Page 50 - Igor Ž. Žagar in Ana Mlekuž, ur. Raziskovanje v vzgoji in izobraževanju: mednarodni vidiki vzgoje in izobraževanja. Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut, 2020. Digitalna knjižnica, Dissertationes 38
P. 50
r aziskovanje v vzgoji in izobr aževanju: mednarodni vidki vzgoje in izobr aževanja
nity whilst, of course, recognizing that these aspirations may well, them-
selves, fall short of the desire for a more equitable educational system for
all. The first aspect is the expansion of pre-school education for all, on the
grounds that this is the only possible way of ensuring a ‘fair start’. At the
same time, it is important that my advocacy of such a policy is not based
on notions of ‘parenting deficits’ amongst the underprivileged that may, it-
self, amount to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if the rationale
for pre-school programmes is based on distorted understandings of cogni-
tive science. Crucially, then, and secondly, the entire educational process
needs to be open to greater scrutiny at grassroots level, by pupils and par-
ents, and, at the same time, in a region where the ability to socialize in pub-
lic spaces has been reduced, schools need to become genuine community
resources. Thirdly, the formal and hidden curriculum needs to be more stu-
dent-centred and move away from rote learning to critical consciousness
(‘conscientization’ in Freire’s terms). Fourthly, education needs to be treat-
ed as a commons, a public good open to all, and nurtured through being
freely available to all. Free education is only free if there are also grants to
cover living costs – and if they have to be limited, they should be based on
need not so-called ability. Fifthly, meaningful participation is needed at all
levels, as well as ensuring lifelong learning, second chances and, very much
as the Swiss system does, multiple pathways to higher education. Chil-
dren with disabilities need to be a priority, as do Roma children, not mere-
ly through scholarships for a few who can then join the middle class. More
complex would be to value and support those lacking cultural capital or
who do not speak in what Basil Bernstein (1971) termed ‘elaborated codes’
and, in this context, I would sound a warning about the current techno-
cratic fashion for early intervention that can end up labelling the children
it purports to help, instead preferring what I would term reflexive anti-op-
pressive practice, drawing attention to practices and structures of oppres-
sion and forming action coalitions to challenge them. In the end, perhaps,
the conclusion might be that it is not possible to have a socially just educa-
tional system in a socially unjust society.
Literature
Archer, Roy, Duda, Igor and Stubbs, Paul (eds.) Social Inequalities and Discon-
tent in Yugoslav Socialism, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
Au, Wayne and M. Apple. »Reviewing Policy: Freire, Critical Education, and
the Environmental Crisis«, Educational Policy, no. 21(3) (2007): 457–470.
50
nity whilst, of course, recognizing that these aspirations may well, them-
selves, fall short of the desire for a more equitable educational system for
all. The first aspect is the expansion of pre-school education for all, on the
grounds that this is the only possible way of ensuring a ‘fair start’. At the
same time, it is important that my advocacy of such a policy is not based
on notions of ‘parenting deficits’ amongst the underprivileged that may, it-
self, amount to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if the rationale
for pre-school programmes is based on distorted understandings of cogni-
tive science. Crucially, then, and secondly, the entire educational process
needs to be open to greater scrutiny at grassroots level, by pupils and par-
ents, and, at the same time, in a region where the ability to socialize in pub-
lic spaces has been reduced, schools need to become genuine community
resources. Thirdly, the formal and hidden curriculum needs to be more stu-
dent-centred and move away from rote learning to critical consciousness
(‘conscientization’ in Freire’s terms). Fourthly, education needs to be treat-
ed as a commons, a public good open to all, and nurtured through being
freely available to all. Free education is only free if there are also grants to
cover living costs – and if they have to be limited, they should be based on
need not so-called ability. Fifthly, meaningful participation is needed at all
levels, as well as ensuring lifelong learning, second chances and, very much
as the Swiss system does, multiple pathways to higher education. Chil-
dren with disabilities need to be a priority, as do Roma children, not mere-
ly through scholarships for a few who can then join the middle class. More
complex would be to value and support those lacking cultural capital or
who do not speak in what Basil Bernstein (1971) termed ‘elaborated codes’
and, in this context, I would sound a warning about the current techno-
cratic fashion for early intervention that can end up labelling the children
it purports to help, instead preferring what I would term reflexive anti-op-
pressive practice, drawing attention to practices and structures of oppres-
sion and forming action coalitions to challenge them. In the end, perhaps,
the conclusion might be that it is not possible to have a socially just educa-
tional system in a socially unjust society.
Literature
Archer, Roy, Duda, Igor and Stubbs, Paul (eds.) Social Inequalities and Discon-
tent in Yugoslav Socialism, Abingdon: Routledge, 2016.
Au, Wayne and M. Apple. »Reviewing Policy: Freire, Critical Education, and
the Environmental Crisis«, Educational Policy, no. 21(3) (2007): 457–470.
50
