminist Thought challenges those of us who situate our personal that is political within the Black Feminist Thought paradigm to interrogate our work as an “oppositional knowledge system” (Hill Collins, 2016). This is similar to David Stovall’s call for faculty who prepare educator leaders to push oppositional knowledge paradigms to ask direct questions about, at best, hostile learning environments and, at worst, the disposability and death of Black youth in school (Stovall, 2016). The BAM lens is further sharpened by Stovall’s defining of the “fugitive politic.” Making the lens a way to develop praxis “for those who engage the construct to continue their efforts in the struggle against White supremacy” (Stovall, 2016, p. 277). This way of practicing principal preparation is also demonstrative of

88

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Dillard’s position that “effective leadership is transformative political work” (Dillard, 1995, p. 560). So today, principal preparation programs must design, develop, and implement practices that preservice principals for racialized, hostile, policy-driven resegregation and market-driven and parent-triggered choice (Horsford, 2017; Stovall, 2016, 2018). Through the development of racial awareness and critical consciousness, the leader can build community and develop new institutional relationships that are not dependent on domination and subordination of any racial groups. . .the institutional system does not evolve and cannot exist outside of individual actions, made more noticeable through the promotion of individual and cultural racism. Thus, the focus of our work is on seeing, surfacing, interrogating, and changing those individual actions, regardless of intention. (Gooden & O’Doherty, 2015, p. 230)

Recent work by the Wallace Foundation (Harvey & Holland 2011; DarlingHammond et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2004), UCEA (Winn et al., 2016), and RAND (Burkhauser, Gates, Hamilton, & Schuyler Ikemoto, 2012; Gates et al., 2014) suggests that the role of principal in a school building has the ability to impact the academic, culture, and climate schools along with the postsecondary outcomes of students, especially those who experience marginalized educational opportunities. Further, the role of the building level principal is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5). Holding all the above as true, students in principal preparation programs need to be engaged in a critical praxis triangulation of “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (Freire, 1970, p. 126).

Community as Text: Honoring the Power of Place and Wisdom of People The most powerful yet underutilized text for learning is the community. Specifically, the power of the place and the wisdom of the people who live there. This mantra of Power of Place and Wisdom of People allow those who seek to improve public practice and/or restore social harm to use the Community as Text. This principle has always been applied in interactions with family and friends. The application of the principle to work in and with community members has become normalized in work known as Community Learning Exchange (CLE). CLEs are built on a set of five axioms (Guajardo et al., 2016): 1. Learning and Leadership Are a Dynamic Social Process Learning how to lead and learn within the context of relationships is at the core of leadership and the construction of the necessary conditions that nurture this development in an inviting and dignified manner. 2. Conversations Are Critical and Central Pedagogical Processes At the core of social learning theory is the need to create safe spaces and healthy relationships for participants, learners, and teachers alike to share their stories.

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

89

Relationships are the first point of contact in the learning process, and storytelling and conversation are the mediating tools. If the climate, spirit, and interaction between participants, facilitator, and/or their environment are not inviting and safe, it is difficult for sustainable and public learning to take place. 3. The People Closest to the Issues Are Best Situated to Discover Answers to Local Concerns As the CLE organizes around a certain topic, participants are invited and expected to engage with each other through sharing their individual and community stories and experiences around the CLE topic. Such engagement fosters a creative agency that helps people find their power and voice, and the process responds to the need for local communities to own their destiny, though not in an individualistic manner. 4. Crossing Boundaries Enriches the Development and Educational Process The ability and willingness to experience a world that is outside one’s daily comfort zone is necessary to break the isolation of people, teams, and organizations. This dynamic is familiar and easier to comprehend when teams are invited to join national CLEs, but it becomes more difficult to articulate when CLEs are convened locally. The traditional boundary crossing includes, but is not limited to, geographic borders, economic borders, age, culture and racial borders, gender, faith, and differing abilities. 5. Hope and Change Are Built on Assets and Dreams of Locals and Their Communities When CLE participants tell their own story, they begin to map their gifts, ideas, hopes, and wishes. This mapping includes ideological, relational, and geographical skills, riches, wishes, and assets. The identification, naming, and construction of these assets invite CLE participants to view their work and their community in different ways. Issues that have historically been assumptions immediately become opportunities, invitations, and points of action. Transforming one’s mind and consciousness from distress and hopelessness to hope and possibilities is, by definition, the most radical transformation witnessed during the CLE experience. Working from the fundamental and radical assumption that the people closest to the issues are those best situated to address those issues and discover answers to the concerns that arise from them. CLEs engage in practices that are invitational for people to share their stories, assets, and wisdom. Learning must be constructed and it must be nested in culture (Lumby & Foskett, 2011). Constructivist learning is “fundamentally active and social by nature because a learner’s interactions with the environment provide a contextualized understanding of formal learning [where the] . . . teacher serves as a facilitator of learning by seeking solutions to authentic problems in the learner’s world” (Byrne-Jiménez, Gooden, & Tucker, 2017, p. 179). This is what Dewey (1938) says about continuous, reciprocal, and interactive experiences that are deep enough to carry us over the dead space that is inevitable in learning. Community Learning Exchanges offer fresh perspective and approaches to thoughtful reform efforts that fully integrate content, context, pedagogy, and action.

90

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Topics have varied from exchange to exchange depending on the expressed needs of local citizens. These have included: Igniting Youth Voice and Choice, Rehabilitating Indigenous Youth and Family Relationships with Public Schooling, and Leading for Racial Healing in Schools, Families, and Communities. Participants attend in teams. Teams have been comprised of school staff, students and their families, and community members. There is diversity within these teams by roles that include school and building leaders, teachers, counselors, parent leaders or coordinators, nonprofit partners, university partners, school board members, and K-12 students ranging in age from 5 to 19. Engagement strategies include gracious space, circles, learning walks, digital stories, world café, carousels, journey lines, storytelling, and story mapping (see http://iel.org/protocols for a full set of the CLE strategies). Recently, a middle school principal in North Carolina hosted a CLE. The CLE brought current and former students and educators together to unpack how the middle school was forged from four schools in the segregated south. The CLE proved to be both informative about the historical trauma that took place and also transformative as new relationship across racial and generational lines were created (see video of the event at https://vimeo.com/89404394).

Police Training Inside-Out Since 1997, the Inside-Out Prison Exchange Program (the website is http://www. insideoutcenter.org) has brought tens of thousands of college students together with incarcerated men and women to study as peers behind prison walls (Allred, 2009). The program consists of semester-long academic courses through which “outside” undergraduate students and an equal number of “inside” incarcerated students attend class together inside prison. Learners who successfully complete an Inside-Out course – incarcerated or not – can form a Think Tank, group that meets regularly to investigate and act on local concerns. In September 2013, six men serving life sentences came together with Dr. Norman Conti, their Inside-Out instructor, to form the Elsinore-Bennu Think Tank (EBTT) at State Correctional Institution (SCI)-Pittsburgh. The name reflects both Hamlet’s grim Elsinore castle and Bennu, the Egyptian symbol of rebirth. The “inside members” soon welcomed several additional outside participants from Duquesne and the Pittsburgh area for the purpose of seeking ways to advance restorative justice for those harmed by the criminal behavior that the life sentences. The inside members had – and still have – a powerful commitment to share their hard-won knowledge, experience, and wisdom with their neighbors and families. Since the closing of SCI-Pittsburgh in 2017, the EBTT has met and continues to meet every Friday morning on the Duquesne Campus. From 2009 through 2016, the group – the Elsinore-Bennu Think Tank for Restorative Justice – devoted considerable effort to developing, negotiating, and funding an ancillary curriculum for police academy training designed to improve the professional socialization of police officers by lessening the transmission of outdated notions within their occupational culture. Specifically, the design synthesized the Inside-Out Prison Exchange

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

91

Program (Pompa, 2013; Werts, 2013) with police academy training. As a result of the cross-sector partnership between the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police, Duquesne University, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, among others, police recruits join incarcerated men to study as peers in a seminar. The seminar is an academic course, meeting once a week, where “outside” students (i.e., police officers and/or recruits) and an equal number of “inside” students (i.e., incarcerated men) attend class together inside a prison. Police Training Inside-Out (hereafter PTI-O) is a response to the widely accepted finding that traditional training methods are failing new officers and their departments (Buerger, 1998; Conti, 2009; Fielding, 1988, Harris, 1973; Lundman, 1980). There is a consensus among scholars that traditional training promotes the type of us versus them mentality that undermines even the best efforts of law enforcement within the communities they serve. Training environments that apply pressure to recruits for the sole purpose of generating a response to that pressure (i.e., high stress paramilitary academies) (Conti, 2009, 2011) socialize recruits into maladaptive coping strategies. While extreme harassment, debasement, isolation, and a loss of identity are supposed to resocialize the recruit into a disciplined officer, they lack any educational value whatsoever (Shernock, 1998). Moreover, paramilitary stress academies produce defensive and depersonalized officers while collegiate nonstress training models, a small minority in American policing, have no such consequences (Lundman, 1980). Additionally, depersonalized teaching models undermine cohesion among police officers of different racial backgrounds (Conti & Doreian, 2011, 2014). Furthermore, the stress model can result in unquestioning obedience to superiors, increased hostility, and low self-esteem (McCreedy, 1980). For over a decade, scholars outside of education have criticized the role of pedagogy in police training, noting that a system designed for the transmission of information from expert to novice implies that the learners are children (see Birzer, 2003; Marenin, 2004). Rather, those scholars suggest andragogy (i.e., the mutual involvement of expert and novice in the learning process) as an alternative training regime. An andragogical structure was expected to better orient officers toward problem-solving, critical thinking, and the goals of policing in a democracy rather than the “robot, soldier-like mentality that has been perpetuated in the training classroom” under the pedagogical system (Birzer & Tannehill, 2001). Bringing this idea into practice began with several requests for funding from various criminal justice agencies. While the proposals were generally well received and described as innovative, reviewers were skeptical about the likelihood of law enforcement agencies actually participating in this sort of a program. Nevertheless, the partnership moved forward without funding and begin the program locally with a pilot course made up of six municipal police officers and six men imprisoned at a state correctional institution. (For the course, all participants, both police and incarcerated men, received three credits – at either the graduate or undergraduate level – depending on their previous education.) Thanks to a positive reception from the police command staff, PTI-O was immediately established as a training module for an existing recruit cohort. Unfortunately, the day before the class ended, it was announced that SCI-Pittsburgh would

92

Duquesne Collective Action Network

be closing within a few months. However, prior to the close of the facility, a cohort of 20 recruits completed a course with 18 men from the prison. The second iteration of the course was so well received that, with the local prison closing, the police department agreed to send all future recruits up to an hour away for course meetings at another institution. As part of the ongoing improvement efforts, PTI-O partnered with the Pittsburgh Holocaust center and the National Holocaust Museum and Memorial to include their training module, Law Enforcement and Society: Lessons from the Holocaust. The national center has successfully trained over 100,000 law enforcement officers in recent years and the program is a tremendous addition to PTI-O. As of this writing, design-based implementation studies (LeMahieu, Nordstrum, & Potvin, 2017) are being designed to investigate the impact of these changes on both the attitudes and behaviors of inside and outside students.

Interrupting Violence It has been argued that violence prevention activities can reduce violence in the community. The strategy of treating violence like a contagious disease comes from the work of Gary Slutkin. He is the founder of a program based out of Chicago called Cure Violence. (Evaluations and the history of the highly respected NGO can be found on the website: http://cureviolence.org. See also, Butts, Roman, Bostwick, & Porter, 2015). Violence works like any other contagious disease. One’s chance of catching the disease increases by exposure to the disease. Similar to tuberculosis and the flu, one’s chances of catching this disease increase from being exposed to it. Violence works the same way; chances of being either a victim of violence or a perpetrator of violence increase as one’s rate of exposure to violence increases. Operating on the framing assumption that violence is a disease points to ways of treating the disease. The Cure Violence model has three key elements to stop the transmission of violent behavior (Butts et al., 2015): 1. Interrupt directly the transmission of the disease 2. Identify and treat the highest risk individuals and prevent the spread of the disease 3. Change community norms that promote violence Direct interruption means mediating conflicts, preventing retaliation, keep ongoing conflicts “cool.” In the Cure Violence model, individuals who are recruited for treatment meet a majority of the following criteria: involved in a gang; major player in a drug or street organization; history of violent crime; recently incarcerated; thought to carry a gun; recent shooting victim; and between ages of 16 and 25. Changing community norms means responding to every shooting, organizing within the community, and public education that communicates that violence is not inevitable, that it can be stopped. Efforts to interrupt violence in Pittsburgh, where this node of the collective action network operates, has added a fourth element: to attend to identities and identity

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

93

transformation (see Thompson & McCown, 2018). The local effort has also been influenced by cross-sector learning and interactions with a variety of local programs, including FOCUS Pittsburgh S. G. Goldberg and C. O’Connor (2018). FOCUS Pittsburgh uses a three-pillar strategy called Trauma-Informed Community Development. Among the efforts to disrupt the transmission of violence is a Trauma Response Team which travels to and remains in the neighborhood where gun violence has occurred (The FOCUS Pittsburgh website is https://www.focuspgh. org). The Pittsburgh effort to interrupt the transmission of the disease of violence is moving forward to recruit, train, and deploy community outreach professionals who can work locally on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood and even a block-by-block basis. Key to the program is recruiting those who hold expertise with the disease of violence. The experts being recruited are formerly incarcerated citizens who have successfully resocialized and achieved restorative outcomes in specific communities.

Improving Schools from Within Having formed and implemented an improvement team within a local Pittsburgh school, the lessons learned by a school leader included the imperative of attending to cultural aspects of change for improvement. Educational leaders must strategize how to understand and then, if necessary, change mind-set through continuous improvement. If this sacred step is overlooked or not given the time it needs, then the improvement journey – a necessarily complex effort – will become unnecessarily complicated. Part of the work in shifting mind-set is building trust. An aspect of building trust is giving people a voice and listening to them. There is intuitive wisdom when you bring a crowd of people together. However, harvesting individual knowledge and then mapping how individuals understand the system and its issues can be very productive. Human-centered design methods (HCDM) is one approach that educational leaders can use to harvest knowledge. The Luma Institute – a Pittsburgh-based global LLC that has worked with many educational systems – defines HCDM as “the disciple of developing solutions in the service of people” (2012, p. i). The Luma Institute has published a handbook consisting of 36 methods to assist educational leaders to harvest the knowledge they are looking for while also allowing for participants to engage and be heard. If used consistently and efficiently, HCDM also has the ability to change behaviors within an organization. For example, if stakeholders know they are coming to a meeting and will be an active participant who is valued and given a voice, then high levels of engagement will start to trump the transmissive environments that stakeholders are all too accustomed to when they attend meetings. Another strategy that educational leaders can use is InQuiry methodology (Militello, Janson, & Tonissen, 2016). This methodology is unique in that it focuses on understanding stakeholder perceptions. In order to accomplish this, the methodology relies on active participation from stakeholders throughout the entire research

94

Duquesne Collective Action Network

process. Unlike other methodologies that might give surveys to stakeholders and then sort them into focus groups, InQuiry methodology has the stakeholders engaged in a process of understanding one’s self, the organization, and the community. The Inquiry sorts, or Q-sorts, start with the development of a concourse. In order to develop the concourse, surveys and interviews are conducted which eventually produce a problem statement. Once the problem statement is generated, statements (perceptions) are gathered from stakeholders and the literature which assists in developing normative language. The statements are then reviewed and a Q-sort is created. The Q-sort is designed in a way that allows stakeholders to rank the statements based on how strongly they agree or disagree with the statement in relation to the problem. After the sort is complete, factor analysis is completed and families, or factor identities, are able to be created. The final step in this process is the action planning phase. During this phase, goals can be set and metrics to measure the goals can be created (Militello et al., 2016). Just like HCDM, InQuiry methodology has the ability to shift mind-set and change behaviors within organizations. Educational leaders should strongly consider using this methodology to see the system that is producing the current outcomes. Improvement inquiry has the potential to transform schools and districts. It is an innovative approach that educational leaders should consider when seeking improvement within their institutions. One of the major benefits of using tools and frameworks like HDMC and InQuiry methodology is that systems become more interactive, more engaged across sectors, and – as a consequence more – efficient (c.f., Hackmann, Malin, & Ahn, 2019). With more efficiency comes more saving of money – money which can be used to enrich the opportunities for staff, students, and community members. Infusing improvement inquiry into a school culture will take time, strategic planning, and a commitment to engage those who work and live in the school.

Math Misplacement In order for a practical division of labor between community and school to be realized, school personnel must be willing to trust community members to step into gaps. Community members might help to migrate school-based learning into the community or by supplement the work of schools by making education an ongoing goal that can be pursued both in the school and in the community outside the school. These findings parallel and expand on work to understand how preservice teachers (PSTs) are supported to involve community members and in particular, families in authentic ways in the classroom. Because of the demographics of the PST population, and their experiences as students (Graue, 2005), many PSTs initially hold very traditional beliefs about family engagement, primarily centered on parent involvement, and in particular, how parents can serve the school (Patte, 2011), which do not adequately prepare them to build successful working relationships with families and communities. Ferrara (2009) called this an “arms-length” style of interaction. The concern for teacher educators is that PSTs may already hold deficit

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

95

perspectives on families that differ from their predominantly white, lower-middle class upbringing (Sleeter, 2008, 2017) and therefore may locate difficulties in building bridges with families and communities with parents (D’Haem & Griswold, 2017). Thus, PSTs may not be prepared to meet the needs of students, families, and communities that differ from them (Alaçam & Olgan, 2017; Buchanan & Buchanan, 2016; Kumar & Hamer, 2013; Walker & Dotger, 2012; Warren, 2017). The D-CAN work serves to highlight more diverse ways of thinking about community engagement and to account for the perspectives of individuals who may not be part of, or valued in, the traditional parent involvement roles. In this way, it contributes to our work through helping us to further understand a framework for family engagement that varies along a continuum of highly restrictive/fortress/come if we call interactions to more welcoming/open-door/authentic partnerships (Henderson, Mapp, Johnson, & Davies, 2007). In short, the D-CAN work helps to engage community stakeholders to better understand the range of authentic partnerships possible when not limited to traditional school-based beliefs about parent involvement. The initial team included experienced elementary teachers, recently credentialed elementary teachers before they began teaching, and teacher educators. The problem of practice that drew the group together was exploring equitable classroom practices that create high expectations and resources needed to reach those expectations in elementary mathematics lessons (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2014). The concern we faced was that in pursuit of these high expectations, elementary teachers often use grouping methods based on perceived ability to differentiate instruction (Alpert & Bechar, 2008) and that diverse students and girls are more likely to be placed in lower-ability groups (Cohen & Lotan, 2014). As a group, we undertook study of the Smarter Together text by Featherstone et al. (2011). These authors examined ways to eliminate ability grouping in elementary mathematics classrooms by creating “groupworthy tasks” that are complex, authentic to children’s lived experiences outside of the classroom, and that allow for multiple entry points and value multiple ways of learning and doing mathematics. According to the authors, classrooms that regularly use groupworthy tasks are able to change the community definitions of mathematics smartness, thereby providing all students with opportunities to develop deeper mathematical understandings. Our group experimented with the existing tasks and crafted additional tasks that spoke to the specific communities with whom we were working. As expected in this kind of improvement work, there were things that worked well and things that did not. We have been encouraged by the ways the teachers thought deeply about what groupworthy tasks would look like in their classrooms and sought to create experiences in which all students work together, support each other, trust each other, and take risks (Stoehr & Olson, 2018), but we continue to work on increasing the rigor of these tasks. We have also begun to explore how the ways the teachers speak of struggle and model support, particularly when it comes to mistakes and misconceptions, reify existing school-based narratives such as grit (Duckworth, 2016) and growth mind-set (Dweck, 2006). Our work uncovered a new problem of practice (Olson & Stoehr, 2019), and we quickly found we were not alone. The literature suggests teachers’ understandings of these grit and growth narratives lack depth and

96

Duquesne Collective Action Network

are not supportive of student learning (Ullici & Howard, 2015). Incomplete understandings of these narratives can reinforce systemic barriers, make privilege invisible, and sustain existing systems of meritocracy (Generett & Olson, 2018; Gorski, 2016; Ris, 2015). The team has now engaged in a first teacher-led improvement attempt to provide alternate struggle stories for students with some success (Christensen, Stoehr, & Olson, 2019).

The MANUP Program Toxic masculinity and misguided manhood is a problem that affects males in general, but in relationship to this improvement project, African American males (Porter, 2016). Thus, the MANUP program is an improvement project for African American males. The program is currently being facilitated in selected schools in Philadelphia. It provides a counter-narrative to toxic notions around “MANUP” to define that phrase as Maximizing Potential, Accountability, Navigating, United, and Perseverance. The program seeks to become an exemplar model of success, pertaining to Black male achievement. The mission of the program is to prepare the participants with the academic and life skills, self-confidence, and selfawareness, needed to compete in the twenty-first century marketplace. Through a cultural approach, this program focuses on college and career readiness tenets, manhood and masculinity development, racial socialization, and literacy that complement the unique experience of African American males. The MANUP program is a joint collaboration between selected schools within the Philadelphia School District and the Center for Urban Education, Equity, and Improvement at Cabrini University. The program takes a holistic approach towards Black male achievement. The aforementioned is critically important, given the national data that outlines academic and employment gaps for Black males (Pew research, 2013; Schott Report, 2015). Specifically, despite the focus of education reform initiatives for several decades, disparities in access, opportunity, and achievement persist for Black males. Therefore, in an effort to prepare Black boys for college and career readiness, the program design includes the following approaches to success. Curriculum Lessons. The Distinguished Scholar and Professional Readiness Curriculum (DSPR) aims to help Black boys develop twenty-first century skills improvement self-efficacy, resilience, and an academic and career identity which is needed to succeed in higher education milieus and also the global marketplace. Specifically, the DSPR Curriculum provides community and educational leaders a model designed to address the following three areas in college and career readiness: (1) global marketplace skill development, (2) leadership development, and (3) professional branding. The curriculum is influenced by ethnographic observations of Black males in schools and also through research and theories that underscore the need for engaging Black boys through culturally responsive practices. Literacy. Literacy development continues to be a predictor of success for all students, but for the context of this program, Black males. Therefore, this program

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

97

exposes students to African American texts and reading resources that can provide participants with the emotional, intellectual, and social capital needed to be resilient. Life Skills. After each curriculum lesson, the program will provide participants with time to explore case studies, role play, and media literacy, in our efforts to operationalize the session learning tenets. The need to engage African American students from a cultural pedagogical lens has been popular in the discourse for over two decades. Paris (2012) argues that this approach should be Culturally Sustaining Pedagogy. Gay (1997) has been known for her work around Culturally Responsive Teaching, which is a student-centered approach to teaching, through their cultural strengths. Although the aforementioned theories and theorist have added profound understanding, related to working with students from an anti-deficit framework, Ladson-Billings (1995) Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) supports the MANUP program. Specifically, CRP’s tenets of: (1) high expectations for students, (2) cultural competence, and (3) sociopolitical consciousness align with the academic drivers of the program. Further, CRP’s recent charge to tap into students’ cultural competence underscores the co-teaching and co-learning aspirations of the MANUP program (https://www.youtube.com/watch? time_continue=7&v=bQ8nN27OVu8).

Conclusion The challenge that motivated this chapter was issued by Dantley and Green (2015): to reimagine, indeed to “reradicalize” the discourse and practice of educational leadership for social justice. In the first section addressing the challenge “A Collective Action Network and Its Working Space,” the conceptual frameworks underlying cross-sector partnerships of a collective action network are explicated. The working space created by those partnerships is proscribed by three theoretical frames: public scholarship, improvement inquiry, and restorative justice. In the second section “Nodes in the Network: Grassroots Efforts in Pursuit of Social Justice,” lessons learned from various partnerships seeking to improve various educational practices of public consequence and restorative intent are considered. The collective action network explicated in the first section unifies the diversity of grassroots efforts described in the second section. The unity is not in the problems or issues that concern the cross-sector partnerships nor in the roles or identities of those who constitute the partnerships. The unity comes in the form of challenging normative, top-down leadership in educational systems that operate in schools, in the academy, and in the community. Perhaps the best operationalization of that unity is in the working assumptions that reflect what the collective action network has learned from the efforts of diverse partnerships. In each case, the work begins by assuming that every system is perfectly designed to deliver the results it gets (Langley et al., 2009). The work proceeds by collecting stories and information from those who live and work in the system to identify the unacceptable results of the system of concern – a school, a community program, a neighborhood watch, a church outreach – and the local assets that might be deployed. Understanding the

98

Duquesne Collective Action Network

challenge of improving a system that is perfectly designed to marginalize, to deny opportunity, to harm in any numbers of ways happen at a grassroots level. Learning across the grassroots efforts – the nodes of the network, if you will – has been shared in formal and informal ways. One formal mode of sharing has been through convening of Community Learning Exchanges (Guajardo et al., 2016) that have connected various partnerships working across various venues. The most recent convening of the collective action network brought together three communityuniversity partnerships: • Bible Way Baptist/Brothahood – Center for Urban Education, Equity, and Improvement, Cabrini University (Philadelphia, the host partnership) • Eastside Brothahood – University of Northern Florida, Center for Urban Education and Policy (Jacksonville) • Elsinore-Bennu Think Tank (EBTT) – Schouver Initiative on Educational Equity and Improvement Inquiry, Duquesne University (Pittsburgh) After sharing the stories and data regarding efforts to reduce initial incarceration, especially to reduce recidivism among formerly incarcerated citizens, a new SAC partnership was proposed. The initial focus will be to “see the systems,” i.e., to understand the systems in each city that exist (1) to support returning citizens in their respective communities and (2) to prevent young African American males from becoming entangled in the criminal justice system has been formed. The effort seems worthwhile: it seems to be a matter of public consequence; there seem to be systems need to be improved, and there seems to be harm that requires restoration.

References Alaçam, N., & Olgan, R. (2017). Pre-service early childhood teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs towards parent involvement. Teaching Education, 28(4), 421–434. Allred, S. L. (2009). The inside-out prison exchange program: The impact of structure, content, and readings. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60(3), 240–258. Alpert, A., & Bechar, S. (2008). School organizational efforts in search for alternatives to ability grouping. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1599–1612. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. Barab, S., & Squire, B. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. Birzer, M. L. (2003). The theory of andragogy applied to police training. Policing: An International Journal of Strategies & Management, 26(1), 29–42. Birzer, M. L., & Tannehill, R. (2001). A more effective training approach for contemporary policing. Police Quarterly, 4(7), 236. Bogotch, I. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership, 12(2), 138–156. Bryk, A. S., & Gomez, L. M. (2008). Reinventing a research and development capacity. The Future of Educational Entrepreneurship: Possibilities for School Reform, 181–206. Bryk A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer Publishing.

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

99

Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Buchanan, K., & Buchanan, T. (2016). Relationships with families: Have educators overlooked a critical piece of the puzzle? Improving Schools, 20(3), 236–246. Buerger, M. E. (1998). Police training as Pentecost: Using tools significantly ill-suited to the purpose of reform. Police Quarterly, 1, 27–63. Burkhauser, S., Gates, S., Hamilton, L., & Schuyler Ikemoto, G. (2012). First-year principals in urban school districts: How actions and working conditions relate to outcomes. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Butts, J. A., Roman, C. G., Bostwick, L., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Cure violence: A public health model to reduce gun violence. Annual Review of Public Health, 36, 39–53. Byrne-Jiménez, M., Gooden, M., & Tucker, P. (2017). Facilitating learning in leadership preparation: Limited research but promising practices. In M. D. Young & G. Crow (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of school leaders (2nd ed., pp. 173–201). New York, NY: Routledge. Carnegie Project on the Education Doctorate. (n.d.). About CPED. Retrieved from https://www. cpedinitiative.org/page/aboutus Christensen, C., Stoehr, K. J., & Olson, A. M. (2019). Reading “struggle stories” boost children’s beliefs about own math ability. School Science and Mathematics, 119(2). Available at: https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York, NY: William T. Grant Foundation. Cohen, E., & Lotan, R. (2014). Designing groupwork strategies for the heterogeneous classroom. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15–42. Conti, N. (2009). A Visigoth system: Shame, honor & police socialization. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(3), 409–432. Conti, N. (2011). Weak links and warrior hearts: A framework for judging self and others in police training. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 12(5), 410–423. Conti, N., & Doreian, P. (2011). Social network engineering and race in a police academy: A longitudinal analysis. Social Networks, 32(1), 30–43. Conti, N., & Doreian, P. (2014). From here on out, we’re all blue: A reconsideration of race in police academy training. Police Quarterly, 17, 414–447. D’Haem, J., & Griswold, P. (2017). Teacher educators’ and student teachers’ beliefs about preparation for working with families including those from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Education and Urban Society, 49(1), 81–109. Dantley, M., & Green, T. (2015). Problematizing notions of leadership for social justice: Reclaiming social justice through a radical, prophetic, and historical imagination. Journal of School Leadership, 25(5), 820–837. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. School Leadership Study. Final Report. Stanford Educational Leadership Institute. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience & education. New York, NY: Touchstone. Dillard, C. B. (1995). Leading with her life: An African American feminist (re)interpretation of leadership for an urban high school principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 539–563. Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Russell, J. L., & Bryk, A. S. (2013). More than a network: Building professional communities for educational improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 443–463.

100

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Dostilio, L., Perry, J., & McCown, R. (2011, November). School, academy, community partnerships: Harnessing the power of democratic design spaces for the improvement of schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Pittsburgh, PA. Duckworth, A. (2016). Grit: The power of passion and perseverance. New York, NY: Scribner. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York, NY: Random House. Edwards, A. (2000). Community mothering: The relationship between mothering and the community work of black women. Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering, 2(3), 87–100. Ellison, J., & Eatman, T. K. (2008). Scholarship in public: Knowledge creation and tenure policy in the engaged university. Syracuse, NY: Imagining America. Retrieved from http://imaginin gamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TTI_FINAL.pdf Englebart, D. C. (2003). Improving our ability to improve: A call for investment in a new future. IBM Co-Evolution Symposium. Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. New York, NY: Good Books. Farrell, C. C., & Coburn, C. E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 135–159. Featherstone, H., Crespo, S., Jilk, L., Oslund, J., Parks, A., & Wood, M. (2011). Smarter together: Collaboration and equity in the elementary math classroom. Reston, VA: NCTM. Ferrara, M. (2009). Broadening the myopic vision of parent involvement. School Community Journal, 19(2), 123–142. Fielding, N. G. (1988). Joining forces: Police training, socialization and occupational competence. London, UK: Routledge. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.). (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In B. J. Fishman & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), National society for the study of education: Vol 112. Design based implementation research (pp. 136–156). Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum, 2007. Gates, S., Hamilton, L., Martorell, P., Burkhauser, S., Heaton, P., Pierson, A., . . . Gu, K. (2014). Preparing principals to raise student achievement: Implementation and effects of the new leaders program in ten districts. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. https://www.rand. org/pubs/research_reports/RR507.html Gay, G. (1997). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Generett, G. G., & Olson, A. M. (2018). The stories we tell: How merit narratives undermine success for urban youth. Urban Education. Gilkes, C. T. (1983). Going up for the oppressed: The career mobility of Black women community workers. Journal of Social Issues, 39(3), 115–139. Goldberg, S. G., & O’Connor, C. (2018). Voices in the hill: Stories of trauma and inspiration. Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, 10(1), 9–23. Gooden, M. A., & O’Doherty, A. (2015). Do you see what I see? Fostering aspiring leaders’ racial awareness. Urban Education, 50(2), 225–255. Gorski, P. C. (2016). Poverty and the ideological imperative: A call to unhook from deficit and grit ideology and to strive for structural ideology in teacher education. Journal of Educational for Teaching, 42(4), 378–386. Graue, E. (2005). Theorizing and describing preservice teachers’ images of families and schooling. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 157–185. Guajardo, M., Guajardo, F., Janson, C., & Militello, M. (2016). Reframing community partnerships in education: Uniting the power of place and wisdom of people. New York, NY: Routledge.

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

101

Hackmann, D., Malin, J., & Ahn, J. (2019). Data use within an education-centered cross-sector collaboration. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(2), 118–133. Harris, R. (1973). The police academy: An insider’s view. New York, NY: Wiley. Harvey, J., & Holland, H. (2011). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. The Wallace Foundation. Henderson, A. T., Mapp, K. L., Johnson, V. R., & Davies, D. (2007). Beyond the bake sale. New York, NY: The New Press. Hill Collins, P. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Boston, MA: Unwin Hyman. Hill Collins, P. (1991). The meaning of motherhood in black culture. In R. Staples (Ed.), The black family: Essays and studies. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hill Collins, P. (2016). Black feminist thought as oppositional knowledge. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 5(3), 133–144. Horsford, S. D. (2012). This bridge called my leadership: An essay on Black women as bridge leaders in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 11–22. Horsford, S. D. (2017). A race to the top from the bottom of the well? The paradox of race in U.S. education reform. The Educational Forum, 81(2), 136–147. Horton, M., & Freire, P. (B. Bell, J. Gaventa, & J. Peters, Eds.). (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Horton, M., Kohl, J., & Kohl, H. (1998). The long haul: An autobiography. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hudson-Weems, C. (1998). Resurrecting Emmett Till: The catalyst of the modern civil rights movement. Journal of Black Studies, 29(2), 179–188. Hudson-Weems, C. (2000). Africana womanism: An overview. Out of the revolution: The development of Africana studies (pp. 205–217). Kentucky: Lexington Books. Hunt, T. K., Slack, K. S., & Berger, L. M. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences and behavioral problems in middle childhood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 67, 391–402. Isoke, Z. (2013). Urban black women and the politics of resistance. Springer. Jacobs, D. (Ed.). (2003). The Myles Horton reader: Education for social change. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press. James, J. (1994). Ella Baker, ‘black women’s work’ and activist intellectuals. The Black Scholar, 24(4), 8–15. James, J., & Sharpley-Whiting, T. D. (2000). The Black feminist reader. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Keating, A. (2016). Spiritual activism, visionary pragmatism, and threshold theorizing: An Anzaldúan meditation with black feminist thought. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 5(3), 101–107. Khalifa, M. (2012). A re-new-ed paradigm in successful urban school leadership: Principal as community leader. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 424–467. Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. Kumar, R., & Hamer, L. (2013). Preservice teachers’ attitudes and beliefs toward student diversity and proposed instructional practices: A sequential design study. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(2), 162–177. Ladson-Billlings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34, 3. https://doi.org/10.0040-5841/95. Langley, G. J., Moen, R. D., Nolan, K. M., Nolan, T. W., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: A practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134–161). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

102

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Leithwood, K., Seashore, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. LeMahieu, P. G., Nordstrum, L. E., & Potvin, A. S. (2017). Design-based implementation research. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 26–42. LeMahieu, P., Bryk, A., Grunow, A., & Gomez, L. (2017). Working to improve: Seven approaches to improvement science in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 2–4. LeMahieu, P., Grunow, A., Baker, L., Nordstrum, L., & Gomez, L. (2017). Networked improvement communities: The discipline of improvement science meets the power of networks. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(1), 5–25. LUMA Institute. (2012). Innovating for people handbook of human-centered design methods. Pittsburgh, PA: Author. Lumby, J., & Foskett, N. (2011). Leadership and culture. In J. Lumby, G. Crow, & P. Pashiardis (Eds.), International handbook on the preparation and development of school leaders (pp. 42–59). New York, NY: Routledge. Lundman, J. R. (1980). Police and policing: An introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Marenin, O. (2004). Police training for democracy. Police Practice and Research, 5(2), 102–123. McCreedy, K. R. (1980). The impact of a police academy on the socialization of new officers (Doctoral Dissertation). University of Southern California. McDonald, K. B. (1997). Black activist mothering: A historical intersection of race, gender, and class. Gender & Society, 11(6), 773–795. Militello, M., Janson, C., & Tonissen, D. (2016). InQuiry: A participatory approach for understanding stakeholder perceptions. The Foundation Review, 8(1), 88. Mintrop, R. (2016). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematics success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM. Oakes, J. (2018). Public scholarship: Education research for a diverse democracy. Educational Researcher, 47(2), 91–104. Olson, A. M., & Stoehr, K. J. (2019, April). Unpacking grit and growth as expectations for equity with new mathematics teachers. American Educational Research Association annual meeting, Toronto, ON. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244. Patte, M. M. (2011). Examining preservice teacher knowledge and competencies in establishing family-school partnerships. School Community Journal, 21(2), 143–159. Penuel, W. R., & Spillane, J. P. (2014). Learning sciences and policy design and implementation: Key concepts and tools for collaborative engagement. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 649–667). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Perry, J. A. (Ed.). (2016). The EdD and the scholarly practitioner: The CPED path. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Peurach, D. J. (2016). Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: Leading educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 421–429. Pew Research Center. (2013). Black incomes are up, but wealth isn’t. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Pittsburgh Public Schools. (n.d.). Building school leadership that drives student achievement: A white paper from the Pittsburgh Public School District. Pittsburgh, PA: Author. Retrieved from http:// www.tifcommunity.org/sites/default/files/PULSE%20White%20Paper_(Revised%207_21_08).pdf Pompa, L. (2013). One brick at a time: The power and possibility of dialogue across the prison wall. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 127–134. Porter, T. (2016). Breaking out of the “Manbox”: The next generation of manhood. New York, NY: Skyhorse Publishing

3

Lessons Learned in the Pursuit of Social Justice in Education:. . .

103

Rigby, J. G., Forman, S., Fox, A., & Kazemi, E. (2018). Leadership development through design and experimentation: Learning in a research–practice partnership. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 13(3), 316–339. Ris, E. W. (2015). Grit: A short history of a useful concept. Journal of Educational Controversy, 10(1), Article 3. Available at http://cedar.wwu.edu/jec/vol10/iss1/3 Rodela, K. C., & Bertrand, M. (2018). Rethinking educational leadership in the margins: Youth, parent, and community leadership for equity and social justice. Ross, L. (2018). From the fundamental attribution error to the truly fundamental attribution error and beyond: My research journey. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(6), 750–769. Russell, J. L., Bryk, A. S., Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Lemahieu, P. G., & Grunow, A. (2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(5), 1–36. Sakho, J. R. (2017). Black activist mothering: Teach me about what teaches you. Western Journal of Black Studies, 41(1/2), 6–19. Saltmarsh, J. (2017). A collaborative turn: Trends and directions in community engagement. In J. Sachs & L. Clark (Eds.), Learning through community engagement: Vision and practice in higher education. Singapore, Singapore: Springer. Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2015). Black lives matter: The Schott 50 state report on public education and black males. Cambridge, MA: Schott Foundation for Public Education. Shernock, S. (1998). Police officer support for quasi-military stress training and orientation towards outsiders and non-law enforcement functions. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 13(2), 87–99. Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. Sleeter, C. (2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. FeimanNemser, & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (3rd ed., pp. 559–582). New York, NY: Routledge and Association of Teacher Educators. Sleeter, C. E. (2017). Critical race theory and the whiteness of teacher education. Urban Education, 52(2), 155–169. Stoehr, K., & Olson, A. (2018). New teachers’ vision of how groupworthy tasks can contribute to creating equitable mathematics classrooms. In T. Hodges, G. J. Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the North American chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 455). Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson University. Stovall, D. (2016). Out of adolescence and into adulthood: Critical race theory, retrenchment, and the imperative of praxis. Urban Education, 51(3), 274–286. Stovall, D. (2018). Are we ready for ‘school’ abolition? Thoughts and practices of radical imaginary in education. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, 17(1), 6. Thompson, T., & McCown, R. (2018, February). Identities and outcomes (keynote address). College of Education dean’s symposium on public scholarship, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Tredway, L., & Generett, G. (2015). Community story mapping: Pedagogy of the Griot. Washington, DC/Pittsburgh PA: Institute for Educational Leadership/Duquesne University. Ullici, K., & Howard, T. (2015). Pathologizing the poor: Implications for preparing teachers to work in high-poverty schools. Urban Education, 50(2), 170–193. Walker, J. M., & Dotger, B. H. (2012). Because wisdom can’t be told: Using comparison of simulated parent–teacher conferences to assess teacher candidates’ readiness for family-school partnership. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(1), 62–75. Warren, C. A. (2017). Empathy, teacher dispositions, and preparation for culturally responsive pedagogy. Journal of Teacher Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117712487.

104

Duquesne Collective Action Network

Werts, T. (2013). Tyrone Werts: Reflections on the inside-out prison exchange program. The Prison Journal, 93(2), 135–138. Winn, K. M., Anderson, E., Groth, C., Korach, S., Pounder, D., Rorrer, A., & Young, M. D. (2016). A deeper look: INSPIRE data demonstrates quality in educational leadership preparation. Charlottesville, VA: UCEA. Winn, M. T. (2018). Justice on both sides: Transforming education through restorative justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Zehr, H. (2004). Commentary: Restorative justice: Beyond victim-offender mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 22(1–2), 305–315. Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. New York, NY: Good Books.

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A Postcolonial Perspective on Traditions of Humanistic Marginalized Communities Eugenie A. Samier

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Historical Origins of Social Justice: Revisiting Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Confucian Social Justice Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Islamic Tradition of Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . First Nations Social Justice Traditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

106 109 113 115 119 120 122

Abstract

This chapter reviews the theories and development of a number of non-Western philosophical and legal social justice traditions that have been marginalized in the literature, adopting primarily a postcolonial perspective on how they can contribute to education, transcending colonizer distortions of knowledge to present and draw implications from bodies of knowledge that have been removed from the dominating international literature. This approach is accompanied by a critique of globalization that has, according to many authors, created a hegemonic position for primarily Anglo-American systems in this respect including the view of “epistemicide,” imperialism, “symbolic violence,” and neocolonization, particularly in relation to the right to culture as a social justice principle. Various forms of colonization, including that under the current globalization period, produce cultural hierarchies of values and knowledge, or even expunge cultural and knowledge traditions. This chapter examines selected humanistic traditions of social justice that have existed for centuries, long pre-dating the modern period, focusing on those that have suffered an injustice in their suppression and distortion through a Bourdieuian “symbolic” violence applying not only to E. A. Samier (*) University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_45

105

106

E. A. Samier

the knowledge that is suppressed, expunged, or lost through colonization and globalization and the cultural and intellectual capital they carry but also the identities, values, and traditional social institutions from which they are derived. The first section examines the conceptions and practices of social justice established in ancient Mesopotamia that provides the historical foundation to many later systems. The second presents the Confucian system of social justice as a foundation to the just society that has informed administration, education, and the principles of justice of a number of countries consisting of equitable distribution, equal opportunities, the rights of individuals, and the principle of equity. The next section examines the Islamic social justice tradition consisting of distributive, retributive, and fairness and equity and the aim of piety to correct injustices, individually and collectively, and establish equal rights for women and men in many spheres and the role of education in emphasizing the role of mind in its critical and reasoning capacities and reason in the formation of character, morality, and the human community with a strong emphasis on education and becoming learned. Finally, a representative selection of indigenous systems of social justice is examined where principles of individual rights and obligations to others and nature carried with them obligations in how others are treated and cared for due to stronger collective rather than individualistic values. Keywords

Social justice · Ancient justice systems · Confucian · Islamic · Aboriginal · Educational values

Introduction Generally texts on social justice in education examine Western traditions, and of that, mostly the Anglo-American, connecting it causally to democratic countries (Saltman, 2009), and its history often truncated to that of developments in the United States (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009) or assumes a superiority of Western democracy as the only form of system producing valid laws and principles of governance (Tawhai, 2016). The impression one can get is that social justice is a new phenomenon that could not form without recent Western political history (Jackson, 2005), a bias that itself constitutes a postcolonial view and epistemic violence (Stein & Andreotti, 2016). The discussion also tends to not include the relationship between social justice and humanism, the latter often presented as a secular alternative philosophy although major religions have humanistic traditions within them. Both of these assumptions are historically inaccurate and marginalize important developments in human societies and those who are inheritors of these traditions. Many sources examining its history associate it narrowly with the classical GrecoRoman tradition of searching for humane values (Mann, 1996), its revival in the European Renaissance, and latterly in Western countries as a set of principles that are nonreligious, theistic, or Christian focused on valuing human beings and human culture (Copson, 2015; Hoveyda 1995).

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

107

The main constitutive components of social justice are distributive and retributive practices that ensure a fair distribution and access to resources and righting of wrongs in relation to unfair practices, interpreted differently in societies depending on societal structures and institutions and belief systems. Social justice as a concept includes the societal context, consisting of ethical ideas, laws, claims made, collective claim-making politics, and institutional policies and practices related to rights and entitlements, the responsibilities of rulers, and the conditions in which justice takes place (Balibar, Mezzadra, & Samaddar, 2012). These guide the construction of social institutions and the values by which individuals develop their responsibilities in interaction with others to produce equitable, just, and respectful societies (Zajda, 2010). This means that political, social, and cultural contexts need to be taken into account in interpreting its formulation and implementation. Balibar et al. (2012), for example, give voice to those not usually represented – multicultural, postcolonial, and subaltern views and experiences – falling outside the boundaries most often inscribed into the discussion. Ironically, the study of social justice itself has not been justly presented as it excludes and marginalizes non-Western systems, a critique of many NGOs made by Atkinson, Scurrah, Lingán, Pizarro, and Ross (2009) for not providing alternative perspectives and not legitimating voices from outside the Western North. For example, social justice varies with cultural context – in many Western societies oriented more individualistically while in many others more collectivist in character (Fischer, 2016). It is the differences in conceptions and practices that Stein and Andreotti (2016) argue is central to postcolonial studies, on one hand giving legitimacy to non-Western and ancient traditions, and on the other deconstructing colonial hierarchies and hegemonies that currently privilege some Western “grand narratives,” values, and practices enforced through globalization requiring a change conceptually and analytically in theorizing from other traditions’ perspectives and conditions. In an educational context, social justice is an equitable education providing fair access (e.g., encoded in OECD documents), but it also can refer to the content of education – the equitable and fair representation nationally and internationally of knowledge and value traditions. The pursuit of social justice in education requires a critique of market-models and prioritization of economic values that define what learning and teaching is requisite for the “knowledge economy” (Zajda, 2010). Here, the emphasis is on the inequitable representation of social justice concepts and practices and how they apply to education in marginalized traditions, of critical importance to culture’s role in maintaining values and identity in societies globally and historically. Gewirtz (1998) includes in her discussion of conceptualizing social justice for education, the injustices consisting of “exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, cultural imperialism and violence” (p. 470) derived from Young (1990) who advocates an approach that includes social interactions, policies, and procedures that encompass “cultural” justice in autonomy, recognition, and respect while addressing Foucault’s concerns about the ethics of otherness that exclude other traditions’ values and practices like those in Aboriginal communities.

108

E. A. Samier

Humanism is an ages-old attempt to find significance in life, associate personality and character to a set of values and aims, and use governing principles – many of which are associated with social justice – in finding solutions to individual and social problems while giving rise to intellectual disciplines. It is most often associated with classical Greco-Roman traditions, Marxism, existentialism, and critical theory expressing “a conception of the common kinship and unity of mankind; the adoption of the ancient classics as an educational and cultural ideal in the formation of mind and character (paideia); and humaneness, or love of mankind (philanthrōpia)” (Kraemer, 1984, p. 136). However, humanism also has forms that arose in other parts of the world including ancient societies (Kirloskar-Steinbach, 2011; Kresse, 2011). Whether religious or secular, it is the core importance of human welfare, capabilities and constructions that denote forms of humanism, establishing and fulfilling meaning in life that has reemerged contemporary fields related to educational administration like business (Spitzeck, Pirson, Amann, Shan, & von Kimakowitz, 2009), management (Amann & Stachowicz-Stanusch, 2013; Dierksmeier et al., 2011), and organization studies (Khan & Amann, 2013). Humanism of any kind is also closely associated with social justice, providing necessary foundational concepts and goals for a society in which everyone is able to enjoy a good life and the benefits of a social order that provides freedom, welfare, human rights, and the rule of law (Aljami, 2015; Copson, 2015), evident in postcolonial forms (Said, 1978) where human welfare, dignity, integrity, ethics, and social responsibility are dominant values and motivations, with its history extending into ancient societies. This chapter aims not only at a cosmopolitan and transcultural conception of social justice, but a broad historical approach intended to break through contemporary boundaries set by hegemonic perspectives to examine selected humanistic traditions of social justice that have existed for centuries, long pre-dating the modern period but some of which have perpetuated to the present day. The subject of this chapter itself requires social justice – while much social justice in education literature examines material impacts such as economic and social disadvantage, equal access to education, distribution of goods and services, and full participation in all aspects of educational activities and its benefits derived from Western systems (Stein & Andreotti, 2016); this chapter focusses more on those traditions that have suffered injustice (Reagan, 2005) through a Bourdieu (1991) “symbolic” violence and harm that carries equal disadvantage for those not certified in what is regarded as the appropriate “Western” knowledge and skills and conforming to its notion of professional identity and worldview. This includes not only the knowledge that is suppressed or lost through colonization and globalization but also the identities, values, and traditional social institutions in which they are embodied. Implicit here is a critique of globalization that has created a dominating position for AngloAmerican educational systems (Adams, 2014), a critique grounded in several perspectives including “epistemicide” (Hall & Tandon, 2017), imperialism (Sidhu, 2006), “symbolic violence” (Bourdieu, 1991; Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), and neocolonization (Memmi, 2003; Ritzer, 2007) in relation to the right to culture as a social justice principle (Rees, 2014). Their contention is that the current globalized education is a colonizing force that produces cultural hierarchies of values and

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

109

knowledge (Loomba, 2007), or even expunges cultural and knowledge traditions (Hall & Tandon, 2017). The concept of social justice itself, as Sears and Herriot (2016) point out, is a social construction of the tradition in which it arises. However, even with such differences, some humanistic values upon which social justice is conceived (Sackey, 2012) transcend cultural and temporal boundaries like dignity, social welfare, respect for individuals, and the intellectual and cultural traditions they come from. This is evident in the shared foundation of classical Islamic scholarship with some European traditions (Daiber, 2013; Makdisi, 1990; Tibi, 2009). What unites humanism historically and globally is a profound interest in the values that are grounded in the human condition, whether religious or secular, in the character of the individual, in community relations, and a harmonious and supportive social system. Its approach involves examining the belief systems, cultural customs or rituals, and social institutions that are predicated upon human welfare (Fowler, 2015). Its ethic is generally oriented towards the moral and dignified development of self, particularly of character and mind with a central role for reason, of one’s social relations and society at large, in fact, for humankind in general (Nussbaum, 1997). In the sections that follow, four traditions of social justice will be examined. The first will examine the conceptions and practices of social justice that were established in ancient Mesopotamian history and which provide the historical foundation to many later systems (Doak, 2006). The second will present the Confucian system of social justice that has informed and informs administration, education, and the principles of justice of a number of countries. The next examines the Islamic social justice tradition (Hourani, 1985; Thompson, 2014), grounded in humanism (Makdisi, 1990) and is part of the Judeo-Christian monotheistic tradition, informed to some extent by their values and practices (Waardenburg, 2003). Finally, the fourth section presents a representative selection of indigenous systems of social justice that have been receiving recent attention in the education literature (Benham & Murakami-Ramalho, 2010; Hendry, Howard-Wagner, Jorgensen, & Tatum, 2018) relevant to educational administration and including more just and fair forms of research methodology.

The Historical Origins of Social Justice: Revisiting Mesopotamia Although concepts of justice as legal principles are generally understood to originate in Roman law in the language of rights, the principles of remedial action (restorative justice) to right violations and deprivations, they were widely understood and practiced in preclassical parts of the world through judicial authority and the use of contracts, often established in religious values, conceptions of natural law grounded in the divine, and ideas about mutual dependence in social structures (Frankfort, Frankfort, Wilson, Jacobsen, & Irwin, 1977; Irani, 1995). Social justice is an ancient concept, established in the earliest civilizations as moral and legal codes in ancient Mesopotamia and arising shortly thereafter in other parts of the world, producing what Westbrook (2003) calls a “remarkable continuity in fundamental

110

E. A. Samier

juridical concepts over the course of three millennia” (p. 4), evident in thousands of documents in the forms of codes, decrees, edicts, royal instructions, trial records, lexical texts, economic transactions, letters, and mythical literature. Justice (in Sumerian níg-si-sá and Akkadian mī sˇarum) in Mesopotamia entails both the alleviation of suffering for the poor, mistreated, and marginalized and the conviction and punishment of oppressors (Doak, 2006, pp. 1–2). Thus, the concept of “social justice” in Mesopotamia can refer broadly to any aspect of crime or punishment for anyone who is considered “wronged” in any circumstance. It applied especially to the poor or marginalized (vulnerable individuals such as widows and orphans), as the most susceptible to abuse and therefore most in need of protection. Its main aim was to protect weaker strata of society from being deprived of their legal status, property rights and economic sustenance to which their position entitled them (Westbrook, 1995). In Mesopotamia, religion and politics were initially closely entwined, where kingship owed obedience to divinity by enacting laws, edicts, and peace accords that served the gods of justice (Doak, 2006). The major gods represented social justice, the divine understood to bring order to society and punish the unjust; in Sumer and Akkad, the sun god Utu and in Babylonia, the sun god Shamash (Charpin, 2010), who embodied the concepts of social justice along with a complex bureaucracy of officials to administer it (Bottéro, 1992). Their values and responsibilities were initially recorded in hymns and later incorporated into legal codes that protected the helpless and those who were subjects of theft and cheating (Bertman, 2003, p. 26). This protective and retributive role is clear in the prologue to Hammurabi’s code: “in order to make justice arise in the country, to eliminate the bad and the perverse, to prevent the powerful from oppressing the weak” (Charpin, 2010, p. 81). Throughout the three millennia of the Mesopotamian period, the ruler was regarded as a “good shepherd” protecting the oppressed by ensuring two aspects of justice, kittum, the stability of a societal order that protected ownership rights and the repayment of debts, and misarum, to set right or correct injustices. The development of laws and social justice were also closely entwined with the formation of formal education in its earliest periods. As Schott (2000) notes in his exploration of the origins of bureaucracy in the earliest civilizations, the city-states of Mesopotamia, and shortly thereafter in Egypt, India, and China, are distinguished by a high level of organization politically, economically, and religiously including a multifunctionally and hierarchically organized bureaucracy, the development of legal codes, and formal educational systems to support the professional administrative cadres. The rapid complexity and sophistication of administration is attributed to the development of writing in the fourth millennium BCE in Sumer that allowed for creating a specialized system of records necessary to organizational and governance development. The rationale for record keeping was to protect the rights of individuals and groups; with the advent of writing, laws became instruments of implementing justice through “establishing rights, authorities and punishments” (Schott, 2000, p. 70) by making its principles permanent and public, displayed on large steles erected in public venues and requiring education to administer.

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

111

Ideas and practices of social justice are clearly evident in the fourth millennium BCE beginning with the first city, Uruk (Liverani, 2014), when public bureaucracies arose to a level of complex government administration to plan and control food production, the manufacture of goods by a number of craft specializations, irrigation systems, trade, construction projects, military, and diplomatic and emissary services. Bureaucracies arose in both temple and palace administration (Schott, 2000) as well as administrative staff in private homes of the wealthy, reflecting the views at the time of the structure of social institutions and their various activities and interactions in economic, political, and religious spheres (Seri, 2013). Officials in hierarchical ranking with distinguishable administrative titles (including male and female forms) were assigned functionally to a number of public functions such as the distribution of flour, the assignment of slave laborers, the house of weavers, a poultry house, and a center for the manufacturing of bows and arrows, emissaries, archivists, distribution centers for raw materials and manufactured goods, and military and diplomatic staff. This included keeping detailed records (Seri, 2013). An important related feature of documents at this time were the lists of professions, ranging from important crafts (e.g., food preparation, brewing, weaving, musician) to state functions like tax collector. These required schools for bureaucrats and scribes, over time separating education into primary and more advanced schools and a widespread literacy (Veldhuis, 2011). The states of Sumer and Akkad provide evidence in written tablets of conceptions of social justice and social criticism provided by the Gods (administered through the justice system) (Gadd, 1971; Oppenheim, 1977), for example, in the city of Ebla (2400–1600 BCE) to regulate and manage the marketplace, building projects, agriculture, the production of goods, defense, education, religious buildings, festivals, and the administration of justice (Kitchen, 1977). It is important to not underestimate the development of administration; as early as 2500 BCE most sites have yielded hundreds if not thousands of clay tablets often organized into official libraries consisting of “tax records, official correspondence, records of materials issued and finished goods received, and legal records” (McIntosh, 2005, p. 288), in addition to private libraries of professionals and at least some rulers. It is clear that the capacity for a complex bureaucracy with trained administrators and staff and the professionalization of judges (Charpin, 2010) were established by this time, keeping records of adoptions, marriages, loans records, rental documents and sale deeds as well as law codes, court cases, and legal proceedings, international treaties and agreements, and thousands of letters both official and personal (McIntosh, 2005). The primary purpose of schools for children and for scribes (male and female) (Lion, 2011) was to staff the bureaucracy working in temples, merchant houses, palaces, and private establishments and for scholars. The 48-year reign of King Shulgi of Ur (2029–1982 BCE) (McIntosh, 2005) saw political stability with a unified bureaucracy, a well-established judicial system, economic prosperity, considerable infrastructure development, and great strides in cultural development including schools for administrative training (Klein, 1995). His personal reputation centered on wisdom and the implementation of justice, defined as both preventing the strong from oppressing the weak and in enacting retributive justice. In addition to

112

E. A. Samier

economic, administrative, legal, and financial documents, as well as religious texts, there was already a rapidly growing collection of literature in a variety of genres as well as scientific texts for medicine, mathematics, and astronomy. It is during this period that educational policy as part of educational administration is clearly evident (Michalowski, 1991). While the codes of Hammurabi (1750 BCE) are best known, they were predated by several other codified concepts of justice that compiled many of these into the most complete form with an increasing secularization (Schott, 2000): those of Urukagina (2355 BCE) in Lagash (Foster, 1995), followed by Ur-Nammu (2100 BCE) in Ur who gave equal legal status to women (Roth, 1995), the codes of Shulgi, and Lipit-Ishtar (1930 BCE), and the laws of the Akkadian city of Eshnunna (1900s BCE) (Yoffee, 2004). Hammurabi’s were primarily oriented towards ending abuses and maltreatment of the population by officials and reforming unjust laws, extended by some of his successors (Foster, 1995; Westbrook, 1995), an administered by people’s assemblies and judges of the King. These laws laid the foundation for later codes in the Hittite empire of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries BCE (in which a complex system of arbitration formed), in Assyria in the sixth and seventh centuries BCE, and neo-Babylonian codes of the fifth century BCE in which the king was to be dedicated to truth and justice, charged with standardizing legal practices and correcting abuses in pricing, property rights, inheritance, and indebtedness. One feature that is interesting from a social justice perspective is that penalties rose in harshness with social class (Bertman, 2003). The major implications for education are in the rights of various professions and trades (which later became guilds) and in the education of officials in their proper duties. Even though evidence is scant, it is by the time of Hammurabi that evidence is found that demonstrates protections under law for apprentices through contract and under which schools operated (Cohen & Kedar, 2011). Schott (2000) emphasizes the importance of the scribal schools, essentially specialized academies for public administration from which aspirants had to graduate to qualify for many public and private positions producing an administrative status group in society. The requirements of literacy were high in order to maintain records but also provided the sites for scholarship and literary production. Part of the curriculum and pedagogy was also oriented towards instilling in students appropriate conduct and behavior which one can interpret as including the values of justice prevalent in society (Kramer, 1963), including law as part of the curriculum beginning in the elementary phases (Démare-Lafont, 2011). Principles of social justice were carried not only in legal codes but in satirical fables, tales, and fictional letters reinforcing in cultural expression injustices, inequities, and retribution (Bertman, 2003, pp. 179–180). The instructional purpose is evident in Babylonian administrative schools focused primarily on literature, which carried social values derived from the gods (Foster, 1995) and languages of Mesopotamia, aimed primarily at being “an ideological molder of minds, the place where future members of the bureaucracy were socialized, where they received a common stock of ideas and attitude which bound them together as a class and in many ways separated them from their original backgrounds” (Michalowski, 1991, p. 52).

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

113

The relationship between education and social justice is that the former served the latter – it was through education that the judicial and administrative systems of social justice were instilled, implemented and recorded, reformed, and promoted requiring also that many rulers become educated. This relationship changed by the time of the Hittites where kings and the elite participated less in the education system, devoting their time to training in warfare, diplomacy, and hunting (Griffith, 2015), however, there is ample evidence that the Queen shared in judicial duties hearing cases in court sometimes dominating the judicial sphere and a portion of the scribal class rose to the most senior administrative positions drafting treaties in addition to other duties (Bryce, 2011) that are closer to cabinet and permanent secretary positions in contemporary government. The role of education in social justice was in developing and maintaining the laws, and at times, in ensuring that new rulers without education, especially during the Old Babylonian period, learned to “conform to the traditional values of Mesopotamian kingship, to respect its traditions and behave ‘like a Sargon’” (Leick, 2003, p. 94).

The Confucian Social Justice Tradition The foundational principles of Confucianism are located in the Analects of Confucius (551-479 BCE), which grounds the Confucian tradition as it developed through a number of authors as well as its strong associations with Taoist principles of the morality of the social order and the harmonious interplay of yin and yang, and Buddhist principles of the noble path that includes learning (Fowler, 2015). For example, these are reflected in the philosophy of Mencius (ca. 379–289 BCE) which combines justice, personal responsibility, and individual merit and in Xunzi (ca. 340–245 BCE) for its adherence to the good life, duties to others, and moral commitment (Kirloskar-Steinbach, 2011) as a molder of mind and character in the pursuit of a just society. It is also in Mencius that one finds a social ideal and justice interpreted more strongly than in Confucius in maintaining a good social order in which government, family, and community play strong roles (Chan, 2012). It also evolved in response to political need producing different forms or subtraditions like Han and Song-Ming Confucianism, the former oriented towards rigid social hierarchies with the latter to the mind and individuals (Chan, 2012). Although having spiritual roots and more religious branches, Confucianism is primarily a nonreligious humanistic tradition focused on people’s beliefs, rituals, and social institutions as they affect the growth of the individual, family relationships and achieving social harmony aiming at pursuing an ideal ethical social living (Fowler, 2015). Its humanism is grounded in an observation and elevation of man and society through a concept of the “noble man” consisting of eight qualities: manifesting virtues that benefit others; gaining respect through a respectful attitude; a disciplined observance of social form that governs common life; kindliness, generosity and forbearance; confidence and trust in social and interpersonal relations; reasonableness in demands on others taking into account circumstances; and

114

E. A. Samier

having a zeal for learning and being ready to take responsibility for the education of others (De Bary, 1996). The main social justice concepts in this tradition are equitable distribution, equal opportunities, the rights of individuals and the principle of equity that form the model of a morally just and good society dominated by the state in achieving social order and control (Lee, 1995). Originally a religious humanism is aimed to improve society and its human lives, embodied in human action that contributes to the benefit of others and evolves over time with changing conditions, held together by a shared set of values, beliefs, and concerns about the human condition grounded in justice, personal responsibility, and merit of the individual (Chan, 2012). This later evolved into a humanistic ritualized system independent of the nature of a supernatural being (Lee, 1995). Leaders in the political realm were conceived of as those who cared for their people, acted as moral exemplars, and devoted themselves to education in order to construct the good society (Chan, 2012). The virtues that constitute the core values for producing a just society consist of “constants” that one strives for through education: right attitude, procedure, knowledge, moral courage, and persistence that produce the “good man” abiding by benevolence and propriety, conceived by Confucius as a solution to the sociopolitical and economic unrest and uncertainty in China in his time (Reagan, 2005). Education, therefore, is seen as a primary means by which to shape good people and build a good society which also requires a deep respect for education and learning (Chan, 2012) and training in the social rituals that were believed to produce social harmony in preference to coded laws (Lee, 1995). The role of education and being learned is significant in this tradition, oriented towards Confucius as a “sage-teacher” and role model (Fowler, 2015), combined with a deep respect for intellectual traditions of the sages who came before (Chan, 2012). It also created a class structure produced through education rather than birth – producing a cadre of the learned, with qualifying criteria for government (Fowler, 2015) and morally upright officials who were believed to be able to influence common people to act morally (Lee, 1995). The main values of Confucianism are social stability, personal integrity, and altruism guided by learning and a sense of propriety in life with humanity and righteousness necessary for ideal government in which those with authority and power should act as moral exemplars. Values had to be embodied and expressed in action (Chan, 2012), although the emphasis was on good political authority properly ensuring equitable distribution in society. Within this societal structural view of justice, the principle of equality of morality, privilege, and material reward is predicated upon an equal opportunity to education through merit that provides for success in the social order where “equal opportunity” means “equal moral potential” (Lee, 1995, p. 136). However, it is important to point out that social justice was much less interpreted in terms of material goods than many modern systems where a capitalistic consumer-type society is dominant, understood more in terms of what is sufficient for each person to have a “good” life (Chan, 2012). While there is some debated about the utilitarian nature of morality and justice, the Confucian tradition does maintain some belief in a supernatural force but focusses on the usefulness of justice in producing good government and a good

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

115

society (Lee, 1995) through a concept of public and community benevolence and mutual aid to ensure the reasonable maintenance of all. Some of its fundamental principles are not unknown to some Western traditions, like Kantianism. The Confucian notion of the autonomous moral person is similar to Kant’s concept of the “autonomous will,” which is the main source for social justice (Lee, 1995), and the necessary role of education (in German, Bildung) necessary to produce it. The difference lies in Kant’s postulation that the autonomous will allows one to determine what universal moral principles exist, whereas in the Confucian system, the stronger utilitarian character did not see that step being necessary to a just society (Lee, 1995). In its evolution, Confucian scholars have taken into account changing social and intellectual trends, for example, the contemporary Confucian philosopher Jiang, who advocates market economics as consistent with Confucianism as long as it is not unfettered and does not disrupt the harmony and balance in society created by a concern for others through moral education by producing the alienation that comes from a domination by economic values (Angle, 2012). What is immediately apparent, in contrast to many Western conceptions of social justice, is a strong collectivist orientation in roles and responsibilities even though individual capabilities were cultivated, an orientation shared by many non-Western systems (and adopted by some political and religious Western systems of thought). Apparent here also is the way in which education is seen to serve administration, social order, and a balanced society rather than individual ends and a domination of economic values found in neoliberalism.

The Islamic Tradition of Social Justice The Islamic tradition of social justice is a combination of Islamic principles and cultural constructions for justice that were carried from ancient Mesopotamia through to modern times, reflected in a fundamental idea of the Circle of Justice adopting an interdependent reciprocal relationship between state and society carried in many social institutions, which Darling (2013) describes as follows: No power without troops, No troops without money, No money without prosperity, No prosperity without justice and good administration. (p. 2)

As a concept of societal balance and equilibrium arising from agrarian societies, its principles were easily adopted into empires in the Islamic medieval period in the political, economic, legal, and agricultural sectors and evident in modern societies. The Circle of Justice was dependent not only upon the proper functioning of social institutions but also in the public’s access to the ruler through which petitions could be made, and seen today in the modern majlis meetings, usually on a weekly basis, during which anyone should be able to approach a ruler to register a complaint or

116

E. A. Samier

make a request. However, the principles and practice of the Circle of Justice were undermined to a large extent by the introduction of modern capitalism which produced an association of capitalism with injustice (Darling, 2013), although some forms of modernization like the adoption of constitutions was argued to be consistent with circles of justice (Darling, 2013). The principles of justice are at the core of Islam, in both its main text, the Qur’an, and in the life and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, the Sunnah, and his period of rule in Medina as a model of the just society departed significantly from local tribal customs. It inspired its later imperial forms to provide protection to the vulnerable and operate by rule of law in moderation, although empires like that of the Safavids in Iran became more aggressively orthodox (Thompson, 2014). One of the main purposes of Islam, central in the Qur’an, is to provide rules to govern moral standards and cure social illnesses, essentially, social justice and to forbid injustice (Timani, 2012). During this period, the Constitution of Medina was adopted, intended to be a model of good governance promoting cooperation and tolerance, bring peace to warring factions, and to replace tribalism with a unified community of Islam introducing mutual aid and granting women the legal rights of persons where they had been regarded as chattel (Thompson, 2014). The main concept of justice (“adl”) consists of four principles: fairness, moderation, equality, and balance that should be carried out in the public interest – with social justice conceived to be the “glue” binding the ruled to the ruler and producing the prosperity of the community and carried out through the rule of law and the elimination of corruption (Thompson, 2014). Principles of social justice in Islam are seen to be religious duties in distributing wealth, righting wrongs, practicing self-sacrifice, working for social cooperation, and subordinating personal interests to the collective good, many of these codified into obligations, including within one’s trade and profession (Hoveyda, 1995). Piety cannot be achieved through individuality, but by working collectively to eliminate injustice and contributing to a balanced society characterized by moderation necessary for social justice to exist (Timani, 2012). The justice practices of the Prophet Muhammad clearly established a strong orientation towards social justice, not only on a social level but in creation of social institutions to further these values: creating a taxation system to provide pensions to the needy and cover other welfare expenses; providing solidarity and help to non-Muslims; and providing the foundation for a long tradition of public ownership (Hoveyda, 1995). Justice was defined as governing all realms – the family, social structures, the economy, and politics including those in leadership roles, and, contrary to many practices at the time, specifically dealt with the rights of women (full rights to education, economic activity, property and inheritance, equality and the right to divorce to get out of bad marriages), corruption, self-interest, expressing favoritism, using nepotism, undermining others, etc. In later periods, as empires formed requiring a more complex and sophisticated bureaucracy responsible for maintaining and ensuring these values, with the “ideal” senior administrator or governor, embodied the virtues of dedication to justice, “interest in study in the past, moderate in his acts and manners . . . [and is] a merciful friend of the poor” (Tietze, 1975, p. 72), although as empires like that of the

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

117

Umayyad formed, society became structured into unequal social classes, and social and political interests often came into conflict with religious principles of social justice (Hoveyda, 1995). The values of Islam are ideal principles, like any other ideal system, which are not always observed and can be misused and exploited. Custom, egoism, and politics are among the strongest forces that affected and still affect a deviation from the ideals and practice of Islam, evident throughout periods in Islamic empires, and argued by many to be disrupted under Western colonization and currently under some forms of globalization. There is a humanistic character to Islam embedded in its primary texts, the Qur’an and the Sunnah, its development into an extensive philosophical and intellectual tradition, finding its flowering in the Abbasid Empire beginning in the ninth century when many branches of Islamic scholarship built on top of the Greco-Roman humanitas literature and scientific study (Kraemer, 1984). This was, in part, due to an integration of many ethnic groups, cultural legacies, and religious traditions into the fabric of a complex empire that operated through high levels of tolerance, receptiveness, and cosmopolitanism (Kraemer, 1984), as well as traditions of interpretation that analyzed how Islamic law can change to meet new conditions while retaining the essential concepts and values (Stiles, 2012), exemplified in the social welfare Muhammadiyah movement in Indonesia working in education and healthcare (Pohl, 2012). Humanitas also characterized many of the educational philosophies and schools that developed during this period emphasizing not only mathematics, the study of history and society, but also valuational and moral ideals and virtues of character, particularly from Plato and Aristotle seen to be consistent with Islamic principles, seeing the use of reason and wisdom as paths to happiness and human perfection (Kraemer, 1984) and resulting in one of the first university systems and a large and complex system of schools (Makdisi, 1981). One of the major influence on the European tradition is that of Islamic humanism through authors like Averroes (ibn Rushd) whose dialectic method derived from Aristotle greatly influenced figures like Thomas Aquinas (Dossett, 2014), contributing to the preservation and development of knowledge grounded in classical Greek philosophy translated into Latin from Arabic starting in the eleventh century CE, as well as the development of universities in Europe, partially derived from Islamic universities and major research libraries established a few hundred years earlier (Makdisi, 1981). While the main definition of “humanism” as an approach is a concern with primarily the literary and other texts of the ancient world, usually the Greco-Roman, over the last few decades far more material preceding this period has been found, translated, and published. As a substantive definition, humanism aims at educating people in rational thought, a broad knowledge of the disciplines, and a moral development for both the individual and the good of society (Dossett, 2014). Humanism initially arose in the Islamic context as a scholarly philological concern for the purity of the Arabic language but also extended into a broad range of disciplines that we associate with the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and mathematics and applied sciences like medicine and engineering that were received into the Christian West including the adoption of many Arabic terms,

118

E. A. Samier

including those for classical Arabic humanism (Makdisi, 1990). What characterizes Islamic humanism, such as that of al-Kindi, Al-Farabi, ibn Rushd, and many others is the emphasis on the role of mind in its critical and reasoning capacities and reason in the formation of character, morality, and the human community with a strong emphasis on education and becoming learned (Ljamai, 2015). Through language, literature, oratory, history, and moral philosophy although understood in much broader terms than today, for example, history also encompassing much of what we would call sociology, psychology, anthropology, and geography. The purpose of these subjects was not only intrinsic but were associated with higher human development, the dignity of humankind (Makdisi, 1997), and the creation of a just society in all facets of social, cultural, political, and economic life. These principles of justice also deeply informed leadership ethics in Islam (Elkaleh & Samier, 2013) and an extensive Mirrors of Princes literature on good governance and leadership among rulers and administrators (Samier, 2017). Foundational to Islamic social justice is the exhortation at the beginning of Qur’an for all to read and become educated, for it is through these that people understand their religion and their moral, social and political responsibilities. It is also in Islamic territories that systems of education were established or expanded, and many principles related to education were instituted derived directly from the Qur’an and Sunnah (Hejazi, 2010; Von Grunebaum, 1953; Tan, 2015) as sources as well as commentary by major philosophical figures in the early Islamic period such as al-Farabi, al Kindi, ibn Sina, and ibn Rushd (Butterworth, 2006), who influenced the principles established in law and policy in Muslim polities (e.g., ‘Umar Farooq) (Waardenburg, 2003), and contemporary theorists (Hasan, 2007; Kamali, 2002; Mehmet, 1990). Justice, including social justice as distributive, retributive, and fairness and equity (Hasan, 2007; Kamali, 2002), is central to an Islamic worldview and the aim of piety, to correct injustices, individually and collectively (Goodman, 2003; Timani, 2012) which imposes upon the believer many duties in combating social injustice (Hoveyda, 1995). For example, the full range of social, economic, and educational rights were intended to be equally extended to women (Timani, 2012), introducing a broad range of rights and expectations of women’s roles in society that were revolutionary in the societies in which Islam arose. The ages-long traditions and institutions of social justice in the Islamic Middle East were heavily affected negatively by European colonization which both disrupted organizations and sets of codes and laws, and encouraged many state elites to contract with European powers to profiteer seen today in competing models of justice throughout the region (Thompson, 2014). In management, and I would argue education, colonization and subsequent modernization that is foreign dominated have produced a disengagement in local managers from traditional and Islamic values that Ali and Al-Shakhis (1989) identify as the avoidance of responsibility and risk, a high concern with job security and stability, a reluctance to delegate authority, a preservation of centralization, and the prioritization of personal considerations and friends over organizational goals and performance. However, the adoption of some Western systems, like constitutions and parliaments, was not successful in

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

119

preventing the rise of privileges for a minority and uneven economic growth, an ongoing challenge for Muslim populations.

First Nations Social Justice Traditions Another set of valuable knowledge traditions that inform social justice concepts and practices are those evident in a number of national reconciliation discussions in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada with indigenous communities about cultural rights, even though the educational goals of the wider community have not yet been successful (Gunstone, 2016). Australian aboriginal communities are one of the oldest on earth with approximately 60,000 years of continuous societies, and while internally highly diverse were united by a number of common values and practices associated with kinship, gift exchange, and religious concepts (Tonkinson, 2012). The discussion here focusses on social justice concepts among aboriginal groups in Australia (Tonkinson, 2012), New Zealand (Higgins, 2012), and some tribal groups in Canada (Gagnon, 2012; Reagan, 2005) where principles of individual rights and obligations to others and nature carried with them obligations for how others are treated and cared for with stronger collective than individualistic values (Milward, 2012). A further dimension of indigenous sensibilities, values, and identity is a close relationship with nature and the land, necessary elements of sociocultural and spiritual traditions in addition to language and traditional practices, largely destroyed or impeded through colonization and still not fully recognized by the UN (Tawhia 6). Aboriginal justice systems also blend justice with healing and community (Ross, 2009) in a more integrated model of society where the separation of social institutions is not that of postmedieval Western societies where law is not separated from custom, but legitimize important justice concepts and codes (Proulx, 2003). A socially just education is one that is community-based, where communication is open and respected, which prepares people for full participation in helping create social just communities, where significant sites related to indigenous values can be visited that connect students to the stories of tradition and the land, and curriculum has a strong First-Nations or aboriginal content (Tawhai, 2016). In Canada, the discussion of aboriginal or First Nations justice is embedded in alternative systems drawing on traditions as part of self-determination and selfgovernance (Andersen, 1999) and the use of cultural creativity and peace-making as a foundation for justice and law (Proulx, 2005). Social justice is conceptualized as the healing of an individual in order to restore individual and collective order and harmony using such sentencing practices as circles, community panels, advisory committees, and mediation committees, sometimes conceptualized as “peace-making” that is run by a community member elected and trained to manage a process with the assistance of an Elder through which a cycle of presentations by participants resulting in a variety of decisions including restitution, counselling, community service, etc. (Proulx, 2003). An example of aboriginal mediation practices for restorative justice is the use of the Medicine Wheel that provides a process of healing and self-knowledge from which justice arises (Proulx, 2005). Central to this view

120

E. A. Samier

is an opposition of community and state, where the latter is associated with a bureaucratic-technical system with which aboriginal community is inconsistent, and it is only through community, tailored to the needs of each, that restorative justice is possibly contributing to its health and healing breaches between community members (Andersen, 1999). Its essence is to return individuals to their responsibility to community and its individual members. Australian aboriginal communities are similar in their cultural and community approach to justice, consisting still of strong kinship-based communities in the form of bands where shared leadership is practiced, a highly egalitarian distribution of resources is practiced, and fundamental spiritual principles unite people with the land in which concepts of justice, punishment, and retribution are embedded – all carried out through community rituals and restorative ceremonies in a unifying reciprocity (Tonkinson, 2012). Similar to many other traditional societies, individuals are expected to self-regulate, but where they fail, the kin system exerts values to maintain social balance. In this manner, social justice is practiced as an intrinsic part of social and individual life in harmony with the environment. Central to many of these traditions is a much closer relationship to nature, for many groups personhood is extended to animals, vegetation, and land formations considered to be of equal worth and respect, and therefore entitled to social justice as in traditional Ojibway society (Gagnon, 2012). Among the Maori in New Zealand, land also plays an embodied role in identity, the construction of social and spiritual values, and the shaping of customs to preserve the primacy of community in which justice and social order resides (Higgins, 2012). While these traditions vary considerably across indigenous peoples, there are commonalities that are also shared and which are at odds with modernized Westernstyle societies: a spiritual dimension to reality, a unified view of humanity with the natural world, strong kinship groups that perform the same roles as many Western legalistic and policy systems, and sociocultural systems that restore harmony (Fredericks, Maynor, White, English, & Ehrich, 2014; Gagnon, 2012), and often with consensus- and mediation-structured processes in maintaining social justice. Education in these communities is much closer to what is regarded as apprenticeship in earlier historical periods in the West rather than “schooling.”

Conclusion What a postcolonial perspective brings to social justice for education is a more diversified view of the philosophical traditions, conceptions, and practices that extend beyond those globally dominant from the West – liberal-humanism, market-individualism, and the social democratic (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010), their emphasis on individuality exacerbated by neoliberal managerialism (Blackmore, 2006). Given the traditions discussed above, this means conceptualizing social justice in broader terms that include a stronger role for community, distribution of resources, and benefits that are not embedded in capitalism, and accepting that cultural norms may play a stronger role than bureaucratic-style policies and

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

121

procedures and objectified standardized accountability regimes. All of them have had their worldviews, values, and legal and social structures subordinated through colonization while imposing on them labels of uncivilized, inferior, etc. (Fredericks et al., 2014), including many views about ancient societies reflecting a progressivist fallacy in history. However, not only does social justice have to play a stronger role in how minorities are treated, and the laws, policies, and practices in ensuring a stronger diversity and inclusion, but the very traditions from which many of these groups come need to be recognized as legitimate forms of knowledge. Social justice in education itself needs to be decolonized. The implications for educational administration and leadership is to acquire a greater multicultural and transcultural competence in scholarship and practice. This requires adopting primarily a postcolonial perspective on how they can contribute to education, according to Hickling-Hudson (2006) transcending colonizer distortions of knowledge to the present and draw implications from bodies of knowledge that have been removed from the dominating international literature. Social justice is, like other core concepts and values, a construction of the sociocultural and political context in which it arises (Fischer, 2016). In other words, it is embedded in the context, social institutional arrangements, organizational context, and values of a community. This means expanding how “context” is understood to include societal arrangements and social institutions that are different from the Anglo-American conceptions that dominate the field, conceptualized in Anglo-American practice as centered on the school (and university) reflecting the conditions of a highly differentiated modernized society. However, if one is living in a more integrated traditional style culture, education is a more dispersed and embedded set of relationships that include formal, informal, and nonformal practices. A false assumption that needs to be disposed of is that social justice did not arise with modern democracy. Fischer (2016), for example, argues that justice is an implicit and ever present part of human social relationships, evident in ancient codes of early cities having provisions for fairness – in other words it is a necessary condition of human culture. A more historically accurate explanation is that democracy grew out of social justice humanistic and legal traditions that long preceded contemporary forms. To meaningfully engage in social justice means to overcome the barriers and suppressions, if not attempted eradications, of traditions that have become marginalized by incorporating other “frames of thinking” and how they “can help us to recognise, explore and disrupt entrenched preconceptions” that can be viewed as intellectual “violence” (Hickling-Hudson, 2006, pp. 201, 204). Many social justice traditions themselves require a more just recognition of their existence and value. This is a logical extension of Young’s (1990) and Fraser’s (1997) justice critique of cultural imperialism. There are two aspects to such an inclusion: the social justice values embedded in some non-Western traditions need to be protected under law and which require that others be educated in non-negative stereotyped versions or devalue them entirely; and the educational right to one’s cultural and intellectual traditions, such as that of indigenous communities (Tawhai, 2016).

122

E. A. Samier

References Adams, M. (2014). Social justice and education. In M. Reisch (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp. 249–268). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ali, A., & Al-Shakhis, M. (1989). Managerial beliefs about work in two Arab states. Organization Studies, 10(2), 169–186. Aljami, A. (2015). Humanistic thought in the Islamic world of the Middle Ages. In A. Copson & A. Grayling (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of humanism (pp. 153–169). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Amann, W., & Stachowicz-Stanusch, A. (Eds.). (2013). Integrity in organizations: Building the foundations for humanistic management. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Andersen, C. (1999). Governing aboriginal justice in Canada. Crime, Law and Social Change, 31, 303–326. Angle, S. (2012). Contemporary confucian political philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Atkinson, J., Scurrah, M., Lingán, J., Pizarro, R., & Ross, C. (2009). Globalizing social justice. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of social justice in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Balibar, E., Mezzadra, S., & Samaddar, R. (2012). Editors’ introduction. In E. Balibar, S. Mezzadra, & R. Samaddar (Eds.), The borders of justice (pp. 1–8). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Benham, M., & Murakami-Ramalho, E. (2010). Engaging in educational leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(1), 77–91. Bertman, S. (2003). Handbook to life in ancient Mesopotamia. New York, NY: Facts on File. Blackmore, J. (2006). Deconstructing diversity discourses in the field of educational management and leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 34, 181–199. Bottéro, J. (1992). Mesopotamia: Writing, reasoning, and the gods. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bryce, T. (2011). Hittite state and society. In H. Genz & D. Mielke (Eds.), Insights into Hittite history and archeology (pp. 85–97). Leuven, Belgium: Peeters. Butterworth, C. (2006). Ethical and political philosophy. In P. Adamson & R. Taylor (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Arabic philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Chan, J. (2012). Confucianism. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 77–92). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Charpin, D. (2010). Writing, law, and kingship in old Babylonian Mesopotamia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Cohen, Y., & Kedar, S. (2011). Teacher-student relationships. In K. Radner & E. Robson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cuneiform culture (pp. 229–247). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Copson, A. (2015). What is humanism? In A. Copson & A. Grayling (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of humanism (pp. 1–33). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Daiber, H. (2013). Humanism: A tradition common to both Islam and Europe. Filozofija I Drusˇtvo, 24(1), 293–310. Darling, L. (2013). A history of social justice and political power in the Middle East. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. De Bary, T. (1996). The trouble with confucianism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Démare-Lafont, S. (2011). Judicial decision-making. In K. Radner & E. Robson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook to cuneiform culture (pp. 335–357). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dierksmeier, C., Amann, W., von Kimakowitz, E., Spitzeck, H., & Pirson, M. (Eds.). (2011). Humanistic Ethics in the Age of Globality. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

123

Doak, B. (2006). The origins of social justice in the ancient Mesopotamian religious traditions. Paper presented at the American School of Oriental Research Central States meeting, St. Louis. http:// digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1185&context=ccs. Accessed 9 Dec 2017. Dossett, R. (2014). The historical influence of classical Islam on Western humanistic education. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 4(2), 88–91. Elkaleh, E., & Samier, E. A. (2013). The ethics of Islamic leadership. Administrative Culture, 14(2), 188–211. Fischer, R. (2016). Justice and culture. In C. Sabbagh & M. Schmitt (Eds.), Handbook of social justice theory and research (pp. 459–475). New York, NY: Springer. Foster, B. (1995). Social reform in ancient Mesopotamia. In K. Irani & M. Silver (Eds.), Social justice in the ancient world (pp. 165–177). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Fowler, M. (2015). Ancient China. In A. Copson & A. Grayling (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of humanism (pp. 133–152). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Frankfort, H., Frankfort, H., Wilson, J., Jacobsen, T., & Irwin, W. (1977). The intellectual adventure of ancient man. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus. London, England: Routledge. Fredericks, B., Maynor, P., White, N., English, F., & Ehrich, L. (2014). Living with the legacy of conquest and culture: Social justice leadership in education and the indigenous peoples of Australia and America. In I. Bogotch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of educational leadership and social (In)justice (pp. 751–780). Dordrecht: Springer. Gadd, C. (1971). The cities of Babylonia. In I. Edwards, C. Gadd, & N. Hammond (Eds.), Early history of the Middle East, Cambridge ancient history (Part 2) (Vol. 1, pp. 93–144). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Gagnon, G. (2012). North America: Ojibwe culture. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 425–437). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469–484. Goodman, L. (2003). Islamic humanism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Griffith, M. (2015). Origins and relations to the Near East. In W. Bloomer (Ed.), A companion to ancient education (pp. 7–25). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Gunstone, A. (2016). The Australian reconciliation process. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam, M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 187–204). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hall, B. L., & Tandon, R. (2017). Decolonization of knowledge, epistemicide, participatory research and higher education. Research for All, 1(1), 6–19. Hasan, S. (2007). Islamic concept of social justice. Macquarie Law Journal, 7, 167–183. Hejazi, S. M. R. (Ed.). (2010). Great traditions in Islamic ethics. Sydney, NSW: Islamic Studies and Research Academy Press. Hendry, J., Howard-Wagner, D., Jorgensen, M., & Tatum, M. (2018). Indigenous justice: New tools, approaches, and spaces. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Hickling-Hudson, A. (2006). Integrating cultural complexity, postcolonial perspectives, and educational change. The Review of Education, 52, 201–218. Higgins, R. (2012). New Zealand: The Māori people. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 412–424). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Hourani, G. (1985). Reason and tradition in Islamic ethics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Hoveyda, F. (1995). Social justice in early Islamic society. In K. Irani & M. Silver (Eds.), Social justice in the ancient world (pp. 115–123). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Irani, K. (1995). The idea of social justice in the ancient world. In K. Irani & M. Silver (Eds.), Social justice in the ancient world (pp. 3–8). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

124

E. A. Samier

Jackson, B. (2005). The conceptual history of social justice. Political Studies Review, 3, 356–373. Kamali, M. H. (2002). Freedom, equality and justice in Islam. Cambridge, UK: Islamic Texts Society. Khan, S., & Amann, W. (Eds.). (2013). World humanism: Cross-cultural perspectives on ethical practices in organizations. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kirloskar-Steinbach, M. (2011). Humanistic values in Indian and Chinese traditions. In C. Dierksmeier, W. Amann, E. von Kimakowitz, H. Spitzeck, & M. Pirson (Eds.), Humanistic ethics in the age of globality (pp. 225–245). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Kitchen, K. (1977). The Bible in its world. Exeter, UK: Paternoster Press. Klein, J. (1995). Shulgi of Ur. In J. Sasson (Ed.), Civilizations of the ancient Near East (pp. 843–857). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s & Sons. Kraemer, J. (1984). Humanism in the renaissance of Islam. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 104(1), 135–164. Kramer, S. (1963). The Sumerians. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kresse, K. (2011). “African humanism” and a case study from the Swahili coast. In C. Dierksmeier, W. Amann, E. von Kimakowitz, H. Spitzeck, & M. Pirson (Eds.), Humanistic ethics in the age of globality (pp. 246–265). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Lee, T. (1995). The idea of social justice in ancient China. In K. Irani & M. Silver (Eds.), Social justice in the ancient world (pp. 125–146). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Leick, G. (2003). The Babylonians. London, England: Routledge. Lion, B. (2011). Literacy and gender. In K. Radner & E. Robson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cuneiform culture (pp. 90–116). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Liverani, M. (2014). The Ancient Near East: History, Society and Economy. Abingdon: Routledge. Ljamai, A. (2015). Humanistic thought in the Islamic world of the Middle Ages. In A. Copson & A. Grayling (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell handbook of humanism (pp. 153–169). Chicester, UK: Wiley. Loomba, A. (2007). Colonialism/postcolonialism. London, England: Routledge. Makdisi, G. (1981). The rise of colleges: Institutions of learning in Islam and the West. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Makdisi, G. (1990). The rise of humanism in classical Islam and the Christian west. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Makdisi, G. (1997). Inquiry into the origins of Humanism. In A. Afsaruddin & A. Zahniser (Eds.), Humanism, culture, and language in the Near East (pp. 15–26). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Mann, N. (1996). The origins of humanism. In J. Kraye (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to renaissance humanism (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. McIntosh, J. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio. Mehmet, O. (1990). Islamic identity and development. London, England: Routledge. Memmi, A. (2003). The colonizer and the colonized. London, England: Earthscan. Michalowski, P. (1991). Charisma and control: On continuity and change in early Mesopotamian bureaucratic systems. In M. Gibson & R. Biggs (Eds.), The organization of power: Aspects of bureaucracy in the ancient near east (pp. 45–57). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Milward, D. (2012). Aboriginal justice and the charter. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Oppenheim, L. (1977). Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Pohl, F. (2012). The Muhammadiyah. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 241–255). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Proulx, C. (2003). Reclaiming aboriginal justice, identity, and community. Saskatoon, SK: Purich. Proulx, C. (2005). Blending justice: Interlegality and the incorporation of aboriginal justice into the formal Canadian justice system. Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law, 37(51), 79–109.

4

Missing Non-Western Voices on Social Justice for Education: A. . .

125

Reagan, T. (2005). Non-Western educational traditions. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rees, S. (2014). Justice, culture, and human rights. In M. Reisch (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp. 455–462). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ritzer, G. (2007). Introduction. In G. Ritzer (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Globalization (pp. 16–28). Oxford: Blackwell. Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. London, England: Routledge. Ross, R. (2009). Returning to the teachings: Exploring aboriginal justice. Toronto, ON: Penguin. Roth, M. (1995). Law collections from Mesopotamia and Asia minor. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. Sackey, B. (2012). Colonialism. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 456–468). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage. Saltman, K. (2009). Historical and theoretical perspectives. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. 1–3). New York, NY: Routledge. Samier, E. A. (2017). The Islamic public administration tradition: Historical, theoretical and practical dimensions. Administrative Culture, 18(1), 53–71. Schott, R. (2000). The origins of bureaucracy. International Journal of Public Administration, 23(1), 53–78. Sears, A., & Herriot, L. (2016). The place of religion in education for citizenship and social justice. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam, M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 285–303). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Seri, A. (2013). The house of prisoners. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Sidhu, R. (2006). Universities and Globalization: To Market, To Market. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Spitzeck, H., Pirson, M., Amann, W., Shan, S., & von Kimakowitz, E. (Eds.). (2009). Humanism in business. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Stein, S., & Andreotti, V. (2016). Postcolonial insights for engaging different in educational approaches to social justice and citizenship. In A. Peterson et al. (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 229–245). London, England: Palgrave Macmillan. Stiles, E. (2012). Islam. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 153–169). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Tan, C. (2015). Reforms in Islamic education. London, England: Bloomsbury. Tawhai, V. (2016). Indigenous peoples and indigeneity. In A. Peterson, R. Hattam, M. Zembylas, & J. Arthur (Eds.), The Palgrave international handbook of education for citizenship and social justice (pp. 97–120). Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Thompson, E. (2014). Social justice in the Middle East. In M. Reisch (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp. 61–73). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Tibi, B. (2009). Bridging the heterogeneity of civilisations: Reviving the grammar of Islamic humanism. Theoria, 56(120), 65–80. Tietze, A. (1975). Mustafa ‘Ali’s description of Cairo of 1599. Vienna, Austria: Verlag der Ősterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Timani, H. (2012). Islam. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 137–152). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Tonkinson, R. (2012). Australia: Religion and social justice in a continent of hunter-gatherers. In M. Palmer & S. Burgess (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell companion to religion and social justice (pp. 361–372). Chicester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Veldhuis, N. (2011). Levels of literacy. In K. Radner & E. Robson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cuneiform culture (pp. 68–89). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Von Grunebaum, G. (1953). Medieval Islam. London, England: University of Chicago Press.

126

E. A. Samier

Waardenburg, J. (2003). Muslims and others. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Westbrook, R. (1995). Social justice in the ancient Near East. In K. Irani & M. Silver (Eds.), Social justice in the ancient world (pp. 149–163). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Westbrook, R. (2003). A history of ancient Near Eastern law (Vol. 1). Leiden, Netherlands: Brill. Yoffee, N. (2004). Myths of the archaic state. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Young, I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Zajda, J. (2010). Globalization, education, and social justice. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization, education, and social justice (pp. xiii–xxiii). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

5

Political Agendas in Public Education Lynzi Stralek and Rosemary Papa

Contents Social Justice Within the Politics of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historical Education Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poverty and Academic Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charters, Foundations, and Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of the Federal Reform Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Future Federal Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

128 129 134 135 139 147 147

Abstract

Architects of education reform have consistently been individuals and organizations with political affiliations that lacked the necessary credentials to construct effective reform that would impact academia at a national level. Dichotomous perspectives on the idealized educational direction among political parties stimulated additional complications on reform platforms, lessening the likelihood of enhanced student outcomes. These disparities resulted in misguided and inconsistent messages as promoted with affiliated relationships between political campaigns and media outlets to the American public, as well as partnerships with private businesses and the promotion of charters and privatized education, and government-sponsored academic improvement organizations. This chapter examines the Stralek study regarding the relationships between six federal education initiatives (Elementary and Secondary Education Act, A Nation at Risk, America 2000, Goals 2000, No Child Left Behind, and Race L. Stralek (*) Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected] R. Papa Soka University of America, Aliso Viejo, CA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_143

127

128

L. Stralek and R. Papa

to the Top) and the impacts of the reforms on the achievement gap. Comparativehistorical analysis was used to investigate the results of the six education reforms and the impacts on levels of student achievement data, specifically highlighting areas most commonly referenced within reforms and campaigns, the failing public schools that serve high populations of minorities, and low-income families. Keywords

Education reform · Charter schools · Privatized education · Student achievement data · Achievement gap · Public school

Social Justice Within the Politics of Education The research conducted (Stralek, 2018) was to determine relationships between six education reforms (see Table 1) and the impacts of the initiatives on student achievement levels, especially emphasizing isolated subgroups of students (students who did not qualify for free and reduced lunch (FR/L), students who did qualify for FR/L, and students of different ethnicities: White, Black, and Hispanic). Results compiled from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported used F/RL rates as an indicator of poverty or affluence levels. The six reforms in this study were examined through comparative-historical analysis (Lange, 2013) to determine the impacts of the reforms on student achievement data at the federal level. A hybrid analysis of qualitative and quantitative data was gathered through web-based investigations, an extensive review of documents and literature, and results of reforms as evidenced on available academic data platforms. Studies (Deke, Dragoset, Bogen, Gill, & Sekino, 2012; Dragoset et al., 2016, 2017; Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, Dwoyer, & Silverburg, 2010; James-Burdumy & Wei, 2015; Liu, 2008; Puma et al., 2010; Spellings, 2009; Spellings, Whitehurst, & Cottingham, 2007; Troppe et al., 2015) that provided conclusive student data reporting were evaluated and connected to reform date implementation to determine potential impacts of the act. This study demonstrates the need for qualified educational change agents to craft realistic and effective education reforms, individuals and agencies that encompass Table 1 Education reforms for analytical review Year 1965 1983 1989 1994 2002 2009

Reform Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) A Nation at Risk America 2000 Goals 2000: Educate America Act No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Race to the Top Act (RTTT)

Author created

Administration President Lyndon Johnson President Ronald Reagan President George H.W. Bush President Bill Clinton President George W. Bush President Barack Obama

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

129

educational backgrounds with the success of students in mind rather than political, economic, or sociocultural gains and/or personal agendas that guided previous reforms. The state of education has been driven by politicians, resulting in the forced disappearance of the middle class by enhancing the gap between the upper and lower classes. By having measured the degree of political involvement that took place in previous and current reforms, the authors feel one can better anticipate and redirect upcoming academic transformations and then provide alternative routes that afford more effective outcomes for students. This research further addresses the role education has played in federal political action, political perspectives regarding the purpose and expectations of education as the architect for reform implementation, as well as the impacts political action imparted on national student academic data.

Historical Education Reform The conclusion of President Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” (McKee, 2014) marked an advantageous era for educational partnerships to develop between politicians, the business elite, and for-profit organizations. Since 1965, these agencies have been responsible for crafting and implementing education reform that never achieved the objectives that were advertised and promised (Chopin, 2013). The results went beyond reform failure. Students and families, as well as educators and schools, have continued to feel the pressurized demand from the federal initiatives to produce academic excellence. In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson launched the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in an attempt to combat the “War on Poverty” (McKee, 2014). President Johnson trusted the act would enhance the support of the federal government in education to provide academic equality, accountability, and high standards for students (The Social Welfare History Project, 2017). As the ESEA rolled out, nearly one billion dollars were scheduled to be annually funded to the education system with the majority of the monies allocated to Title I alone. Miller (2014) emphasized that of the five titles embedded within the ESEA, Title I became the most frequent in discussion since the initiation of the plan because it specifically provided monetary support to schools with children who lived in poverty (the population Johnson believed was in the most desperate need of a quality education). Webb (2006) stated that funds from Title I continued to support the Head Start program, a platform which supported children who were 3–5 years old, “disadvantaged,” and traditionally not planning on attending kindergarten. While the ESEA may have improved the likelihood of families in poverty becoming more academically successful, McCarty (2012) argued that it also generated a certain way of viewing those who were qualified for the funding and federal support of Title I. McCarty (2012) maintained that the act seriously underscored the connection between class discrepancies (families living in poverty), the lack of academic success, and the overall relationship to race. Stein strengthened McCarty’s assertions by implying the federal government viewed poverty as the result of subpar parents who “. . .are unable to provide their children with the intellect, moral, or

130

L. Stralek and R. Papa

financial resources they need to be successful in school and in life” (as cited in McCarty, 2012, p. 4). Furthering the imposed disparity, McCarty (2012) exposed how language was negatively used within the act itself, highlighting the side-by-side verbiage of “limited” and “immigrant” stated time after time within the recent ESEA, the NCLB. President Johnson’s attempt to improve poverty levels through education led to academic programming modifications that aimed to heighten the United States global economic standing (Webb, 2006). These shifts in perspective resulted in alterations in the classroom that no longer placed emphasis on student-centered learning and instead promoted an academic system that mimicked a business atmosphere that led schools to struggle to meet such business-like goals. Students became a numeric representation of content mastery rather than an individual learner. The result of this facilitated business elitists stepping in to take over pertinent director roles of reform commissions to improve the future of economic ranking. Reagan’s conservative perspective on education reform favored the strong presence of business within education goal setting. The fresh conservative organization – known as the New Right – stood behind the demolition of the United States Department of Education (USDOE) as well as pulling almost all federal funding in support of public education (Webb, 2006). The New Right preferred the heavier federal role in privatized school options and encouraged the business-like outlook in the classroom (Republican National Committee [RNC], 2016). As regulations and plans continued rising, education began to strongly resemble a quantity rather than quality industry. The aftermath of the US academia indicated reform was needed because of various failing components, including the decline of federal funds. As a response, President Reagan employed a National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) in 1983, which was an organization headed by, and mostly comprised of, individuals with no K-12 educator experience (Webb, 2006). This group of individuals composed and published A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education [NCEE], 1983), a document which suggested various guidelines for the American school system to adhere to which included ideas such as the implementation of a 7-h school day (similar to 8-h workday for adults), standardized testing, annual textbook updates to ensure rigor, the introduction of effective work skills at early grades, and performance-based teacher salaries (Webb, 2006). A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) ultimately pointed the finger at public education as the reason the nation’s economic system had failed and the economy was no longer viewed as globally competitive. Major organizations such as IBM and XEROX read the educational paper and felt the pressure economically as well and, because of this, contributed funds toward the publication of the document (Bartlett, Frederick, Gulbrandsen, & Murillo, 2002). By doing so, these business tycoons distracted the American people from their own lack of economical contribution and instead assisted President Reagan in pointing out what he felt was the real issue that waned the economy down: public education. It was evident that President Reagan believed that American businesses were prospering and those who ran businesses were able to help public education. This forecasted the introduction of

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

131

businesses’ intervention in the functionality of academics even though no research existed to prove that education has contributed to enhanced global economic competition (Spring, 2014). An educational blueprint that the general public, politicians, and educators built off of was provided through A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). The reforms that took place after its publication reflected the political ideals of the academic system increasing involvement of individuals who lacked educational experience. Ray and Mickelson (as cited in Bartlett et al., 2002) indicated a significant result of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983); businesses came away feeling it was their job to impose corporate structures and data-driven outcomes in assessing local public schools. Similar to McCarty’s findings, Bartlett et al. concluded that the marketization forced onto education was harming the “. . .working-class and minority populations” (2002, p. 24). To better monitor schools and students, high-stakes testing became a popular strategy employed throughout public schools. This resulted in a serious disservice to students who were still learning the English language as well as students who lived in poverty, and because the population of these students was minimal in private and charter schools, their data looked even more admirable while making the public school system appear to be in a state of failure. Even though the disservice was taking place because of the standardized tests, politicians and businesses were favorable to the academic measurement this tool offered. The Bartlett et al. (p. 19) findings demonstrated that because of the imposed middle-class standards onto all students in public education, the business agenda integrated within education reforms was enhanced. What resulted was the implied freedom to racially judge one another in correlation to school behavioral and academic performance, and the advertisement of federal goals to use public education as the portal to develop citizens who contributed to their ideal society (Bartlett et al., 2002). In 1989, George H. W. Bush took the presidency and introduced the United States to his education reform, America 2000 (United States Department of Education [USDOE], 1991). The reform established six ambitions academic objectives for families and schools to meet (Rozycki, 1995) but was short lived due to scarce funds and an unpopular voucher system (Webb, 2006). Following President G. H. W. Bush’s attempt at improving the academics in the United States, President Bill Clinton introduced what some considered the most productive 2-year span of educational progress since 1966. In 1993, Clinton increased funding for Head Start and promoted programs in the schools that supported a connection between traditional schooling academics and professional outcomes for students. The Clinton Administration was the first to implement nationalized education standards, referred to as Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Public Law 103-227, 1994). Goals 2000 outlined eight benchmarks that were to be nationally achieved by the year 2000. The primary shift throughout the guidelines underscored an increase in accountability of educators and academics, as well as federal funding distributed to the high-stakes testing movement which facilitated the academic monitoring initiative. This act outlined the expectations that again resembled past reforms; however, as Webb (2006) explained, the difference this time was the facilitation of restructuring local

132

L. Stralek and R. Papa

level academic performance data so that measurement at the national level was consistent. Further, this reform required the inclusion of student data from those with disabilities and the designation of integration for state reform initiatives. Sloan (2007) attributed Goals 2000 to highlight the lack of consideration extended to minority group students through the connection between standardized testing and an advancing achievement gap. Hillard (as cited in Sloan, 2007, p. 34) explained that the standards being adhered to were “. . .biased against low-income students of color because they are normed, in large measure, based on the knowledge and experiences of middle-class whites.” The standards within the United States education reforms were founded in middle-class ideologies. Low-income students demanded a higher quality of resources and instructional academia and were also more likely to attend schools with teachers of lower credentials and lesser resources (Sloan, 2007) which sustained the achievement (and class) gap that politicians claimed education would minimize. The close of Clinton’s presidency marked the introduction of high-stakes testing and led to President George W. Bush and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (2002). At this time only 20 states were in complete compliance with Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA); the resolution was founded in the implementation of NCLB (2002) with stricter mandates focused on teacher quality, state compliance, and standardized testing and accountability (Spring, 2014). With a cut in federal funds, the implementation of NCLB facilitated the role of the government to formulate the measurement of student data, monitor it, and create new requirements for teachers to meet in order to be hired or continue teaching. Webb (2006) described the primary outcome for NCLB was to hold every student and every teacher accountable for their student performance data, as well as all students were to be grade-level ready by the year 2014; however, the academic expectations of student growth were not equally distributed. The academic demands for low-income and minority students required they make greater gains in the classroom due to enhanced learning deficits and thus more room to academically improve. Academic growth was monitored at the state and federal levels by acquiring test scores (student data) to determine if students were meeting the new high academic standards and how teachers were performing (FairTest, 2009). Schools were required to report the results of their state assessments which led to the assignment of a grade that indicated “meeting” or “failing” Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) reliant on student performance data. The student demographic data collected from these standardized assessments provided background information to governments that included their “. . .race, income, and disability status. . .” (Taylor, 2016, p. 1), which organically created subgroups of students. The subgroups NCLB highlighted were described as “racial minorities and English language learners” (Chopin, 2013, p. 415), the groups of students the reform was intended to positively impact the most. Some found this to be a good idea because close monitoring ensured the achievement gap was closing, while others found it as a means to advertise the poor academic achievement associated with low-income or racially diverse families and students.

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

133

Koyama (2010) reiterated that the outcome of NCLB was an enlarged achievement gap between minority and White students. While the intent of NCLB was to advance federal involvement “to raise student’s academic achievement” (Webb, 2006, p. 361), it actually resulted in increased student dropouts and high rates of student retention because of the rigid high-stakes assessments that accompanied the reform (Goldberg, 2005). Racial associations to achievement gaps were nothing new in education, but Ochoa (2013) challenged all to reconsider this norm. Barker (1996) argued that education had become an industry attempting to create a “predictable society” where “...children and schools can be placed on an appropriate scale of merit . . .” (pp. 3–4), in other words, a ranking system. Even though NCLB promoted the categorization of student data for tracking purposes, perhaps a more comprehensive outlook of overall academic success should have been the primary concern rather than isolating specific groups of individuals. In 2009, President Barack Obama instituted Race to the Top (RTTT) (Public Law 111-115, 2009), an education reform that aimed to relieve the strict mandates NCLB enforced and promoted national academic competition (Abbott, 2013). RTTT attracted states to participate in the competition, suggested more accountability while fostering state flexibility, and also encouraged an increase in the number of charter schools, facilitating situations for “. . .more opportunities for the private sector to profit” (Levine & Levine, 2012, p. 104). President Obama believed the solution to low-performing schools in areas of poverty was the charter institution. The ideology for increased charters throughout America quickly gained abundant support from for-profit businesses and foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, obtaining widespread news coverage with an encouraging message (Ravitch, 2016). Millions in funding were extended to the K-12 industry; however, the academic results remained unsatisfactory to the American public and politicians, and the perceived failures of the public education system gained the attention from the business elite as a lucrative investment opportunity (Ravitch, 2016). Education was being treated as a private enterprise rather than a vehicle for the good of the public – the foundation of public school (DeJarnatt, 2014). Instead of looking inward to the reformists to be responsible for the weak results, politicians and the media touted the liability fell on the public education system. Patterns of these previous reforms exposed the negative impacts education and students have endured due to brash decision-making, alternate agendas, and business prioritized over genuine academic improvements. McCarty (2012) demonstrated a linkage to low student data and families living in poverty, as well as with students who were learning the English language. Bartlett et al. (2002) strengthened McCarty’s idea by exposing how politicians correlated poor student data to subgroups of people, creating a very socially judgmental system that suggested race was primarily the reason academic success had fallen. A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) promoted the middle-class and the business elite mindset that education should produce accomplished members of society. The document also provided guidance as to what the members look like, thus facilitating a situation that set minority groups apart even further. The wedge created because of these reforms was not only

134

L. Stralek and R. Papa

academic in nature, it was also societal and class-based. Sloan (2007) pointed out that the emphasis of the Clinton and Bush reforms pushed standard-based education and assessment into the academic foundation of public schools which sustained inconsistencies that did not meet the needs of students who qualified as a minority group member. Without the resources to support the students based on their diverse needs, the gap widened even further with the rigid guidelines of NCLB. The humanistic and academic hurdles created from the previous education initiatives were evidence that the achievement gap widened because of these reforms. To expose and deepen the knowledge of the public on the sensitivity and depravation of subgroups within the education sector facilitated pertinent questions and thus demanded answers such as: “What tone was being created for the families living in poverty?” “Was education here to support everyone or to expose and create classbased subgroups?” Re-focusing on the students rather than the nation’s global economic ranking is needed to guide education. This required research, the utilization of individuals with public school experience, and educational foundations.

Poverty and Academic Achievement President Johnson’s attempt to support individuals living in poverty in America was an outreach effort through the education system. Opposing the Republican view that anyone can get themselves out of poverty, and aligning with President Johnson, Harrington (2012) confirmed that those living in poverty lack the resources to get out of it; thus their evacuation depends on society to “help them before they can help themselves” (p. 165). Harrington (2012) went on to describe poverty in America as a culture of its own, in reliance of the “better-off” to make progressive decisions. Poverty has been linked to impact the quality of a child’s adolescent experience as well as their overall development and, subsequently, their likelihood to be academically successful later in life. Chubb and Moe (1990, p. 106) found that students who have attended high-performing schools came from families who earned an annual 35% more than those who had students attending low-performing schools. Chubb and Moe (1990) made further connections between the academic success of a student and the education level of the parent, noting that parents who struggled to complete “twelve years of education” were more likely to have children who attended lowperforming schools (p. 106). The environment in which a child is raised drastically impacts the academic success they would likely experience as well as their probability of high school graduation. Petrick (2014) highlighted that by growing up in poverty, the student was less likely to graduate from high school than students who grow up in a financially stable household. Further substantiating Petrick’s research, Loughrey and Woods (2010) found that children who grew up in poverty began their educational path behind their peers skill-wise and rarely made academic gains to counter their losses, and, years later, the academic lag they acquired aided in the development of an accustomed lens that normalize subpar perceptions and performance.

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

135

Substantial achievement gaps have predominantly been seen within communities of minority residence and high rates of poverty and have been sustained by racial segregation. Ravitch (2016) concurred that the factors outside the school setting, before a child entered the academic environment, were the years the achievement gap was primarily facilitated due to rates of poverty and racial segregation the student lived in. Students who disengaged from school and did not graduate embarked on a path with less possibility to lead a financial stability life as an adult. Messacar and Oreopoulous (2013) discussed the defeated impacts high school dropouts faced as they were forced into a reality of less potential earnings and higher probabilities to end up incarcerated. On average, high school dropouts, as adults, earned $16.50 an hour (Messacar & Oreopoulous, 2013) which averaged to approximately $19,000 a year compared to high school graduates who earned approximately $28,000 annually (Davis, 2013). High school dropouts have impacted society and the economy as well; Petrick (2014) asserted their contribution generated influence on the trajectory of the future economy. Students who dropped out of high school were twice as likely as high school graduates to end up living in poverty as adults (Breslow, 2012), a cost that was three times higher than financing an education (Children’s Defense Fund, 2016). The US government has made a habit of placing blame of poverty onto areas where the responsibility will not fall back on them. Politicians have frequently blamed the choices students growing up in poverty made, such as entering the workforce early, as the reason the dropout took place, rather than acknowledging preventative methods that could have been made available earlier on in their academic careers (Sikhan, 2013). Such evidence clearly highlights that the United States is funding a system of criminals rather than investing in the future of the children, the country’s future.

Charters, Foundations, and Politics Media has advertised public education as an expensive industry with poor results for years. The message that began with A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) was sustained through documentaries such as Waiting for “Superman” (Chilcott & Guggenheim, 2010) and Dropout Nation (Koughan, 2012). The premise in both these documentaries outlined the reasons for the failing school systems, placing the blame on teachers, students with behavior issues, and poverty (Chilcott & Guggenheim, 2010; Koughan, 2012). Waiting for “Superman” (Chilcott & Guggenheim, 2010) investigated the components of the public school system and hinted that the difficulty in firing teachers due to tenure had a significant negative impact in the overall academic setting for students. Bill Gates was featured in Waiting for “Superman” as a supporter of the overall premise advertised in the film. In his interview with Reuters to promote the documentary, Gates acknowledged that there were very few movies that existed regarding the state of public education in America and viewed Waiting for “Superman” as a platform to educate citizens on the desperate need for improvements and the heavy responsibility education endured to make

136

L. Stralek and R. Papa

America great again (Tourtellotte, 2010). In another promotional interview with the Canadian news outlet Macleans, Gates alerted Kenneth Whyte (2010, para. 3), “The education system is the only reason the dream of equal opportunity has a chance of being delivered – and we’re not running a good education system.” Gates continued on to affirm education was heavily reliant on the quality of teachers, and a system was needed to weed out the worst (Whyte, 2010). Because these were among the few documentaries regarding education available to the public at the time, there was no opposition team raising questions to all that was advertised through media such as this. Conclusively, the messages the documentaries delivered were consistent with A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983) that public education was failing and should have been considered a dire issue in need of renovation. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) is a global assessment administered to students near age 15, and then again 3 years later, the assessment measures students on their math, reading, and science proficiency levels (Program for International Student Assessment [PISA], 2015). The PISA was a popular assessment used by news channels to reference America’s academic standing in the global ranks. Commonly, PISA reports were delivered with testing statistics and no accompanying background information. A significant factor not weighed into the advertised data included the rankings of the PISA, the elevated poverty levels American students lived in, and the impacts on their academic performance it held (Berliner & Glass, 2014). High poverty rates have been directly linked to promoting low academic achievement (Petrick, 2014) and the inclusion of this information would have provided a more holistic outlook on global education standings. Having withheld the impacts poverty had on student achievement manipulated the validity of the PISA reports and manufactured a deliberate message from the media to the public. PISA reports helped news organizations deliver a strong message that public education was failing and a solution was urgently needed. Charter schools surfaced in the 1990s as the solution and quickly gained momentum from parents, politicians, and philanthropy founders. Knaak and Knaak (2013) emphasized an increase in popularity was due to the persuasive charter lobbyists and public relation experts, gaining “. . .enormous support from mainstream media, politicians, and well-heeled foundations” (p. 45). Spring (2014) explained that little proof was available verifying charter schools to outperform public schools, but still, charters earned exaggerated headlines in the media that boasted of student growth (Knaak & Knaak, 2013). According to Berliner and Glass (2014), traditional public schools have been outperforming charter schools with larger class sizes and a more diverse student population. Knaak and Knaak (2013) further reported that charter schools had actually preserved the learning gap, specifically for non-Asian minority students as well as students living in poverty, the groups of students that the reforms aimed to provide increased support for. The deployments of charter schools were intended to provide an alternate academic route to students who had previously struggled in public schools (Cox & Hill, 2006). Long (2018) explained that charters were committed to relinquish standardized curriculum and embrace exploratory instructional strategies that would better

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

137

support the struggling students. Innovation extended beyond the traditional classroom and into the surrounding community. The Neighborhood House Charter School in Boston, Massachusetts, provided classes for parents, healthcare, and extracurricular activities (Schorr, 2000). Schorr (2000) continued on to explain that the families of the Neighborhood House Charter School received home visits to determine what external supports might be needed from the school. Because charters have functioned outside of traditional rules and regulations public schools must adhere to, they have been able to measure success based on alternative factors and attempt experimental academic methods with more freedom and less potential consequence. The inventive methods of the charters paired with small class sizes and flexible academic agendas have naturally promoted an essence of competition, demanding that public schools perform better academically and work to be more appealing to parents. Charters were advertised as the solution for minority students as well as students who lived in poverty, offering them a superior route that put them on the path to college (Levine & Levine, 2014). News outlets and politicians worked hard to keep the message delivered to the public consistently positive, regularly leaving out information such as charter selection practices. Charter schools were required by law to admit students into their classrooms because of the fiscal support from the federal government, but with a high volume of applicants, charters frequently turned to a lottery system. An article written by the Times Editorial (2016) outlined the rigorous application families had to complete for their children to be considered for acceptance into the charter school. Within these applications, students and parents were asked to compose multiple essays about their background and personal characteristics the family believed would benefit the charter (Times Editorial, 2016). Through this application, charters gained insight into the family and academic setting the student would bring to the classrooms. Berliner and Glass (2014) explained that students who were likely to score poorly on assessments were discouraged to apply by the charter schools. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California (2016) found the application strategy is not uncommon and teeters on asking discriminatory questions for the purpose of elimination from the admissions process. Ravitch (2016) described lengthy site visits families must go through where charter staff outlined the high expectations such as expensive school uniforms and hours of involved homework each night that families would need to comply with. Charter schools have also used their lack of staff as an admissions strategy. Estes (2000) explained that charter schools would emphasize their shortage of qualified staff needed to support students with behavioral or special needs and advertise nearby public schools with ample staff members qualified to serve students with such needs. Rawls (2015) described racial and class gaps to have expanded because of charters and potentially the way the admissions systems were enforced. By exercising their right to dismiss a student, charters engaged in a false representation of evidence with test scores that reflected it; however, the encouraged dismissal of families was not advertised from politicians, reporters, or foundation elites when discussed in the media. Relationships between media outlets and foundation members who funded charter organizations also donated money to the news

138

L. Stralek and R. Papa

organizations to ensure their messages were delivered in friendlier light and that negative questions might be avoided (Ravitch, 2016). Philanthropies have paired with charter organizations for years through provision of substantiated funds. Prominent foundations, such as the Walton Family Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (AKA the Gates Foundation), and the Ely and Edythe Broad Foundation (AKA the Broad Foundation), have contributed millions of dollars to the charter reform as well as political organizations that promoted expansion of charters, privatized education, and the oppression of teacher unions. Because of affiliations between charters and foundations, portals were constructed for foundation agendas to be pushed using education as its vehicle without accountability measures to adhere to or provide charter stakeholders with enough power to vote out foundation representatives pushing nonaligned items (Ravitch, 2016). Foundations have been a significant source of funding for charters but are not required to keep records of that spending, including where the funds are directed and how they are spent (Knaak & Knaak, 2013). Colman (as cited in Knaak & Knaak, 2013, p. 50) outlined that these unaccounted for funds facilitated a setting where taxpayers unknowingly extended their support to schools being run by business capitalists that avoided review and inspection “. . .by education officials who are accountable to the approval or rejection of taxpayers.” Osborne and Gaebler (1993) pointed out that public sectors – such as education – run as private businesses do one thing consistently: distract from service to the people and emphasize allegiance to political groups and figures. The Broad and Gates Foundations aligned in 2008 and donated funds toward Barack Obama’s presidential campaign (Ravitch, 2016). The participation of the foundations helped ensure education was a significant talking point throughout the political race, thus strengthening the likelihood foundational agendas for charter expansion would result as encouraged through RTTT (Ravitch, 2016). Because the foundations donated funds not only toward political campaigns but also major media outlets, their message was delivered as intended, and charter expansion climbed over a 7-year period beginning in 2007 (The Hechinger Report, 2014), and funding for charters increased by nearly 13 million dollars (Tiede, 2016). The partnership developed between politicians, foundation elites, and the media have established a message about the academic system in the United States that ranks schooling options. Public schools have become a path for students living in poverty to receive a poor academic experience from ineffective teachers, while charter schools offer a path for students to improve their academic potential and get on a more successful life track. The teaming of charter and foundations became popular in 1993 when the Annenberg Challenge was developed which provided public schools across America with 500 million dollars intended to facilitate a more effective academic structure (Annenberg Foundation, 2017). Not long after the conclusion of NCLB, education became a desirable investment for foundations to capitalize on because the industry was regularly in need of additional resources and funding. Foundations have notoriously looked for portals to invest funds in what will assist them achieve their goals. Along with financial assistance from these foundations came new ideas forced onto

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

139

charter schools that resembled a more business-like model where competition was encouraged and students became incentives. Ravitch (2016) described the purpose of foundations “. . . to enable extremely wealthy people to shelter a portion of their capital from taxation, and then to use the money for socially beneficial purposes” (p. 207). These organizations, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, differed from traditional ones because they expected measurable results from the schools due to the gifted financial assistance; Ravitch (2016, p. 210) referred to these types of foundations as “philanthro-capitalism.”

Analysis of the Federal Reform Initiatives Since the distribution of A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983), education has been advertised as an agency in need of renovation where political platforms articulate public education is devoid of success (Ravitch, 2016; Spring, 2014). Political agendas have clouded reality with veiled optimistic academic promises embedded within each reform and lacked federal follow-through as evidence the reforms had accomplished their objectives: capitalism and neoliberalism’s turned reform into economic privatization (Barker, 1996; RNC, 2016; Spring, 2014). The juxtapositions between political parties have contributed to an academic disservice to lowincome students in need of quality educational support, the population that was consistently emphasized within the reforms (NCEE, 1983; Public Law 103-227, 1994; Public Law 107-110, 2002; Public Law 111-115, 2009; Public Law 114-95, 1965; USDOE, 1991). The political agendas have ultimately used education to gain partisan momentum and simultaneously misdirected education on a national level while claiming to impart noticeable and sustainable academic changes and outcomes. This study determined that reforms are pattern like in nature concerning stated objectives, target populations, and student data reporting. Comprehensive results of reform impacts on student achievement alterations showed consistent insignificant findings regarding holistic data and subgroups of student data. While changes in math and reading data mildly fluctuated from 1975 to 2012, the analyses from this study found no changes can be attributed directly to the implementation of one of the six reforms in this study. Reform impacts: Education at the federal level. The education reforms addressed in this research (ESEA, A Nation at Risk, America 2000, Goals 2000, NCLB, and RTTT) unveiled results that are most noticeably recognized as: increased federal presence and financial supports (Hanushek, 1994; Redd et al., 2012), overstressed accountability measures for teachers and students to meet (Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development [ASCD], 2013; Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; McKenzie & Kress, 2015), escalated academic rigor within uniform standards (Boser, 2012; Public Broadcasting System [PBS], 2014), proclaimed economic growth attributed to an improved education system (Levine & Levine, 2012; Ravitch, 2016; Spring, 2014), sustained learning

140

L. Stralek and R. Papa

gaps for racial ethnicities and students living in poverty (Koyama, 2010; Ochoa, 2013), expanded avenues for families to have a say in their child’s academic path (Public Law 107-110, 2002; Public Law 111-115, 2009; Spellings et al., 2007), and charters as the solution to facilitate universal educational improvement (Boser, 2012; James-Burdumy & Wei, 2015; Ravitch, 2016; Snyder, 2013; Tanner, 2013). The research findings confirmed the first ESEA (Public Law 114-95, 1965) was a mechanism President Johnson believed would aid in rectification of the persisting poverty issue during the 1960s (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969). Evidence gathered from this study highlighted that while there were improvements to the poverty levels, not enough conclusive data reported education was the cause responsible for the developments (Glen, 2017; Proctor, Semega, & Kollar, 2016; Sheffield & Rector, 2014; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969). An additional conclusion drawn from the literature and research findings was the increase in federal presence within all facets of education as well as the accompanied fiscal support, specifically within Title I designated for schools that serve a high volume of families living in poverty. The ESEA has been reauthorized throughout the reforms that proceeded it and assumes various forms of presence in public education still today. In 1991 President George H.W. Bush introduced America 2000 (USDOE, 1991) as the updated reform; however, the academic strategy failed to gain enough Congressional support to become an implemented act. Data that were gathered in this study indicated comparable student achievement levels in math and reading during the time no act was employed (America 2000) compared to timeframes where an act was implemented. Although America 2000 was never actually deployed, student achievement data during that time mirrored what was found during times an act was in place, thus providing evidence that academic reforms did not impact student achievement to the level promised. America 2000 was succeeded by Goals 2000 under President Bill Clinton. The reform was the first to implement national academic standards and earned the participation of 11 states by the year 2000 (Spellings, 2009). Under this act states were directed to measure student performance data in a way that would provide results that were comparable on a national level (Webb, 2006) as well as employ a data gathering system that would share student demographic information (McKenzie & Kress, 2015). Goals 2000 ignited data collection methods that would begin grouping students based on their learning levels in accord with their ethnicity and poverty levels. Ochoa (2013) noted the collection of student data would only emphasize academic gaps and encourage racial profiling. Goals 2000 set the stage for increased rigor within academic standards that resulted at the implementation of NCLB (Spellings, 2009). Gathering student demographic data introduced in Goals 2000 was strengthened in NCLB by collecting the information through the implementation of standardized assessments, a major initiative within the reform. The implications when acquiring such demographic information from students promoted negativity and isolation of poor student achievement levels, racial profiling, and persisting achievement gaps that aligned with student groups (Ochoa, 2013); one of the objectives President George W. Bush

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

141

Table 2 Summary of reform findings: objective regularities Reform Standards and assessment Accountability Rigor and graduation requirements Teacher supports and improvements Extended school day Standardized assessment Merit-based pay Charter schools

ESEA X X

ANAR X X X

X

X

X

X X

AM2000 X X X

X

GL2000 X X X

X

NCLB X X X

RTTT X X X

X

X

X X X X

Note: ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ANAR A Nation at Risk, AM2000 America 2000, GL2000 Goals 2000, NCLB No Child Left Behind Act, RTTT Race to the Top

boasted would be rectified because of NCLB rather than enhanced (Public Law 107110, 2002). NCLB and RTTT both strongly advocated for charter increases as a tool to improve academic achievement levels specifically for minority students as well as those living in poverty. Within the findings in objective consistencies (see Table 2), charter promotion became stronger during the years of these reforms (JamesBurdumy & Wei, 2015; Ravitch, 2016; Snyder, 2013; Tanner, 2013); however, charters lacked the results to prove their data were superior to those of traditional public schools (Ravitch, 2016; Snyder, 2013; Spring, 2014). Further findings included the promotion of business practices (Knaak & Knaak, 2013; Rawls, 2015) as a result of charter expansion. Not only have the charters prompted commercial support (Rawls, 2015), reforms have been partnering with businesses, promoting charter systems that can make up their own enrollment protocol but advertise inclusion of everyone (specifically students in need) and ultimately separate the academic weak from the strong (Koyama, 2010; McCarty, 2012; Ochoa, 2013). Reform impacts: US student mathematics and reading performance results at the federal level. The data for Tables 3, 4, and 5 were compiled from NAEP results which employed a scale ranging from 0 to 500 for math and reading reliant on the statistical formula, Item Response Theory (IRT) which assumes “a mathematical model for the probability that an examinee will respond correctly to a specific test question, given the examinee’s overall performance and characteristics of the questions on the test” (Institute for Education Sciences [IES], 2017, para. 146; National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2016). The NAEP math and reading achievement level cut scores are represented in Table 3. The cut scores represent the lowest score earned for performance at the corresponding level, Basic, Proficient, or Advanced (IES, 2017). The three achievement levels used as labels on the NAEP math and reading assessments identify the level of mastery as follows: Basic, student achievement level shows partial grade

142

L. Stralek and R. Papa

Table 3 NAEP math and reading achievement level cut scores Subject Math

Reading

Age 9 (grade 4) 214: Basic 249: Proficient 282: Advanced 208: Basic 238: Proficient 268: Advanced

Age 13 (grade 8) 262: Basic 299: Proficient 333: Advanced 243: Basic 281: Proficient 323: Advanced

Age 17 (grade 12) 141: Basic 176: Proficient 216: Advanced 265: Basic 302: Proficient 346: Advanced

Note: This table demonstrates updated achievement levels. Achievement level cut scores were adjusted with the frameworks for reading in 2009 and math in 2005 (IES, 2006a, 2011). Adapted from NAEP Mathematics Achievement levels for Grade 12, by IES, 2006a; NAEP Mathematics Achievement levels by Grade, by IES, 2006b; and NAEP Reading Achievement levels by Grade, by IES, 2011

level mastery of concepts; Proficient, assessment results that demonstrate grade level competency; and, Advanced, student achievement levels that show “superior performance” (IES, 2017). The concept that America has consistently been in need of new academic reforms implies the previous strategy to have always been significantly flawed. Student data gathered in this research shows that all six reforms were void of substantial student achievement alterations. Further, student data levels were unchanged during the time a reform (Goals 2000) was not executed. The leading academic strategy to introduce business-like blueprints was A Nation at Risk (NCEE, 1983). The persuasive document opened a gateway for businesses to earn the federal backing and acquire increased influence in the direction of public education to produce improved academic results by employing data-driven strategies and privatized education plans (Ray & Mickelson as cited in Bartlett et al., 2002). National regulations similar to what were introduced in A Nation at Risk later surfaced as federal requirements of states to create a monitoring system for student assessment results, as well as other accountability-based requirements such as becoming labeled “highly qualified” or administering annual standardized tests (Public Law, 2002). However, states were not required to be in unison based on how teachers could meet these requirements, nor were the assessments needed to be systematic as long as national standards where being measured (Webb, 2006). These inconsistencies were unmonitored and created incomparable student data. What student data existed were used to share results with various agencies invested in education. Comparing student data among other portals of academia becomes very difficult when private and charter schools exercise alternative assessment routes that better suite their objectives. Data-based evidence to prove private or charter schools have been outperforming traditional public schools has yet to surface (Spring, 2014). Unfortunately, charter and private schools remain the most popular among politicians and foundations (Ravitch, 2016; Snyder, 2013), thus earning the consistent image that these schools have better results and methods than traditional public schools (Knaak & Knaak, 2013).

Date ranges in correlation to reform and student data 1965 1982–1990 1990–1994 1994–1999 1999–2008 2008–2012

Age 9: ALA  +11 +1 +1 +11 +1

Age 13 highest score First Last year year   269 270 270 274 274 276 276 281 281 285 Age 13: ALA  +1 +4 +2 +5 +4

Age 17 highest score First Last year year   298 305 305 306 306 308 308 306 306 306

Age 17: ALA  +7 +1 +2 2 NCD

The NAEP ranges from 0 to 500 on a long-term trend scale Adapted from 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2008, and 2012 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments, by USDOE, n.d.-a, IES, NCES, NAEP ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ANAR A Nation at Risk, AM2000 America 2000, GL2000 Goals 2000, NCLB No Child Left Behind Act, RTTT Race to the Top, ALA Achievement Levels Alterations, NCD No Change in Data The ESEA has been reauthorized after the initial employment; all student data thereafter reflects the ESEA NAEP data unavailable AM2000 was never formally implemented as a national school reform but data is included

Reform ESEA ANAR AM2000 GL2000 NCLB RTTT

Age 9 highest score First Last year year   219 230 230 231 231 232 232 243 243 244

Table 4 Reform impact on student achievement scores in mathematics: students ages 9, 13, and 17

5 Political Agendas in Public Education 143

Date ranges in correlation to reform and student data 1965 1982–1990 1990–1994 1994–1999 1999–2008 2008–2012

Age 9: ALA  3 1 +1 +8 +1

Age 13 highest score First Last year year   258 257 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 263 Age 13: ALA  1 +1 +1 +1 +3

Age 17 highest score First Last year year   285 291 290 288 288 288 288 286 286 287

Age 17: ALA  +5 2 NCD 2 +1

Adapted from 1978, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2004, 2008, and 2012 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments, by USDOE, n.d.-b, IES, NCES, NAEP The NAEP ranges from 0 to 500 on a long-term trend scale ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ANAR A Nation at Risk, AM2000 America 2000, GL2000 Goals 2000, NCLB No Child Left Behind Act, RTTT Race to the Top, ALA Achievement Levels Alterations, NCD No Change in Data The ESEA has been reauthorized after the initial employment; all student data thereafter reflects the ESEA NAEP data unavailable AM2000 was never formally implemented as a national school reform but data is included

Reform ESEA ANAR AM2000 GL2000 NCLB RTTT

Age 9 highest score First Last year year   215 212 212 211 211 212 212 220 220 221

Table 5 Reform impact on student achievement scores in reading: students ages 9, 13, and 17

144 L. Stralek and R. Papa

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

145

Mathematics. Student data collection for math achievement levels prior to 1978 were unavailable through the NAEP. The academic reform within this study that precedes 1978 includes the ESEA. Absent from the results in Table 4 is math data that shows a meaningful fluctuation in student achievement levels over the years all six reforms were commissioned. Reading. Data available through the IES prior to 1971 (see Table 5) were not attainable; therefore the impacts of the ESEA were not measured. Parallel to the findings in math data, substantial fluctuations in reading achievement levels were nonexistent during the implementation of the six reforms within this study. These results demonstrated no singular reform was responsible for meaningful increases in student achievement levels for either math or reading. The findings of this research demonstrated that none of the six reforms studied had any significant changes to student academic performance levels in math and reading. Student data during the time of the six reforms addressed within this study maintained consistent math, and reading data lacking outliers that indicated a single reform was not responsible for alterations within the achievement levels. Enough conclusive evidence was collected to conclude the reforms have not been achieving the weighty objectives as proclaimed within the historical documents linguistic hyperboles. Therefore, there were no corresponding data that suggested a single reform resulted in improved academic achievement levels. Reform impacts: Differences in mathematics and reading performance results based on subgroups (F/RL and ethnicity) of students at the federal level. Standards within academic reforms have created a class-based divide by highlighting the persisting low academic data earned by these subgroups that have continually lacked the federal support needed. Hillard (as cited in Sloan, 2007) emphasized White middle-class academic norms being pushed on low-income, minority students through the suggested academic standards which further isolated these groups of students and began to highlight them as the leading cause to the US academic failures. Political candidates have used minority and poverty-based subgroups of students as a catapult for a heightened attention in the need for new reforms presidency after presidency. Within the literature, various components that weigh into the success of students’ academics were discussed mentioning among others, the student’s home life, poverty levels, and demands outside of the classroom (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Harrington, 2012; Loughrey & Woods, 2010; Messacar & Oreopoulous, 2013; Petrick, 2014). The teaming of the media, presidential candidates, and foundation members created a broadcast setting to deliberately manipulate the message delivered to the public (Knaak & Knaak, 2013; Ravitch, 2016) regarding America’s academic standings on a global scale by omitting such external contributors – students living in poverty and minority students – as evaluated in this study. The undeniable correlation between high poverty levels and low student achievement data was evident in the findings of this research (McCarty, 2012; Petrick, 2014; Tunkelo, 2012). The combination of the two (poverty and low student achievement) have provided a setting that nurtures the development of

146

L. Stralek and R. Papa

bias against students growing up in poverty or those of non-White ancestry to be auto-associated with contributing to the learning gap (Bartlett et al., 2002). In accord with the findings of this research, the achievement gap between minority and White students has expanded because of reforms such as NCLB (Koyama, 2010). The available data for the specified subgroups (low-income, affluent, and minority students) within this study indicated minimal alterations of academic achievement levels. Overall the research showed results for both math and reading that F/RL ineligible students regularly scored higher than students who were F/RL eligible. Regarding ethnic group breakdowns, White students consistently earned higher scores in both math and reading than both Black and Hispanic students, and there were greater differences between White and Black students than were noted considering White and Hispanic students. Free and reduced lunch. Results compiled from the NAEP reported here used F/ RL rates as an indicator of poverty or affluence levels. Data that assessed math and reading achievement levels in students concerning the F/RL eligibility subgroup were unavailable through the NAEP until 2004; therefore, the following reforms were not measured in this portion of the study: the ESEA, A Nation at Risk, America 2000, and Goals 2000. Mathematics. In 2012, RTTT showed the greatest math growth for all three age groups of students (9, 13, and 17 years old) regarding those who were both eligible and non-eligible for F/RL; for the same demographic group of students, the lowest was recorded in 2004 during NCLB. Comparing the F/RL eligible subgroup to the ineligible subgroup data showed the largest variance during the implementation of RTTT. Reading. Achievement levels reached their highest levels for both F/RL eligible and ineligible for all ages during the implementation of RTTT in 2012 and the lowest for the same demographic during the employment of NCLB in 2004. The greatest difference between F/RL qualified and non-qualifying students in reading levels occurred during RTTT for students who were 9 years old. Ethnicity. The Data Explorer from the NAEP was used to collect data that were organized and isolated by ethnic identification of students regarding reading and math results on the national assessment. The highlighted ethnic groups include Black, White, and Hispanic. Mathematics. Reform impacts on math data concerning ethnic orientation maintained a greater level of variance than was evident within the comparison of F/RL eligibility; however, White students outperformed Hispanic and Black students in each year (1978–2012) and in all age groups (9, 13, and 17 years old) assessed in this study. Reading. Data that isolated ethnic background as identified on standardized assessments showed less pattern-like results than evidenced in F/RL reading results. Consistent with the previous findings, White students outperformed both Hispanic and Black students in reading achievement levels all years (1975–2012) and all age groups (9, 13, and 17 years old) measured in this study.

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

147

Conclusions and Future Federal Initiatives The research found that the six reforms (ESEA, A Nation at Risk, America 2000, Goals 2000, NCLB, and RTTT) cannot be attributed for student data growth in math and reading between the years 1965 and 2016 as proclaimed by previous presidential leaders. Further, an emphasized learning gap within the student subgroups as underscored by the reforms has indeed resulted. By drawing connections between reform patterns and student data, the study proved that the reforms fell short of their advertised promises with regard to closing the achievement gap, specifically, with low-income populations and non-White students. Finally, the research highlighted the relationships that developed between politicians, for-profit agencies, and foundations that generated partnerships because of the reforms that were implemented with respect to business development targets rather than academic improvement. The entrance of businesses, both profit and non-profit, were for economic benefit rather than the public sector. A democratic perspective must be adopted and implemented on a national level. Measures must be taken to guarantee outdated academic structures are no longer components in the classroom and as well as ensure innovative, progressive strategies that support children holistically are encouraged in upcoming reforms. Public school teachers should be part of the organizations responsible for crafting the future education reforms and federal intervention initiatives. Direct experience of teaching in the classroom is invaluable and should not be replaced by other distracting credentials, titles, and agenda-pushing partnerships. State and national regulations should be put in place that require those who participate in reform development hold specific qualifications including years of direct public school, classroom teaching experience.

References Abbott, C. (2013). The “Race to the Top” and the inevitable fall to the bottom: How the principles of the “campaign for fiscal equity” and economic integration can help close the achievement gap. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 1, 93–123. American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. (2016, July 31). Unequal access. Retrieved from https://www.aclusocal.org/en/publications/unequal-access Annenberg Foundation. (2017). The Annenberg challenge. Retrieved from https://www.annenberg. org/initiatives/education/annenberg-challenge Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD). (2013, April). A nation at risk? Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/publications/policypoints/ policypoints-a-nation-at-risk.pdf Barker, B. (1996). Anxious times: The future of education. Educational Review, 48(1), 79. Bartlett, L., Frederick, M., Gulbrandsen, T., & Murillo, E. (2002). The marketization of education: Public schools for private ends. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 33(1), 5–29. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3196125 Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (2014). 50 myths & lies that threaten America’s public schools: The real crisis in education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Boser, U. (2012). Race to the Top: What have we learned from the states so far? Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2012/03/pdf/rtt_states.pdf

148

L. Stralek and R. Papa

Breslow, J. (2012, September 21). By the numbers: Dropping out of high school. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/by-the-numbers-dropping-out-of-high-school/ Chilcott, L., & Guggenheim, D. (2010). Waiting for “superman” [Motion picture]. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Home Entertainment. Children’s Defense Fund. (2016). Cradle to prison pipeline campaign. Retrieved from http://www. childrensdefense.org/campaigns/Cradle-to-prison-pipeline.html Chopin, L. (2013). Untangling public school governance: A proposal to end meaningless federal reform and streamline control in state education agencies. Loyola Law Review, 59(399), 399–462. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute. Cox, T. (Interviewer), & Hill, P. (Interviewee). (2006). What should parents know about charter schools? [Interview transcript]. National Public Radio. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/ templates/story/story.php?storyId=6081152 Davis, J. (2013, August 2). Educational levels generally make a difference in earnings. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/aug/02/don-lemon/educational-levelsgenerally-make-difference-earni/ DeJarnatt, S. L. (2014). Community losses: The cost of education reform. University Of Toledo Law Review, 45(3), 579–600. Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen, K., Gill, B., & Sekino, Y. (2012). Impacts of Title I supplemental education services on student achievement. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/ 20124053/pdf/20124053.pdf Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., . . . Wei, T. E. (2016). Race to the Top: Implementation and relationship to student outcomes executive summary. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174001/pdf/20174000.pdf Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Herrmann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., Graczewski, C., . . . Wei, T. E. (2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness executive summary. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174013/pdf/20174012.pdf Estes, M. B. (2000). Charter schools and students with special needs: How well do they mix? Education & Treatment of Children, 23(3), 369. FairTest. (2009, November 19). Paying teachers for student test scores damages schools and undermines learning. Retrieved from http://fairtest.org/paying-for-student-test-scores-dam ages-schools Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., Dwoyer, E., & Silverburg, M. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104029.pdf Glen, J. M. (2017). The war on poverty: A new grassroots history, 1964–1980. Journal of Southern History, 83(1), 231–233. Goldberg, M. (2005, January). Test mess 2: Are we doing better a year later? Phi Delta Kappan. Retrieved from http://pdk.sagepub.com/content/86/5/389.extract Hanushek, E. A. (1994). Improving school performance while controlling costs. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/96344han.asp Harrington, M. (2012). The other America: Poverty in the United States. New York, NY: Scribner. Institute for Education Sciences (IES). (2006a). NAEP mathematics achievement levels for grade 12, 1990–2003. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieveallprior.aspx Institute for Education Sciences (IES). (2006b). NAEP mathematics achievement levels by grade. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/achieveall.aspx Institute for Education Sciences (IES). (2011). NAEP reading achievement levels by grade. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieveall.aspx#2009ald Institute for Education Sciences (IES). (2017). The NAEP glossary of terms. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/glossary.aspx# James-Burdumy, S., & Wei, T. E. (2015). Usage of policies and practices promoted by Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154018/ pdf/20154017.pdf Knaak, W. C., & Knaak, J. T. (2013). Charter schools: Educational reform or failed initiative? Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 79(4), 45–53.

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

149

Koughan, F. (Writer and producer). (2012). Dropout nation [Television broadcast]. Kalikow, L. (Co-producer) & Vargas, K. (Producer). Boston, MA: WGBH Education Foundation. Koyama, J. (2010). Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lange, M. (2013). Comparative-historical methods. New York, NY: SAGE. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upmbinaries/50317_Lange_Chapter_1.pdf Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership influences student learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-cen ter/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf Levine, M., & Levine, A. (2012). Education deformed: No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. ‘This almost reads like our business plans’. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 82(1), 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2011.01142.x Levine, M., & Levine, A. (2014). Charters and foundations: Are we losing control of our public schools? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0098942 Liu, G. (2008). Improving title I funding equity across states, districts, and schools. Iowa Law Review, 93(3), 973–1013. Long, K. (2018). Indiana’s charter schools: Taking a holistic approach to determine their constitutional legality. Indiana Law Review, 51(3), 797–821. https://doi.org/10.18060/4806.1203 Loughrey, D., & Woods, C. (2010). Sparking the imagination: Creative experts working collaboratively with children, teachers and parents to enhance educational opportunities. Support for Learning, 25(2), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9604.2010.01444.x McCarty, T. (2012). Enduring inequities, imagined futures-circulating policy discourses and dilemmas in the anthropology of education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(1), 1–12. McKee, G. A. (2014). Lyndon B. Johnson and the war on poverty. Retrieved from http://prde. upress.virginia.edu/content/WarOnPoverty McKenzie, W., & Kress, S. (2015). The big idea of school accountability. Retrieved from http://www.bushcenter.org/essays/bigidea/ Messacar, D., & Oreopoulous, P. (2013). Staying in school: A proposal for raising high-school graduation rates. Issues in Science & Technology, 29(2), 55–61. Miller, J. (2014). Telling schools what to do, not how to do it: Reimagining the federal government’s role in public education. Mcgeorge Law Review, 46(3), 605–628. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2016, April). Interpreting NAEP mathematical results. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/interpret_results. aspx National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE). (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. Ochoa, G. (2013). Academic profiling: Latinos, Asian Americans, and the achievement gap. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York, NY: The Penguin Group. Petrick, D. L., Jr. (2014). School drop outs: Poverty and consequences for society. Insights to a Changing World Journal, 2014(4), 127–136. Retrieved from http://franklinpublishing.net Proctor, B. D., Semega, S. L., & Kollar, M. A. (2016). Income and poverty in the United States: 2015. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/ demo/p60-256.pdf Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). (2015). Overview. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/ Public Broadcasting System (PBS). (2014). Are we there yet? Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/ wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/standards/bp.html Public Law 103-227. (1994). The goals 2000: Educate America Act. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/GOALS2000/TheAct/index.html Public Law 107-110. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html Public Law 111-115. (2009). The Race to the Top Act of 2009. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/legislation.html

150

L. Stralek and R. Papa

Public Law 114-95. (1965). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. United States Department of Education. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/non public/eseareauth.pdf Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Shapiro, G, Broene, P., . . . Spier, E. (2010). Head Start impact study final report. Retrieved from https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/execu tive_summary_final.pdf Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Rawls, K. (2015). Who is profiting from charters? The big bucks behind charter school secrecy, financial scandal and corruption. Retrieved from http://www.alternet.org/election-2014/whoprofiting-charters-big-bucks-behind-charter-school-secrecy-financial-scandal-and Redd, Z., Boccanfuso, C., Walker, K., Princiotta, D., Knewstub, D., & Moore, K. (2012). Expanded time for learning both inside and outside the classroom: A review of the evidence base. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/ExpandingTime%20for-Learning-Both-Inside-and-Outside-the-Classroom-Executive-Summary.pdf Republican National Committee (RNC). (2016). Republican platform 2016. Retrieved from https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben _1468872234.pdf Rozycki, E. (1995). America 2000: An education strategy: The artifact of a society past. Educational Horizons, 73(4), 163–166. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/42925122 Schorr, J. (2000). Giving charter schools a chance. Nation, 270(22), 19–23. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.libproxy.nau.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=316685 1&site=ehost-live&scope=site Sheffield, R., & Rector, R. (2014). The war on poverty after 50 years. Retrieved from http://www. heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/the-war-poverty-after-50-years Sikhan, K. (2013, April 10). Low-income students six times more likely to drop out of high school. Retrieved from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/10/hsdo-a10.html Sloan, K. (2007). High-stakes accountability, minority youth, and ethnography: Assessing the multiple effects. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(1), 24–41. Snyder, J. A. (2013). Why public schools outperform private schools. Retrieved from http://boston review.net/us/snyder-public-private-charter-schools-demographics-incentives-markets Spellings, M. (2009). Great expectations: Holding ourselves and our schools accountable for results. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/greatexpectations/ great-expectations-cites.pdf Spellings, M., Whitehurst, G. J., & Cottingham, P. (2007). National assessment of Title I final report. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084014_rev.pdf Spring, J. (2014). Political agendas for education: From race to the top to saving the planet (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Stralek, L. (2018). Politics and education reform from 1965–2016. Retrieved from https://pqdtopen. proquest.com/doc/2054024760.html?FMT=AI Tanner, D. (2013). Race to the top and leave the children behind. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45 (1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2012.754946 Taylor, K. (2016). Race and the standardized testing wars. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes. com/2016/04/24/opinion/sunday/race-and-the-standardized-testing-wars.html?_r=0 The Hechinger Report. (2014). Number of U.S. charter schools up 7 percent, report shows. Retrieved from https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/03/number-of-us-charterschools-up-7-percent-report-shows The Social Welfare History Project. (2017, March 2). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Retrieved from http://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/programs/education/elementary-andsecondary-education-act-of-1965/ Tiede, R. (2016). Double funding for federal charter school program and require more accountability. Retrieved from http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/246/ double-funding-for-federal-charter-school-program-/

5

Political Agendas in Public Education

151

Times Editorial. (2016, August 10). The bias inherent in some charter schools’ admissions process. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-charter-application-20160808snap-story.html Tourtellotte, B. (2010). Bill Gates goes to Sundance, offers an education. Retrieved from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sundance-gates-idUSTRE60M1T020100123 Troppe, P., Milanowski, A., Garrison-Mogren, R., Webber, A., Gutmann, B., Reisner, E., . . . Bachman, M. (2015, September). State, district, and school implementation of reforms promoted under the Recovery Act: 2009–10 through 2011–12. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/pubs/20154016/pdf/20154016.pdf Tunkelo, E. (2012). Socio-economic status. Retrieved from http://theprofessort.com/wp-content/ uploads/2012/06/Socio-Economic-Status-v3-Published.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce. (1969). Poverty in the United States 1959 to 1968. Retrieved from https://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-068a.pdf U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED327985.pdf U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (n.d.-a). Reform impact on student achievement scores in mathematics: Students Ages 9, 13, and 17. NAEP Data Explorer. IES, NCES, NAEP. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/ltt U.S. Department of Education (USDOE). (n.d.-b). Reform impact on student achievement scores in reading: Students Ages 9, 13, and 17. NAEP Data Explorer. IES, NCES, NAEP. Retrieved from https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/ndecore/xplore/ltt Webb, D. (2006). The history of American education: A great American experiment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Whyte, K. (2010). Bill Gates on what’s wrong with public schools. Retrieved from http://www. macleans.ca/general/bill-gates-in-conversation/

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a School Choice World Casey D. Cobb and Jason Irizarry

Contents School Choice, Privatization, and Quasi-privatization in International Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charter and Charter-Like Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Vouchers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three Case Illustrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trends in the Expansion of Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

154 155 155 156 156 157 158 160 163 166

Abstract

This chapter examines the global trend of school choice through privatization and quasi-privatization and considers the implications for disadvantaged populations. Examination of school choice policies in Puerto Rico (charter schools), Chile (school vouchers), and the United Kingdom (academies) helps illustrate how market-based reforms attempt to address inequities in educational opportunity, access, and performance. The pursuit of unregulated school choice through selfgoverned schools in the United Kingdom and Puerto Rico appears to exacerbate disparities, prioritize schooling as a private good at the expense of the public good, and promote inefficient and inequitable dual systems of education. Under Chile’s differentiated voucher program, attempts were made to level the playing field for disadvantaged families; however, outcomes suggest a system of privilege persists. School choice policies that promote the value of individualism are ill

C. D. Cobb (*) · J. Irizarry Neag School of Education, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_123

153

154

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

equipped to achieve socially just ends for all students, particularly those from marginalized groups. A renewal of the democratic principles of the collective good is called for, where common interests guide public policy and public policy serves common interests. Keywords

Education policy · School choice · Vouchers · Charter schools · Education reform · Privatization · Public good · Public education · Social justice · Social stratification · Government schools · Student inequities · Parent choice · Quasiprivatization · Privilege · Market-based reform · Competition · Neoliberal reform · Neoliberalism · Democracy · United States · Puerto Rico · Chile · United Kingdom

This chapter examines the global trend toward school choice through privatization and quasi-privatization and considers the implications for disadvantaged populations. Examination of school choice policies in Puerto Rico (charter schools), Chile (school vouchers), and the United Kingdom (academies) helps illustrate how market-based reforms attempt to address inequities in educational opportunity, access, and performance. The pursuit of unregulated school choice through self-governed schools in the United Kingdom and Puerto Rico appears to exacerbate disparities, prioritize schooling as a private good at the expense of the public good, and promote inefficient and inequitable dual systems of education. Under Chile’s differentiated voucher program, attempts were made to level the playing field for disadvantaged families; however, outcomes suggest a system of privilege persists. Ultimately, when the private interest of individuals trumps the common good, social justice is compromised. School choice policies that promote the value of individualism are ill equipped to achieve socially just ends for all students, particularly those from marginalized groups. A renewal of the democratic principles of the collective good is called for, where common interests guide public policy and public policy serves common interests.

School Choice, Privatization, and Quasi-privatization in International Contexts The expansion of school choice continues across the globe in most developed countries (Musset, 2012). Researchers try to keep up with a dizzying array of school choice policies in Singapore, Israel, Latin America, Australia, China, India, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Tanzania (Forsey, Davies, & Walford, 2008); Finland (Poikolainen, 2012); New Zealand (Ladd & Fiske, 2003); England (Ladd & Fiske, 2016); Sweden (Fredriksson, 2009); Chile (Valenzuela & Montecinos, 2017); and Puerto Rico (Kirk, 2018), to name a few. School choice mechanisms run the gamut and include charter schools, private schools, open enrollment, homeschooling, and school vouchers. In the United States, efforts to publicly fund private education have spawned voucher programs in 14 states, state legislated tuition tax credit policies,

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

155

and new instruments called education savings accounts that redirect public education funds for private education purposes (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2018). Depending on the type of program and its context, school choice policies can vary along several dimensions, including whether schools themselves are selfgoverned, autonomous, under centralized control, regulated or unregulated, forprofit or not-for-profit, and secular or non-secular and whether rules permit admission requirements, enrollment caps, or student assignment policies. Charter (or charter-like) schools and school vouchers are two of the most common forms of school choice. Both are described below, followed by illustrations of their implementation in the United Kingdom, Puerto Rico, and Chile.

Charter and Charter-Like Schools Charter schools and charter-like schools are growing in popularity in the United States and abroad. Between 2001 and 2016, the number of charter schools in the United States increased from 2000 to 6900. This expansion paralleled an increase in charter schools as a percentage of all US public schools from 2% to 7% (US Department of Education, 2018). The United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Qatar (Brewer & Hentschke, 2009), and Sweden (Fredriksson, 2009) also endorse charter-like schools. Charter and charter-like schools are typically afforded more freedoms than traditional public schools in terms of government regulation. They may also not answer to a locally elected community governing board or managing school district. In exchange for this autonomy, they are expected to be educationally innovative and held accountable to student achievement goals. There is a growing trend of charters being managed by non-government sector management organizations. In 2015–2016, for instance, over a quarter of US charter schools were run by nonprofit charter management organizations (CMOs), and 15% were operated by for-profit education management organizations (EMOs) (Cookson, Darling-Hammond, Rothman, & Shields, 2018).

Vouchers Voucher programs provide credit-based vouchers to families who then can make a choice to enroll their child in private schools (Belfield & Levin, 2015). Voucher programs vary depending on the voucher amount, how that amount stacks up to full tuition costs of private schools, and also student eligibility. A brief description of the US state of Wisconsin’s voucher programs illustrates how such programs work and for whom. Under state law Wisconsin offers two city-based programs in Milwaukee and Racine in addition to the statewide Wisconsin Parental Choice Program. These represent state-sponsored programs where payments go directly to the private schools on behalf of the student’s parents/guardians. The amount of payments varies across programs, and student eligibility is based on family income and residency. For instance, the projected 2018–2019 voucher payment is $7747 for students in grades K–8 and $8393 for students in high school (Private School Choice Programs, n.d.).

156

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

Choice private schools cannot charge tuition to elementary grade pupils but can charge additional tuition if the child is in a high school and their family income is greater than 220% of the federal poverty level (e.g., for a family of two, the 2018–2019 threshold would be $35,728). Choice private schools may also charge students, regardless of family income, certain fees such as school uniforms, social and extracurricular activities, musical instruments, and meals provided at the school. Although choice private schools are prohibited from discriminating against students with disabilities during admissions, they are required to offer “only those services to assist students with special needs that it can provide with minor adjustments” (Private School Choice Programs, n.d., p. 7). In the United States, vouchers are not widespread, but the momentum shifted in 2017 with the arrival of the Trump administration (Yamiche, 2017). The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was highly supportive of vouchers and the privatization of public education (Strauss, Douglas-Gabriel, & Balingit, 2018). In 2018, there were 25 voucher programs operating in 14 states and the District of Columbia (D.C.) (Wixom, 2017), with several more federal and state legislative proposals under consideration (Green, 2019). Many voucher programs target specific student populations. For instance, there are 11 programs in 9 states that offer vouchers to students with disabilities and 4 states plus D.C. that reserve eligibility for low-income families (Wixom, 2017). Chile and Sweden offer nationwide voucher programs, and Colombia offers a smaller voucher program in the large cities (Barrera-Osorio & Patrinos, 2009). Chile introduced vouchers in 1981. Evidence from Chile indicates that the national voucher program has led to increased social stratification among students (Elacqua, 2012; Hsieh & Urquiola, 2006). Elacqua (2012) found that Chilean public schools were more likely to serve disadvantaged students than private voucher schools and disadvantaged students were less segregated in the public sector than in the private voucher sector. Sweden adopted its program in 1992 in reaction to perceived inefficiencies with government bureaucracies, and the public education system was not spared in this criticism (Shafiq & Myers, 2014). The number of private schools exploded in that country from 60 schools in 1992 to 709 private schools in 2009 (Wiborg, 2010) suggesting a substantial impact of the new program.

Three Case Illustrations The United Kingdom Beginning in the 1990s, then Prime Minister Tony Blair spearheaded a movement to improve the quality of education offered by schools in the United Kingdom and more specifically in some of the country’s most marginalized communities. Closely resembling the charter school movement in the United States, the United Kingdom established “free schools” and “academies” – public schools designed to increase autonomy and encourage curricular innovation free from the bureaucracy that can inhibit creativity and change. The primary difference between the two is that

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

157

academies emerged from existing schools that were being reorganized and freed from control of the school district, often with a new school leader at the helm; free schools are newly created schools. Both require the sponsorship of a private group, such as a corporation or faith-based organization. The recasting of existing schools into academies and the creation of new free schools rolled out relatively slowly across the country, but expansion has accelerated recently. Currently, approximately one-fourth of all of the country’s elementary schools and more than half of its secondary schools are either free schools or academies (Barnum, 2017). State-funded and privately run free schools and academies are governed by a board of directors, as opposed to a locally elected school board, and run as nonprofit organizations (Garner, 2016). A significant difference between academies and free schools and their more “traditional” school counterparts is the level of autonomy given to school leaders. While endorsed and supported by England’s Department of Education, the free schools and academies are controlled internally, with the managing group empowered to set salaries, implement curricular changes and other policy initiatives, and set their own admission criteria (Garner, 2016). Moreover, they are not required to honor the national union agreements that are enforced in other schools (Hatcher, 2011). Applying business principles to school reform efforts, the underlying goal of the shift to UK’s free schools and academies is to create competition between these new schools and existing, underperforming schools. When confronted with a competitor, existing schools would presumably be forced to improve, thus creating enhanced learning opportunities for all students. Initial studies documenting the impact of academies and free schools suggested students in these schools performed slightly better than students with similar demographic characteristics, fueling perhaps the proliferation of academies and free schools that followed in subsequent years (Ladd & Fiske, 2016). More recent data suggest that there are no significant differences in the performance of students attending academies and free schools and traditional public schools (Eyles, Machin, & McNally, 2017; Garner, 2016). These trends mirror the findings from the systems upon which free schools and academies were modeled, namely, Sweden and the United States (Hatcher, 2011). In both cases, academic outcomes across charter schools of choice are uneven at best (Ladd & Fiske, 2016). Some perform exceptionally well, while others perform worse than the schools they were designed to compete against. Research findings suggest that specific pedagogical practices, as opposed to autonomy itself, are responsible for growth in the areas where improvement was found (Barnum, 2017).

Chile In an effort to improve the educational outcomes of the country’s most educationally underserved students, the Ministry of Education in Chile initiated school choice in 1981, implementing a nationwide voucher system where the government provided families with a set per-pupil expenditure that they could use at the school of their choice, including those run by the state or those managed by for-profit education

158

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

providers. School choice in Chile was framed as an initiative to ameliorate the disparate outcomes of students based on socioeconomic status. The theory of change underlying the voucher program was that parents would choose to withdraw their children from underperforming schools and move them to schools that would serve them better. Parents leveraging their power in the market-based system and escaping underperforming schools would force those institutions to close, creating an efficient attrition that eliminated poor schools. By 2002, almost half of all of the country’s students used their vouchers to attend privately run as opposed to municipal schools, making Chile a world leader in school choice (Elacqua, Contreras, & Salazar, 2008). Years of data suggest that the impact of the initial voucher system did little to improve educational opportunities for the country’s most vulnerable students and more to reinscribe socioeconomic stratification than to ameliorate it (Valenzuela, Bellei, & De los Ríos 2014). More specifically, the voucher system resulted in increased segregation and further exacerbated the inequitable distribution of educational opportunities (Valenzuela & Montecinos, 2017). Low-income and indigenous students were more likely to attend government-run municipal schools than private schools (Elacqua, 2009). In an effort to improve upon its voucher system and address these inequalities, the Chilean government passed the Preferential School Subsidy Law in 2008, which increased the value of the school voucher by 50% for “priority students,” school-aged children from families at the lowest 40% of the national income distribution (Murnane, Waldman, Willett, Bos, & Vegas, 2017). While in its previous iteration the voucher program put few restrictions on schools, the new law required more stringent accountability standards. A form of bureaucratic accountability was added to the initial market-based accountability (Garn & Cobb, 2001). Increases in support and school accountability resulted in increased student achievement. Unlike choice efforts in other countries, the enhanced voucher system in Chile increased performance of low-income students who were able to avail themselves of choice programs. The gaps in achievement on standardized measures of achievement between upper-income and low-income students decreased by one-third within 5 years of the passage of the 2008 law (Murnane et al., 2017). Nevertheless, schools in Chile remain largely segregated based on socioeconomic status, with less than 40% of the most economically disadvantaged Chilean students enrolled in private schools; conversely, more than 80% of the country’s middle-class students are leveraging the voucher program to attend private schools (Garcia, 2017).

Puerto Rico In December of 2016, then Puerto Rico’s governor, Pedro Roselló, appointed Julia Keleher as the Island’s Secretary of Education. Secretary Keleher did not have a background in education and came to the position after a career in business (Por Primerahora.com, 2016). Her salary, more than double that of the previous Secretary of Education, reflected a shift to market-based solutions to restructure the Island’s school system and follows an increasingly popular stateside trend of trying to apply

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

159

business principles to improve schools. Discussions regarding consolidating schools and the possibility of creating charter schools on the Island were underway before Hurricane María made landfall on Puerto Rico, destroying homes and schools and crippling the Island’s already decaying infrastructure. The effects of the storm have only made the Island’s schools more vulnerable to privatization. Prior to Hurricane María, Puerto Rico’s school district served approximately 350,000 students across the Island in approximately 1100 schools serving small, rural towns and larger urban communities. Compared to stateside school systems, Puerto Rico has the third largest school district, trailing only New York City and Los Angeles public schools. Large urban districts that have struggled historically to meet the educational needs of students, such as Detroit and New Orleans, have especially been susceptible to privatization efforts, where for-profit companies vie for control of public schools, which they often recast as charter schools. For instance, in Detroit and Flint, Michigan, more than half of all students were enrolled in charter schools (David, Hesla, & Pendergrass, 2017), and a 2014 investigation found that 61% of all Michigan charter schools were managed by a for-profit organization (Higgins, 2017). The appointment of Secretary Keleher toward the end of 2016, combined with extensive damage and destruction of schools across the Island, resulting in an exodus of students and teachers post-María, provided the Island’s government with the opportunity to reshape Puerto Rican education. The control board is created and empowered by the US federal government in 2016 – against the will of the majority of Puerto Rican people – to implement PROMESA (Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act) and oversee Puerto Rico’s finances called for the closing of 300 schools on the Island and for teachers to be furloughed 2 days a month for the duration of the school year in an effort to save money and chip away at Puerto Rico’s debt (Robles, 2017). In addition to furlough days, the control board imposed a salary freeze until 2021 (Robles, 2017), which will have a devastating impact on the Island’s teachers who on average make more than $20,000 than teachers in stateside schools (Mazzei, 2018). Teachers’ salaries on the Island have not increased since 2008. A decade of stagnant salary growth has not allowed teachers to keep pace with cost of living increases, forcing many to leave the Island. Under-enrollment and staff shortages will undoubtedly be leveraged to shrink an already vulnerable, economically challenged school system under the banner of economic and administrative efficiency. Actions taken to close schools and freeze teachers’ salaries and the like all underscore an agenda dedicated to defunding public education in favor of privatization. Many Puerto Ricans believe the destruction and displacement caused by Hurricane María will lead to public schools being handed over to private companies to run. A similar effort was made in 2010 when the Island government considered privatizing the University of Puerto Rico system (Rodríguez, 2011). Public comments from then Secretary Keleher signaled a decisive shift toward charter schools as a primary strategy for school reform in Puerto Rico. On October 26, 2017, she tweeted: “Sharing info on Katrina as a point of reference; we should not underestimate the damage or the opportunity to build better schools.” After

160

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, Louisiana, in 2005, approximately 90% of their schools were converted into charter schools. Students of color and in high poverty households were substantially underrepresented in upper-tier charter schools which had selective admissions; in contrast, 90% of white students were admitted to these schools (Adamson, Cook-Harvey, & Darling-Hammond, 2015). More than a decade of evidence suggests that charters have not been any more effective in educating Louisiana’s youth than the public schools they replaced (Akers, 2012; Orfield & Frankenburg, 2013; Tuzzolo & Hewitt, 2006). More recent evidence, however, suggests New Orleans charters have improved student achievement for the students who remained in the district following Katrina (Harris & Larsen, 2018). Some scholars argued that the market-based reform charter schools represent further marginalized communities of color, such as those in New Orleans, and have “not responded to the needs of racially oppressed communities” (Buras, 2011, p. 297). Further, such reforms have allowed education entrepreneurs to profit “by obtaining public monies to build and manage charter schools” (p. 297). Many Puerto Ricans were vocal in protesting the implementation of market-driven, neoliberal reforms. Twenty-one teachers, including leaders of the teachers’ union on the Island, were arrested after protesting at the Secretary of Education’s office in San Juan against what they believed was an unnecessary delay in opening structurally sound schools after the hurricane (Singer, 2017). Despite efforts to preserve local schools and prevent the privatization of public schools, the first charter school on the Island opened in the fall of 2018. While data regarding the impact of the implementation of charter schools on students, families, and communities on the Island are not yet available, the fact that these reforms are modeled on a problematic, largely failed system in the United States portends a pessimistic fate for the Island’s students.

Trends in the Expansion of Choice The three cases of nationwide school choice reforms presented above – charter schools in Puerto Rico, academies and free schools in the United Kingdom, and a voucher program in Chile – share certain elements. They all represent a shift toward a market-based system of schooling that did not exist prior. The reforms were an attempt to (1) provide more choices to families, particularly to escape underperforming schools and (2) instill competition to stimulate performance of all schools and weed out the poor performers. In the case of charter schools, free schools, and academies, there is also an attempt to provide more autonomy to schools, allow them to be privately operated, and subject them to less government regulation. In the case of vouchers, there are no explicit efforts to change schooling or attempts to develop human and organizational capacity; it is simply a new method of school financing and student assignment. All three cases also demonstrate a political desire to emphasize education as a private good, designed to serve the individual consumer. Lastly, all three cases show that school choice takes resources away from existing public schools. In what follows, we briefly describe

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

161

trends that have emerged across the varied cases of school choice described in this chapter. Neoliberal, market-based school choice policies have led to an increased emphasis on education as a private commodity, at the expense of education as a direct public good. When schooling is seen as a private commodity, in contrast to a public good, the rationale is that market competition and individual choice will lead to improved performance and schooling options more in line with student interests. There is scant to no evidence this has come to bear in the United States or elsewhere (Carnoy & McEwan, 2003). Democratic principles of the common good give way to the private interests of individuals and the education management operators who oversee many of schools of choice. To be sure, when education is viewed as a private good, it can still contribute to the public good. When individuals gain knowledge and skills, they are in better positions to acquire employment and contribute to the economy and advancement of society. But something is lost when schools are only focused on individuals and the development of skills. Labaree (2018) argued schooling is now almost exclusively seen as a private good, which intensifies disparities and creates a system of winners and losers: All but gone is the assumption that the purpose of schooling is to benefit the community at large. Less and less often do Americans conceive of education as a cooperative effort in nation-building or a collective investment in workforce development. Increasingly, rather, school comes to be viewed as an intense competition among individuals to get ahead in society and avoid being left behind. It has begun to look, to a great extent, like a means of creating winners and losers in the pursuit of academic merit, with the results determining who becomes winners and losers in life. (p. 11)

The UK academies, with their self-government and market-based assignment policies, have directly deteriorated education as a public good (Fiske & Ladd, 2017). The notion of school choice implies that everyone is treated equally and can avail themselves of the same educational opportunities. Among our three cases, only Chile attempted to ensure fairness by increasing the voucher amount for students with the greatest financial need. The most obvious case in which “choice isn’t really choice” occurs when student demand is greater than supply and seats are assigned by lottery. An analysis of 2009–2010 New York City data showed that the average chances of getting admitted to charter schools via the lottery were 28% (Gittleson, 2010). Other scenarios where choice is illusory are when certain schools apply admission criteria. For example, magnet schools with a performing arts theme will often screen students using an audition or portfolio assessment. Or International Baccalaureate schools will conduct transcript reviews to ensure students have successfully taken required coursework. Across the landscape of school choice, equal treatment also does not necessarily result in equal outcomes. In the United Kingdom, as in the United States, school choice has not remedied gaps in achievement across lines of race or class. Even in Chile, a system that has arguably had the greatest focus on equity in school choice in

162

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

recent years, the majority of low-income students cannot or do not use their vouchers to access private schools, which have been shown to produce higher learning gains among their students than their public counterparts. In short, having the ability to choose does not ensure that students and families have the information necessary to make decisions and access to “better schools” or the cultural capital necessary to navigate the process. Unregulated school choice provides advantages to those already with advantage and thus ends up reinscribing systems of privilege; disadvantaged populations are left behind. Students from low-income households do not have the same access to information as their more affluent counterparts. Research in Sweden suggested that some ethnic minorities and families in poverty lacked information about their possible choices of schools (Bunar, 2012). Indeed, school choice policies inherently advantage the dominant cultural group: [I]n choice systems advantage-seeking parents are able to use their relevant capitals to negotiate diverse forms of provision and fuzzy rules of access. In this sense school choice may be considered as a class strategy, a mechanism for reproducing social advantage, a means of ‘doing’ class (cf. Ball 2003) in a very practical way. (Ball, 2003, p. 83, from Ball & Nikita, 2014)

In their analysis of school choice in three international contexts, Fiske and Ladd (2017) found “the combination of self-governing schools and parental choice alone cannot solve the problems of low-performing schools serving concentrations of disadvantaged students” (p. 35). They noted that in the United Kingdom, “authorities have begun to acknowledge that [academies] cannot replace the support services historically provided by local authorities” and further that “serious efforts to meet the needs of low-performing schools will require, at a minimum, additional resources and support for disadvantaged students” (Fiske & Ladd, 2017, pp. 35–36). Despite promises and hopes to the contrary, there is no leveling of the playing field with unfettered school choice (Forsey et al., 2008). School choice programs water down resources to struggling schools and communities. School choice advocates believe programs such as charter schools and vouchers increase opportunities for individual students underserved by their assigned neighborhood school. Neoliberal approaches to school reform, where schooling becomes essentially another commodity to be bought or sold, situate parents and students as consumers. Under this system, market proponents argue, and students and families can empower themselves and assert agency as consumers in a free market. This appears to be an innocuous if not potentially rewarding strategy to increase educational opportunities, particularly for students from communities where these are in short supply. While the body of research on choice is robust and underscores that neoliberal, market-based approaches might not be the panacea proponents of choice hoped they would be, less attention has been given to critically examining the impact that the movement of students, and the resources that follow them, has on the schools and communities that are left behind.

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

163

Studies emerging from the United Kingdom suggest that the creation and proliferation of free schools and academies have had a deleterious impact on communities and government-run schools (Ladd & Fiske, 2016). At their inception academies and free schools operated alongside local, community schools. New educational markets were thus created, which brought about the competition and choice desired by neoliberals. What also emerged, however, was a dual system – one where democratically elected school boards governed community schools according to established laws and collectively bargained contracts and another system of privately run, publicly funded schools with far less regulation and oversight from the central government. Moreover, academies and free schools were privileged over community schools in the process of their introduction. The government provision that capital funds could only be used to create new academies, excluding the building of new spaces for community schools (Ladd & Fiske, 2016), highlights the unequal treatment and uneven playing field community schools and academies metaphorically played on.

Conclusion Similar to charter schools in the United States, academies in the United Kingdom have been criticized because high-need students, such as students with physical disabilities or learning exceptionalities, are often underrepresented (Ladd & Fiske, 2016); these students often cost more to serve, requiring additional personnel or other accommodations to navigate school successfully. Further, there is some evidence that the new academies are screening out students with special needs: “For example, because academies serve as their own admissions authorities, local authorities have little leverage in forcing academies to accept difficult-to-place pupils” (Ladd & Fiske, 2016). Per-pupil expenditures are – understandably – driven up by students who require these additional supports. Because theoretically the “money follows the student,” as resources move from community schools to academies, the amount provided for students can be disproportionately high for academies, which are not serving as many students with special needs, and low for community schools (Hatcher, 2011). Finally, academies are touted for their small size, as many parents value the personalization that comes with having smaller learning communities. The economic efficiency and sustainability of this model have been called into question, as smaller schools are typically more expensive to run than larger ones (Gilbert, 2011). School choice has always been an option on the Island of Puerto Rico, as the majority of middle- and upper-class residents send their children to private or parochial schools. Approximately three-quarters of all students attending public schools on the Island are low-income (PRIS, 2014), a target market for the charter school movement. With the appointment of a pro-charter Secretary of Education appointed in 2016, the government began a process to close and consolidate schools and recast some as charters. This process was accelerated after Hurricane María, as many schools on the Island were ravaged and enrollments declined. Many Island

164

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

residents, their homes damaged or destroyed and having limited access electricity, food, and potable water, fled to the “mainland” United States and enrolled their children in schools there. With the Department of Education having a budget shortfall of over $300 million and the Island’s debt in the billions, more than 250 local schools have been closed since (Gurney, 2018). The Island’s fiscal woes, compounded by the devastating impact of a natural disaster, make Puerto Rico fertile grounds for charter schools and voucher programs. As charter schools are relatively new to the Island of Puerto Rico, with legislation supporting the establishment of charter schools and voucher programs being signed in the summer of 2018, it is difficult to know the exact fiscal impact on community schools. However, some trends portend a bleak future for community schools. There is no immediate end in sight for the fiscal crisis on the Island, so the infusion of private funds into charters is especially attractive. Similar to New Orleans, many of the teachers who worked in the city’s schools prior to Hurricane Katrina – the majority of whom were teachers of color – were replaced, primarily by White teachers (Dixon, Buras, & Jeffers, 2015). Puerto Rican teachers who worked in public schools prior to the hurricane were pushed out. Although the Puerto Rican teachers union, La Asociación de Maestros de Puerto Rico, negotiated a provision in the charter school legislation that native teachers already working in the system be given preference in hiring decisions, none of the teachers hired to work in the Island’s first charter school were veteran teachers who were members of the union (Acevedo, 2018). The elimination of hundreds of schools has also profoundly changed communities across the Island, which took particular pride in local schools and forced many students to travel longer distances to access new schools. Puerto Rico’s reforms, endorsed by then US Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, an ardent supporter of choice and influential in Detroit, Michigan’s highly criticized expansion of charter schools, are largely based on the US model of choice. Unfortunately, the US charter movement has had uneven success and, in many districts, done more to reinscribe race and class-based stratification than to ameliorate it by expanding transformative learning opportunities to students who have continued to be underserved by schools. Similarly, the voucher program in Chile, as initially constructed, increased social stratification, did not improve the experiences and outcomes for the country’s neediest students, and siphoned resources away from needier districts (Elacqua, 2009). For many low-income students, vouchers were insufficient to cover all the costs associated with private education, leaving low-income families unable to take advantage of the program; others were unwilling or unable to travel away from the community schools to private schools (Valenzuela & Montecinos, 2017). In 2008, the country revised the voucher program with an increased focus on equity. Students from the country’s most economically challenged communities, those in the bottom 40% of income, were given vouchers worth one and a half times that of the voucher offered to the rest of the population. Additional emphasis was also placed on increased support for schools and greater accountability. Consequently, the wide gaps that existed in standardized test scores of low-income and upper-income students were significantly diminished (Murnane et al., 2017). The majority of voucher programs across the globe have been rooted in equality, where everyone

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

165

is treated the same, as opposed to equity, where students get the resources they need to succeed, even if the distribution of resources is unequal. Chile’s increased investment in its neediest students is unique, and the impact on the academic outcomes for low-income students is laudable. However, more research needs to be done to understand the experiences of low-income students applying their vouchers in private schools and what support mechanisms, if any, are available to them. In all of the examples presented above, proponents of market-based choice and privatization of schooling offer at least two rationales for why such policies work for the benefit of the common good. One is that choice in and of itself expands opportunities for families who otherwise would not have the choice. The second is that market competition serves as a mechanism to pressure low-performing schools to improve or face nonexistence; a rising tide also lifts all ships as originally suggested by voucher advocate and economist, Milton Friedman (1962). Rarely, if ever, has this shown to be the case. Policymaking has been described as a battle over competing values – a struggle over which value or set of values will be promoted through policy (Stone, 1997). In democratic societies, governments debate and ultimately choose policies that reflect those desired values. Several scholars have posited the primary values pursued by education policies (Guthrie & Reed, 1986; Swanson & King, 1991; Wirt, Mitchell, & Marshall, 1988). Common across these accounts are the fundamental values of equity, liberty, and efficiency. While each of these values has merit, they compete with another for priority. There is an inherent tension between advancing the values of liberty (individual choice) and equity (attention to the common good). Liberty, or the capability to make one’s own choices, is a valued end in and of itself. Liberty is promoted by many school choice policies, at least in theory. Many advocates of school choice believe that families should have the opportunity – the liberty – to make decisions about where their child can go to school. In effect parents have this opportunity without formal school choice programs, but only those with the means to do so can choose where they want to live. Choice proponents argue that under conditions where schooling options are less than optimal, families should have the right to choose elsewhere. They contend most public school systems remain monopolies over families who otherwise should have some choice of where to attend school. They further argue that such systems penalize the disenfranchised, as families who lack the resources to enact their own school choice (e.g., by moving to another town or city) are stuck in their neighborhood-assigned schools. And further, those families in poverty do not have the means to enroll their child in a private academy. Proponents of unfettered school choice (such as through vouchers, charter schools, or open enrollment) believe strongly in the value of liberty for its own sake but also believe liberty can lead to improved lives for the children who avail themselves of it and, further, that a market-oriented system operating under choice will ultimately lead to improved lives for all. In sum, drawing from research on choice programs in the United States and its expansion across the globe, we have found that market-based school choice policies privilege education as a private commodity at the expense of the public good and, overall, lead to greater inequities among students.

166

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

References Acevedo, N. (2018). Puerto Rico opens first charter school amid controversies. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/puerto-rico-opens-first-ever-charter-school-amid-contro versies-n902056 Adamson, F., Cook-Harvey, C. M., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). Whose choice? Student experiences and outcomes in the New Orleans school marketplace. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Akers, J. M. (2012). Separate and unequal: The consumption of public education in post-Katrina New Orleans. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36(1), 29–48. Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J., & Nikita, D. P. (2014). The global middle class and school choice: A cosmopolitan sociology. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 17(3), 81–93. Barnum, M. (2017). Does England’s expansion of charter-like “academies” hold a lesson for the U.S.? Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2017/09/21/doesenglands-rapid-expansion-of-charter-like-academies-hold-a-lesson-for-the-u-s/ Barrera-Osorio, F., & Patrinos, H. A. (2009). An international perspective on school vouchers. In M. Berends, M. G. Springer, G. Matthew, D. Ballou, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 339–358). New York: Routledge. Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2015). Privatizing educational choice: Consequences for parents, schools, and public policy. New York: Routledge. Brewer, D. J., & Hentschke, G. C. (2009). An international perspective on publicly-financed, privately-operated schools. In M. Berends, M. G. Springer, G. Matthew, D. Ballou, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 227–246). New York: Routledge. Bunar, N. (2012). Parents and teachers on local school markets–evidence from Sweden. Occasional Paper, 208. Buras, K. (2011). Race, charter schools, and conscious capitalism: On the spatial politics of whiteness as property (and the unconscionable assault on black New Orleans). Harvard Educational Review, 81(2), 296–331. Carnoy, M., & McEwan, P. (2003). Does privatization improve education? The case of Chile’s national voucher plan. Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective, pp. 24–44. Cookson, P. W., Jr., Darling-Hammond, L., Rothman, R., & Shields, P. M. (2018). The tapestry of American public education: How we can create a system of schools worth choosing for all? Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. David, R., Hesla, K., & Pendergrass, S. A. (2017). A growing movement: America’s largest public charter school communities. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Dixson, A. D., Buras, K. L., & Jeffers, E. K. (2015). The color of reform: Race, education reform, and charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans. Qualitative Inquiry, 21(3), 288–299. Elacqua, G. (2009). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. Centro de Politicas Comparadas de Educacion. Retrieved from http://www. educacion2020.cl/sites/default/files/dtcpce10_upd.pdf Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 444–453. Elacqua, G., Contreras, D., & Salazar, F. (2008). Scaling up in Chile: Larger networks of schools produce higher student achievement. Retrieved from https://www.educationnext.org/scaling-upin-chile/ Eyles, A., Machin, S., & McNally, S. (2017). Unexpected school reform: Academisation of primary schools in England. Journal of Public Economics, 155, 108–121. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. F. (2017). Self-governing schools, parental choice, and the need to protect the public interest. Phi Delta Kappan, 99(1), 31–36. Forsey, M., Davies, S., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2008). The globalisation of school choice? Oxford: Symposium Books Ltd.

6

Private Interests and the Common Good: Conflicting Priorities in a. . .

167

Fredriksson, A. (2009). On the consequences of the marketisation of public education in Sweden: For-profit charter schools and the emergence of the ‘market-oriented teacher’. European Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 299–310. Garcia, A. (2017). Chile’s school voucher system: Enabling choice or perpetuating social inequality? https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/edcentral/chiles-school-voucher-systemenabling-choice-or-perpetuating-social-inequality/ Garn, G., & Cobb, C. D. (2001). A framework for understanding charter school accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 113–128. Garner, R. (2016). England’s charter-style schools on rise. Education Writers Association. https:// www.ewa.org/blog-educated-reporter/englands-charter-style-schools-rise Gilbert, F. (2011). Our analysis challenges the idea that free schools will save money or improve standards. Local Schools Network, 27 Jan. Retrieved from http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/ 2011/01/our-analysis-challenges-the-idea-that-free-schools-will-save-money-or-improve-stan-dards/ Gittleson, K. (2010). Charter school lottery statistics. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat.org/ posts/ny/2010/04/14/charter-school-lottery-statistics/ Green, E. L. (2019). Betsy DeVos backs $5 billion in tax credits for school choice. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/. 28 Feb 2019 Gurney, K. (2018). Puerto Rico: The forgotten island. Miami Herald. 21 Sept 2018. Retrieved from https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article216638500.html Guthrie, J. W., & Reed, R. J. (1986). Educational administration and policy: Effective leadership for American education. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Harris, D. N., & Larsen, M. F. (2018). What effect did the New Orleans school reforms have on students achievement, high school graduation, and college outcomes? Education Research Alliance Policy Brief. New Orleans. Hatcher, R. (2011). The conservative-Liberal democrat coalition government’s “free schools” in England. Educational Review, 63(4), 485–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2011.616635 Higgins, L. (2017). Report: For-profit run charter schools perform worse. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from https://www.freep.com/story/news/education/2017/06/18/charter-schools-profitperformance/393071001/. 17 June 2017. Hsieh, C. T., & Urquiola, M. (2006). The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile’s voucher program. Journal of Public Economics, 90(8–9), 1477–1503. Kirk, M. (2018). Why Puerto Rico is pushing to privatize its schools. CityLab, 27 Feb. Retrieved from https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/why-puerto-rico-is-pushing-to-privatizeits-schools/554198/ Labaree, D. F. (2018). Public schools for private gain: The declining American commitment to serving the public good. Phi Delta Kappan, 100(3), 8–13. Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2003). Does competition improve teaching and learning? Evidence from New Zealand. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 97–112. Ladd, H. F., & Fiske, E. B. (2016). England confronts the limits of school autonomy. Columbia University, Teachers College, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Working Paper, Vol. 232. Mazzei, P. (2018). Puerto Rico’s schools are in tumult, and not just because of Hurricane María. New York Times, June 1, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/01/us/puerto-rico-schoolclosings.html. Milton, F. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago. Murnane, R. J., Waldman, M. R. Willett, J. B., Bos, M. S., & Vegas, E. (2017). The consequences of educational voucher reform in Chile. IDB Working Paper Series, No. IDB-WP-833. InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB). Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.18235/0000886. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/173885/1/IDB-WP-833.pdf Musset, P. (2012). School choice and equity: Current policies in OECD countries and a literature review, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 66, OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ 5k9fq23507vc-en

168

C. D. Cobb and J. Irizarry

National Conference of State Legislatures (2018). School choice and charters. Retrieved from http:// www.ncsl.org/research/education/school-choice-and-charters.aspx Orfield, G., & Frankenberg, E. (Eds.). (2013). Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley: University of California Press. Poikolainen, J. (2012). A case study of parents’ school choice strategies in a Finnish urban context. European Educational Research Journal, 11(1), 127–144. Private School Choice Programs: Frequently Asked Questions for Parents–2018-19 School Year (n. d.). Retrieved from https://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/sms/Choice/Student_Application_ Webpage/PSCP_FAQ_2018-19_Final.pdf Puerto Rico Institute for Statistics (PRIS) (2014). Retrieved from https://datos.estadisticas.pr/dataset/ numero-de-estudiantes-bajo-el-nivel-de-pobreza-en-cada-escuela-publica-ano-escolar-2013-2014/ resource/f1501bfc-21a8-46bd-9801-9f2a55cc0423 Robles, F. (2017). Puerto Rico’s University is Paralyzed by Protests and Facing Huge Cuts. New York, NY: The New York Times. Available online at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/ 05/25/us/puerto-ricos-university-is-paralyzed-by-protests-and-facing-huge-cuts.html Rodríquez, V. (2011). Social protest and the future of higher education in Puerto Rico. Academe, 97 (4), 26–31. Shafiq, M. N., & Myers, J. P. (2014). Educational vouchers and social cohesion: A statistical analysis of student civic attitudes in Sweden, 1999–2009. American Journal of Education, 121 (1), 111–136. Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (Vol. 13). New York: W. W. Norton. Strauss, V., Douglas-Gabriel, D., & Balingit, M. (2018). DeVos seeks cuts from education department to support school choice. Washington Post. 13 Feb 2018. Swanson, A. D., & King, R. A. (1991). School finance: Its economics and politics. New York: Longman. Tuzzolo, E., & Hewitt, D. T. (2006). Rebuilding inequity: The re-emergence of the school-to-prison pipeline in New Orleans. The High School Journal, 90(2), 59–68. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2018). The Condition of Education 2017 (2018–144), Public Charter School Enrollment. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C., & De los Ríos, D. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of Educational Policy, 29(2), 217–241. Valenzuela, J. P., & Montecinos, C. (2017). Structural reforms and equity in Chilean schools. Retrieved from http://education.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.001.0001/ acrefore-9780190264093-e-108 Wiborg, S. (2010). The Swedish free schools: Do they work? LLAKES Research Report. Wirt, F., Mitchell, D., & Marshall, C. (1988). Culture and education policy: Analyzing values in state policy systems. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 271–284. Wixom, M. A. (2017). 50-state comparison: Vouchers. Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/50-state-comparison-vouchers/. 6 Mar 2017 Yamiche, A. (2017). Trump’s call for school vouchers is a return to a campaign pledge. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/. 1 Mar 2017

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education Duncan Waite and Khalid Arar

Contents Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Experience(s) and Social Justice Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Moving the Discussion Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dilemmas and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rereading the Social . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Identity and Affiliation (esp. Us v. Them) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Boundaries and Borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Complex Sociopolitical Subject . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Imperium and Other Oppressive Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Promoting Social Justice Education Within the Imperium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Doing the Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

170 173 177 179 180 181 182 183 185 187 188 188 189

Abstract

The term “social justice” has been the subject of much scholastic debate, but there is still no clear consensus on its definition, and it is interpreted in many different ways. This lack of consensus also exists when discussing social justice in the field of education in general and particularly in schools. With this in mind, we consider globally differentiated practices as an integral part in promoting social justice in different contexts. Moreover, we invoke critical discourse and consider the following questions: “Why do the educational systems in transitional and previously underrepresented areas need to move in the direction of Western D. Waite (*) Education and Community Leadership, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Arar Faculty of Education, Al-Qasemi Academic College of Education, Baqa Elgharbiya, Israel e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_153

169

170

D. Waite and K. Arar

countries?” “Are educational leaders in these areas not entitled to their own constructions of leadership for social justice?” This chapter proffers a critical reflection on our thinking about social justice in education and how our thinking influences our practice. Noting the complexity and fluidity of the term social justice and how it may be embraced, taken up or realized differently in different contexts, we share some of our experience(s) and how these inform our approach here. This includes acknowledging our points of departure, some touchstones of our experience, and how these enable a critical but constructive discussion of the concept of social justice. Despite our varied backgrounds and experiences, one point on which we agree – and the thrust of this chapter – is that the concepts of “the social” and “culture,” even or perhaps especially in their mundane, common usage, are problematic and can get us into trouble, such that it is hard to extricate ourselves and those for whom we are responsible as leaders, scholars, and activists. Points discussed broadly in the chapter and which we attempt to envisage include the promotion of social justice education within the Imperium in the context of the formation of complex, multiethnic, and multicultural states and the ethical issues and challenges that face educational leaders in the implementation of an agenda of social justice. Keywords

Social justice · Multicultural states · Social justice leadership · Educational leadership for social justice · Culture · The Social

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education Social justice is not a new concept. All major monotheistic religions preach compassion for the underprivileged and the oppressed. Philosophers from Plato, Epicurus, Hobbes, Mills, Marx, Rawls, to Lao Tzu all attempted to find ways to build a just society. More contemporary spiritual leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela strove to right injustices at home and around the globe (Kenreich, 2013; Oplatka & Arar, 2016). Interestingly, evidence is emerging that human children as young as 3 years old orient to fairness, so that some have posited that we humans might be endowed with “a fairness gene” (Carey, 2008). There is no clear consensus as to what constitutes a socially just society, as framing the concept is an onto-epistemological exercise having to do with the characterization of the world(s) of which we humans are a part, what it means to be human, and how best to live in those worlds (Barad, 2007). Such issues are approached differently by those with disciplinary affiliations in, say, philosophy, sociology, psychology, or anthropology (Brooks, Knaus, & Chang, 2015; Oplatka, 2013). Though all these, and more, can contribute to a more complete, comprehensive understanding of the relevant phenomena and the issues involved, there is no one best way to understand, capture, and represent our object of interest: the world, social, or otherwise.

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

171

According to Fraser (2000), there are three separate, yet interrelated, dimensions of social justice: just redistribution, just recognition, and just representation. Berkovich (2014) indicated that social justice has a distinct ideological message, while Chiu and Walker (2007) noted that social justice aims to provide equal opportunities for the disadvantaged and is “linked to race, ethnicity, culture, social class, gender, family structure, sexual orientation, age, and disability” (p. 725). Many would agree that education can, and perhaps should, play a significant role in the promotion and realization of social justice (Berkovich, 2014). However, we must keep in mind that education is a necessary, but not sufficient, component of social justice. As a first step, some educationists advocate that unjust, discriminative power structures in schools and societies should be identified and programs should be initiated to make schools more socially just (e.g., Arar, 2015; Berkovich, 2014; Wang, 2016). The increasing diversification of school student populations in many countries is often accompanied by low levels of social cohesion and achievement gaps across different groups (Shields, 2003; Skrla & McKenzie, 2011), such that the “state is no longer able to ignore issues of educational inequality” (Blackmore, 2009, p. 8). To advance social justice in and through education, Brooks and Miles (2006) suggested that educational leaders need to “develop a heightened and critical awareness of oppression, exclusion, and marginalization” (p. 5). Critical analysis of the relevant contexts is necessary (Walzer, 2002) in order to understand how it is that institutional practices in schools, colleges, and universities favor some over others (Diem & Boske, 2012). Educational leaders have an important role to play in the establishment and maintenance of social justice in schools (Waite, 2010a, b), though resistant collective norms can hinder this work. A lack of critical reflection on the leader’s part can also impede social justice efforts (Waite, 2010b). Social justice is a belief “in the responsibility of a society and its institutions to promote economic welfare for all its members” (Mansfield, 2013, p. 647). Social justice in education “necessitates an egalitarian approach to educational processes, even if the results are not equal” (Brooks & Miles, 2006, p. 13). A clear and agreedupon definition of social justice remains elusive, being, as it is, subject to contextual interpretations and ideological inflections (Brooks et al., 2015). Bogotch (2002) cautioned that there are no true or transcendent models of social justice leadership, but that “all social justice/educational reform efforts must be deliberately and continuously reinvented and critiqued” (p. 154). Since social justice is more or less context-dependent, more and more educational leadership and administration researchers from geopolitically dominant or “Western” areas are coming to appreciate that there is much knowledge to be gained from previously underrepresented or transitional geographical areas (Berkovich, 2014; Oplatka & Arar, 2016). With this in mind, we consider these globally differentiated practices as an integral part in promoting social justice in different contexts. Moreover, we invoke critical discourse such as that initiated by So (1990) and consider his questions: “Why do the educational systems in transitional and previously underrepresented areas need to move in the direction of Western countries?” “Are

172

D. Waite and K. Arar

educational leaders in these areas not entitled to their own constructions of leadership for social justice?” This chapter proffers a critical reflection on our thinking about social justice in education and how our thinking influences our practice. Though such critical reflection comes at a cost for all concerned (Kahneman, 2011), only such critical reflection offers us alternatives, other paths we might have taken or that we might yet take, other ways of thinking about the issues at hand, other possible worlds, and other possible futures. Noting the complexity and fluidity of the term social justice and how it may be embraced, taken up, or realized differently in different contexts, we share some of our experience(s) and how these inform our approach here. This includes acknowledging our points of departure, some touchstones of our experience, and how these enable a critical but constructive discussion of the concept of social justice. Despite our varied backgrounds and experiences, one point on which we agree – and the thrust of this chapter – is that the concepts of “the social” and “culture,” even or perhaps especially in their mundane, common usage, are problematic and can get us into trouble, such that it is hard to extricate ourselves and those for whom we are responsible as leaders, scholars, and activists. These terms, as with all loaded terms, already always present themselves to us with a history (Sarason, 2004) that is politically and ideologically inflected, representing “the voice of the fathers” (Bakhtin, 1981). In order not to perpetuate any social injustices we have inherited, in order not to unreflectively permit the voices of the fathers to speak through us – a process Bakhtin termed ventriloquation, infesting or subverting the work we do and that we wish to do in our contexts – we must seize the opportunity to re-inflect such words and utilize them for our social justice purposes. As social constructivists and critical theorists, we cannot proceed as though these terms were neutral, for they are not. Each of these terms is problematic. For instance, the early and eminent anthropologist E. T. Hall (1959) noted some problematic aspects of the object of the anthropologist’s gaze – culture: “the fact that culture controls behavior in deep and persisting ways, many of which are outside of awareness and therefore beyond conscious control of the individual” (p. 35), makes culture change or “re-culturing” of schools (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1998) a chimera, a technicist “fix” that grows out of Enlightenment master narratives of progress and human control over the environment(s). An uncritical and unreflective use of the word “culture” is often used as a gloss for all that “stuff” we can’t see, let alone fully comprehend, that seems to affect us and our collectivities. It reifies, even concretizes, unseen, little understood phenomena. The terms ‘tradition’ and “tradition” present problems of their own, chief of which is a common misuse: when people say “tradition” or “traditional,” what they most likely intend is convention or conventional. In these modern times, and from a modernist/postmodernist perspective, “tradition” has pejorative connotations, often meaning backward. Such usages neglect or elide the roots of our communities, the support more established collectivities provide their members, though we cannot overlook their downsides. And, as we shall show, and in thinking with Latour (2005) and others, terms such as “the social” and “society” likewise have problems.

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

173

For better or worse, culture, society (and “the social”), and “tradition” are in common usage. They have a history. They have meaning. They are in the professional literature and in common parlance. To call attention to the problematic nature of these terms, to both use and problematize them simultaneously, and to avoid having to restate their problematic nature each and every time they appear, borrowing from Derrida (1979), we will place these terms under erasure (sous rature). Erasure “deletes and leaves [a term] legible at the same time” (Spivak, 1976, p. lii): “‘under erasure’ . . . is to write a word, cross it out, and then print both word and deletion. (Since the word is inaccurate it is crossed out. Since it is necessary, it remains legible)” (p. xxxii). In this way, we will write of culture, society, the social, and tradition.

Personal Experience(s) and Social Justice Frames One perspective. Duncan remembers an experience he had on the airport shuttle, headed from the Philadelphia airport to a meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA) when he was a reluctant witness to the rather animated conversation of a family in the back of the shuttle: two teenagers were complaining to their mother about how inconvenienced they were to have flown commercial because there was a problem with their private jet and to have to take the shuttle rather than a chauffeured limousine, as they were accustomed to do. On another occasion, he was flying to the USA from Istanbul, and on the first leg of his journey, his seatmate was a young female crew member on a luxury yacht owned by the widow of a Vodafone executive. The widow and her children had sold their mansion near Hyde Park, London, and had yet to take possession of their new home, a mansion in Monaco, and so were living aboard their 100-foot yacht. His companion told of how she had to take the widow’s two dogs ashore every day for walks; how the dogs only ate meals especially prepared by the onboard chef; how her boyfriend, the yacht’s first mate, had to play golf with the son each day they were in the port; and how the son had wanted a $250,000 speedboat for his birthday and though his mother resisted at first, she eventually relented when the boy started pouting. She bought him the boat. She showed Duncan pictures of her berth (a closet-sized room below deck large enough for a small bed) and told him stories of her time working on other luxury yachts and the things she’d seen and those she’d heard from other crew on other yachts, as crewing is a relatively closed and insular world. She told of how Russian oligarchs and crime bosses never took their yachts out of international waters in the Caribbean, far from all legal authorities, so that they might entertain themselves and their friends with drugs and underaged girls. Her friends cautioned her to avoid working on these yachts. These and other experiences have had an effect on him as he develops and refines his thinking on the Imperium (e.g., Waite, 2014) and how it governs our lives. Far from including these anecdotes for their salaciousness, we include them here as illustrative and as abject lessons: the worlds of the hyper-rich are unknown to most of us (see, e.g., Harrington, 2016). We can assume, conversely, that the worlds

174

D. Waite and K. Arar

of the less well-off, our worlds, are likewise unknown to the wealthy. In fact, and this is our point, there is not one world, social or otherwise, but multiverses of social relations, networks, and entanglements. This presents a problem for scholars of social justice and social justice activists: there is no unitary, monolithic social existence. Gesturing at this issue, Strum and Latour (1987) reflected on how: In the last decade, a wealth of data on human and non-human societies contain a hidden challenge to existing ideas about the nature of society and the social link. The ambiguities and discrepancies in these data have completely swamped earlier attempts to define society in simple terms. . .. What if the discrepancies are real and the frame of reference is wrong? (p. 783)

Rather than a unitary imaginary existence called the social, we prefer to think, along with chaos theory (Maurer, 1995), of nonlinear adaptive networks and of webs of entanglement. Borrowing from actor-network theory (ANT) (Latour, 2005), we think of vast and complex networks, of their nodes and actors; and, if we think with Deluze and Guattari (1987), we imagine that such networks are rhizomatic. As Latour (2005) went to great lengths to explain, in conventional social theory (and, in its lay counterparts), and yet in critical sociology, the social is simply a gloss for that amorphous stuff, that which occurs behind the curtain, out of view of the analyst, theorist, and actor, and too often taken as taken for granted and given. As Latour (2005) noted: As soon as the distinction between the basic social skills and the non-social means mobilized to expand them a bit longer is not carefully kept, analysts run the risk of believing that it’s the invocation of social forces that will provide an explanation. Sociologists will claim that when they appeal to the durability of social ties they bring in something that really possesses the necessary durability, solidity, and inertia. It is ‘society’, or ‘social norm’, or ‘social laws’, or ‘structures’, or ‘social customs’, or ‘culture’, or ‘rules’, etc., they argue, which have enough steel in them to account for the way it exerts its grip over all of us and accounts for the unequal landscape in which we are toiling. It is, indeed, a convenient solution but does not explain where their ‘steely’ quality is coming from that reinforces the weak connections of social skills . . .. They might go even further and take this tautology not for the starkest of contradictions, but from what should be admired most in the miraculous force of a society that is, as they say, sui generis, by which they mean that it is generated out of itself. (pp. 66–67)

All this presents problems for the social critic, analyst, and actor, as actors’ behaviors are enmeshed or entangled, likewise, within webs of meaning, norms, and expectations that are likely to vary across contexts, whereby the concept of justice by necessity exhibits some great degree of fluidity and relativity (Bauman, 2011). Another perspective. Khalid has thought similarly of the world(s) he has met, but from a very different place, with different experience(s). As a member of a national minority – the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel – he constantly experiences the conflicts inherent in majority-minority relations. He deals with ethical dilemmas relating to social justice in this context on a daily basis, questions of recognition and

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

175

the distribution of resources, such as equal access to education and vocational opportunities. Justice here is perceived from two very different perspectives, the perspectives of two peoples sharing the same territory, living together in a “constructive” encounter, forever embroiled in a conflict over interests. At the risk of overgeneralizing, the Jewish collectivity is more liberal and more “modern,” while the Israeli Arab collectivity tends to be a more traditional hierarchical society, or, as some see it, in transition between traditionalism and modernism. The Jewish collectivity is more individualist, if that’s not paradoxical, and the Arab is more collectivist. Khalid has spent considerable time recently in three refugee and migrant communities: the first, migrants and refugees in their own land (i.e., among residents of Jerusalem, the divided city); the second, refugees from Syria living in Turkey; and the third, refugees from Syria living in Germany. Through interviews, he heard firsthand about competing, sometimes complementary, political projects. The waves of Syrian refugees, moving like an unending stream over sea and across land borders, have laid bare the harsh realities wrought by world politics. While some few states and societies have welcomed those fleeing their homelands, others have shut their doors to this wounded and traumatized population, in xenophobic and nationalistic attempts to retain the “ethnic purity” of their own populations. These encounters between the mostly Syrian Muslim population and “Western” populations bring two different social projects into an asymmetric conjunction or relationship. This is illustrated in the account of the journey of a Syrian family from their Middle Eastern origins to the European continent and to Germany. Their story raises issues for many different dimensions of social justice – especially just recognition, just distribution of resources, and just representation, particularly concerning these especially vulnerable, marginalized, and all but forgotten people (see Arar, Brooks, & Bogotch, 2019). Khalid’s observations in/of these different contexts show how the concepts of society and culture are not only ill-defined, but fluid, non-transcendental terms, gesturing at different structures, different value systems and norms, and different strata and constructs. The concepts of culture and society intersect, bend, and blur normative and progressive boundaries, fueled by a “Western” imaginary society. Differences continue to exist between and among these developed and developing societies, though they all exist in the era of globalization. A commonality they share is that some actors – sometimes the more vocal minority, sometimes those riding to power on nationalistic fervor – in both the sending and receiving countries struggle against globalization and its effects on them and the group(s) they claim to represent. Those in “Western” worlds, however, often expect those in and from developing worlds to conform to Western conceptions of the social, which implicitly or explicitly includes the supremacy of the Western state, its people, and their values. This belief informs another, that of the rescuer-hero, as agents of the Western states, carrying their values, as soldiers, doctors, educators (educational leadership practitioners and/or scholars), and missionaries set out to rescue or redeem those geopolitical spaces or those in such locales from the fundamental(ist) norms of the social

176

D. Waite and K. Arar

projects that they represent to them. Said (1985) called our attention to many of these selfsame issues some time ago; unfortunately, they persist to this day. In developing societies, traditional and modern are positioned as contrasting terms, and “modernization” is seen as the process of transition from one to the other (Goldthorpe, 1984). Modernization is seen as a change from a traditional, preindustrial state or condition to “modernity” through an intermediate transitional condition (Ismael & Ismael, 2008). Modernization occurs in some areas, while other areas are considered to be traditional in many respects, despite being saturated with globalization. This saturation sometimes preserves and concretizes, rather than erasing or eradicating, many of the differences between “advanced,” industrialized countries and the Third World (Calvert & Calvert, 2001). Others’ perspectives. Our project is, in part, a critique of such progressivist narratives, heir as they are to Enlightenment discourses of progress and privileging “Western” onto-epistemologies. The work we and other social justice scholars do, despite the best of intentions, is not always progressive, not always salutary. It does not always move us forward in our thinking and our actions. Giddens (1991) noted how social scientists’ theorizing and framing sit in relation to the lived world they study as a “double hermeneutic” – taken by the social scientist from the stuff of the lived world, analyzed, theorized, reframed, and fed back into the very same lived world or taken up by actors in that same lived world (Waite, 2009), sometimes with disastrous consequences. Varenne and McDermott (1998) cited several examples of the harmful effects of social scientists’ work, such as that of the anthropologist Oscar Lewis and his notion of a “culture of poverty,” a concept which found its way into the popular and policy discourse of the time, with prolonged negative effects. Having taken root, such ideas are difficult to identify (for they become part of the commonsensical, taken for granted) and, because of that, difficult to eradicate and/or rectify. At issue is the framing of the problems or issues we identify, research, and act upon. The lifeworld is incredibly complex and multifaceted, so much so that our models and methods cannot even begin to reflect it in its entirety and complexity. Bourdieu (1999), for one, noted how our disciplines and their models fall short: The division among disciplines—ethnology, sociology, history and economy—translates itself back into separated segments that are totally inadequate to the objects of study: take the opposition between local monographs incapable of grasping the mechanisms whose effects they record, and analyses that aim at being more systematic but tend to choose more or less arbitrarily among the complexity of facts to construct ‘stylized’ models. (p. 181, fn. 1)

Others have found lacunae even in Bourdieu’s work. Critiquing Bourdieu, Erving Goffman, and Karl Marx’s work, Latour (2005) reflected on how: It would be incredible if the millions of participants in our courses of action would enter the social ties through three modes of existence and only three: as a ‘material infrastructure’ that would ‘determine’ social relations like in the Marxian types of materialism; as a ‘mirror’ simply ‘reflecting’ social distinctions like in the critical sociologies of Pierre Bourdieu; or as a backdrop for the stage on which human social actors play the main roles like in Erving

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

177

Goffman’s interactionist accounts. None of these entries of objects in the collective are wrong, naturally, but they are only primitive ways of packaging the bundle of ties that make up the collective. None of them are sufficient to describe the many entanglements of humans and non-humans. (p. 84, emphasis in original)

Thinking with Derrida, Deluze, Butler, and others (as cited in Jackson & Mazzei, 2012), we’re not so much interested in what social justice is – or what the social in social justice is – but in what it does. Recasting “the social” in sociology in service of his actor-network theory, Latour (2005) contributes to our thinking about the lived world, the actors, and processes to which they contribute and of which they are a part: There exists, however, an even more important reason for rejecting adamantly the role given to objects in the sociology of the social: it voids the appeals to power relations and social inequalities of any real significance. By putting aside the practical means . . . through which inertia, durability, asymmetry, extension, domination is produced and by conflating all those different means with the powerless power of social inertia, sociologists . . . hide the real causes of social inequalities. If there is one point where confusing cause and effect makes a huge difference, it is at this juncture where an explanation should be provided for the vertiginous effect of domination. Of course, appealing to ‘social domination’ might be useful as shorthand, but then it is much too tempting to use power instead of explaining it. (p. 85, emphasis in original)

Latour (2005) criticized conventional sociology for not taking notice of material or inanimate things and the agency they exhibit. A major tenet of symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969) is that people act on things according to the meaning those things have for them. Latour updated this tenet of symbolic interactionism, allowing that things are agential. Foreshadowing and contributing to the shift of the new materialism (Barad, 2007), Latour noted how: Empiricism no longer appears as the solid bedrock on which to build everything else, but as a very poor rendering of experience. This poverty, however, is not overcome by moving away from material experience, for instance to the ‘rich human subjectivity,’ but closer to the much variegated lives materials have to offer. It’s not true that one should fight reductionism by adding some human, symbolic, subjective, or social ‘aspect’ to the description since reductionism, to begin with, does not render justice to objective facts. (pp. 111–112)

Moving the Discussion Forward In social justice terms, actors – perhaps now even “things” – have the right to define themselves, name their circumstances, and determine their relations. This presents interesting problems, dilemmas even, for the analyst. Fraser (2008) suggested that social justice necessitates recognition of difference. People ought to have a say in how they are represented, in their representation in the social and political institutions and organizations that affect them, and in how human wealth, especially that to which they contribute, gets distributed.

178

D. Waite and K. Arar

In this spirit, we wish to observe some of the characteristics of developing societies. Developing countries are characterized, largely, by lower per capita income, a higher poverty rate, lower life expectancy, less access to immigration (ex-migration), more conservative values than more developed nations, weaker guarantees of individual human rights, and higher incidences of corruption and generally occupy a peripheral position in the global economy and in knowledge production. Political leaders in many developing countries have largely failed to advance much-needed sustainable and equitable political and economic policies (Ismael & Ismael, 2008; Jreisat, 2002). Strong traditional values and norms may account for many of the difficulties in these countries (Moghadam, 2004; Schwartz, 2011). The modernity/traditionalism opposition does not, however, accurately represent the reality; rather this is simply a heuristic. In no way do we claim that this characterization is empirically valid; and, what is more, and as we intimated above, such essentialism can itself be a form or an outgrowth of social injustice. Giddens (1991) was aware of the limitation of the juxtaposition of modernism and traditionalism: It is a risky business in itself to draw generalised contrasts between the modern era and the whole gamut of pre-modern social orders. Inevitably oversimplifications are involved. (p. 100)

Traditional values and modern values are not mutually exclusive. In fact, modern values can be present in traditional societies and vice versa. Tradition and modernity not only can coexist contemporaneously, but they can intermingle, mutually influencing each other (So, 1990) within a collective or even within a single individual. With the rise of a new nationalism, a so-called populism, sometimes fuelled by xenophobia and the demonization of the other – made apparent in response to recent migration patterns – some in modern countries seem to be expressing more traditional collectivist/tribalist politics. Nevertheless, we are reluctant to compare these types, especially normatively. In line with other scholars (e.g., Fua, 2007), we look at social justice on a global scale in a critical reflection on this issue for our field. A starting point might be the provocative questions suggested by So (1990): “Must the educational systems of developing countries change to better resemble those of Western, more developed countries?” “Must all educational leaders follow notions of social justice constructed by those scholars and activists working in more modern contexts?” “Are educational leaders in traditional societies not entitled to constructions of leadership for social justice grounded in their traditions and social structures?” We believe that our own different perspectives, influenced as they are by our biographies, contexts, and more, may help us all rethink educational leadership for social justice in diverse social contexts, especially when in dialogue with each other and with other pertinent theoretical constructs.

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

179

Dilemmas and Alternatives An issue with roots in the discipline of sociology has ramifications for how we think of and talk about leadership for social justice – the agency/structure dichotomy. Of paramount concern in particular sociological explanations, this choice of focus plays itself out in either a focus on the individual, agent or actor, or overarching social structures. Each has yielded a vast body of research literature, being as they are, built upon varying onto-epistemologies. For instance, a sociological analytical focus on individual agency was at the heart of the work of The Chicago School (Adler & Adler, 1987) and still today makes itself known in many, if not most, qualitative research studies – ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, 2002) and phenomenology (Moustakas, 1994) being prime examples, if not ideal types. At the risk of oversimplification, we can say that these types of studies take advantage of and contribute to more interpretivist (i.e., subjectivist) epistemologies (Crotty, 1998). A focus on structure benefits from and contributes to more of an objectivist epistemology, evidenced in the early work of Talcott Parsons (e.g., Parsons & Smelser, 1956) here in the USA and one which undergirds more positivist, quantitative research. Though on their face seemingly incommensurable, there have been attempts to bridge the onto-epistemological divides between the two. Examples of this bridging can be seen in Giddens’ (1984) work on what he termed structuration – an approach that attempts to show how individual and repeated actions contribute to more molar structures. The recent work of Barad (2007), for example, problematizes the agency/ structure binary. Still, the problem remains of linking the micro, meso, and macro contexts, influences, and effects. For us, this translates into questions such as: “How can a social justice activist address injustice originating in those various levels?” Those in anthropology, and other disciplines such as psychology, economics, even history, and philosophy, wrestle with similar issues. Anthropology focuses on culture, and, though ostensibly more collective, the problematics inherent in choice of focus, whether it be individuals and groups, persist. The anthropologist derives (some might say imposes) culture on a group from the study of an individual or individuals. (Qualitative research, e.g., participant observation, is a favored method/ methodology of, especially, cultural anthropologists. The emic/etic distinction is of paramount consideration in/for such studies.) Some anthropologists have been more explicit in their discussion of the individual’s role in culture (see Wolcott, 1991). Such a distinction is so commonplace as to nearly become a trope, a trope that is culture. But we are deeply concerned with the unreflective use of the term. Just as Latour (2005) criticized sociologists for an unreflective and problematic use of the social as a gloss for all the stuff that coheres or takes place when thinking of individuals in groups, so too do anthropologists and laypersons or actors commit the same grave offense in/with the term culture. We are told to think of culture as “the way we do things here” (cf. Bolman & Deal, 2017). Each and every term in this hackneyed phrase deserves to be unpacked, problematized, and held accountable for

180

D. Waite and K. Arar

perpetuating wrong-headed thinking and, in its way, fettering us to oppressive narratives. “Why the definite article the and not a?” “Who is we?” “Why do and not believe, say, think?” “Things?” “Where is the here?” and so forth. Culture thus becomes concretized and reified and, hence, unassailable. So, too, with “tradition” as a historical phenomenon: traditions are to be accepted as “just the way things are.” Of the social, Latour (2005) wrote: what has rendered the social untraceable is the very existence of society or, more generally, of a social realm. This time the problem doesn’t come from the ambiguity of the word social, but from a confusion, entertained early on in the history of sociology, between assembling the body politic and assembling the collective. Even though both operations have a lot in common, the two should be kept apart if they are to succeed at all. (p. 161)

Yet Rancière (1991) put these differing views, these two onto-epistemologies, into stark relief: one must choose between making an unequal society out of equal men and making an equal society out of unequal men. Whoever has some taste for equality shouldn’t hesitate: individuals are real beings, and society is a fiction . . .. One need only learn how to be equal men [/women and trans] in an unequal society. This is what being emancipated means. (p. 133, emphasis in original)

We construct our understandings of social reality differently, owing, in part, to our varied biographies and experiences, our contexts and the structures we are a part of and contribute to, and the mental models we use. How do we read our social reality? How do others do theirs? How can we, as social “scientists,” as academics and social justice activists, communicate across contexts and do so in a way that is not patronizing, condescending, or prescriptive? A question we ask ourselves is: “Are there universals that might speak to or illuminate social processes and structures in different contexts?” (Here we’re interested more in oppressive processes and structures.) “Or, if not universals, perhaps parallels or similarities?” “What are the issues we and others face and how might they be addressed?” “And how might we aid one another in our struggles?” One way to look at the social is through the lens of chaos theory. Our combination of chaos theory (Maurer, 1995), actor-network theory (Latour, 2005), and the new materialisms (Barad, 2007) in our theoretical framework is somewhat of a bricolage, one that permits us analytical leverage when examining such a complex phenomenon as the social.

Rereading the Social Writing of complex subjects, Maurer (1995) problematized the issue of accountability, for accountability is of paramount importance in social justice work and social justice education. For instance, such a perspective reframes issues of blame: “Who is

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

181

responsible?” “Who is at fault?” “Who is responsible for establishing and maintaining oppressive systems?” “Who benefits?” “Who loses?” Social hierarchies are implicated in our subjugation, those we willingly ascribe to and construct and those we don’t. But social justice educators and activists are perhaps frustrated when, in these postmodern times, the subject of accountability is elusive and using “soft” leverage in networks of fraternity, cronyism, and patronage to manipulate the levers of power and policy in amassing and securing wealth and even more power. These “complex subjects” (Maurer, 1995), these capitalists, use shell corporations in “more-than-hierarchical” adaptive networks to hide themselves and their money from taxation, inheritance, and divorce settlements (Harrington, 2016). (See The Panama Papers and The Paradise Papers, amassed and made available as a searchable database by The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (https://www.icij.org/.)). Maurer’s (1995) “complex subjects” hint at “a complex, more-than-hierarchical, more-than-instantaneous, adaptive and anticipatory network of networks” (p. 139) which “render questions of accountability moot” (p. 139), or, if not moot, extremely difficult and frustrating for the social justice activist. Complicating matters is the consideration of an intermingling of different ontoepistemologies, say between those adhering to scientific materialistic truths and those who recognize divine spiritual truth. Such inter-epistemological contact or communion may take the form of complex nonlinear experiences in relationships between and among people(s) with diverse beliefs, norms, and interests that they represent.

Identity and Affiliation (esp. Us v. Them) Identity and belonging take different forms in different societies and cultures. This has immediate relevance/importance for the individual who is associated with or “belongs to” these entities – belongs in both senses, both “as a member of” and as being owned, possessed, or claimed by a collectivity or group. How are individuals related to the group? At least since the work of G. H. Mead (1936) in social psychology, individuals have been seen to come into being, to be born into an already existing society. But how else does someone become part of a collective, any collective? We might also consider how the collective captures the individual – through birth, sure, but also through education of the native born and through the territorialization of others’ geopolitical spaces through imperialism and through immigration. (When voluntary, isn’t this a type of seduction involving shifting allegiances?) How might an individual change his/her/their identity? In this regard, Lingis (1994) invites us to consider the community of those with nothing in common. Conceptions of identity and belonging directly affect the individual(s) in these collectivities. The norms and the perception of belonging vary according to human social and cultural diversity and are expressed differently, for example, in a more collectivistic society or a more individualistic society, in a more mystically based

182

D. Waite and K. Arar

society – where both collective and individual memory are important, or in a materialistic/capitalistic one. As a rule, education, broadly defined, invites the individual into the collective and, when done well, encourages him/her/them to examine and re-examine their identity or their affiliation to/within a culture and the norms and values of their different circles of affiliation (French, Seidman, Allen, & Aber, 2006). A person’s examination of his/her/their identity may create dissonance in what was once a coherent identity, engendering dialectic deconstruction and reconstruction of identity. An important influence on the construction of individual identity is the affinity one feels toward similarly situated others. Other influences include the perception of the self in the face of rejection by the other(s) or a recognition of and affinity toward the other. Rousseau (2004) felt that there should be a balance between individualism and collective affiliation, while Eilat Yaguri argued that the individual’s awareness of and commitment to their past allow them choice in the present in order to open opportunities for the future through the development of their own unique identity. Rosenberg (1965) distinguished between a coherent core identity and sub-identities. The basic core identity is created during the person’s initial development, and it is difficult to release or alter it, while secondary sub-identities depend on social status and collective affiliations and are influenced by interaction among all the characteristics that are outside the core. A person can belong to many circles, including religious, linguistic, cultural, and natural circles. Each one of these circles of affiliation is a place for the consolidation of collective identity. However, Taylor saw personal identity as a cross-cultural creation, shaped through dialogue between individuals from different cultures, through the recognition of others. In this context, Taylor noted that nonrecognition or misrecognition by others may engender hurt and injustice, “imprisoning someone in a false, distorted and reduced mode of being” (pp. 25–26). French et al. (2006) felt that as globalization has changed the significance of time and space, it weakens and can even lead to a deconstruction of aspects of a collective or a coherent personal identity. Poststructuralists call our attention to the performativity of identity and to its contingent nature (e.g., Butler, as cited in Jackson & Mazzei, 2014). Identity is no longer a possession of the individual, but is performed in social interactions. The contingent nature of identity implies that there is no fixed, transcendent identity, but that it is much more flexible, malleable even, and varies depending on situational encounters. Likely, then, identity as performed has certain aspects of all of the above – the core and sub-identities and the individual as a member of a collective, all (and more) are resources on which the person draws in different social encounters and at that moment.

Boundaries and Borders The unprecedented movement of people across borders and boundaries in recent years is the result of historical global changes, including the attraction of migrants from less developed states to more developed ones, but also the movement of

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

183

refugees and migrants escaping wars, natural disasters – many wrought by climate change – and discriminatory and oppressive regimes and unimaginable hardships in their native lands (Arar et al., 2019; Waite, 2016). As Bauman (2011) pointed out, one result of these transitions is the development of diaspora cultures in various countries, introducing a much greater fluidity to the classical conceptions of culture. Bauman (2011) saw present-day universal culture as a “culture of consumption,” meaning that everything, including the individual migrants and their children, becomes a commodity. Wealthy nations entice and solicit workers from other less wealthy nations. Globalized mass marketing gives birth to new, often artificial, needs, prompting people to seek to meet those needs, often by migration. The consequent intermingling of cultures means that the other is always present, in close proximity (Simmel, 1950). One benefit of this is that each has an opportunity to learn from their other, a newcomer or stranger (Simmel, 1950). Yet there are those in some host states who project migrants, refugees, and displaced persons as a threat to the integrity and cohesion of their racialized national identity and resist the integration of the other, sometimes violently, and who build walls or other barriers to keep people out and put sanctions in place to fend off those people they construe as the enemy and as a pestilence (Arar et al., 2019; Waite & Swisher, 2019). These phenomena challenge the conceptualization that sees a distinct dichotomy between a static population group (with citizenship rights) and its guests, foreigners without such rights, who may, after a period, acquire restricted rights (Banks, 2017), but in the process become second-class citizens, marginalized in the narratives of nationhood (Arar & Ibrahim, 2016). Nomadism (McDonell, 2016) and other types of free and unfettered movement of large numbers of people, especially movement across borders, present a challenge to the modern state, particularly more authoritarian ones, as the sedentary and stable citizen is much easier to control. Sedentary populations make counting and levying taxes easier, processes upon which the modern state heavily relies (Harrington, 2016). But we must keep in mind, however, that as Nguyễn (2019) reminds us, “margins are often frontiers.” As Bauman (2011) pointed out, culture can contribute to change and growth, not only to the maintenance of the status quo, that is, traditions. More accurately, culture change, as is often prompted by intercultural contact and exchange, can contribute to social evolution toward a universal human state, as a suggestion and not a norm, establishing a space for diversity, but not as a normative arrangement.

The Complex Sociopolitical Subject What is the social from which people come and what is the social into which people insert themselves or are inserted? What are the overarching global, if not universal, forces and structures that serve as the backdrop to such phenomena? A Marxist or neo-Marxist analysis, critical theory and its derivatives included, might consider the

184

D. Waite and K. Arar

structures in both collectivist and more individualistic cultures and societies and the economic forces at play. A more subjectivist, interpretivist, or social constructivist onto-epistemology likely would give more consideration to the personal and immediate as subjects of its analysis. The trick, as ever, is linking the micro, the meso, and the macro. Latour (2005) addressed these issues in his criticism of conventional sociology and the conventional sociologist’s gaze when he noted that: regarding those famed ‘contexts’ . . . there exists something that renders the [social] interaction possible by bringing on the scene most of its necessary ingredients, but . . . this ‘something’ is at once present behind and much too abstract to do anything. Structure is very powerful and yet much too weak and remote to have any efficacy. (p. 168, emphasis in original)

And though a Marxist or neo-Marxist sociology offers an important critical analytical component, it alone is insufficient. As Latour (2005) observed, “capitalism is certainly the dominant mode of production but no one imagines that there is some homunculus CEO in command, despite the fact that many events look like they obey some implacable strategy” (p. 167, emphasis in original). Maurer’s (1995) complex subject offers an alternative: there is seldom one villain responsible for our oppression or subjugation. In some senses, we are all complicit, and in other senses no one is responsible. This seems to accord with Foucault’s (2008) notion that oppressive systems are not necessarily intentional, designed as such, but accrete over time through millions of mundane acts. For Maurer (1995), it’s in the architectonics: “There is no stable originary ground from which economic decisions and maximizing behavior seem to grow. Such decisions are apparently inherent to the design” (p. 121). In Maurer’s (1995) analysis of the social, “the new economy, a complex, more-than-hierarchical, more-than-instantaneous, adaptive and anticipatory network of networks, attempt to render questions of accountability moot” (p. 139). Though those responsible and those who benefit hide themselves and their dealings through such complexities, the system(s) of capitalism play a major role, both in terms of benefiting a few and subjugating the many. A critical sociology, the object of Latour’s (2005) critique, tries “to solve the ‘social’ question by offering some prosthesis for political action” (p. 160), but it can become prescriptive – a presumption of a privileged position. Yet, again thinking with Latour, “it can help define the right procedures for the composition of the collective by rendering itself [sociology] interesting to those who have been the object of study” (p. 160). Still, actors or agents disappear/are forgotten or neglected in the prescriptive rather than being initiators/agents of change. Our project is not dissimilar to that of Latour (2005), who, in arguing for reassembling the social, had a political end in mind. Latour enumerated the steps he saw as essential for a more relevant social science, concerned with a new conceptualization of what constituted the social, though he preferred the term “the collective.” Latour suggested that those of us who wanted to make changes had to first begin from different assumptions about the social, the collective, and its

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

185

constitutive elements, including actors (human and nonhuman), their networks, associations, and processes of association. The task is difficult and messy, and the phenomena of interest incredibly complex: Critical sociologists have underestimated the difficulty of doing politics by insisting that the social consists of just a few types of participants. It did not care to notice that there was not much chance for politics to succeed if the list of bona fide members making up the social world was drastically restricted in advance. (p. 250)

These elements had to be opened up, “defragmented, and inspected . . . [and] reassembled again” (p. 250). Without this, politics is futile: “It does not require enormous skill or political acumen to realize that if you have to fight against a force that is invisible, untraceable, ubiquitous, and total, you will be powerless and roundly defeated” (p. 250). “It’s only if forces are made up of smaller ties, whose resistance can be tested one by one, that you might have a chance to modify a given state of affairs. To put it bluntly: if there is a society, then no politics is possible” (p. 250). Here we might think of Arendt’s (1950) definition and differentiation of work, labor, and action, where, for her, action denotes the political, the vita activa. For Rancière (2010), politics is the disruption of the police order and its “distribution of the sensible.”

The Imperium and Other Oppressive Forces Whether it be biological, social, or some other, life in all its forms is dynamic, multitudinous, and, from a biopolitical perspective, interwoven or interconnected, entangled: systems upon systems upon systems. Given this complexity, it is difficult to find that or those responsible for one’s subjugation, one’s oppression at the feet of any particular overlord, master, ruler, or even ruling class. Perhaps this is why some focus more on the local, so-called micro-aggressions. Social critique for social justice is difficult. In Foucault’s (2008) analysis, in contrast to the all-powerful monarch: government must no longer intervene, and it no longer has a direct hold on things and people; it can only exert a hold . . . insofar as interest, or interests, the interplay of interests, make a particular individual, thing, good, wealth, or process of interest for individuals, or for the set of individuals, or for the interest of a given individual faced with the interest of all, etcetera. Government is only interested in interests. The new government, the new governmental reason, does not deal with what I would call the things in themselves of governmentality . . .. It deals with the phenomena of politics, that is to say, interests. (p. 45)

Rather, “in its new regime, government is basically no longer to be exercised over subjects and other things subjected through these subjects. Government is now to be exercised over what we would call the phenomenal republic of interests”

186

D. Waite and K. Arar

(Foucault, 2008, p. 46). And similar to Maurer’s (1995) conception of the complex subject, Foucault held that: the state does not have an essence. The state is not a universal nor in itself an autonomous source of power. The state is nothing else but the effect, the profile, the mobile shape of a perpetual stratification (étatisation) or statifications, in the sense of incessant transactions which modify, or move, or drastically change, or insidiously shift sources of finance, modes of investment, decision making, centers, forms and types of control, relationships between local powers, the central authority, and so on. In short, the state has no heart . . . in the sense that it has no interior. The state is nothing else but the mobile effect of a regime of multiple governmentalities. (Foucault, 2008, p. 77)

Foucault called this “the irrational rationality of capitalism” (p. 106). Elsewhere, Waite (2014) discussed how the Imperium is implicated in our subjugation. More than an amalgamation of persons, some elite club (Mills, 1956), the Imperium, also speaks to the effect of similarly situated individuals, their relationships and social networks, and their interests. Here we’re thinking with Bourdieu (1988) and his notion of habitus. Recent revelations by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (www.icij.org) and their release of, first, the Panama Papers and, later, the Paradise Papers (and then the Second Panama Papers) have shown the lengths that organizations and institutions (several prominent universities such as the University of Texas – Austin among them), sports and movie/ media stars, and despots and their children have gone to hide their money from taxing authorities (i.e., states). This wealth is highly nomadic, if not the individuals or institutions themselves, though the individuals can be highly so. Money managers skirt the tax laws of states in quasi-legal maneuvers, hiding both the money and the identities of the high-wealth individuals and corporations. Harrington (2016) detailed the outsized influence these high-wealth individuals and corporations have on national and international policy to their benefit and how nations court these individuals and, in effect, offer them passports (i.e., citizenship) for sale, with advantages and rights denied other migrants, immigrants, and refugees (Arar et al., 2019). Though not synonymous or isomorphic with capitalism, the Imperium is parasitical upon it, benefitting from its systems and furthering its colonization of global lived worlds. Such colonization occurs at the ontological level, affecting our thinking, our ability to imagine other-than-corporate forms and structures, our social relations, and collective forms of association. Waite (2014) calls this corporatism, occurring as it does at the ontological level. This brings to mind Taibbi’s (2010) criticism of the financial firm Goldman Sachs during the Occupy movement as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money” (p. 1). The Imperium functions within a neoliberal ideology of individualism, accountability, privatization and the “free” market, an ideology which itself has become global. That said, and as Maurer (1995) has shown, there is no accountability for those in the Imperium, being non-locatable subjects. These attributes make the Imperium difficult to resist or counter as oppressive agents (or non-agents), difficult

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

187

even to identify. How then do we promote social justice education within current contexts as we’ve described them?

Promoting Social Justice Education Within the Imperium We turn to the ideas of Latour (2005), Rancière (1991, 2010), and Biesta (2013) in crafting our social justice education project. Whatever else it is, education is a political project (Dewey, 1916). To a greater or lesser extent, education involves ideological indoctrination and socialization into the sociopolitical contexts and systems of which it is a vital part. Bourdieu (1988) has shown the role education plays in the reproduction of social hierarchies. Of course, education is (or can be) more than simple indoctrination or insertion into the existing social strata. Biesta (2013) points to the three aims or purposes of education – qualification, socialization, and subjectification. Qualification and socialization integrate the student into existing social orders. Of these three, perhaps only subjectification is or can be emancipatory – aimed at aiding the individual in becoming his/her/their own unique self, often in contra to existing social norms. Unique in the sense in which Biesta uses the term means that there are no other persons, no other roles, like that individual. As such, the individual is irreplaceable. Education is, or can be, political in the promotion of social justice when it works to disrupt what Rancière (1991, 2010) refers to as the distribution of the sensible – the seeable, the sayable, the hearable, the touchable, the tasteable, and what and how we sense. We write “can be” because generally education is in service of the existing distribution of the sensible through what Rancière called the police order and the systems for maintaining the police order. For Rancière (1991, 2010), politics is that used by those outside of the established order to try to subvert that order. The police and policing are simply the “administration or ‘management’ of society . . . and in particular . . . what is presupposed in all types of administration: ‘the symbolic constitution of the social’” (Rancière, 1998, as cited in Simons & Masschelein, 2010, p. 591). Simons and Masschelein (2010) noted that: the domain/object of administration does not exist as such, and it is not a natural, pre-existing domain waiting for managerial concern. The domain or object of administration is symbolically constituted although . . . administration acts ‘as if’ it is a natural or given domain (out there) . . .. For the police there is no outside . . . [for] what is not ‘part’ of the division of parts and what is not identifiable (as different from other identities) is assumed not to exist . . .. The administration . . . presents itself as the actualisation of what is the common of a community and . . . transforms the rules for managing into the so-called natural rules of society. (p. 592)

Educational administration/leadership is no different: engendering hierarchical systems, socializing children, disciplining teachers, and building routines to ensure compliance with norms and standards that reinforce and maintain existing realities, the police order.

188

D. Waite and K. Arar

Conclusion Doing the Work In this context of the formation of complex, multiethnic, and multicultural states, education can assist with the integration of the native born and immigrant, to offer opportunities for people from different strata, ethnic groups, and religions while promoting just recognition of their cultures of origin. Educational leaders wrestle with the corresponding ethical dilemmas daily. And though ethical lapses in the corporate and political worlds attract far more media attention, similar problems exist in schools and with schooling – for example, misuse of school funds/misappropriation, theft of equipment, falsification or padding of student lists to increase funding allotments, favoritism, and corruption (Waite & Allen, 2003). Examination of these and other macro- and micro-oppressions perpetrated by educators – teachers, administrators, and policymakers – ought to come under the scrutiny of social justice advocates, researchers, and those working in educational settings. Research on the role of school leadership ought not to ignore the challenges school leaders face with regard to ethical decision-making. Such study may have profound implications for the preparation, learning, and development of pre- and in-service educational leaders (Shapiro, Stefkovitch, & Gutierrez, 2011; Waite, 2010b). Significant ethical challenges are at the heart of educational leaders’ work, yet they are often unacknowledged by researchers or the actors themselves. Ethical dilemmas may arise in contexts where there are differences or even conflicts among individual, professional, and organizational values. Such differences complicate decision-making. Principals who experience such dilemmas and conflicts may feel inadequate (Langlois & Lapointe 2014) and frustrated and/or ill-prepared to deal with them. Following Starratt’s (1991) innovative work, which offered a cohesive theoretical model of educational administration, various scholars have addressed the issue of ethical leadership in education (e.g., Arar, 2015; Oplatka & Arar, 2016; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). These studies have enabled the identification of the characteristics of an ethics-oriented practice of educational leadership such as the ability of a leader to act as an ethical model for those whom they lead or to interact with different groups using ethically based, autoregulated, and reflective professional judgment (Langlois & Lapointe, 2014). Educational leaders can play a significant role in leading for social justice from within schools by putting curricula in place and encouraging pedagogies that foster the development of student-citizens who are responsible, critical, and active (Berkovich, 2014; Wang, 2016). To do this, leaders must ensure the equal participation of all children in the educational resources at their disposal – while advocating for even more and by exposing and addressing persistent social and academic issues in the schools for which they are responsible (Arar, 2015). Schooling should attend to children’s subjectification and emancipation, individually and collectively. Leaders who aim to promote social justice education in schools must be stewards and critics, shepherds, and mavericks. They require a critical consciousness,

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

189

compassion, democratic principles, and a desire to inspire emancipation, liberation, and action for change (Yoeli & Berkovich, 2010) in the work in schools and the work of schools and in the relation of both schools and schooling to the wider contexts of which they are a part and to which they contribute. At its heart, education is about change. Promoting social justice education is a matter of heart, of mind, and, ultimately, of socially just relations.

References Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1987). Membership roles in field research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Arar, K. (2015). Leadership for equity and social justice in Arab and Jewish schools in Israel: Leadership trajectories and pedagogical praxis. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 162–187. Arar, K., & Ibrahim, F. (2016). Education for national identity: Arab school principals and teachers dilemmas and coping strategies. Journal of Education Policy, 31(6), 681–693. Arar, K., Jeffrey, B., & Bogotch, I. (2019). Education, immigration and migration: Policy, leadership and praxis for a changing world. London, England: Emerald. Arendt, H. (1950). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace, New York, NY Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination (M. Holquist, Ed., and C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin, TX: The University of Texas Press. Banks, J. A. (2017). Citizenship education and global migration: Implications for theory, research and teaching. New York, NY: American Educational Research Association. Barad, K. M. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Bauman, Z. (2011). Migration and identities in the globalized world. Philosophy & Social Criticism 37(4):425–435 Berkovich, I. (2014). A socio-logical framework of social justice leadership in education. Journal of Educational Administration, 52, 282–309. Biesta, G. J. J. (2013). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Blackmore, J. (2009). Leadership for social justice: A transitional dialogue. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(1), 1–10. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: perspective and method. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of School Leadership 12(2):138–156 Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass & Pfeiffer. Bourdieu, P. (1988). Homo academiecus. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Bourdieu, P. (1999). The abdication of the state. In P. Bourdieu et al. (Eds.), The weight of the world: Social suffering in contemporary society (pp. 181–188). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Brooks, J., Knaus, C., & Chang, H. (2015). Educational leadership against racism: Challenging policy, pedagogy and practice. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 1–5. Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. (2006). From scientific management to social justice . . . and back again? Pedagogical shifts in the study and practice of educational leadership. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 10, 21. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/iejll Carey, B. (2008, October 7). Wired for justice: The urge to punish is more than Wall Street loathing: It’s instinctive. New York Times, pp. D1 & D6.

190

D. Waite and K. Arar

Chiu, M. M., & Walker, A. (2007). Leadership for social justice in Hong Kong schools: Addressing mechanisms of inequality. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 724–739. Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. (Massumi, B., Trans). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN Derrida, J. (1979). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. MacMillan, New York, NY Diem, S., & Boske, C. (2012). Introduction – Advancing leadership for social justice in a global world. In: Boske C, Diem S (eds) Global leadership for social justice: Taking it from the field to practice. Emerald Publishing, London, England Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979 (M. Senellart, Ed., & G. Burchell, Trans.). Houndmills, Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Fraser, N. (2000). Rethinking recognition. New Left Review, 2/3(May/June), 107–120. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice: Reimagining political space in a globalizing world (Vol. 31). Columbia University Press. French, S. E., Seidman, E., Allen, L., & Aber, J. (2006). The development of ethnic identity during adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 1–11. Fua, J. S. (2007). Looking towards the source – Social justice and leadership conceptualisations from Tonga. Journal of Educational Administration 45:672–683 Garfinkel, H. (2002). Ethnomethodology’s program: Working out Durkheim’s aphorism. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Goldthorpe, J. H. (1984). Women and class analysis: A reply to the replies. Sociology 18(4):491–499 Hall, E. T. (1959). The silent language. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (1998). What’s worth fighting for out there? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Harrington, B. (2016). Capital without borders: Wealth managers and the one percent. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ismael, J., & Ismael, S. (2008). Social policy in the Arab world: The search for social justice. Arab Studies Quarterly 30:23–44 Jackson, A.Y., & Mazzei, L. A. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. Routledge, Abingdon, UK Jreisat, J. (2002). Comparative public administration. Westview Press, Cambridge, MA Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux. Kenreich, T. D. (2013). Introduction. In T. D. Kenreich (Ed.), Geography and social justice in the classroom (pp. 1–7). New York, NY: Routledge. Langlois, L., & Lapointe, C. (2014). A measure of ethics. In C. M. Branson & S. J. Gross (Eds.), The handbook of ethical educational leadership (pp. 337–351). New York, NY: Routledge. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Lingis, A. (1994). The community of those who have nothing in common. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Mansfield, K. C. (2013). ‘I love these girls – I was these girls’: Women leading for social justice in a single-sex public school. Journal of School Leadership 23(4):640–663 Maurer, W. M. (1995). Complex subjects: Offshore finance, complexity theory, and the dispersion of the modern. Socialist Review, 25(3–4), 113–145.

7

Problematizing the Social in Social Justice Education

191

Mazzei, L., & Jackson, A. (2012). Complicating voice in a refusal to “Let Participants Speak”. Qualitative Inquiry 18(9):745–751 Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Mead, G. H. (1936). The philosophy of John Dewey. International Journal of Ethics 46:64–81 McDonell, N. (2016). The civilization of perpetual movement: Nomads in the modern world. London, England: Hurst & Company. Mills, C. W. (1956). The power elite. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Moghadam, V. (2004). Patriarchy in transition: Women and the changing family in the Middle East. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 35:137–162 Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Nguyễn, T. S. T. (2019, April 11). Hybrid placemaking in schools and the academy. Presentation to the School Improvement faculty at Texas State University. Oplatka, I. (2013). The place of “social justice” in the field of educational administration: An historical overview of emergent area of study. In I. Bogoch & C. Shields (Eds.), International handbook of social [in]justice and educational leadership (pp. 15–35). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. Oplatka, I., & Arar, K. (2016). Leadership for social justice and the characteristics of traditional societies: Ponderings on the application of Western-grounded models. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(3), 352–369. Parsons, T., & Smelser, N. J. (1956). Economy and society: A study in the integration of economic and social theory. London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Rancière, J. (1991). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Rancière, J. (2010). On ignorant schoolmasters. In C. Bingham, G. J. J. Biesta, & J. Rancière (Eds.), Jacques Rancière: Education, truth, emancipation (pp. 1–22). London, England: Continuum. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rousseau, J. J. (2004). The social contract or principles of political right. New York, NY: Kessinger Publishing. Said, E. (1985). Orientalism reconsidered. Cultural Critique, 1(Autumn), 89–107. Sarason, S. B. (2004). And what do you mean by learning? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schwartz, M. (2011). Promoting the social rights of working women: The case of Palestinian women in Israel. In: Moghadam VM, Franzway S, Fonow MM (eds) Making globalization work for women: The role of social rights and trade union leadership. SUNY Press, New York, NY, pp 47–70 Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Shields, C. M. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leadership for communities of difference. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of Georg Simmel (K. H. Wolf, Ed. & Trans.). London, England: Collier-Macmillan Ltd. Simons, M., & Masschelein, J. (2010). Governmental, political and pedagogic subjectivation: Foucault with Rancière. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 4, 588–605. Skrla, L., & McKenzie, K. B. (2011). Becoming an equity-oriented change agent. In: Blankstein A, Houston P (eds) Leadership for social justice and democracy in our schools. Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 45–58 So, A. Y. (1990) Social change and development: Modernisation, dependency, and world-system theories. Sage, Newbury Park, CA Spivak, G. C. (1976). Translator’s preface. In J. Derrida (Ed.), Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. Starratt, R. J. (1991). Building an ethical school: A theory for practice in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 27(2), 185–202.

192

D. Waite and K. Arar

Strum, S. S., & Latour, B. (1987). Redefining the social link: From baboons to humans. Social Science Information, 26, 783–802. Taibbi, M. (2010, April 5). The great American bubble machine. Rolling Stone, pp. 1082–1083. Retrieved from https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-great-american-bubblemachine-195229/ Varenne, H., & McDermott, R. (1998). Successful failure: The school America builds. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Waite, D. (2009). LDR 2 LDR: University faculty communicating practice through theory. Journal of Leadership Studies, 3(2), 56–57. Waite, D. (2010a). On the shortcomings of our organizational forms: With implications for educational change and school improvement. School Leadership and Management, 30, 225–248. Waite, D. (2010b). Preparing educational leaders to serve a democratic society. Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 4, 367–370. Waite, D. (2014). Imperial hubris: The dark heart of leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 24(6), 1202–1232. Waite, D. (2016). The where and what of education today: A leadership perspective. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19, 101–109. Waite, D., & Allen, D. (2003). Corruption and abuse of power in educational administration. The Urban Review, 35, 281–296. Waite, D., & Swisher, J. (2019). Is there a home in the US and access to higher education for migrants, immigrants and refugees? In K. Arar, K. Haj-Yehia, D. Ross, & Y. Kondakci (Eds.), Higher education challenges for migrant and refugee students in a global world (pp. 59–80). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing. Walzer, M. (2002). The company of critics: Social criticism and political commitment in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Wang, F. (2016). From redistribution to recognition: How school principals perceive social justice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(1), 1–20. Wolcott, H. F. (1991). Propriospect and the acquisition of culture. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 22, 251–273. Yoeli, R., & Berkovich, I. (2010). From personal ethos to organizational vision: Narratives of visionary educational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(4), 451–467.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The Neoliberal Stronghold Karen Ramlackhan

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Primacy of Neoliberal Reform in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . High-Stakes Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Performativity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School Choice Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bureaucratic Schooling: Policies and Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contextualizing Neoliberalism in Education Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Curricula Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Changing Professional Identities of Educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Social Justice Imperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Policies: Then and Now . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Undermining Public Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Using Social Justice Practices to Address Educational Inequity in Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

194 195 196 197 198 199 199 200 201 203 203 205 207 209 210

Abstract

This chapter focuses on how neoliberal ideology has shaped contemporary educational reform in the United States. This approach to education shapes the development and enaction of education policies such that substantial institutional and cultural change is made for purposes of economic gain as against more strictly public ones, tied less to temporal profit considerations. These reforms, influenced by business and market-based approaches, undermine social justice efforts because of their intense focus on efficiency and narrowly framed measurable outcomes and punitive accountability practices. Neoliberal educational policies shape classroom practices that reinforce the values and traditions of the K. Ramlackhan (*) University of South Florida-St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, FL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_117

193

194

K. Ramlackhan

dominant culture as well as exacerbate structural and systemic inequities that profoundly influence the educational experiences, outcomes, and trajectories of marginalized groups. The opposition of the neoliberal ideology against the fundamental objective of social justice preserves the systemic and structural inequities that impact marginalized students (e.g., based on race, socioeconomic status, language, ability, religion, gender, and so forth). Thus, it continues the stratification of educational experience and achievement outcomes of the privileged. Needed are systemic and systematic social justice focused-efforts to address the complexities of teaching and learning in public education. Practices that value marginalized populations such as those described in the culturally responsive pedagogy research literature warrant their meaningful and sustainable utility in education reform. Otherwise, advantage for the privileged will persist and grow as disparities continue to widen and detrimentally shape the postsecondary outcomes for marginalized students. Keywords

Educational reform · Efficiency · Social responsibility · Accountability · Neoliberalism · Neoliberal · Standardized · Social justice · Equity · Audit culture · High-stakes testing · High poverty · Inequities · Critical thinkers · Culturally responsive · Pedagogy · Activism · Politics · Latinx · Black · Achievement gap · Multicultural · Democratic · Stratification · Inclusion · Meritocracy · Urban · Quantifiable · Gender · Socioeconomic status · Oppressive · Policy · Racial inequality · Curricula · Measurable · Institutions · Teachers · Districts · Deprofessionalization · Intersectionality · Choice · Charter · System-wide · Private · Market-based · Public schools · Disability · Race/ ethnicity · Globalized

Introduction This chapter focuses on how neoliberal ideology has shaped contemporary educational reform in the U.S. Neoliberal educational policies impose market-based ideology upon the public education system, undermining the very democratic ideals of its original inception within the United States. These policies provide the driving directives and imperatives that ultimately encourage competition, deregulation, and privatization. The extent to which neoliberal influence has altered education is staggering, comprehensive, and embedded within all levels. The education system has been transformed into one that stratifies opportunity through efficiency processes and quantitative accountability measures to build human capital for a global marketplace. Thus, reducing the purpose of education to fit within the economic principles of business. Instituting neoliberal education reforms through federal legislation for the purpose of increasing economic productivity and to be highly competitive in a global market, create inequitable relations of power and privilege. Neoliberal influence has taken a stronghold by ensnaring the education system into market-based and

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

195

business practices that are primarily designed to extract profitability through efficiency and testing. The consequence of applying such rigid systems and processes, is that education is a system that oversimplifies students as products while displacing the values of social justice for the public good. There is a shift in social responsibility from the collective (i.e., society) to the individual. For example, this type of reform has expanded choice options for parents and students with regard to charter schools, the voucher system, and private schools; and is representative of the emphasis on competition and consumer autonomy within the educational market. Neoliberal ideology is a type of capitalism that is not inherently concerned with populations that may be disadvantaged or marginalized. However, social justice ideology is fair and just and values human complexity such as characterizations of differences. When neoliberal practices are employed in education the establishment and maintenance of standardized and competitive processes are used to regulate student and teacher behaviors and dispositions. It also determines, through narrow accountability metrics, the performance of students, teachers, and schools and control incentives based upon these measures. It becomes a weeding out process that favors the stronger. Competition, then is used to pit students, educators, and schools against each another so that strong will survive and the weak will be sidelined. From a social justice point of view this is unfair and dangerous. At the outset a presumption is made from neoliberal thought that education should produce students, educators and schools that advance the current economic global agenda. Definitions of success and failure are narrowly structured within a neoliberal education system. Neoliberalism attempts to conceal its subjective assumptions under veils of quantitatively measurable data to make it appear more objective. In contrast, social justice focuses on providing fair and just education for all instead of using competition to favor a select group.

Primacy of Neoliberal Reform in Education There are varying definitions and understandings of neoliberalism. However, the understandings share some inherent commonalities. Broadly speaking, neoliberalism is a political and economic driving force characterized by self-interest, entrepreneurial freedoms, privatization and competitive markets (Harvey, 2007; Lipman, 2011a). It is embedded in all aspects of US society (i.e., social, cultural, political, economic) and structure institutions, values, and relations. Neoliberalism has a controlling reign and sets the directionality of governments to be economically productive through efficiency, individualism, and accountability. Neoliberal reform in education produces a particular type of individual who is regulated through meritocratic processes of competition and standardization. As a consequence, neoliberalism has resulted in a loss of equity and social justice, a loss of democracy and democratic accountability, and a loss of critical thought (Hill, 2003). Neoliberal ideology is the all-encompassing and driving force of contemporary education with deeply penetrating consequences.

196

K. Ramlackhan

Public schooling in the United States is situated within a neoliberal reform movement that emphasizes efficiency and accountability (Klaf & Kwan, 2010). This market-driven thinking has saturated the field of education. The processes and practices prevalent in the business world have essentially led to the commodification of education, in which products have become replaced by students. The language of education shares commonalities with the language of the market where terminology such as standardized testing, economic productivity, school choice, and audit culture are applicable. The audit culture is an example of one aspect of neoliberal ideology that has become ingrained in educational institutions. This is an accountability measure that relies on supervision and is used to evaluate performance of public institutions such as schools and their workers (Apple, 2005). Moreover, student performance is measured in relation to predetermined, specified curricular standards and/or content. The assumption being that the methods used to increase efficiency and product optimization, via quantitatively driven accountancy measures, will yield a better return on investment on the product wherein the product is the student. Then, the goal of profit maximization has been interchanged with the goal of test score maximization. Thus, there is a presupposition that certain knowledge is valued and must be learned whereby accountability measures, through high-stakes testing, are used to determine if that knowledge has been proficiently understood.

High-Stakes Testing Continual pressure to perform on high-stakes assessments is a testament to the undeniable influence of neoliberal policies within education systems. Teachers are pertinent to student performance on standardized assessments and are also held accountable by way of their professional evaluations, which are largely based on their students’ quantifiable test scores. Due to having this type of influence, stringent policies are established and enforced by states and districts in order to control and constrain the teaching and learning process so that the curriculum and schooling experiences focus primarily on significant topics and skills necessary to perform well on these assessments. Therefore, the accountability tool (i.e. high-stakes standardized testing) resulting from this audit culture narrowly measures limited amounts of knowledge for a particular purpose. Allen, English, and Papa (2014) explained that high-stakes testing is a standardized measure that determines school quality, grade retention or promotion, and teacher incentives. They further discussed faulty assumptions about high-stakes testing that deceptively seem to address social justice issues within education. These faulty assumptions are as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4.

High-stakes testing accurately reflects learning. All children have equal chance at success. Discipline policies promotes student learning. There are no major differences among children.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Curricula are neutral. Test scores can be reliably used to indicate teacher effectiveness. Education reformers share the same goals. Competition drives student learners. Teacher performance incentives will increase productivity.

197

At a glance, the above assumptions create an illusion of being rational and reasonable, but upon deeper examination it becomes apparent that such assumptions can wield undue and unintended influence and consequence. For example, highstakes testing may seem technical, verifiable, and credible in education, but if students learn only what is necessary to a pass a test it does not guarantee that they will remember what they have learned or that they will utilize the knowledge learned. The assumption that children will have an equal chance at success because they are taking the same standardized tests after being taught from a standardized curriculum, falls apart due to test biases and other related issues that do not account for the multifaceted nature of student diversity, as well as the contextual and sociopolitical aspects that shape their lives. The narrow framing of high-stakes accountability is delimiting and is not a total measure of student achievement. However, with neoliberalism, this is more than sufficient to determine if districts and schools are successfully making gains and reinforces the significance of quantifiable accountability measures in decision-making about student promotion and teacher performance. This can lead to detrimental outcomes for students’ educational trajectories, teachers’ evaluations, and school quality (Au, 2016a).

Performativity The audit culture pointedly shapes the teaching and learning processes and conditions in schools. Ball (2003) discusses performativity as an effect of the audit culture. Performativity is the means by which the audit culture regulates judgments, decisions, and actions through incentives and control that is based on rewards and sanctions. Performance by an individual (e.g., teacher) or organization (e.g., school) is a measure of productivity that can be evaluated based upon quality of that performance. Therefore, the value or worth of the individual or organization is understood through judgment of productivity, resulting from this audit culture that stems from neoliberal ideology. Performative measures are utilized to foster competition, individualism, and measurable outcomes. Ball (2010) further explains that performativity is an individually evaluative judgment of oneself. Taking responsibility for one’s work output and compares that to others is indicative of the neoliberal ideological practices at work. Furthermore, performativity nurtures and embraces the motivations of accountability intrinsically, through the innate sense of responsibility to perform to meet the demands of assessment measures and extrinsically, because of the competitive nature of comparing individual teacher and school scores on these assessments.

198

K. Ramlackhan

Performativity then, is the means by which the audit culture determines success of an individual or an institution. This concept of performativity is borne out of the capitalistic notion that competition is healthy and better for the economy. In competition there are winners and losers, however thinking in this way about students, teachers, and school systems can have impactful consequences.

School Choice Options The standardization of accountability systems has many effects on teaching and learning. Efficient standardized processes and procedures are developed and maintained and utilized as evaluative measures for students, teachers, and schools. In some states, like Florida, public schools are assigned grades (e.g., A, B, C. . .) annually based upon students’ previous year’s performance on a state-mandated high-stakes standardized assessment (http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/). Schools grades are publicly accessible information, and many parents use this information to make decisions about where their children will attend school. For some parents this is a viable means of determining which school will be suitable for their children, and for others it is not. Uniform accountability measures, like high-stakes standardized tests, do not take into consideration contextual and individual differences found in schools and districts. Therefore, the imposition of these measures blanketly over public education pose issues for many students. For example, students of color from poor communities will not have the same access to resources and high performing schools as their counterparts in middle-income class communities (Au, 2016a) because the quality of schooling is affected by multiple factors such as school funding, local taxes, family wealth, parent education, teacher qualifications, and experience (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2013). Within this neoliberal educational reform movement, parents are consumers who, through the market of choice, can elect to have their children attend a school other than their neighborhood school. The promotion of choice options such as charter schools, private schools, or the use of vouchers to pay for private schools, open opportunities for some families, but not for others. The growth of vouchers and charter schools in the United States has been a result of market-based educational reform efforts and encourages competition among schooling institutions. Marketization of school choice options in this way is an articulation of neoliberal practice. Neoliberal policies stratify educational experiences and outcomes for privileged groups. For instance, promoting school choice options like private schools, voucher programs, and charter schools further segregate students and increase inequity. Since many people believe that private schools are better than public ones, Lubienski and Lubienski (2013) analyzed large-scale quantitative data and disproved this belief. These researchers concluded that students in private schools had higher scores because of their advantaged backgrounds and access to additional educational support. Once the data were controlled for demographics, student achievement in public schools either matched that of their private school peers or was greater.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

199

The achievement effects of charter schools vary widely across the United States (Gamoran & Fernandez, 2018). Further, with the current federal push for the expansion of charter schools, there has been evidence of increasing segregation by race, class, ethnicity, disability, language, and religion, growing resource inequalities, and the use of different instructional programs in high-poverty schools versus affluent ones (Rotberg & Glazer, 2018). Inequities resulting from the competition between charter and traditional schools happen because of the flexibility that charter schools have regarding the students who enroll and those who stay. Traditional public schools are increasingly diverse and must maintain their responsibility to serve all their students’ needs. They are not able to handpick who leaves and who remains. The neoliberal reform in education continues to impact schooling institutions in many ways. It establishes and maintains standardized and competitive processes and procedures that emulate strategies from the business sector and apply them to public schools. In turn, this type of reform, strays away from democratic collective values, and espouse individual market-driven, capitalist approaches.

Bureaucratic Schooling: Policies and Processes The neoliberal ideology has been normalized in social institutions and it is taken-forgranted assumptions have undergirded policy development and implementation. For decades, neoliberal policies have dominated federal educational policies and subsequently state and local ones as well. These policies shape the educational experiences and outcomes of children in many ways. Some researchers have reported on the how these policies have impacted schools particularly related to teacher identities and performativity (Ball, 2003), roles of leaders in schools (Anderson & Cohen, 2018), high-stakes standardized testing and racial inequality (Au, 2016a), and student performance in private versus public schools (Lubienski & Lubienski, 2013).

Contextualizing Neoliberalism in Education Policies Neoliberal economic policies and governmental practices progressed in the 1970s and the 1980s. In 1983, a report, A Nation at Risk, created much concern about mediocrity in the US educational system and the need for drastic improvements to ensure that the United States remained competitive on the world stage. New measures of accountability, a focus on scientifically based research, and the use of standardized tests (Suspitsyna, 2010) were methods that were developed to address the reported mediocrity in schools. Additionally, federal educational policies and reforms which shifted to focus on higher educational standards and achievement are still evident today. Not only were high-stakes testing and the formation of standards prominent in these reforms, the increase and expansion of school choice options like charter schools also was integral to this substantial shift (Ravitch, 2010).

200

K. Ramlackhan

A significant example of a federal legislation that exemplified neoliberal reform is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. NCLB stated that all students would reach proficiency in particular subject areas by 2014. Furthermore, students would be assessed using high-stakes standardized tests from grades 3 to 12. Overall school performance would be publicly reported so parents could access this information and have the autonomy to change schools if needed. Additionally, teachers must have met the qualifications to be highly qualified to teach and schools were required to meet annual yearly progress (AYP) for all students and subgroups by race/ethnicity, economic status, English proficiency and have disability categorization. Using quantitative data was the sole measure of determining whether schools made AYP and thus whether schools and teachers would be incentivized. School choice options such as private schools, charter schools, and voucher use became more popular as an alternative to traditional public schooling as a result of NCLB. Each of these previously stated requirements of NCLB is representative of neoliberal ideology and practices. Legislation, policies, and funding that came after NCLB, such as Race to the Top (https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/index.html), Common Core State Standards (http://www.corestandards.org/), and Every Student Succeeds Act (https://www.ed.gov/essa) (ESSA) in 2015 continue to maintain neoliberal ideological grounding. ESSA has lightened up a bit on federal control and oversight, so states have some flexibility on testing, standards, teacher quality, and school performance. However, there are still accountability measures that focus on proficiency on high-stakes standardized tests, which are based on academic standards; teachers and schools are still incentivized for performance on academic achievement. Neoliberal policies might have changed somewhat from NCLB, but the foundational aspects remain intact in ESSA (i.e., accountability, choice options, evaluation, and standardized performance). Thus, the purpose of schooling continues to be to economically focused to prepare a work force that can compete in a global marketplace.

Curricula Control As a result of federal educational legislation, states and districts have mandated policies and procedures that narrowly focus curricula, based on academic standards, in order to ensure that students are learning, and teachers are teaching what is necessary to perform highly on standardized tests. Berliner (2009) explained that narrowing of curriculum occurred through emphasis on reading and math while other subject areas were sidelined, and that test preparation was an important part of instruction. Teaching to specific subject areas while sacrificing others, instructing on content specifically related to the high-stakes test, and focused alignment of instruction to tests using prepackaged curricula have prompted the role of teachers to change from professionals to technicians (Sloan, 2008). Like a factory production assembly line where goals are largely discrete, definable and known; the products are made in mass and all essentially the same, with efficiency of speed and cost reduction often achieved. Incorporating this mentality in education, however, assumes that all children are the same and can be molded in assembly line style, in

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

201

the way Au (2011) explained that teaching under the New Taylorism means teachers are controlled by high-stake tests and prescribed curricula with the intended outcome of producing homogenous students. Therefore, the development and application of teaching content, processes, and practices that shape learning and achievement have evolved to meet neoliberal policy reform demands. Neoliberal practices such as adapting curriculum to prepare students for testing and designing curriculum to be assessed quantifiably to ensure compatibility with high-stakes standardized assessments can be detrimental to students. As the curriculum narrows for students, the less prepared they are to compete intellectually in a changing, globalized economy (Berliner, 2009). The ability to be creative and think differently is compromised so future workers might find it difficult to go beyond the scope of their jobs; thus education, instead, should allow for open-minded creative thinking to prepare students for changing times (Maisuria, 2005). Taking a step further, Giroux (2003) explained that public schooling can do without standardized curriculum and testing for the purpose of challenging the oppressive educational practices that produce social hierarchies (Giroux, 2003), which occurs when particular knowledge are deemed worthy over others and then taught in schools. The question of whose knowledge counts or matters is political and directly impacts the curriculum utilized in educational systems.

Changing Professional Identities of Educators Education has incorporated technical rational learning, market-based reforms, highstakes performance measures, school choice, privatization, and professional autonomy within its system. The rationale of competition and standardized accountability has reshaped the ethical, social, and political processes in schools and therefore changed the climate, expectations, and responsibilities of teachers and leaders. From an economic lens, educators are tasked with producing human capital for a productive workforce to compete in the market economy (Connell, 2013), and this is the nature of schools within a neoliberal education reform movement. Teachers, students, and leaders are expected to acclimatize to the neoliberal ideology that has been ingrained in education, for the advancement of market and efficiency logic and the need to create an educated and skilled workforce. Professional roles of educators and leaders have changed to adapt to a new managerialism dependent on market discipline and high-stakes measures (Anderson & Cohen, 2018). The neoliberal educational reforms (i.e., accountability testing, school choice) produced this new managerialism and in turn shaped the professional identities of teachers and leaders by influencing how they understand themselves as teachers and leaders. For instance, in the corporate and business realm middle managers are assigned with the task of managing employee efficiency and outcome, to evaluate the effectiveness of employees, and report metrics to senior level management. Similarly, educational leaders are middle managers focused on achieving outcomes narrowly defined through accountability standards, and quantitively measured through standardized assessments.

202

K. Ramlackhan

A new professionalism whose philosophy of public service has been replaced with market discipline (Denhardt & Denhardt, 2011), and greater external controls and surveillance (Giroux, 2003; Zeichner, 2010) is reduced in this pro-market system. Market discipline, performance pay, standardization of curriculum and instruction, and an intense emphasis on test data de-professionalize educators in this accountability-driven reductionist reform landscape. Moreover, teachers’ job satisfaction and classroom autonomy (i.e., both pedagogical and curricular autonomy) have decreased after NCLB (Wright, Shields, Black, Banerjee, & Waxman, 2018). The reconstitution of public education through neoliberal policies that promote school choice, deregulates teacher education, and is dependent upon scientifically based research, values consumer and managerial accountability over professional accountability (Suspitsyna, 2010). The overregulation of schools and the control of leaders through businessoriented strategies and metrics have changed the purpose of education and diminished the value of social responsibility and collective democratic ideals. Neoliberal reasoning, interventions, and techniques seem to have become common sense and are found not only in public schooling but also in institutions of higher education. Neoliberal efforts to dismantle public education and teacher education are evidenced by subjecting teacher preparation programs to market forces, having extreme prescriptive accountability requirements from accreditation agencies, and substantially cutting budgets in these programs (Zeichner, 2010). There has been an increase in the alternatives to university teacher education programs such as for-profit institutions like the University of Phoenix, teacher residency programs in schools and communities, and nonuniversity providers like Teach for America (Au & Ferrare, 2015; Zeichner, 2010) as a means to encourage competition and other pathways to teaching. These alternative options may only meet minimum standards and ill-prepare teachers for the realities of public schooling. Furthermore, preparing teachers to be compliant and follow scripted curriculum and instructional practices in order for their students to perform well on high-stakes standardized testing considerably delimits the responsibilities of teachers and further deprofessionalizes the work of educators. Disconcertingly, Zeichner (2010) shared that teacher education programs which focus on social justice and multiculturalism have been harshly criticized by external groups who blame this focus on preparing teachers to work with diverse populations of students (i.e., different racial, ethnic, income, gender) to close the achievement gap (which have become wider under neoliberal education reforms), with lowering academic standards. These external groups aim to streamline the process of teacher education programs and simplify procedures so that measurable quantifiable outcomes can be generated, and accountability measures can determine the effectiveness and productivity of these programs. Neoliberal reform policies and processes in higher education have been legitimizing technical efficiency and privatization.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

203

The Social Justice Imperative Social justice is a term that is widely used in education. There are a variety of definitions of social justice in education (Dover, 2009; Mthethwa-Sommers, 2013; Sleeter 2012) as well as synonymous terms (e.g., anti-oppression education, diversity education, multicultural education) used to discuss the marginalization of groups in relation to disparities in opportunities, resources, and social and economic outcomes (Tapper, 2013). Though there is a lack of consensus for a unifying definition, the commonality among them is that social justice-oriented educators and leaders are activists with an intentional and steadfast focus on equity and inclusion for marginalized populations (i.e., based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, ability, sexuality, religion, immigration status, and other categorizations of oppressive differences). Agency and social responsibility to others (i.e., communities and more broadly society) are driving forces. Social justice has been and continues to be a prominent and prevalent term in education. There is social justice research literature on educational leaders (Theoharis, 2007), teacher education programs (Zeichner, 2010), K-12 school teachers (Dover, 2009), and the systemic inequities and its reproduction and reinforcement of white, middle-class traditions (Ladson-Billings, 2006; Love, 2004). Each has its own variation of definitions and approaches concentrated on addressing the marginality of populations of students within schooling institutions and doing so under neoliberal education reform. With standardization, competition, and choice of the free-market guiding policies and practices, mandating curricula, and prescriptive teaching and pedagogy, leading and teaching for social justice is antithetical to this type of reform. Orienting social justice ideology and practices within a neoliberal agenda problematizes social responsibility and collective activism. The structural and material constraints, resulting from institutionalizing market-driven policies, creates norms and values that manifest in practices that may yield inequitable outcomes for students from oppressed groups. In turn, distinctive differences between the privileged in schools and others are constructed and maintained. Neoliberal practices influence social and structural inequities in school systems. Inequities in funding and unnecessary amounts of testing target underperforming schools that are predominantly in poorer communities with low income students and students of color (Au, 2015). Promoting technical efficiency through standardization and rigorous accountability measures exacerbates deep seated challenges in schools, districts and states. This sort of educational reform controls the processes and practices in schools such as tracking, as well as the educational trajectories and postsecondary possibilities of marginalized students (Tabron & Ramlackhan, 2019).

Policies: Then and Now The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s shepherded activism and actions that shaped social policies and thought not only for groups oppressed by racism, but

204

K. Ramlackhan

later for those impacted by classism, sexism, and ableism. This movement had tremendous influence on federal, state, and local politics and policies focused on inherent racial practices, behaviors, and structures. Combating racism was at the forefront of social activism; it is oppressive and stigmatizes and functions in overt and covert ways through language and cultural practices to reify whiteness as the norm (Ladson-Billings, 1998). After the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision to desegregate public schools was determined in violation of the 14th amendment, federal policies were passed that focused on justice and equity. Programs like Project Head Start and legislation such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, and the Fair Housing Act in 1968, among others, were enacted and implemented (Siegel-Hawley, 2014). These efforts impacted and continue to impact marginalization in all aspects of American society. Specific to education, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty initiatives in the 1960s focused on equity and access to schooling for low-income communities and underserved groups. In the 1970s, important federal legislation that addressed other civil rights issues was passed such as Title IX Amendment of the Higher Education Act that protects against sex discrimination in educational institutions, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act that allows for accommodations for children with disabilities in schools, and the Individual with Disabilities Education Act that provides access to and protections for children with disabilities to receive a free appropriate public education. There was an intentional and committed focus on equity and justice in Pre-K-12 educational settings during this time. The focus changed, however, in the 1980s with the Reagan administration, as discussed earlier in this chapter. After the A Nation at Risk report, policies and practices shifted to focus substantial efforts to prepare workers for a competitive global market. From then on, federal and state politics and policies shaped public educational institutions, from K-12 to higher education, to incorporate market-based strategies and techniques in order to produce human capital for the purposes of economic growth and efficiency. This restructuring of public education, under the direction of neoliberal logic, de-emphasized the justice and equity focus of the previous decades. Siegel-Hawley (2014) explained the two dominant policy eras in education since the Civil Rights movement and their distinctive views of the root causes of inequitable outcomes. One era perceives historical discrimination and intergenerational poverty as essential issues to address, while the other views these outcomes as resulting from low expectations of students, mismanaged bureaucracies and unions getting in the way of increasing improvement. The differences between these positions are not only in their views of the root causes of the issue, but in the proposed solutions to approach the issue. For example, NCLB sought to address the racial achievement gap through rigorous standardized testing requirements, promoting choice options like charter schools, and using punitive accountability approaches (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Ravitch, 2010). As a result, NAEP data did not show any

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

205

significant gap reduction (Sleeter, 2012) but what has been noted is that approaches used from the previous era did help to narrow the gap (Siegel-Hawley, 2014). Characteristic of neoliberal reform in education is that individualization, competition, and standardization steer achievement outcomes through accountability measures. The economic rationale undergirding this type of reform governs the regulation of practices that stratify educational systems to shape differential outcomes for marginalized students (Dover, 2009). These standardized and competitive processes are systemically coordinated efforts that threaten democratic collective principles.

Undermining Public Education Public education’s economically focused emphasis on individual advancement and producing human capital for a global market diminishes the significance of serving the collective social good or meeting the needs of communities (Lipman, 2011). The economic rationale and its associated outcomes in education preserve stratifying mechanisms that reinforce marginalization of oppressed groups. Neoliberal education reform has turned public education into a competitive marketplace where race and economic class inequalities have worsened (Au, 2016). Maintenance of inequality through standardized testing, school choice, competition, and other market-based techniques harshly shapes the educational opportunities for marginalized students (Scott, 2011). Public schools are more diverse by race and ethnicity than ever before. Though this is the current state, segregation in schools still remains high for Black and Latinx students (Heilig & Holme, 2013). Schools segregated by race also have high numbers of students in concentrated poverty, where Black and Latinx students are often the majority. Although current research speaks to the advantages and disadvantages for all students to attend schools that are not segregated by race and class (Mickelson, Bottia, & Lambert, 2013; Orfield, Frankenberg, & Garces, 2008), this is not consistently happening (Reardon, Grewal, Kalogrides, & Greenberg, 2012) and it contributes to the racial achievement gap. As discussed earlier, racial segregation in public schools was deemed unconstitutional, however it is still evident in public schools today. Currently the proposed solution to addressing the racial achievement gap is for all students to have the same curriculum and to be assessed using high-stakes standardized testing. The standard disciplinary processes of enterprise commonly recognized as promotions, performance bonuses, and the managerial tools used to affect desired outcomes have found their equivalents within education. However, those modalities adopted from corporate ideology, are aimed toward achieving a single outcome of increasing return on investment. But, the value of education cannot simply and singularly be measured by a single variable as return on investment. There are numerous consequences when educators are expected to teach for this purpose using linear and limited measures and evaluate students using high-stakes testing,

206

K. Ramlackhan

especially for low-income students and students of color. Au & Ferrare, (2015) explains that addressing racial equality efforts through high-stakes testing, is a guise of meritocracy, but are in place to discipline Black and Brown students and to establish a norm of surveillance and punishment. Thereby, perpetuating racial and economic inequalities by way of adhering to neoliberal economic education reforms. Culturally responsive and multicultural pedagogy and practices are being replaced by standardized curricula, assessment, and pedagogical techniques (Sleeter, 2012). Damaging to student academic learning of diverse populations of students is this one-size-fits-all approach to teaching and learning. As a result, teachers do not have the time to dedicate to creating lessons that students can connect with and instructing on content that engages them. Instead they are surveyed to ensure they are following the scripted standard curriculum at the necessary pace, so students can perform well on high-stake tests and teachers and schools can be incentivized. The imposition of standardized curricula, high-stakes testing, and competition on teachers and students in underserved communities, with a high population of low-income students and/or students of color, is detrimental to their educational outcomes. The audit culture is responsible for this stringent and impersonal approach to teaching and learning and regulates and scrutinize teachers’ behaviors and actions as well as determine legitimacy of schools, based on student achievement (Keddie, 2013). This creates uncertainty and anxiety for educators (Ball, 2003) because of the loss of autonomy and the pressure of performativity through monitoring and internalization. Neoliberal reforms affect low-income students and students of color disproportionately, marginalizes multicultural and civic education (Sleeter, 2012), and makes it problematic to recruit and retain teachers of color (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2012). Teachers of color are needed specifically for students of color, because they can yield more favorable academic results for students of color, than White teachers (Villegas & Irvine, 2010). These teachers also engage in culturally responsive practices and are more motivated and committed to working with students from nondominant cultural communities typically in underperforming urban schools with a large population of students of color (Achinstein, Ogawa, Sexton, & Freitas, 2010). The importance of this population of teachers to the teaching workforce, especially in diverse urban schools, is pertinent to emphasize because these schools are usually under the accountability microscope to improve academic achievement of students in attempt to address the racial academic performance gap between students from different cultural backgrounds and their White peers. Furthermore, Achinstein & Ogawa (2012) explained that teachers of color reported tensions when trying to use culturally responsive teaching practices with students of color. These tensions were as follows: (1) standardized test scores used for accountability purposes which did not work well with the students’ cultural knowledge (Whose knowledge counts?), (2) creating communities of learners versus following dictates of what students are supposed to learn at a standardized pace, and (3) having to leave students behind who could not keep up with the prescribed content under directed timeframes. Furthermore, the teachers had a fear of being monitored for compliance of mandated practices and internalized the connection between academic test performance and accountability pressures. These educators

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

207

were acutely aware of and understood whose knowledge they were teaching, and how this inequitable distribution of school knowledge shaped their teaching as well as the education of their students of color (Ylimaki, 2011). This is an example of the injustice of neoliberal education reform on marginalized students. Under this type of reform, the indelible concentration of standardized testing, strict funding mechanisms, de-professionalization of teachers, and views such as the value placed on quantitative measurable results (Apple, 2007), shape decisionmaking that can punitively impact students, teachers, and schools – especially underperforming ones serving students of color in poor communities. Thus, societal responsibility to the collective good is deeply compromised and this will continue to contribute to the increase in social and economic stratification in society, where social mobility for poor students of color will be limited, and protections for the dominant racial and class hierarchy will remain.

Using Social Justice Practices to Address Educational Inequity in Schools The neoliberal stronghold marginalizes social justice practices in education. Conflicting with equity-oriented reform, neoliberal educational reform encourages processes that exacerbate achievement and outcome disparities for marginalized populations. Educators, students, and parents have resisted this type of reform through social justice efforts by promoting teaching and learning for equity in their communities (Au, 2016). Many believe that standardized curricula and testing do not belong in public schools; instead curricular justice is needed which involves a focus on inclusivity, care and equitable outcomes in order to develop students who are critical thinkers (Giroux, 2003) and civically engaged. Though conceptualizations of social justice and applications in practice vary in the same way that myriad definitions of this concept exist, commonalities among them focus on inclusion, cultural values, collaboration, and equity. The following are selected examples of frameworks, principles and/or practices of social justice that can be used in educational contexts. Chubbuck (2010) provided a framework to clarify socially just teaching through an individual and structural lens. By way of intersecting teacher disposition, reflection and behavior, this author explicated upon how in-service and preservice teachers can use specific practices and methods in their classrooms. The use of methods such as culturally relevant pedagogy, instruction focused on different learning styles, effective communication with those who are culturally and linguistically different, and using constructivist and cooperative learning strategies, are emphasized for its importance in socially just teaching. Furthermore, understanding students as individuals is significant when it comes to selecting curriculum for them. Students need content that reflects their experiences; access to mastery of high-quality knowledge and skills, and the opportunity to engage with curriculum where they can construct understanding of oppressive systems. Or as Chubbuck (2010) states, a mirror, a tool kit, and a window. Socially just teachers advocate and are activists for their students, even beyond their classrooms. They critically analyze and challenge issues that are

208

K. Ramlackhan

contributory to inequitable schooling and learning experiences in relation to textbooks, curriculum, disciplinary practices, tracking, retention, and graduation practices. Socially just teachers are collaborative and supportive of each other as they attend to issues specific to their context within their environments. Tapper (2013) described core pillars of pedagogy for social justice education focused on the disparities in societal opportunities and outcomes for marginalized populations. There are five layering pillars that encompass this approach to social justice education. These include Freirean notions of social justice, an examination of individual and group identities, intersectionality, experiential education (e.g., field trips, guest speakers), and responsibility and empowerment. The process entails collaborative group work, content-based learning, and a commitment to equality. Dover (2009) explained a six-principle framework for teaching for social justice in K-12 classrooms that promotes social and educational equity and justice. The six principles of this framework are social justice education, culturally responsive education, multicultural education, critical pedagogy, and democratic education. Each of the principles have key contributions that provide some specificity of focus. Below is a list of the contributions for each of the principles: 1. Social justice education – theory of oppression, focus on content and process, systemic approach 2. Culturally responsive education – focus on culture, family engagement, teacher identity, constructivism 3. Multicultural education – multicultural content, focus on transformative reform 4. Critical pedagogy – education as political, education as liberation, co-creation of knowledge 5. Democratic education – participatory pedagogy, experiential education, individualized curricula Addressing educational inequity must entail a comprehensive and systemic approach. This framework allows for teachers to transform their teaching and practice to address the needs of all their students, especially within the confines of federal and state accountability mandates. Carlisle, Jackson, and George (2006) identified five Principles of Social Justice Education in Schools as part of a field-based study. Inclusion and Equity promote inclusion and equity with schools and communities by addressing forms of social oppression. High Expectations encourage a challenging learning environment that supports and have high expectations for all students. Reciprocal Community Relationships emphasizes the role of the school as a resource to the community. SystemWide Approach demonstrates a commitment to creating socially just environment through allocation of resources and through development of policies and procedures. Direct social justice education and intervention is where the school’s personnel (i.e., faculty, staff, administration) become advocates for social justice. These five principles of social justice education demonstrate the interconnected aspects required for this to be sustainable in schools.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

209

These previously described frameworks and/or practices for social justice in education seek to address inequities in schools in ways that are practical and nuanced due to variations in contextual factors that shape the learning experiences of marginalized students. Social justice efforts in schools and systems are multiple and do not focus on a singular method or approach to advancing equity-oriented outcomes for students. Key to addressing issues related to equity-focused education is utilizing culturally responsive pedagogy and multicultural approaches. With neoliberal education reform at the helm of education, it becomes problematic to use social justiceoriented approaches in education due to the duality in ideologies. Scripted curricula, deprofessionalization of teachers, and high-stakes testing have created barriers for creating learning experiences and outcomes that value students from marginalized groups. As a result, superficial attempts at culturally responsive pedagogy are used in current market-based accountability-driven educational reform. Sleeter (2012) explained that culturally responsive pedagogy has been marginalized in the current educational system for more standardized curriculum and pedagogy. She explained three reasons for the sidelining of culturally responsive pedagogy – faulty and simplistic conceptions of what it is, little research that connects it with achievement, and white fear of losing hegemony. Students marginalized by systemic inequalities would benefit from curricular justice (Giroux, 2003), not simplistic conceptions of culturally responsive pedagogy implemented to create an appearance of addressing issues of equity. Paris (2012) questioned the usage of the terms relevant and responsive with regard to cultural pedagogy in education to problematize if the associated practices and research are representative of the actions and stances needed for marginalized populations. To address maintenance of cultural practices and critical understandings in classrooms and communities, she describes using culturally sustaining pedagogy, which meaningfully values nondominant cultures via sustained efforts throughout schooling. Since school systems have been reshaped by a market agenda, perhaps culturally sustaining pedagogy would be a valiant effort to thwart the narrow and inequitable practices of a neoliberal reform.

Conclusion This chapter discussed how neoliberal ideology has shaped contemporary educational reform in the United States. This approach to education shapes the development and enaction of education policies and the implementation of processes that continually subject students and educators to policies and practices that undermine their value and creates substantial institutional and cultural change for the purposes of economic gain. These reforms influenced by the business and market-based approaches undermine social justice efforts because of its intense focus on efficiency and narrowly framed measurable outcomes and punitive accountability practices. Neoliberal ideology applied within education reform presents its methods as logical, verifiable, and quantifiable. However, the needs of education are far more

210

K. Ramlackhan

complicated and nuanced and cannot be limited and determined simply through highstakes testing. Quantifiable measures and formulaic methods can be easily manipulated and misleading despite sounding scientific and reasonable. Therefore, this type of reform, through its commodification of education and accountability, leads to widespread disparity and inequality for marginalized populations. Neoliberal educational policies shape classroom practices that reinforce the values and traditions of the dominant culture as well as exacerbate structural and systemic inequities that profoundly influence the educational experiences, outcomes, and trajectories of marginalized groups. Without careful consideration and regard to whether its methods are just, neoliberal education reform serves to widen the academic gap between marginalized populations and their White peers, effectively shifting away from the collective and public good. The opposition of the neoliberal ideology against the fundamental objective of social justice preserves the systemic and structural inequities that impact marginalized students (e.g., based on race, class, language, ability, and so forth). Thus, continuing the stratification of educational experience and achievement outcomes of the privileged. Needed are systemic and systematic social justice focused-efforts to address the complexities of teaching and learning in public education. Practices that value marginalized populations such as those described in the culturally responsive pedagogy research literature warrant its meaningful and sustainable utility in education reform. Otherwise, advantage for the privileged will continue to accumulate as disparities continue to widen and detrimentally shape the postsecondary outcomes of marginalized students.

References Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2012). New teachers of color and culturally responsive teaching in an era of educational accountability: Caught in a double bind. Journal of Educational Change, 13(1), 1–39. Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., Sexton, D., & Freitas, C. (2010). Retaining teachers of color: A pressing problem and a potential strategy for “hard-to-staff schools”. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 71–107. Allen, T. G., English, F. W., & Papa, R. (2014). A philosophical deconstruction of leadership and social justice associated with the high-stakes testing and accountability system. In A. H. Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), Educational leadership for ethics and social justice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Anderson, G. L., & Cohen, M. I. (2018). The new democratic professional in education: Confronting markets, metrics, and managerialism. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Apple, M. W. (2005). Audit cultures, commodification, and class and race strategies in education. Policy Futures in Education, 3(4), 379–399. Apple, M. (2007). Education, markets, and an audit culture. International Journal of Educational Policies, 1(1), 4–19. Au, W. (2011). Teaching under the New Taylorism: High-stakes testing and standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. Au, W. (2016a). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Education Policy, 30(1), 39–62.

8

Restricting Social Justice Practices in Public Education: The. . .

211

Au, W. (2016b). Social justice and resisting neoliberal education reform in the USA. Forum, 58(3), 315–324. Au, W., & Ferrare, J. J. (2015). Mapping corporate education reform: Politics and power in the neoliberal state. New York, NY: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 215. Ball, S. J. (2010). New voices, new knowledges and the new politics of education research: The gathering of a perfect storm? European Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 124–137. Berliner, D. C. (2009). MCLB (much curriculum left behind): A U.S. Calamity in the making. The Educational Forum, 73(4), 284–296. Carlisle, L. R., Jackson, B. W., & George, A. (2006). Principles of social justice education: The social justice education in schools project. Equity & Excellence in Education, 39, 55–64. Chubbuck, S. (2010). Individual and structural orientations in socially just teaching: Conceptualization, implementation, and collaborative effort. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 197–210. Connell, R. (2013). The neoliberal cascade and education: An essay on the market agenda and its consequences. Critical Studies in Education, 54(2), 99–112. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of “no child left behind”. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245–260. Denhardt, J. V., & Denhardt, R. B. (2011). The new public service: Serving, not steering. New York, NY: Routledge. Dover, A. G. (2009). Teaching for social justice and K–12 student outcomes: A conceptual framework and research review. Excellence & Equity in Education, 42(4), 506–524. Gamoran, A., & Fernandez, C. M. (2018). Do charter schools strengthen education in high-poverty urban districts. In I. C. Rotberg & J. L. Glazer (Eds.), Choosing Charters: Better schools or more segregation? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Giroux, H. A. (2003). Public pedagogy and the politics of resistance: Notes on a critical theory of educational struggle. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35(2), 5–16. Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, 22–44. Heilig, J., & Holme, J. (2013). Nearly 50 years post-Jim Crow: Persisting and expansive school segregation for African American, Latina/o, and ELL students in Texas. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 609–632. Hill, D. (2003). Global neo-liberalism, the deformation of education and resistance. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 1(1), 1–43. Keddie, A. (2013). Thriving amid the performative demands of the contemporary audit culture: A matter of school context. Journal of Education Policy, 28, 1–17. Klaf, S., & Kwan, M. P. (2010). The neoliberal straitjacket and public education in the United States: Understanding contemporary education reform and its urban implications. Urban Geography, 31(2), 194–210. Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. Lipman, P. (2011a). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the City. New York, NY: Routledge. Lipman, P. (2011b). Contesting the city: Neoliberal urbanism and the cultural politics of education reform in Chicago. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(2), 217–234. Love, B. J. (2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement gap” story. Equity and Excellence in Education, 37(3), 227–246. Lubienski, C. A., & Lubienski, S. T. (2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. Chicago, IL: University Chicago Press.

212

K. Ramlackhan

Maisuria, A. (2005). The turbulent times of creativity. Policy Futures in Education, 3(2), 141–152. Mickelson, R., Bottia, M., & Lambert, R. (2013). A meta-regression analysis of the effects of school and classroom composition on mathematics outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 83, 121–158. Mthethwa-Sommers, S. (2013). Pedagogical possibilities: Lessons from social justice educators. Journal of Transformative Education, 10(4), 219–235. Orfield, G., Frankenberg, E., & Garces, L. M. (2008). Statement of American social scientist of research on school desegregation to the U. S. supreme court in Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jeffereson County. The Urban Review, 40(1), 96–136. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Ravitch, C. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Reardon, S., Grewal, E., Kalogrides, D., & Greenberg, E. (2012). Brown faces: The end of court ordered school desegregation and the resegregation of American public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 876–904. Rotberg, I. C., & Glazer, J. L. (2018). Choosing charters: Better schools or more segregation. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Scott, T. (2011). A nation at risk to win the future: The state of public education in the US. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(1), 267–316. Siegel-Hawley, G. (2014). Bending toward justice? What public policy can tell us about leadership for social justice. In A. H. Normore & J. S. Brooks (Eds.), Educational leadership for ethics and social justice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562–584. Sloan, K. (2008). The expanding educational services sector: Neoliberalism and the corporatization of curriculum at the local level in the US. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40(5), 555–578. Suspitsyna, T. (2010). Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology of governmentality. Journal of Education Policy, 25(5), 567–586. Tabron, L. A., & Ramlackhan, K. (2019). Hypocrisy, state policy, and African American students with disabilities: The guise of access. Educational Policy, 33(1), 181–204. Tapper, A. J. H. (2013). A pedagogy of social justice education: Social identity theory, intersectionality, and empowerment. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(4), 411–445. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. Villegas, A. M., & Irvine, J. J. (2010). Diversifying the teaching workforce: An examination of major arguments. Urban Review, 42(3), 175–192. Wright, K. B., Shields, S. M., Black, K., Banerjee, M., & Waxman, H. C. (2018). Teacher perceptions of influence, autonomy, and satisfaction in the early race to the top era. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 26(62), 1. Ylimaki, R. (2011). Critical curriculum leadership: A framework for progressive education. New York, NY: Routledge. Zeichner, K. (2010). Competition, economic rationalization, increased surveillance and attacks on diversity: Neo-liberalism and the transformation of teacher education in the U.S. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1544–1552.

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach Stephen Newman

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Justice in Education in England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rethinking Social Justice in Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wittgenstein: An Epistemological Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Justice as an Essentially Contested Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

214 214 219 220 222 225 228

Abstract

There are many different notions of social justice in education. For example, some argue that social justice in education means giving individuals the opportunity to succeed; for others, it means seeking equality of outcome so that everyone does succeed. So great is the diversity of views that it has been suggested that the term has become meaningless or that it can mean anything people want it to mean. This has led some to argue that trying to define social justice in education is a hopeless task. This chapter argues that an approach informed by the later philosophy of Wittgenstein can be helpful in dealing with such issues. In particular, attention is focused on Wittgenstein’s epistemology and theory of meaning in the Philosophical Investigations. It is argued that these are helpful in understanding the multiplicity of meanings of the term social justice in education. This multiplicity however, it is argued, does not lead to a situation where the term can mean anything its users want it to mean. Nor does it lead to a situation where all attempts to define the term are ruled out, or where only one definition is acceptable, presumably to be imposed on all users of the term. Instead, the significance of contextual understanding and meaning in different language-games is highlighted. Wittgenstein’s theory of meaning is then S. Newman (*) Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_11

213

214

S. Newman

allied to Gallie’s notion of an essentially contested concept to advance the idea of engagement between those with different views and of the need to recontextualize rather than decontextualize the notion of social justice in education. Keywords

Wittgenstein · Education · Epistemology · Language-games · Philosophy

It is by no means obvious that someone interested in politics and society needs to concern himself [or herself] with philosophy; nor that, in particular, he [or she] has anything to learn from [. . . a] philosopher like Ludwig Wittgenstein, who never wrote about such topics at all. (Pitkin, 1972/1993, p. 1)

Introduction There are many different notions of ‘social justice’, as has been highlighted by Theoharis (2007) and others, and there is certainly no shortage of definitions and ideas about what social justice in education might mean. For example, in 2009, the Handbook of Social Justice in Education (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009a) contained chapters on such issues as race and ethnicity, gender and sexuality, youth and social justice, globalization, and classrooms and pedagogy. And the handbook within which this chapter is itself to be found covers a range of diverse topics. The notion of social justice in education stretches wide, with links made to ideas of inclusion, special needs, society, disabilities, religions, sexual orientation, human rights, compassion, employment, fulfilling societal roles, distribution of wealth, opportunities, and so on. So great is this diversity of meanings that, for some, the term ‘social justice’ has become a code for “good things no one needs to argue for, and no one dare be against” (Goldberg, 2014, 1:10). Goldberg argues that if one were to ask ten “liberals” what they mean by social justice, one would get ten different answers, ranging from equal access to education and to a right to housing, gay rights, women’s rights, universal healthcare, income equality, racial equality, child welfare, dignity, and fairness. Why is this? For Goldberg it is because “Social justice means anything its champions want it to mean” (Goldberg, 0:30). In turning to address social justice in education, it is pertinent to note that within the United Kingdom (UK), education is a devolved issue, and so henceforth this chapter will focus on the situation in England and, where the context differs, that will be made explicit.

Social Justice in Education in England In the United Kingdom, some notion of social justice has, at least outwardly, a high political profile (Lister, 2007, p. 113), although to what extent historical actions feed through into today’s contexts remains a matter of debate – see Blackburn and Marsh (1991, p. 507), for example. The notion of social justice that pervaded the English

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

215

school system from 1944 to the mid-1980s was, it has been argued, “broadly shaped by an ideology and set of languages, policies and practices which together made up what can loosely be categorised as a welfarist settlement” (Gewirtz, 2002, p. 1), where the mood at the time, after the ending of World War II, was one of social justice (Jones, 2016) and where the governments of the day wanted to use the 1944 Education Act to build “the new Jerusalem” (Blatchford, 2014, 22 April). Arguably, the move away from this agenda began in 1979 (Meredith, 1996) with the election of Margaret Thatcher as the British Prime Minister, and where the welfarist agenda changed to be “replaced by formal commitments to market ‘democracy’ and competitive individualism” (Gewirtz, 2002, p. 2) although, as shown below, this distinction between these views of social justice was highlighted much earlier by, for example, Gallie (1956, p. 187). In the English school system, this break from the welfarist perspective is perhaps more easily demarcated by the 1988 Education Reform Act, which was based on neoliberal policies (Jones, 2016). The child was no longer at the heart of education, but was replaced by the needs of industry and the economy (Weiner, 1997). However, the phrase ‘social justice’ is still used in political debates about education and, according to one report, is “the buzz phrase of education ministers” (Tickle, 2015, 3 Nov). In this context, the meaning of ‘social justice’ or, rather, “real social justice” (Department for Education & Morgan, 2015 (emphasis added)), is characterized by the commitment to “ensuring all pupils have access to a world class education [. . .] where everyone, regardless of their background, can achieve their high aspirations” (Department for Education & Morgan, 2015). Such a view is representative of the neoliberal approach that has come to dominate the political approach to social justice in education, both in England and elsewhere, other examples being Australia and New Zealand (Davies & Bansel, 2007), the United States (Apple, 2006), Brazil (Gandin, 2007), and India (Chopra, 2003). The domination of this approach has been criticized by some; from the perspective of New Zealand, the: long cherished promise of a better, more free and more just society through increasingly inclusive public education, albeit largely elusive, engaged educational imagination through much of the twentieth century. This vision, however, has been eroded of late with the rise of neo-liberal ideologies that now dominate the educational discourse the world over [...]. The attendant ascendency of standardized performance measures in schools, increased surveillance, control of curricula, and emphasis on efficiency, outcomes and skills in teacher education has profound effects on defining what counts as responsive or effective teaching, seriously undermining the educational responses to issues of equity and social justice. (Kaur, 2012, p. 485)

In this scenario, the notion of social justice in education has come to have a different meaning, one which focuses on individual effort and ability (Gandin, 2006; Pinto et al., 2012). Evidence of this in the context of the English state school system can be seen in three examples of speeches made by recent Secretaries of State for Education, in England. The first of these comes from Michael Gove who, when Secretary of State for Education, said:

216

S. Newman

And there are – thankfully – many state schools where children from poor backgrounds, who may have been dismissed as unacademic, perform brilliantly [. . .]. Why do these schools succeed, transforming poor children’s lives and life chances, for good? [. . .] Because they share a single common denominator – a single-minded focus on teaching. On recruiting the best candidates, giving them the best training and development; maximising the time children spend being instructed by passionate experts in the disciplines of rigorous thought. (Gove, 2013, online)

Here it can be seen in Gove’s remarks that “poor backgrounds” are considered to be no barrier to brilliant achievement. Social justice (here narrowly defined in terms of school performance) is to be achieved if individual schools, and individual teachers, focus single-mindedly on teaching and learning. The implication is clear; if this type of social justice is not achieved, it will have been the fault of individual schools and individual teachers who have “dismissed” these children as “unacademic.” A similar approach can be seen in the perspective of a subsequent Secretary of State for Education, Justine Greening, when she said: I grew up in a working class family, I was one of those working-class kids. There were two things I really believed in from the word go. One was a fundamental fairness in the link between effort and reward and wanting to understand that if I was willing to put that time in, put the persistence in, that I would be able to see some results for that. The other thing I believed in was a meritocracy. Because I think talent is spread evenly throughout our country, throughout our communities; and fundamentally our country would be better the more we can unlock all of that. When you put those things together, a strong link between effort and reward, a real meritocracy, then you have empowered people. And when you have empowered people you have an empowered country. And I think when you’ve got empowered people you have stronger productivity [. . .]. It’s a virtuous circle in the end. I happen to think, as well, that this isn’t just the smart thing to do. It’s not just about a business case for companies or for organisations. It is the right thing to do. A more socially mobile Britain will be a happier place. Communities will be stronger when we achieve that. I think we can change the internal plumbing of our country to make it more socially mobile. (Greening, 2017, online)

Here again, the emphasis is on the individual; the theme is ‘If I can do it, anyone can do it’. Here is the meritocratic view writ large: effort plus talent equals reward. Success is about empowering the individual. And success here is seen in economic terms – leading to greater productivity. It is a business case: an example of what Reay had referred to 5 years earlier in commenting that “the economic ends of education are transcendent” (Reay, 2012, p. 589). More recently, Greening’s successor as Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds said: All too often, the expectations for the results that would be achieved by young people from disadvantaged backgrounds were not high enough. There was a shift toward alternative qualifications, often targeted toward those people. But it turned out those qualifications were not as highly regarded and did not have the same worth in the jobs market and in society as the more traditional qualifications. And so that could unfortunately limit the possibilities that those young people would have [. . .].

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

217

There’s so much else for all of us to learn from one another, and so many challenges that we share in our different countries. For example, closing the attainment gap, spreading education opportunity ever wider to disadvantaged groups [. . .]. That you believe you can achieve, that you stick with the task at hand, that you understand the link there is between the effort you make now and the reward that may come in future – albeit distant and uncertain – and the resilience, the ability to bounce back from the knocks that inevitably life brings to all of us. (Hinds, 2018, online)

Here once more, the emphasis is on the individual. The blame for low achievement by children from disadvantaged backgrounds rests with those who had, supposedly, low expectations of them, presumably teachers and schools and, by implication, the individual children themselves if they did not “stick with the task at hand,” understand the link between effort and reward, or have sufficient resilience. Individuals need to show personal ambition for achieving social mobility and social justice (Allen, 2011). In this context, the call by the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in 2018 for teenagers to take on Saturday jobs to help them prepare for work (as reported by McCann, 2018) comes as no surprise, nor does the fact that the then Secretary of State gave as support for her argument her own experience of working in the family business and a bistro when she was still in education. For these sorts of reasons, Reay (2012) considers that ‘social justice’ is a concept that has a much ‘weaker’ meaning than hitherto was the case and that, when it does make an appearance, “social injustices in education and their remediation are seen to be the responsibility of the individual suffering the injustice rather than the collective responsibility of society” (Reay, 2012, p. 588). Where social injustices are recognized, in education and elsewhere, the ‘solutions’ are grounded in a neoliberal discourse, where “the solution for inequality is better inequality” (Littler, 2018, p. 100). The notion that there are strong and weak meanings is one that has been noted by others, for example, Banta (2016) and Gewirtz (1998). For Gewirtz, the ‘weak’ meaning of social justice emphasizes opportunities for individuals to succeed and social justice does not therefore need to lead to equality of outcome, whereas the ‘strong’ meaning seeks to ensure equality of outcome, and also that everyone does succeed (Gewirtz, 1998, p. 472). In current political discourse in England, therefore, far from the rise of the meritocracy being seen in its original sense, as a critique (Young, 2001), it has come to be regarded by some as a virtue, perhaps because: the commodification of education is linked to the emergence of an epistemological fallacy: it may help to create an illusion of equality whilst masking the persistence of old inequalities. By giving families greater responsibility for the type of education received by their children, negative outcomes can be attributed to poor choices on the part of the parents as customers. As a consequence, the state is able to relinquish some of its traditional responsibilities as the provider of an educational system based on social justice and underpinned by meritocratic principles. (Furlong & Cartmel, 2007, p. 24)

With the ‘strong’ version now largely marginalized from current political discourse in England (Reay, 2012, p. 588), the prevailing approach is one of personal choice, and the assumption that those individuals who have the requisite abilities and

218

S. Newman

skills, and who work hard, will succeed. Society is depicted as a meritocracy in which each individual has the power to determine his or her fate, and where such success is defined very largely in economic terms. Leite (2013, p. 1) has commented upon the “voracious power Neo-Liberalism has over all types of policy making and opportunistic advancement of certain political strategies”; the message is that citizens are expected above all to become ‘strivers’ (McRobbie, 2013, p. 120); merit results from “ability + effort” (Allen, 2011, p. 370). What are the implications of such a change? One might be that if this ‘weaker’, meritocratic, vision of social justice is accepted, or its imposition as the accepted doctrine goes unchallenged, then those who do not rise through the system are made to blame themselves for their perceived lack of effort or merit (Allen, 2011, p. 376). In terms of social justice in education, the meritocratic approach can allow the state to blame parents, children, and teachers for any failings. As a further example of this trend, a recently published document of indicators of the educational attainment of disadvantaged children focuses on the relationship of educational attainment to “workless households” (Department for Work and Pensions, 2018). Such a view, identified in relation to an earlier government paper on social justice, argues Lister, gives no explicit recognition of financial poverty, nor does it recognize that “two-thirds of children in poverty have a working parent” (Lister, 2017, p. 7). What the ‘weaker’ meritocratic view ignores, according to those who believe in a strong view of social justice, is that what is presented is merely an illusion of choice and that deep-seated inequalities are masked (Furlong & Cartmel, 2007, p. 14). Some of the effects of such inequalities have been reported by the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee who draw on evidence to argue that food insecurity, especially for children is “among the worst – if not the worst – in Europe” (House of Commons, 2019, p. 3). The National Education Union and the Child Poverty Action Group (NEU & CPAG, 2018) describe how many schools are now having to provide food, clothing, and emergency loans to poor families, subsidizing breakfast clubs, and enrichment activities, and that individual teachers, school leaders, and teaching assistants are: providing a range of essential items for their pupils and students, including food, books, stationery, PE kit, uniform, sanitary protection, personal hygiene products and transport costs. (NEU & CPAG, 2018)

As is to be expected, the argument put forward by advocates of the ‘weaker’ form of social justice, as expressed by the DfE in response to the NEU/CPAG research, is reported as follows: The Department for Education said it wanted to create a country where everyone could go as far as their talents could take them. (Richardson, 2018, online)

It thus seems fair to comment, as one writer has done, that there are many definitions of social justice in education, “ranging from teaching tolerance to advocating for transformation of oppressive structures” (Mthethwa-Sommers, 2014, p. 7). This diversity of meanings led another critic to suggest some years earlier that “the minute

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

219

one begins to define social justice, one runs into embarrassing intellectual difficulties” (Novak, 2000, online). This chapter will address this issue and suggest that there is a way out of such “embarrassing intellectual difficulties.” It will take as a guide the approach adopted by Gilroy in relation to lifelong learning (Gilroy, 2012) and apply that approach to the notion of social justice in education.

Rethinking Social Justice in Education Given the complexity of the meanings described above, one possible approach in considering the notion of social justice might be to set out to give a definition to which everyone could subscribe. Even here, it seems some qualification might be needed, however, for what might pass as an acceptable definition of social justice in education may not prove acceptable for defining social justice in another field. So even at this early stage of consideration, the task of finding a definition acceptable to all would seem daunting, if not impossible. Perhaps the best that could be hoped for is to be able to very specifically narrow down the uses of the term and confine its use to specific groups or to specific fields, such as education. If internally consistent and coherent, then this may seem a way forward. One such attempt can be seen in the Preface to the Handbook of Social Justice in Education (Ayers et al., 2009a), where the authors argue that social justice education rests on three pillars or principles of equity, activism, and social literacy and thus embraces the 3Rs of being relevant, rigorous, and revolutionary (Ayers, Quinn, & Stovall, 2009b, p. xiv). However, a further issue immediately becomes apparent, namely, that those terms themselves then require further elaboration. To take as one example the ‘principle of equity’, for these authors, equity involves: the principle of fairness, equal access to the most challenging and nourishing educational experiences, the demand that what the most privileged and enlightened are able to provide for their children must be the standard for what is made available to all children [. . . and] equitable outcomes, and somehow redressing historical and embedded injustices. (Ayers et al., 2009b, p. xiv)

This further elaboration, of course, then itself requires further elaboration in order to explicate the notions it lists, and so the definition runs the risk of falling into an infinite regress of explanations and definitions. Another example illustrates a related problem in coming to a definition. Fook (2014), after reviewing two definitions of social justice, concludes that social justice involves a particular set of social values, the translation of those values into particular objectives, and then the enacting of those values into particular policies (Fook, p. 161). This can be seen as an example of an approach which starts by setting out by describing how the term in question is used and then claims to identify common features which can then define the term under consideration.

220

S. Newman

Why is this a problem? It is a problem because any attempt to set out what the term ‘social justice’, or ‘social justice in education’, really means (see, for example, Dell’Angelo (2014)) or to define what is meant by “real social justice” (Department for Education & Morgan, 2015, emphasis added) is, as Gilroy has argued, to adopt a now discredited essentialist approach to meaning (Gilroy, 2012, p. 54). In addition, an approach which starts out as an apparently purely descriptive task then becomes a prescriptive one, defining how the term should be used, and outlawing (implicitly or explicitly) other meanings. If this is done, then alternative views can be dismissed as irrelevant, as Haidt and Graham (2007, pp. 110–112) have shown. An alternative approach would be to accept that the term has so many meanings that it is, effectively, meaningless (Gilroy, 2012, p. 53). However, as has been argued elsewhere (Newman, 2017, p. 80), such an approach is a “counsel of despair” and flies in the face of the fact that the phrase does have many different and interrelated meanings to different groups. Both extremes seem to give a situation where the term is either so narrow as to be meaningless outside of a very small specific context, or so broad as to be effectively meaningless. How can this difficulty be resolved? As Gilroy argued (Gilroy, 2012, p. 54), what is required is a theory of meaning which can account for the plurality of meanings already identified, without succumbing to the idea that social justice can mean “anything its champions want it to mean” (Goldberg, 2014, 0:30). What is needed, therefore, is an epistemology which recognizes the importance of social agreement and understanding in developing meaning. It is the contention here that one such epistemology capable of giving an insight into these aspects is that suggested by the later philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein: An Epistemological Approach Here a distinction needs to be drawn between work dating from different periods in Wittgenstein’s life. There is widespread agreement that his work can be thought of as representing his early and later philosophy, with some arguing that there is also a middle or transitional stage (Newman, 1999, p. 89). Attention here will focus on his later philosophy, and, in particular, aspects of his philosophy as represented by the Philosophical Investigations (Wittgenstein, 1967), henceforth PI. Due to the posthumous publication of much of Wittgenstein’s work, the traditional referencing conventions have, for in-text-references of his work, been replaced by PI representing Philosophical Investigations, which was first published in 1953, but written between 1945 and 1949. Paragraph numbers where appropriate are shown thus: §. It will be shown that the Wittgensteinian approach is not concerned with setting up a new theory, but with giving a perspicuous view of our use of language (PI, § 122, p. 49e). Therefore, in order to understand Wittgenstein’s epistemology, what is needed first is an understanding of his view of language and, in particular, his theory of meaning (McGinn, 1984, p. xi), as it is the contention here that any epistemology presupposes a theory of meaning.

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

221

One of the most well-known notions in Wittgenstein’s later philosophy is that of ‘language-games’, and the fact that it appears early in Philosophical Investigations is perhaps an indication that it is a key term in his later philosophy (Shawver, 2007). As Shawver argues, however, this term has several related meanings, and this is consistent with another example that Wittgenstein brings forward to help him make the point that words or phrases do not need to have one ‘essential’ or ‘objective’ meaning in order to have a use. So, using the term ‘games’, Wittgenstein remarks: Consider for example the proceedings that we call “games”. I mean board-games, cardgames, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don’t say: “There must be something common, or they would not be called ‘games’”—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don’t think, but look! (PI, § 66, p. 31e)

Instead, suggests Wittgenstein, when looking at different games, what is seen is “a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail” (PI, § 66, p. 32e). Wittgenstein continues: I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than “family resemblances”. (PI, § 67, p. 32e)

Wittgenstein gives some examples of language-games in the following: Giving orders and obeying them— Describing the appearance of an object, or giving its measurements— Constructing an object from a description (a drawing)— Reporting an event— Speculating about an event— Forming and testing a hypothesis— Presenting the results of an experiment in tables and diagrams— Making up a story; and reading it— Play-acting— Singing catches— Guessing riddles— Making a joke; telling it— Solving a problem in practical arithmetic— Translating from one language into another— Asking, thanking, cursing, greeting, praying. (PI, § 23, pp. 11e–12e)

These different language-games form a complicated network (just as ‘games’ do), some with close similarities, some less so. For Wittgenstein, “the term ‘language-game’ is meant to bring into prominence the fact that the speaking of language is part of an activity” (PI, § 23, p. 11e). It is the whole context which provides the ‘frame of reference’ for deciding on the meaning of any particular linguistic or nonlinguistic behavior (Gilroy, 2012, p. 55); language is part of a social whole, consisting of both verbal and nonverbal

222

S. Newman

behaviors in specific contexts, in particular times and places (PI, § 7, p. 5e; § 23, p. 11e). Here is a recognition that the meaning of the same words and actions in different language-games can be subtly different (and sometimes very different), summed up by the phrase from King Lear that Wittgenstein considered using as a theme for the Philosophical Investigations (Drury, 1981, p. 171): “I’ll teach you differences.” Within different language-games, there are different conventions or rules for the meanings of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Some of these rules will be explicit, others implicit. Some will be obvious, others less so. Sometimes these rules will just be used; sometimes they will need to be explained (Gilroy, 2012, p. 56). Meanings “are rule and criteria dependent in subtle and complex ways” (Gilroy, p. 56). This social dimension to meanings is in marked contrast not only to the notion that words have one ‘essential’, ‘objective’, or ‘central’ meaning but also to the notion that words could have meaning due to some private or introspective reference. The subtleties of Wittgenstein’s argument in rejecting such an idea have been detailed elsewhere (Newman, 1999, pp. 97–108) but, in short, the simple reason for rejecting the private approach to meaning is that if words have meaning by some sort of private reference, then whatever seems right is going to be right. Wittgenstein writes that: to think one is obeying a rule is not to obey a rule. Hence it is not possible to obey a rule ‘privately’: otherwise thinking one was obeying a rule would be the same thing as obeying it. (PI, § 202, p. 81e)

One consequence of this remark is that a so-called private language cannot be considered to be a language (Malcolm, 1987, pp. 41–43), as there will be no public check on the use or meaning of any term. Instead, for Wittgenstein, “‘obeying a rule’ is a practice” (PI, § 202, p. 81e), and: the solution to any difficulties concerning words and their meaning is not to “think” about them on some abstract plane, but rather to “recognise their workings” in the “rough ground” of human activity. (Moore, 2014, p. A-97)

It is to this ‘rough ground’ of ‘social justice in education’ that this chapter now returns.

Social Justice as an Essentially Contested Concept This chapter has shown that the term ‘social justice in education’ has many different meanings in the ‘rough ground’ of human activity and that some argue that the term has so many meanings that it is, effectively, meaningless. At this juncture, it seems timely to revisit an earlier discussion (Newman, 1999, pp. 184–187) of Gallie’s notion of essentially contested concepts (Gallie, 1956). Gallie (1956, p. 167) suggested that there are some terms, the meaning of which

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

223

may be contested, and that philosophers have traditionally tried to elucidate such meaning in one of three ways. The first of these is where a philosopher “might in some way discover, and persuade others that he had discovered, a meaning of the hitherto contested concept to which all could henceforward agree” (Gallie, p. 167). The second way would be for the philosopher to “propose a meaning for the contested term to which [. . .] the disputants might decide henceforth to conform” (Gallie, p. 167). The third way could be for the philosopher to “claim to prove or explain the necessity. . .of the contested character of the concept in question” (Gallie, p. 167). However, argued Gallie, “effective philosophical elucidations are likely to be of a much more complicated and elusive character than any of the above” (Gallie, 1956, pp. 167–168), and the idea of philosophy as being able to eliminate conceptual confusions has been repudiated (Gallie, p. 168). Nevertheless, argued Gallie, in regard to the third way mentioned above, there are some concepts related to organized or semiorganized human activities, the proper use of which are disputed (Gallie, p. 168). Gallie suggested that any such concept must be “appraisive in the sense that it signifies or accredits some kind of valued achievement” (Gallie, p. 171), “internally complex” (Gallie, p. 171), “initially variously describable,” and “open” in character (Gallie, p. 172), by which he meant of “a kind that admits of considerable modification in the light of changing circumstances” (Gallie, p. 172), and where each party recognizes that the term in question is disputed and “have at least some appreciation of the different criteria in the light of which the other parties claim to be applying the concept in question” (Gallie, p. 172). He also argues that any such term must derive from an acknowledged exemplar and that the continuous competition for acknowledgment as between the contestant users of the concept enables the original exemplar’s achievement to be sustained and/or developed in optimum fashion (Gallie, p. 180). As examples of such concepts, Gallie chose the concepts of Art, of Democracy, of Social Justice, and of adherence to or participation in a particular religion (Gallie, p. 180). Gallie argued that: when we examine the different uses of these terms and the characteristic arguments in which they figure we soon see that there is no one clearly definable general use of any of them which can be set up as the correct or standard use. (Gallie, 1956, p. 168)

Rather, he argued, terms such as ‘social justice’, of ‘work of art’, or ‘democracy’ have related uses and meanings, for different social groupings (Gallie, 1956, p. 168). In relation to social justice, Gallie argued that there appeared (at the time he was writing) to be two major popular uses – one where social justice consisted in “social arrangements [. . .] whereby the meritorious receives his [or her] commutative due” (Gallie, p. 187) and a second which: rests upon, in the sense of presupposing, the ideas (or ideals) of co-operation, to provide the necessities of a worthwhile human life, and of distribution of products to assure such a life to all who co-operate. (Gallie, 1956, p. 187)

224

S. Newman

These two descriptions, Gallie terms “liberal” and “socialist” respectively (Gallie, 1956, p. 187), and these today can be linked to the ‘neoliberal’ and ‘welfarist’ perspectives to which reference has already been made. The situation which Gallie described concerning the disputed use of a concept is just that which has been identified here in regard to the notion of social justice in education. Moreover, Gallie’s description of essentially contested concepts is a description which is consistent with the Wittgensteinian description of language and meaning that has here been outlined. There can be little doubt that the notion that social justice in education is appraisive. It has been shown too that the nature of that achievement is internally complex involving, as it does, the ability to explain, to justify, to offer reasons, to demonstrate, and to adapt to new circumstances. It has also been argued that what is to count as social justice in education is liable to be judged in the light of the particular circumstances prevailing in specific contexts; such a view is consistent with Gallie’s notion that the concept will be initially variously describable and that, prior to contextualization, there will be nothing absurd or contradictory in any one of a number of possible descriptions of social justice in education (Gallie, 1956, p. 172). As such, social justice in education meets Gallie’s fourth semiformal condition, namely, that it is ‘open’ in character, by which Gallie meant that the accredited achievement must be of a kind that admits of considerable modification in the light of changing circumstances, and such modification cannot be prescribed or predicted in advance (Gallie, p. 172). It has also been shown that, as Gallie argued, in the case of an essentially contested concept, those who use the term in question do so with at least some appreciation that their use of it is contested by some others, and with some recognition of the criteria which those other users are taking as pertinent to their use of the concept. This point Gallie summarized in terms of proposing that those who use an essentially contested concept do so with the appreciation that their use of it has to be argued for and defended against other uses. Applying Wittgenstein’s and Gallie’s ideas to the notion of social justice in education, here is an explanation for the many different meanings in the many varied contexts in which the term ‘social justice’ is used, including the contexts of education. It is not necessary to examine all actual and possible uses of the term (if, indeed, that was possible) to try to find a single overarching and all-encompassing definition. When thinking about social justice in education, it may initially be tempting to think that there must be something in common to all such uses which determines its ‘essential nature’. But if one looks rather than thinks (PI, § 66, p. 31e), it can be seen that there is no one concept or meaning of the term ‘social justice’, just as there is no one thing that is common to all of the things that are called ‘games’ (Malcolm, 1993, p. 42). Consequently: A philosophical theory about the meaning of [. . . the term ‘social justice’] – an attempt to give an analytic definition of the concept [. . .] is bound to be a non-starter. (Malcolm, 1993, p. 46)

But this does not mean that ‘social justice’ can mean anything to anybody. Rather it brings forward the notion of “different social realities” (Moore, 2014, p. A-96), and “the irregularity, the ‘raggedness’, that confronts us [. . .in the use of the phrase

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

225

‘social justice’ . . .] is how it actually is. There is no unity behind the irregularity” (Malcolm, 1993, p. 47). With the recognition that the meaning of such terms, and their uses, can differ in different language-games comes the insight that in order to understand the meanings of those terms, there is a need to examine closely their uses in the different language-games, recognizing that shared meanings are possible within particular social contexts and acknowledging that meanings may well be different in other social contexts (Gilroy & Wilcox, 1997, p. 30). Many of the arguments of one language-game may appear wrong or immoral to those in another language-game (Haidt & Graham, 2007, pp. 99–100). With this perspective, it can be seen that those attempts to define social justice in education which run the risk of falling into an infinite regress of explanations and definitions can be reinterpreted as attempts to describe the use or uses of the term in the specific social context or contexts under consideration, and the supposed regress is halted by those particular social contexts and the actual uses of terms.

Conclusion Thus, contrary to the position proposed in the quotation cited at the head of this chapter, Wittgenstein’s approach to meaning brings to the fore the wider notion of the social in understanding the meanings of ‘social justice in education’. The perspective outlined here recognizes the situation described by Armstrong, Armstrong, and Spandagou (2010) (there in relation to the term ‘inclusion’, and to which reference is made by Hornby (2015), but here in relation to the term ‘social justice in education’) that “the term [. . .] is used in so many different ways that it can mean different things to different people” (Hornby, p. 235) but rejects the implication that the term therefore means “all things to all people” (Hornby, p. 235), that same phrase being used in relation to social justice by Thrupp and Tomlinson (2005, p. 549). It also rejects the view that “unless [. . . a term] is clearly defined it becomes meaningless” (Hornby, 2015, pp. 235–236). What is required though is for the users of the term in any particular context to make clear their understandings of the term, not least to those new to that particular languagegame. In this context can be placed the call for teacher educators (in England as elsewhere) to “develop a new professional community notion related to social justice” (Turhan, 2010, p. 668) and for “teacher educators interested in social justice [. . .to] define the concept and come to a consensus about what social justice in teacher education means” (Banta, 2016, pp. iv–v). What are the implications of the above for social justice in education? First, with the recognition of the theory of meaning and view of language taken comes, argued Gallie, a recognition that other views with which one may not agree are not lunatic or insane (Gallie, 1956, p. 193), that different views can be held and defended by the parties with what each claims are “convincing arguments, evidence and other forms of justification” (Gallie, p. 168), and that what are to count as convincing arguments, evidence and other forms of justification may themselves be in dispute (Gallie, pp.

226

S. Newman

191–192). There is also a recognition, or at least a hope, that those holding such different views are not ‘trapped’ by them but can be persuaded to a greater or lesser extent by other views (Gallie, pp. 190–191); different groups will “have at least some appreciation of the different criteria in the light of which the other parties claim to be applying the concept in question” (Gallie, p. 172). For Gallie, therein lies a danger: So long as contestant uses of any essentially contested concept believe [. . .] that their own use of it is the only one that can command honest and informed approval, they are likely to persist in the hope that they will ultimately persuade and convert all their opponents by logical means. But once let this cat out of the bag—i.e. the essential contestedness of the concept in question—then this harmless if deluded hope may well be replaced by a ruthless decision to cut the cackle, to damn the heretics, and to exterminate the unwanted. (Gallie, 1956, pp. 193–194)

Just such a situation, it could be argued, has arisen with the notion of social justice in education where the prevailing neoliberal discourse has achieved the status of “an unquestionable orthodoxy that operates as if it were the objective truth” (Patrick, 2013, p. 149). As Burman puts it; in neoliberal societies, “overt prescription moves over time to become covert normalisation, such that those who do not fit the norms are rendered deficient or pathological” (Burman, 2012, p. 431). Moreover, as Slee puts it (writing about inclusive education, but making a point that applies equally well to the notion of social justice in education), “the absence of a language for inclusive education that stipulates its vocabulary and grammar increases the risk for political misappropriation” (Slee, 2001, p. 167). But, contra Reisch (2002, p. 343), it has been shown that there is no need to develop a single common meaning of the term in order to make progress. What is needed is a recognition of the “complexity and contestedness of achieving social justice in education” (Thrupp & Tomlinson, 2005, p. 549) and rather than dismiss alternative views as either utopian or dystopian (Thrupp & Tomlinson, 2005, p. 550), to engage with those in different languagegames. There is no reason to suppose that this is impossible, as has already been noted. What is involved is giving (as has already been suggested) some recognition of the criteria which those other users are taking as pertinent to their use of the concept and being aware of the terms common to different language games but which have different meanings and different uses, not least terms linked to social justice (Gewirtz, 2006). Some of these uses may be surprising, but this brings to mind again Drury’s observation to which reference was made earlier, namely, that Wittgenstein considered using a quotation from King Lear (‘I’ll teach you differences’) as a motto for the Philosophical Investigations (Drury, 1981, p.171), and of another phrase he considered for the same purpose: ‘You’d be surprised’. Of the latter, Malcolm writes: ‘You’d be surprised’ would indeed be a fitting motto for the Philosophical Investigations. That is exactly what happens when an unexpected difference comes to light. One is surprised [...]. Even more than by differences in the use of different words, we are surprised by differences in the way in which the same word is used in different contexts. (Malcolm, 1993, p. 44)

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

227

This might happen where, as Gandin puts it: Categories such as participation, democracy, collaboration, and solidarity, which are all historically connected with progressive social movements in education, are disarticulated from their previous meanings and rearticulated in the educational arena using the language and practices of marketization [. . .]. Those categories are now stripped from the meanings that linked them to specific struggles for justice and equality in society in general and in education in particular, and connected with categories like efficiency, productivity, and knowledge as commodity. (Gandin, 2006, p. 219)

If this is so, then those who want to reconnect them to other language-games need to articulate and persuade others of the importance of doing so. The writing of books and articles, for example, Cochran-Smith (2004), Gewirtz (1998, p. 469), Littler (2018), and Morgaine (2014); online articles, for example, Martin (2018); government publications; political speeches (such as those to which reference has been made in this chapter); and so on can all be seen as ways in which particular people and organizations make their understandings of the meaning of ‘social justice in education’ explicit to others. So too can research such as that by Gewirtz (2006) which gives voice to those often marginalized. Different views need to be acknowledged and engaged with (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p. 113). As familiarity with various language-games develops, the meanings of the actions and words in the different contexts become clearer. It can be seen that the rules of the languagegame of politics, of the media, of academic institutions, and so on may have some important similarities but also some important dissimilarities (Haidt & Graham, 2007, p. 108). From this perspective, that participants in different language-games have different views of what ‘social justice in education’ means comes as no surprise, nor does that fact that these differences inform critiques of, for example, teacher education for social justice, not only in England but elsewhere (CochranSmith, Barnatt, Lahann, Shakman, & Terrell, 2009). Heightened sensitivity to the contextual nature of meaning helps maintain vigilance for those occasions when changes in terminology do not reflect any significant changes in the underlying substantive content (Kaur, 2012, p. 485), and also to those occasions when the terminology stays the same, but the substantive content changes. This perspective helps explain the criticism that some uses of the term social justice and associated notions have become little more than ‘buzz words’ (Evans & Lunt, 2002, p. 3), and it is just these sorts of flexibilities that have been taken advantage of by some, not least by some politicians who, as has been shown already, often use terms which have an established meaning in one language-game in another, where they give them different meanings (Slee, 2001, p. 167). It thus seems inevitable that the notion of social justice in education will be a matter of debate and discussion, whereby the different criteria or rules of the different groups and language-games are advanced, asserted, and explicated in various ways, and where “each party continues to defend its case with what it claims to be convincing arguments, evidence and other forms of justification” (Gallie, 1956, p. 168). Some of those debates and discussions may “privilege those with the

228

S. Newman

requisite forms of economic, social and cultural capital” (Gewirtz, 2006, p. 77), and the arguments, evidence, and forms of justification of other parties may not hitherto have been given recognition. In addition, the complexities of these different contexts mean that recognizing these issues may not always be straightforward; Mahony and Hextall argued over 20 years ago in relation to what they considered to be issues of social justice: To talk in a decontextualised manner about ‘pupils’ [. . .] can make the activity of teaching appear deceptively simple. When we think of Angie who was sexually abused by her father, or Elavalagan who recently fled from Sri Lanka, or Sophie, ‘a middle-class boffin’ in a working-class school, then what it means to teach immediately becomes more complex. The same is true of teachers. They too act out of, are influenced by and in turn reconstitute or reshape social or political identities. Teaching involves relationships between people whose personal, social, economic, cultural and political identities and positionings are complex. (Mahony & Hextall, 1997, pp. 142–143)

Similarly: Social class is a relational concept in which working-class experiences do not make sense unless they are contextualised within the wider class hierarchy. (Reay, 2017, p. 131)

For these reasons, school improvement strategies too: must be based on subtle appreciations of context, taking into account local social, demographic and economic factors, the school market and the institutional history. (Lupton, 2005, p. 595)

This being so, issues of social justice in education need to be recontextualized, not decontextualized, this being one point among many in a recent response to the English government’s proposal to test pupils of reception age (children aged 4–5 years) to establish a baseline by which to measure their progress by the end of key stage 2 (children aged 11 years) (Goldstein, Moss, Sammons, Sinnott, & Stobart, 2018, pp. 16–18). An approach which attempts to decontextualize social justice can be seen as an attempt to impose a particular meaning of the term onto others, rather than recognizing other meanings as, at the very least, “of permanent potential critical value to one’s own use or interpretation of the concept in question” (Gallie, 1956, p. 193). This chapter represents one attempt to give just such recognition to different understandings of ‘social justice in education’.

References Allen, A. (2011). Michael Young’s The rise of the meritocracy: A philosophical critique. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(4), 367–382. Apple, M. W. (2006). Understanding and interrupting neoliberalism and neoconservatism in education. Pedagogies, 1(1), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15544818ped0101_4.

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

229

Armstrong, A. C., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2010). Inclusive education: International policy and practice. London, UK: Sage. Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2009a). Handbook of social justice in education. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Ayers, W., Quinn, T., & Stovall, D. (2009b). Preface. In W. Ayers, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), Handbook of social justice in education (pp. xiii–xixv). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Banta, P. (2016). An analysis of social justice in teacher education using W. B. Gallie’s Framework. PhD, University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=7260&context=etd. Blackburn, R. M., & Marsh, C. (1991). Education and social class: Revisiting the 1944 Education Act with fixed marginals. The British Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 507–536. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/591445. Blatchford, R. (2014). What is the legacy of the Education Act, 70 years on? The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/22/1944-education-act-but ler-policy-today Burman, E. (2012). Deconstructing neoliberal childhood: Towards a feminist antipsychological approach. Childhood, 19(4), 423–438. Chopra, R. (2003). Neoliberalism as doxa: Bourdieu’s theory of the state and the contemporary Indian discourse on globalization and liberalization. Cultural Studies, 17(3–5), 419–444. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0950238032000083881. Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Teacher education for social justice: A learning problem and a political problem. In M. Cochran-Smith (Ed.), Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education (pp. 1–23). New York, NY/London, UK: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., Barnatt, J., Lahann, R., Shakman, K., & Terrell, D. (2009). Teacher education for social justice: Critiquing the critiques. In W. Ayres, T. Quinn, & D. Stovall (Eds.), The handbook of social justice in education (pp. 625–639). New York, NY/Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis/Routledge. Davies, B., & Bansel, P. (2007). Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 20(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701281751. Dell’Angelo, T. (2014). Creating classrooms for social justice. Retrieved from https://www. edutopia.org/blog/creating-classrooms-for-social-justice-tabitha-dellangelo Department for Education, & Morgan, N. (2015). Free schools drive social justice: Nicky Morgan [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-schools-drivesocial-justice-nicky-morgan Department for Work and Pensions. (2018). Workless households and educational attainment statutory indicators. London: Department for Work and Pensions. Retrieved from https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/695092/worklesshouseholds-and-educational-attainment-statutory-indicators-print-version.pdf Drury, M. O’C. (1981). Conversations with Wittgenstein. In R. Rhees (Ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal recollections (pp. 112–189). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Evans, J., & Lunt, I. (2002). Inclusive education: Are there limits? European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856250110098980. Fook, J. (2014). Social justice and critical theory. In M. Reisch (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of social justice (pp. 160–172). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Furlong, A., & Cartmel, F. (2007). Young people and social change: New perspectives (2nd ed.). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Gallie, W. B. (1956). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198. Gandin, L. A. (2006). Creating real alternatives to neoliberal policies in education: The Citizen School project. In M. W. Apple & K. L. Buras (Eds.), The subaltern speak: Curriculum, power and educational struggles (pp. 217–242). New York, NY: Routledge. Gandin, L. A. (2007). The construction of the citizen school project as an alternative to neoliberal educational policies. Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), 179–193.

230

S. Newman

Gewirtz, S. (1998). Conceptualizing social justice in education: Mapping the territory. Journal of Education Policy, 13(4), 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0268093980130402. Gewirtz, S. (2002). The managerial school: Post-welfarism and social justice in education. London, UK/New York, NY: Routledge. Gewirtz, S. (2006). Towards a contextualized analysis of social justice in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 38(1), 69–81. Gilroy, P. (2012). Lifelong learning: A language game in search of its rules. In D. N. Aspin, J. D. Chapman, K. Evans, & R. Bagnall (Eds.), Second international handbook of lifelong learning. Part 1 (pp. 51–59). London, UK: Springer. Gilroy, P., & Wilcox, B. (1997). OFSTED, criteria and the nature of social understanding: A Wittgensteinian critique of the practice of educational judgement. British Journal of Educational Studies, 45(1), 22–38. Goldberg, J. (2014). What is social justice?: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= rtBvQj2k6xo Goldstein, H., Moss, G., Sammons, P., Sinnott, G., & Stobart, G. (2018). A baseline without basis: The validity and utility of the proposed reception baseline assessment in England. London, UK: British Educational Research Association. Gove, M. (2013). Michael Gove speaks about the importance of teaching. Retrieved from https:// www.gov.uk/government/speeches/michael-gove-speaks-about-the-importance-of-teaching Greening, J. (2017). Speech made by Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Education, at the Guildhall in London on 21 June 2017. UKPOL Political Speech Archive. Retrieved from http:// www.ukpol.co.uk/justine-greening-2017-speech-on-social-justice/ Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11211-007-0034-z. Hinds, D. (2018). Speech made by Damian Hinds, the Secretary of State for Education, at the Education World Forum on 22 January 2018. UKPOL Political Speech Archive. Retrieved from http://www.ukpol.co.uk/damian-hinds-2018-speech-at-education-world-forum/ Hornby, G. (2015). Inclusive special education: Development of a new theory for the education of children with special educational needs and disabilities. British Journal of Special Education, 42 (3), 234–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8578.12101. House of Commons. (2019). Sustainable development goals in the UK follow up: Hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity in the UK. London, UK: House of Commons. Jones, K. (2016). Education in Britain: 1944 to the present (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Kaur, B. (2012). Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.012. Leite, M. (2013). ‘(M)Othering: Feminist motherhood, neoliberal discourses and the “other”. Studies in the Maternal, 5(2), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.16995/sim.19. Lister, R. (2007). Social justice: Meanings and politics. Benefits, 15(2), 113–125. Lister, R. (2017). 25 years on: Reflections on social justice. Poverty, 157, 7–8. Littler, J. (2018). Against meritocracy: Culture, power and myths of mobility. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and school improvement: Improving the quality of schooling in the poorest neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 589–604. https://doi. org/10.1080/01411920500240759. Mahony, P., & Hextall, I. (1997). Sounds of silence: The social justice agenda of the Teacher Training Agency. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 7(2), 137–156. https://doi. org/10.1080/09620219700200010 . Malcolm, N. (1987). The function of language. Paper presented at the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britain Annual Conference, Froebel Institute College, Roehampton, UK. Malcolm, N. (1993). Wittgenstein: A religious point of view? London, UK: Routledge. Martin, D. (2018). North-south divide in schools is real – and it’s more complex than you think. Retrieved from https://theconversation.com/north-south-divide-in-schools-is-real-and-its-morecomplex-than-you-think-96055

9

Rethinking Social Justice in Education: An Epistemological Approach

231

McCann, K. (2018). Bring back Saturday jobs to get British youngsters working after Brexit, Esther McVey says. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/30/ bring-back-saturday-jobs-get-british-youngsters-working-brexit/ McGinn, C. (1984). Wittgenstein on meaning: An interpretation and evaluation (Vol. 1). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. McRobbie, A. (2013). Feminism, the family and the new “Mediated” maternalism. New Formations, 80 and 81, 119–137. https://doi.org/10.3898/newF.80/81.07.2013. Meredith, P. (1996). Comment: Farewell to the Education Act 1944. Education and the Law, 8(3), 189–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/0953996960080301. Moore, T. (2014). Wittgenstein, Williams and the terminologies of higher education: A case study of the term ‘critical’. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 8(1), A-95–A-108. Morgaine, K. (2014). Conceptualizing social justice in social work: Are social workers “Too Bogged Down in the Trees”? Journal of Social Justice, 4, 1–18. Mthethwa-Sommers, S. (2014). Narratives of social justice educators: Standing firm. London, UK: Springer. NEU, & CPAG (National Education Union and Child Poverty Action Group). (2018). Child poverty and education: A survey of the experiences of NEU members. London, UK: National Education Union and Child Poverty Action Group. Newman, S. (1999). Philosophy and teacher education: A reinterpretation of Donald A. Schön’s epistemology of reflective practice. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate. Newman, S. (2017). Language-games and quality improvement in healthcare in England. Open Medicine Journal, 4(Suppl-1, M7), 73–85. Novak, M. (2000). Defining social justice. First Things, 108, 11–13. Patrick, F. (2013). Neoliberalism, the knowledge economy, and the learner: Challenging the inevitability of the commodified self as an outcome of education. ISRN Education, 2013, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/108705. Pinto, L., Portelli, J. P., Rottmann, C., Pashby, K., Barrett, S. E., & Mujuwamariya, D. (2012). Social justice: The missing link in school administrators’ perspectives on teacher induction. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 129, 1–22. Pitkin, H. F. (1972/1993). Wittgenstein and justice: On the significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein for social and political thought. Berkeley, CA/Los Angeles/London, UK: University of California Press. (1993 Paperback Printing with new Preface). Reay, D. (2012). What would a socially just education system look like?: Saving the minnows from the pike. Journal of Education Policy, 27(5), 587–599. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02680939.2012.710015. Reay, D. (2017). Miseducation: Inequality, education and the working classes. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Reisch, M. (2002). Defining social justice in a socially unjust world. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 83(4), 343–354. Richardson, H. (2018). Child poverty: Pale and hungry pupils ‘fill pockets with school food’. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43611527 Shawver, L. (2007). On Wittgenstein’s concept of a language game. Retrieved from http://post moderntherapies.com/word.html Slee, R. (2001). Social justice and the changing directions in educational research: The case of inclusive education. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 5(2/3), 167–177. https://doi. org/10.1080/13603110010035832. Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. Thrupp, M., & Tomlinson, S. (2005). Introduction: Education policy, social justice and ‘complex hope’. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 449–556. Tickle, L. (2015). How can schools promote social justice? The Guardian. Retrieved from https:// www.theguardian.com/education/2015/nov/03/schools-promote-social-justice Turhan, M. (2010). Social justice perceptions of teacher candidates. Educational Research and Review, 5(11), 668–673.

232

S. Newman

Weiner, G. (1997). New era or old times: Class, gender and education. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of York. http://www. leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000357.htm Wittgenstein, L. (1967). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans., 3 ed.). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Young, M. (2001). Down with meritocracy: The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

10

Robin Shields and Kalyan Kumar Kameshwara

Contents Theoretical Perspectives on Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antecedents: The Social Contract, Utilitarianism, and Libertarianism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sen’s Idea of Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education, Skills, and Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Foundational Theories on Absolute and Positional Returns to Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Skills and Income Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Justice Perspectives on Skills in the Labor Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access to High-Skills Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Returns from High-Skills Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

235 235 236 237 239 239 240 241 242 243 245 245

Abstract

This chapter discusses how social justice is related to education in the labor market. While seldom considered in literature on education for social justice, the role of education in developing skills raises challenging questions. On the one hand, many understandings of fairness would permit an individual who has undertaken advanced levels of education and economically value skills to receive a premium in her salary for these efforts; on the other hand, the economic inequality that arises from this premium can undermine a just society, particularly when access to higher levels of education is restricted to those who can afford it. In this chapter, we review fundamental conceptualizations of both social justice R. Shields (*) School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK e-mail: [email protected] K. K. Kameshwara Department of Education, University of Bath, Bath, UK e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_122

233

234

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

and skills in the labor market. We identify two key questions that a socially just approach to skills must address, concerning the access to and returns from advanced education. We argue that Sen’s concept of capabilities offers a way to balance these considerations without exclusively focusing on equality of inputs (access) or outcomes (returns). The chapter thereby contributes to a more thorough and conceptually rigorous understanding of how education can promote a socially just society. Keywords

Social justice · Skills · Education · Labor market · Fairness · Capability approach

Amartya Sen begins his seminal book The Idea of Justice with a thought experiment, asking the reader “to decide which of three children – Anne, Bob and Carla – should get a flute” (Sen, 2009a, p. 13). Sen presents the arguments for each potential recipient as follows: • “Anne claims the flute on the ground that she is the only one of the three who knows how to play it” (p. 13) • Bob “defends his case for the flute on the grounds that he is the only one among the three who so poor he has no toys of his own” (p. 13) • Carla “points out that she has been working diligently for many months to make the flute with her own labor” (p. 13) Sen also tells the reader that the facts of the scenario are not disputed: the three children agree that Anne is the only flute player, that Bob has no toys to play with, and that Carla did, in fact, make the flute herself. Sen further points out that if each child’s case were considered independently, without knowledge of the other claims to the flute, they would likely be considered worthy of the flute. It is the rivalrous claims to a scarce good, a single flute, that makes the ethical dilemma particularly difficult. Sen’s hypothetical scenario of the flute can easily be transposed to the allocation of educational opportunity. Given a scarcity of high-quality educational opportunities (e.g., places in elite universities or resource-intensive technical education), what method of allocation is most just? Should these opportunities be offered to those who can best use them (i.e., those who can play the flute) or to individuals who have been underserved? To what extent should an individual’s (or their family’s) ability and willingness to pay money for these opportunities play a role in the allocation of opportunity? However, the question becomes even more complex when we consider the ends of educational opportunity, since we must also decide who will retain the benefits, and the advantages, of the education. Should the benefits such as increased productivity and in-demand skills, particularly the salary such skills command, be retained by those who hold higher levels of education, or should they be shared with those who did not have the opportunity to undertake such education in the first place?

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

235

In this chapter, we argue that the analysis of skills in the labor market from a social justice perspective has not received sufficient consideration in existing literature, and we analyze education and skills with respect to theories of social justice. In particular, we focus on the social justice philosophy of Amartya Sen and its implications for a “skills premium” in the labor market, the increases in employment options, and salary associated with skills. We begin by reviewing the conceptual underpinnings of social justice and then discuss different views of skills in the labor market. Our analysis then connects these two bodies of literature, by looking at the key questions that arise from an analysis of skills in the labor market from a social justice perspective, before we conclude the chapter.

Theoretical Perspectives on Social Justice The fair distribution of resources is an enduring concern of social philosophy. In a broad sense, we refer to “social justice” as a fairness in the distribution of goods within a society, rather than a particular definition of what is fair (i.e., a particular version of social justice). By “good” we include not only physical commodities (e. g., food and clothing) but also services and opportunities (e.g., education and healthcare), intangible goods (e.g., happiness and satisfaction), and even entitlements such as rights. Historically, there have been many different reasonings and views on the distribution of goods; and the particular philosophy to which one ascribes will yield different allocations of these goods. There are thus multiple competing philosophical standpoints on what a just society would look like.

Antecedents: The Social Contract, Utilitarianism, and Libertarianism In the discussion on social justice, one of the dominant strands of philosophical thought is social contract theory. A social contract is a hypothetical scenario where social relations are explained as a contract between different social agents, for example, between rulers and their subjects, or between citizens in a society. These social agents consent to a particular way of organizing the society, which includes the distribution of goods and services. The contract also requires individuals to agree to some restrictions: they must obey the laws of the society. However, in agreeing to these restrictions, they also gain protections and guarantees: their rights and the fair distribution of goods are guaranteed in the contract. The social contract has constituted a major paradigm in the social philosophy since the Enlightenment times (Wokler, 2009), and variations of contractarian philosophy have been proposed and discussed by influential thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant. If we approach the thought experiment of the flute from a social contract perspective, the reasoning would focus on the contract made by the members of the society, and the flute would be given to the individual according to rules upon which all three individuals agreed. However, this agreement could be influenced though by the

236

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

prevailing inequalities and power structures, possibly creating manufactured or information asymmetric consents. Utilitarianism is another dominant paradigm for analyzing the concept of justice in social philosophy. Rather using the notion of a social contract, it treats outcomes as the most vital component for arguing what constitutes justice. According to the utilitarian perspective, the distribution of goods should seek the greatest good for the greatest number. It therefore seeks an impartial assessment of all individuals needs and defines just actions as those which would result in “maximizing utility/ happiness” of the whole or maximizing the average “good” (Mill, 1861). However, increasing the average good could mean increasing inequality, a situation in which the rich become richer, while the poor gain nothing. Applying the utilitarian perspective to the thought experiment of the flute requires weighing the individual subjective happiness in owning the flute versus the sorrow in forgoing it for all the three individuals. Thus, the just distribution of the goods would be that choice which maximizes the average of happiness and minimizes the average sorrow of all parties involved. As a talented flute player, Anne might gain the most happiness from the flute and would most keenly feel its loss. Alternatively, as a child who has nothing, Bob might gain the most pleasure by gaining a single possession. The thought experiment therefore highlights drawbacks of the utilitarian perspective: the difficulty in measuring the benefits (or “utility”) of goods and the possibility that the “greatest good” could still mean that some people have nothing. Finally, libertarian philosophy is another important overarching perspective on justice in society. Libertarianism situates the self-ownership of the individual as an a priori premise, and, therefore, the individual’s liberties become the bedrock of its philosophical reasoning. It formulates its stance by extending this reasoning, based on self-ownership and individual liberty, to voluntary labor owned and performed by the self and thus returning to the self and its labor (Sandel, 2010). Nozick (1974) asserts that it would be in violation of principles of justice if the distribution of goods contradicts by any measure the right of ownership over one’s own labor and its returns, except in the contexts which involve a penalty for a historic injustice. Thus, libertarianism clearly prescribes that Carla would receive the flute. Taken together, the social contract, utilitarianism, and libertarianism constitute three distinct and competing perspectives on the arrangements that constitute social justice. They each represent longstanding philosophical traditions, strongly rooted in the Enlightenment tradition. We now look at two more recent perspectives on social justice that combine elements of these traditions, the work of John Rawls and Amartya Sen.

Rawls’ “Justice as Fairness” In his Theory of Justice, John Rawls (1971) developed the notion of “justice as fairness,” combining the concept of the social contract with utilitarian perspectives. Drawing upon the notion of a social contract, he argues that social justice would start from a distribution of primary goods that is equal and without any

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

237

discrimination, as if it were made from behind “a veil of ignorance.” This “veil” refers to the decisions about distributions that individuals would prefer if they did not know or consider about their own social situation (e.g., their income, social class, gender, race, and ethnicity). The distribution of goods resembles the type of world an unborn child might want, before knowing who its parents would be. Using this equal distribution as a starting point, Rawls argues that increases in inequalities in goods are tolerable, as long as the most disadvantaged members of society are still better off than they would be with the equal distribution decided under the “veil of ignorance” described above. This theory is premised on the social contract, as the reasoning which led to its principles is guided by a social contract that can be accepted by all (Sen, 2009a). Applying the concept of “justice as fairness” to the thought experiment of the flute requires considering how the flute, as a hypothetical good, would impact inequality. If the flute is given to Bob, it would reduce overall inequalities, as he currently has no toys at all. This would therefore be a fair solution. Alternatively, Anne might be allowed to own the flute on the condition that she used it to benefit the others, for example, by playing music for them or teaching them to play. Inequality would rise, as Bob would still have nothing, while Anne’s possessions would increase, but Bob and Carla would both be better off than they would have been, as they would have access to music and/or flute lessons. The positions on social justice discussed above deal with the fundamental questions of what should a society focus on to become more just and what is the right way to assess the justness of any society? Each theory does this in one of two distinct foci: the first is on inputs and opportunities, while the second is on outcomes. The first focus – on inputs and opportunities – is adopted in the social contract and egalitarian approaches. Both of these are concerned with the conditions under which social relations take place, and the rights entailed, but do not discuss the outcomes of these arrangements in great detail. In contrast, utilitarianism focuses on outcomes that improve overall happiness or well-being, but it pays little attention to the rights and opportunities that produced these outcomes. Rawls approach is notable in that it considers both inputs and outcomes, although it prioritizes inputs: he favors the largest possible set of individual liberties provided that they do not encroach upon the rights of others to enjoy the same, but he also considers inequality and distributive justice as an unavoidable consequence of these inputs. We now turn to the work of Amartya Sen, which examines justice by focusing on the translation of inputs and opportunities into outcomes through capabilities.

Sen’s Idea of Justice Amidst these contending philosophies, Sen’s (2009a) Idea of Justice acknowledges and values the plurality in reasoning about social justice and means of moving closer toward a just society. His work critiques and draws upon previous perspectives, and his idea of justice rests on a “comparative approach” that identifies current injustices, addresses them, and thereby improves the justness of the society. This approach stands

238

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

in contrast to transcendental (Rawlsian), arrangement-based (social contract), institutional approaches toward the distribution of goods, which focus more on ethical principles in absolute terms outside of any particular context. This comparative approach entails ranking different ways of social relations and organization (e.g., different educational policies) according to the degree of justness or unjustness they entail (Sen, 2006). Sen (2004, 2009a) also situates public reasoning or public deliberation at the heart of the process of moving toward a relatively more just society. Public action is treated as a crucial component in his theorization of justice. Sen also departs from previous thinkers on social justice in that he does not focus solely on equality of inputs and opportunities (as a social justice approach would) or outcomes (as a utilitarian approach would). Instead, in his work spanning several decades (Sen, 1985, 1990, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009b), he focuses on the processes and freedoms involved in translating inputs and opportunities into outcomes (Robeyns, 2008). In particular, he argues for an approach to justice that seeks to maximize and enhance the capabilities and freedoms of individuals. While the inputs and opportunities considered in a social contract approach and the outcomes maximized in utilitarianism have clear boundaries, the nature and essence of “capabilities” denote a boundless and an open-ended range of possibilities. The definition of capabilities therefore doesn’t seek to constrain the term, but rather acts as a form of empowerment to convert an opportunity into an output by enhancing the degrees of freedom and choice exercised by the agent. To illustrate this position, Sen (1992) uses the hypothetical case of a starving man who has food in opulence but chooses to starve for religious reasons and another case of a beggar, who also has no food but not by choice. In this scenario, injustice cannot be identified, or justice cannot be achieved by focusing on inputs and opportunities (i.e., food) alone nor on the outputs (i.e., starvation). Instead, Sen’s approach would focus on the freedom of the individual to fast and the conversion of that capability into a concrete course of action. Applied to the thought experiment of the flute, Sen’s approach would acknowledge that there may not be a perfectly just and impartial social arrangement for the possession of the flute (Sen, 2009a, p. 15). As Ingrid Robeyns (2018) notes: Sen has remained uncommitted to one single distributive rule, which probably can be explained by the fact that he is averse to building a well-defined theory of justice but rather prefers to investigate how real-life unjust situations can be turned into more just situations, even if perfect justice is unattainable. (p. 156)

Instead, Sen’s approach would focus on different capabilities that ownership of the flute enables. In fact, he does not directly answer the ethical dilemma of the flute, as for Sen the justice is not an absolute formula, but rather a transition from a less just to a more just society. Sen’s approach requires looking at the particularities of situation and on asking how that situation could made more just, rather than providing a prescription in an absolute frame of reference. In that spirit, we now turn to the particular question of education and skills in the labor market and then ask how it could be made more just.

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

239

Education, Skills, and Inequality In this section, we introduce several theories on education and skills in the labor market. In particular, these theories distinguish between absolute returns to education, tangible or measurable additional benefits that result from education, and positional returns, advantages to the individual relative to competitors in the job market that do not add any overall benefits to society or the economy. We then link these foundational theories to contemporary discussions around skills and economic inequality. In combination with the discussion of social justice above, this section provides a basis for our argument in the following section.

Foundational Theories on Absolute and Positional Returns to Education The concept of human capital, developed in the mid-twentieth century, provided the first in-depth, systematic analysis of the relationship between education and the labor market. According to economists such as Gary Becker (1964) and Jack Mincer (1958), investments of time and work in education would yield returns similar to other forms of investments. They showed how those that attained higher levels of education, measured in years of schooling or qualifications, would have higher lifetime earnings that would eventually exceed the costs and additional time invested in education. This conceptual analysis also changed the study of education itself, providing the foundation for a new body of interdisciplinary research on education, skills, and labor economics. While the study of skills economics offered new insights into the economic benefits of education, these advances arguably came at expense of a narrow conceptualization of education, one that highlighted its economic role but precluded consideration of its personal and social value, including its contribution to social justice. Following the foundational work of Becker and Mincer, subsequent researchers pointed out caveats and limitations to the concept of human capital. For example, Hirsch (1977) argued that the returns to education were both absolute and positional. Absolute returns refer to the overall economic benefits that result from education; however, positional returns describe the ways in which an individual gains an advantage over others in the labor market without adding anything of substantial value. If one thinks of the benefits of education as a pie, absolute returns refer to increases in the size of the whole pie, while positional returns increase the size of an individual’s slice of the pie. Thus, while some benefits of education increased the productive abilities of an individual and society as a whole, in other ways education was simply about gaining an advantage over others in the labor market. Around the same time, similar arguments were made through the related concepts of signaling, screening, and credentialism. Job market signaling refers to the role that education plays in informing employers about job applicants: even if education has no direct effect on an employee’s work, it can still be used by applicants as a sign of their overall commitment, discipline, and ability to achieve goals, which area all

240

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

qualities that employers are likely to want (Spence, 1973). Making a similar point, Joseph Stiglitz (1975) developed screening theory to describe how employers use educational achievement and qualifications to reduce uncertainty about job applicants. In the lack of other reliable information, employers may use education to reduce the risk of hiring lower-quality employees, even if the education itself contributes little to their job performance. Randall Collins’s (1979) theory of credentialism takes a more critical view of education, arguing that an increasing emphasis on formal educational qualifications will create a form of inflation to the extent that these qualifications may become worthless. Ronald Dore (1976) makes a similar argument with the concept of “diploma disease,” arguing that an outcome of increasing university graduates is that many university graduates will be unable to find employment commensurate with their education. Reviving the credentialist argument, Randall Collins (2002) warns of a “cycle of rising educational attainment and rising occupational requirements” that could eventually mean that “janitors need PhDs” (Collins, 2002, pp. 25–29). Theoretical developments that emphasize the positional nature of education (e.g., Collins, 1979; Spence, 1973) hold important implications for inequality and social justice. If an individual’s returns from education are matched by benefits to society as a whole, then education can be viewed as a social good. However, positional returns to education benefit only the individual but not society in general. Education then ceases to be a social good and becomes an individual or private good and also a powerful and effective way to reproduce social advantage and perpetuate economic inequality. Describing the cultural capital as a set of traits and behaviors that can be acquired through education, French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu argued “the transmission of cultural capital is no doubt the best hidden form of hereditary transmission of capital” (Bourdieu, 1986, p. 246). Thus, through investments in education, particularly highly elite forms of education, wealthy parents are able to pass their wealth onto their children. In contrast to wealth that is directly inherited, wealth acquired through education and skills is considered fair, legitimate, and even accomplishment of the children rather than the parents; this ideology holds even though education itself is more easily available to the wealthy (Bowles & Gintis, 1976). In contemporary research, the positional benefits of education remain an important theme. For example, in their book The Global Auction: The Broken Promises of Education, Jobs, and Income, Brown, Lauder, and Ashton (2010) argue that positional competition on a global scale will erode the availability of high-paying jobs in Europe and North America. They argue that low-income high-skills countries such as India will compete for the same set of jobs (i.e., positional competition) and as a result workers will have to underbid one another to in a global auction for their skills.

Skills and Income Inequality In a 2014 article in the journal Science, skills economist David Autor makes an insightful and provocative argument: he suggests that much of the rising levels of economic inequality can actually be explained by an increase in the economic returns

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

241

to skills in the labor market (Autor, 2014). He terms this return the “skills premium” and notes that “premium for education has risen across a large number of...countries in recent decades” (Autor, 2014, p. 843). Autor therefore downplays the positional view of education, particularly notions such as Collins’ credentialism and Dore’s “diploma disease,” as he does not view the amount of high-skilled jobs as fixed. Instead, he draws upon the notion of “skill-biased technical change” (Goldin & Katz, 2008), which argues that increasing technologization and automation of the workplace (e.g., through computers, robotics, etc.) reduce the demand for manual work but increase the demand for highly skilled labor over time, resulting in a continual upward trend in the skills profile of the labor force. Thus, education continues to hold absolute returns, although this does not preclude some positional benefits as well. Furthermore, Autor argues that the rising “earnings premium for education . . . contributes substantially to the net growth of earnings inequality,” highlighting “the productive role that inequality plays in a market economy,” which “needs some inequality to create incentives” for education and skills (Autor, 2014, pp. 843, 848). Thus, Autor argues that the “skills premium” and economic inequality are essentially two sides of the same coin. This argument highlights a contradiction in popular thinking on education: while it is commonly believed that education should be rewarded in the labor market through higher salaries, Rawls (1971) argues that just society is generally one with lower levels of economic inequality. In fact, a great deal of recent economic and sociological literature has highlighted the perils of rising inequalities. Thomas Piketty’s seminal book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014), describes how growing levels of inequality create what he terms “patrimonial capitalism” in which the wealthy focus on extracting value from workers and economic growth slows.

Social Justice Perspectives on Skills in the Labor Market Theories of social justice and literature on education, skills, and the labor market complement one another well. On the one hand, theories of social justice provide insight into the fair allocation of resources within society, while on the other hand, research on skills in the labor market identifies the complexity of educational resources, including access to education, returns from education, and the consequences of inequality. We argue here that the perspectives of social justice can be used to point toward fair and just allocations of both access to skills and the benefits of skills. The juxtaposition of theories of social justice and literature on skills in the labor market yields two key questions: • How should access to high-skills education be determined? • How should the returns from high-skills education be distributed? In this section, we look at how different theories of social justice would consider these questions, and we look to Sen’s work to provide grounded answers. Sen’s framework would propose assessing different possibilities of reasoning using a

242

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

comparative approach. The answer to these questions would therefore also acknowledge that there might not be a perfectly just or ideal way of allocating access to education, skills, and distribution of rewards, but it would nevertheless look for social arrangements that remove the most fundamental injustices and steer us into a path greater social justice (Robeyns, 2018).

Access to High-Skills Education Each of the perspectives on social justice described above would take a different position on deciding who would have access to high-skills education, for example, higher education. The libertarian would emphasize equality in the right to access higher education, whether or not individuals chose to or were even able to avail themselves of this right. Thus, it would not consider practical barriers to access, such as high tuition fees, or seek to redress existing inequalities through higher education, providing the admissions process was treated each individual consistently. The libertarian perspective would therefore yield both absolute and positional returns to education. The right to apply to higher education (provided one is admitted and can afford it) would likely lead individuals to acquire skills that would increase the value of their work. However, individuals would also seek higher levels of education to outcompete other candidates in the job market. As long as education enabled them to do so (i.e., until it Dore’s “diploma disease” became a reality), positional benefits could motivate a substantial share of enrollment in higher education. In contrast, the utilitarian perspective would seek to optimize the benefits of highskills education for society as a whole; it would therefore allocate opportunities to those who are most able to realize returns in the labor market, mostly likely highperforming and hardworking secondary school students. In addition, these returns would need to be absolute rather than positional; absolute returns would yield benefits to the society and economy as a whole, while positional returns would only place the individual at an advantage rather to others in the labor market. Therefore, the utilitarian approach would likely seek some coordination of the skills supply and the labor market, to avoid educating individuals beyond the point at which it contributed to the greater good. This coordination could curtail the liberties of some: a wealthy individual could not pay high fees to access university if it would benefit him or her without any wider benefits, which illustrates the key differences between the utilitarian and libertarian perspectives. Sen’s focus on capabilities is by nature between these inputs and outputs: it would look at the different functionings and alternative possibilities opened to individuals rather than prioritizing one or the other. Using the capabilities perspective, one sees that equal levels of education may yield different levels of capabilities. For example, a student from a poor and socially disadvantaged background, with parents who had not completed higher education, would likely experience a greater increase in possibilities and opportunities in her life after completing higher education than would a child from an affluent family, with well-

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

243

educated parents and access to elite social networks. Thus, although the input and output would be the same (i.e., higher education), the capabilities created would be substantially different. Using Sen’s approach would entail prioritizing neither inputs nor outputs, but rather balancing inputs and outputs in a way that maximizes capabilities (Robeyns, 2006). It is also important to keep in mind the comparative nature of Sen’s approach; it is therefore unlikely that this approach would yield absolute prescriptions for determining access, but rather it would ask how high-skills education could be made more just in particular contexts. In higher education systems with a libertarian approach (e.g., market-based education), this may involve ensuring that higher education is not used to perpetuate class advantage and supporting access for students who would like attend university but lack financial means. In countries that coordinate skills education to maximize social returns, this may involve ensuring that individual choice and agency still have some place in high-skills education. A related consideration is how investments in high-skills education should be balanced against basic levels of education. Is it socially just for some students to complete university if others cannot complete a more basic level of education (e.g., primary or secondary school)? While there is no easy answer to this question, it is likely that basic education and literacy provide a large increase in social participation and capabilities, probably more so than advanced technical education (Drèze & Sen, 1995; Saito, 2003). Thus, Sen’s approach would likely require balancing basic education against the development of high-skills education, although neither one would need to be prioritized exclusively.

Returns from High-Skills Education If Autor (2014) is correct that growing inequality is actually a sign of a “skills premium” in the labor market, should society be willing to accept higher levels of economic inequality of as an outcome of an increasingly high-skilled economy? To a libertarian, the right to property (including income) is considered natural and fundamental, and, therefore, the individual would have the right to all returns from their labor, even if this increased inequality. In contrast, a utilitarian perspective would permit increases in inequality as long as they served the greater good, including Autor’s (2014, p. 848) claim that “a market economy needs some inequality to create incentives” for investments in skills. However, Rawls’ concept of the “veil of ignorance” suggests higher levels of inequality would generally be incompatible with social justice, as individuals would want to limit their risk of relative poverty. Rawls would therefore only accept increases to inequality if they were accompanied by demonstrable benefits to the most marginalized members of society and also shown not to hamper their opportunities in the future. In considering the returns to high-skills education, Sen would also look at how increasing inequality would impact members of the social more generally. In this respect, his research points unambiguously to the conclusion that higher levels of inequality reduce capabilities, in his own words:

244

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

Table 1 Comparison of the application of different perspectives on social justice to issues arising from high-skills education Access to high-skills education Returns from highskills education

Libertarianism Restricted based on ability to pay and academic ability Highly unequal, all returns retained by the individual

Utilitarianism Selective based on academic ability in order to maximize utility to all Redistributed in such a way as to maximize benefit, combining individual incentive with social returns

Capabilities approach Balancing selectivity based on ability with access to the most disadvantaged Maximize capabilities by alleviating poverty and providing basic needs first

Relative deprivation in terms of incomes can yield absolute deprivation in terms of capabilities. Being relatively poor in a rich country can be a great capability handicap, even when one’s absolute income is high in terms of world standards. (Sen, 1999, p. 89)

Sen supports this argument by showing how relative deprivation (i.e., being part of a marginalized ethnic group or having a low income in an unequal society) results in outcomes such as lower life expectancy and lower levels of literacy. Thus, a capabilities approach would likely seek to spread the returns to high-skills education as widely as possible. It is important to note that implementing a socially just approach to skills therefore extends beyond the domain of educational policy, requiring considerations in taxation and social services. Nevertheless, some benefits to highly skilled labor are intrinsic to the labor itself: for example, research on university graduates in Europe shows that the largest determinant of job satisfaction is skills utilization: skilled employees are most satisfied when they are using their education (Lazetic, 2017). In fact, salary is only the third most important factor in job satisfaction, preceded by autonomy at work. It is therefore unavoidable, although not necessarily undesirable, that some benefits of skilled labor are retained by the individual. The different perspectives on social justice and high-skills education are summarized in Table 1. For both access to and returns from education, each perspective provides a unique prescription of what constitutes social justice. In considering both access to high-skills education and returns from skills in the labor market, the libertarian and utilitarian perspectives provide very clear prescriptions. However, they also contain clear limitations or could yield highly undesirable results in certain situations. In contrast, Sen’s views on social justice are ultimately more subtle, nuanced, and ultimately ambiguous. They involve considering capabilities as a discrete space between inputs and outcomes and considering all situations in a grounded contextual analysis rather than a general, abstract prescription. For practical purposes, Sen’s capabilities approach provides a framework to rank the different arrangements based on the unjustness (impairments of capabilities) to facilitate a collective choice. It is also likely that an analysis informed by Sen would also problematize delinking the questions of returns and access, instead using pluralistic reasoning from to take a holistic stance about how a given context could be made more just, rather than perfectly just.

10

Social Justice Perspectives on Education, Skills, and Economic Inequalities

245

Conclusion This chapter has discussed how education, skills, and the labor market can be considered from a social justice perspective. We began by discussing different philosophical perspectives on social justice; introducing the foundational concepts of the social contract, utilitarianism, and libertarianism; and tracing them to the more recent philosophies of Rawls and Sen. We then introduced different perspectives on education and skills in the labor market, making a clear distinction between the absolute and positional benefits of education. We also highlighted Autor’s (2014) recent work that highlights an unexpected and even uncomfortable connection between the returns to education and rising inequality. Our synthesis of these bodies of literature shows that different definitions of social justice will hold different implications for education, skills, and the labor market. While the abstract and even idealized concepts of libertarianism and utilitarianism present clear directives for policies on education and skills, in practice most approaches are hybrid in nature and use multiple mechanisms to balance concerns for equity and choice. This heterogeneous scenario presents a logical point for the application of Sen’s work, because he starts from a recognition of the pluralistic and competing definitions of social justice. However, Sen encourages us to constantly strive for a society that is more just, even if it is not one that is perfectly just. Taking this approach, our analysis suggests that an approach to education, skills, and the labor market that follows this philosophy would continually engage with a series of questions. Can high-skills education be accessed by those who would benefit from it? Can disadvantaged members of society access high-skills education? To what extent does the system allow for individual choice and agency? While there is no single formula that answers these questions, consideration of individuals capabilities – their opportunities and freedoms – provides a useful yardstick to measure progress toward a more socially just society.

References Autor, D. H. (2014). Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent”. Science, 344(6186), 843–851. Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York, NY: National Bureau of Economic Research. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood. Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. London, England/Henley, UK: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brown, P., Lauder, H., & Ashton, D. (2010). The global auction: The broken promises of education, jobs, and incomes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Collins, R. (1979). The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York, NY: Academic.

246

R. Shields and K. K. Kameshwara

Collins, R. (2002). Credential inflation and the future of universities. In S. Brint (Ed.), The future of the city of intellect: The changing American University (pp. 23–46). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Dore, R. P. (1976). The diploma disease: Education, qualification, and development. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (1995). India: Economic development and social opportunity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Goldin, C., & Katz, L. (2008). The race between education and technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hirsch, F. (1977). The social limits to growth. London, England: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Lazetic, P. (2017). The differences in job quality among higher education graduates in Europe: A cross-national analysis of 17 countries (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Bath. Mill, J. S. (1861). 1969. Utilitarianism. Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, 10, 203–259. Mincer, J. (1958). Investment in human capital and personal income distribution. Journal of Political Economy, 66(4), 281–302. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, Utopia and the state. New York, NY: Basic Book. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education rights, capabilities and human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878506060683 Robeyns, I. (2008). Justice as fairness and the capability approach. In K. Basu & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Arguments for a better world: Essays in honor of Amartya Sen (Vol. II, pp. 397–413). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199239 115.003.0022 Robeyns, I. (2018). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of the Philosophy of Education, 37, 17–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.3701002 Sandel, M. J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? London, England: Penguin Books. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and wellbeing. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 30–53). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/0198287976.003.0003 Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York, NY: Knopf. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1354570042000315163 Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649880500120491 Sen, A. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2006103517 Sen, A. (2008). The economics of happiness and capability. In L. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and happiness (pp. 16–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sen, A. (2009a). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sen, A. (2009b). Capability: Reach and limit. In Debating global society: Reach and limits of the capability approach (pp. 15–28). Milan, Italy: Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. Stiglitz, J. (1975). The theory of “screening,” education, and the distribution of income. The American Economic Review, 65(3), 283–300. Wokler, R. (2009). Social contract. In A. Kuper & J. Kuper (Eds.), The social science encyclopedia (3rd ed.). London, England: Routledge.

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

11

Dominique Groux

Contents School: A Key Player in Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Access to Complete and Universal Knowledge: Myth or Reality? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Intellectual Curiosity and the Thirst for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . School and Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Pleasure of Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ensuring the Child Is Happy at School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Comparative Education Can Tell Us About Learning to Live with Others . . . . . . . . . Learning Foreign Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education Without Borders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is at Stake in Educational Exchanges? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing Educational Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Training Teachers in Comparative Education, in the Service of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning for Educational Exchanges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Learning for Understanding the Other and Learning for Pluricultural Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Concept of Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Approaches to the Literature of Other Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Developing the Ethical Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

249 250 251 251 252 253 255 255 257 257 258 258 259 260 260 261 262 263 264

This chapter is an extended and updated version of work published in Matheson, D (ed.) (2014) An Introduction to the Study of Education. London and New York: Routledge. Used with the kind permission of Routledge. D. Groux (*) Université des Antilles, Schoelcher, Martinique, France University of the French West Indies, Schoelcher, Martinique, France e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_144

247

248

D. Groux

Abstract

Through their contact with education, everyone, from their most tender years, progressively forges a multi-stranded identity, developing a web of identities and thereby becoming pluricultural with pluricultural skills. It is in school that much early learning takes place and where children learn to think critically and develop their intellectual curiosity and a thirst for learning, key elements for lifelong purposeful learning. While universal knowledge may be beyond any of us, it nonetheless seems clear that teachers have as their central mission helping children develop from the outset intellectual curiosity and a thirst for knowledge. Teachers need to lead the learner to discover the joy of culture which should be within the grasp of everyone, and not just those who inherit the cultural capital from their families, which allows them make culture their own and hence to live comfortably with it. This requires a consideration of what constitutes worthwhile knowledge and how to impart this in a manner which instills and enhances a thirst for such knowledge. It is tautological that reading allows access to knowledge. This means that the child who happily reads has more chance of accessing knowledge and of developing their general culture than has one who reads reluctantly. And it is at school where one acquires – or not – the taste for reading. School has a role to play in developing the child’s understanding of the world and of the Other, whoever that they be, and lessons in this regard can be drawn from comparative education and include learning other languages, taking part in cross-national exchanges, and so on. However, teachers need appropriate training in dealing with cultural diversity in an inclusive manner so as to be able to use these lessons both within their classes and in taking part in exchanges. Exchanges allow for a de-centering and for seeing how other places do what is ostensibly the same thing, at least in broad curricular terms. School can only be a part of the lifelong development of the individual if teachers are properly educated to reflect on the mobility of persons to facilitate exchanges and the struggle against ethnocentrism, to lead to an acceptance of perceived difference as an asset and develop solidarity between pupils. It demands reflection on foreign literature/s and an interest in developing cultural and intercultural knowledge and familiarity in order to refuse to succumb to dogmatism and to establish a basis for critical thinking. It puts in place a capacity to reflect on education’s problem and to do so from a comparative perspective. It allows learners to appreciate the richness and diversity of expression in their native lexicon and to use the confidence of expression thus established to grow into confident users of other, perhaps more dominant, lexicons. From this can be put in place a school actively encouraging of intellectual curiosity, engendering knowledge which is global, cultural, and intercultural while developing critical and ethical thinking. Keywords

Happiness · School · Comparative education · Reading · Teacher training · Worthwhile knowledge · Identity · Lifelong learning · Universal knowledge · The

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

249

“Other” · Learning · Knowledge · Intellectual curiosity · Educational priority zones · Rabelais · Epictetus · PISA · Respect for others · Educational exchanges · Learning foreign languages · Cultural capital · Social capital · Bilingual school · Habitus · De-centering · Culture · Literature · Exile literature · Ethics · Philosophy for children The object of education is not perfection in the accomplishments of the school, but fitness for life; not the acquirement of habits of blind obedience and of prescribed diligence, but a preparation for interdependent action. Johannes Pestalozzi (1830) On the Education of Infancy

Learning may be defined as a laying down of concentric and intertwining ideas and identities. The child, who is already the result of the mixing of their parents’ genes, develops only by admixtures. All teaching and learning see the child reconceived and reborn: born left-handed one learns to use the right, remains left-handed, or is reborn right-handed. One is born to a local identity but learns a national one. If one travels, one assumes more identities, more cultures. One takes on the culture and language of one’s significant other. The circles of identity and culture subdivide and mix and become like a patchwork of intertwining and overlapping segments (Serres, 1991, pp. 86–87). All learning, whether in school or otherwise, transforms the individual and adds to their patchwork of culture and identity. In discussing how an individual moves across cultures, Serres (1991) uses the term renaissance or rebirth to describe how individuals are transformed by being subject to multiple cultural influences and by learning how to live with otherness and diversity. This means that through their contact with education, every person, from their most tender years, progressively forges a multi-stranded identity, in effect a web of identities, by which she/he becomes pluricultural and acquires pluricultural skills. One’s identity becomes a patchwork with multiple affiliations perfectly integrated and inseparable. These constitute the person’s identity. A subsequent phase in education would certainly consist in recognizing in oneself the diverse components of one’s identity and in recognizing how human nature is founded on diversity. In order to be in a position to help a learner carry out this analysis, the teacher needs to have done it for himself/herself. In a manner akin to the psychotherapeutic counselor who is in therapy in order to understand themselves – in this instance, the therapy sometimes termed supervision (BACP, 2018, §§60–73) – only after having understood and accepted one’s own internal diversity can one really accept the diversity of the other, the otherness of the other, so to speak.

School: A Key Player in Development It is a well-worn saw to say that school is an essential player in development. It is in school that the early learning takes place, and it is in school that children learn to think and begin to do so critically. It is in school that children develop their

250

D. Groux

intellectual curiosity and their thirst for learning, key elements which if acquired will permit the individual to engage in lifelong learning. It is also at school where the child begins to develop the four basic skills described by Jacques Delors et al. as (1996) “learning to know, learning to do, learning to be, learning to live together” (p37). It is school which lays the basis for the individual’s future development, for what might be termed their lifelong education. It is in this sense that the concept of development is used in the course of this chapter. It is the development of the individual that will be examined and how comparative education can help in this lifelong development.

Access to Complete and Universal Knowledge: Myth or Reality? Since the dawn of time, people have dreamed of acquiring complete and universal knowledge. This even found its way into one of the earliest European satirical novels, Rabelais’ sixteenth-century series Five Books of the Lives, Heroic Deeds and Sayings of Gargantua and His Son Pantagruel (Rabelais, 1532/2014) where the father [the giant Gargantua] writes to his son [the giant Pantagruel] to set him the goal that he must learn all that there is to know, a task which may have appeared quite possible, if somewhat challenging, in the sixteenth century: I intend, and will have it so, that thou learn the languages perfectly; first of all, the Greek, as Quintilian will have it; secondly, the Latin; and then the Hebrew, for the Holy Scripture’s sake; and then the Chaldee and Arabic likewise. . . Let there be no history which thou shalt not have ready in thy memory. . . Of the liberal arts of geometry, arithmetic, and music, I gave thee some taste when thou wert yet little, and not above five or six years old. Proceed further in them and learn the remainder if thou canst. As for astronomy, study all the rules thereof. . . As for the civil law, of that I would have thee to know the texts by heart, and then to confer them with philosophy. Now, in matter of the knowledge of the works of nature, I would have thee to study that exactly, and that so there be no sea, river, nor fountain, of which thou dost not know the fishes; all the fowls of the air; all the several kinds of shrubs and trees, whether in forests or orchards; all the sorts of herbs and flowers that grow upon the ground; all the various metals that are hid within the bowels of the earth; together with all the diversity of precious stones that are to be seen in the orient and south parts of the world. Let nothing of all these be hidden from thee. Then fail not most carefully to peruse the books of the Greek, Arabian, and Latin physicians, not despising the Talmudists and Cabalists; and by frequent anatomies get thee the perfect knowledge of the other world, called the microcosm, which is man. (loc 4598–4111)

And all this while following a moral education since, as Rabelais tells us, “knowledge without conscience is but the ruin of the soul” (loc 4615). Rabelais’ somewhat ambitious program for the acquisition of knowledge sits very far from the objectives given nowadays to schools for the very good reason that we can no longer envisage mastering the totality of knowledge and for the fact that Rabelais aimed his program at the aristocracy of whom he wrote:

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

251

In all their rule and strictest tie of their order there was but this one clause to be observed DO WHAT THOU WILT because men that are free, well-born, well-bred, and conversant in honest companies, have naturally an instinct and spur that prompteth them unto virtuous actions, and withdraws them from vice, which is called honour. (Rabelais, 1532/2014: loc 3854–3857)

Universal knowledge may be beyond any of us, but, nonetheless, it seems beyond argument that teachers have as their central mission to help children develop from the outset intellectual curiosity and a thirst for knowledge.

Developing Intellectual Curiosity and the Thirst for Learning If teachers are to help children develop this curiosity and this thirst, then it follows that they need to lead the learner to discover the joy of culture which ought to be within the grasp of everyone and not just those who inherit the cultural capital from their families which allows them make culture their own and hence to live comfortably with it. This requires a consideration of what constitutes worthwhile knowledge.

School and Knowledge What counts as worthwhile knowledge? Is it fixed or does this change with the times? This is a legitimate question to pose in this chapter as we try to establish the correlation, if any, between school and development. Numerous polemics accuse school teaching in France today of seriously lowering the demands made on pupils and of neglecting the transmission of the canon of knowledge, and this, they say, is most true of children from the working class. They seem to predict the school of tomorrow as one devoid of knowledge. A major challenge to this perspective came in a study conducted in 1983 and which studied 300 educational priority zones [EPZ] in France, 2 years after these came into existence. 80% of respondents reported that they prioritized classical methods of transmitting knowledge, rather than more facilitative approaches. This study is clearly somewhat dated, and it would be hard to believe that the demands put on children are the same in the EPZ as in the primary and secondary schools frequented by the middle classes. School may continue to be recognizable as school and to act to ensure the transmission of knowledge, but it nonetheless varies according to the public concerned (Garrouste & Prost, 2015). This said, disquiet over teachers deemed too lax in the demands they make on their pupils is nothing new. In 1899, for example, there was much debate over the unequal standing of different subjects. Some commentators leaned toward the sciences and other toward classical languages – Latin and Greek – and both argued

252

D. Groux

that their stance was the hallmark of a modern education. In the 1930s, the argument was over the opening of the curriculum to the modern world with its rapid scientific and technical developments and whether as a result there should be more emphasis on science and technology and consequently less on classics, humanities, aesthetics, and general culture. At this point, let us leave the question of worthwhile knowledge but not without mentioning the pleasure, and indeed happiness, to be had in acquiring such knowledge, but in order to do so, one needs to have well-developed reading skills, and this serves to underline the central importance in the primary school of the acquisition of sound reading skills.

The Pleasure of Reading It is tautological that reading allows one to access knowledge. It is at school that one learns to read, and it is at school that one acquires – or not – the taste for reading. This means that the child who is happy to read has more chance of accessing knowledge and of developing their general culture than has the child who reads reluctantly. While there are certainly other ways of accessing knowledge, be this by radio, TV, or Internet or by traveling and other kinds of cultural exchanges, reading is one of the means of acquiring knowledge which allows a systematic, rigorous, measured, and profound entry into the world of knowledge. Books discovered in childhood help forge one’s identity and often leave a lasting impression. Porcher (1994) writes that: I am always amazed that, when biographers are recreating a person’s intellectual (and also emotional) journey, they don’t pay more attention the first books their subject read, the ones from their childhood, as these constitute the very ground in which their individual cultural capital takes root and grows. (p9)

And when one has been able to develop with books a passionate relationship, they accompany us throughout our lives. A taste for reading lands on you and, like the hand of God, pins you to the wall. There is no escape, short of losing your soul. . . The book or the reader, none can say which one holds the other. Suffice to say that they are inseparable to the end. (Porcher, 1994, p. 13)

From this, it follows that the teacher of the first years in primary school has the duty to take the greatest care to allow the child to enter the world of the book with curiosity, passion, and enthusiasm. The book needs to become for the child the means of discovering the joy of learning. School holds out to the child knowledge which is simple and knowledge which is complex. And in the best of circumstances, thanks to the intellectual curiosity which has been regularly stoked in the class, thanks to the pleasure being had from reading, thanks to the feeling of well-being the child experiences in the class, children move with pleasure into diverse realms of knowledge.

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

253

Ensuring the Child Is Happy at School Happiness is, after all, such an indispensable part of life that one easily forgets to speak of it. It is necessary in life but also, and especially, in school. Until one reaches the end of compulsory schooling (at age 16 in most industrialized countries), one spends many thousands of hours at school. Indeed, Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, Ouston, and Smith (1982) put the figure at over 15,000 h in their eponymous text. It would clearly be better to spend these hours in happiness and even joy than in rejection, refusal, or failure. In what kind of school can one be happy to learn? In paraphrasing Verlaine, we could write: “I often have a strange and haunting dream of a school such as I have never known, which I love and which loves me.” Is the idea of happiness at school an illusion or a dream? Is it simply utopian? Why cannot one be happy to learn in a school built with one in mind, adapted to our needs, and careful to sustain our motivation in our incessant quest for knowledge? Finally, in what kind of school can one be happy in going toward others? Humans are social animals and cannot be happy alone. In the microcosm which is the school, as in life itself, it needs to be borne in mind the essential Otherness, the indispensable opening toward the other which one acquires through education. Happiness attains depth and intensity when one person takes account of the Other, whether this be the classmate or those outside the school. The challenge is therefore to find happiness in one’s contact with others, to have the school open to the world, and to share with the Other not just in terms of knowledge but also globally, to get in touch with their being, and to share their humanity. For the child to develop intellectually and humanely, she/he needs to be happy in class, happy with the teachers, and happy with his/her classmates. This state of mind has every chance of leading the child to knowledge and understanding. Undoubtedly subjective, this trinity is the product of my experience, but perhaps a consensus can be reached around the importance for the child of three notions: happiness, knowledge, and respect for others – happiness through knowledge and by encountering other people. The mission of school could be to achieve this triple objective and hence to put in place the means of achieving it. However, before turning to consider the possible means for achieving this goal, let us examine the question of consensus around the triple proposal of happiness, knowledge, and respect for others. A good way to start is by turning to Epictetus, a Stoic thinker of the first century CE, who tells us that detachment is the knowledge which is essential that the school transmit (Epictetus, ca.108 CE/1877). This is not an indifference but rather an acceptance that there are things we can change and things we cannot. By disengaging emotionality then we can come to tell these apart. Each of us needs to first all distinguish between those things that depend on us and those things that do not: Wretch, are you not content with what you see daily? Have you anything better or greater to see than the sun, the moon, the stars, the whole earth, the sea?. . . When, then, you are going

254

D. Groux

to leave the sun itself and the moon, what will you do? will you sit and weep like children? Well, what have you been doing in the school? What did you hear, what did you learn? (Epictetus, ca.108CE/1877, p. 151)

The main purpose of the school would therefore be to give the child the means to construct his/her own happiness. But this is an exercise that demands training, here and now: one needs to cultivate happiness on a daily basis. And what does a child have on a daily basis? School. The child needs to feel well in school, knowing that it is going to help him/her to develop into an adult and that it is there that she/he will learn happiness. When Georges Snyders entitled his 1999 book Des élèves heureux: réflexion sur la joie à l’école [Happy Children. . .Reflexions on Joy in School ], he advocated “reconciling school and joy” (Snyders, 1999, p. 29), and he made the following remark: Young people are showing an increasing impatience with a school that offers them so little joy and finally they are challenging it more and more. At stake is the role that school plays and perhaps even its very existence. We need to finally admit that young people only find joy outside of school and that school should be reduced to the minimum of basic skills. (Snyders, 1999, p. 29)

Assessment is everywhere in our classrooms and children suffer in consequence. Assessment manifests itself in the regular tests that mark out the rhythm of the week, the month, and the year. Children work toward tests. They strive to pass, to have good grades. When they fail, they are heartbroken or disillusioned. Most of the time, they seem to have forgotten why they are at school: to learn how to know the world, to know themselves, to know others, to reflect on what they expect from life, to construct a value system to orient their life, and to reflect on the meaning of life. Meanwhile, teachers seem not to question the purpose of the assessments they impose on their pupils and the perverse effects these are having on them. They seem not to see that assessment emphasizes failure and not success. They seem not to see that if they were relying on the pupil’s successes, they would be practicing that famous pedagogy of success, often invoked but rarely put in place (Bowers, 2000). Pedagogy of success gives confidence to the pupil and gives him/her courage, built on true success, to go further and further. Instead of this, teachers practice an assessment based on sanctions which locks the pupil into a cycle of failure, destroys his/her self-confidence, and prevents the realization of his/her potential. The Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Organisation for economic cooperation and development, 2017) inquiries have said this clearly as regards French pupils: they are continuously afraid, if not anxious. So many traumatisms could have been avoided if there were a rethinking of the culture of assessment, inspired from what goes on in some Scandinavian countries. There is a tendency to accept this dichotomy, this split between difficulty and sufferance at school on the one hand and happiness outside of school on the other hand. And yet, as Snyder reminds us, cultural joy is a verifiable fact. The challenge is to get this cultural joy into the school system. Having now touched – and barely

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

255

touched at that – the question of happiness in the classroom, let us now consider the question of how one learns to relate to others.

What Comparative Education Can Tell Us About Learning to Live with Others Given how important it is to develop intellectual curiosity and the thirst for learning; how happiness at school is essential if the aim is to engender a child fulfilled and well balanced, always wanting to acquire knowledge; and how it is well known that happiness makes learning easier and that a happy person simply learns better, it is time to consider the third element in this triptych: knowledge, happiness, and respect for others. This is the point at which to say a few words on comparative education and what one can expect from it. Through the need to consider what happens in education elsewhere (and the developments which led to this), comparative education allows one to benefit from the experiences of others, to share knowledge and know-how in education, and to enrich educational research. One may invoke the Hungarian proverb whereby A fool learns from his own mistakes; a wise man learns from the mistakes of others (Matheson, 1992). It is clear, from this perspective, that educational exchanges have an important role to play. Exchanges allow a better understanding of the “Other” with all the distinguishing characteristics and facilitate acquiring benefit from the Other’s pedagogical capital (knowledge of school), cultural capital (knowledge of culture), linguistic culture (knowledge of languages[s]), and human culture (knowledge of one’s fellow humans). Comparative education is thus intrinsically linked to education for the respect of others. One cannot think of school without giving an important place to respect for others, to education for respect for others, and to know how to take account of others, other their differences, of respect for differences, and of taking an interest in these differences. But how can one educate a child for respect for others from the earliest age? There are several ways to do this, but for the moment just two are discussed: learning foreign languages and undertaking intranational and international exchanges.

Learning Foreign Languages Already in the sixteenth century, Rabelais and Montaigne appealed to their contemporaries to learn foreign languages. Montaigne is well known for having received a bilingual education since his father insisted on him having a foreign tutor [in this case a German] to teach him Latin. The tutor had to be foreign and not Francophone so that Montaigne was forced to learn a third language from a teacher who did not speak his first language! (Trinquet, 1972) As for Rabelais, in that famous letter from Gargantua to Pantagruel that we mentioned before, he affirms the importance of foreign languages:

256

D. Groux

I intend, and will have it so, that thou learn the languages perfectly; first of all the Greek, as Quintilian will have it; secondly, the Latin; and then the Hebrew, for the Holy Scripture sake; and then the Chaldee and Arabic likewise, and that thou frame thy style in Greek in imitation of Plato, and for the Latin after Cicero. (Rabelais, 1532/2014: loc 4594–4597)

In the twenty-first century, in most parts of the world, it is more necessary than ever to master languages and to have access to several cultures as we are confronted every day with cultural habitus, as we regularly cross national borders, and as the mass media send us everyday images of the entire world. Our reference points in every domain, whether political, economic, commercial, social, artistic, gastronomic etc., are becoming more and more transnational. This means economic, commercial, touristic, educational, and other exchanges are going to increasingly develop, and it is important to play a part in this, to understand what is at stake, and to appreciate the benefits, the limitations, and even the side effects. In this context, foreign languages represent an important asset, as much in the professional context as in the human. We know from Bourdieu’s (1982) essay Ce que parler veut dire: L’économie des échanges linguistiques [What speaking means: the economics of linguistic exchanges] that competence in foreign languages gives the speaker linguistic capital which leads to an incontestable social capital, social recognition, and a strong symbolic power. This is something the privileged social classes have always understood and have invested vast sums in sending their children to other countries to learn foreign languages. So what can be done to establish some measure of social equality as far as languages are concerned? In 1989 the project EILE [l’enseignement d’initiation aux langues étrangères = introduction to learning foreign languages] was launched in France to respond to the demands of parents (Belletto-Sussel, Scoffoni, & Richon, 2001). The project gradually spread throughout French primary schools. The project had various failings: teachers were not trained for the teaching; there was no followup from primary school to lower secondary [collège]; the methods and teaching materials had not been thought through. This makes quite a list, and the experiment took place in conditions that there sometimes chaotic. At the present time [nearly 30 years later], the conditions around this initiation to foreign language learning and the chances of success are hardly any better. Basically, this exposure to a foreign language at near-homeopathic levels [around 15 min per day in first year of primary school] did not bring very much to the acquisition of linguistic competencies. Clearly, this way of teaching was not up to the task. It is therefore necessary to look at what a properly bilingual school looks like. The bilingual school teaches some subjects [say, history, geography, science, and music] directly in the foreign language, the mother tongue and the foreign language being taught in parallel from the very start of the program and by different teachers. And this is exactly the form taken by numerous bilingual schools throughout the world and whose results are incontestable (Groux, 1996). In France, a particular school merits our attention: a state French-Arabic primary school, to be found on the Rue de Tanger (Paris 19ème) and which welcomes children from very modest backgrounds. Other than the fact that the children acquire solid competencies in a

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

257

foreign language, the results achieved by the children in the bilingual section of this school are superior in French and Mathematics to those achieved by children in the monolingual section of the same school (Groux, 1996, 2006). As for the language to choose for the bilingual school, one might choose the language of neighboring country in order to reinforce regional exchanges, or perhaps a language of immigrant groups, or a language to which one is emotionally attached, or indeed an indigenous minority language (Matheson & Matheson, 2000). Let us now show, in the perspective of education for respect of others, the way in which educational exchanges are important because they can contribute to the pupil acquiring an understanding of the Other and developing that essential virtue which is respect.

Education Without Borders Educational exchanges exist since the dawn of history: in Ancient Greece, Xenophon attributed the greatness of Sparta to the education it gave its children. He compared Sparta with Athens and asked: I leave it to the judgment of him whom it may concern, which of the two has produced the finer type of men. And by finer, I mean the better disciplined, the more modest and reverential, and, in matters where self-restraint is a virtue, the more continent. (Xenophon, c.375 BCE/2014: loc691–693)

This interest in education elsewhere has continued throughout history, with the most notable resurgence in the works of Marc-Antoine Jullien de Paris (1817) and Michael Sadler et al. (Special Reports on Educational Subjects, 1897, 1898a, b, 1900, 1901a, b, 1902a, b, c, d, e) setting the scene for the modern resurgence in comparative education. In other words, the interest that exists today for educational exchanges is not new. However, the context is different as it is no longer possible to escape globalization, and the need is apparent to know how to control its effects on people.

What Is at Stake in Educational Exchanges? Educational exchanges allow people to struggle against ethnocentrism, and this needs to be one of the aims of school. In effect, children need to know that there exist multiple ways of thinking and of acting and also that what constitutes normal behavior for them is not a universal norm. Adolescents and adults need also to struggle against their own egocentrism and acknowledge that their point of view is not necessarily the best and that there are other ways to see the world. When people work with a foreigner, they uncover other cultural identities, other habitus, and other affiliations. They notice that they are themselves the foreigners with respect to the Other. Every relation one has with the world is necessarily biased, and educational

258

D. Groux

exchanges allow us to uncover by which bias we perceive the world. This consists of a de-centering, of allowing the individual to grow their capacity to understand and comprehend that which is not of oneself, to open up to the world, and to abandon one’s ethnocentrism, in a generous move toward respect for other people.

Developing Educational Exchanges At the present time, pupil exchanges can be funded in full or in part through schemes and organizations such as Comenius, the European Commission, the British Council, the French-American Commission, the Office franco-québécois, and many more besides. Despite this, it is notable that pupil mobility only concerns 3.5% of the European pupil population. For these exchanges to develop, it would certainly help if the costs were covered by the institutions concerned and the exchange program built into the curriculum. This would go in the direction of greater social justice, as it would allow children, regardless of their social origin, to benefit from such mobility, such as open-mindedness, intercultural and linguistic competencies, and psychological maturity, thus enriching not only their knowledge but also their personality. The benefits of exchanges are just as important when they are intranational. Of course, in the heart of a multiethnic class, there are also very rich exchanges which occur. Unfortunately, teachers are not always adept at managing the intercultural relations within a class, as they may not themselves have received adequate training. Intercultural education is one of the components of education for inclusion of otherness, and it is clearly necessary to integrate this into curricula, not only in primary and secondary schools but also into teacher training as this is not always the case across Europe. Teachers need to be trained in how to do about preparing and organizing exchanges, in carrying them out, and in following them up afterward (Lopez, 2012). In so doing, one comes closer to realizing a classroom of the future whose hallmarks are happiness in the classroom, thirst for learning and intellectual curiosity, generous and welcoming to outsiders, and accepting that perceived differences are an enrichment of the tapestry of life and not a burden to borne, together with a sense of solidarity between pupils. Rabelais signed Gargantua’s letter to Pantagruel from Utopia (Rabelais, 1532/ 2014). It was his dream, if a somewhat satirical one, but it is dreams, accompanied by militant action, which push society forward and advance humanity.

Training Teachers in Comparative Education, in the Service of Development To accompany this reflection on the importance of happiness at school, which permits a better acquisition of knowledge, the development of solidarity among pupils, and the putting in place of clear and effective assessment strategies, the teachers’ training needs to be considered.

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

259

If trained in comparative education, teachers would be able not only to compare pedagogical practices but also to consider other educational systems, other educational policies, and other ways of dealing with the issues and problems that schools encounter. In this way, school failure, violence at school, the teaching of languages, and so on could be considered from a variety of viewpoints emanating from different countries, different systems, and different ways of understanding. Such a de-centering would permit teachers to appreciate the diverse standpoints which are taken over education and, by comparison and contrast, to be able to understand better their own system and how it functions. When you speak to students on teaching placements and you ask them which subjects they would like to see included in their program of study, they never mention anything to do with international education, whether this be comparing education systems, educational exchanges, or even intercultural education. Their priorities concern mainly how to maintain order in the class with all the concomitant issues around authority and the ways to eradicate violence. We need to appreciate the fears of students on placement who are confronted for the first time by pupils for whom they are to be responsible, even if overseen by a teacher, and who fear that they might be overwhelmed when they themselves are in charge of their own class. They therefore seek pedagogical recipes and quick fixes which will permit them to immediately face up to every difficult situation they might encounter. The result is that when it is suggested that they might reflect on the relationship in schools between religion and the State, on comparative education, or even on the history or philosophy of education, they turn away as they do not see the immediate need.

Learning for Educational Exchanges When one has only ever encountered a single educational system as either student or teacher, one’s only reference point is one’s “home” system. It can be hard to imagine that there might be other ways to organize teaching and learning, other systems of discipline, other ways of organizing the school year, or other ways of assessing learning. It is precisely for this reason that teachers need to discover other educational systems and that they need to live through the de-centering that is entailed in entering into the logic of the Other. This very knowledge can also act to help them to challenge the myths of their “home” system (Matheson, 2000). De-centering is also needed when one approaches another culture. In effect, the realization that one’s cultural reference points are not unique happens naturally in foreign countries, and so one can learn for educational exchanges by actually doing educational exchanges (Lopez, 2012). However, some theory is necessary as the teacher needs to know clearly the reason for having the exchange and to have a clear idea of the skills that she/he wishes to see develop in the learners. The teacher also has to have some idea how to assess the impact of the exchange on the learners. All too often, school exchanges and trips abroad are organized by language teachers as special occasion to improve the pupils’ language skills or as occasions to make the pupils visit a country in order to learn the language. Consequently,

260

D. Groux

teachers may content themselves with these modest objectives and do so with a clear conscience. To go beyond this, teachers need to realize that there are numerous benefits to be gained from educational exchanges in terms of: • Culture • Personal development • Education for Otherness In brief, every exchange program should be built around these three objectives. Once the objectives have been defined, we need to move to the conceptual phase of the project and to do so in close collaboration with the partner institution. This does not mean to present to the partner a project with every i dotted and every t crossed but rather to discuss together what each partner seeks to get out of the exchange and how to achieve this. Each partner has to know how to listen to the other and how to cooperate and collaborate in order to develop the project and bring it to fruition. Each partner has to be able to understand and appreciate the cultural particularities of the other and to work together in a spirit of patience and understanding to avoid problems of misunderstanding and to overcome those that occur. Even when countries share a language, they can be culturally poles apart. Misunderstandings can come from the simplest of things, such as the way in which dates are written. This is exemplified by British and American date systems which have led to innumerable misunderstandings. As GB Shaw said of the UK and USA, they are two countries divided by a common language. All this work is necessary if the goal is to achieve all the benefits that can be had from exchanges and avoid the negative effects which can occur from poorly organized exchanges which can simply reinforce stereotypes and even encourage xenophobia (Groux & Porcher, 2000).

Learning for Understanding the Other and Learning for Pluricultural Skills When emphasis is put on cultural differences, there runs the risk of creating oppositions. On the other hand, when similarities are sought, there is more chance of finding the common ground of humanity, that common ground that gives humanity to people and to find that all humans look somewhat alike. Let us now consider both the challenge of learning for understanding the Other, and let us see what it is possible to achieve and what is not.

The Concept of Culture Before going on, it is necessary to make clear how the concept of culture is being used here. Bourdieu proposes a generic definition which is transferable between all sorts of different kinds of culture:

11

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

261

Culture one cultivates Anthropological culture Media culture Popular culture Commercial culture Managerial culture Technical culture Technological culture Generational culture Regional culture Professional culture National culture And so on

According to Bourdieu, “culture is the ability to work out the differences between things.” To be cultivated, whether a little or a lot, is to avoid mixing things up or inappropriately joining them up, in other words, to distinguish between things and to be able to sort them with some rigor (Groux & Porcher, 2003, pp. 69–70). Hoggart’s (1957) work on the cultures of the poor in England remains very relevant here as do the various works on language and culture listed in the bibliography.

Approaches to the Literature of Other Cultures It can be suggested to teachers to consider various kinds of literature: 1. Tales from different countries 2. Travelers’ tales 3. Texts written by writers who are working in a language other than their mother tongue 4. Works of theory Baraona (2009) analyzed the different sorts of exile lived by four writers who adopted French as the language of their writings, these being Nancy Huston, Vassilis Alexakis, Ying Chen, and Agota Kristof. Huston’s mother tongue is English, but she writes in almost exclusively in French and has translated many of works into English. Alexakis established himself in Paris at the time of the Greek dictatorship (1967–1974) and never wanted to renounce one or other of his two cultures. As for Ying Chen, she feels herself liberated in Montreal where she was “reborn.” For Kristof, the exile is forced. We might consider the extent to which these different sorts of exile impact on the relationship between the writer and the language of the country that has welcomed them and which they have chosen as the language of their writings.

262

D. Groux

Baraona (2009) argues that for Kristof writing was a condition of her very survival. For her to write in French was to distance herself from the country [Hungary] which had forced her to flee. For the others, writing in a second language, which they had learned later in life, gave them the freedom to express themselves in ways that would not have been possible in their native tongue. Reflecting on the issues around exile literature can allow teachers to think about the notion of otherness and on the idea that literature exists to open the mind to new ideas. It can do this by leaning on theoreticians such as Bakhtin (1884), who leads the reader to adopt what he terms a polyphonic approach to works of literature whereby there are many ways of reading the same text. We might turn to Umberto Eco whose Lector in fabula (1985) shows brilliantly that there are multiple ways to read the same text and who arrives at the conclusion that there are as many ways of reading a text as there are readers. We could look to Campagnon (1998) who asserts that “Literary value cannot have a theoretical basis; this is a limitation of theory, not of literature,” and he concludes that “perplexity is the only basis for literature” (p283). Reflecting on the issues around exile literature is pertinent in the multicultural perspective in which we live. To nourish and sustain perplexity ought to be one of the major preoccupations of teachers and which can bring them to consider with the learner the ways in which their own culture and its biases affects the manner in which they read and understand a text. Through such an understanding, the learner might come to understand better their own interpretation of the world and hence better understand how others understand it for themselves.

Developing the Ethical Dimension According to Groux, Porcher, Tasaki, Rust, and Perez (2003): Ethics is the branch of philosophy whose aim is to judge to difference between good and bad. . . It distinguishes itself from morality in that the latter is context-dependent, varies according culture and is individual. (p272)

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (ca.340 BCE/1869) leans on the common experience of the most diverse people in order to establish ethical principles transcending individual differences. For Kant, ethics is tied to metaphysical research and is placed above morality (Groux et al., 2003). For Spinoza, good is nothing other than the means by which we get closer to the ideal model of humanity (Groux et al., 2003). In this way, ethics can be seen as a universal value system for good and well-being. However, there are differences in emphasis between occidental and oriental viewpoints. Occidental philosophers agree over a number of values, such as justice, temperance, and compassion. Oriental philosophers tend to agree with

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

263

them over the values of humanity, righteousness, equity and equality, and justice in human relations, but they agree less over the idea of liberty in particular. As for the values which are affirmed clearly in education systems in Europe, these are very much the values of democracy and the values which are featured in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and yet these same values are not always internalized and acted upon at the level of individual. Although these values are held up as values to which we should all subscribe, they do not always find a place in the morality lived by each individual. Despite the fact that these values come up again and again in citizenship education, multicultural education, and learning about democracy, a gulf remains between the theory and the practice, and all this theorizing does not suffice to bridge it. To bridge the gap, this type of education needs to be undertaken very early on in the curriculum, and it needs to be applied in a practical sense, and not just theoretically. Each child needs to be able live ethics in a concrete manner, and teachers need to help the child develop their moral judgment in order for them to reflect on their value system and beliefs, and the teacher needs to give the child the space and possibility for this to happen. Teachers need to be invited to reflect on the importance of philosophy in the school. For an example of how this can be done, the work of Lipman has developed a program of philosophy for children (SAPERE, 2015).

Conclusion The aim of this chapter has been to show that it is not possible to think of school as a part of the lifelong development of the individual without having their teachers properly educated in comparative education. This education requires reflection on the mobility of persons and starts with the establishment of educational exchanges which, in turn, facilitate the struggle against ethnocentrism, encourage the development of the generosity of spirit which leads to an acceptance of perceived difference as an asset, and develop solidarity between pupils. This education demands reflection on foreign literature/s, such as the literature on exile, on foreign languages and cultures, and on the diverse conceptions of culture whether these be generational, professional, sexual, ethnic, social, or otherwise. It shows an interest in developing cultural and intercultural knowledge and familiarity in order to refuse to succumb to dogmatism and to establish a basis for critical thinking. It puts in place a capacity to reflect on the education’s problematic and to do so from a comparative perspective. It allows learners to appreciate the richness and diversity of expression in their native lexicon (Labov, 1972; Macafee, 1988; Matheson & Matheson, 2000; Matheson, 2002) and to use the confidence of expression thus established to grow into confident users of other, perhaps more dominant, lexicons. It is only through working on these essential aspects of teacher training that we can put in place a school which will actively encourage intellectual curiosity and a thirst for knowledge, engendering knowledge which is at one and the same time global, cultural, and intercultural, all the while developing critical and ethical thinking.

264

D. Groux

References Aristotle. (ca.340BCE/1869). Nicomachean ethics (R. Williams, Trans.). London, England: Longmans, Green and Co. BACP. (2018). Ethical framework for the counselling professions. Retrieved from https://www.bacp.co. uk/events-and-resources/ethics-and-standards/ethical-framework-for-the-counselling-professions/ Bakhtin, M. M. (1884). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Baraona, G. (2009). Littérature d’écrivains d’expression française (quatre études de cas): des clés pour une éducation à l’interculturel? (PhD). Nanterre, France: Université de Nanterre. Belletto-Sussel, H., Scoffoni, A., & Richon, H.-G. (2001). L’enseignement des langues vivantes étrangères à l’école primaire. Paris, France: Ministère de l’Education Nationale - Inspection Générale de l’Education Nationale. Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire, L’économie des échanges linguistiques. Paris, France: Fayard. Bowers, R. S. (2000). A pedagogy of success: Meeting the challenges of urban middle schools. The Clearing House, 73(4), 235–238. Compagnon, A. (1998). Le démon de la théorie. Paris, France: Seuil. Delors, J., et al. (1996). Learning, the treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century. Paris, France: Unesco. Eco, U. (1985). Lector in fabula. Le rôle du lecteur (M. Bouzaher, Trans.). Paris, France: Grasset. Epictetus. (ca.108CE/1877). Discourses (G. Long, Trans.). London, England: George Bell and Sons. Garrouste, M., & Prost, C. (2015). Comment l’école amplifie les inégalités sociales et migratoires? Paris, France: CNESCO. Groux, D. (1996). L’enseignement précoce des langues. Paris, France: Chronique sociale. Groux, D. (2006). L’apprentissage précoce des langues: Des pratiques sociologiquement et politiquement marquées. In Education and social justice (pp. 97–113). New Dehli: Springer. Groux, D., & Porcher, L. (2000). Les échanges éducatifs. Paris, France: Editions L’Harmattan. Groux, D., & Porcher, L. (2003). L’altérité. Paris, France: Editions L’Harmattan. Groux, D., Porcher, L., Tasaki, N., Rust, V. D., & Perez, S. (2003). Dictionnaire d’éducation comparée. Paris, France: Editions L’Harmattan. Hoggart, R. (1957). La culture du pauvre. Essai sur le style des classes populaires en Angleterre. Paris, France: Editions de Minuit. Jullien, M.-A. (1817). Esquisse et vues préliminaires d’un ouvrage sur l’éducation comparée. Paris, France: L Colas. Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English vernacular (Vol. 3). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lopez, A. (2012, 28 Sept). Exploring the professional development benefits of international exchanges. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/ 2012/sep/28/international-exchanges-benefit-teachers-schools Macafee, C. (1988). Some studies in the Glasgow Vernacular. (PhD). Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow. Matheson, C., & Matheson, D. (2000). Languages of Scotland: Culture and the classroom. Comparative Education, 36(2), 211–221. Matheson, D. (1992). Post-compulsory education in Suisse Romande. (PhD). Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow. Matheson, D. (2000). Scottish education: Myths and mists. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education, 9(2), 63–84. Matheson, D. (2002). Limited language in limited minds? Urban Scots as a language of poverty. Marges Linguistiques, 3, 106–117. Organisation for economic cooperation and development. (2017). PISA 2015 results (Volume III): Students’ well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.

11

Education and Development: School and Its Role in Lifelong Learning

265

Pestalozzi, J. H. (1830). Letters of Pestalozzi on the education of infancy: Addressed to mothers. Boston, MA: Carter and Hendee. Porcher, L. (1994). Les Compagnons de la lecture. Perspectives documentaires en éducation, 33. pp. 9–26. Rabelais, F. (1532/2014). Five books of the lives, heroic deeds and sayings of Gargantua and his son Pantagruel (Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromarty & P. A. Motteux, Trans.). Adelaide, Australia: eBooks@Adelaide, Kindle Edition. Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., Ouston, J., & Smith, A. (1982). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. SAPERE. (2015). What is P4C? Retrieved from https://www.sapere.org.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=162 Serres, M. (1991). Le Tiers-Instruit. Paris, France: Gallimard. Snyders, G. (1999). Des élèves heureux: réflexion sur la joie à l’école à partir de quelques textes littéraires. Paris, France: Editions L’Harmattan. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1897). Education in England, Wales, Ireland, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 1). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1898a). Education in England and Wales; Physical Education; The Heuristic Method of Teaching; University Education in France, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 2). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1898b). National Organisation of Education in Switzerland; Secondary Education in Prussia, Baden and Sweden; Teaching of Modern Languages; Higher Commercial Education in France, Germany and Belgium, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 3). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1900). Preparatory schools for boys: Their place in British Secondary Education, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 6). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1901a). Educational Systems of Cape Colony, Natal, Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon and Malta, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 5). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1901b). Educational Systems of the Dominion of Canada, Newfoundland and the West (Vol. 4). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1902a). Education in Germany, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 9). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1902b). Education in Scandinavia, Switzerland, Holland, Hungary, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 8). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1902c). Education in the U.S.A. Part I, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 10). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1902d). Education in the U.S.A. Part II, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 11). London, England: HMSO. Special Reports on Educational Subjects. (1902e). Rural Education in France, under the direction of M. E. Sadler (Vol. 7). London, England: HMSO. Trinquet, R. (1972). La Jeunesse de Montaigne. Ses origines familiales, son enfance et ses etudes. Paris, France: Nizet. 1972. 684 S. 8 : AG Nizet. Xenophon. (c.375 BCE/2014). The polity of the Lacedaemonians, (H. G. Dakyns, Trans.). Adelaide, Australia: eBooks@Adelaide, Kindle Edition.

Language and Social Justice

12

Zuhal Okan

Contents Language Matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Language as Social Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Language Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CLA and Ideology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Language Awareness, Education, and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Literacy and Social Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

268 269 271 273 274 275 279 280

Abstract

This chapter is about language and social justice or more precisely about relationships between the way the language is used and the challenge of providing equal opportunities in the society regardless of one’s gender, ethnic identity, wealth, educational background, or other identifiers. There are two main purposes in writing this chapter: One is to show the significance of language in how social structures in a society are produced, maintained, and reinforced, demonstrating why we must avoid narrow definitions of language which underestimate its power and why it is essential to see language as social practice. The second purpose is to display how such a critical awareness of the role language plays helps us understand issues of social concern and create a platform to contribute to empowerment of people. The chapter will also emphasize the pedagogical implications of adopting a critical language awareness perspective for social justice in education.

Z. Okan (*) Faculty of Education, ELT Department, Çukurova University, Adana, Turkey e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_111

267

268

Z. Okan

Keywords

Language awareness · Social justice · Education · Critical literacy

Language Matters Whatever we do we do it with language. We use it constantly – whether we fight, talk, play games, or work in the office, language is there. Despite its enormous role in our lives, we hardly pay attention to it. We simply take it for granted. To most of us it is a system of communication based upon words which are combined into sentences. It is used to express thoughts and feelings in addition to enacting various functions such as thanking, giving commands, and so forth. Language is definitely far more than that. It is an emblem of nationality and cultural identity and embodies subjective values and ideals. The language you use communicates information about you: your background, education, and age. Likewise, we draw conclusions about people we talk with. Having an accent, for example, might be associated with a certain linguistic background respected or marginalized. The language we use (differences in pronunciation, word choice, or grammatical choice) varies depending on who we talk to (e.g., age, gender, education) and what we talk about and the nature of the encounter (e.g., place). The way we talk to a close friend is different than the way we talk to our boss at work. Likewise, the way we write a personal letter to a friend is different from a formal letter written to apply for a job. The words you prefer to comment on a person or an event would reflect your attitudes. For example, when you refer to a group of people as “freedom fighters” or “terrorists,” you position yourself in an argument. The choice of certain language may reinforce male superiority and reinforce stereotypes and assumptions about gender roles. The use of male pronouns even if we do not know the sex of the person or associating certain jobs with men or women would be sexist language and serve the interests of men not women. Language matters. Noam Chomsky calls it “human essence.” It distinguishes us from other animals. To Traynor (2004, p. 1), language is [t]he most significant and colossal work that the human spirit has evolved, it maintains itself as the source of all arts and the core of all science. It is always known as the most massive and inclusive art we know, a mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations.

Ferdinand de Saussure believes that “in the lives of individuals and societies, speech is more important than anything else. That linguistics should continue to be the prerogative of a few specialists would be unthinkable – everyone is concerned with it in one way or another” (1966, p. 7). Chilton (2004) argues that human beings use the language as a very complicated tool not only to interact with each other but also to represent the world the way they want. Bell and Garrett (1998) also point to the fact language cannot be isolated from the social context in which it is used because relations we have with people are only possible through language. Fairclough (1999) also emphasizes this point and claims

12

Language and Social Justice

269

that an understanding of how language enables people to live together is essential in order to be fully aware of the range of functions the language fulfills in our lives. In fact, he is for a conscious engagement with language so that we would better understand power relations in a society. Such an approach to language, undoubtedly, requires, as Habermas (1967) puts it, seeing language not only as a tool for communication but as a medium of domination and social force. What is of interest here is, not the ability of human beings to produce an infinite number of grammatical sentences but how this linguistic capital can act as a primary medium of social control and power. In other words, how language as an act of power provides access to social, economic, and cultural goods (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 145) is important. Thus, the aim is to move away from narrow definitions of language and problematize language practices, showing that studying language as social practice will allow us to understand how dominant groups exercise power as well as to provide ways to counter and resist this process.

Language as Social Practice Language acts as a medium to represent the world, positions people in their respective circumstances, and thus serves as an integral part of our social lives, defining it as a social practice (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Fairclough and Wodak’s contribution is based on their criticisms of traditional studies done in linguistics areas such as grammar, phonology, morphology, syntax, and semantics as they define language “as a potential, a system, an abstract competence” (Fairclough, 1989, p. 7). Fairclough finds that this conception of language is very narrow and limiting mainly because it separates language from the social and historical context in which it exists. Instead, he proposes a more critical perspective on language as a form of social practice. To him, the adoption of such a view has several implications: first, language is a part of society; it is not external to it. Second, language is a social process; and third, language is socially conditioned, that is conditioned by other (non-linguistic) parts of society. Fowler and Kress (1979) claim that “lexical items, linguistic forms and linguistic processes carry specific meanings” (p. 186). Like Fairclough, they find that the traditional view of language that underestimates its social nature, and that language structure is independent of dynamic social context is insufficient. Instead, they argue that people’s “total language ability is a product of social structure” (p. 187). To them, “language serves to confirm and consolidate the organizations which shape it, being used to manipulate people, to establish and maintain them in economically convenient roles and statuses, to maintain the power of state agencies, corporations and other institutions” (p. 190). The emergence of interest in relating language to social practices did not take place in isolation. During the 1960s, we see a move toward a more critical perspective in how we conceive the language. There are a number of social theorists such as Foucault and Habermas who had a considerable impact on exploring the role that language plays in terms of social control and power. Fairclough himself

270

Z. Okan

acknowledges their contribution to the emergence of language as the primary medium of exercising power on discourse participants. Bakhtin (1981) and Volosinov (1973) are also prominent figures to postulate an integration of language and social processes. This complex relationship between language and power requires treating language as social practice. For example, as highlighted before, the words chosen in reading or writing to describe a person or event can show the attitude of the person. To exemplify, Fairclough (1995, p. 48) presents four expressions from a text that define a particular group of young people who are perceived as misfits by their communities. These are “incorrigible,” “defiant,” “lacking responsibility,” and “delinquent.” He explains how these four expressions could be replaced with alternative words when looked at these young people from a different ideological perspective: irrepressible (incorrigible), debunking (defiant), refusing to be sucked by the society (lacking responsibility), and spirited (delinquent). The syntax of a language also acts as a tool to reflect relations of power and distort how we perceive the world. Through syntax it is possible to draw causal relationships between the actors in an event and the event itself. One can put the actor in different roles such as an agent or an object or delete it completely by using passive. Cameron (1990) illustrates this point by two newspaper reports of the same incident. 1. A man who suffered head injuries when attacked by two men who broke into his house in Beckenham, Kent, early yesterday, was pinned down on the bed by intruders who took it inturns to rape his wife. (Daily Telegraph) 2. A terrified 19-stone husband was forced to lie next to his wife as two men raped her yesterday. (Sun) To Cameron, these newspaper reports represent rape as a crime against a man rather than a woman. Through a number of syntactic choices, the experience of the man is foregrounded. He is the subject of the main clause while the woman is referred to not by her name but as his wife. A critical approach to language starts with paying attention to these. As opposed to noncritical approaches, it seeks to illustrate issues related to power and social justice and how a conscious engagement with language, in Fairclough’s words, would contribute to uncovering and at the same time changing conditions of inequality in social, economic, and cultural arenas. Fairclough (1992, p. 12) explains the distinction between critical and noncritical approaches to language as follows: Critical approaches differ from non-critical approaches in not just describing discursive practices, but in showing how discourse is shaped by relations of power and ideologies, and the constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge and belief.

Being committed to a critical approach to language clearly means accepting language as social practice and that how we use the language has implications on social status, solidarity, and distribution of social goods, and power (Gee, 2004).

12

Language and Social Justice

271

Critical Language Awareness The origins of critical language awareness (CLA) can be traced back to the development of Critical Linguistics, a socially oriented linguistic analysis of texts that grew out of work at the University of East Anglia in the late 1970s (Wodak, 2006). The adjective critical adheres to Frankfurt School and “is understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data in the social context, taking a political stance explicitly, and having a focus on self-reflection as scholars doing research” (Wodak, 2002, p. 9). Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) proved to inform the text analysis undertaken by this school (see Halliday, 1978). As Mayr (2008, p. 17) explains, one of the most important claims of SFL is that language is a resource for making three types of meaning or “metafunctions” at a time: 1. Language is used to organize, understand, and express our perceptions of the world. This function is called the ideational function. In analyzing this function, we would be asking ourselves how is the social world represented? Who is presented as responsible for actions in important events (e.g., wars)? How are beliefs and ideologies encoded in language? 2. Language is also used to enable us to communicate with other people, to take on roles (e.g., expert-layperson, parent-child, teacher-student), and to express and understand feelings, attitudes, and judgments. This is called the interpersonal function. Questions we might ask here are what kind of relationship is expressed between speakers or between readers and text, for example, between universities and students in student prospectuses? Is the discourse formal or informal? 3. Finally, language is used to create coherent and cohesive texts, both spoken and written. This textual function concerns how bits of information are foregrounded or backgrounded, taken as given or presented as new, chosen as “topic” or “theme.” What interests us here is not just what aspects of information are foregrounded or backgrounded but also why this happens (e.g., the foregrounding of a business model for higher education). SFL’s emphasis on language as a social semiotic led to the development of critical linguistics, critical discourse analysis, and later critical language awareness (Fairclough, 2003; Pennycook, 2001). Critical language awareness is seen as the social action dimension of critical discourse analysis committed to social change especially where unequal power relations are at issue. Undoubtedly, they complement each other in their quest for connecting linguistic analysis of discourse with its surrounding social context. CLA is defined by Fairclough (1992, p. 2) as “conscious attention to properties of language and language use as an element of language education.” Similarly, Donmall (1985), expanding this definition, describes language awareness as “a person’s sensitivity to and conscious awareness of the nature of language and its role in human life.”

272

Z. Okan

Clark and Ivanic explain the aims and scope of CLA, as to “empower learners by providing them with a critical analytical framework to help them reflect on their own language experiences and practices, the language practices of others in the institutions of which they are a part and in the wider society within which they live” (1997, p. 217). CLA is clearly interested in the dialectical relationship between language and social structures and how power is exercised through language (Fairclough, 2009; Pennycook, 2001; Wodak, 2006). How power manifests itself through language can be observed in such patterns as: who controls the interaction (e.g., asks most of the questions; assigns speaking turns; interrupts contributions or changes topics) and further, who is positioned as the “knower” (i.e., whose knowledge, worldviews, beliefs or assumptions tend to be privileged during the interaction?) (Fairclough, 2009; Pennycook, 2001). Janks (1993, p. iii) asks us to reconsider the choices we make in naming our world through CLA: Critical Language Awareness emphasises the fact that texts are constructed. Anything that has been constructed can be de-constructed. This unmaking or unpicking of the text increases our awareness of the choices that the writer or speaker has made. Every choice foregrounds what was selected and hides, silences or backgrounds what was not selected. Awareness of this prepares the reader to ask critical questions: why did the writer or speaker make these choices? Whose interests do they serve? Who is empowered or disempowered by the language used? (1993, p. iii)

CLA sees the notion of power as one of its major premises. By looking at texts critically, as Janks suggested above, we might be in a better position to understand how discursive preferences of the people in power control and shape our worldview through language. However, the relationship between power and language is not always easy and subtle. While it is possible to find situations in which this relationship is achieved in direct and observable ways, power is also exercised through common-sense assumptions of which people are not much aware of. These “commonsense” assumptions reveal how we make sense of the world around us, what we take as normal or appropriate. When we use the language we assume that the receiver on the other end of the communication will share similar perceptions and understand the message accordingly. These assumptions, sometimes, are disguised as common sense and taken for granted to legitimize existing power relations. Fairclough explains how: It is important to emphasize that I am not suggesting that power is just a matter of language. . . . Power exists in various modalities, including the concrete and unmistakable modality of physical force . . . It is perhaps helpful to make a broad distinction between the exercise of power through coercion of various sorts including physical violence, and the exercise of power through the manufacture of consent to or at least acquiescence towards it. Power relations depend on both, though in varying proportions. Ideology is the prime means of manufacturing consent. (2001, p. 3)

12

Language and Social Justice

273

CLA and Ideology The concept of ideology has been the subject of some debate. It is generally used to refer to social representations shared and used by members of a group in acting and communicating (van Dijk, 1998) or to “the general material process of production of ideas, beliefs and values in social life” (Eagleton (1991, p. 28). In critical investigations of language use, it is claimed that language is the primary domain of ideology, whether or not members of a society are aware of it when they use language in the course of their daily lives (Hodge & Kress, 1988). As suggested above, the ways language reproduces ideologies may not always be visible to the public (Fairclough, 2009; Wodak, 2006). In fact, as Fairclough argues below, it is precisely this invisibility of the ideological effects of language that makes it effective in the constitution, sustenance, and transmission of dominant ideologies. Ideology is most effective when its workings are least visible. If one becomes aware that a particular aspect of common sense is sustaining power inequalities at one's own expense, it ceases to be common sense, and may cease to have the capacity to sustain power inequalities, i.e. to function ideologically. And invisibility is achieved when ideologies are brought to discourse not as explicit elements of the text, but as the background assumptions which on the one hand lead the text producer to ‘textualize’ the world in a particular way and on the other hand lead the interpreter to interpret the text in a particular way. (Fairclough 1989, p. 85)

The news genre has been the most prominent research focus so far in critical language approaches to texts and ideology, especially in discourse analysis. As an example, Van Dijk (1988) observes that the way the language of media presents news is far from being unbiased and objective, but rather it is ideological and in favor with dominant groups in society. In his analysis of the role the news media plays in the reproduction of ethnic prejudices and racism, he revealed that the attitudes toward refugees, immigrants, and minorities in news reports were similar to those in everyday talk. As van Dijk’s study shows, when the ideology is dominated by a powerful social institution such as media or government, it will be embodied in language. How language is used by these institutions will have an impact on the perceptions of people. It is very often the case that such language practice will aim to maintain the power of these institutions on people. Van Dijk (1998, p. 209) sees interactional control as an ideologically relevant discourse structure. To him, those who hold the power in an interaction will also have the power to initiate the topics, end them or interrupt them. Billig et al. (1988) introduce a more complicated view of ideology. They offer the concept of dilemmas inherent in ideologies, which are far from being coherent structures. They argue that through discourse people negotiate dilemmas. In such a negotiation, for example, a speaker opposing to the rights of ethnic minorities may choose to refer to these rights as “special privileges” not to appear as biased.

274

Z. Okan

Critical Language Awareness, Education, and Social Justice The term “social justice” is commonly used by educators to foreground it in their work. Educational institutions, school mission declarations, and teacher education programs pledge allegiance to social justice for all. However, despite all the talk on the centrality of a social justice orientation to education, it is hard to come up with one coherent understanding of the concept. In general, social justice refers to the relation between an individual and society in which equal distribution of wealth and health and equal access to education and public services are ensured. In social justice movement, the emphasis has been on removing the barriers for individuals to fulfill their roles in institutions and in turn get the basic benefits and privileges the society offers. One of these institutions is education. The main concern of Social justice education is how to achieve equitable and quality education for all students. Bell (1997, p. 3) characterizes it as . . . [S]ocial justice education is both a process and a goal. The goal of social justice education is full and equal participation of all groups in society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. We envision a society in which individuals are both self-determining (able to develop their full capacities), and interdependent (capable of interacting democratically with others).

To Sensoy and DiAngelo (2012, p. xviii), the concept of social justice should go beyond demanding equality for all people. They use the term “critical social justice” which “recognize[s] that society is stratified (i.e. divided and unequal) in significant and far reaching ways along social group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability. Critical social justice recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (i.e., as structural), and actively seeks to change this.” As suggested above, key principles of social justice in a society are eliminating inequity, promoting diversity, equal access to power and economic resources, providing an environment free from all sorts of discrimination and oppression (Barsky, 2010; Reisch, 2002). In education, social justice, in short, may be seen as a fact directly related to providing equal opportunities for everyone in schools regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, social class, wealth, family structure, sexual orientation, disability, etc. Clearly, CLA as previously mentioned is already linked with social justice values, particularly justice, equality, and a commitment to anti-discriminatory and antioppressive practice (Dominelli, 2002). Just like social justice in education is committed to providing equal opportunities for all students while at the same time finding ways of reducing existing inequities, and thus working for democratic rights for all students (Cochran-Smith et al., 2009), CLA also seeks to alter “inequitable distributions of economic, cultural and political goods in contemporary societies” (Kress, 1996, p. 15). However, despite the fact that both areas are predicated on empowering

12

Language and Social Justice

275

people to have equal access to social, economic, and cultural goods, there seems to be very limited attention on how this transformative power of language can be used to advance social justice. One possibility would be to incorporate CLA into educational curricula of teacher education programs to heighten prospective teachers’ awareness of the dialectical relationship between language and social structure. Such a theoretical awareness would enable them to challenge the existing power relations in their practice and find ways of changing it in favor of equality and social justice. Alim (2010) claims that CLA pedagogy has “the potential to help students and teachers abandon old, restrictive and repressive ways of thinking about language and to resocialize them into new, expansive and emancipatory ways of thinking about language and power” (pp. 227–228). This potential, according to Alim, is illuminated when CLA pedagogy is also infused within the context of teacher training programs with two recommendations as a guide: (1) Educate teachers about critical language issues, and (2) engage teachers in reflexive analyses. However, whether CLA should be introduced as a separate module or be a part of all lessons in the curriculum is a matter of debate. If it is planned as a separate lesson and teachers treat language awareness as a subject, learners might feel left alone in working out how to transfer what they have learned in this course to their everyday language use. Therefore, integrating CLA in all lessons might make better sense as learners may find more opportunities to relate what they learn to what experience in their lives. Teachers can work with learners to foster a learning environment in which real-life issues are discussed and learners are critically engaged in conversations. Some other benefits of implementing a CLA perspective in education suggested by Briscoe et al. (2009, p. 31) are as follows: • Making visible assumptions that normally go unexamined • Recognizing how language encodes social relations • Identifying and challenging prejudice embedded in ordinary, daily discourse practices • Interrogating and redirecting the nature of questions asked about schooling • Raising questions that have not been asked Undoubtedly, neither social justice issues nor CLA can be taught in one lesson. It is a long-term undertaking. It has to do with recognizing it as a teaching philosophy to become responsible learners as well as responsible language users.

Critical Literacy and Social Justice Critical literacy as a pedagogy committed to social action just like CLA might also enhance criticality and thus students’ awareness and understanding of social justice issues and power of discourse in both oral and written texts (Halcrow, 1990). In fact, Critical literacy was first introduced by social theorists who were concerned with

276

Z. Okan

social phenomena and the effect of language on human relations. The role of education in perpetuating some certain structures in the society was also a concern. Brazilian educator and theorist Paulo Freire has been a pioneering figure in critical literacy studies by his widely read books Education as the Practice of Freedom and Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Freirean critical literacy is conceived as a means of empowering people against oppression and coercion. It puts forward a methodological approach based on problem-posing education that aims at making students critical thinkers. In this practice, students are presented with different situations or problems closely related to their own experiences and are encouraged to reflect on them and offer possible solutions. Freire’s (1989) model is in total opposition to the “banking model” of education which is based on the transmission of irrelevant knowledge to students and seeing them as “depositories of knowledge.” Reflecting similar ideals with social justice work, it aims to eradicate social inequities and help the disadvantaged groups to become agents of social change. It is clear that the role of teachers in the successful implementation of such an approach is crucial. In planning, designing, and practicing educational activities, they need to be active coordinators of the whole process. Comber (1994) suggests the following pedagogical moves: • Repositioning students as researchers of language. • Respecting student resistance and exploring minority culture constructions of literacy. • Problematizing classroom and public texts. Similarly, Luke and Dooley (2009) focus on how texts can be used in critical literacy to uncover and challenge existing cultural, social, and political relations. In other words, critical literacy advocates the adoption of a critical stance toward texts. It encourages learners to engage in active analysis of what they hear and read to uncover underlying messages. Proponents of critical literacy recognize that language use is not neutral or unbiased. They suggest that critical literacy is an effective means to become critical consumers of the information we receive (Hull, 2000). Lessons incorporating such a perspective will contribute to repositioning learners as researchers of language (Comber, 1994) and help them identify the ideologies in the texts or in ordinary language practices. And when/if necessary accept or reject them. Such a critique of texts or language practices in general would help learners consider or reconsider different ways of knowledge construction and learn how to interact with a text. In this respect, learners’ critical reading skills might be developed and that, in turn be reflected in higher levels of language proficiency (Janks, 2008). Bloor and Bloor (2007) also introduce a range of techniques which could develop readers’ awareness of the relationship between language and ideology. They present, referring to different types of analysis, ways of dealing with particular grammatical features such as modality and transitivity. They see them as essential elements of a critical analysis perspective unraveling the power of language to persuade and manipulate individuals.

12

Language and Social Justice

277

Wharton (2011) reports on her attempt to design a course which aims to integrate the skills of linguistic analysis and critical thinking. Her study is based on a text, a bureaucratic text, analyzed from a critical point of view. The purpose is to help students exploit the text in terms of lexical choices made by the writer and also certain assumptions that the text represents. The study also shows that students are encouraged to critique the text, and, as a result, they feel empowered when they realize that they, as learners, are able to analyze the text rather than just being on the receiving end of the reading process. Cots (2006) also demonstrates how a critical approach to language can be put into practice in a classroom situation. He presents activities that teachers may make use of while adapting existing materials from a critical literacy perspective. As in Wharton’s study mentioned above, the purpose is to raise students’ consciousness and guide them into how they can approach a text with an attitude, a critical attitude. Fairclough also stresses the importance of analyzing texts from a wider social context with a critical look to reveal hidden connections between language, power, and ideology. He (1992) developed an overlapping, three-dimensional framework for studying discourse as seen in Fig. 1 below. These dimensions are: 1. Description of the text 2. Interpretation of the relationship between text and interaction 3. Explanation of the relationship between interaction and social context. For Fairclough (1989, p. 26), description is the stage in which formal properties of text such as choice of vocabulary, grammar structure, and cohesive elements are explored. In this stage, he proposes ten key questions:

Fig. 1 Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework for the analysis of discourse

278

Z. Okan

A Vocabulary 1. What experiential values do words have? What classification schemes are drawn upon? Are there words which are ideologically contested? Is there rewording or overwording? What ideologically significant meaning relations are there between words? 2. What relational values do words have? Are there euphemistic expressions? Are there markedly formal or informal words? 3. What expressive values do words have? 4. What metaphors are used? B Grammar 5. What experiential values do grammatical features have? What types of process and participants predominate? Is agency unclear? Are processes what they seem? Are normalizations used? Are sentences active or passive? Are sentences positive or negative? 6. What relational values do grammatical features have? What modes are used? Are there important features of relational modality? Are the pronouns we and you used and if so, how? 7. What expressive values do grammatical features have? Are there important features of expressive modality? 8. How are (simple) sentences linked together? What logical connectors are used? Are complex sentences characterized by coordination and/or subordination? What means are used for referring inside and outside the text? 9. What interactional conventions are used? Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others? 10. What larger scale structures does the text have? Fairclough (1989, pp. 110–112). In the second stage, the relationship between the discourse and its production and its consumption is interpreted. Here, in addition to an analysis of formal properties of the text, the relationship between the text and social structure needs to be determined. In other words, what is in the text is combined with what the reader or analyst brings with him/her to an interaction. The explanation stage is concerned with the dimension “discourse as social practice.” In this stage, issues like ideology or power are considered to explain the interaction between social-cultural context and the production and consumption of texts. The questions proposed in the model are: 1. Social determinants: what power relations at situational, institutional, and societal levels help shape this discourse? 2. Ideologies: what elements of Member Resources (MR) which are drawn upon have an ideological character? 3. Effects: how is this discourse positioned in relation to struggles at the situational, institutional, and societal levels? Are these struggles overt or covert? Is the discourse normative with respect to MR or creative? Does it contribute to sustaining existing power relations, or transforming them?

12

Language and Social Justice

279

Critical to the understanding of Fairclough’s three-dimensional model is the characterization of the notion of discourse. He (1992) identifies three ways in which language operates as discourse: (1) as text; (2) as the social processes of producing and interpreting a text, or the interaction; and (3) as the social conditions for the production and interpretation of the text, or the social context. As mentioned above, these dimensions of discourse form the premise of his model and may represent one possibility for encouraging learners to decode and analyze texts they come across critically. The advantage of such an approach is that students become actively engaged in their own learning and as they develop their critical awareness of language, they will be able to uncover any bias or prejudice a text might contain. They will learn the importance of particular vocabulary and grammar choices made by the authors, for example. This might be the first step before teachers attempt to involve students in social change through such a critical interrogation of texts they read because, in essence, critical literacy is built upon learners questioning and challenging the way language constructs our world.

Conclusion This chapter has argued that a critical understanding and awareness of language is essential to see how language reflects but at the same time shapes and reshapes prevailing social structures. In this perspective, it is not sufficient to see it as an arbitrary system of communication. The study of language should go beyond vocabulary lists and grammar exercises; rather we must recognize its place to understand contemporary society and how language can function as a basis for social emancipation. The term “emancipation” implies that a critical approach to language is essential to understand how it is linked to practices of domination and subordination of people. Critical is used in the sense that language cannot be isolated from the dynamic, ever-changing social context in which it is used. Language is social practice and it is an integral part of society. Critical Language Awareness is concerned with power relations in society and how they are mediated through language. It helps learners to recognize how certain language choices empower some while disempowers others. However, being aware is not enough. Learners need to be able to have conceptual and analytical resources that promise to significantly sharpen their abilities to recognize, question, and ultimately challenge oppressive discourses (Fairclough, 2011; Wodak, 2006). In other words, awareness needs to be turned into action. Education is the site where learners can be encouraged to think critically, be aware of issues of inequality and social justice while language acts as a medium. As Shaul (in Freire 1972, pp. 13–14) notes, we have to bear in mind that

280

Z. Okan

There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity to it, or it becomes ‘the practice of freedom’, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.

The final part of this chapter has considered how CLA might contribute to such “practice of freedom” and equip students with strategies required to see between the lines or get hidden messages embedded in texts. Critical literacy has been presented as one possibility of practicing critical reading, listening, and viewing rather than being passive recipients of the information. Through a range of analytical skills, it is suggested that learners can become conscious users of language, be able to go beyond the surface meaning of a text. They question the conventions and try to understand why they are there in the first place and challenge them if necessary. As CLA plays a crucial part in uncovering prejudice and discrimination in society, it does contribute to social justice. CLA can help learners have a voice to assert their concerns or recognize unjust situations around them. Classrooms can be places to be involved with texts as they are closely related to issues of power. Teachers can encourage learners to ask critical questions and become more critical readers. By working on different types of texts such as advertisements, reports, cartoons, and stories, they will find opportunities to develop a wider awareness of the world texts regarding gender, economic, and racial issues. And all is done through the medium of language.

References Alim, H. S. (2010). Critical language awareness. In N. H. Homberger & S. L. McKay (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 205–231). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Barsky, A. E. (2010). Ethics and values in social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Bell, A., & Garrett, P. (Eds.). (1998). Approaches to media discourse. Oxford, UK: WileyBlackwell. Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge. Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D., & Radley, A. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. London, UK: Sage. Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (2007). The practice of critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Hodder Education. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Briscoe, F., Arriaza, G., & Henze, R. C. (2009). The power of talk: How words change our lives. London, UK: Sage. Cameron, D. (Ed.). (1990). Introduction: Why is language a feminist issue? In The feminist critique of language. London, UK: Routledge. Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London, UK: Routledge.

12

Language and Social Justice

281

Clark, R., & Ivanic, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis and educational change. In L. van Lier & D. Corson (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education. Vol. 6: Knowledge about language (pp. 217–228). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Cochran-Smith, M., Shakman, K., Jong, C., Terrell, D. G., Barnatt, J., & McQuillan, P. (2009). Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teacher education. American Journal of Education, 115(3), 347–377. Comber, B. (1994). Critical literacy: An introduction to Australian debates and perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26(6), 655–668. Cots, J. (2006). Teaching ‘with an attitude’: Critical discourse analysis in EFL teaching. ELT Journal, 60(4), 336–345. De Saussure, F. (1966). In C. Bally & A. Sechehaye (Eds.), Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Dominelli, L. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Donmall, A. (Ed.). (1985). Language awareness. London, UK: CILT. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London, UK: Verso. Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, UK: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. London, UK: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1999). Global capitalism and critical awareness of language. Language Awareness, 8(2), 71–83. Fairclough, N. (2001). The dialectics of discourse. Textus, 14(2), 231–242. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London, UK: Routledge. Fairclough, N. (2009). A dialectical-relational approach to discourse analysis. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 162–186). London, UK: Sage. Fairclough, N. (2011). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Montreal, Canada: Seminaire enTheories des Organisations. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Introduction to discourse analysis (pp. 258–284). London, UK: Sage. Fowler, R., & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, B. Hodge, G. Kress, & T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 185–221). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Freire, P. (1989). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Books. Gee, J. P. (2004). Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R. Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (pp. 19–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Habermas, J. (1967). Erkenntnis und Interesse (Knowledge and Interest). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp. Halcrow, B. (1990). Bringing social justice issues into any curriculum area. Social Alternatives, 9(2), 42–43. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic. London, UK: Edward Arnold. Hodge, R., & Kress, G. (1988). Social semiotic. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hull, G. (2000). Critical literacy at work. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43(7), 648–652. Janks, H. (Ed.). (1993). Critical language awareness series. Johannesburg, South Africa: Hodder and Stoughton and Wits University Press. Janks, H. (2008). Teaching language and power. In S. May & N. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of language and education (2nd ed. ) Volume 1: Language policy and political issues in education. New York, NY: Springer. Kress, G. (1996). Representational resources and the production of subjectivity. In C. R. CaldasCoulthard & M. Coulthard (Eds.), Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis. London, UK: Routledge. Luke, A., & Dooley, K. (2009). Critical literacy and second language learning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 856–868). New York, NY: Routledge. Mayr, A. (2008). Introduction: Power, discourse and institutions. London, UK: Continuum Books.

282

Z. Okan

Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics. A critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reisch, M. (2002). Defining justice in a socially unjust world. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83, 343–354. Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2012). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Traynor, M. (2004). Discourse analysis. Nurse Researcher, 12(2), 4–6. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. A multidisciplinary study. London, UK: Sage. Volosinov, V. I. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (1928). New York, NY: Seminar Press. Wharton, S. (2011). Critical text analysis: Linking language and cultural studies. ELT Journal, 65(3), 221–229. Wodak, R. (2002). Aspects of critical discourse analysis. The Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik, 36, 5–31. Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 179–190.

Tensions Between Education and Development in Rural Territories in Chile: Neglected Places, Absent Policies

13

Juan de Dios Oyarzún

Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Rural) Space/Place and Policies: The Spatial and Economic Chilean Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outlining “Rural” in the Chilean Case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Development Perspectives for Rural Areas in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Is Rural Education? Discourses About Rural Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rural Education Polices, Programs, and Initiatives in Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Perspectives from Academics and (Private) Policy Makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . An Absent Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rural Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Profile of the Rural Student from the Rural Education Policy: The Prefigured Worker-Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Absence of Policy as a Technology of Invisibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Intimate Relation and the Problem of Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rural Education as an assemblage and Schools as a Dispositif Which Produces Subjectivity: The Prefigured Worker-Employee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

284 285 286 288 288 291 295 296 300 302 304 304 304 305 305 306

Abstract

This chapter addresses the relationship between education policy and economic development in rural territories in Chile, and the resulting influences upon school practices and secondary students’ subjectivities. The study is based in the rural settings of Chile, a country with an internationally recognized educational policy frame, as one of the pioneers in introducing radical market mechanisms, with large consequences for educational inequality and segregation. Based on a J. d. D. Oyarzún (*) Centre of Advanced Research in Educational Justice, P. Catholic University of Chile, Santiago, Chile e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 R. Papa (ed.), Handbook on Promoting Social Justice in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14625-2_25

283

284

J. d. D. Oyarzún

qualitative study developed between 2014 and 2017, and using a poststructural theoretical approach for the analysis, the chapter presents a critical review of the main discursive influences and features in relevant policy frames regarding rural development and rural education policies in Chile and beyond. Additionally, the chapter analyzes voices of academic and policy stakeholders’ close to rural education. Together these analyses provide a practical insight to the topic. Rural schooling is presented as an invisible educational reality under an unarticulated policy frame, producing dissimilar educational dynamics in such geographical settings. The absence of focalized educational policies to rural spaces generates diverse assemblages between educational and business institutions, in what can be called as an “intimate relationship” between schools and industrial companies of the zones, where schools, especially through their TVET curricular alternatives, try to fit their educational frames with the labor needs of the companies of the rural zones. This dynamic produces particular educational arrangements, which, concretely, forms particular educational paths for rural students. In those terms, these educational-economic assemblages have a productive power, as they, while influencing and conditioning students’ future educational and labor horizons, produce certain type of subjectivities, establishing the margins of what is possible in such social and institutional scenarios. Keywords

Rural education · Education policy · Rural development · Students’ subjectivities · Policy discourses · Neoliberalism

Introduction The influence of neoliberalism on the Chilean education system is an important and widely investigated contemporary issue. The problem of Chilean social inequality is closely related to a very unequal education system (Valenzuela, Bellei & De los Rios, 2008), which leads to problems of poverty and marginalization. Chilean rural areas epitomize important aspects of poverty and precariousness, and their inhabitants also suffer the consequences of serious inequalities in education provision. It is a task undertaken by this research to go deeper into the problems of these rural settings. State policies, and here educational policies, are understood in this research from a poststructural perspective as political devices – from the public and private spheres – that enact a dominant discourse (Larner, 2000) and seek to express values and worldviews, attitudes and skills, as well as a successful project of social insertion for the students of a particular nation. Within the context of globalization, neoliberal policy frames have strongly influenced the Latin American political context. Nations like Chile, Peru, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico, among others, since the 1980s and 1990s have been adapting and transforming their political and economic conditions in order to respond to their increasing dependence on global markets and neoliberal principles. Thus, the education systems of each country, with their specific

13

Tensions Between Education and Development in Rural Territories in. . .

285

characteristics and modalities, are analytically rich indicators of the social and individual models each territory seeks to develop and consolidate. In Chile, during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship (1973–1989), particularly in the 1980s, there was a strong diminishment of the public resources allocated to education. In this deep educational reform, the State transferred administrative authority from the Ministry of Education to municipalities, fostering the entry of private schools, and introducing market mechanisms in the system. One of the key factors was the introduction of a schools funding mechanism using vouchers distributed by the State, which in turn was based on a free school choice frame for the families, who, as consumers, would choose school rationally, and schools would improve their academic quality in order to compete and attract more students (and more vouchers with them). In the final years of the dictatorship, the SIMCE (system of education quality measurement) test was created as a tool which sought to assess all the schools of the country over the years to measure and control the development of the results of the system. Further policies in the Chilean education system included the design and implementation of a national curriculum in the 1990s, which has since undergone further changes. This sought to offer equal contents and skills to the whole population, which could thence be assessed by the SIMCE test. In this scenario, the proportions of public and private educational provision changed over time, from almost 80% public provision in 1980 to 53% private-subsidized in 2015 (MINEDUC, 2015; Paredes & Pinto, 2009). This chapter show some analysis and findings developed during a qualitative research made between 2014 and 2018 (Oyarzún, 2018). In this chapter, the focus is on rural education policy – especially those initiatives related to secondary schooling – using Chile as the case of study. It begins by referring to some theoretical definitions about spaces and places considering the geographical scope of this study; secondly, it will then offer some Chilean rural definitions and its rural development strategy as a context for the main educational policy analysis and discussion of this study. Then, it will outline what is stated about rural education from international sources. The second part will show part of the policy analysis developed in this research, with a critical review of the Chilean rural education policy from the official documents and from the voice of academics and policy implementers. It will conclude with a brief discussion, stating the main findings of the analysis developed.

(Rural) Space/Place and Policies: The Spatial and Economic Chilean Context Conceptually, from Doreen Massey’s work, one of the key factors to understand the geographical and social configurations of places and spaces, and to comprehend their inequalities and positions of power, is related to the capitalist order of the economy, its industries, companies, and different chains of organization and production. The organization of work is settled in geographical ways, and it reflects as well the hierarchic (and therefore, unequal) order that each organization develops in itself. It is quite clear that in many instances the managerial positions

286

J. d. D. Oyarzún

of a company are in certain cities, and the industrial work is in others (Massey, 2001). This organizational situation brings differences not only in the type and the quality of the labor, but in incomes, range of decisions, and labor stability, among other things. This recreates divergent cultures, wealth or poverty, modes of development, institutional practices, and, along with that, biographies and forms of subjectivation. Hence, inequality is a consequence of uneven economic distribution, throughout the chains of production of firms and industries, a matter of relations of production, which together generate a “new spatial division of labour” (Massey, 2004, p. 122), new configurations of space and place, a new “geography of the social structure” (Massey, 2004, p. 116). From a geographical perspective, public policy definitions and implementations can be analyzed based on the core–periphery tension, in which the definitions and designs of specific policies are thought nationally from the center, from the capitals, from which the main offices of the State are governing and planning. The political economy of the State limits the financial possibilities of designing policies specific to each context and its particularities. With this dynamic, the core perspective becomes the true and only diagnostic of the national (and sometimes global) reality, forgetting or denying the marginal places, which for several reasons seem not to matter for the national approach: “you can’t have a ‘core’ region without the simultaneous and inter-related construction of ‘noncore’, or ‘periphery’” (Massey, 2001, p. 7). What ends up happening is the design of a national policy, with small modifications applied to limited local realities, and the national approach risks losing pertinence and efficacy depending on each context, offering wrong solutions to misdiagnosed problems, sometimes with unanticipated, untoward consequences. This is one of the issues that are addressed in this research regarding national education policies applied to diverse rural places. Policies can perceive marginal areas as places where development should arrive through strategies which have succeeded in urban areas or nationally, because the rural territories are considered as stragglers of development who must be included in the national path, in the national economy, and the market. But these perspectives cannot acknowledge the relational tensions of (neoliberal) progress, in which inequality is produced by the same model of development, so different places are connected spatially more closely than they appear from an essentialist geographical view, where every place appears as isolated and possessing a unique and differentiated essence.

Outlining “Rural” in the Chilean Case The rural space today is more than a reality lagging behind urban development; it is constituted by complex spatial relations, through nonlinear processes of development, and representing particular cultures, practices, and social relations. The rural is alive beyond its territorial official frontiers; it is present also in the urban as a rural-urban dynamic where populations live with their own

13

Tensions Between Education and Development in Rural Territories in. . .

287

understanding of the world, their history, projecting their future as individuals and communities. The geography of the rural is changing; it is hybridizing between rural and urban characteristics; it is disconnected internally across countries and regions. Thus, the rurality, more than retreating, is being transformed and located in diverse settings, rural and urban sites which influence each other. From this point of view, agricultural work, for instance, rather than diminishing, is diversifying in new and hybrid ways where the traditional activities are beingcombined with others derived from further industries. From the OECD’s (2006) conceptual attempt to establish a “new rural paradigm,” the “new rurality” is a conceptual effort in response to the changes provoked by the global and neoliberal order, a way to offer solutions and opportunities to the new problems generated in the rural sphere by the internationalization of the markets. There are different perspectives around what defines a rural territory; for instance, the UN recommends not adopting uniform criteria to assess diverse realities, avoiding the application of external rationalities and calculations to particular realities and their contexts. In the case of Chile, urban areas are defined by a population living in concentrated housing with more than 2,000 inhabitants, or between 1,000 and 2,000 with at least 50% working actively in secondary or tertiary activities. So rural is everything that is not urban. From the official records, rural lacks its own definition; it is understood by opposition and is ultimately a residual category. From this national official definition, the rural population in Chile reaches 13% (out of 17 million approx.). International bodies contribute with different definitions and calculations of a rural territory. Applying each criterion to the Chilean case, its rural population varies in important ranges. The OECD defines a density criterion (a density below 150 residents per km2), and applying this measure in Chile, 42% of the population would be considered as predominantly rural. The World Bank adds to the OECD threshold of 150 people/km2 a criterion of remoteness, including zones a distance of more than 1 h travel time from cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants (De Ferranti, Perry, Foster, Lederman, & Valdés, 2005). With this approach, the rural population in Chile reaches 36%. The CEPAL approach states that a rural area is defined by the OECD density definition (