PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

EDITORIAL: Devaluing the Individual

Prism: Casting New Light on Learning, Theory and Practice

http://prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk/

ISSN 2514-5347

Vol. 1 (2): pp. 1-7

DAVID ALLAN
Edge Hill University

david.allan@edgehill.ac.uk

1. Devaluing the Individual

1.1 Introduction

Welcome to this special issue of Prism on Values in Education. The theme of values is

greatly significant for the world of education but there are many facets that can be unpicked.

The theme for this issue, then, is intentionally broad and encourages diverse perspectives on

values, as well as various explorations of the wider interpretations of the base word ‘value.’

Indeed, this editorial positions values from the perspectives of those marginalised by their

educational experiences, thus focussing on the devaluing of the individual. I shall give an

overview of what is contained in this issue a little later but for now I would like to discuss the

societal implications of having a system that discards the values of those who do not adhere

to the established norms.

1.2 Disaffection with learning

Compulsory education in England has long been identified as problematic for some young

people. For instance, Duncan (2013, p. 29) suggests that schools can be ‘particularly

oppressive institutions that create the conditions that make their children the unhappiest

amongst the industrialized nations, generating precisely the disaffection with schooling that

they then criticize and punish.’ Indeed, the literature is replete with studies on

disengagement, disaffection and other concepts and behaviours that represent resistance to

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

the apparent structural impositions of our education system in England (Allan and Duckworth,

2018; Allan, 2015; Hall and Raffo, 2004; Kinder et al., 1999; Lumby, 2012). Whilst compulsory

schooling provides much fulfilment for the majority (Keys, 2006), the corollary of such a

system is the creation of cultural norms, whereupon those who fail to conform or fit in are

castigated and alienated, and often allocated to alternative learning programmes to address

their recalcitrance as schools adopt a default position of righteousness (Harber, 2008).

Some control is arguably necessary, of course, as schools help to establish parameters

that replicate society, which is full of restrictions (although the inverse is also often evident

where socio-political circumstances dictate the behaviours of individuals in school), but this

becomes problematic when it impinges on individual values. A lack of fulfilment with the

education system can lead to disaffection and it is usually at the point in which this becomes

active disengagement that it is identified. Disaffection may be ‘characterised as a rejection of

the values and cultures of dominant institutions’ (Ferguson, 2004, p. 292); however, this is

only half the picture because those ‘dominant institutions’ also often reject the values of

individuals who do not exhibit an allegiance to their establishment and its rules. As such,

schools are representative of the larger problem, wherein education is heavily led through a

top-down implementation process. In this way, it is government policy that mostly informs,

or at least significantly influences, practice. Thus, whilst there is an element of ‘resistance’ or

‘autonomy’ evident at the grassroots level, policy appeasement is purported to be a necessity.

The national curriculum is designed to inform schools of the values that are deemed

necessary for transmission. However, such a system can favour certain individuals – for

example, many middle-class students – as its aim is often the reproduction of human

constructs such as capital and class. As such, ‘agents adjust their expectations with regard to

the capital they are likely to attain in terms of the ‘practical’ limitations imposed upon them

by their place in the field’ (Webb, Schirato and Danaher, 2014, p. 23). For many, this process

of enculturation results in casualties – those who become marginalised by both society and

the education system (Allan, 2016) – and attempts to restore this power differential can be

seen in students’ so-called recalcitrance, subsequently resulting in teachers aiming to restore

conformity by getting the buggers to behave (to borrow a phrase from Sue Cowley).

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

1.3 What price value?

According to Parks and Guay (2009, p. 676), ‘values are ordered by importance, such that

one will tend to act according to the more important value when two values are in conflict’.

As such, if a student values peer relationships more than educational accomplishments then

they will be inclined to make those relationships work, even if this is to the detriment of their

education. Peer relationships are prioritised because they present opportunities for

community networking and, subsequently, the acquisition of social capital. The perceived

failure of the school can then generate dissatisfaction and frustration, resulting in disaffection

with learning, where learning, education, and schooling are all conceptualised

interchangeably.

Some students who become disaffected with learning will regain their control through

disengaging from the system, but this is often temporary and usually leads to poor outcomes,

such as a lack of education and progression opportunities and probable NEET (not in

education, employment or training) status, where disempowerment returns:

Default societal position 1, Non-conforming and disruptive kid 0.

What is valued is an education system that enables academic progression – GCSE, A level,

degree and so on – and the reproduction of sociocultural values that carry capital, whereupon

the symbolic domination of those students who exhibit the inability to compete results in the

reproduction of their oppression (Bourdieu and Passerson, 2000).

1.4 Setting the bar

As a result of such reproduction, the linear educational route identified above has

become the ‘gold standard’ and other forms of learning, such as vocational or technical, have

become victim to elitist thinking and the reaffirmation of what constitutes cultural capital.

Thus, whilst attempts to establish parity of esteem between academic and vocational learning

have been myriad, progress remains incredibly slow. Indeed, many students who become

disaffected are often shoehorned onto vocational learning programmes and whilst there are

many success stories (Allan, 2014; Hall and Raffo, 2004), it is perhaps the original intention,

as Deuchar and Graham (2012, pp. 4-5) point out, that needs to be challenged:

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

Popular discourse about these students is that they come from families that do

not value education and who do not know how to discipline their children, that

these students are too dangerous to have in schools and, through their disruption

of others and disrespect for authority, have effectively denied themselves the

right to an education.

Such individuals are often perceived to be non-academic or, more directly, of lesser

intelligence. Phrases such as, ‘He’s good with his hands’ perpetuate this perception (along

with ridiculous notions such as kinaesthetic learning style) and many are reassured with the

resultant misconception that these are ‘naughty’ kids because they cannot cope with the

heavy academic demands.

In reality, the reasons for disaffection and disengagement are many and situations are

highly detailed because individuals are not robots but lead complex (and often complicated)

lives. Some students have difficulty conforming due to the disparity between what they value

and the compulsory expectations of school, resulting in multiple values that are misaligned.

Consequently, the school is perceived to be in conflict with the students’ social experiences.

This is one reason why some off-site learning environments are rated so highly. For many,

such environments that align with students’ values, and connect with their milieu, can impact

positively on disaffection (Allan and Duckworth 2018). Thus, values are an important

consideration for the inclusion of students whose cultural capital differs to that of the

education system, such as the favouring of the social capital available in the community.

Indeed, it is not unusual for students to experience cognitive dissonance, where they are

given the message that education will lead to financial success and societal status yet prestige

in the community from ‘non-conforming friends’ holds greater appeal. In this way, there is

often a trade-off of cultural capital for social capital. To add to this, a major component of this

dissonance is that the very professionals promoting this message are often highly devalued

by society and metaphorically crushed in their profession.

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

1.5 Conclusion

In sum, I would reject the suggestion that schools never provide fun and interesting

environments in which to learn, or that they always fail to develop independent thinkers and

autonomous learners; rather, the values we see connected to the compulsory schooling

system can result in tension for those whose values are not aligned with such structural

practices and who resist the compulsion to adapt their values.

Although there are valid concerns with the current education system in England, on

balance it needs to be noted that it does provide a valuable experience for the majority of

children and young people (Keys, 2006). Many students see the merit of learning, and even

embrace a system that can provide life- and career-progressing opportunities. Indeed, as

Graham et al. (2015, p. 237) inform us, even the so-called ‘‘ignorant yobs’ value education

and know what it is for [and] have aspirations for a secure, productive and fulfilled life’.

However, no system is infallible, so I end this argument with the words of Carlo Raffo who

sums up the need to value the individual:

Schools need to be more reflective about how the wider socio-cultural lifeworlds of

young people, and particularly the various networks that make up those lifeworlds,

impact on the individual agency of young people. By understanding how and why

informal practical knowledge, value introjections and social relations develop for

young people and how these then enable levels of social capital to be enhanced,

schools may be better placed to develop curricula and support systems, including

careers, that really meet their needs as opposed to attempting to re-engage them in

standardised mainstream provision which rarely reflects fully the socio-cultural

diversity of these young people (Raffo 2003, p. 85).

2. In this issue

The potentially subversive effects of consumerism in higher education forms the focus for

our first article, with Craig Hammond drawing on the work of Roland Barthes and Guy Debord

to problematise current pedagogical values and strategies. David Woof explores some of the

value-laden difficulties of designing and delivering a curriculum for design and technology. In

particular, he discusses the values and attributes of this subject from the perspectives of

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

experienced practitioners in the field, identifying dissonance in the curricular positioning of

the subject within the national curriculum. Alison Hardy’s article examines the potentially

multiple values associated with school subjects. In this, she proposes a framework for

exploring and defining the value of a school subject. The attribution of individual values is

captured and analysed through the utilisation of this framework, resulting in the generation

of subject beneficiaries. As a subject, design and technology is valued in terms of its financial

return for society, measured through specific progression opportunities such as employment.

An interesting think piece from Graham Hallett discusses teachers’ values and the

ascribed value of teachers, where initial teacher education is seen to attempt to standardise

performance yet fail in acknowledging the wider remit of individual developments and

personal values. The implications for this can be seen in the perception of some students as

economic units, whose performance outcomes become mere measurable contributions to the

financial status of the country.

We also have two book reviews in this issue. The first, by Paul Reynolds, discusses

Interdisciplinarity and Wellbeing: A Critical Realist General Theory of Interdisciplinarity by

Bhaskar, Danermark and Price. This book builds on Bhaskar's lectures and applies an

interdisciplinary approach to health and well-being as a means of extending criticality and

analysis. Our final book review sees David Hayes tackle Criminology by Case et al., a textbook

aimed at students of criminology. This book guides the reader through the student experience

and provides a user-friendly approach to studying in this area.

I hope that you enjoy reading this issue and that you find it inspirational for your own

work and/or thinking. For those of you who feel compelled to debate with or against any of

these articles, there will be opportunities in future issues of Prism for you to contribute.

PRISM 1(2) Values in Education prism-journal.blackburn.ac.uk

References

Allan D. and Duckworth, V. (2018). Voices of Disaffection: Disengaged and Disruptive Youths or Agents of
Change and Self-Empowerment? British Journal of Special Education. DOI.org/10.1111/1467-
8578.12201.

Allan, D. (2016). Casualties of Education: Pressures, Privil eges and Performativity in Compulsory

Schooling in England . Saarbrücken, Germany: Lamb ert Academi c Publishing.

Allan, D. (2015). Mediated Disaffection and Reconfigured Subjectivities: The Impact of a Vocational Learning

Environment on the Re-Engagement of 14–16-Year-Olds. International Journal on School Disaffection
11 (2) 45–65.

Allan, D. (2014). Dealing with Disaffection: The Influence of Work-Based Learning on 14–16-Year-Old Students’

Attitudes to School. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training 6 (10) pp.1–18.

Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J.C. (2000). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Deuchar, R. and Graham, L.J. (2012). Editorial: On School Disaffection in ‘New Times’: Hard-Nosed Policies,

Inflexible Institutions and Bruised Young People. International Journal on School Disaffection 9 (1)
pp.3–6.

Duncan, N. (2013). “If You Tolerate This, Then Your Children Will be Next.” Compulsion, Compression, Control,

and Competition in Secondary Schooling. International Journal on School Disaffection 10 (1) pp.29–45.

Ferguson, R. (2004). Discourse of Exclusion: Reconceptualising Participation Amongst Young People. Journal of

Social Policy 33 (2) pp.289–320.

Graham, L.J., Bergen, P.V. and Sweller, N. (2015) ‘To Educate You to be Smart’: Disaffected Students and the

Purpose of School in the (Not So Clever) ‘Lucky Country.’ Journal of Education Policy 30 (2) pp. 237–
257. DOI:10.1080/02680939.2014.953596.

Hall, D. and Raffo, C. (2004). Re-Engaging 14-16-Year-Olds with Their Schooling Through Work-Related

Learning. Journal of Vocational Education and Training 56 (1), pp.69–80.

Harber, C. (2008). Perpetrating Disaffection: Schooling as an International Problem. Educational Studies 34 (5)

pp. 457–467.

Keys, W. (2006). Student Choices and Values in England. European Journal of Education 41 (1) pp.85–96.

Kinder, K., Kendall, S., Haley, K. and Atkinson, M. (1999). Disaffection Talks: A Report for the Merseyside Learning

Partnership Inter Agency Development Programme. Slough: National Foundation for Educational
Research.

Lumby, J. (2012). Disengaged and Disaffected Young People: Surviving the System. British Educational Research

Journal 38 (2) pp.261–279.

Parks, L. and Guay, R.P. (2009). Personality, Values, and Motivation. Personality and Individual Differences 47

(7) pp.675–684.

Raffo, C. (2003). Disaffected Young People and the Work-Related Curriculum at Key Stage 4: Issues of

Social Capital Development and Learning as a Form of Cultural Practice. Journal of Education and
Work, 16 (1) pp.69–86.

Webb, J., Schirato, T. and Danaher, G. (2014). Understanding Bourdieu. London: Sage.