inTuition taster: Competing visions

Social justice is a core concept in a society that values fairness, equity and equal rights. In the further education (FE) and skills sector, social justice and the interconnected concept of social mobility are key components in the work of helping young people and adults to use their learning and skills to reach their potential.

The paths to achieving such outcomes are many, and there are theoretical debates about curricula design and pedagogy that argue for particular approaches to promote social mobility in FE.

The debates tend to centre around the knowledge-rich perspective, which argues that social justice depends on explicit teaching of powerful knowledge and cultural capital, and the critical/transformative perspective. This argues that traditional curricula reproduce inequalities by serving dominant groups and that a democratic teaching approach should support learners to become critically aware of – and challenge – the systemic barriers that prevent social justice.

Another approach pertinent to the sector that features less in other phases of education is around employability and industry connections as a way of supporting progression to the labour market. 

The need for clarity

It is a complex debate. Alun Francis OBE, chief executive of Blackpool and The Fylde College, feels that “social mobility” is a term people use to promote their side of an argument without evidence to support it.

“When people defend BTECs, the debate is usually about progression to university,” he contends. “And then the focus is on whether the BTECs provide an equal basis to A Levels in terms of university study. BTEC students tend to get lower degrees and have higher drop-out rates.

“This can lead to the creation of two roads: a higher road and a lower road. But the more important issue is that most people who do Level 3 BTECS don’t go to university at all. And we know almost nothing about their progression and social mobility.  If we were genuinely interested in social mobility we would start with this fact.”

Dane Longden, lecturer of business at Hopwood Hall College, has been researching how the FE and skills sector impacts social mobility. “Pierre Bourdieu’s “forms of capital” offer an interesting lens through which to explore this question,” he says. “We talk freely about capital but what sort of capital does FE provide? Similarly, what skills are needed? Can we identify those in each subject area? It’s a mixed picture but we don’t have a precise answer to what knowledge and what skills. You need knowledge to improve skills and skills to improve knowledge. It is a cycle.”

“FE and skills at its best is a rich mix of knowledge, skills and cultural enrichment,” adds FE changemaker Dr Lou Mycroft. “This does not mean making working-class people middle-class. We need to join up this thinking. We can stay in our communities and strengthen them.”

But, as Francis suggests, “sometimes we ask the wrong questions”. “There tends to be a confirmation bias,” he says. “This is frustrating because it becomes about vested interests. It is hard to get an independent view. We need to think about what our aim is. Do we want equal opportunities or equality of outcome?”

FE curriculum models

Professor Leesa Wheelahan, honorary research fellow at the University of Oxford, says current models of curriculum in FE and skills lean towards workplace requirements, and she raises concerns about this. “Does an industry-led approach give disadvantaged learners genuine opportunities, or does it only prepare them for low-status roles?” she asks. “Industry has a legitimate interest in FE and skills, of course. So do students, parents, communities and society.

“If it is only industry-led (which mostly excludes unions), employers are most interested in the specific skills they want for specific jobs and have less concern about the broader purposes of education. This condemns students to lower-status roles, without the means for educational or occupational progression. Not all industries are like this.

“When the curriculum is organised around workplace tasks, roles and responsibilities, knowledge is parcelled out bit by bit, and students don’t have the capacity to reflect on, choose and apply different concepts,” she adds. “Unless they can do this, knowledge isn’t under their control. What are the implications of global warming for plumbers and electricians? What is the best way forward for their industries? Similarly, for those working in early childhood, what are the competing approaches to supporting children and their families? Which is best? Why?”

In Wheelahan’s view, a knowledge-rich curriculum gives students access to the knowledge they need to participate in debates in their field of practice, and also in society. “This doesn’t mean that theoretical knowledge is necessarily ‘true’,” she explains. “It is just the best that we’ve got so far. This means that students need access to the criteria used to evaluate knowledge within the applied disciplines that underpin their field.

“Without this access, they are left out and must rely on others. So, a knowledge-rich curriculum provides the basis for democratic participation in debates in society. It also provides students with the opportunity to continue studying at a higher level in their field or in a related field. This is why a knowledge-rich curriculum supports social justice.”

However, Longden cautions against certainty. “The FE and skills sector has a diverse role,” he says. “We do need to ask ourselves, what does ‘knowledge-rich’ actually mean? What does it mean in my subject area of business? Knowledge is key, but what constitutes knowledge-rich? We cannot be vague about this.”

There are ongoing debates about whose knowledge and culture should be included within the curriculum. Critical and transformative approaches to curriculum design argue for incorporating more diverse perspectives and challenging dominant narratives through interactive and participatory teaching approaches that encourage dialogue and critical reflection.

“I believe we can bring knowledge, skills and culture to working-class learners,” says Mycroft. “I saw Gary Clarke’s brilliant queer working-class dance performance, Detention. As a piece of dance theatre, is that cultural enough?  Who decides what culture is? We are not talking about the ‘what’ and that is so unhelpful.”

Wheelahan acknowledges a need for caution in the pursuit of a knowledge-rich approach, which she believes can inadvertently contribute to reinforcing inequalities if students are taught that theoretical knowledge is ‘true’ and that they must accept and not question it. “An empowering curriculum gives students the opportunity to question and critique knowledge, and not just accept what they are told,” she says.

Wheelahan points out that “unequal societies have unequal education systems and unequal outcomes”. She goes on to suggest that “a critical approach to curriculum and pedagogy can help students to consider and reflect on their lives and consider the available courses of action open to them, which really matters. It can help students understand their lives better.”

A mixed reality

The distinctions between the competing visions in this curriculum debate are less clear when put under the microscope. “Let’s say we figure out the whole knowledge-rich or critical approach question– are there the employers out there offering decent jobs? Is this something that FE and skills can solve?” asserts Longdon.

For Mycroft, simplistic conclusions to the debate are unlikely to offer practical strategies for the FE and skills classroom. There are genuine tensions in the pedagogical choices facing practitioners. Mycroft warns against such grandstanding over the finer details of pedagogy. “The philosopher Bernard Williams wrote about the ‘fetish of assertion’ in which people hold an opinion and resolutely stand by it,” she says. “In education, issues are rarely either/or. The energy that goes into holding firm to the fetish could go elsewhere with more positive effect.”

Francis, who leans towards a knowledge-based curriculum approach, is also pragmatic about which pedagogical approach will serve his students best. “We don’t have the evidence to be definitive about this,” he says. “Effective pedagogy needs a wider range of techniques with practical applications,” he says. “Every class is different, so teachers need a toolbox. It is a creative process.

“The job of the teacher is to choose which evidence-informed strategy will work best in their context. That’s where the creative flex comes in. The fact that the approaches in their toolbox all work is where the boundaries come in. A knowledge-based approach is not all didactic. There are didactic elements in all approaches to learning.”

Ultimately, Mycroft feels that in FE and skills, practitioners seek to do what is right for their students. “The best teachers are pedagogically curious,” she says. “They take inspiration from a range of sources. The biggest danger is infantilising FE teachers. Research shows that we need critical thinking skills, news literacy and self-responsibility among others for an uncertain future. Real teaching is messier than rigid methods.”

The FE and skills sector is the powerhouse that must support, nurture and progress learners from a multitude of backgrounds on to their next destination – and beyond – through positive learning experiences. Having a workforce that is willing to be pedagogically curious will help to ensure that social justice can prevail.

Further reading

ETF. Further Education and skills: changing systems of change. See: et-foundation.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ETF025_Changing-Systems-of-Change_Online_v5.pdf

Social Mobility Commission. State of the Nation data. See: social-mobility.data.gov.uk

Elizabeth Holmes is a freelance journalist specialising in the education sector

Views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of SET.