| Session | ||
23 SES 08 A: Politics of Education
Paper Session
| ||
| Presentations | ||
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Right-Wing Education Policy and the “Infrastructure” of Free Expression: Youth Engagement with Race and Faith at School University of Birmingham, United Kingdom Presenting Author:The last decade has seen a steady shift towards right-wing, in some cases hard-right, politics across Europe and the EU. From Italy to Finland, from the Netherlands to Greece, this shift is well documented in the media (e.g. Lynch 2023) and has also been the subject of academic analysis (e.g. Petrović et al. 2023). Europe’s lurch to the right is highly complex: on one level, as Petrović et al. (2023) demonstrate, it works through centrist and radical populism, which draw upon a variety of themes such as notions of national sovereignty and values, anti-elitism, and so forth. Another level consists of anti-immigration, “nativist” and racist discourses aimed at vilifying racial, ethnic, and religious minority populations. For example, a survey carried out in 2023 by the EU’s rights agency of 6,752 people of African descent in 13 EU countries found that racism is “pervasive and relentless” – in Austria and Germany, specifically, around three-quarters of those surveyed said they had experienced racism, a rise of around 15% since 2016 (Boffey 2023). A closely related third element is the right-wing movement against so-called “wokeism”, which has used culture wars, moral panics, and a discourse of “counter-extremism” to attack anti-racist, climate change and other civil rights and social justice positions it is ideologically opposed to (see Davies and McRae 2023). Our paper examines the effects of these interconnected political manoeuvrings and discourses on schooling and young people. Specifically, we focus on the conditions under which political education and free speech around issues of race and faith are produced and engaged with by young people in schools. The paper reports on our 2023 national survey of 3,156 Year 10 pupils from 29 state-funded secondary schools across 8 regions of England focusing on free speech around race and faith. Overall, while many pupils were positive about their school environment, they also expressed significant concerns about their ability to share their social or political views at school; their school and peer climate; engagement around race and faith equality, as well as anxieties about wider social disadvantages linked to a person's race and/or faith – a view that was surprisingly also shared by a sizable proportion of white pupils about their racial status. As discussed further below, we use our findings to address several weaknesses in education policy, especially in the areas of school environment, curriculum, and political impartiality. We particularly draw and build upon the seminal work of Michael Apple (2006; 2019) on the role of right-wing ideology in schooling, as well as the broader work of Habermas and Dewey on ‘the public (good)’, to make two arguments: 1) free speech around race and faith in schools is delineated by a social, political and affective “infrastructure of expression” that tightly governs the “speakability” of race and faith issues in top-down ways, even as it is presented through a policy of political impartiality; however, 2) the dominant, though fractured and sometimes inconsistent, right-wing ideology is unable to impose total ideological/hegemonic control in and through schooling partly due to young people’s political engagement in non-school environments. We attend to these dynamics by conceptualising schools as a site for ‘micro-publics’, i.e. multi-layered, multi-modal, and often intermittent forms of ‘public’ engagement. The significance of our findings and arguments are augmented by their relevance and applicability to education in liberal democratic societies across Europe and beyond. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used A national survey was conducted across England to collect quantitative data from year 10 students (14 and 15 year-olds). A stratified random sampling strategy was used to collect data from different types of schools across all nine regions of England, though in the end we only received responses from eight regions. In September 2022, the UK’s National Pupil Database (Department of Education, 2022) was accessed and edubasealldata2022 were used to identify and sample schools for a survey. The edubasealldata2022 file encompassed 49,755 rows, representing all types of schools in England. Filtering included open secondary schools, such as Academy Converter, Academy Sponsor Led, Community School, Foundation School, Free Schools, Voluntary Aided School, and Voluntary Controlled school. Alternative provisions, Special schools, sixth form, deemed schools, technical schools, and FE colleges were excluded. The refined list comprised 3,081 mainstream state-funded secondary schools, categorised by governance and geographic location (‘Academy/Free,’ ‘Maintained,’ ‘Voluntary Aided,’ 'Urban Major,' 'Urban,' and 'Rural'). Using a sampling grid with 81 clusters (9 regions X 3 geographic location X 3 types of school), 52 schools (1.75%) were randomly sampled from each cluster. However, 29 schools participated in the survey, with efforts made to reflect national demographics in terms of ethnicity, religion, and geography. Although the survey achieved a significant response rate, it is not claimed to be nationally representative. The survey data exhibited strong resemblance to national demographics in ethnicity and religion, while slight disparities were observed in gender distribution in urban major regions due to the inclusion of 'non-binary' as an option. The survey was developed in September 2022 thorough a review of existing relevant survey reports, including international and national studies on civic education and free speech (e.g. Hillman, 2022; Losito et al., 2018; Naughton et al., 2017). Consultation with the Project Advisory Board, composed of academics, education professionals, and equality advocates, helped to refine and contextualise the survey. We conducted piloting in two phases in October and November 2022 with Year 10 pupils, assessing administration, timing, and question accessibility. The pilot studies indicated that internal and external validity and reliability were strong, yet we adjusted some items based on our quantitative analysis of the pilot data and some qualitative interview data with the participants in the pilot phases. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our findings are particularly relevant in three areas of schooling: school environment, curriculum, and policies governing political impartiality. Firstly, despite the importance of school in shaping young people’s political consciousness, 45% of our cohort (n = 3,156) do not bring up politics for discussion in schools; 32% disagree that pupils are confident about telling teachers about racial/religious intolerance; and 54% disagree that pupils treat each other with respect. The findings thus raise concern about the capacity of young people to speak and be listened to on race and faith matters due to an unsupportive school and peer environment. Secondly, our findings show that young people mostly turn to social media to learn about social and political issues. This is happening against the backdrop (in the UK) of a systematic denigration of Citizenship Education (only a requirement in maintained schools, now a minority, and often neglected by them due to budgetary and other pressures), and a National Curriculum that only focuses on broad-level political structures. Thirdly, our findings speak to political impartiality laws that govern schooling in the UK and exist, with minor variations, in other European countries such as France and Germany. Impartiality laws often exist alongside similar policies (e.g. counterterrorism) and can thus create confusion/contradiction for teachers and pupils. They are also mainly focused upon schools and teachers, not on pupils or their political engagement and education. Moreover, recently, the government has used these laws to shut down political views that it is ideologically opposed to, usually progressive positions addressing issues such as racism or climate change from below. References Apple, M. (2019) Ideology and Curriculum (4th Edition). Routledge Apple M. (2006) Educating the Right Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. Routledge Boffey, D. (2023) ‘Pervasive and relentless’ racism on the rise in Europe, survey finds, The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/25/pervasive-and-relentless-racism-on-the-rise-in-europe-survey-finds#:~:text=Racism%20is%20“pervasive%20and%20relentless,by%20landlords%20from%20renting%20homes. Davies, H. C., & MacRae, S. E. (2023). An anatomy of the British war on woke. Race & Class, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/03063968231164905 DfE, (2022). National Pupil Database. Available at https://www.find-npddata.education.gov.uk/categories Hillman, N. (2022). You can’t say that!’What students really think of free speech on campus. Higher Education Policy Institute, HEPI Policy Note, 35. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/You-cant-say-that-What-students-really-think-of-free-speech-on-campus.pdf Losito, B., Agrusti, G., Damiani, V., & Schulz, W. (2018). Young People's Perceptions of Europe in a time of change: IEA international civic and citizenship education study 2016 European Report. Springer Nature. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-73960-1 Lynch, S. (2023) Europe Swings Right – and Reshapes the EU, Politico.eu: https://www.politico.eu/article/far-right-giorgia-meloni-europe-swings-right-and-reshapes-the-eu/#:~:text=Across%20Europe%2C%20governments%20are%20shifting,parliament%20seats%20and%20regional%20offices. Naughton, K. A., Eastman, N., & Perrino, N. (2017). Speaking freely: What students think about expression at American colleges. Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2017/10/11091747/survey-2017-speaking-freely.pdf Petrović, N., Raos, V. & Fila, F. (2023) Centrist and Radical Right Populists in Central and Eastern Europe: Divergent Visions of History and the EU, Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 31:2, 268-290, DOI: 10.1080/14782804.2022.2051000 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Democracy and Education as a Broad, Deep and Dynamic Construct: a Feminist Critique 1School of Education, University of Limerick, Ireland; 2School of Education, University of Gavle, Sweden Presenting Author:Democracy is a popular construct in use in everyday language today and despite widespread claims that democracy is under threat it is a term widely used by very different groups from across the political spectrum. Democracy has a special place in education, where education is not only understood as an academic discipline and a professional field of practice but pivotal in promoting spaces, content and public interest values for the support of political policies. Concepts such as democracy as procedure and as a form of life (Dewey, 1916), thin and thick democracy (Armando & Apple, 2002), and shallow and deep democracy (Furman & Shields, 2005) all give the impression that democracy stands between two distinct choices. Rather than either–or alternatives, we maintain that it is rather a question about where the scope of the responsibilities linked to democratic aspirations should be drawn. A thicker democracy stresses the need to work with reflection in which citizens understand themselves as taking part in a public society where they have rights, knowledge, values, obligations to strive for the common good of society and where participation and plurality is cherished. A thinner and more authoritarian democracy is founded on narrower and at times unscrutinised knowledge that emphasizes certain standards as the measure of a good national citizen (Zyngier, 2016). In the academy of education, democracy is a deeply contested construct that is frequently overused and under-theorised (Arnot & Weiler, 1993: Edling & Mooney Simmie, 2020; Fraser, 2022; Lynch, 2022; Mooney Simmie & Edling, 2019: Young, 1996). In this study, we are interested in a broad, deep and dynamic view of the construct of democracy, for a (re)constructivist worldview of democracy and education that is constantly evolving depending on rapidly changing societal, environmental and planetary needs and needs to be in the direction of justice, equality and care. Dewey (1916) claimed that education is the midwife of democracy and that the needs of democracy change with each new generation. It is not therefore a static construct that can be pinned down and implemented in a linear rational and neutral way. Our understanding of democracy, found in our theorisation of Teachers’ Democratic Assignment (TDA) encompasses issues of discursive ethics, the presence of uniqueness, is always framed in the direction of equality, justice and care of the marginalised, and always inclusive of the messiness of the human condition, what Hannah Arendt called the plurality of the human condition (Arendt, 1958). Arendt reminds us that there are only a small number of policy changes that need to be made to assure a totalitarian state, one change being the stifling of joy and spontaneity and the second, the stifling of the plurality of the human condition. These important dimensions of democracy are threatened in contemporary education by the rapid increase of hyper masculinity in education research and policy working to narrow down horizons of thinking, being and acting. This hyper rationality presents education and democracy as a fixed entity that can be (mathematically) modelled, controlled, and predicted as a state-centred system of performance management (Selwyn & Gašević, 2020). This globalising imperative can be seen across OECD countries, in the constant comparison of PISA and TIMSS standardised test scores, and is paralleled today with an anti-science populist movement advocating violence and hatred of the ‘other’ (Verma & Apple, 2021). Instead, we are interested in a construct of democracy that can value and learn from histories and cultures, and at the same time make way for something new to emerge, with transformative possibility for new mutual care relations for humans, non-humans and the planet (Edling & Mooney Simmie, 2020). Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used In this study, we conducted a holistic and feminist critique of the writings of a number of feminist and critical theorists who can offer an expansive theoretical underpinning for an ethically sensitive, socially just and dynamic framing of democracy and education, and in ways that support the building of a just, care-full and inclusive education for peaceful and pluralist societies (Fricker, 2007; Haraway, 2016; Lynch 2022). Our theoretical perspectives were drawn specifically from critical sociologists and feminist philosophers including the work of Judith Butler, Madeline Arnot, Nancy Fraser, Miranda Fricker, Kathleen Lynch, Irish Young, and Donna Haraway. Taken together they illuminate the construct of democracy and education in new ways that push the boundaries of a system of education that is oriented more toward a closed system. Creswell and Creswell (2018) posit that educational research that is positioned within an emancipatory-transformative paradigm involves both research and advocacy. Our study argues that a critical scrutiny of the democracy construct as found in education is long overdue. What might democracy mean today in Europe and across the globe when educators experience weak affordances for critical mediation with the wider political world including the social consciousness necessary for mutual care relations in a democratic way of life. As a point of departure we emphasize the necessity for opening spaces in schooling and higher education for deep professionalism and thick democracy that speaks to the social consciousness and the post-humanist relational fluidity needed for our times to assure a just political world and sustainable planet in an age of uncertainty (Edling & Mooney Simmie, 2020, 2016; Mooney Simmie & Edling, 2019, 2017). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Preliminary findings reveal the importance of ‘academic freedom’ for securing a dynamic democracy. Butler (2017) asserts that academic freedom confers the right and the obligation on educators to hold open the discursive spaces between the state (e.g. state agencies) and the people (e.g. students) in order to speak (testimonial epistemic justice) (Fricker, 2007) on issues about ones experience, to interrupt the discourse, to have capacity to ‘sap power’, to speak ‘truth to power’, and to make space for the emergent and the ‘not-yet-thought’. Fraser (2022) argues that we need to use this third wave of feminism to critique the framing of problems in order to reveal that which is hidden, silenced and otherwise excluded. Lynch (2022) asserts the need for affective equality in the recognition of human interdependencies and dependencies (vulnerabilities). Feminism foregrounds the intersectional politics of education and speaks to advocacy for egalitarian relations rather than (re)productive conservative relations. Insights from Young (1996) suggest that democracy as a relational and fluid construct is much more than an aggregation of votes (e.g. ‘electoral democracy’), and/or the more virtue laden stance of ‘deliberative democracy’ advanced by some leading philosophers. Young argues that ‘deliberative democracy’ with its ethical rules seeks to stave off dark aspects of human nature, e.g. the will to power, and is set up on a platform where experts always have an unfair advantage when the aim is about ‘winning’ the better argument. Young speaks to the need for a de-centred deliberation for all social groups to contribute to the public space and for the radical care needed for a pluralist democracy in the direction of equality and justice for all. Similarly, Haraway (2016) urges us not to move away from the complexity and messiness of a dynamic, just and pluralist democracy and instead to ‘stay with the trouble’ in this age of uncertainty. References Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. University of Chicago Press. Arnot, M., & Weiler, K. (1993). Feminism and Social Justice in Education: International Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge Falmer. Butler, J. (2017). Academic Freedom and the Critical Task of the University. Globalizations, 14(6), 857-861. DOI: 10.1080/14747731.2017.1325168 Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J.D. (2018). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Fifth Edition. Sage Publications Inc. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education. Macmillan. Edling, S., & Mooney Simmie, G. (2020). Democracy and Teacher Education. London & New York: Routledge. Fraser, N. (2022). Cannibal Capitalism. New York and London: Verso. Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic Injustice Power & the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the Trouble. Durham & London: Duke University Press. Lynch, K. (2022). Care and Capitalism. Why affective Equality Matters for Social Justice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mooney Simmie, G., & Edling, S. (2019). Teachers’ democratic assignment: a critical discourse analysis of teacher education policies in Ireland and Sweden. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(6), 832-846. DOI: 10.1080/01596306.2018.1449733. Selwyn, N., & Gašević, D. (2020). The datafication of higher education: discussing the promises and problems. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 527-540. Verma, Rita, & Apple, Michael, W. (2021). Disrupting Hate in Education Teacher Activists, Democracy, and Global Pedagogies of Interruption. London and New York: Routledge. Young, I. M. (1996). Chapter 6 Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy. In Democracy and Difference Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, Edited by Seyla Benhabib, pp.120-135. Princeton University Press, New Jersey: Princeton. 23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper Navigating Life Trajectories of Young People: Educational Policy Implications for Promoting Youth Participation in Decision-making Processes University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy Presenting Author:In a time of uncertainty and crisis of democracy, this paper aims to present some findings of research on young people's participation in decision-making processes. It is a crucial issue at the heart of international and European policies (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009; UN General Assembly, 1989, 2015; Council of Europe, 2020; European Commission, 2021; European Union, 2018; United Nations, 2018), actions and funds such as the Next Generation EU. To this end, the present research dialogues with the actions of the MUSA project (Multilayered Urban Sustainability Action) funded through the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan, which created an interdisciplinary and intergenerational research laboratory called B-YOUth Forum focusing on youth participation and public space. Alongside the increasing investment by key European institutions in terms of promoting participation, there has been a steady decline in the levels of political engagement in most EU countries over the past decades (Eurochild et al., 2021), especially with regard to young people. Indeed, in recent years, disengagement from institutional political participation seems to be a significant trend among contemporary European democracies even among younger generations, causing them to lack representation and power in political decision-making (Norris, 2003; Farthing, 2010). At the same time, there is a new wave of youth political engagement outside the institutional sphere, which has become particularly visible through youth activism movements, protests, demonstrations, volunteering and online engagement (Sloam, 2016; Spannring et al., 2008). Within this framework, the research examines young people's educational experiences of participation in public, formal and structured decision-making processes. The study involved 26 young members of the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Forum, which is the biggest platform of youth organisations in Europe. The research will lead to an interpretation of young people's experiences that can support pedagogical practice, which can be politically significant (Biesta, 2012). In fact, although studies have been conducted on youth participation in decision-making processes in Europe (Day et al., 2015; Janta et al., 2021; Van Vooren, 2019), there is a lack of scientific literature on the topic, especially in the pedagogical field (Malone & Hartung, 2010). Participatory processes, although rooted in the political sphere, need to be learnt, as well as the dialogical process between institutions and young people, which underpins democratic life, needs to be implemented. Shedding light on the life trajectories and participation experiences of young people is crucial in order to reflect on how to educate for democracy through democracy itself (Biesta, 2015), overcoming the many oppositions highlighted in the literature, including, for example, traditional forms of participation and innovative forms, physical and virtual participatory spaces (Willems, Heinen & Meyers, 2012; Bacalso et al., 2015; Cornwall, 2008). Through the in-depth exploration of the lived experiences of the participants in relation to participation, salient and recurring educational dimensions will be identified. These elements can be useful for reflecting on and developing pathways to participation, including political participation, at a time when it is in crisis. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used Taking into account the research question, within a qualitative approach to research (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011), phenomenological philosophy constitutes the theoretical perspective within which the research design and methodology were constructed (Van Manen, 2023). For the definition of the sample, it was decided to involve young people who are members of representative youth organisations, in particular of the Advisory Council on Youth of the Council of Europe and the European Youth Forum, as they are exemplary contexts of participation. Therefore, the participants have a unique experience of the meanings and practices of participation thanks to their being part of youth bodies or organisations. Young people have been selected through purposeful and snowball sampling (Parker et al., 2019), until data saturation. Through semi-structured in-depth online interviews (James & Busher, 2012; Sità, 2012), the life trajectories of young people have been explored, deepening their lived experiences of participation in decision-making processes. The collected materials have been analysed through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012), illuminating the complex interplay between these experiences and the broader landscape of educational and political practices (Mortari, 2007; Bertolini, 2003), with a view to the continuous improvement of educational policies dedicated to youth participation. The study follows the guidelines suggested by the ethical code of the Italian Society of Pedagogy (SIPED, 2020) and by the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association, 2001). Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings The aim of this contribution is to highlight experiences of youth participation in order to provide food for thought and further work on educational policies dedicated to youth participation. Indeed, the different life and educational paths taken by young people show how they are multiple and diverse. At the same time, the analysis of the experiences revealed some common points that have been crucial for young people's involvement in political and social life. Their experiences could inform educational policies to promote meaningful participation of young people in decision-making processes. The current state of youth participation, characterised by a decline in institutional political engagement contrasted with an increase in alternative forms of activism, calls for a profound reflection on the relationship between institutions and youth. To this end, the results of the research will inform the theoretical and methodological development of B-YOUth Forum, supporting the possibilities of collaboration between an institution (a university in this case) and young people, also through the development of recommendations for policy. By recognising the link between educational experiences and political participation, the pedagogical dimensions outlined through the lived experiences of participants take on greater significance. These dimensions become fundamental to charting effective pathways to participation, especially when conventional modes of political engagement are experiencing a crisis of legitimacy. This requires a fundamental shift in pedagogical practice, challenging educators, policy makers and researchers to create environments that not only acknowledge but actively cultivate the unique perspectives and contributions of young people. As we navigate the complexities of an uncertain age, the insights from this research could serve as a compass to guide educational policies that are not only more inclusive, but also authentically participatory. References Bacalso, C., Farrow, A., Karsten, A., & Milhajlovic, D. (2015). From Rhetoric to Action: Towards an Enabling Environment for Child and Youth Development in the Sustainable Development Goals. Biesta, G. (2012). Becoming public: Public pedagogy, citizenship and the public sphere. Social & Cultural Geography, 13(7), 683-697. Biesta, G. J. (2015). Beyond learning: Democratic education for a human future. Routledge. Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009). General Comment No12 (2009). CRC/C/GC/1(12), 21–38. Cornwall, A. (2008). Unpacking ‘Participation’: models, meanings and practices, Community Development Journal, 43(3), 269-283. Council of Europe (2020). Resolution CM-Res(2020)2 on the Council of Europe youth sector strategy 2030. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 22 January 2020 at the 1365th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies. Day, L., Percy-Smith, B., Ruxton, S., McKenna, K., Redgrave, K., Ronicle, J., & Young, T. (2015). Evaluation of legislation, policy and practice of child participation in the EU. Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2838/088530 Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Sage. European Commission (2021). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. EU strategy on the rights of the child. COM/2021/142 final. European Union (2018). Resolution of the Council of the European Union and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on a framework for European cooperation in the youth field: The European Union Youth Strategy 2019-2027. 2018/C 456/01. UN General Assembly (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, 20 novembre. UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1. United Nations (2018). Youth 2030. Working with and for young people. United Nations Youth Strategy. Van Manen, M. (2023). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Taylor & Francis. | ||