Social exclusion, and educational opportunity: the case of English education policies within a European context
Nafsika Alexiadou
Keele University
Paper presented at the European Conference on Educational Research, University of Lisbon, 11-14 September 2002
Abstract
This paper focuses on two main issues: first, it examines the New Labour government’s redefinition of equality of opportunity in Britain. The discussion is mainly focused on the areas of education and the ways in which it mediates ‘opportunity’, but it also draws on wider social policy issues, such as the use of education policies to combat social exclusion. Second, the paper examines selected European Union documents that address questions of social inclusion, social cohesion, and the role of education policies in achieving those policy goals. The main argument is that both New Labour policies in Britain, and the examined EU documents promote rather minimal understandings of the term ‘equality of opportunity’ and point towards a social model that aspires to social inclusion as opposed to an egalitarian society. Education, in both cases, is given an enormous burden to carry in balancing increasingly liberalised market-driven economies, with the requirements of a socially just society.
Key terms: equality of opportunity, social exclusion, European policies.
Introduction
In this paper I intend to do two things. First, I will critically examine the New Labour government’s redefinition of equality of opportunity in Britain. The discussion will be mainly focused on the areas of education and the ways in which it mediates ‘opportunity’, but it will also draw on wider social policy issues, such as the use of education policies to combat social exclusion. Second, I will examine selected European Union documents that address questions of social inclusion, social cohesion, and the role of education policies in achieving those policy goals. I will argue that both New Labour policies in Britain, and (the majority) of the examined EU documents promote rather minimal understandings of the term ‘equality of opportunity’ and point towards a social model that aspires to social inclusion as opposed to an egalitarian society. Education, in both cases, is given an enormous burden to carry in balancing increasingly liberalised market-driven economies, with the requirements of a socially just society. [This balancing act is more pronounced in Britain than it is in the EU, since until recently (1993) the remit of the Union was primarily economic.]
The paper is divided in two sections. The first section explores the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’ in the discourse of New Labour and in their policies on education and social exclusion, while in the second section, I concentrate on the European discourses of social exclusion and the role of education, looking for their underlying assumptions for questions of ‘equality of opportunity’.
New Labour, ‘equality of opportunity’ and ‘social exclusion’
The political debate on ‘equality’ and ‘equality of opportunity’ is certainly not a new one, but in terms of the Labour party and Labour government, it is one that seems to distinguish ‘old’ from ‘new’ Labour in Great Britain. While there is a consensus that the principle of ‘equality’ is one key characteristic that defines Labour politics in opposition to that of Conservatives, there is no agreement as to what it refers to in detail. In order to understand how ‘equality’ and ‘equality of opportunity’ are embedded concepts in New Labour policies on social exclusion and education, we need to look at some of the wider ideological assumptions of New Labour politics.
Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has throughout the 1990s defined the meaning of equality in modern politics as ‘equality of opportunity’ rather than ‘equality of outcome’, arguing that “equality of outcome is neither desirable nor feasible”. He argued that, in the context of such modern, globalised pressures on the economy, all deserve to be given an equal chance in life to fulfil their potential. Brown’s argument, drawing on the discourse of globalisation, is that there is a need for more ‘supply-side measures to enhance competitiveness’, that full employment is a thing of the past, and that investing in human capital is the basis of a successful future ‘information economy’. Given such premises, he concludes that since skills are the assets that matter, today it is “unemployment and the absence of skills that is the biggest source of poverty” (in Levitas 1998:134).
The New Labour government has produced since 1997 a set of policies that aim at combating the problems of social exclusion and poverty, and in doing so, they re-define the more traditional ‘old labour’ notions of equality of opportunity. In doing so, NL have redefined a particular brand of “social-ism” that has a number of distinct (and non-socialist) features (Jones 1996, pp.17-18):
· The maintenance of the social fabric is essential for the development of individuals;
· Individuals have a personal responsibility towards the community, and the duty to behave socially responsibly;
· ‘Community’ is a space where people can (a) be protected from free market policies, and (b) provide a bridge to compensate for economic inequalities and social fragmentation;
· ‘Community’ together with a strong emphasis on ‘personal responsibility’ conceal the existence of conflict at a structural level, as well as deep social divisions. It places emphasis instead on consensual social and moral values and is based on assumptions of common interest.
The distinct NL emphasis on community as essential for social cohesion clearly draws on communitarian discourses that carry what Jones (2000) called a “strong social-ethical inflection” (p.493). Such discourses are brought into policies aimed at combating poverty and social exclusion. The government sees networks of connected communities and individuals as the answer to the problem of disconnection and lack of social integration. ‘Community… practising collective self-restraint and governed by norms and values’ (Taylor 2001:2) is the answer to the competitive individualism created by globalisation. It also provides an alternative ‘space’ between states and markets for individual ‘empowerment’ and fulfilment.
‘the bonds of civil society and community are in a way compatible with the individualistic nature of modern economic, social and cultural life’ (Tony Blair, PM 1997:2).
“The only way to rebuild social order and stability is through strong values, socially shared, inculcated through individuals, family, government and the institutions of civil society” (Blair)
New Labour have accepted as a fact the discourse of globalisation and the integration of world markets. Blair is in accordance there with most European parties of centre, and centre-left and with the ‘official’ European Union position. The European Commissioner Romano Prodi has, in recent speech on globalisation argued that: "Whether we like it or not, globalisation is here. Our task is to control it, to use it to the benefit of mankind"[1].
This discourse has re-enforced the belief within the Labour Party that traditional left concerns with policies that lead to full employment, and with policies aiming at egalitarianism are no longer feasible (see also Gray 2000). For new Labour a key focus is on ‘promoting employability’ and employment opportunities (rather than employment for all):
“… we must create a country where there are new opportunities for everyone – opportunities for work and the qualification of work. Opportunities to start businesses. Opportunities to become self-employed. And I make no apologies for saying government has a responsibility for creating this new ladder of opportunity – a new ladder of opportunity from the school to the workplace. That will allow the many, by their own efforts, to benefit from the opportunities once open only to a few.” (Brown, in Levitas 1998:156)
Within such a frame of reference, the New Labour government in Britain has put a heavy burden of expectation on education. Ken Jones argued as far back as 1996, that:
“… in the absence of both the structural economic change that public ownership would bring about, and of the stimulus to economic expansion once provided by Keynesian policies, education carries an enormous set of responsibilities. It must provide at one and the same time both a key means of increasing the competitiveness of a re-skilled British economy, and a way of reconciling, through the provision of equal opportunity, the objectives of competitiveness and social justice. (Jones 1996:19)
Such conceptions of opportunity point away from any form of distributional equality, and they also ignore questions of inequalities, the ‘length of the ladder’ of opportunity. By labelling ‘equality of outcome’ as oppressive uniformity, they also marginalize or dismiss discussion on ‘degrees of inequality’[2]. This reading of the concept of equality is consistent with functional theories of stratification that incorporate justifications of inequalities in economically liberal societies. One such justification draws upon the structure of incentives that unequal rewards provide to individuals, so as to ensure that talent, innovation and hard work will be rewarded. Such incentives are seen to contribute to the improvement of standards for the whole society. The second justification assumes that there is consensus as to the legitimacy of such rewards and the criteria used to distribute them. (Marshall et.al., 1997).
Political debates on equality of opportunity place access to education at the heart – another very functional feature that emphasises the shift from ‘ascription’ to ‘achievement’ as determining social standing. But, these debates ignore two fundamental features in the debate on equality, both of which are important if we wish to consider questions of social justice: (a) issues of inequality of position, where various social locations are characterised by very different levels of advantage, and (b) inequality of opportunity, that refers to access to the different social locations. Marshall et.al. (ibid) in their ‘class mobility’ study in Britain, found that Britain is “closer to the bottom of (the) particular mobility league” that they studied (p.52). Education qualifications are significant for mobility, but they are not the key determinant. Class background seems to be a more powerful variable, and so is the inequality of original position.
What is the relevance of this for education policy and for the links between education policy and those policies related to combating social exclusion?
If we look at research that has been carried out in Britain over the last half-century, it suggests that, even though there is a trend towards greater educational opportunity, the reforms that aimed at the openness of British society have not been as successful as they claimed. In their classic study of Origins and Destinations (1980), Halsey, Heath and Ridge came to rather pessimistic conclusions about the equality of opportunity in relation to class background and eventual social destinations. Their research on the benefits of tertiary education showed that:
“The familiar picture … emerges, as with educational expansion generally, that though the fastest rates of growth almost always accrue to the working class, the greatest absolute increments of opportunity go the service class” (Halsey et.al., 1980:188)
[Note: on sex and race as further social divisions in distribution of educational opportunities. Still, class overrides those – so, a service-class black girl would be better off than a working-class white boy]
Dahrendorf and other conflict theorists have argued that the welfare state and education have acted as mitigators of class inequalities (Crompton 1998), what Esping-Andersen et.al. (1990) have called ‘institutional filters’ through which occupational structures emerge. The significance of education policy then lies in the capacity of education systems to mediate between origins of students and their social destinations (although they do not occupy an all-powerful position in that matter, see Bernstein’s thesis that ‘Education cannot compensate for society’ 1980, and Marshall et.al 1997). Even though the research evidence suggests that there is a decreasing influence of original social standing on eventual social position, and that education and qualifications have increasingly a stronger role to play, Halsey argued that social opportunity continues to be weighted by class, and “the game is being played through strategies of child rearing refereed by schools through their certifying arrangements”. In this way, as he put it “ascriptive forces find ways of expressing themselves as achievement” (in Marshall et.al 1997:73).
In the critical social policy literature in Britain, it has been argued that during the last 25 years (and beginning with the Conservative policies post-1979) ‘institutional filters’ have changed (particularly in respect of collective bargaining, the welfare state, and education), and as a result inequality has increased (see issues of Social Policy and Administration, Public Money and Management, Journal of Education Policy, etc.).
Within education, research that looked into school effectiveness was particularly favoured by both Conservative and Labour administrations, but it has been strongly criticised for concentrating almost entirely on within-school factors that make schools ‘effective’, and for playing down the significance of social class, and race in student’s achievement ((Thrupp 1999, Gilborn & Youdell 2000). In relation to other aspects of contemporary education policy, Whitty (2001), argued recently that:
“… the uncritical use of the language of ‘opportunity’ in a deeply inegalitarian society can actually serve to legitimate rather than challenge existing relations of domination. Much of my own work, like that of Gewirtz has demonstrated empirically that education reforms couched in the rhetoric of choice, difference, and diversity often turn out to be sophisticated ways of reproducing existing hierarchies of class and race” (p. 289).
This is consistent with Crompton’s argument that:
“Equality of opportunity is a powerful justification for inequality. If all have an equal opportunity to be unequal, then the unequal outcome must be regarded as justified and fair, as a reflection of ‘natural’ inequalities of personal endowments, rather than of structure social processes” (Crompton 1998:7).
Within such a context Gewirtz (2002), drawing on Young’s conception of social justice, introduces a relational dimension to social justice in addition to a distributional one, and argues that:
“We have opportunities if we are not constrained from doing things or if the conditions within which we live enable us to do them. Therefore, the extent to which we have opportunities depends upon the enabling possibilities generated by the rules and practices of the society within which we operate, and by the ways in which people treat each other in that society. So making a judgement about the extent of opportunities we have involves ‘evaluating not a distributive outcome but the social structures that enable or constrain the individuals in relevant situations’.” (p.142)