A note on social justice and education
Institute of Education, London, September 2010
Disclaimer: the views expressed in this article are those of the author, rather than those of the RSA.
The term ‘social justice’ refers to an approach to the distribution of goods in society which has traditionally been associated with left-of-centre liberal political theory. It implies ideas of mutual obligation and a certain legal and institutional monitoring of the distribution of opportunities between citizens, such that all are given a fair and equal chance to succeed in life. Within the philosophy of education, theories of social justice have been heavily influenced by the philosopher John Rawls (see Rawls, 1971), whose egalitarian liberalism posits the idea that there should be a balance between two concepts frequently viewed as being in tension: individual freedom and social equality.
Translating abstract concepts into policy terms, theorists such as Swift (2003) and Brighouse (2000) have discussed the extent to which parental ‘partiality’1 in education can be accommodated within a commitment to social justice – that is, the extent to which it is moral for parents to be free to buy or manipulate educational resources to secure the very best for their own children when this may have negative consequences for others.
Within debates about justice more broadly, right-of-centre classic liberal theorists such as Nozick (1974) and Hayek (1944) have rejected ‘patterned’ theories of social justice such as those put forward by Rawls (i.e. those implying moderate constraints on individual freedom and some redistribution of resources from the most to the least advantaged). They favour instead ‘procedural’ theories of justice which emphasise individuals’ entitlement to keep whatever resources/ advantages they earn or inherit, passing this on to their children as they see fit with no right for state or society to intervene. Procedural theories of justice are not theories of social justice. They focus on individual (negative) freedoms and entitlements and therefore prioritise these over a commitment to the ‘social’.
Turning attention specifically to education and the two main British political parties, crudely it could be stated that a Rawlsian centre-left stance on the distribution of educational opportunities for social justice might traditionally be associated with Labour, whereas the theories of Hayek and Nozick tend traditionally to be reflected in Conservative – or at least Thatcherite – education policy. Comprehensive reorganisation of secondary schooling as enacted by Labour from 1965 can be viewed as an attempt to even out educational opportunities between the most and least socially advantaged in Britain and thus minimize socio-economic inequality, by giving everyone access to similar educational provision. Strong Conservative support for the rights of parents to send their children to private school – and indeed historical Conservative policies subsidising private education such as the Assisted Places Scheme – suggest a procedural approach, as distinct from a social approach, to justice, whereby intervening in the educational choices of parents is regarded as an unjustifiable infringement of individual liberty. The famous statement by Margaret Thatcher that ‘there is no such thing as society – there are individual men and women and there are families’ also suggests a procedural approach to justice, as do Conservative critiques of local authority regulation of parental school choices within state education.
Under Labour between 1997 and 2010, some attempt to achieve a fairer distribution of educational opportunities was evident in policies such as Sure Start, Education Action Zones and the Additional Educational Needs (AEN) index. Such attempts were similar to earlier Labour moves in the 1960s towards ‘compensatory education’ (for example Educational Priority Areas), and moderate constraints on parental freedom or ‘partiality’ in terms of school choice were seen in the School Admissions Code.
However, Labour decontextualisation of ‘educational opportunity’ from the realities of social stratification could also be seen in policy terms, limiting the impact of attempts to create a level educational playing field. Choice and diversity policy and a continued commitment to the market under New Labour often led to extra money being given to schools which were already the highest achieving and which taught the most socially advantaged pupils (see for example the case of specialist schools – Exley, 2009). Punitive measures and stigma for schools deemed to be ‘failing’ (these schools tend to have markedly higher than average proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals – ibid.) were also enhanced.
During its period in opposition from 1997-2010, the Conservative Party in Britain undertook some rhetorical reinvention on education. ‘Modern, compassionate Conservatism’ as it emerged involved discussions about society, social justice and the equalising of educational opportunities. Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith established an influential ‘Centre for Social Justice’ and (then shadow) education secretary Michael Gove talked about putting an end to ‘the scandal of a system which deepens division’.2 Now in Government as part of a Con-Lib coalition, however, while the Conservatives may believe in ‘society’ (linking back to old ‘One Nation’ Toryism) and policies such as a Pupil Premium, they are still committed to a very minimal state, thus rendering any attempt to promote social justice by means of social institutions such as the education system very limited.
Critiques of ‘bureaucratic’ past policy have been virulent and there remains an essential preference for voluntarism over compulsion in the extent to which welfare should be provided to disadvantaged groups, weakening the legitimacy of a commitment to formal redistribution of educational resources. Procedural justice is evident in policies that grant more far-reaching rights than ever to individual parents (e.g. giving parents the freedom to set up their own schools) while punitive discourses over the exclusion of ‘thugs’ and ‘troublemakers’ signal greater stigma for disadvantaged pupils rather than an attempt to level the playing field.
Overall, then, if social justice is to be regarded as a key desirable outcome for society, more thinking is required about what it means and how it can be promoted. Policy makers committed to social justice need to do more than simply espouse the basic belief that equal educational opportunities are important.
1 See also Nagel (1991)
2 Michael Gove, Speech to the Conservative Party Conference, Blackpool, 2007
References
Share