Social Justice, Transformation and Knowledge

Policy, Workplace Learning and Skills

James Avis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781317605751
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Social Justice, Transformation and Knowledge: Policy, Workplace Learning and Skills examines the policy contexts in which lifelong learning, vocational education and training and skill development is set. It provides a critique of neo-liberalism and its impact on vocational education and training and lifelong learning. It interrogates potentially progressive policy interventions that take for granted capitalist relations as these can become a form of 'comfort radicalism' that whilst calling for structural change remain lodged within capitalism. Such analyses are limited, particularly in austere conditions of worklessness with increasing numbers of workers surplus to the requirements of capital.

Offering detailed discussions within UK, European and global contexts, this book proves an insightful and critical text which illustrates Professor Avis' extensive experience and knowledge of the field. Adopting a substantive focus on debates and analysis with significance that extends beyond the particular policy context of England, the book offers:

• 
  
  

• an exploration of arguments that suggest workplace learning carries with it progressive possibilities

• 
  
  

• an examination of models of class implicit within education policy and documents

• 
  
  

• consideration of forms of governance and professionalism and their articulation to the pursuit of social justice

• 
  
  

• an insight into discussions concerned with social justice, knowledge as well as the current conditions of austerity in which education and social policy are emphasised

Social Justice, Transformation and Knowledge is a significant addition to the field. It is an insightful and thought-provoking book from which students, lecturers and researchers with an interest in education studies, education policy, and social justice will greatly benefit from reading.

1
Introduction – Social Justice, Transformation and Knowledge

Policy, workplace learning and skills

In the West and the emerging economies, learning and skills orientated towards the workplace are thought to be the key to economic success. Knowledge and the creative contribution of employees are considered pivotal to a successful economy that can ride out the peaks and troughs of the economic cycle. Competitiveness is to be pursued, with all of society working towards this end. Success, it is claimed, will not only offer economic wellbeing but also provides the basis for political stability and, in particular for those in the West, social cohesion and inclusion. Lifelong learning and ongoing skill development is central to this project. These aspirations also align with the pursuit of social justice and the ongoing transformation of work and working relations through the creativity and knowledge creation of those who labour. This, at least, is the hope of those writers and policy makers who celebrate the progressive possibilities of knowledge-based economies. This book examines the global policy context in which lifelong learning, vocational education and training and skill development is set – one in which neo-liberalism is all-pervasive.

It has become commonplace for policy makers to suggest that, whether in the Global North or South, education is one of the main drivers of economic and social development. It is thought to be a route to economic competitiveness and social justice, though the manner in which this is played out will be emphasised differently across societies and temporally. Globalisation is set within specific material realities mediated by local histories. To avoid reifying globalisation, it is important to historicise it and recognise its current alignment with neo-liberalism in the present conjuncture. This means that we could develop alternative models of globalisation that move beyond the contradictions of neo-liberalism and that hold the promise of emancipation and social justice (see Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

Although in the current conjuncture neo-liberalism is ubiquitous, it would be a mistake to equate neo-liberalism straightforwardly with capitalism or to consider it all of a piece. Neo-liberalism will be accented differently both temporally as well as across social formations (Davies, 2014; Maisuria, 2014). Michael Apple, for example, has discussed the relationship of neo-liberalism to a particular current of Christian fundamentalism in the United States of America (Apple, 2001). He has also illustrated the way in which neo-liberal processes are closely interrelated to the specificities of ethnicity and class. Other writers have examined the manner in which neo-liberalism has been played out in Latin America, Spain and Portugal (see, for example, Apple, 2013; Gandin & Apple, 2002; Mayo, 2012; Torres, 2009a, 2009b). The significance of this work is twofold as it alerts us to the specificity of these processes in particular regional and national contexts. Perhaps more importantly, it offers a corrective to overly deterministic analyses. Undoubtedly, there are systemic features surrounding neo-liberalism such as: the privileging of the market; free trade; consumerisation; the growth of individualisation; the marketisation of social relations; and privatisation. In the last case this is characterised by the search for new markets and sites for the accumulation of capital which has resulted in the privatisation of formerly public institutions of the welfare state such as schools, prisons etc. These features of neo-liberalism are located within the accumulation practices of capitalism.

Following the 2008 ‘great financial crisis’ (Foster & Magdoff, 2009) there has been a concern in the US and the UK to rebalance the economy. Yet the notion of rebalancing can point in different directions, one of which concerns the revitalisation of manufacturing and with it the provision of vocational education and training (VET). This stream seeks to re-evaluate the contribution of workplace learning and carries with it a particular politics about the notion of knowledge and the transformation of educational and social relations.

Despite the impact of the ‘financial crisis’ in 2008, which raised questions about the viability of neo-liberalism and finance capitalism, neo-liberalism is frequently construed as a juggernaut that carries all before it. The work of Apple, Gandin & Apple, Mayo and Torres reminds us of the inevitability of struggle, the outcome of which is not predetermined but is a consequence of the balance of power at that specific moment in that particular setting. It is salutary to recall that welfarism, Keynesianism and social democracy following World War II arose from the shifting balance of power between labour and capital. In the immediate period following the end of the Second World War, labour was able to win concessions from the capitalist class, many of which have been reversed in the current conjuncture following the onset of neo-liberalism. To reiterate, it is important to emphasise that these processes are played out differently in regional and national contexts (Goodson, 2014; Harvey, 2007). In the case of the UK we could consider the variations across the home nations of England, Scotland and Wales, and in continental Europe the differences between Germany, France and Spain, as well as between the Nordic countries (see, for example, on Germany, Bosch & Weinkopf, 2008; Niemeyer, 2010).

It is also important to acknowledge that there are a number of policy regimes that can rest comfortably with capitalism, social democracy being a case in point. In recent history, post-Fordism was thought to offer progressive possibilities through its emphasis on skill, creativity and the putative transformation of work relations. However, this turned out to be illusionary (see Avis, 1998, 2013a; Brown & Lauder, 1992; Brown, Lauder & Ashton, 2011). Nevertheless, other notions have filled this particular void, some of which have an affinity with earlier debates, such as the idea of co-configuration and moves towards social production. These conceptualisations, developed out of mass customisation and the ongoing development of capitalism, are thought to contain progressive possibilities. In co-configuration and social production such potential arises from the dialogue between producers and consumers operating within an open and almost self-regulating system. Relatedly, some writers have emphasised the emancipatory promise embedded within knowledge-based economies, whilst others discuss the variant modes of production found within capitalism. Some suggest co-configuration represents a particular form of production, the implicit claim being that such a mode could move beyond the antagonistic features that characterise capitalism, leading to the furtherance of the pursuit of social justice. In some respects the fluidity of such arguments constitutes a form of comfort radicalism. For example, a critique of neo-liberalism can readily be presented as a critique of capitalism, thereby constituting different policy regimes or ‘modes of production’ as being its ‘other’. On occasion such arguments can spill over into discussions of expansive learning or can be found in cultural–historical activity theory (CHAT). Underpinning such notions rest specific constructions of the economy, work relations, knowledge and learning, as well as particular ideologically driven understandings of capitalism and social justice.

Despite the variation in policy regimes the call for social justice is a common leitmotif of both social democracy and neo-liberalism, albeit that it is accented differently. In the case of the former, the pursuit of social justice was aligned with a more egalitarian emphasis on the allocation of income and wealth, the aim being to overcome and avoid the stark inequalities of a polarised distribution. Unlike neo-liberalism, social democracy validates the redistribution of income and wealth. In the case of the UK, neo-liberalism and social democracy coexist alongside the acceptance of capitalist relations, although in the case of social democracy there are leanings towards a more collective and socially just stance which can be undermined by its relationship to capital. There are a cluster of terms that address social justice, amongst which we find those of equal opportunity and meritocracy. The meaning of these terms is somewhat fluid with the stance adopted reflecting a political standpoint that has a specific understanding of social relations and society. Fraser (2003, 2008, 2013) argues that social justice hinges on parity of participation whereby all members of society have voice and are enabled to engage in decision making. This is linked to a three-dimensional model that encompasses the politics of redistribution (access to economic resources), recognition (dignity and identity) and representation (who should count in matters of justice). In current conditions in which the nation state has been rendered problematic, questions of representation extend beyond its borders to a wider context. Underpinning these ideas are questions concerned with democratisation, and in the context of this book, vocational education and workplace learning.

Collective understandings of social justice can move beyond the possessive individualism that is a feature of neo-liberal models. There is however a tension in that individualisation and self-responsibilisation are also present in social democratic understandings in which the goal is to mitigate the ‘hidden injuries’ of class (Sennett & Cobb, 1972). In the 1950s, Crosland, Labour’s Secretary of State for Education, argued that everyone regardless of the accident of birth should have an equal chance to succeed and that this rested with ‘the maximum scope for individual self-advancement’ (Crosland, 1956, cited in Parkin, 1973:122). The ideology of meritocracy and individualised notions of equal educational opportunity have a long history and come up against the structural relations of society. If these aspirations are predicated upon employment and the possibility of social mobility, there are at least two points to make. Firstly, there is no necessary relation between individual ability and occupational position. It is also important to note that the notion of ability is heavily implicated in relations of class, race and gender, such that the concept is deeply ideological. Secondly, neither is there a correspondence between the number and types of job present in a society in terms of skill, etc., and those available to work. This then has a bearing upon the way in which we conceive workplace learning and VET.

There is one additional comment to be made about social justice. The language of parity of participation with its allied terms of redistribution, recognition and representation can easily be appropriated and bent to serve capitalist interests. This can be seen in the way in which these terms can be mobilised by ‘leftist’ currents that seek to modernise capitalism. This tension is best illustrated by the relationship of meritocracy to notions of redistribution and recognition, whereby these terms become individualised and can be readily co-opted not only by a modernised capitalism drawing on notions of just desserts (Hutton, 2010), but also by neo-liberalism (see Littler, 2013).

Access to VET as well as the recognition and accreditation of workplace learning has been seen as a means by which those who have underachieved in education could gain qualifications and become more socially mobile. It is in this way that workplace learning is construed as a feature of social justice. There are a number of points to be made that address VET, lifelong learning and skill. Firstly, in the UK and in particular England, VET has been consistently devalued when set against ‘academic’ education (Bathmaker, 2014b). Green (1990, 1991) argues that this derived from the early stages of industrialisation whereby members of the emerging bourgeoisie sought to align themselves with the cultural sensitivities of the landed aristocracy. The longstanding devaluing of VET is reflected in the qualification structure in England, with A levels being seen as the gold standard against which other qualifications are deemed inferior. This in turn reflects the English class structure which sees VET as suited to ‘other people’s’ children (Bathmaker, 2014a, 2014b). Although not dissimilar processes are found in other societies these could be construed as tensions, whereas in England the significance of the academic/vocational divide is inflated, with important material, social and economic consequences (Wolf, 2002:88).

It is important to unpack the notion of VET. Brockmann, Clarke and Winch (2008) remind us that its meaning varies across societies, with the English version being orientated towards a skill-based model whereas the Dutch and German models of VET are rather more knowledge based. Mulder (2012) points out that the terms used to describe VET are not only nuanced differently across societies but that there is also no consistency in the way in which VET is understood. Similarly, the manner in which the notion of competence is mobilised varies, with the English having a much narrower conceptualisation of the term. Biemans et al. (2009) illustrate this in their discussion of the Dutch multidimensional and comprehensive approach to competency-based education and training. Within the English context VET is used to refer to a range of activities. Broadly understood, VET is concerned with the ‘social development of labour’ (Clarke & Winch, 2007:1), but this may take place in a variety of ways and in a number of different settings. Thus in England VET may sit alongside pre-vocational education and training and general vocational education and training with the boundaries often blurred. VET focuses on waged labour and is often competency based, whereas pre-vocational education has been orientated towards those young people who have become disengaged from school or who have underachieved. The resulting pre-vocational qualifications have had little, if any, impact upon the labour market situation of these young people and in some cases have been deleterious (Wolf, 2011). There is an echo here of the tripartite structure of further education¹ made up of the tertiary modern, craft and academic–technical education that Gleeson described more than 30 years ago (1983:38).

Bathmaker (2014a) suggests that vocational education encompasses ‘pre-vocational preparation, general vocational education, work-related learning, work-based learning, higher vocational education (for associated professionals and technicians)’ and that it can be distinguished from academic and professional education. Vocational education is increasingly becoming a feature of higher education (AoC, 2013). Bathmaker’s definition is valuable, pointing as it does to the significance of the sector in the preparation of paraprofessionals such as nurses, teaching assistants, those working with young children and so on. In addition it reflects class-based processes as well as occupational closure. Academic and professional education has frequently provided routes into the elite professions which can be contrasted with vocational trajectories. Notably VET can be delivered by a number of organisations including a variety of private providers and may encompass provision of training by employers as well as that delivered by private training agencies.

The vocationalisation of higher education with its concern to become business facing is now an important feature of the education landscape following the 2008 ‘financial crisis’ which led to a call for the rebalancing of the English economy. It is in this context that work-related, work-based and workplace learning has been accorded greater significance. There are a number of reasons for this, key amongst which is the fear that the English economy has become distorted by its emphasis on finance to the neglect of other aspects such as manufacturing and the productive economy. In addition there is a more general concern with the failure of the British supply-side skills policy (Keep, 2014). This policy sought to increase the supply of skilled labour on the assumption that employers would avail themselves of this, leading to an upskilled labour force with the resulting gains in productivity and competitiveness. The assumption proved to be false. Whilst critique of this type of skills policy is by no means new (Finegold & Soskice, 1988; Hutton, 1995) it has gained increasing salience in current conditions. This is because of a polarisation in the income structure with the growth of in-work poverty, low wages and the likelihood that the incomes of the poorest will stagnate rather than increase. These arguments bring together a number of issues related to social justice, competitiveness and social cohesion. They also raise questions about the type of skills policy that would be required. Keep (2013) in a report for the Scottish Funding Council but whose argument is equally applicable to the English context, suggests that in recent years skills policy has neglected the workplace. In other words, employer and workplace demand for skills has not been a central focus for policy makers. The erroneous presumption was that employers would respond appropriately to an increasing supply of skilled labour by developing positions that required higher levels of skill. Consequently there has been a neglect by policy makers to consider actual employer/workplace demand for skills. These concerns have led to something of a consensus surrounding the need to develop an industrial strategy (Mayhew & Keep, 2014:4) that accords due importance to the workplace as well as the implications of developing a policy that aims to increase employer demand for skills in the workplace.

For Mayhew and Keep an industrial and skills strategy would address the role of skills in the workplace, the significance of organisational design and management and workplace practices. It would examine the manner in which these opened up or closed down opportunities for learning, innovation and skill development. Such a skills policy would seek to enhance employer demand for skills. This would address in-work poverty and low wages and create more innovative and satisfying workplaces. It would go some way to restoring the competitiveness of the British economy and overcome low levels of productivity, and thereby increase wages (Mayhew & Keep, 2014:4). There are several questions raised by this analysis, key amongst which is its relationship to capital and the constraints that this may pose. These constraints arise specifically in terms of the development of the British economy, lodged as it is in a network of global capitalist relations which carry with them the spectre of a high-skills, low-wage nexus (Brown et al., 2011). Underpinning these arguments are constructions of capitalism and the prospect or otherwise of a progressive variant.

What I have outlined so far provides part of the theoretical and ideational context of this book. It follows on from Education, Policy and Social Justice (Avis, 2007, 2009b) and develops a number of the arguments found within that text. However, in this book debates concerned with social justice and knowledge, as well as the current conditions of austerity in which education and social policy is placed, are emphasised. Although the focus is upon debates concerned with social justice, knowledge and transformation, it is necessary to have a substantive base. In this case the substantive focus is lifelong learning, VET and the particular policy context facing Britain and more specifically England. Whilst the book adopts this substantive focus the debates and analyses engaged with have a much wider purchase and significance that extends beyond the sector and national boundaries.

With the exception of this, the first chapter, which serves as an introduction and outlines the structure, alerting the reader to debates and key conceptual frameworks, the book has been written so that each chapter can be read independently. Where necessary and in order to ensure clarity, contextual material may be reprised and some arguments developed more fully. Chapters 2 and 3 explore the policy context within which education in general, and learning and skills in particular, are set. Chapter 2: Policy context 1 – neo-liberalism, localism and the economy reprises arguments concerned with competitiveness and allied understandings of skill as well as the relationship of education to such notions. This debate is set within UK, European and global contexts and addresses issues of privatisation and localism as well as the reworkings of notions of social mobility found in education policy. These policy constructions are set on a capitalist terrain and operate with truncated conceptualisations of social justice. Substantively the chapter interrogates policies developed by the 2010–2015 Coalition government in the UK, setting this against those of the previous New Labour government. Chapter 3: Policy context 2 – austerity, modernisation, One Nation Labour and vocational education and training examines policy initiatives and reviews of the Labour Party under the stewardship of Ed Miliband. This chapter is of particular significance as it examines policies that were thought to be pro...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• CONTENTS
• Illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction – social justice, transformation and knowledge: policy, workplace learning and skills
• 2 Policy context 1 – neo-liberalism, localism and the economy
• 3 Policy context 2 – austerity, modernisation, One Nation Labour and vocational education and training
• 4 Expansive learning, transformation, knowledge and workplace learning
• 5 Class, intersectionality and social justice
• 6 Education, governance and professionalism
• 7 Curriculum, knowledge and skill
• 8 Conclusion – transformation or transformism?
• References
• Index