Search

This paper makes the case for fairness as a driver towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of equitable quality education. We outline a dialogic fairness framework attending to the principles of relational justice in both the service of reducing educational inequalities and improving democratic qualities. The prominence of education as a theme in Fairness Commissions from many UK municipal councils afforded the opportunity to find out if and how fairness could be considered a driver of change towards greater equality in education. Our work with the Newcastle Fairness Commission generated a number of principles of fairness and education, as well as a framework to help operationalize these principles in schools, that we detail in this paper. The framework that was generated was one that recognizes fairness as a form of relational justice arising from a dialogic approach. It was based on a process that used multi-stakeholder interviews and a roundtable inquiry. Views arising from the process interviews and roundtable discussion were consistent with other research into young people's understandings of fairness and education. More research is needed to find out how fairness is understood and enacted by education stakeholders and how these conceptualizations, perspectives, and experiences might combine to improve educational equity and democratic qualities.

This paper advances the theoretical and applied connection between education policy and community development. We call this community-aware education policy, and it is based on Dean's (2012) conception of human need that is thick (i.e., accounts for a relational context), rather than relying solely on a thin conception (i.e., instrumental view with an individualistic focus). It is our contention that contemporary policy initiatives can be better designed and implemented so that individual and professional goals are attained while family and community well-being are enhanced. Using literature from the field of community development highlighting social support concepts, we "thicken" the concept of social policy to arrive at our theory of community-aware education policy. This theory is then applied to two cases in different national policy contexts: universal pre-kindergarten in New York State (US) and full-service schools in England (UK). Ultimately, we argue for a thick approach to need that results in the provision of a range of services and activities to serve children in schools better, and also the communities in which they reside.

This article draws on an evaluation of the "Poverty proofing the school day" initiative. It outlines an argument arrived at through abductive reasoning to explain the generic and widespread instances of the stigmatisation of disadvantaged pupils that have been uncovered. The process of abductive reasoning necessitated broadening the conceptual framework through which we usually understand poverty and its impacts on education, and in so doing we take account of the affective or psychosocial dimensions and the attendant coping strategies that result. Listening to children's descriptions of poverty and its impacts on schooling is an essential aspect of better understanding these non-material aspects of poverty and their ramifications for all involved. There is, however, a lack of time and appropriate structures in schools to attend to this wider conceptualisation of poverty, yet the outcomes of "Poverty proofing the school day" demonstrate that schools do have a significant role to play in reducing the barriers to learning that result. We make the case that the specific conditions of high-stakes performativity in which schools operate, and the dominance of instrumental and metrics-based responses to issues around poverty and learning, reduce the visibility of the affective dimension and in so doing enable unwitting stigmatisation to result.

This paper considers whether the impact agenda that has developed over the last decade in UK universities is likely to help create the conditions in which critical educational research makes a more visible difference to society. The UK audit of university research quality (the research excellence framework (REF) now includes an assessment of impact. Impact pathways are requirements of both national and European Union research funding bodies and the Australian Research Council. Issues in the assessment of the social impact of research are explored by the European projects Evaluating the impact of EU SSH, social science humanities, research (IMPACT-EV) and ACcelerate CO-creation by setting up a Multi-actor Platform for Impact from Social Sciences and Humanities (ACCOMPLISSH). For many UK researchers the institutional focus on influencing the world outside the academy has brought welcome support and resources to engage with society and may appear to bring universities back to something approaching their original civic identity. However, evidence from across the academy suggests that impact as depicted in REF impact case studies does not accurately represent the experience either of the academic research endeavour or of impact as it may be more broadly construed. Analysis reported here of 85 highly rated impact case studies in the education unit of assessment of the 2014 REF suggests there is a risk that the REF impact process will embed a shift against qualitative and theoretically driven methodology that is often found in socially critical educational research. Impact is postured as neutral, hiding the neoliberal drive towards research models based on implementation, evaluation and policy. There is a need to create spaces in universities for rethinking of the impact agenda, perhaps looking at value or social creation instead of, or as an integral aspect of, impact.

This paper discusses a research project which sought to find out about young people's views on fairness in education in English schools. Fairness is an everyday term, which in policy hides multiple and contradictory positions across the political divide. In education, we find a policy context that focuses on distributional justice and equality of opportunity but also on principles of freedom and choice. This paper argues that engaging with how young people understand fairness contributes to models of social justice in education. Focus group data and written statements on fairness from approximately 80 young people aged 16-18 from five very different English schools were analysed. Students' primary concerns, absent from educational policy, were the themes of relational justice and stakes fairness, which are eclipsed by current recourse to distributive justice and meritocratic ideals. We argue that a focus on the lived experience of fairness is therefore necessary to widen the discourse about what is fair in education and to reinvigorate public debate about the values on which our education system is based.

This paper examines the assessment practices of teachers working with students with special educational needs in New Zealand primary and secondary regular and special schools. A national survey was used to identify current assessment practices used by teachers working with students designated, through a resourcing policy, as having high and very high needs. Specifically, the survey sought to determine the type of assessment practices used, reasons for using different approaches, the role of the person carrying out the assessment and levels of confidence in assessing students in relation to learning. The use of learning stories as a form of narrative assessment was further explored through the questionnaires and in a relatively small number of interviews. The results showed that teachers were largely responsible for assessment, and that the three main assessment methods used included collecting examples of work, observations and anecdotal records. Teachers reported confidence in assessing students for learning, but not for funding applications and assistive technology applications. Approaches such as narrative assessment and learning stories were used by some teachers in school-based settings. Learning stories and narrative assessment are strategies where parents, teachers, teacher-aides and students engage in meaningful dialogue around learning. Teachers reported that through narrative assessment they could demonstrate that learners with high and very high needs were visibly learning. Through a sociocultural conceptualisation of formative assessment, the role of teachers and learners in assessment is explored. (Contains 3 tables and 2 notes.)

The full service extended schools (FSES) initiative in England sought to build the capacity of schools to deploy multiple interventions across a range of child, family, and community contexts in order to improve the lives of children and families, and to enhance the sustainability of the areas where they live. As such, it was part of wider international developments to broaden the role of schools and integrate their work with that of other child and family services. The complexity and indeterminacy of such initiatives present particular challenges to evaluators, and mean that simple input-output approaches to evaluation are inappropriate. This paper reports the use of a theory of change approach to the FSES evaluation. It argues that an approach of this kind is better able to deal with complexity. However, in practice, this approach did not simply replicate standard outcomes evaluation processes in a more context-sensitive way. Rather, it involved fundamental shifts in what counted as valued outcomes, in a focus on potential rather than effectiveness, and in the roles of actors and evaluators. The paper concludes that, as the role of schools widens, educational evaluators will also have to rethink their roles. (Contains 1 figure.)

The government in England is proposing that every school should offer extended services to children, families and communities. However, in the absence of agreed models of how such community-oriented schooling should operate, its form will depend on how it is understood by the education professionals and their partners in other agencies who have to make it work in practice. This article draws on data from interviews with over 350 professionals to outline two such understandings. It suggests that they rest on different assumptions about fundamental social and educational issues and argues for a more open debate around these issues.