Education & Society: Deconstructing a Crisis in Education

(1)

11

th_{August 2017 – William Harding - 11312629} Supervisor – Federica Russo

Second Reader – Yolande Yansen

Title:

Education and Society: Deconstructing a Crisis in Education

(2)

Education and Society:

Deconstructing a Crisis in Education

Abstract: Education as an area of study brings forth a quagmire of research, theories, policies and history, with a spectrum of other fields taking part in its elucidation. Education in a broad sense is developed, but convoluted, and certainly not in a state of harmony; state education yoyos from decline to assent, maintaining a professional, business attitude towards schooling, while progressive schools decline in quality or numbers, and fail to escape elitist connotations. As the media sometimes likes to remind us, “education is in crisis”. Something that I believe is often forgotten in education, that I hold true, and hope to explicate in this work, is that education is political. However, my main task carries more weight for social reform. This work takes place in the largely underdeveloped field of Philosophy of Education. In this arena, many texts have been written, and popularity is growing. Yet compared to other more established fields, philosophy of education is lacking. I will bring together some authors and movements that are often considered at distance, namely those of Critical pedagogy and Democratic education. There are two main reasons for this: partly to recover some of the distance that exists between these theories; they are both influential, progressive theories which look at freedom in education, however they rarely find union or synthesis. Also, to seek a better conception of progressive education, that may account for some discrepancies between the aforementioned educational movements, as well as other more conventional educational settings; in a partial attempt to resolve the “crisis of education”. Still, I wish to make clear throughout this work that education is political. Regardless of where it occurs or how, it carries with it some subtle or invisible information which is important to attempt to discover. I believe that critical pedagogy and democratic education have made some important steps towards this discovery, and I want to see whether they might be able to go further when considered in tandem. However, by standing back and trying to be objective, I am also interested in the idea that education of any variety may have stark political consequences in the form the Hidden Curriculum. The consequence of this is that even if my synthesised progressive model does overcome the short comings of some previous models, it may still be victim to a detrimental hidden curriculum, and so the subtle political nature of education remains a problem to be tackled. How the relationship between education and society functions, what crisis it may maintain, and what solutions are available, will be the content of the following thesis.

(3)

I approach this thesis with a recurring social issue in mind, “education is in crisis.” Hannah Arendt, writing in reference to North American education in the 1950s, speaks of this, saying, ‘…the recurring crisis in education… has become a political problem of the first magnitude, reported on almost daily in the newspapers.’1_{A small amount of research can attest to the continual presence of some “crisis”} in education, and presents the broad spectrum of interests towards this issue. While not in exactly the same context as this piece, her examination of the political implications of education and the social contradictions within schools reflects some of the themes of this thesis, and points to the persistence of that crisis: almost one hundred years on, education is still in crisis.2

My interest lies in the problems that arise most frequently in traditional state schools, and the conflict between traditional and progressive conceptions of education. In other words, I am interested in the traditional conception of education as politically neutral, against the progressive notion of education as inherently political, and the ramifications this has for social and educational theory, practice, and reform, generally in Europe and North America. For example, the traditional school is designed to send pupils to university in that it centres around exams which lead to further education. This has caused a saturation of university graduates in the job market, thus aiding unemployment.3_{This would suggest that the state which prescribes such an education is not} properly representative of the people that it educates in terms of their wants or needs. Moreover, depending on the degree of intentionality of the state’s prescription, this phenomenon may suggest a government that is active in shaping education undemocratically, to their own socially dubious wants. Hence, to some degree the crisis in education could be caused by traditional political and educational motives; after all, disparities in educational opportunity and outcome are frequent in the traditional domain.4_{This example is admittedly loose and symbolic. The reality I perceive, the} prominent issue here, is that the traditional schools to which I refer, those state-funded institutions, strive to diminish educational disparities but fall short of this. I share with Arendt an interest in the political nature of education and the contradictions between what is proposed and what is delivered. However, where Arendt lends support to more conservative notions, I look to the progressive for answers on the basis that solutions to this educational crisis have not yet been presented. In taking up the more progressive corner, I seek to understand why these disparities persist, and what may be done for resolution.

In order to engage with this educational environment, I will invoke three educational domains: (i) the traditional, (ii) the progressive, specifically democratic education, and (iii) the critical, specifically Critical pedagogy. I will place some focus on education in the UK, looking at specific educational environments, particularly Summerhill school. Traditional education will refer generally to state-funded schools, following a national curriculum, with a similar educational and social structure. Progressive education will mainly refer to Democratic schools, where students have more 1 Hannah Arendt, Between Past and Future: The Crisis in Education, (Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, 1985) p173

2 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/03/school-funding-soars-up-election-agenda-as-teachers-warn-of-crisis [Accessed 01/07/2017]

3 Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the

Contradictions of Economic Life, (Basic Books Inc.: New York, 1977) p4

4 Debra Satz, Equality, Adequacy, and Education for Citizenship, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007) p623-626

(5)

participation and control in regard to school life. Critical education takes a central role here, assisting my analysis throughout. It refers to an education with a socio-political focus, culminating in Critical pedagogy. These domains will receive proper attention shortly. Henry A. Giroux, a major figure in critical education and an academic companion of Paulo Freire, founder of the Critical pedagogy movement, provides a contemporary view of Critical pedagogy and touches on my interests dynamically: ‘…students need to be placed in classroom social relationships that affirm their own histories and cultures while at the same time providing them with the critical discourse they need to develop a self-managed existence.’5_{I want to explore what these social relationships are, why it is} important to affirm these histories and cultures, and what this critical discourse is.

To restate, this thesis will grapple with an ongoing crisis in education, which under the lens of philosophers from differing perspectives has been realised as a political crisis. Here, education is presented in terms of traditional, progressive, and critical approaches. The former two approaches represent the educational environment which is experienced today (popular education), in which this crisis exists. I want to explore how the third approach, the critical, has affected and could continue to affect the former two approaches.

Nevertheless, the common arguments involved in educational crisis, such as those current issues in funding6_{, teacher quality, issues of inequality or in pedagogy}7_{, will find relevance here, stemming} from a philosophical analysis. This can be articulated in accordance with Debra Satz’s work on equality and adequacy in education, where she explores some functional problems of trying to support egalitarian education. Satz presents an image of education where some minimal level of adequacy is placed over a general value of equality. In a similar respect, I want to present what my definition of an “adequate education” is and for what reasons.8_{However, where Satz may fall into the} traditional camp in her rejection of equality in education and more importantly her conception of education more broadly, I may fall closer to the progressive or Critical camp in my support of a version of adequacy that incorporates equality and a conception of education as an intrinsically socio-political activity.

Many authors have taken to similar issues, and provided detailed critiques of education in the developing and developed world, as well as some interesting projections for the future of education. These contributions have aided and influenced my work. However, they do not cover my own remit. In looking at two significant educational movements, Critical pedagogy and Democratic education, contrasted with traditional approaches, my aim is to construct a clear argument for education as inherently political. This pursuit is reflected in several works, such as Arendt’s and Satz’s. Though a number of important differences exist; the inception of Critical pedagogy is not only uncommon, but will provide a different conception of education, supporting the aim to find a synthesis between previously polar conceptual positions such as conservative and socialist educational perspectives. Once this is established, there will be an implicit claim that traditional and progressive educational models need to be reformed in terms of their political affiliations and effects. I aim to bring a fresh perspective to the game in looking to the movements Critical pedagogy and Democratic education, as I believe that some prominent authors can provide the social and educational reform necessitated by the “education as political” stance. Finally, in my synthesis there is the hope of establishing a 5 Henry A. Giroux, Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition, (Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.: London, 1983) p68

6 https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/03/school-funding-soars-up-election-agenda-as-teachers-warn-of-crisis [accessed05/06/2017]

7 https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/angela-rayner-education-crisis-answer-undoubtedly-yes [accessed 05/06/2017]

(6)

realistic future for education in both a progressive and traditional domain. Thus, the re-conceptualisation of the concept “education” into “socio-education”9_{speaks not only to a conceptual} sphere of education, but seeks to affect the real experience of students and teachers in schools and in society more generally, which suffer a political crisis as the one I will explore. One slightly grandiose way of articulating this is that I am trying to carve out a critical pedagogy, taking influence from specifically from Critical pedagogy, but also the other two domains.

I place this work in the field of philosophy of education, which often takes on empirical dimensions. Here I hope to provide a combination of education as a social science and education as a philosophical study, linking some analytic and continental approaches. By this I intend to paint a picture of education as a holistic subject, where the empirical and theoretical find an obligatory union. What I will try to make clear is that the separation of those empirical dimensions from the more philosophical is a probable cause of the educational crisis I wish to tackle. However, to reiterate the core sentiments in more philosophical terms, I will show the conceptual shortcomings of the generally accepted dichotomy between education and the political elements of society – this establishes an analytic approach. I will also detail the necessary binding between those two spheres in order to produce an alternative pedagogy, made up of the philosophical and educational benefits that arise through my analysis. This will supply a more continental approach, looking to synthesise the findings from my previous analysis. In other words, I place the term analytic on educational perspectives that hold to the dichotomized stance, and push for conservatism in this stance. I then place the term continental on those “progressive” perspectives which aim to capture the virtues of various educational stances, in order to formulate a new perspective; something which I aim to do in my synthesis. Analytic approaches are conservative of traditional educational models, continental approaches want to synthesise and move forward, which means bringing along some of those analytic thoughts. In some ways, the continental approach captures the analytic, while the analytic is hostile to the continental.

To finish this preliminary chapter, I will give some definition to the themes and concepts being used. What follows may act as a reference point for terms which arise frequently in this thesis, and may be particularly necessary as some of these terms take on specific and possibly uncommon dimensions here. Moreover, in the same vein as I have already suggested, a holistic element is present within these definitions, each interacting with each other – education with politics, politics with the hidden curriculum and the hidden curriculum with the illusive Conscientizacao.

First, education is a broad term; here I have a general (but not absolute) focus on secondary and higher education in “more economically developed counties” (MEDC’s), generally western Liberal Democracies.10_{My experience resides in the United Kingdom, so specific references will be made to} this nation. However, due to the development of globalization and a “knowledge economy,” education often takes on similar themes and ideals globally, meaning that the issues spoken about here are reflective of, and will be relevant to schooling in various contexts.11_{Moreover, the} prominence of “British education” and the influx of foreign students coming to schools in the United Kingdom makes England a good example of a developed state, with a multicultural student population, and an education in crisis.12

9 The term Socio-education gains only a glimmer of clarity at present, and I apologise if my hints towards the term are confusing. During this thesis, it will be elucidated.

10 By this I broadly refer to a Rawlsian understanding of contemporary western society since this seems to be the norm in political philosophy now.

11 The IB examinations are a good example of how pedagogies that support liberal democracies have found common use all over the globe.

(7)

Second, the term “political” in this piece refers to the values which radiate from dominant cultural groups, and structure widely accepted norms and social behaviour. In the educational context, the term political will apply to themes which impact a student’s experience of education and the relation it bears to their experience of society. As associated with a perceived crisis, the concept of the political reflects educational disparities that exist between different social and political groups, and the way these political relations discriminate through educational practices. This is especially relevant when looking at the hidden curriculum.

The hidden curriculum is a term that appears throughout, though only gains focus in chapter 4. This subtle and implicit curriculum describes the hidden political values transmitted through various aspects of the school experience. Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis published the work Schooling in Capitalist America in 1976. This work, like Arendt’s, looks at education specifically in America, during the mid-1900s. However, it still holds value, supporting educational reform today. In this work, the concept of the hidden curriculum is fleshed out. Generally, it speaks of dominant values often in conflict with the student population, which shape the student in the image of those dominant values. In short, the hidden curriculum is a set of political messages inscribed in school practices and running in tandem with the normal curriculum. For example, the normal, “explicit” curriculum teaches things like maths and science; the hidden curriculum teaches students the social importance of maths and science, while at the same time instilling non-academic social values, such as punctuality or respect for authority.

Finally, the term Conscientizacao encompasses the philosophical mission of Paulo Freire and Critical pedagogy. It is a Portuguese word, originally found in Frantz Fanon’s work Black Skins, White Masks as “conscienciser.” Freire’s book Pedagogy of the Oppressed is often linked to Fanon’s work, specifically The Wretched of the Earth, and here Freire has maybe popularised the term as

Conscientizacao. It is loosely translated as Critical consciousness or conscientization, and refers to the

critical engagement with social phenomena in order to uncover and overcome the social contradictions that limit different social groups.

As I have said, this paper is a holistic pursuit; all of these terms interact with each other. Within education there are political messages that exist in a hidden curriculum. These messages influence the way people think and behave, which is limiting for Conscientizacao because that political influence inhibits our ability to be freely critical. With these definitions in hand, I hope the picture I am painting is becoming clearer. In the following chapter, I will elaborate of some more prominent themes of this essay, beginning by setting out exactly what locus will be in reference to education. I will then set out some epistemological parameters of my work and the field of education generally.

(8)

Chapter 2 – The Environment

While some concepts have been clarified previously, such as education and politics, here I wish to delve further into some broad themes of philosophy and education. While education may refer to schools in More Economically Developed Countries (MEDC’s), this is still vague. In the first section of this chapter I will explain what schools I am interested in and why. This will place my conception of education in the experience people have of schools today, which speaks to my intention of changing that experience. I will then look at epistemological factors involved in education both philosophically and practically. This will help to give structure to the present political themes as related to educational domains: for example, where one domain (the traditional) may be supported by a particular epistemological (the objective) outlook, and common problems which may be incurred by this (class disparities) – each specific being changeable for its antithesis (subjective – objective, traditional –progressive).

2.1 – The Educational Landscape – Three Educational Domains

I have set out three educational domains that I will focus on. They each cover an educational environment in which differing schools will be placed, though each contains some general themes. I make this stipulation because I want to look at education as it is experienced by most people, and in doing this I must respect the different experiences people have. I want to supply more coherence and structure to these domains, in order to set them out as three educational realities/possibilities.

(i) Traditional

I have previously stated that I intend by traditional education those state funded schools, generally in MEDC’s. This domain also encompasses traditional private institutions and religious schools which share a traditional ethos and in some way correspond to broader social politics. The idea of correspondence here begins to touch upon the work of Bowles and Gintis, which helps to cement what I mean by this category. Traditional schools are those which most closely correspond to the dominant social culture. The traditional domain makes up the best part of schools in the UK and I suspect globally, as it came to exist for the benefit of the general population, coming to terms with industrialisation and the consequential responsibilities: the need for a larger and more skilled and specialised work force. Steadily throughout history, more and more students have needed an education (be that the state’s prerogative or otherwise), and today it is a legal requirement for most children under the age of 18 to attend a school of some kind for 5 days per week. The intention here has changed over time, though constants remain in terms of socialisation and role formation. Traditional schools are a sort of “one size fits all” environment, where students are shaped to fit the school in its academic and social values, otherwise they are at a disadvantage.

I use the term “traditional education” to cover a range of schools that have a close affiliation with the state, at a local or national level. In this sense, I include the British “academy schools,” Technology colleges, and the more common state and private institutions that come under the umbrella of traditional education. Outside of the UK, such as in North America, public schools take the role of state-supported education, and this category is where such institutions will fall. Further, in the developing world one may find international schools, working to a western curriculum which could fall under this category, as well as private schools that hold particularly traditional values. This may seem too broad, however, the similarities I perceive between such schools provide a relatively uniform conception of schools, and it is not hard to reason in this vein; state schools, private schools and international schools may be maintained by representatives of the traditional state, and work to maintain the values of the state itself. This is the core of what I intend by traditional education.

(9)

These models take up practices such as educational essentialism, and for some, commit to the Banking model of education. Accordingly, traditional education holds simple motivations: achieving Intended Learning Objectives (ILO’s), for example, by providing students with the information which will be present on standardized exams. The philosophy behind the traditional position claims that students need to learn the basic academic tenets: “the three Rs” of reading, writing, and arithmetic. More importantly, traditional education is the domain where the state has most influence, in terms of monetary or social influence, which means it is most vulnerable to the hidden curriculum. It is also the domain which most frequently claims political neutrality, or is most unaware of the political implication of schooling and thus is more vulnerable to the crisis I perceive. In general, traditional schools, whether they are academies or not, comply to the same social norms, codes of conduct, educational philosophies, and are subject to the same inspectorates, e.g. Ofsted (a British school’s inspectorate). This domain takes support from the objective epistemology that I will explain soon.

(ii) Progressive

When I use the term progressive education I refer to democratic schools and the Free Schools movement, with specific mention of Summerhill school. The founder of this school, A.S. Neill, remarks that in order for education to be progressive, it must be democratic. Summerhill school is one of the first democratic schools, and remains one of the most successful institutions. It is also the model for most of the first free schools in North America and elsewhere, Neill’s book Summerhill being the handbook. Summerhill school is based in a small village in Suffolk, England, with a student population of about 60. Ages range from 5 to 17, with nearly all pupils completing university entrance exams at the end of their stay. It accepts day pupils and boarding. From its conception, the school has held these factors quite rigidly, and these factors are mirrored by many other democratic schools. Some other examples of such schools would be, The Park School13_{, England, the Guus Kieft} School, the Netherlands14_{, and Sudbury Valley School}15_{, USA. All of these schools are likely to be} inspired by Summerhill, and will certainly reflect some of the general structure of the school, hence why I use Summerhill school as an archetypal example.

Democratic education broadly refers to a school in which the students and staff have a large degree of control over their school experience. In Summerhill, this manifests in the choice to attend lessons at will, and the organisation of General School Meeting, where students are able to discuss and alter events in the school, such as rewards and punishments, via a voting system. I have chosen to look specifically at Summerhill school for a number of reasons: it remains possibly the best example of a democratic school; its founder has produced a wealth of literature on education and Summerhill itself; other authors in this essay take interest in Neill; focusing on one school allows me to look at some of its specific practices; finally, I had the chance to visit the school earlier this year, and have some direct experience of its functioning. This last factor deserves some attention.

Summerhill school offers occasional visitors days, around 2 per year. In February 2017, I was fortunate to attend such a day. This experience consisted of a brief tour of the school, a talk from the principal, Zoe Neill Readhead, a Q & A session with herself and pupils, and finally the chance to sit present at a General School Meeting. This opportunity has supplied me with a clearer picture of Summerhill school as it exists today, in contrast with the words of A.S. Neill written some time ago. For example, students between 12 and 17 are no longer allowed to smoke cigarettes! And I expect this issue is not relevant to the General School Meeting anymore. Speaking to Zoe about some of the virtues and vices the school faces, hearing from pupils about their experience of education inside 13 http://www.smallacresschool.org/

14 http://www.guuskieftschool.nl/ 15 http://www.sudval.org/index.html

(10)

and outside of Summerhill, and witnessing some key practices that have shaped the schools functioning since its conception, lend favour to my thesis. As such, I will draw on the information gathered during that visit in order to place some empirical dimension on my thinking regarding progressive education. Though let me be clear that this visit does not constitute some comprehensive empirical research; it simply brings to light some more contemporary aspects of Summerhill school while showing that my speech is not solely conjectural, but stems from both a close reading of educational literature and some direct interaction between myself and the school. I have more general reasons for limiting progressive education to democratic schools. They present an opposing option to the traditional domain; sometimes reacting in direct contradiction to traditional schools. In this respect, democratic schools may attempt to transcend the political dimensions of the traditional school, sustaining more casual codes of conduct and educational aims. This can manifest in some alarming practices for parents, such as allowing children to dress however they like, or to swear and play all day. In democratic schools, particularly Summerhill, the ILO is happiness, rather than mastering quadratic equations or being able to communicate with superiors. As Neill tells us, ‘…my primary job is not the reformation of society, but the bringing of happiness to some few children.’16_{Still, the democratic model has also proven to be successful, both in terms of} academic achievement17_{and sustaining happiness, and so can find value alongside the traditional} domain. This juxtaposition between traditional and progressive values finds an interesting exhibition in Neill’s book Summerhill, when the British ministry of education inspected the school in 1949. The report notes that Summerhill ‘is not hostile towards worldly success’18_{citing a number of alumni with} traditional and successful careers. However, Neill shows his apprehension to the visit, stating that ‘you can’t really inspect Summerhill because our criteria are happiness, sincerity, balance and sociability.’19_{What is key here is that democratic education has found popularity alongside traditional} education, and so represents the current educational landscape, in which the crisis persists.

(iii) Critical

Lastly, Critical pedagogy refers mainly to the work of Paulo Freire and Henry A. Giroux: it is described as emancipatory educational philosophy, and takes on an anti-capitalist, radical position. Some influence is taken from the Frankfurt school, which provides a social analysis suggesting an epistemological dominance of powerful social groups, to the detriment of other social groups. Influence is also taken from the Frankfurt school’s analysis of Freud’s depth psychology, which values Freuds work on three counts. First, accepting the structure of the psyche (the relationship between the ego, the id and the superego). Second, The Frankfurt school takes up Freuds analysis of family. Particularly the development of the family within capitalist society, from a support base to a mode of social and cultural reproduction. Finally, theorists such as Adorno and Marcuse took up the notion of Freudian Metapsychology, though in differing ways. The general conception was that psychology could be used to deconstruct the political relations of social life, such as the normative values present in seemingly innocuous norms, practices or institutions. Critical pedagogy fits nicely in a tradition of progressive social and educational theory, from Hegel to Marx to the Frankfurt school; Accordingly, Critical pedagogy is the amalgamation of a set of progressive theorists, applying a long history of philosophy to education.

This movement finds little application in schools, which makes it hard to describe in such detail as the previous domains. Part of this work will try to envisage such an application. For now, I can say 16 A.S. Neill, Summerhill, (Penguin Books Ltd: Harmondsworth, 1961) p36

17 http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/downloads/Exam-results.pdf [Accessed 25/06/2017] 18 Neill, Summerhill, p86 - 87

(11)

that Critical pedagogy values dialogue in classroom practice, and wants to elucidate school experiences by asking students and teachers to critically engage with materials and relate them to their own experiences and those of their peers.

2.2 – The Epistemological Atmosphere – Epistemological Framework

I want to give some information regarding epistemology. I have several reasons for this – epistemology has a significant place in the educational theories which I am interested in, and so it is helpful to have a brief introduction to the way epistemology functions within education generally, and how it will function in this work specifically. Furthermore, where many academic works begin with setting out a theoretical framework, an often-warranted question is “why? What makes your theoretical frame work true, epistemologically sound?” As such, I feel it is important, especially in a philosophical work, to give some epistemological justification of my themes: for example, since a view of subjectivity will be seen as superior to a supposed objectivity, it is crucial that I first explain why this is. I also feel it is important to have some epistemological basis for any philosophical argument; pre-empting those epistemological criticisms.

The epistemological parameters to my analysis are important, but I want to be clear that this is not a thoroughly epistemological pursuit. Epistemology here is connected to the social issues to which it dictates sentiment. In more pertinent terms, epistemology plays a role in the way we approach education, its practices, aims and outcomes; as I will argue for education, epistemology is also political. The claim from authors in the Frankfurt school, and consequentially Critical pedagogy, is that we have a popularly accepted view of our social structure (specifically in terms of class, gender, race relations, and the institutions that further these relations) as existing objectively; their existence draws support from a tradition of positivism as the definition of truth and value. Wesley Shumar, a cultural anthropologist who looks closely at education, articulates, ‘our ideology of the present is “written into” our everyday lives…in a consumer society as well as in positivist science.’20_{This view} extends even further in the universalisation of this objectivity value. Here, objectivity becomes more than some kind of deductive support or epistemological factor. It becomes dogma; it is deduced as an absolute; as a logical necessity, even tantamount to God! To some degree this position stems from a misunderstanding of objectivity, a naïve view that scientific reasoning remains value-free and produces concrete knowledge. This position is growing old, and it is often accepted that objectivity refers to some degree of truth according to certain methodology: a partial truth. However, the objective existence of our social world remains in this false, reified position. To be clear, this position finds less popularity today, and Durkheim’s “social fact” has been largely rejected as overly deterministic in terms of social structure and economy. Current notions of objectivity often appreciate the strong influence of the individual, and the value leadenness we must accept in methodology. Nevertheless, approaches to social phenomena tend to be empirical, and fall prey to the same positivistic generalisations that cause the information to be so brutish and unforgiving, to misrepresent the subjectivities present in reality.

Social and Educational problems abound in the objective, traditional position. With a dogmatic epistemological support of one educational model, it is difficult for students and teachers to challenge laws, norms, even information, or think outside of this objective structure; to think subjectively. Even more difficult is the task of educational reform. History is a classic example of a biased and problematic subject: when learning about slavery in the UK, focus generally descends on North America and the use and abolition of slavery, on ‘industry and empire’.21_{I refer in part to my} 20 Wesley Shumar, Homi Bhabha, (Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2010) p496

21<https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239075/SECONDARY_nati onal_curriculum_-_History.pdf> [Accessed 17/06/2017]

(12)

own experience of education, though a little research adheres to this image; the national curriculum in the United Kingdom still focuses on simple learning objectives within euro-centric content. Where it claims to have a critical interest, the examinations contradict this interest. This is not an objective display of history; its objectivity is a mask. What is not considered, and what potentially presents more relevance to many students, are the colonial and decolonial factors involved in African slavery; what is not considered are the relations of colonialism to the students; the way their society and culture has been and continues to be affected by it.

Moreover, the texts available are generally euro-centric or specific to the experience of a privileged existence and written by wealthy white men. This issue frequently arises in traditional school settings, where the remnants of colonialism still penetrate the explicit and implicit curriculums. In another example, a quick look at a popular history text book22_{reveals the focus on the Treaty of} Versailles, and little regard for the people from commonwealth nations who lost many people fighting for that treaty. An interesting factor here is that many people from African nations were implicated in a war by nations which previously had colonized them. The negative impact on those African nations is two-fold, as is the positive impact for the colonizers. The United Kingdom gains land and money, and bodies to fight its wars, the African nations lose their land and money, and are implicated in a European war. African slavery and the treaty of Versailles are detached events, but both have an effect on the way race exists in society, and the isolated study of each event neglects those racially significant factors. This is a simplistic version of events, but it highlights the reality that cultural capital and class material in a history lesson are specific to one culture and neglectful of other cultures. However, this depiction of history is laid out as objective, despite its refusal to acknowledge a more comprehensive reality.

The reality we are given is one in which students must learn the information given by a teacher; both the teacher and the information maintain a position of authority, as objectively true. The students must respect the objectivity of the teacher and the information if she is to be given value within the classroom. This process continues after school, in society, where the respect a student gives the teacher and the teacher’s information is translated into qualifications and mirrored by economic and workplace relations; now that the student has an objective mark of her abilities, employers can assess whether she is the right fit for a job. Through this process the existential experience of the student has been ignored, both in terms of the personal experience brought to the classroom and the experiences had within the classroom. These experiences represent a subjective body of knowledge, that intrinsically challenges the objective authority of classroom relations and information. Otherwise put, an individual’s culture may determine their experience in education and the benefits that education equips them with. If the student’s culture is other to that of the school, the student is in conflict with their education. The result is dehumanization. As Freire says, ‘Any attempt to treat people as semihumans only dehumanizes them.’23_{For Freire, removing the} subjective personal experiences of the student constitutes such a treatment. The experiences that are personal to a student, that make up their identity and their conception of the world, are negated by an education that places a biased, monistic world view on them, and demands acceptance. All the while claiming neutrality!

A significant issue that the objectivity/subjectivity relationship brings to the surface is that of educational neutrality. Where the objectivism injected into education produces uniform, conformed citizens, it runs the risk of dehumanization in the eyes of Critical pedagogues. In this respect, the

22 http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/textbooks/sample/gcse-history/AQA-8145-OUP-SAMPLE-CT.PDF [Accessed 17/06/2017] Ellen Longley, AQA GCSE History: Conflict and Tension 1918-1939, (Oxford University Press, 2016) 23 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Penguin Books: London, 1996) p66-67

(13)

claim of neutrality from traditional camps is clearly misplaced. In fact, the social and educational values of the school align with the political motives of the day in order to reinforce the social structures, processes, and positions necessary to the survival of those structures, et cetera. However, because the social groups supporting the objective epistemological schema use (knowingly or otherwise) this objectivity to further support the subordination of other social groups, in the interests of the themselves, that subordination is displayed as inevitable, unchangeable, even appropriate, since it taps support from an epistemological world view that claims dominance and validity. To be precise, epistemological positions and their educational products are not neutral. Rather, they are dangerously political. Recognition of this stance is important, but more vital is the way education is shaped according to that recognition. Viewing education as neutral is a new position, whereas previously the mission of education was exactly socialisation.24_{The reality is that}

education is supposed to be political; what political motive or which political direction education takes is crucial to whether education becomes dehumanizing or humanizing, and each direction generally taps support from a particular epistemological perspective.

The subjective position is more amenable to those existential experiences of students and teachers. Since the concept of subjectivity allows for a plethora of truths, appreciating contradiction and conflict, it raises the possibility of accepting and engaging with experiences of educational participants. Subjectivism can maintain a reflective stance; pursuing ideas with a critical rather than dogmatic guise. In education, this translates into practices such as dialogue and student-centred models. These practices try to remove political biases, or at least engage with them in order to understand, rather than demote or reject them; thus, appreciating the subjective existential experiences of students and teachers as relevant to the educational process.

I take the politicised view of education as generally accepted, though established as neutral within current educational systems and political perspectives, namely with the rise of Rawlsian liberal democracies which I attribute with conservativism. I feel confident in this assumption because of the long history of educational motives being directed to such socio-educational perspectives; education has always been instrumental. John Dewey initiates this task, in retaliation to education becoming a business enterprise, against its own aims of citizenship, happiness, and social-consciousness.25 Dewey may be viewed as the grandfather of progressive education, though he finds little mention here. I will say that he begins the task of deconstructing epistemological issues and proposes an early conception of a “child-centred” education. The crucial point where I diverge from Dewey is in the political nature of schooling in all domains. The neutrality of education is a relatively new phenomenon, but one that has been growing for some time. The real problematic here is the way the “education as neutral” position is established as universally objective; a qualm that Habermas perceived26_{, which no doubt has some influence on Critical pedagogy.}

These remarks will have relevance throughout this work, though I will not venture any deeper into epistemological problems. What I have presented above is a rough sketch of the epistemological environment that education functions in. Throughout this paper the concepts of objectivity and subjectivity will be commonplace, and it will become clearer where they find their home and why.

Chapter 3 – Critical Pedagogy and Educational Crisis 24 Bowles and Gintis, Schooling in Capitalist America, p18-19

25 Bowles and Gintis, p28-29, p169

26 Gerry D. Ewert, Habermas and Education: A Comprehensive Overview of Habermas in Educational

(14)

Critical pedagogy is central to my work because it provides a socio-political analysis of education. In this capacity, Critical pedagogy expands understanding of the political ramifications of education, the manifestations of this in the hidden curriculum, and delivers a pedagogy; a proposed solution to these problems. This culminates in my reasoning of a reformed conception of education as “socio-education.”27_{Moreover, it has its genesis in Critical theory; a movement that expounds a social} critique in conflict to what I term the liberal democratic conception which directly impacts the traditional domain I am interested in. As Giroux states,

‘I believe that it is clear that the thought of the Frankfurt school provides a major challenge and a stimulus to educational theorists who are critical of theories of education tied to functionalist paradigms based on assumptions drawn from a positivist rationality.’28

Hence, Critical pedagogy neatly captures the crisis in education that I wish to tackle; the dichotomized view of education and broader social politics, as well as supplying some concrete solutions, something lacking in many other theories. I will delve further into Critical pedagogy in order to illustrate the important bonds between education and political values, while giving some details about the basic facets of the theory.

3.1 - “Socio-education” – The Value of Critical Pedagogy

I take Critical pedagogy as forming against one central tradition in society: the tradition to educate people so that they fit into and perpetuate the social, political, and economic relations of life under capitalism. It is often described a radical, emancipatory education, as it attempts to engage people in a struggle for liberation from the naive view of education as politically neutral, while pursuing a more socialistic political environment in society. Once we think about how education is inherently political, we start to see how our beliefs, actions and social position are shaped by the school experience, and how this is potentially limiting to political freedom, equality and democracy, or as Paulo Freire would say, limiting to the task of becoming fully human, the task of humanization.29_{In my interpretation,}

this isn’t necessarily a claim against capitalism or in favour of some other political position, but rather a criticism of how education has been formed and used under capitalism, particularly the economic and social dimensions of capitalism, in a way that raises educational disparities and damages a value of democracy.

Freire, the founder of this theory, was writing against the backdrop of an oppressive South American state, regularly reflecting on his own exile and the similarly marginalised position of rural and urban workers that he was teaching. Undoubtedly these experiences helped to shape Critical pedagogy, and it is useful to see how this theory begins to focus on education in converse to traditional approaches, specifically education under capitalism,

‘...educands need to become educands by assuming themselves, taking themselves as cognizing subjects, and not as an object upon which the discourse of the educator impinges. Herein lies, in the last analysis, the great political importance of the teaching act.’30

This is contrasted with the traditional view of schooling as a socialisation process, where students are taught to respect not only the arbitrary authority of the teacher, but also the underlying 27 This is a term that I cannot find in educational literature. I use it to refer to a conception of education as intrinsically tied to social factors.

28 Giroux p34

29 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (Penguin Books: London, 1996) p25-51

(15)

epistemological authority of classroom content. As another prominent Critical pedagogue, Henry A. Giroux, points out:

‘Schools, in these [traditional] perspectives, are seen merely as instructional sites. That they are also cultural and political sites is ignored, as is the notion that they represent arenas of contestation and struggle among differentially empowered cultural and economic groups.’31 Already, we can see a distinction between students as unique contributors to the educational experience, contrasted with students as receptors of information, students as political animals and students as political cogs. Where these categories of students are to be placed is unclear; as we will see later and as this above quote suggests, no student can be entirely a “political animal” or a “political cog” – but rather some combination of both. After all, “schools are cultural sites” not merely “instructional.”

Within the traditional domain, the instructional aspect may take prominence, in the critical domain, the cultural. In the progressive domain, a different image may occur by intending to remove the political norms from the education process where possible. A school such as Summerhill may remove the cultural and economic hierarchy among students within the school, but it cannot persist in this task outside of the school. A problem Zoë Neill Readhead (daughter of A.S. Neill and current principal of Summerhill) spoke of during my visit is the difficulty former pupils have in sending their own children to Summerhill. The common line from A.S. Neill’s Summerhill is poignant, ‘…I would rather see a school produce a happy street cleaner than a neurotic scholar.’32_{There is certainly value to this} intention; the intention to foster happiness, and to reject the meritocratic sentiments based on class and profession. However, what this line forgets is that the student who enters Summerhill and leaves to clean the streets, happy or not, has been profoundly affected by the education they received and the social hierarchy which is so foreign to that education. Regardless of how happy the alumni are, they exist in a world dominated by social and cultural hierarchies. Summerhill may produce people who are happy despite this, yet what it may not achieve is an active challenge or reform to those social factors that it attempts to remove from education, nor does it equip ex-students to provide themselves or their children with the same social and educational experience. It appears some dangerous meaning could be given to the words ‘Summerhill is an island’.33

I am going to concentrate on two important factors in education, both generally speaking and in relation to my specific domains. First, I want to look at the social and political implication of education: here, I present an established dichotomy of education and politics in the traditional educational environment, which this essay seeks to change with the Critical proposal that education is bound to politics. The way this relationship functions in the progressive domain could be dramatically different, and I will contrast this with the traditional reaction, taking some advice from Hannah Arendt. The Critical domain provides the initial socio-political analysis here, but also becomes relevant when trying to envisage a school which reacts differently, in a more positive way, to the traditional and progressive domains.

Second, I will apply Giroux’s conception of Resistance. This concept could alter the analysis of education and society elucidated in the previous section, and so I think it is important to factor this into my structuring of a critical pedagogy. I will end this chapter by bringing together the themes relevant to this task (of structing my critical pedagogy).

31 Giroux, Theory and Resistance in Education, p3

32 A.S. Neill, Summerhill, (Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, 1971) p20 33 A.S. Neill, Summerhill, (Penguin Books: Harmondsworth, 1971) p35

(16)

3.2 – Education in Dichotomy – The Core of the Crisis

Critical pedagogy touches upon every imaginable sector of the social sciences, and this presents both its vice and virtue. The task of summing up such a holistic theory is convoluted; however, it gives rise to the (many) necessary elements in a theory of education. This is, in part, the aim of this section, to show that we must consider education along with its relevant partners, such as the wider social politics. The philosophy of education, and education in itself, is an intrinsically holistic pursuit and cannot be considered in isolation. This is part of the reason that I invoke the term “socio-education” to refer to education generally, because education is always social.

Within its broad scope is an implicit claim that Critical pedagogy makes: that education is not neutral, but interwoven with various other social fields and therefore carries political ideals and prejudices. Freire sums this relationship up in characteristic existential fashion when he says,

‘education as the practice of freedom – as opposed to education as the practice of domination – denies that man is abstract, isolated, independent and unattached to the world; it also denies that the world exists as a reality apart from people. Authentic reflection considers neither abstract man nor the world without people, but people in their relations with the world. In these relations consciousness and world are simultaneous: consciousness neither precedes the world nor follows it.’34

As we can see, Freire’s philosophical motif is anything but sectarian, and with education as his focus his task is to analyse it with all of its social relations in tow, while at the same time illustrating that those connections between education and other domains are crucial, thus justifying his initial approach. I aim towards a similar task here, to analyse Critical pedagogy, with its social relations in tow, in order to solidify the education-society bonds, while also seeking to remove unwanted baggage from Critical pedagogy.

Let us commence in a similar fashion to Freire in his literacy lessons and culture circles, first with a reading of the word, then to a reading of the world. Critical pedagogy claims that the traditional practice of teaching (Banking education) negates the existential experience of the participants of that education – ‘…the teacher teaches and the students are taught… the teacher knows everything and the students know nothing.’35_{The claim is that by treating information as objective, there is no room} for the student to interact with that information in a critical way; the only option is to swallow it. This reified epistemology creates an atmosphere within education and further afield, where people come to accept the seniority of authority figures and the information they espouse; one element of Freire’s view of dominant society. This is dominant according to Critical pedagogy for two significant reasons: first, it denies the students (and teachers) their own epistemological viewpoint – one based on their own experiences as different from the dominant ideology. This reflects the value of subjectivity and the rejection of objectivity. Second, this authority further disregards the students’ “cultural capital” – the norms and knowledge established in one social group are diminished and replaced with the cultural capital valued by the dominant ideology. It also discards the claim that education must be considered and practiced in tandem with its wider social relations (because of the claim that it is unaffected by those relations); thus, it pursues education as a standardised, neutral instrument, efficient but stripped of its humanistic nature. For Freire, such an education negates its participants, amounting to “dehumanisation.” It also denies the student and teacher an opportunity for conscientizacao. This concept clearly runs throughout Freire’s reasoning. A peculiar word, it

34 Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p62 35 Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, p54

(17)

remains stringent in Critical pedagogy, amounting to a social, critical consciousness. Some may relate it to autonomy or Citizenship in some form. What is important are the links between dehumanisation through the negation of a person’s existential experience, and the possible damage this can to do conscientizacao: by negating the way a person has experienced the world and removing the possibility of challenge, people will be unable engage with that world in a free and critical way. This is a contentious position, and ironically contains some sectarian dimensions that Freire wants to steer clear of. Traditional educational models are not necessarily so dehumanizing, and there is certainly a lack of intentionality within the less admirable aspects of those models. Administrators and teachers exist in a history of educational development, those workers quite removed from the political origins and motives of their own practices. Moreover, these potentially dehumanizing practices also support a great many educational benefits, even necessities! For example, some kind of standardisation is useful when administering an education to a large diverse population: if we want many skilled teachers, it is efficient to train them under the same regulations so that the product is a pool of equally trained, hopefully equally skilled teachers. The idea being that if all teachers are trained to the same standard, their students will receive an education of equal standards. This enhances educational equality at least in terms of opportunity since there can be less discrepancy between the quality of teaching a student experiences, and say, geographical location. Moreover, the use of authority and discipline in schools can be an essential tool for some teachers, in controlling a classroom and meeting targets. The business model is efficient. Of course, the imperative of meeting targets itself represents some of the disadvantages Critical pedagogy tries to solve. The point being that where traditional education seeks efficiency, it loses morality by dropping acknowledgement of the political implications of its efficiency.

Hannah Arendt, who speaks powerfully of a crisis in education, as mentioned at the start of this paper, provides a very interesting critique of education and authority, with a large baring on democratic education, much ahead of her time. Yet Arendt’s work is cryptic; the free school’s movement, in the United States began some years after she was writing, so it is unlikely that she is speaking directly about this. However, her speech does reflect heavily on democratic education, be it through my interpretation or a more accurate reading. While it would be advisable to forward a more accurate reading, this task is made difficult by the lack of secondary literature on the topic; education is often neglected within philosophy, democratic education more so, and in this move, Arendt’s colourful language is also neglected. It is for these reasons that my thinking proposes to be interpretational rather than certainly reflective of Arendt’s own beliefs.

Arendt points out three assumptions that lend critique to democratic education.36_{They suggest that} the freedom given to students first separates them from the adult world and in doing so subjects them to the authoritarian world of the child, here subjected to tyranny of the majority; pressure from within the child social group. Second, that teaching takes a passive role, which is informed by the third assumption that students will learn by doing, by activity, essentially at play. These are strong remarks and certainly valid to a degree. Democratic education may separate the child from the adult, and further, under my own contention, from society as a whole. This is her first assumption, and captures Arendt’s themes which reflect those of my discourse.

The criticisms from Arendt certainly show some chinks in the armour of democratic schools like Summerhill, though it remains that those criticisms can be addressed in part (full attention will come later) – the adult and child world are not so separate, students are not simply expected to learn through play, and teaching does take on an active role. Conceptually however, the first assumption

(18)

sinks to the heart of democratic educational philosophy: to allow the child freedom to live in their own world. Their own world, not necessarily ours. This sounds like an idyllic reality. Which it is; and contradictions abound. The students do not live in a child’s world, nor do they live in the world of Summerhill, or a world that accepts Summerhill’s practices and social values. They live in a political world, one of ‘natality’.37_{Nevertheless, there is a constructed environment in democratic schools} which does remove the students from the adult, political world; the students live in a contradiction between what they experience in school (an a-political world) against what the rest of the world experiences (a political world). Therefore, the freedom given to children in democratic schools depoliticises, neutralises their school environment to the same degree as traditional schools; here the intention is to actually remove the political constraints in education whereas in the traditional setting the motive is to mask those constraints.

At Summerhill students may be quite isolated in a small English village, though of course it is no longer 1921. The small English village carries modern amenities similar to London. The internet presents a new world of modernity, not only available to the children but mastered by them. In Summerhill, there are rules limiting phone and computer usage. I imagine the rule itself has also been created by staff and students equally, though I cannot fully attest to this. The sentiments of A.S. Neill are clearly of strong liberty, though again, it is a modern age now, and things are different. Students cannot be totally removed from cultural hegemony, even if this is the intention. Rewards and punishments are decided at a general school meeting by staff and pupils alike. Punishments are also waged against staff and pupils alike, an event that defends Summerhill quite well from Arendt’s critiques. Here, both child and adult are connected to the same world, and a world of mutual authority. It also reflects the real world quite accurately; in arguing your case; having morals and values and applying them; of experiencing a democracy, one much cleaner than the convoluted democracy we experience in politics38_{. Maybe this is not representative of the real world either,} though to purposefully rig this “micro-democracy” for the sake of clear simulation seems a bankrupt idea.

All the same, this is a constructed democratic environment, which simulates experience of the outside world in an ideal setting. It is still not representative of those cultural and political constraints that we all are subject to. Even if the adult and child worlds are conjoined at times, through democratic practices and inevitable access to the outside world, the overall environment of a democratic school is far removed from the political environment in which it exists. The result of this is severe for democratic schools, as it places them on a similar platform to the traditional schools it reacts against. Both aim to provide a politically neutral environment in some way: the progressive actually removing the school from the political environment as best it can, though of course this cannot be totally successful, and more importantly it is not desirable. The traditional school is entrenched in that political environment, and propagates it, however it does so under the mask of neutrality, claiming non-bias while at the same time marginalising other cultures. Both the traditional and the progressive domains are value-laden, a fact which both domains attempt to ignore. This negates Arendt’s speech however, proposing that both traditional and progressive environments mask their experiences with the a-political, thus separating the child from reality in both domains, not merely the progressive. The political insinuation from Arendt remains prominent, but in progressing from her theory it seems clear that the democratic domain is on par with the traditional in terms of their political deficiencies.

37 Arendt, p181-182

38 The stipulation of a convoluted democracy refers to the voting processes, media influence, and large population, amongst other things.

(19)

I agree with Arendt to a large extent, though I think much of her speech is too pessimistic. Her conceptions seem strangely pre-emptive, to her credit, but also misplaced in some counts. The insinuation that children need to be socialised into the world of adults, into the political world, is a value that I share with her, however the exact meaning of this intention is unclear in her speech and has potentially dangerous outcomes. It appears probable that Arendt intends that students must be socialised into the world simply as it is, with all of its vices and virtues. This “world” is America, with a proposed value of equality. As she says,

‘Thus what makes the crisis in America so especially acute is the political temper of the country, which of itself struggles to equalize or to erase as far as possible the difference between young and old, between the gifted and the ungifted, finally between children and adults, particularly between pupils and teachers.’39

Nevertheless, it is clear that the political world of America is riddled with inequality, social hierarchy and domination; minority groups in America are still fighting for equality through movements such as Black Lives Matter, which continues a civil rights action that began in the in the mid 1900’s. This is not necessarily a world in which students should be socialised into, it is a world that needs to be changed. It is true that students need to know about this world and learn about it, even be able to function in it, but more important, they should be equipped to better it, not just accept it. My contention here may simply represent my political differences with Arendt; her residing in a conservative, traditional camp, while I look for solutions in the progressive camps. Still, this contention shows why Critical pedagogy is so important for education in both traditional and progressive sectors; both carry valuable assets, but grave problems as well. Both attain some degree of human functionality, while also perpetuating the stagnation of socially-biased social and educational spheres. Giroux takes us away from theories of reproduction on the basis that they are too deterministic, however beneath this claim lives the contention that reproduction is an element of education, as schools struggle to maintain their existence. Arendt’s contention seems to be that we must reproduce the school system, Giroux’s that we can never do this fully, and more importantly that we do not want to.

Critical pedagogy enables a self-critique of individual and society, education and culture, both in a personal and collective sense. In this capacity, the total anti-authority structure of Progressive education, that removes the student from the adult social world, is reduced; the active learning aspect is addressed, since the student is being critical about the world, and in doing so may produce a better image of that world, with a hopeful consequence of overcoming the hegemonic, dominant culture that they exist in. In the thinking act at least, the limiting aspects of the hidden curriculum are being tackled, and those social boundaries which ask students to bank information and ignore its social relevance are being simultaneously presented and challenged. Jumping over the hurdle is of course a larger social task, which the thinking act could make more possible.

As such, I think Critical pedagogues could agree with Arendt that, generally speaking, education is vulnerable to politically biased and marginalising behaviour, and even that democratic education is vulnerable to a dehumanizing division of children and adults. What Arendt seems unresponsive to are the dehumanising elements mirrored by traditional education and the society which it represents. Here, Critical pedagogues continue to notice the vulnerability to dehumanisation through authoritative and alienating practices of traditional education as well as places criticism on progressive schools. However, rather than succumb to Arendt’s pessimism, Critical pedagogy is able to confront those dehumanising practices and attempt to overcome them.

Education & Society: Deconstructing a Crisis in Education

Education and Society:

Deconstructing a Crisis in Education

Contents