ASSESSMENT 1 – SOCIAL JUSTICE ESSAY – EBANY BRIDGES 17505866

Taking center stage in more recent years is the growing understanding of the
relationship between certain discourses, educational disadvantages and low socio-
economic status (SES). Research aligns with the statement by Greening (2017) that
“too often a child's life is shaped by where they went to school or where they grow up
and we shouldn’t accept that”. Schools and educational environments should be
equal in regards to curriculum, quality teaching and recourses regardless of postcode
or social classes. (Gannon, 2009; Burnett & Lampert, 2011) Social theorists such as
Bourdieu (1977) agree that education can produce and reproduce disadvantages
and privilege however Bourdieu also believes that it can be used as a means to
attempt to reduce such inequalities. This essay will discuss sociological theories,
which have been described by Ferfolja, Jones Diaz and Ullman (2015) as the
“unseen half of teaching” and how these theories and in particular the postcolonial
theories of Privilege and Bourdieu’s theory of Social Practice can be used to improve
inequities in regards to education and the social justice issues related to low
socioeconomic status (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015). In conjunction, this
essay will also analyze the effects that deficit discourses and “normalizing” dominant
discourses have on educational equity for students from a low SES background as
well as how a place based approach to teaching can improve teaching practices. It is
imperative that teachers aim to promote mutual respect, providing safe and
supporting learning environments that value differences and diversity (Comber,
2016)

Ample evidence indicates that SES or class can have significant effects on social
and educational equity (Ladd, 2011). Gannon (2009) highlights your postcode and
SES can result in a higher risk of falling victim to equity disparities within the
educational setting. Suburbs in Western Sydney such as the infamous Mt Druitt, or
Airds in Southwest Sydney have a heavy stigma attached to their names. This
stigma can affect the future of the people that call these places home (Gannon,
2009). There are many possibilities that can result in educational equity. Connell
(1994) & Burnett & Lampert (2011) suggest it could be due to parents not being able
to deploy the resources required by the schools’ policies due to financial position or
the common occurance that disadvantaged schools lack in resources such as quality
text books and the lack of quality teachers. It is common practice that the least
experienced teachers are placed in schools and with students that are in need of
quality teachers the most (Burnett & Lampert, 2011). Burnett & Lampert (2011) also
state that more often than not inexperienced middle-class teachers lack awareness
of the difficulties students are faced with from working class / low socioeconomic
backgrounds. This can result in the possibility of these teachers being ill prepared to
teach such students effectively. Therefore it is imperative that teachers are educated
and open minded on the effects that such social justice issues have on students and
their classroom (Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015).

Deficit discourses surrounding students from a low SES background, who are
labeled as ‘different’ from the ‘normal’, are often perceived as a problem within
society (McKay & Devlin, 2015). As a repercussion it is typical for teachers to have
predisposed assumptions. Therefore it is common for teachers and schools to lower
expectations, limit subject offerings and ‘dumb down’ their content to ‘suit their
students’. “What teachers expect of students makes a profound difference” (Lampert,
Burnett & Morse, 2015 p 80). These actions result in limited choice, opportunities and
academic futures for their students. Research suggests that discourse produces
power and has the ability to reinforce it (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015; Clycq,
Ward Nouwen & Vandenbroucke, 2013). This can result in certain power inequality in
regards to low SES communities and school settings. Within a classroom setting by
discourse the teacher holds the power, if teachers have deficit discourses towards
their students it will in turn effect their students negatively. It is important for teachers
who find themselves embedded into a professional environment which is heavily
weighted by such deficit discourse to engage in continual reflection on their practices
and personal discourses to improve their teaching and pedagogies in the aim to
disrupt the spread of deficit thinking and inequities within their practice (Lampert,
Burnett & Morse, 2015).

The relationship between power, social class and education is recognized in the field
of social theory however it is not so transparent to ‘everyday’ people. It is of no secret
that SES can have a noticeable effect on educational opportunities and outcomes
(Connell, 1994; Ladd, 2011; Gannon, 2009; Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015). There
is an abundance of research on poverty and education, with many social theorists
working to understand and compute ideas that can aid in overcoming inequities in
education in relation to socioeconomic status and power (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz &
Ullman, 2015; Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015; Huppatz, 2015). Pierre Bourdieus is
one of those social theorists with his theory of social justice. Bourdieus’ framework
aims to help educators gain a clearer understanding of how the relations of power (of
all levels) can be reproduced in the educational settings, connecting individual
practices to wider social patterns (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015). He directs
his focus to the inequality within educational policies, pedagogies and discourse and
how educators can recognize their position and power to help promote of equitable
opportunities for learning (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015).

Bourdieus theory has three key interlinked principles; capital, habitus and field.
Bourdieu generally links capital to wealth. Capital incorporates a variety of forms
including social (profitable social connections), economic (money and property) and
cultural (cultural knowledge and competencies). Cultural capital can exist in the
embodied state, the institutionalized state or the objective state (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz
& Ullman, 2015). In regards to schooling and education cultural capital can clearly
relate class culture and education to power. For example, Huppatz’s (2015) research
outlines as children from higher socio economic backgrounds value education,
knowledge and skills learned from the school setting, they are more likely to achieve
greater success in an educational setting compared to children from a working class /
low socio economic background, highlighting “the learned skills and competencies
that are legitimated and valued are the cultural capitals that belong to the elite”
(Huppatz, 2015, pp 168). This does not necessarily mean that the culture of the
middle – upper classes are valued more, however it is does illuminate the superior
statuses of these classes within the social field. Schools and teachers in the forefront
of privileged class culture have pedagogical methods and institutionalized education
that press the ‘norm’ and are ‘known’ or expected. These expectations correlate with
the second principle habitus (Huppatz, 2015). Habitus can be described as what
produces collective and individual practices, perceptions, thoughts and dispositions
within social contexts in everyday social practices. Schools along with family and
society are connected by the significant role they play in shaping a child's identity
and future trajectory (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015; Huppatz, 2015). For
example parental education based on SES may place some students from a low
SES background at a disadvantage as historically the perception of education within
a family may be limited and not as valued compared to students from a historically
high SES background (Ferfolja, Jones Diaz & Ullman, 2015). Bourdieus’ third
principle is his concept of field. Field can relate to any structured environment and
space where interactions can occur such as education environments, family, health,
media and popular culture (Huppatz, 2015). As all 3 principles interlink positions of
advantage. Power is interchangeable depending on the capital habitus or field that is
being played. It is essential for teachers to recognize different dispositions and the
role of class power and privilege in the construction of their practices in regards to
the curriculum as well as dealing with parents and school culture (Burnett & Lampert,
2011; Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015).

Many teachers in low SES, disadvantaged schools in Australia come from middle
class backgrounds and may unknowingly have predisposed and unexamined
attitudes towards poverty imbedded in them from societal discourses, inflicting deficit
thinking (Gannon, 2009; Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015). Linking to the previously
discussed effects of deficit discourses Privilege Theory outlines concepts that may
tackle the relationship between schooling practices and outcomes, and the unspoken
power relationships that come with privilege. Some students from low SES
backgrounds may already have low self worth and efficacy due to the stigmas
pushed onto them by society, which also attach to their education and future life
chances (Clycq, Ward Nouwen & Vandenbroucke, 2013; McKay & Devlin, 2015)
). The ongoing gap of schooling outcomes experienced between low SES and high
SES areas result in a skew of power and privilege towards high SES communities. It
is important as teachers to understand the way in which privilege operates and how
their own privilege experiences could result in social inequities (Lampert, Burnett &
Morse, 2015). Privilege theory aims to help teachers grasp a clearer view of how
they may recognize and adept their privileged practices. Often invisible to them or
unnoticed, the attitude towards poverty teachers hold needs to be examined and
made aware of in a deliberate and ongoing manner. (Lampert, Burnett & Morse,
2015) claims that reflexivity is a key practice that teachers can incorporate into their
development as “it is essential for teachers to interrogate their attitudes prior to
entering the classroom and to continue to engage in ongoing dialogue once they are
teaching” (Lampert, Burnett & Morse, 2015, pp 77). Through social justice education
it is possible for teachers to see just how imperative it is to develop such habits and
skills as reflexivity as an ongoing part of their preparation. Reflexivity can be used as
a fundamental process of reflection to gain a deeper understanding of privilege.
Reflection enables you to discover ways in which to unpack and dissect key deficit
presumptions that impact the quality and equity of education that is commonly
offered to students and people in ‘disadvantaged’ communities (Lampert, Burnett &
Morse, 2015; Burnett & Lampert, 2011).

Educational policies, pedagogies, curriculum, and other institutional school based

practices constructed in ways that are recognized as ‘normal’ by the dominant
cultures and communities can lack adequate adaption and differentiation to the
minority cultures and communities (Ladd, 2011). There is evidence that suggests
teachers from schools with high enrollment of low SES background students are
continually questioning the curriculum and policies. “Conventional subject matter and
texts and traditional teaching methods and assessment techniques turn out to be
sources of systematic difficulty” (Connell, 1994, pp 137) resulting in heightened
boredom which can lead to problems with discipline. This “normalizing” in such
schools can enforce a lop sidedness with academic successes being the minority
and academic discredit being the majority (Ladd, 2011; Connell, 1994). Furthermore
school policies such as uniform, resources; excursions/camps can place some
students at a disadvantage if their SES does not allow them the finances to support
such policies (Ladd, 2011). Despite the fact that the Australian government attempts
to promote social inclusion in particular a considerable allocation of funding towards
low SES participation there still proceeds to be issues and inconsistencies with
equity in education opportunities and outcomes.

Through connectedness and relatedness it is possible to help students from

disadvantaged areas feel more self efficacy and let go of the stigma that is placed on
them by society (Molyneux & Tyler, 2013). Schools can aid social inclusion and
connectedness by using a place based approach to education. Place based
approach was developed from the idea that a particular place connects with
community and itself. Resonating with the implication of community as a resource for
learning. “The community provides the context for learning, students work focuses on
community needs and interests and community members serve as a resource and
partners in every aspect of the teaching and learning.” (Molyneux & Tyler, 2013 pp
879) Place based education has been recognized as a method to increase
engagement of students, resulting in better academic performance. (Gannon, 2009)

Dominant deficit discourses that focus on particular geographical locations in our

neighborhoods and low socioeconomic status’ carry with them a negative strain on
the perceptions of young people, their teachers and employers as well as the wider
community and society. However this should not be the case. Bourdieu social theory
of social justice and the privilege theory both support the need for equity in
education. It is the role of teachers to challenge discourses and teaching practices
that support and normalize social inequality, with an aim towards the overarching
goal of providing all students with equal opportunity to quality and equitable
education and outcomes.
References:

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812507

Burnett, B., & Lampert, J. (2011). Teacher Education and the Targeting of
Disadvantage.Creative Education, 02(05), 446-451. doi: 10.4236/ce.2011.25064

Clycq, N., Ward Nouwen, M., & Vandenbroucke, A. (2013). Meritocracy, deficit
thinking and the invisibility of the system: Discourses on educational success and
failure. British Educational Research Journal, 40(5), 796-819. doi:
10.1002/berj.3109

Comber, B. (2016). Poverty, place and pedagogy in education: research stories from
front-line workers. The Australian Educational Researcher, 43(4), 393-400. doi:
10.1007/s13384-016-0212-9

Connell, R. (1994). Poverty and Education. Harvard Educational Review, 64(2), 125-
150. doi: 10.17763/haer.64.2.m14947g30k1x5781

Ferfolja, T., Jones Diaz, C., & Ullman, J. (2015). The Unseen Half: Theories for
educational practices. In T. Ferfolja, C. Jones Diaz & J. Ullman, Understanding
Sociological Theory for Educational Practices (1st ed., pp. 2-13). Port Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press.

Gannon, S. (2009). Rewriting “the Road to Nowhere”. Urban Education, 44(5), 608-
611, 620-622. doi: 10.1177/0042085909339377

Huppatz, K. (2015). Social Class and the classroom: A reflection on the role of
schooling and mothering in the production and reproduction of disadvantage and
privilege. In T. Ferfolja, C. Jones Diaz & J. Ullman, Understanding Sociological
Theory for Educational Practices(1st ed., pp. 164-170, 177). Port Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press.

Ladd, H. (2012). Education and Poverty: Confronting the Evidence. Journal Of Policy
Analysis And Management, 31(2), 203-227. doi: 10.1002/pam.21615
Lampert, J., Burnett, B., & Morse, K. (2015). Destabilising Privilege: Distrupting
deficit thinking in white pre-service teachers on field experience in culturally
diverse, high poverty schools. In T. Ferfolja, C. Jones Diaz & J.
Ullman, Understanding Sociological Theory for Educational Practices (1st ed.,
pp. 77-86). Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, J., & Devlin, M. (2015). ‘Low income doesn't mean stupid and destined for
failure': challenging the deficit discourse around students from low SES
backgrounds in higher education. International Journal Of Inclusive
Education, 20(4), 347-352, 359. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1079273

Molyneux, P., & Tyler, D. (2013). Place-based education and pre-service teachers: a
case study from India. International Journal Of Inclusive Education, 18(9), 878,
879, 884. doi: 10.1080/13603116.2013.855265