pedu 6209 policy studies in education

PEDU 6209Policy Studies in Education

Topic 8The Normative Context of Policy Studies:

Policy as Value Paradox

The Value Dimension of Policy Studies in Education

1. Stephen Ball indicates that “Policy is clearly a matter of the ‘authoritative allocation of values’; policies are the operational statements of values, ‘statements of prescriptive intent’ (Kogan 1975 p.55). But values do not float free of their social context. We need to ask whose values are validated in policy, and whose are not. Thus, The authoritative allocation of values draws our attention to the centrality of power and control in the concept of policy’ (Prunty 1985 p.135). Policies project images of an ideal society (education policies project definitions of what counts as education).”(Ball, 1990, p. 3; my emphases)


2. Emile Durkheim, one of the founding fathers of sociology, asserted in the first decade of the twentieth century, “Each society sets up a certain idea of man, of what he should be, as much from the intellectual point of view as the physical and moral; that this ideal is, to a degree, the same for all the citizens; that beyond a certain point it becomes differentiated according to the particular milieux that every society contains in its structure. …


2. Emile Durkheim “….. It is this ideal, at the same time one and various,

that is the focus of education. Its function, then, is to arouse in the child: (1) a certain number of physical and mental states that the society to which he belongs considers should not be lacking in any of its members; (2) certain physical and mental states that the particular social group (caste, class, family, profession) considers, equally, ought to be found among all those who make it up. (Durkheim, 2006/1911, p. 79-80; my emphasis)


3. “The purpose of education, according to Aristotle, is to reproduce in each generation the ‘type of character’ that will sustain the constitution: a particular character for a particular constitution. But there are difficulties here. The members of society are unlikely to agree about what the constitution , in Aristotle’s broad sense, actually is, or what it is becoming, or what it should be. Nor are they likely to agree about what character type will best sustain it or how that type might best be produced.” (Walzer, 1983, P. 197)


4. What are the values and ideals that education policy strives to attained?

Value Inquiry: An Integral Part of Policy Studies of Education

1. What is value? How to enquire it?a. D.N. Aspin’s formal definition of value: “Conduct,

performances, situations, occurrence, states of affairs, production, all these is associated with the ways in which we perceive them, appraise them, judge them, and the way we are inclined towards or away from, attract to or repelled by. We choose them. We prefer them over other things in the same class of comparison. We want to follow their model or to replicate them. We want to emulate them.” (Aspin, 1999, p.125) Simply put, value is the attributes endowed in an object which we find attractive, appreciative, desirable, adorable, pleasurable, etc.


1. What is value? How to enquire it? However, these desirable attributes may entail different understanding by different perspective in value inquiry.


1. What is value? How to enquire it?b. Hedonistic emotivist’s understanding: Value can be

construed simply as physical and/or psychological pleasures and enjoyments which a person experiences from the encounter of a state of affair, an object, a situation, or other persons. (MacIntyre, 2007, 11-12)


1. What is value? How to enquire it? c. Pragmatic and instrumental understanding: From

the perspective of pragmatism, any state of affairs or objects will be taken as valuable as long as they can bring about desirable outcomes. In short, they are any effective and efficient means, which fit with the practical calculation of instrumental rationality. (Taylor, 1985, Pp.21-23) This kind of value has been commonly called extrinsic value. “An extrinsic value is valuable not for its own sake, but because it facilitates getting or accomplishing something that is valuable for its own sake.” (Ellis, 1998, p.12)


1. What is value? How to enquire it?d. Reflective and critical understanding: It refers to

the evaluation which goes beyond the criteria of quantitative calculations of outcome. Instead, the state of affair under evaluation is critically assessed to see whether they possess some qualitative distinctions of good or worth of its own. Furthermore, the criteria of evaluation in use may also reflectively relate to the well-beings, mode of life or kind of person that the persons concerned ought to lead. (Taylor, 1985; Dworkin, 1995) This kind of value has commonly called intrinsic value


2. Constituents of critical and “strong” evaluation: Charles Taylor has coined the term “strong evaluation” to kind of value inquiry which aims to substantiate an attribution of an intrinsic value to a state of affair, an object and even a person. He has outlined the numbers of constituents for such a strong-evaluation inquiry. (Taylor, 1985; see also Dworki, 1995)


2. Constituents of critical and “strong” evaluation: …. a. Justificatory with articulacy and depth: The first

constituent of a strong evaluation is that the evaluation must be supported with explicitly articulated justifications. Furthermore, these justifications must be grounded on ethical, moral and/or political validities and “depth”.


2. Constituents of critical and “strong” evaluation: …. b. Supported with sense of responsibility and agency:

A strong evaluative assertion must also be supported with human practices and actions, i.e. human agencies. Furthermore, those who are in support of the strong evaluative positions are not just paying lip services but are ready to bear the cost or even lost for its fulfillment


2. Constituents of critical and “strong” evaluation: …. c. Embodied with notion of identity: A person who are

in support of a strong evaluative stance are most probably hold that value orientation continuously over time, consistently in various circumstances and coherently with the other aspects of his life. In other word, the value orientation becomes part of his own identity.


2. Constituents of critical and “strong” evaluation: …. d. Embedded in community: The last constituents of

strong-evaluation inquiry is to look beyond human agency or identity but into human community, which may be defined as a group of human agents who share and identify with a particular value stance. In other words, the strong and intrinsic value in question has been embedded into the lifeworld of a community.


3. Levels of value inquiry: Ronal Dworkin has made a distinction between three levels of value. He suggests that “ethnics studies how people best manage their responsibility to live well, and personal morality what each as an individual owes other people. Political morality, in contrast, studies what we all together owe others as individuals when we act in and on behalf of that artificial collective person.” (Dworkin, 2011, Pp. 327-8) Accordingly, value can be categorized into …


3. Levels of value inquiry: …a. Ethical value: It refers to desirable traits and

features we attributed to human behaviors, actions, and conducts.

b. Moral value: It refers to desirable traits and features attributed to human interactions and relationships among fellows humans.

c. Political values: It refers to the ethical and moral values taken by a given society as of prominent importance that they should be imposed onto all members of that society coercively.


4. Accordingly, value inquiry in public policy studies may be defined as part of the inquiry of political value which focuses on the legitimacy of a public authority (the modern state) in substantiating those prominent values, which are to be imposed coercively onto the civil society which falls under its sovereignty. This line of inquiry falls mainly within the purview of political philosophy and jurisprudence.

Policy Discourse of “Quality Education”: In Search of the Intrinsic Value


1. Techno-efficient conception of quality educationa. Quality education outcome: Acquisition of

① Skills and competences, which can be standardized, quantified, calculable, predictable and controllable

② Skills and competences, which are employable, marketable and convertible in money terms

③ Skills and competences, which are governable b. Quality learning and teaching processes

① Students are materials, which can be value-added② Teachers are workers, who can be benchmarked ③ Teaching and learning are processes, which can be audited

in “time-motion” terms


1. Techno-efficient conception of quality educationc. Quality school organizations

① School organizations are structures, which can be standardized and benchmarked

② School organizations are processes, which can be audited with standardized indicators

③ School organizations are cultures, which can be measures with school ethos checklists

d. Assumption of prefect causality in education enterprises in techno-scientific conception of quality in education


2. Empathetic-practical conception of quality in educationa. Quality in education outcome: Attainment of

① Practical efficacy in interaction with fellow beings ② Empathetic understanding in social interactions③ Social identification and integration in particular human

communities


2. Empathetic-practical conception of quality in educationb. Quality in learning and teaching processes

① Teachers as professionals working in communal bonds of intellectuality, practicality and trust

② Teachers and students are in professional-client relationships, which are bonded by empathetic understanding and trust

③ Teaching and learning are practical interactions of uncertainty, which can not be lock-stepped into calculable and controllable processes


2. Empathetic-practical conception of quality in educationc. Quality in school organizations

① Schools as communities of empathetic understanding and caring between the elderly and offspring

② Schools as professional communities of intellectuality, practicality and trust

d. Assumption of education as an uncertain practice of Reflective Practitioners (Schon, 1983)


3. Emancipatory conception of quality in educationa. Quality in education outcome: Capacities to

① To excel beyond the current state of being ② To speculate ③ To better the status quo

b. Quality in learning and teaching processes① Teachers are transformative intellectuals working for the

betterment of the status quo and the coming generation② Students are potentials to be excel ③ Teaching and learning are experimental, surprising and

risk-taking processes of liberating speculative spirits


3. Emancipatory conception of quality in educationc. Quality in school organizations

① Schools as liberating communities of human potentials ② Schools as communities of praxis

d. Assumption of education as risk-taking praxis of speculative or even revolutionary spirits

Equality as Prima Facie Value in Education Policy Argumentation

1. Policy search for equality of education: The US experiencesa. Horace Mann, one of the founders of US public school system,

advocated three century ago, “Surely nothing but universal education can counterwork this tendency to the domination of capital and servility of labour. If one class possesses all the wealth and the education, while the residue of society is ignorant and poor, it matters not by what name the relation between them may be called: the latter, in fact and in truth, will be the servile dependents and subjects of the former. But, if education be equally diffused, it will draw property after it by the strongest of all attractions. ... Education, then, beyond all other devices of human origin, is the great equalizer of the conditions of men, the balance-wheel of the social machinery.” (Horace Mann, 1848)


1. Policy search for equality of education: The US experiences

Horace Mann(1796-1859)

James S. Coleman(1926-1995)


1. Policy search for equality of education: The US experiencesb. James Coleman’s conceptualization of equality of

educational opportunity ① Equality of access to education② Equality of educational process③ Equality of educational result④ Equality of educational outcome

2. Douglas Rae’s structural grammar of equality


=

2. Douglas Rae’s structural grammar of equalitya. Formal Definition “ = ”b. Grammar of equality: As formal definition of

equality applies to concrete social situations, it has to adopted to at least five structural problems and “these problems must be anticipated wherever equality is a goal or principle of social policy. They are: (1) complex social classification, (2) plural allocation, (3) indivisibilities, (4) human differences, and (5) relativity.” (Rae, 1981, p. 14)



2. Douglas Rae’s structural grammar of equalitya. Subject of equality: Equality for whom

① Individual-regarding equality• Simple subject• Segmental subject (= ≠ =)

② Bloc-regarding equality: Bloc-equal subject (≠ = ≠)b. Domain of equality - Equal what?

Do X's domain of allocation (supply) cover Y's domain of account (demand)① Straightforward equality② Marginal equality③ Global equality

c. Objective of equality① Direct equality (of result)② Equality of opportunity

• Means-regarding equal opportunity• Prospect-regarding equal opportunity

d. Value of equality① Lot-regarding equality② Person-regarding equality

• Utility-based equality• End based equality• Need-based equality

e. Relativity of equality① Absolute equality② Relative equality


3. Application of Rae’s structural grammar equality on educationa. Classification of students

① Simple individual equality: Universal, free and compulsory education

② Segment-subject equality: Special education③ Block-regarding equality: Positive-discrimination

education for racial minorities, the socioeconomic disadvantaged and female

b. Distribution of educational resources① Marginal equality: 9-year compulsory education② Global equality: Positive discrimination education


3. Application of Rae’s structural grammar equality on educationc. Equality of educational opportunity rather result

① Means-regarding equality of educational opportunity• Equality of educational access• Equality of education process

② Prospect-regarding equality of educational opportunity• Equality of education output• Equality of education outcome


d. Equality of educational value① Lot-regarding equality of education: Principle of respect,

compulsory education common-school and common-curriculum policies

② Personal-regarding equality of education:• Utility-based personal-regarding equality of education• End-based personal-regarding equality of education• Need-based personal-regarding equality of education• Principle of praise and fair educational sifting and selection

e. Relativity of equality① Absolute educational equality② Relative educational equality


Subject ofEquality

Domain ofEquality

Objective ofEquality

Value ofEquality

Relativity ofEquality

=

Simple subject equality

Segment subjectequality

Bloc- regardingequality

Straight-forwardequality

Marginalequality

Globalequality

Mean-regarding

equal opportunity

Directequality

(for result)

Prospect-regarding

equal opportunity

Lot-Regarding

equality

Utility-based

equality

End-based

equality

Need-based

equality

Absoluteequality

Relativeequality

3 X 3 x 3 x 4 x 2= 216

Justice as Prima Facie Value in Education Policy Argumentation

1. Aristotle's formal definition of justice (Aristotle, 1996, Book III, P. 61-91) a. Treating equal equally or treating unequal unequally is

just.b. Treating equal unequally or treating unequal equally is

unjust.

Equal Treatment Unequal treatment

Equal Attribute Just Unjust

Unequal Attribute Unjust Just


1. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice

(1921-2002)


1. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justicea. Justice as fairness: The meaning of fairness that

Rawls reckons is as follows“Fundamental to justice is the concept of fairness

which relates to right dealing between persons who are cooperating with or competing against one another, as when one speak of fair games, fair competition, and fair bargains. The question of fairness arises when free persons, who have no authority over one another, are engaging in a joint activity and among themselves settling or acknowledging the rules which define it and which determine the respective shares in its benefits and burdens. …..


1. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justicea. The meaning of fairness …“…A practice will strike the parties as fair if none feels

that, by participating in it, they or any of the others are taken advantage of, or forced to give in to claims which they do not regard as legitimate. This implies that each has a conception of legitimate claims which he thinks it reasonable for others as well as himself to acknowledge. …A practice is just or fair, then, when it satisfies the principles which those who participate in it could propose to one another for mutual acceptance under aforementioned circumstances.” (Rawls, 1999[1958], p. 59)


1. John Rawls’ A Theory of Justiceb. Two principles of justice: Rawls stipulates that

“justice is the first virtue of social institution” (P.3) and “the primacy of justice” over other social values. Hence, the basic structure of a just society is to be constituted in accordance with “the two principles of justice”.

“First Principle: Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with similar system of liberty for all.

“Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both

• to the greatest benefits of the least advantaged, …and • attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of

fair equality of opportunities.” (Rawls, 1971, p. 302)


c. Applications of the principles: “These principles primarily apply …to the basic structure of society. They are to govern the assignment of rights and duties and to regulate the distribution of social and economic advantages….These principles presuppose that the social structure can be divided into two more or less distinct parts.” (Rawls, 1871, p. 61)


c. Applications of the principles: …① The First Principle applies to those distinct “aspects of the

social system that define and secure the equal liberties of citizenship. …The basic liberties of citizens are, roughly speaking, political liberty (right to vote and to be eligible for public office) together with freedom of speech and assembly; liberty of conscience and freedom of thought; freedom of person along with right to hold (personal) property; freedom from arbitrary arrest and seizure as defined by the concept of the rule of law. These liberties are all required to be equal…, since citizens of just society are to have the same basic rights.” (p.61)


c. Applications of the principles: …② The Second Principle applies to those aspects of

social system “that specify and establish social and economic inequalities.” More specifically, it “applies…to the distribution of income and wealth and to the design of organizations that make use of differences in authority and responsibility, or chains of command.” (p. 61)


d. Interpretation of the second principle① Rawls qualifies that the two constituent phrases in

the Second Principle, namely to “everyone’s advantage” and “equally open to all” need further interpretation.

② Rawls interprets the two phrases as follows (Rawls, 1971, p. 65)


“Everyone’s Advantage”

“Equally open” Principle of efficiency Difference Principle

Equality as careers open to talents

System of Natural Liberty

Natural Aristocracy

Equality as equality of fair opportunity

Liberal Equality Democratic Equality


e. Priority and lexical orders between principles of justice① The priority of liberty: The First Principle, namely the

principle of liberty) has lexical priority over the Second Principle: This ordering means that a departure from the institutions of equal liberty required by the first principle cannot be justified by, or compensated for, by greater social and economic advantages.” (p. 61)

② The priority of democratic equality over the other three systems, in other words, the priority of difference principle and equality as equality of fair opportunity over principle of efficiency and equality as careers open to talent.


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource: Dworkin, a prominent figure in the field of jurisprudence and political philosophy, has criticizes that Rawls has based his theory of justice solely on the distributive result of primary goods (i.e. the welfare) among people. This is especially true in the Second Principle of Justice, which stipulates that inequality of primary goods should only be distributed unequally to the benefits of the least advantaged. Dworkin points out that Rawls has failed to address the causes contributing to the state of least advantaged and least well-off in which people found themselves.

521931-2013


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource:a. Types of the least well-off: Dworkin has made

three distinctive causes of the least well-off.① People are least well-off because of unequal share

of natural endowments, such as talent, heath, physical ability, etc. Dworkin characterizes them as personal resources.


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource:…a. Types of the least well-off: …

③ People are least well-off because of unequal share of socioeconomic endowments, such as socioeconomic backgrounds, cultural-linguistic background, or even racial and/or ethnical backgrounds, which are disadvantageous in a given society. Dworkin called them impersonal resources.

④ Given equal shares in resources, people may end up being least well-off because of costly or even unwise choice, such as gambling or wasteful life-styles; or voluntary choice, such as religious belief.


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource:…b. Injustice in the Second Principle: Accordingly, Dworkin

underlines that Rawls’ Second Principle may have unfairly provided compensation to people even though they appear to belong to the least well-off. ① For Type (i) least disadvantaged, a blanket and non-

discriminating compensations with the other types of least well-off is itself unjust. Given their disadvantages in natural endowments, they may need more compensation in order to be able to develop and research to the similar level of well-being as those having average level of natural endowments


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource:…b. Injustice in the Second Principle: ….

② Apart from the amount of compensation, to Type (i) least disadvantaged, the content of the compensation is also essential. In Rawls’ Second Principle compensation only comes as welfare (i.e. end result in the form of primary goods) but numbers of political philosophers have argued that they should also come at the commencing stage of their developments, as resources (Dworkin, 1995), as capacity (Sen, 1995) and as Access (Cohen, 2011).


3. Ronald Dworkin’s theory of equality of resource:…b. Injustice in the Second Principle: ….

③ For Type (ii) least advantaged, they should of course be compensated in the form of both as resource and as welfare.

④ As for Type (iii) least advantaged, especially those of costly and/or unwise choosers, Dworkin argues that it is unjust to compensate them.

Hence, as Will Kymlicka aptly put it “Rawls himself leaves too much room for the influence of natural inequality, and at the same time leaves too little room for the influence of our choice.” (2002, P. 70)


c. Dworkin’s theory of justice of liberal equality: To address the internal problems of Rawls’ Second Principle, Dworkin construct his theory of justice in a series of articles. (1995, see also 1981a & b, 1987a &b, 1989)They theory can presented diagrammatically as follow.

And Dworkin claims that his model of “liberal equality represents equality, liberty and community as fused together in an overall political ideal.” (Dworkin, 1995, P. 226)

60

LibertyEquality

Community

ORIGIN DESTINATIONPROCESS: In pursuit of one’s own critical well-being

It refers to the idea of equality of endowment s & resources at the commencing stage of the pursuit. These resources are of two distinctive types:

It refers to the idea that people are endowed with the liberty and autonomy to choose their own versions of critical well-being. As a result they bear full responsibility of their choice & decisions.Personal

resources/ natural endowments

Impersonal resources/ socioeconomic endowments

Insurance mechanism in form of taxation & transfer payment to compensate inequality of personal resources

Auction mechanism as devices to determine the amount of equal share in impersonal resources & amount of compensations if need be No compensation for

costly &/or unwise choice

Just Distribution #3Just Distribution #2Just Distribution #1

Various forms of just distributions have to be worked out and sediment overtime within a given community of reasonable citizens, i.e. institutionalization

61

LibertyEquality

Community

ORIGIN DESTINATIONPROCESS: In pursuit of one’s own critical well-being

It refers to the idea of equality of endowment s & resources at the commencing stage of the pursuit. These resources are of two distinctive types:

It refers to the idea that people are endowed with the liberty and autonomy to choose their own versions of critical well-being. As a result they bear full responsibility of their choice & decisions.Personal

resources/ natural endowments

Impersonal resources/ socioeconomic endowments

Insurance mechanism in form of taxation & transfer payment to compensate inequality of personal resources

Auction mechanism as devices to determine the amount of equal share in impersonal resources & amount of compensations if need be No compensation for

costly &/or unwise choice

Just Distribution #3Just Distribution #2Just Distribution #1

Various forms of just distributions have to be worked out and sediment overtime within a given community of reasonable citizens, i.e. institutionalization

“Liberal equality represents equality, liberty and community as fused together in an overall political ideal.” (Rowkin, 1995, P. 226)


4. Michael Walzer’s concept of complex equality:

Walzer, a prominent political philosopher in the US, published a book entitle Spheres of Justice in 1983, to criticize Rawls’ ambition to construct a, if not the, theory of justice and at the same time outline his theory of complex equality and spheres of justice.


4. Walzer’s concept of complex equality: a. Pluralistic conception of distributive justice:

① Walzer begins with the argument that “to search for unity is to misunderstand the subject matter of distributive justice.” (Walzer 1983, P. 4)


4. Walzer’s concept of complex equality: a. Pluralistic conception of distributive justice: …

② Instead he underlines, “Different political arrangements enforce, and different ideologies justifiy, different distributions of membership, power, honor, ritual eminence, divine grace, kinship and love, knowledge, wealth, physical security, work and leisure, rewards and punishments, and a host of goods more narrowly and materially conceived―food, shelter, clothing, transportation, medical care, commodities of every sort, and the odd things (printings, rare books, postage stamps) that human beings collect. And this multiplicity of goods is matched by a multiplicity of distributive procedures, agents, and criteria.” (Walzer, 1983, P. 3)


4. Walzer’s concept of complex equality: b. Membership of distributive community: According

to Walzer’s formulation distribution could only take place within definitive community and distribution could also be undertaken among eligible and entitled members.① In his own words, “human society is a distributive

community. …It is important that: we come together to share, divide, and exchange. We also come together to make the things that are shared, divided, and exchanged; but that very making―work itself―is distributed among us in a division of labor.” (Walzer, 1983, P. 3)


4. Walzer’s concept of complex equality: b. Membership of distributive community: …

② Accordingly, the first and most important question in distributive justice is: How is the distributive community is constituted? Who are members who are entitled to share, divide, and exchange? Who are the non-members who are excluded from the distributive game? In short, how membership is defined?



③ Walzer has listed a matrix of membership commonly found in human society for our reference.• enemy, • stranger,• refugee, • guest worker, • resident in a territory, • citizen of a sovereign state,• national of a nation, • member of ethnic group,• neighbor, • clansman, • family member, etc.



④ Walzer underlines that “the distribution of membership is not pervasively subject to the constraints of justice.” (Walzer, 1983, P. 61) In fact, throughout human history, we have witnessed numerous arbitrary and accidental assignments of membership among socioeconomic, political and cultural communities.


5. Walzer’s sphere of education and its principles of distributive justicea. Education as a special and enclosed sphere:

Education is “what John Dewey called a ‘special environment’. The students are granted a partial moratorium from the demand of society and economy. The teachers, too, are protected from the immediate forms of external pressure. They teacher the truths they understand, and the same truths, to all the students in front of them, and respond to questions as best they can, without regard to the students’ social origins.” (Walzer, 1983, P. 199)


5. Walzer’s sphere of education and its principles of distributive justice…b. According, “the most interesting and hardest

distributive questions” arising from the sphere of education are: “Which children is it who are admitted into the enclosed communities? Who goes to school? And to what sort of school? (What is the strength of the enclosure?) To study What? For how long? With what other students?” (Walzer, 1983, P. 199)


5. Walzer’s sphere of education…c. As a results, there have been various kinds of

schooling developed according to diverse principles of distributive justice① Common schools for all: As Aristotle advocated centuries

ago “the system of education in a state must … be one and the same for all, and the provision of this system must be a matter of public action.” (Aristotle, Politics; quoted in Walzer, 1983, P. 202; my emphasis) And again as R.H. Tawney, a prominent historian and socialist in the twentieth-century England, underlined, “To serve educational needs, without regard to the vulgar irrelevance of class and income is part of the teachers’ honor” (Tawney, 1964, quoted in Walzer, 1983, P. 202)


5. Walzer’s sphere of education…c. …. various kinds of schooling ….

② Compulsory schools for future citizens of the state: If common school for all is based on the distributive justice by “need” of individuals, then compulsory schooling can be conceived as distribution for the need of the society or more specifically the sovereign state. The principle of simple equality could then be construed as in conflict with individual liberty.


5. Walzer’s sphere of education…c. …been various kinds of schooling …

③ Schools for the minorities: Minorities by ethnicity, language, religion, etc. may dispute compulsory schooling from the value stance of liberty to preserve its cultural integrity and heritage. And ask for separate school.

④ Private schools for the wealthy: Separate school argument can also be waged by other social groups, such as the wealthy, who can based their argument on the distributive justice by “free exchange”.


5. Walzer’s sphere of education…c. …various kinds of schooling …

⑤ Talent track: Separate school policy can also be proposed not from the principle of “free exchange” but be based on the principle of justice by “desert”. For example children who are exceptionally talent may desert to be educated separately. By the same token, children who are handicapped (especially intelligently) should also be rendered separate education.


5. Walzer’s sphere of education…c. …various kinds of schooling …

⑥ Neighborhood schools: Given the fact that education or more specifically schooling must be delivered in group in a definite locality, with whom and where are children educated have been one of the central contention in distributive justice of education. Since most students’ residences are socioeconomically and ethnically located, social and ethnical segregations in education have been one of the major controversies in education policy. This is most evidenced in the controversies swirled form the first two Coleman Reports explicated in Topic 2.

Pure Principle of meritocracy

Pure Principle of

random allocation

Pure principle of vicinity

Pure Principle of

parent choice

•

•

•SSPS

78

From Distributive Justice to Relational Justice: Reframing Education Policy of Justice

1. In 1990, Iris Young published her work entitled Justice and the Politics of Difference, in which she criticizes that the theoretical discourse about justice has been dominated by the distributive paradigm. Instead she put forth her theory of relational justice.

(1949-2006)

80

2. “Contemporary theories of justice are dominated by a distributive paradigm, which tends to focus on the possession of material goods and social positions. This distributive focus, however, obscures other issues of institutional organization at the same time that it often particular institutional and practices as given.” (Young, 1990, P. 8)


81


3. “Justice should refer not only to distribution, but also to the institutional conditions necessary for the development and exercise of individual capacities and collective communication and cooperation. Under the conception of justice, injustice refers primarily to two forms of disabling constraints, oppression and domination. While these constraints include distributive patterns, they also involve matters which cannot easily be assimilated to the logic of distribution: decision-making procedures, division of labor, and culture.” (Young 1990, P. 39)…..

82


3. ….. Hence, the concept of justice should also apply to the social relational domain, which strives for social relations guaranteeing

a. Self-development, i.e. free from oppressionb. Self determination, i.e. free from domination

83

4. Oppression as injustice “Oppression consists in systematic institutional processes

which prevent some people from learning and using satisfying and expansive skills in socially recognized settings, or institutionalized social processes which inhibit people’s ability to play and communicate with others or to express their feelings and perspectives on social life in contexts where others can listen.” (Young, 1990, P. 38) Accordingly, young has specified five “faces of oppression” (Pp. 39-65)


84

4. Oppression as injustice: …Accordingly, Young has specified five “faces of

oppression” (Pp. 39-65)a. Exploitation: “The injustice of exploitation consists

in social processes that bring about a transfer of energies from one group to another to produce unequal distributions, and in the way in which social institutions enable a few to accumulate while they constraint many more.” (Young, 1990, p.53) These exploitation social institution may appears in class, gender and/or racial relation.


85

4. Oppression as injustice…b. Marginalization: “Marginalization is perhaps the

most dangerous form of oppression. A whole category of people is expelled from useful participation in social life and thus potentially subjected to severe material deprivation and even extermination.” (p. 53)

“Even if marginals were provided a comfortable material life within institutions that respected their freedom and dignity, injustices of marginality would remain in the form of uselessness, boredom, and lack of self-respect.” (p.55)


86

4. Oppression as injustice…c. Powerless: It is a status in which “the powerless lack

the authority, status, and sense of self.” (p.57) As a result, they will experience “inhibition in the development of one’s capacities, lack of decisionmaking power in one’s working life, and exposure to disrespectful treatment because of the status one occupies.” (p.58)


87

4. Oppression as injusticed. Cultural imperialism: “Cultural imperialism involves

the universalization of a group’s experience and culture, and its establishment as the norm. Some groups have exclusive or primary access to … the means of interpretation and communication in a society. … This, then, is the injustice of cultural imperialism: that the oppressed group’s own experience and interpretation of social life finds little expression that touches the domanint culture, while that same culture imposes on the oppressed group its experience and interpretation of social life.” (p.59-60)


88

4. Oppression as injusticee. Violence: “Members of some groups live with the

knowledge that they must fear random, unprovoked attacks on their persons or property, which have no motive but to damage, humiliate, or destroy the person. (p.61)


89

5. Domination as injustice (Self-determination)a. Domination consists in institutional condition which

inhibit or prevent people from participating in determining their actions or the conditions of their actions. Persons live within structures of domination if other persons or groups can determine without reciprocation the conditions of their action, either directly or by virtue of the structural consequences of their action. Thorough social and political democracy is the opposite of domination.” (Young, 1990, P. 38)


90

5. Domination as injusticeb. “Justice…requires…participation in public discussion

and process of democratic decisionamking. All persons should have the right and opportunity to participate in the deliberation and decisionmaking of the institutions to which their actions contribute or which directly affect their actions. …Democracy is both an element and a condition of social justice. …Democracy is also a condition for a public’s arriving at decisions whose substance and implications best promote substantively just outcomes. …The argument for this claim relies on Habermas’s conception of communicative ethnics.” (Pp. 91-92)


(1929- )

92

5. Domination as injusticec. Habermas’ communicative rationality and ethics

① Communicative rationality• “An assertion can be called rational if the speakers satisfies the

conditions necessary to achieve the illocutionary goal of reaching an understanding about something in the world with at least one other participant in communication.”(Habermas, 1984, P.11)

• Definition of communicative rationality: “Concept of communicative rationality carries with it connotation based ultimately on the central experience of the unconstrained, unifying, consensus-bringing force of argumentative speech, in which different participants overcome their merely subjective view and, owing to the mutuality of rationally motivated conviction, assure themselves of both the unity of the objective world and the intersubjectivity of their lifeworld.”(Habermas, 1984, P.10)


93


② Communicative ethics (also termed argumentative ethics or discourse ethics): It refers to the principles that communicatively rational participants in an argument are willing to observe in conducting their argumentative claims with the aim of arriving at a mutually acceptable consensus on the subject matter under discussion or even dispute. Habermas suggests that these communicative ethics are the normative bases for the constitution of the ideal communicative situation in which unrestrained communications can be conducted and mutually acceptable consensuses are to be researched.


94


② … These principles include (Habermas, 1979, P.68; Habermas, 1988, P.23; Forester, 1989) • Truth and efficacy: This set of principles applies primarily to

statements or argumentative claims relate to the validity of cognitive propositions or instrumental plans of actions. It requires speakers engaging in a discourse to put forth cognitive propositions concerning the natural world that are true and the instrumental (mean-end) plans of actions that are practical efficacious

• Rightness: This principle applies mainly to argumentative claims relate to the validity of moral and practical prescriptions. It requires speakers in discourse to yield statements that are in compliance with the general norms of the community in which the discourse takes place or refers to.


95


② … These principles include (Habermas, 1979, P.68; Habermas, 1988, P.23; Forester, 1989) • Relevancy and/or legitimacy: This set of principles applies

specifically to argumentative claims made in evaluative and more specifically public evaluative context, such as evaluation on public policy discourse. It requires its respective speakers to make evaluative statements based on standards of value, which are relevant and/or legitimate to the issues under evaluation.

• Truthfulness and sincerity: This set of principles applies to the internal and expressive positions of the speakers themselves. It restricts the speakers from put forth deceptive and illusive utterances and to only utter statements that are truthful and sincere.


96


③ … These principles include (Habermas, 1979, P.68; Habermas, 1988, P.23; Forester, 1989) • Comprehensible: This last principle applies to the linguistic and

discursive situation itself. It requires all parties engaged in the discourse are speaking a common language and rendering statements and utterances that are structured in mutually comprehensible format.


Care as Prima Facie Value in Education Policy Argumentation

1. Nel Noddings in her work The Challenge to Care in School: An Altenrative Approach to Education (2005) defines care as a relational concept. In a caring relation, it is “a connection or encounter between two human beings ─ a carer and a recipient of care, or cared-for. In order for the relation to be called caring, both parties must contribute to it in characteristic way.” (p.15)


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …a. On the part of the carer, he supposes to be in the state

of conscious, which can be characterized as (i) engrossment and (ii) motivational displacement① By engrossment, it indicates “an open, nonselective receptivity

to the cared-for. Weil characterizes this state of consciousness as follow. “The soul empties itself of all its own contents in order to receive into itself the being it is looking at, just as he is, in all his truth. Only he who is capable of attending can do this. (Weil, 1950; quoted in Noddings, 2005, p.16)

② By motivational displacement, it specifies the disposition that the carer is ready to redirect his motive energy away from his own concern and project and to replace it the project of the cared-for.


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …b. On the part of the cared-for, they have to express

explicitly the reception, recognition, and response to the caring in the ways which are found appropriate in a given society.


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …c. Noddings further indicates that caring is not just a

relational concept, it also indicates capacity, that the capacities of the carer and the cared-for. Teacher-student relation is by definition a caring relation① On the part of the teachers, it part of their job to create

caring relation, in which they must first of all care for whether students understand the subject matter as well as their interests, motives, concerns and feelings.


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …c. ….Teacher-student relation is by definition a caring

relation….① One the part of the students, they are to learnt the

capacities to be the cared-for. As most of the children grow up in affluent societies and well-off families (especially those from single-child families), they do not only lack the capacities to indicate (not to mention appreciate) reception, recognition and response to caring, but may also demonstrate a kind of “could-care-less” attitudes towards carers, such as parents, teachers, etc.


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …d. Apart from caring relations between human being, caring

relation can also extend to other creatures, ideas and objects. They include① Care for animal rights, environmental rights and ecological

sustainability;② Intellectual care for ideas, academic disciplines and pursuit for

truth; ③ Care for material objects, especially those relics, which preserve

collective and communal solidarities, cultural meanings and “collective memories”.


1. Noddings’ The Challenge to Care in School: …e. Lastly, in paraphrasing Martin Heidegger, the

German philosopher, Noddings underlines that caring education should also emphasizes helping children to care for themselves and to develop the capacities of caring their own identities, existences, and well beings.


2. Katchadourian’s conception of carea. Caring can be construed “the ‘natural piety’ of

humankind: a natural piety prior in time to the idea of a duty, including a moral duty to care about others ─ spontaneous, unreasoning, unquestioning caring ─flowing from love and affection for those close to oneself and, even sometimes, not close to oneself.” (Katchadourian, 1999, p. 61)


2. Katchadourian’s conception of careb. Caring “includes a gamut of kinds of actions and

activities designed to serve the other’s interest.” (p.62) Hence, caring about others comprises of “a variety of important traditional moral virtues, including① concern and responsibleness, ② kindness and compassion, ③ sensitivity and considerateness, ④ helpful and supportiveness,⑤ cooperativeness and solidarity, …⑥ selflessness and great eagerness to further the others welfare

and happiness.” (p. 64)


3. Knowledge and empathetic understanding in caringa. “Caring requires proper knowledge not only of the best

means for the realization of the other’s real interest, …but also proper knowledge or understanding of the interest …itself.” (p. 66)

b. “Empathetic understanding, or ‘existential knowledge about the other, it is considerably more than …simply being in possession of the abstract intellectual information about her that is call ‘knowledge about’.” (p.67) Accordingly, empathetic understanding consists of at least① “understanding of the other as a ‘concrete other’ as unique

person in a specific context and circumstance, at a particular time.” (p. 67)

② “awareness of the other’s important attachment and relationships,” which define one’s self and identity. (p. 67)

Trust as Prima Facie Value in Education Policy Argumentation

1. In concluding their findings generated from a large-scale study of the Chicago School Reform, Anthony Bryk and Barbara Schneider assert that trust in schools is the core resource for school improvement. (2002)

2. Typology of social trusta. Organic trust in family institutionb. Contractual trust in market institutionc. Relational trust in school institution

3. Relational trust in school institution

Prima Facie Value in Education Policy Argumentation

• Distributive Value• Equality• Justice

• Equality of welfare• Equality of resource• Equality of capacity

• Relational Value• Justice

• Self-development• Self-determination

• Care• Trust

Topic 8The Normative Context of Policy Studies:

Policy as Value Paradox

END

pedu 6209 policy studies in education

Documents