Visuals… The good, The bad and the ugly

Visuals… they are the main source that practitioners turn to when a child is given the label ‘Autism’. But how effective are they?

How many of us turn to bald yellow people with smiley round faces when we are happy? or get lots of letter ‘zzzzz’ floating out of our scalps when we are tired?

One of the so called ‘traits’ that someone who is labelled on the autistic spectrum are believed to share is that those people can sometimes be very literal i.e. not understanding figure of speech, sarcasm etc.

so for example: if you say one minute to said person they truly believe that in 60 seconds they are going to receive what has been promised. I heard a story once ( that I am unable to reference because I can not remember the source) that a new mother who had ‘mild Autism’ had a baby who got the flu. She had come across the famous saying “feed a cold, starve the flu”.

Having heard this, the mother innocently and heedlessly starved her baby to death. I have used this hard to hear example just to show how literal someone with the ‘autistic’ label can be.

So when we are presenting a child with these visuals just think how ineffective they can be. they could be looking at you thinking ” i don’t understand, she wants me to turn yellow and round?”

Every child expresses their emotions differently, for example, they may flap their hands when they are happy. therefore showing this child a smiling face does not mean happy to them because that is not how they process that emotion. Or they may run from side to side to gain a rocking motion when tired. The emotion visuals if needed, need to be specific to each individual child

Another example of this is when we take pictures of routines and what we would like the child to do. More often than not for ‘play time’ we have a photo of the toys (usually of the child’s interests e.g. the cars or the dinosaurs or a specific area) of which we present to the child to show that it is play time. However, the child could look at that photo and think “oh, she wants me to go to the cars” not she wants me to go and play.

When the child follows this instruction and goes to the cars, they are then observed as being ‘repetitive’ and ‘he doesnt explore the room or other toys’ or ‘he only goes to the cars’ When effectively you have told them to go to the cars! theres no winning.

An alternative to this practise could be to present them with a photo of an empty (whole) room and along side this present the BSL sign for play. obviously at first the child would not understand this sign nor would any child, but in a short time after a few prompts the child would fully understand what you are expecting of them and gives them full autonomy over their own play.

Do not assume that ever child labelled with ‘autism’ has a strong visual understanding, we can not fit every child into the same category. Just like adults have different strenghts in ways of learning i.e. spactial, auditory, linguistic, kinesthetic, mathematical, interpersonal or intrapersonal. We are all very very different including children labelled ‘autistic’.

Some children may respond to smell, touch or sound a lot more effectively than visuals. not to say that some children may thrive with visuals. It completely depends on the individual but should not be used as a automatic substitute to spoken language. BSL should be used throughout the setting for all children to learn and use, and you would be amazed at how quickly children can pick up sign language i.e. why baby sign was introduced, it has been proven that babies can sign to express their needs such as milk before they are able to use speech.

Why politics should play no part in our education. (British values is a biggie)

The education system in conjunction with its government applied policies such as, implementing a strict curriculum giving educators a lack of pedagogy on how and what they teach, Making the fundamental British values compulsory to promote in schools and a meritocratic education system made unfair by political involvement have been determined by narrow political agendas, habitually overlooking all advice from the teaching professionals. (Arendt, 1954) cites that it should be the teachers who lead education not politics and the way that the government defines educational success in narrow terms can conflict with teachers, students and the community. Therefore, there should be a complete divorce between education and political life.

Curriculum

Teachers are required to adhere to the government’s rule books and policies on the strict curriculum that they teach. If schools cannot provide evidence that they have adhered to these rules and policies during an Ofsted inspection, and show that they have adopted government initiatives, they are given poor reports. This could result in parents being put off from sending their child to that setting because they seek the “outstanding” graded settings. Because, they think that these are the ones of which will provide the best quality education for their child (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). However, who is to say that the government and political leaders have the best knowledge to judge how education should be run.

(Green, 2011) argues that diminishing teachers’ autonomy to use their own ideas and judgments when teaching pupils can have a poor effect on their performance. Having to follow the governing policies and rules such as a strict curriculum does not allow educators to deliver and educate each individual pupil to their full potential because these rules and policies act as a barrier towards them being able to fully deliver what they see useful and helpful such as taking the child’s interests and ways of learning into account.

A school with poor reports and minimum students attending Results in schools potentially going bankrupt of government funding’s for not meeting their expectations (Deidrich, 2012). Meaning finances ends up being a bigger aspect in the delivery of education than the student’s educational gains and best interests. This is not creating a democratic system, which political leaders cite of importance in the fundamental British values. Because the educators are being dictated and told how to do their jobs.

(Heilbronn, 2016) suggests that if the teachers and educators do not gratify the political authority that they have effectively delivered their curriculum and achieved the lead tables and grades they require, they will not employ them again which deviates the reward for the product and the service to financial gain. with a lack of pluralism between the two, it is evident that both parties have separate interests in what education should be about and why education should be separated from political hands.

These chosen rules and curriculum plans implemented by the government for education are to guarantee all pupils leave education with the knowledge and skills they need to access a wide range of jobs and succeed in a competitive global market. But, (Van Dorn, 1964) cites that there is no benefit from teaching the eyes of the children to read if there is no active mind behind them in search of knowledge. Meaning, by filling students up with required information to achieve the goals set out by political figures (Heilbronn, 2016) strips away their abilities think of their own ideas, problem solve and question this authority. By not teaching these skills we are not allowing society to grow because that generation will have nothing new of their own to bring and apply to create a better world. They are just preparing them for a society of which already exists (Arendt, 1954).

educators should be able to shape their own classroom practices. Including the curriculum and what is taught, have pedagogy of how it is taught, judge whether it is learned successfully through their own assessments and have their own evaluation system to test how effectively each school tackles its tasks, and should be governed by the teachers, working collegially and supported by school governors, neighbouring schools, parents and, nationally, educational researchers. And be completely divorced from political life.

Meritocracy

The metaphysics of the curriculum put into place by political figures excludes forms of knowledge and cognitive perspectives such as life skills and independent thinking and does not include the information required for a democratic society (Knoll, 2014). Because without these skills we are just being taught what the leaders want us to learn and accept that this is the way of which society is run, and to accept and obey this.

For example, when a child begins secondary school they are put into “sets” by order of ability. However, if a child has come from a working-class primary school with minimal government funding, they will not have been taught the same quality of knowledge as children from an upper-class primary school in the upper-class catchment areas (Education endowment foundation, 2018).

Because working class schools rely on government funding for learning resources whereas private and grammar schools have the privilege of the upper classes pockets to supply better learning resources. This Gives the child in the lower set no chance to catch up with the more “elite” peers in the top set.

The choice made by the governments LEAs to put children into “sets” is keeping the division between the two. It is something that structures and orders society and does not suit the interests of all social classes by repressing ambitions to achieve to control the working classes and to advance the interests of those in power. Meaning they are not taught to challenge this authority, think together and give all students a sense of value and personal identity.

(Herrnstein and Murray, 1994) argue that without our basic needs being met we are unable to focus on other things. So, if a child is hungry or tired then they will be unfocussed in class and unable to concentrate properly. In 2018 Ministers announced that more than 100,000 pupils from lower class families will miss out on free school meals due to cuts (Kentish, 2018). Meaning that a majority of this class will not receive an adequate meal throughout the learning day, giving them less of a chance at succeeding in class than the upper classes of which can afford a nutritious meal. This is the governments doing at taking away these children’s chances at equal success.

Meritocracy is made not fair by political parties and is used to weed out the different classes by introducing children to an old, pre-existing world, constructed by political parties (Arendt, 1954) This Would not be the case if politics was divisively divorced from the realm of education, the system would be fairer with educators and professionals running it because this would make a fairer more equal system because there would be no hidden political incentives within their education and as  Plato cites, becoming educated would mean to make our own dictations and be set free from the ignorance.

British values

The government introduced fundamental British values into the curriculum in 2014 to ensure young people leave school prepared for life in modern Britain. The ideas are to create democracy, individual liberty, the rule of law and have tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. However, (Conroy and Davis, 2013) cites that the fundamental British values are inherently just the desirable beliefs and goals of which, the government wish to use education as the primarily service of the economy. And by telling teachers and pupils that we must teach and learn these values in the governments ideological way is not democratic and takes away freedom of speech from other ‘global’ values and may compromise democratic rights to freedom of expression and individual liberty for teachers.

(Locke, 1693) believed that we are born with a mind like a blank slate, it is the things that we learn and the experiences that we have that are then imprinted onto it to create who we are, So by implementing these values into the children we are potentially creating prejudices’ by Weaponizing education and using  it to remake the world that the leaders rule, rather than to live it how they are born creating natality of the same believers. Its preparing young people to begin heteronomous action from a world which they are born which is not of their own making. And preparing them for a world that already exists. (Arendt, 1954).

children should feel comfortable to approach their teacher about worries and questions about the political world around them and in society without feeling that the teacher is a dictator of what they are being told to say and think, by these political parties inside of fundamental British values.

If a child’s parents have different beliefs to what is being taught in school, then they may well feel torn between the two principles and feel like an outsider from both communities. A better approach towards this would be to educate pupils on the issues and realities in the world and let the child learn for themselves that their parents’ beliefs are not necessarily the best to have, rather than dictating what is wrong and what is right.

the meaning of democracy in education also centres around the practices of democratic pedagogy (Dewey, 1966), while much of the material designed to support the teaching of democracy in the context of Fundamental British values focuses on learning about the legislative process. And teachers have the requirement to feed this to the children how the political figures say.

If teachers had more autonomy on how to deliver the fundamental British values, we would learn that learning the basics is key and giving children the evidence and letting them make their own decisions from that, then they would not get a patriotic imagery of the system. This use of national identity within its title creates the vision of having outsiders and others if not British. (Pete and Haywood, 2016). and a one-sided story from them.

By enforcing the fundamental British values into teaching, it is undoubtedly expecting the minorities to adopt to the majority perspective. This Causes stereotyping and assumptions within the school community and could lead to the ‘outsider’ or minority being treated with empathy and not the main goal of which is, equality from teachers and peers. the task of preparing young people to navigate the complex relationship between policy, parental background and pedagogical environment. asserting particular values as national values is an expansion of state power and could be seen really as “our” values to the minority groups.

Conclusion

Overall, Politics should be divorced from the realm of education because constant political interference and policies being implemented into the system are barriers to raising standards and quality in schools. And needs an independent body made up of educational professionals and trained teachers to set out the school policies and curriculum, separated from the ever-changing demands of political parties. And the overreaching of political power for politics to get involved in education.

This would help to build children for the future not from the past. Meaning children would be creators with new ideas and build up a better equal society. And use the past as a learning resource to the present (Conroy & Davis 2002) meaning this generation would have been taught the skills to be able to adapt a grow. This would be made possible if teachers had more pedagogy on how they deliver education and how the curriculum is made up.

References

Arendt, H. (1954). The crisis in education. p.3.

Arendt, H. (1954). The crisis in education. p.6.

Arendt, H. (1954). The crisis in education. p.174.

Conroy, J. and Davis, R. (2013). Transgression, Transformation and Enlightenment: The Trickster as poet and teacher. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 34(3), pp.255-272.

Deidrich, M. (2012) False Choices: The Economic Argument Against Market-Driven Education Reform (Minnesota, Minnesota 2020). Available online at: http://www.mn2020.org/issues-thatmatter/education/false-choices-the-economic-argument-against-market-driven-education-reform.

Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York times, The free press.

Education endowment foundation (2018). setting or streaming. [online] Available at: https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/generate/?u=https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/pdf/toolkit/?id=127&t=Teaching%20and%20Learning%20Toolkit&e=127&s= [Accessed 17 Nov. 2018].

Green, J. (2011) Education, Professionalism and the Quest for Accountability: Hitting the Target but Missing the Point (London, Routledge).

Heilbronn, R. (2016). Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), p. 306-312

Heilbronn, R. (2016). Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), p. 309

Herrnstein, R. and Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: intelligence and class structure in American life. USA: THE FREE PRESS, pp.388-411.

Kentish, B. (2018). Political correspondent- up to 100,000 children to miss out on free school meals. The Independent. [online] Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/free-school-meals-children-miss-out-government-threshold-universal-credit-ifs-institute-fiscal-a8288976.html [Accessed 15 Nov. 2018].

Knoll, M. (2014) ‘Laboratory School, University of Chicago’, in Encyclopedia of

Educational Theory and Philosophy, ed. D.C. Phillips. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2014. Vol. 2. pp. 455-458.

Locke, J. (1693). Some thoughts concerning education. London: J. and R. Tonson, p.34.

Mac an Ghaill, M., & Haywood, C. (2017). Muslim students, Education and Neoliberalism: Schooling a ‘Suspect Community’. Heidelberg: Springer.

Pete, H. and Haywood, C. (2016). Higher education, de-centred subjectivities and the emergence of a pedagogical self among Black and Muslim students. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(3), pp.358-371.

Pring, R. (2012). Philosophy of educational research. Bloomsbury Academic, p.505.

Slaughter, S. and Leslie, L. (1997). Academic capitalism. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, p.33.

Van Dorn, H. (1964). A political scientist reviews. the association for supervision and curriculum development, p.94.

Focus on Abilities, not Disabilities!

(This blog entry is focussed on the label ‘Autism’ as the impairment, as it was easier to focus on just one for an example point)

What are the purposes of an individual education plan?

•The purpose of the IEP process is to assure that children with a “label”  have the opportunity to receive public mainstream education alongside their non- impaired peers in a non-restrictive environment.[2]

•The process of an IEP contains these depersonalized meetings with the child’s parents/carers, the child’s key worker, a SENCO and other professional’s such as speech and language therapists, behavioural therapists etc.  With their main focus being compliance to set goals/targets for the child to be able to fit in to the rest of the class, and masses of paperwork which can deem to position children as “objects” or “problems” rather than having a mutual partnership with parents and understanding of the individual child. [1]

So how can we make that change, and make a difference if we was to implement the social model of disability into our settings?

• As a professional your attitudes towards a child with an impairment can be as much of a barrier to inclusion as a non inclusive activity or an inaccessible building [14]. Its time to change this and start to look at what around us is disabling that child from being included.
• It is your job to remove these barriers and make the learning environment suit every individual child’s needs. By doing this you are enabling the child.
• Disability is built within medical, cultural, legal, social and historical discourses [12]. It is your determination, willingness and attitudes as professionals to change this, not impersonal policies and legislations to make inclusion possible for all children [16]. Make that change!

For example…. Bob has been given the “label Autism”  Bob is still Bob and enjoys joining with his friends and playing football. This label of Autism does not define Bob.

So.. What should change?

• Parental participation should be the upmost important and powerful voice at the table as these are the ones who know the child the most. This should be valued by all professionals [4]. Educators and professionals can sometimes focus on how to “fix” the child’s problems and dismiss what the families concerns are about inclusion in the setting itself [7]. You should listen to the parents, respect what they say and have a good relationship with them.

• IEP documentation does not serve as a form of communication with the parents and the child. That document does not resemble nor determine who the child is as a person, you can not fit them into a box on a document. [5] remember that each file is about an individual person and your attitudes and decisions are shaping that child’s experiences and future. You can do this by using the social model approach and make the learning environment suitable for the child.

• All children learn differently and at different paces. Setting out goals for any pupil to reach is unrealistic. Children can not be measured through charts and statistics. Instead look at how the learning environment can help each child to learn and progress in their own way going off their interests and strengths.

• You must work with families during the IEP process to work collaboratively to create goals of providing adaptations and modifications within the learning environment to suit every individual child and move away from deficit driven conversations [8].

Advocates…

the person with the ‘autistic label’ regularly becomes the ‘product’, the ‘thing’ that needs intervening with and Services such as IEP plans, goal/ objectives, Speech therapists and behavioural therapists to name a few, are provided for the ‘autistic children’, with minimal consideration given to the needs of the child. Autism is seen as an ‘invisible disability’ therefore the ‘autistic voice’ is made ‘invisible’. subsequently the parents are often excluded as the ‘autistic advocates’ from the development of the IEP. [19]. It is your job to make sure that everyone is working together and has the same interests for the child (inclusion) so that the parents do not feel they have to fight a battle for their child’s voice to be heard.

the IEP process is a guide towards the medical model grounds of which Autism is understood to be a condition that needs ‘curing’ or ‘fixing’. This is not necessary because Autism is not a terminal illness, nor does it need a diagnosis because the label in no way defines who the child is and what their needs and aspirations are. [3]

take into account the childs dreams and aspirations…

[22] The reasons ‘autistic people’ are not believed to able to live a fulfilling life is because of the barriers placed in their way by the non-autistic society, it is your responsibility to eradicate these barriers, and not put the blame for the difficulties faced by ‘autistic people’ on them as individuals. There is no point in us working together to help the child with the ‘label autism’ unless the things producing and supporting the barriers to ‘autistic people’ living fulfilling lives are tackled. i.e. our own attitudes and prejudice’s. [23]. Therefore every child has dreams of who and what they want to become, so lets break down them barriers and help to make them come true.

their talents…

If we are applying the ‘label Autism’ on a child we are locating the problems in them, It is the applier of the labels attitude who’s responsibility it is that the child is being ‘othered’ (seen as being different/ incapable)[24]. Therefore it is your job to focus on the child as a whole, focus on their individual talents and gifts to help them to progress.

and their strengths…

Society struggles to accept ‘differences’ and Autism can be perceived as something that needs to be ‘managed’ or ‘fixed’ [25]. Mottron et al. (2006) found that children with the ‘label Autism’ had lots of intellectual strengths, which argues that Autism is not a disability and can be seen as a gift or just that everyone has differences[26]. Therefore we must focus on further developing and encouraging these individual strengths.

Everyone at the table should have the same goal, Which is…. Improving educational opportunities for the child.

We can then prevent parents from having to become advocates for their child causing friction between them and the educators. Parents feel the need to do this to mitigate the distresses of the bureaucratic opinions and choices being made about their child and to attempt to get them the best education possible without being segregated or treated differently. This will not happen if everyone is on board with breaking down the barriers around the child. [13]

It is not “what are we going to do with Bob?” or “Where are we going to send Bob?” it is “How are we going to include Bob”!!!

[18] unreasonable expectance of reaching customary stages of development becomes a treatment plan to modify the ‘Autistic person’ to fit in with mainstream society and culture.

This way of thinking assumes that there is a rule book of social norms that everyone must follow. There is not!

References

• •[1] Virginia M. Zeitlin & Svjetlana Curcic (2014) Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’, Disability & Society, 29:3, 373-387 •[2] Kate MacLeod, Julie N. Causton, Mary Radel & Patrick Radel (2017) Rethinking the Individualized Education Plan process: voices from the other side of the table, Disability & Society, 32:3, 381-40 •[3] Duchan, Judith. 2006. “Providing a Place in the New History of Disabilities for Communication Access.” Disability Studies Quarterly 26 (2): 6–14. •[4] Yell, M. L. 2012. The Law in Special Education. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson. •[5] Virginia M. Zeitlin & Svjetlana Curcic (2014) Parental voices on Individualized Education Programs: ‘Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!’, Disability & Society, 29:3, 373-387 •[6] Schwarz, P. 2006. From Disability to Possibility: The Power of Inclusive Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. •[7] Bacon, J., and J. Causton-Theoharis. 2013. “‘It Should Be Teamwork’: A Critical Investigation of School Practices and Parent Advocacy in Special Education.” International Journal of Inclusive Education 17 (7): 682–699. [8] Kate MacLeod, Julie N. Causton, Mary Radel & Patrick Radel (2017) Rethinking the Individualized Education Plan process: voices from the other side of the table, Disability [9] Kate MacLeod, Julie N. Causton, Mary Radel & Patrick Radel (2017) Rethinking the Individualized Education Plan process: voices from the other side of the table, Disability & Society, 32:3, p. 396 •[10] Hodge, N., and K. Runswick-Cole. 2008. “Problematising Parent–Professional Partnerships in Education.” Disability & Society 23 (6): 637–647. •[11] IDEA (2004): Individuals with disabilities education act. Sec. 300.503. “Parents must have an equal say in the IEP process” •[12] Ferri, B. and Connor, D. 2006. Reading resistance: Discourses of exclusion in desegregation and inclusion debates, New York: Peter Lang. •[13] Jessica K. Bacon & Julie Causton-Theoharis (2013) ‘It should be teamwork’: a critical investigation of school practices and parent advocacy in special education, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17:7, 682-699 •[14] Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled people in Britain and discrimination, 3rd edn. London: Hurst and co. •[15] Clark, L. (2014). barriers. In: C. Cameron, Disability studies. London: sage, pp.14-16. •[16] Barton, L. (2012) the sociology of Disability and inclusive Education: London: Routledge, pp 114-22

•[18] Damian E.M. Milton (2012) On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’, Disability & Society, 27:6, 883-887 •[19] Damian E.M. Milton (2012) On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’, Disability & Society, 27:6, 883-887 •[20] Damian E.M. Milton (2012) On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem’, Disability & Society, 27:6, 883-887 “In keeping with other autistic self-advocates, this piece will refer to ‘autistic people’, and ‘those who identify as on the autism spectrum’, rather than ‘people with autism’.” •[21] Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. London: Vintage Press. “If one can apply a label on the ‘other’ locating the problem in them, it also resolves the applier of the label’s ‘natural attitude’ of responsibility in their own perceptions and the breach is healed perceptually, but not for the person who has been ‘othered’“ •[22] Nick Chown, Jackie Robinson, Luke Beardon, Jillian Downing, Liz Hughes, Julia Leatherland, Katrina Fox, Laura Hickman & Duncan MacGregor (2017) Improving research about us, with us: a draft framework for inclusive autism research, Disability & Society, 32:5, 720-734 •[23] Barnes, C. 2002. “‘Emancipatory Disability Research’: Project or Process?” Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 2 (1) •[24] Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. London: Vintage Press. •[25] Moloney, P. 2010. “How Can a Chord Be Weird If It Expresses Your Soul? Some Critical Reflections on the Diagnosis of Aspergers Syndrome.” Disability and Society 25 (2) •[26] Mottron, L., M. Dawson, I. Soulieres, B. Hubert, and J. Burack. 2006. Enhanced perceptual functioning in autism: An update and eight principles of autistic perception. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 36: 27–43.

How aspects of a child’s education can be conceptualised when they have an impairment…

Primary school is a period in a child’s life where they are given lots of opportunities to learn new academic and life skills, explore their imagination and learn new social skills. (Murray, 2002) school is the only time most children get the opportunity to spend time with children their own age and make friends. However, are these educational opportunities available for every child and at the same standards?

The social model of disability has a much more inclusive attitude towards children with impairments entitlement to equal education and finds ways to adapt the school’s policies and procedures to include every child. Inclusive education would mean that these children receive equitable education to that of non-disabled children. Whereas the medical model view would argue that the child’s impairment is the problem, and for them to receive a form of education they must learn how to adapt to deal with the standard ‘one size fits all’ ways of teaching and learning.

The aspects that this essay consider are the physical barriers that can affect these opportunities such as accessibility and communication. Also, as (Clark, 2014) says “Negative attitudes towards disabled people can be as much of a barrier to inclusion as an inaccessible building”. So, are the staff which provide the young people with these learning prospects equipped with the knowledge and training to communicate with and understand every child’s learning needs? It also considers the values and principles that UK primary schools bestow to every child and their family and how these aspects conceptualise education for impaired children.

Students with disabilities continue to encounter physical barriers to educational services, such as a lack of ramps and/or lifts in multi-level primary school buildings, heavy doors, inaccessible toilets, and/or inaccessible transportation to and from school. These barriers can affect a child’s education in some form or another.

Physical barriers play a significant role in the disabling process (Barnes 1991). If the school has a medical model approach to this issue and neglects physical access requirements of students with impairments by offering the bare minimum due to spending costs, or having the attitude of ‘we don’t have any disabled children that come here thus we do not need these requirements’. Then they will not be given the same equal opportunities, such as not being able to sit with their friends if there is not enough room given for a wheel chair at the table which would result in them sitting by their self. Or they may not be able to access all areas of the school if there are no ramps or lifts installed. These social exclusion issues can have a huge effect on the child’s attitude to learning and social confidence.

However, Since the equality act came into force in 2010 all primary schools must take a more social model approach and make reasonable adjustments to remove all barriers so that a child with an impairment can participate in education the same way as everyone else (Citizensadvice.org.uk, 2017). This means that schools are now being adapted and built with physical impairments in mind.

But there is still an issue with this approach, (French and swain, 2004) within these plans it is non-disabled people talking on behalf of disabled children without reference of how problematic it really is to experience education with an impairment. The children that live with these barriers have no say on the policies of their school regarding this issue. This means they are going off theoretical rather than lived problems. (Hemingway 2011) within teaching institutions access for disabled people is not on the architecture and design curriculum and building regulations demand the minimum requirements. Meaning it still does not seem to be an immense priority and schools are still struggling to adapt to the social model.

This on-going issue with our schools has deeper, underlying consequences on disabled children’s education. When a physically impaired child is faced by these barriers and exclusion occurs, (Hemingway and Armstrong, 2012) cite that inclusive education is ‘hard work’ and it is not simply about children with impairments attending mainstream schools alongside unimpaired peers.

A medicalised approach would be that they are not fit for mainstream schooling, so the response is to send them to a segregated school where they will fit in and receive help and support, instead of adapting mainstream primary schools to suit every child.

But is this attitude towards solving the problem the most effective? This could make the already enduring problem of how the country looks at impairments worse, because it will send us back to the 1950’s when people would glare upon and grimace at a person with an impairment as it is not the norm to see this in the society. If a child has grown up being schooled alongside impaired peers, then they would at no time think to respond differently to them as it is the norm to them.

It is not just physical barriers that play a part in how education is conceptualised by disability. (Barton 2012) explains it is attitudes, willingness and determination of the staff not policies and legislations that make inclusion for all children possible.

If a child is asked to sit out of a class activity by the teacher, then they are disabling the child. If the teacher can find a mode of participation that will include them then they are enabling the child. Meaning staff and teachers also need to show a good understanding of inclusive education and different student’s needs. They must be able to adapt their teaching so that every child can be educated to their full potential.

Inclusive education does not mean ‘you must learn to fit in and act normal’ the Primary school’s teachers and staff that take a social model approach must adapt learning and their teaching strategies for the children. Schools might need to alter practise or provide staff training to make this possible. This would open the door to fair, equal and inclusive schools and drive the special needs schools to superfluous.

This would be because staff would know sign language, understand ways to help visually impaired children in ways such as providing larger font, audio books and braille. Or having some knowledge on how to deal with different behaviours such as training on how to help the child to learn how they benefit the greatest and not brand them as disruptive which would customarily lead to exclusion. However, are all UK mainstream schools willing to do this, or do all children have to adapt to the ‘one size fits all’ medical model style of approach to education?

Special education does not necessarily mean inclusive education. A more medical approach would be looking at ways of adapting the children to suit the school methods by getting professionals such as occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and physiotherapists involved, the reason for this is to give the child’s ‘problem’ a label, this is because this diagnosis is then in turn used in an attempt to justify their separation and segregation from their non-disabled peers (Rioux and Pinto 2012). The other reason is for these specialists to attempt to shape and adapt the child to suit the school environment and fit in.

rather than assessing each student on an individual basis. Some medical professionals rely on predetermined categories and labels, and emphasize the students ‘weakness’ rather than their strength. Suspension and exclusion policies are at times rigidly applied and do not consider a student’s individual circumstances.  At a primary school level of education, there needs to be a greater recognition of the context in which discrimination occurs.

The school plays a huge role in influencing the communities attitude towards impaired people and it is the values and beliefs of the school that conceptualise which model we choose to look through. the values of a school are beliefs that are shared and understood by all members of the school community. Such as teachers, pupils and parents. They believe in respect, commitment, opportunity and excellence. The values are what makes the school a respectable and welcoming learning environment. And it is “attitudes, willingness and the sheer determination of individuals that makes inclusion possible” (Barton,2012).

Inclusive education means different things to every child and what is important to them such as, making friends, achieving goals or getting involved in learning activities. However, not all practitioners and policy makers at primary schools may realise that they must collaborate with pupils, families and the community of the school to achieve complete equality. (Barton,2012) suggests this can only be achieved through inclusive practise. Meaning they must prioritise the voices of the people who it affects and not the staff and policy makers to deliver values and principles for the whole school community.

The UK has been raging about inclusive education in primary schools since the 1944 education act. However, the reason this is proving to be so difficult is due to the government’s policy on primary schools SAT results being ranked in tables. Because of this, schools change their inclusive social model approach and aim to take on the more motivated and abled children so that they achieve higher grades. In effect the school is ranked higher on the chart. This is called a ‘marketized education system’ (Runswick-cole, 2011)

Nevertheless, since 1978 In UK primary schools the policy has been that wherever possible, special education should take place in mainstream settings. The Enabling Education Network (1998) lays out some of the values and principles of inclusive education. It allows all children to be able to learn and respect differences. It endorses an inclusive society and enables education systems, methods and structures to meet the needs of all children. This is a dynamic constantly evolving process.

Overall, the medical and social models affect how people with impairments conceptualise education in primary schools in lots of different ways.

Services and professionals offer ways to solve the problem with the individual by changing what is wrong with them to what they see as ‘normal’ such as getting therapists and other professionals involved. Whereas, the social model believes society poses physical and social barriers for disabled people and has not adapted enough to be suitable for everyone’s needs.

“A school can never be satisfactory if it cannot welcome, value and respect every individual child” (CSIE, 2012) And being a disabled child does not necessarily make exclusion inevitable, however the combination of factors comprised in this essay show that primary schools are taking different approaches within both models to make these aspects equal.

It is a system that pushes for the inclusion of children whose academic achievement is thought to be low that sits unnervingly alongside a marketized education system. So, either way we look at education it seems we have a long way to go to able every child in every aspect of education.

References:

Barnes, C. (1991) Disabled people in Britain and discrimination, 3rd edn. London: Hurst and co.

Barton, L. (2012) ‘response’, in M. Arnot (ed), the sociology of disability and inclusive education. London: Routledge, pp. 114-22.

Barton, L. (2012) the sociology of Disability and inclusive Education: London: Routledge, pp 114-22

Citizensadvice.org.uk. (2017). Disability discrimination in schools. [online] Available at: https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/education/discrimination-in-education/disability-discrimination-in-schools.

Clark, L. (2014). barriers. In: C. Cameron, Disability studies. London: sage, pp.14-16.

CSIE (2012) centre for studies on inclusive education: supporting inclusion, challenging exclusion. Information leaflet. Bristol: Centre for studies on inclusive education.

Enabling Education Network (EENET) (1998) ‘Definition of inclusive education’. Online at: http://www.eenet.org.uk/EENET_def_of_IE.php

French, s. and Swain, J. (2004) ‘controlling inclusion in education: young disabled people’s perspectives’.

Hemingway, J. and Armstrong, F. (2012) ‘Space, Place and inclusive learning’, International journal of inclusive Education, 16 (5-6): 479-83.

Hemingway, L. (2011) Disabled people and housing: Choices, opportunities and Barriers. Bristol: policy press.

Murray, P (2002) Hello! Are you listening? London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Rioux, M. and Pinto, P. (2012) ‘A time for the universal rights to education: back to basics’, in M. Arnot (ed), the sociology of disability and inclusive education: A tribute to Len Barton. London: Routledge, pp. 92-113.

Runswick-Cole, K. (2011) ‘time to end the bias towards inclusive education?’ British journal of special Education, 38, 3, pp. 112-120                     

Back to the future… A time machine of how poverty has been addressed within education, through the ages…

(Townsend, 1993) Defines poverty as being unable to partake in society because of a lack of resources available to you. Meaning participation or consumption are dependent on financial resources and affordability of them. However, it is still possible to be in poverty with financial support.

A lack of participation in decision making or a violation of human dignity are just examples of non-material aspects of poverty of which make you powerless. (UKCAP, 1997) argues that choices available to you and opportunities defines poverty more than your income. Because you can have large amounts of income, but a denial of rights and equality can differentiate you between poverty and non-poverty.

This essay will discuss how policy makers addressed poverty issues within the education system during the 1870 Fosters education act, The 1867 2nd Reform act and the 1902 Balfour education act.

It will use theories from Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Pierre Bourdieu to look at these policies from various angles. And compare these policies to today’s contemporary ideas of which are currently being implemented into the education system to address or further widen the gap between poverty and the different classes.

The 1870 education act was a policy implemented by the government to assure all children received at least five years of compulsory education. The reason for doing this was due to industrial development such as factories needing workers who had adequate literacy and mathematical skills and an increase in the urban population in Britain (Bartlett and Burton, 2016).

However, the working class opposed to the government’s policy on compulsory education. If their children had to attend school then the parents could no longer benefit from their child’s services in the home and their contributions to the family budget, such as house or farm work consequently reducing their income (Hurt, 1979). This then ultimately widened the gap further by ‘making the poor poorer’.

It was not just the working class who had discrepancies with this policy. The concerns amid the middle and upper classes where that an educated working class will no longer obey their superiors and be unsatisfied with their menial jobs (Bartlett and Burton, 2016) causing a scare amongst the upper classes of a loss of dominance over the working class and a fear of them becoming equals.

Marx argued that by the government taking over the education board to fund free compulsory education, the upper class would inevitably be reproducing their own structural inequalities, such as the poverty gap, plutocracy and totalitarian. He believed that state run schools would be used as superstructures to oppress the working class by only teaching them menial skills and attributes such as labouring and working ‘for’ the dominant class (Bailey, 2010). While the upper classes would be taught how to manage and run the businesses.

Nevertheless, policy makers continue to broaden the social class divide and increase poverty in education. (Grammatical error; Schools, 2016) reports that the modern-day government are supporting new grammar schools to be built within Britain.

This pushes out a meritocratic apparition of social mobility. (Gorard & Nadia Siddiqui, 2018) cite that by clustering the advantages of the upper class into grammar schools has a probable dangerous effect on society, such as affecting children’s social skills, attitudes and developing a lack of democracy in generations to come. As well as the problems discussed in Marx’s theory.

(Tawney, 1931) argues that the social class issue can be found throughout the education system, yet it is denied and not ever conversed. Pupils achieve better grades in grammar schools than in comprehensive schools, and students who do not attend grammar school achieve worse than they would if grammar schools did not exist (Orford, 2018). Reasons being, that these schools attract the more qualified and experienced teachers and educators, fixing failure into the working class by putting them into devalued educational spaces away from the upper class, to allow them to monopolise mobility (Raey, 2006) and leave the working class behind.

Reintroducing selection into education would do little to improve the diversity of the future. However, although both policies argue to be meritocratic in some form or another, it is evident that Marx’s view of social reproduction and control of the means of production by the elite does not efficiently address the impact of poverty on education.

Significant political changes had happened in Britain during 1867 and the working-class men were now given the right to vote (Bartlett and Burton, 2016) so it was imperative to ensure that they were educated enough to understand what they were voting for.

However, this policy was a way of reproducing inequality. (Hurt, 1979) cites that what seemed to be a democratic nature by the school boards, the genesis aroused to find that this was a way of influencing the working-class vote, by educating them only on how to vote for the conservatives and educating them only what they wanted them to understand and vote for (Bartlett and Burton, 2016). Therefore, grooming them for their own gains and using a policy of democratic falsehood to disguise it.

Both Durkheim and Weber’s theories are similar to liberal principles and the apprehension and belief in individuals actively participating in social life. They both believe that democracy is the best way to promote individual freedom (Prager, 1981).

(Giddens, 1972) refers to Durkheim’s views that society can only survive if there is homogeneity between everyone. Education plays a key role in enforcing this by fixing it into a child’s mind from the early life. Such as, influencing them on who they should vote for.

It does this by implementing essential similarities from social life demands into school life. For example, teaching specific skills like rule following, self-control and boundaries. (Durkheim, 2012) believed that by being in a school environment, children will learn more widespread knowledge than they would in a family environment.

Meaning that by putting the working class into compulsory education from an early age, they would have more power over them and be able to guide and influence them to some degree. And Weber’s theories had more of a concern over formal structures of rule and power which resembled this democratic uncertainty (Thomas, 1984).

In 2011 a policy was put into place by the local authority called ‘pupil premium’ This was a modern-day attempt at abolishing this power and gaining more equality within the education system by giving the ‘poorer’ pupils funding so that they gain an equal schooling experience to the middle and upper-class pupils.

The money is to be spent by the school to improve the attainment of the eligible child (Tickle, 2016) and close the gap made by poverty.

Yet, pupils eligible for pupil premium are not on the lowest household income in the schools and are not the most educationally disadvantaged. There are lots of children living on the poverty line who are not eligible for pupil premium because they do not qualify for free school meals. Because, it is attached to benefits and does not consider income (Allen, 2018), whereas if a family is ‘working poor’ they are not eligible for either the free school meals nor the pupil premium. So, the ‘poorest’ pupils still suffer the most.

The 1902 education act established secondary and grammar schools. It also developed a system for free places and funded scholarships for a select few ‘poor’ children to attend grammar school (Simon, 1965).

This new policy abolished the school boards and brought in ‘local education authorities’ (LEA’s) which gave the government complete authority over education through local councils and created a unified national system of education. Prior to this, school boards where elected democratically by local people.

Although the working class now had access to secondary schools and funded scholarships at grammar schools, this did not mean that they would always ‘fit in’ and be accepted equally by the dominant class. A majority of the time they would feel, as (Reay, Crozier and Clayton, 2009) cites “like a fish out of water” within the upper-class institutions.

This argument is similar to Bourdieu’s ‘Habitus’ theory that the way that we perceive the social world of which we are in are shared by people with the same background. For example, we are fixed on how to act according to our world around us, but if we are not from that background on the social structure. The way to act, speak and dress for instance, is not already set on our minds and we must then change to fit in.

(Bourdieu and Passeron, 1977) suggested that education reproduces society by passing on cultural values, Bourdieu’s economic capital meant that the working-class pupils need the material goods such as uniforms, internet access and technology that the dominant classes acquire, in order to compete for their educational success.

Without these necessities’ pupils can struggle to achieve. In contemporary Britain, a majority of student’s homework requires internet access whether it be to research or to use the school’s website and apps to complete it online (Branam, 2017). This is otherwise known as ‘the digital divide’.

Another example of ‘the digital divide’ is Schools using text messages as a means of contacting and informing parents, this is on the assumption that all parents have a mobile phone. And if this is the case, then that child can be left out of learning activities and educational events because the parent was un aware from not being able to receive the text message.

(Bourdieu, 1990) sees meritocracy as an allegory and pupils are directed to trust that failure and success is based on quality and excellence, nevertheless, it appears to be our class background which governs what we achieve and how well we do in education. Meaning that our motivation, intelligence and ideas have less of an effect on our grades and life success than our class background does.

Successive governments and educationalists through history have attempted to put policies into place to address the impacts of poverty and provide an equal education for all, but as we can see, with the middle and upper classes still at an advantage despite various attempts through history and the present day, it seems incomprehensible to close the gap on such a deep routed issue.

References

Allen, B. (2018). The pupil premium is not working: Do not measure attainment gaps. [Blog] Musings on education policy. Available at: https://rebeccaallen.co.uk/2018/09/10/the-pupil-premium-is-not-working/ [Accessed 21 Mar. 2019].

Bailey, R. (2010). The Philosophy of education. London: Continuum, p.111.

Bartlett, S. and Burton, D. (2016). Introduction to Education Studies. 4th ed. SAGE, p.76.

Bartlett, S. and Burton, D. (2016). Introduction to Education Studies. 4th ed. SAGE, p.71.

Bartlett, S. and Burton, D. (2016). Introduction to Education Studies. 4th ed. SAGE, p.78.

Bartlett, S. and Burton, D. (2016). Introduction to Education Studies. 4th ed. SAGE, p. 162

Bourdieu, p. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. 4th ed. Sage Publications (CA).

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. (1977). Reproduction in education, society and culture. London: SAGE.

Branam, J. (2017). Online homework is a problem for 5 million families without internet at home. Covering Innovation & Inequality in Education.

Durkheim, E. (2012). Moral Education. New York: Dover Publications, pp.17-33

Emile Durkheim, Selected Writings, ed. And trans. (Anthony Giddens, Cambridge, England: Cambridge university press, 1972)

Grammatical error; Schools. (2016). The Economist, 8, p.40.

Hurt, J. (1979). Elementary schooling and the working classes 1860-1918. Toronto: Routledge, p.3.

Hurt, J. (1979). Elementary schooling and the working classes 1860-1918. Toronto: Routledge, p.81.

Orford, S. (2018). The capitalisation of school choice into property prices: A case study of grammar and all ability state schools in Buckinghamshire, UK. Geoforum, 97, pp.231-241.

Prager, J. (1981). Moral Integration and Political Inclusion: A Comparison of Durkheim’s and Weber’s Theories of Democracy. Social forces, 59(4), pp.918-950.

Raey, D. (2006). The Zombie stalking English schools: Social class and educational inequality. British journal of educational studies, 54(3), pp.288-307.

Reay, D., Crozier, G. and Clayton, J. (2009). ‘Fitting in’ or ‘standing out’: working-class students in UK higher education. British Educational Research Journal, pp.1-18.

Simon, B. (1965). Education &the Labour movement 1870-1920. London: Lawrence & Wishart, pp.165-175.

Stephen Gorard & Nadia Siddiqui (2018) Grammar schools in England: a new analysis of social segregation and academic outcomes, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39:7, 909-92

Tawney, R. (1931) Equality (London, Allen and Unwin).

Thomas, J. (1984). Weber and Direct Democracy. The British Journal of Sociology, 35(2), pp.216-240.

Tickle, L. (2016). How should schools spend pupil premium funding?. The Guardian. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/2016/oct/18/how-should-schools-spend-pupil-premium-funding [Accessed 17 Mar. 2019].

Townsend, P. (1993). The International Analysis of Poverty. Harvester Wheatsheaf.

UKCAP (1997). Poverty and participation. London: UK Coalition against poverty

What is Education for anyway?

An old philosopher (John Locke) believed that we are born with a mind like a blank slate, And it is our experiences and the things that we learn that are then imprinted onto it to create who we are… This systematic theory could suggest that education is there to create individuals that can efficiently live in and help to develop a virtuous world by creating independent thinkers. (Because if children aren’t taught to come up with their own ideas, the country would be stuck with the same old ideas they have been taught and never progress and produce new things)… making any sense yet?

our goal would be to create tiny humans that can think creatively and critically and develop their own ideas. If this is why we have education, then students will be able to achieve independence and be prepared for working life and a democratic citizenship because they have been taught through the schooling system real life requirements, such as problem solving, negotiation and communication skills.

(what the hell does democracy mean, and what has it got to do with education?)-….To have a democracy means that society cannot tell people how to lead their lives and what kind of life they choose to adopt. Society should respect this including public education and adopt an aim for a strong autonomy. I will explain the relevance more later on!

Some other philosopher (John Dewey) (This is the guy that first came up with the idea of child led learning which is only just now beginning to be implemented into our settings).

believed that children should learn from first hand experiences and problem solving to help gain valuable life skills, instead of learning from a strict curriculum which content can sometimes seem unhelpful in adult life. Basically He wanted to change how we educate.. By doing this he could revolutionise the education system and transform society into a more evolving democratic community.

By teaching from the impulses of the children’s interests and allowing them to choose their own topics and tasks, taught the children the real purpose of education which in my opinion, is to learn social attitudes and practises to help them to know how to play a part in a democracy [1]. This is because children learn from real life skills such as learning numbers through measuring ingredients on scales and how to read by reading the ingredients of which they needed, rather than sat at a desk listening to what the teacher is telling them to learn.

This method of education means that teachers and pupils both have lots more fun working together and learning from one another. Also, the teacher is then not seen as the strict figure that talks and the students have to obey and listen [2]. Doing this in all settings could develop a broader open-minded society because we would be constantly learning and developing new ideas from each other rather than the same stale ideas passed on from teacher to teacher. (we wouldn’t be creating robots!)

In disparity to this theory, another philosopher called Paulo Freire ( yep another one) suggests that schools are using a banking process to get children through school. Meaning teachers are depositing required information into the student by simply standing at the front of classes and giving the information to the students, some examples of this are: When the pupils recite the times tables back to the teacher again and again until they have remembered them, or when pupils are made to copy the text from text books.

This almost sounds robotic and assumes that all students learn the same way and at the same pace with no autonomy to expand their own ideas or arguments. The students just remember what they are required to remember. [3] children are treated as “containers” and “receptacles” of which the teacher fills up with the required information for them to relay back on paper in their exams. Is this really what education should be about?

The purpose of this nature of education is so that the students achieve the highest marks possible in their exams basically just for remembering the information of which they have been filled. The determination of success from the teachers in the exams is due to their job and finances being at stake which leads to fear and corruption to motivate the pedagogy and an over reliance on these impersonal, mechanical routines [4]. This is how what education is all about, is being over shadowed by a harsh reality, unfair to the younger generations of today.

In turn of the higher marks, the school ranks higher on the grading and lead tables. For the results to be achieved the teachers professionalism becomes defined in narrow terms as “deliverers of these results”. [5] this could change the idea of teachers being loving cuddly adult friends (which we all want to be in the eyes of our pupils) to being the “deliverers” of their success. This style of teaching straight away gives an impression to the pupils of acceptance of a hierarchy because the teachers are giving the orders and the pupils are obeying, like how the working class must obey the upper class (the managers or leaders) in the real world. This is not setting a good example to encourage the pupils to think critically and challenge authority, it is teaching them to just accept and abide, which is not democratic.

This mechanical style of teaching and learning is encouraging children to grow up without open minds and nothing to bring to help expand society and develop a democracy. It is failing the children of their rights to be independent thinkers and unable to think critically with the sole purpose being grading and lead tables. [6] making teachers teach by rules and policies such as a strict curriculum can have a poor effect on their performance, Rather than using their own judgement and given more autonomy on how to best deliver and educate each individual pupil to their full potential.

So why are grading and lead tables more important to the system than developing creative minds? [7] because schools can go bankrupt if they do not meet the examination goals and targets set. Meaning once again money is playing a bigger factor than the students gains from education.

“if a service provider (the educators) do not satisfy us that they have successfully fulfilled our brief (grades and lead tables), we will not employ them again meaning the reward for the product and the service is financial gain [8].” (Crappy isn’t it)

One of the main purposes of education is for us to learn how to be around other people and all be functioning members of society. After all, we would never get anywhere or achieve anything if we did not know how to interact with each other effectively in adult life. without learning the core values and aims of work such as, to revolutionise change, be able to work functionally as a team and pursue leadership, and being open minded and creative to chase excellence, we would not help to cultivate the economy. Education helps us learn and adapt to these requirements.

Emile Durkheim a French sociologist argued that schools are a miniature version of the living, working wider society. Meaning we practise and learn from school what is imminent in the real world such as acceptable behaviours. It does this by implementing a set of rules for every child and the children interrelate with one another based on these rules. Although, some could argue that school life can sometimes be harsher to us than adult life with all the extra worries such as trends and sought after social acceptance. The purpose of this is to prepare us for working adult life.

[9] so we could argue that these rules be firmly enforced with a series of punishments for those who broke them. This is because children must learn that these actions can affect the group (society), and not just the individual. By following the school rules, the children are learning how to follow rules in general. In effect learning boundaries and self-control.

this theory looks at the influence that the school environment has on pupil’s social skills and academic skills within education and explains the school environment as being both the classroom and the establishment of which we learn these. This theory belives that education settings are an ‘association’ of people learning in a place that is more widespread than the family environment and less abstract than political society. This is where the we develop ‘the habit of life in common in the class, attachment to that class and even to the school of which the class is but a part’ [10]. Fundamentally meaning the purpose of this is to direct us to where we need to go, or are meant to go or belong within our own community.

Education is the key mechanism through which the new generation acquire values, they do this through the ‘hidden curriculum’. This is where we learn behaviours, attitudes and perspectives. Children learn basic skills such as how to be polite, punctual, how to deal with rules and crowds and how to sit independently or as a group in the classroom. These are all things that we will usually require for a job in adult life.

However, meritocracy is disguising a system which Is reproducing the already existing economic equalities [11]. (Bourdieu, 1990) sees meritocracy as a myth and pupils are led to believe that success or failure is based on excellence, but, it is our class background which determines how well we do in education. Meaning our intelligence, ideas and motivation have less of an effect on our grades and life success than our class background does.

Nevertheless, the unfair truth is that we are told that the education system is meritocratic which makes it give the impression of being fair and encourages the working class to accept educational failure and lower paid jobs.

If we are to deliver a fairer society, in which opportunity is shared more widely, we must secure the highest standards of education for all young people, regardless of their background. Everyone is entitled to education, equal opportunities and chances. But too many children still do not receive the standard of education to which they are entitled.

So, in conclusion, it appears the purpose of education should be to enable individuals to grow and to continue their education, and the reward that we get from education is a continued desire for growth [12]. Subsequently students would then go on to higher education to gain more skills to bring to society and more encouragement to pursue their ambitions. Or at best they would have gained enough skills through compulsory education to then go on to be a sought after employable member of society with something to give.

We need to gain experience of the skills and abilities we develop in the real world and not in artificial situations in the teacher led classrooms. In this regard, if we refer to Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave”. One should “touch” the real-world problems and get personal experience from it and the shadows in the cave are the retrospectives of the real knowledge. To acquire the knowledge, we should leave the “cave”.

People should be able to choose their own route through life and a strong autonomy is an important aim for the public education system if this is to be made possible.

However, it may seem that Individual achievement is not as valuable to the educational institutions as finances and cultural capital promoting social mobility in an unfair plutocratic system.

The real purpose of education is to fill students with enough information to get them through school with no regards to where they will end up while the social elite continue to run the country for financial gain. This being the case our democratic society will not be able to progress, and the young pupils of today are being stripped of their right to think critically and develop their own ideas.

References:

Bourdieu, p. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. 4th ed. Sage Publications (CA).

[11] Bowles, s. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. New York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, p.103.

[7] Deidrich, M. (2012) False Choices: The Economic Argument Against Market-Driven Education Reform (Minnesota, Minnesota 2020). Available online at: http://www.mn2020.org/issues-thatmatter/education/false-choices-the-economic-argument-against-market-driven-education-reform.

[12] Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education, The Middle Works of John Dewey, 1899-1924 Volume 9. The Collected Works of John Dewey, 1882–1953 (Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, Southern Illinois University Press). First release, electronic edition. P.107

Dewey, J. (2012). Democracy and education. New York: Courier Corporation.

[9] Durkheim, E. (2012). Moral Education. New York: Dover Publications, pp.17-33.

[10] Durkheim, E. (2012). Moral Education. New York: Dover Publications, p.195

[2] Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, pp.41-44.

[3] Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Books, p.42.

[6] Green, J. (2011) Education, Professionalism and the Quest for Accountability: Hitting the Target but Missing the Point (London, Routledge).

[4] Heilbronn, R. (2016). Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), p. 308

[5] Heilbronn, R. (2016). Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), p. 309

[8] Heilbronn, R. (2016). Freedoms and Perils: Academy Schools in England. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 50(3), p. 312

[1] Knoll, M. (2014) ‘Laboratory School, University of Chicago’, in Encyclopedia of Educational Theory and Philosophy, ed. D.C. Phillips. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2014. Vol. 2. pp. 455-458.

Locke, J. (1693). Some thoughts concerning education. London: J. and R. Tonson, p.34.