I have a chapter on tax in a book out recently with the above title, to which this blog post by its editor, David Scott refers:
There is likely to be a general election soon, and this calls for a manifesto or set of policy prescriptions that are opposed to neoliberal institutions, frameworks and ideologies. In addition, any manifesto needs to be inclusive of all the key areas of policy in the UK: health, the economy, work, housing, nationalisms/internationalisms/identities, education, welfare, taxation, gender/sexual/ethnic relations, and protecting the environment, and not just education. Neoliberal education frameworks are in the ascendancy. Governments around the world, with a few notable exceptions, have reached a consensus about the nature of the school curriculum, learning approaches and assessment practices. This consensus now operates at all levels of education systems, and can be expressed in terms of a number of propositions:
- there is and should be a clear demarcation between curricula and pedagogy
- the boundaries between knowledge domains, and between school knowledge and everyday knowledge, are not arbitrary and need to be strengthened and maintained
- school subjects should not be integrated
- facilitative rather than directive pedagogies should not be encouraged
- the teacher is required to impart this body of knowledge in the most effective way, and thus their brief cannot concern itself with the ends to which education is directed, only the means for its efficient delivery
- the school's role is to deliver a public service that meets the targets set for it by governments and education systems.
Current assessment, evidence and curriculum policies reflect this. (It is perhaps appropriate here to point to the real question that should come to mind when we are dealing with a notion of evidence — What is evidence? — rather than the frequently asked question, What is the evidence for this or that proposition?). An extremely important aspect of assessment is its increasing internationalisation, exemplified by large-scale cross-national assessment studies such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Despite the significant evidence concerning flaws in international comparisons of student achievement, the power of the simple messages that can be and are derived from them about relative national success in a world of increasing global competition has acted to reinforce the prevailing domination of neoliberal ideologies. The point is that these regressive educational policies and neoliberal rationales need to be counteracted at both policy and framework levels.
‘This agenda is leftwing, liberal and counter-reactionary.'
This agenda is leftwing, liberal and counter-reactionary. Notions of ‘left' and ‘right' originated in the French Revolution of 1789, during which members of the national assembly separated themselves into two factions: those who supported the king sat to the president's right, and those who supported the revolution sat to his left. Generally, a leftwing agenda is characterised by ideas such as equality, fraternity, progress, reform and internationalism, whereas a rightwing agenda is characterised by notions of hierarchy, order, duty, tradition and nationalism. However, these are crude delineations and demarcations, and in many cases do not reflect the views of members of these factions. Furthermore, what should constitute policy and practice under the guise of each of these factions is disputed. The claim that I am making here is that the directional force for determining the contents of a leftwing political agenda must be some notion of equality, or at least the expression of a move towards a notion of equality. Equality can take three forms: equality of goods, equality of opportunity and equality of basic capabilities. All three of these are essential components of an equalities agenda.
There is also a need to surface and bring to the attention of the voting public those values that underpin a leftwing, liberal or counter-reactionary agenda. This agenda sets itself against five individualistic notions about human beings: self-interest, bureaucratic imperatives, libertarian impulses, non-reflection (one could also argue that this is counter-educational) and normativity. These value frameworks need to be replaced with some notion of ubuntu. Desmond Tutu (2000) defined ubuntu as referring to ‘gentleness, to compassion, to hospitality, to openness to others, to vulnerability, to be available to others and to know that you are bound up with them in a bundle'. These values have to be converted into policy commitments. The key, then, is to accept that these values are central to understanding how we live and how we should live, and this valuing goes all the way down — into our descriptions of the world, into those attempts we make at creating better futures, and into our relations with other people. We therefore need to work at how we do and can understand the world as it is and as we would want it to be.
All the ideas expressed here are discussed in greater detail in a newly published book by David Scott: Scott, D. (Ed.) (2019). Manifestos, Policies and Practices: An Equalities Agenda. London: University College London, Institute of Education Press. The book has just been published.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
That is a chilling six point agenda for ‘education’.
Andy
Read Charles Dickens’ ‘Hard Times’ for a Victorian version. As you say, chilling – as I would add, ossifying. No wonder children are rebelling!
Jeni Parsons says:
“Andy. Read Charles Dickens’ ‘Hard Times’ for a Victorian version. ”
I’m far too busy doing something ‘ological’. 🙂
A speech given by Jonathan Ashworth a few weeks ago may be of interest.
“……. the next Labour government will adopt a comprehensive, cross government national strategy to tackle health inequalities, attacking the wider determinants of ill health and putting prevention first. That means action to improve the homes we live in, the childhood experiences we are exposed to, the neighbourhoods we grow up in, the schools we are nurtured in, the condition of the work we do especially in today’s gig economy, the food we eat, the quality of air we breathe and the support we rely on in our older years.”
“… a Labour government will introduce a Future Generations Wellbeing Act.
Fundamentally, such an Act will commit the next Labour government to a ‘health in all policies’ approach with ‘health equality audits’ of all government decisions; it will enshrine our commitments in legislation to ensuring life expectancy match the best of our international peers and that children enjoy the best health and wellbeing outcomes possible; and it will place a new duty on both local health services and national leadership to reduce health inequalities.”
https://labourlist.org/2019/06/a-labour-government-will-introduce-a-future-generations-wellbeing-act-ashworths-speech-at-fabian-conference/
There’s a big assumption in there
“There’s a big assumption in there”
No prediction, however of when we might see the next Labour government. It could be a long way off.
Who is this scripted for? Poncy academics or the general public? If it is the latter I guarantee they will not have the foggiest idea as to what your talking about..
Academics
Pete
I concur – but read and read it again until you can unpick it and make sense of it.
You once said something of you involvement in this project in a response to a comment I made and it nice to see that you were indeed doing so.
Talking to my daughter who is now doing her A Levels, teachers do try to bring in other POV and methods but are constrained by the exam bound curriculum so opportunities to explore heterodoxies are limited (my daughter gets lent books by teachers that are not in the curriculum but only for her own enlightenment – not for exam boards ).
The silver lining is though that society is NOT as right wing as supposed – there is a strong leftish underground out here – the question remains how to mobilise it.
@Pilgrim
“……there is a strong leftish underground out here — the question remains how to mobilise it.”
I think it will mobilise as we reach a critical mass of the population that realises that standing on your own two feet is not possible when the ground beneath your feet – the social infrastructure – is not a product of the market, or that we have had our legs cut off.
It’s a class thing. Those most vociferously and ardently in favour of standing on their own two feet have never had to.
Let us hope so Andy but one look at America where you could say there is a sort of Neo-liberal perma-frost that is also covered in Teflon fills me with dread.
Over to Gramsci.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“…. look at America where you could say there is a sort of Neo-liberal perma-frost that is also covered in Teflon fills me with dread.”
There’s loads of disillusion with the two party state in the US. And leaders are emerging….AOC, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard and a great many social activists.
It’s a lot of people to move and there is a much stronger religious mindset foundation than in most of Europe. This makes the mainstream very conservative and respectful of authority.
They are on the move. They have language to fight against. ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ are dirty words which for many describe something as nebulous as ‘Hell’ and ‘Damnation’. Very frightening to the brainwashed.
Political dialogue in the US is more emotive than it is here. Let us never forget some of the brightest people in the World are in the US…in about the same proportion as they are elsewhere.
Looking at the contributors to the sections of the book, we find that they are:
Introduction, by David Scott; 2. Graham Scambler; 3. David Scott; 4. Jamie Morgan; 5. Rebecca Tunstall; 6. David Scott; 7. Paul Spicker; 8. Taxation: A philosophy, by Richard Murphy; 9. David Blanchflower; 10. Carrie Paechter; 11. Jenneth Parker; 12. David Scott
This has been noted twice before on here but I can’t help noting the composition of the contributors who wrote this book. There should be widespread concern that here there is a majority of white economists and politically engaged commentators on philosophy and political economy. Even more troubling, there is no ethnic minority representation on the contributory panel and no people with lived experience of inequality. The number of disciplines represented is also small, although the impact of what is proposed goes far beyond the disciplines represented.
I did not choose the contributors.
And if you think I have no lived experience of inequality, dream on
I find that response confusing Sir:
On the first point, you certainly chose one of the contributors.
On the second point, you said you accepted this in the last week on one of your other threads.
I have no idea what you’re talking about
I did not choose the contributors to this book or edit it
And I certainly do know what inequality means
But for the record – I am not going to discuss why with you
You’re trolling and this is your last lost