Critiquing Christodoulou: why ‘Educational Equality’ in a Capitalist Society is like a reading room in a prison

Adam Robertson suggests that, while Daisy Christodoulou’s ideas about the cognitive power that pupils develop by learning knowledge hold great emancipatory potential for our pupils, her limited conception of ‘educational equality’ and uncritical acceptance of elite forms of knowledge threaten to undermine that potential and preserve the status quo.

***

Daisy Christodoulou, in her ‘Seven Myths About Education’, presents a compelling case for teaching young people knowledge.

To do so may seem commonsense, but expressly avoiding knowledge, instead focusing on group work, skill development and minimising the amount of time teachers spend talking to students have been considered best practice by Ofsted, and have been a widely held consensus, for some time.

seven myths

Christodoulou dismantles this series of uncritically accepted myths by drawing on the work of cognitive psychologists and, particularly pleasingly, unpicking the underlying assumptions of Ofsted’s own published lesson reports, in doing which she shows that all of the aspects of these zeitgeisty lessons that Ofsted praised were predicated on students having strong knowledge which they themselves brought into their lessons, since their teachers weren’t teaching it to them once there.

But towards the end of her book, Christodoulou strays away from the fairly uncontentious territory of the cognitive power that comes with the ownership of knowledge into more overtly ideological waters.

In her seventh myth, Christodoulou tackles the vexed question of what knowledge students should be learning, and of whether or not teaching knowledge can be a form of indoctrination.

She concludes that it isn’t, and that teaching elite knowledge to deprived children is the surest route to securing ‘educational equality’.

As far as I can tell, by ‘educational inequality’ Christodoulou means little more than that the Times editorial is largely inaccessible to people who have left school with low cultural literacy, who chiefly come from deprived backgrounds, and that it would be desirable to give them access to it.

While of course it should concern anyone on the left that children from the poorest backgrounds be denied access to a collective discourse due to their lack of presumed knowledge, it is by no means the crux of the matter. Christodoulou, however, seems content that equality would be obtained should everyone leave school with a roughly equal grasp of this culturally relevant knowledge, and moves on with a few vague references to social mobility and economic benefits.

But this is a poor view of educational equality. Even if such an educational programme did succeed in unlocking social mobility by equipping the deprived to go toe-to-toe with their privately educated contemporaries, it would do nothing to undermine the brutally class-ridden nature of British society nor to erode the collective wealth and power of the privileged few.

Her naive Liberal conception of power is most evident when discussing Lords reform. She mentions that a large proportion of 16-24 year olds reportedly believe that the House of Lords is elected, which is indeed a shocking truth. But she then says that those young people are removed from any meaningful discussion on Lords reform due to their ignorance. Which they are, but the subtext is that Lords reform, and other meaningful political reform, would, should everyone be taught the requisite knowledge, be accessible for discussion on the part of the most marginalised in society, and that a more equal, fairer society would emerge from such discussions. Which throws into relief the extent to which Christodoulou’s theory of education completely ignores questions of power and structural oppression.

Perhaps I am being slightly unfair, but it is clear that, for Christodoulou, equipping the people who Freire would call ‘The Oppressed’ to join the society of ‘The Oppressor’, by giving them access to all of the knowledge required to be able to do this, is the goal of educational equality. It is for this reason that she rubbishes suggestions that elite knowledge is knowledge somehow owned by the elite, via some slightly curious anecdotes about how some working class people are more cultured than Prince Harry (as if there were nothing material in his being a Prince).

This sort of position, of a radical critique of unequal educational provision which does nothing to critique the status quo of a class-ridden capitalist society is well captured by a slogan often seen on banners at students protests around the world in the past few years: “A free university in a capitalist society is like a reading room in a prison”. There is no meaning to a radically free and equal educational system if it exists as nothing more than a prelude to or break from an otherwise exploitative, violent and unjust social order.

reading room prison

If we accept this, and see any iteration of educational equality that exists within an unequal society as being fundamentally meaningless, what problems emerge with Christodoulou’s ideas about elite knowledge?

It should be clear that giving oppressed children the knowledge of the society of their oppressors, so that they are able to move within that society, is no sort of liberation.

Christodoulou falls back on the age-old idea that hegemonic forms of knowledge have become hegemonic due to their innate superiority, again ignoring questions of class power. But an understanding of how dominant forms of knowledge help to reproduce dominant social forms was at the forefront of the Byt reform movement in early Soviet Russia. Byt, or ‘everyday life’, had to be reformed if the people were no longer to think like bourgeois, and would instead begin to think like communists.

Similarly, the ‘Why is my Curriculum White?’ collective, based at UCL, suggests that one of the reasons that university curricula in this country remain overwhelmingly populated by dead white men is that “the only way we can succeed is by reproducing whiteness”. Knowledge that threatens the racist status quo is quietly pushed outside of the hegemonic culture. To deviate from this hegemonic culture is to be deemed a failure by the Academy, as Dr. -Coleman- has found, losing out on a job at UCL after proposing an MA course that was considered too critical of the White establishment.

The urge to immerse the oppressed in the culture of the oppressor, rather than in their own culture or a liberatory culture, and the manner in which this ensures that the dominant culture cannot be challenged by the oppressed, is precisely responsible for the reproduction of their oppression.

Instead of holding up the knowledge of the elite as the, somehow, best, or most powerful knowledge, real educational equality would instead require us to recognise the role that this knowledge plays in sustaining inequality.

I’m not necessarily suggesting that deprived children shouldn’t be exposed to what are considered to be great novels or films or music or poetry. Instead, we might take some time consider what knowledge might work to empower  the oppressed, to enable them to become conscious of their oppression and to be able to articulate, and bring about, an alternative society freed from their oppressors.

What this knowledge might be I don’t know. But in history, moving away from a Whiggish ‘Island Story’, of the eventual and inevitable triumph of parliament over the monarchy, might be a start. Instead of learning about those in power, regardless of the social cachet presently attached to such knowledge, we might instead focus on the struggles of oppressed people, episodes such as the British Civil Rights Movement, or the Stonewall Riots, the Suffragettes, the Chartists, Slave rebellions, the Miners’ Strike. We also need to avoid sanitised ruling class narratives of these historical episodes, for instance that women winning the vote closed the book on the oppression of women in this country, or that the police acted as anything other than a paramilitary force doing Thatcher’s bidding during the Miners’ Strike. We might also introduce them to ideas such as Postcolonial Theory, Feminism and Marxism.

Our focus should, as Christodoulou suggests, be on the acquisition of knowledge on the part of our students, but the knowledge we teach them should be knowledge that is threatening to the status quo, that has the potential to enable them to liberate themselves.

While a greater focus on the acquisition of knowledge should lead to greater educational attainment on the part of our students, indeed might go some way to closing the gap between the poorest and their privately educated contemporaries, on its own this is a poor view of educational equality.

If we are serious about achieving educational equality we need to locate our ideas within a broader egalitarian politics. Teaching students knowledge which works to sustain the status quo is antithetical to this task.

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Critiquing Christodoulou: why ‘Educational Equality’ in a Capitalist Society is like a reading room in a prison

  1. Hi Adam, thanks for your very fair and thoughtful critique of my book. I’m glad you found parts of it helpful! Regarding the last chapter, have you seen my blog posts about Gramsci and Italian educational politics in the 30s? https://thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/mussolini-and-a-certain-baggage-of-concrete-facts/

    You might also like this one about Will Crooks. https://thewingtoheaven.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/if-you-like-robert-tressell-youll-love-will-crooks/

    Like

  2. Sad to think that someone with such a one-eyed approach might be teaching school children. It would be reasonable to argue that ‘our island story’ should be taught, but with discussion of criticisms of what might otherwise be seen as a Whiggish or Panglossian account. But all you are doing is going to opposite extreme and suggesting a left wing account of history with no thought about dissenting views.

    I’d also suggest that ‘a focus on the struggles of oppressed people, episodes such as the British Civil Rights Movement, or the Stonewall Riots, the Suffragettes, the Chartists, Slave rebellions, the Miners’ Strike’ would give a very distorted view of the past.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. How would it give a distorted view of the past? They all happened. Most instances of social progress in the past couple hundred years were a result of direct action on the part of oppressed people.
      Any curriculum choice is a political act – there is no such thing as an apolitical curriculum. The important question is – what are those politics and who do they benefit?

      Like

  3. Is it? I would refute that. In particular I would refute the whole idea that one set of ideas should be replaced with another and that makes it better. Only if you teach both can you get a balance (which is how I was taught history and politics throughout my time at school). See if you’re interested in educating as opposed to brainwashing (great technique picked up from the fascists there btw) then you also have to allow people their views whatever they might be and also to disagree.

    I can’t stand commentary like the one above – what right does a white middle class male have to tell me an asian female with working class parents what education I should have? See there you have it is just an argument between the upper class right wing ideas and faux socialist middle class ones.

    I also don’t think that teaching the history of conflict between people so you can instigate a revolution (which is what I assume people like yourself dream of although surely you should be against the wall for being the bourgeoise and all) or make people agree with your version of dictatorship, is appealing to everyone.

    Well the truth is teaching one sided bias history has been tried in many schools during the 1980s and 1990s and it just didn’t lead to a better understanding of the world or many ethnic minorities entering uni studying history. Whereas the balanced view I got meant I was able to argue from all sides, see opinions and make nuanced arguments not irrational one-sided ones.

    More recently, I actually created a primary history curriculum which was accepted as good practice by an established website where many leaders go to seek advice on best practice. It included suffragettes, immigration, slavery, colonialism, apartheid, the English civil war and a mix of different role models in both key stage 1 and 2.

    You keep up the rhetoric – talk the talk while I will walk the walk

    I wanted history that reflected both the good and bad in history so the children would have a great foundation for their future learning in history, not a propaganda tool.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s