Transcript The Sociology of Education and the European project of

The Sociology of Education and the European
project of school modernisation
CEPS, Ljubljana, 24 November, 2010
Outline of Argument
• What have been the fundamental assumptions of the
Sociology of Education?
• What is the basis of the European modernisation project?
• How are they related to each other?
Assumptions of Sociology of Education
• Sociology of SoE—Location, Context, Project
• Domain assumptions—Education as the means of realisation
of the project of Modernity via combinations of Personal
Development (better people); Social Mobility (better
chances); Economic Growth (better economies benefit all)
• Metatheoretical Assumptions—Methodological Nationalism,
Statism, Educationism
• ‘Institutional fetishism’– ‘the identification of abstract
institutional conceptions like the market economy or
representative democracy with a particular repertory of
contingent arrangements’ (Unger 1996, 12)
Interpretation of the ‘European Project’
• Capitalism and western Modernity are historically
intertwined, but not necessarily so, and their trajectories may
now be separating, as capitalism pushes the limits of the
institutions of modernity, largely through the penetration of
the institutions of regulation by the logic of the market,
making some of those institutions obsolescent.
• That is the core of the ‘Lisbon 2’ critique of Education
• Beck et al see this separation as one between the principles
of modernity and its institutions and practices.
• We may see this distinction reflected in the relationship
between the European and MS levels in Education
• ‘Modernisation’ here means making the principles of western
Modernity compatible with global capitalism as the frame for
the practices and institutions of modern states.
National ‘Architectures of Education’
Comprising:
• Responding to the Core Problems of Capitalism
• The discourses and practices of Modernity
• The Grammar of Schooling
• Defining, Reproducing, National Distinctiveness
It assumes nationalism and statism, and encapsulates
educationism
The European model of school modernisation vs
(national) ‘Architectures of Education’
• European education models are shaped by formally by Treaty
responsibilities and substantively by the Lisbon agenda and
the European Social Model
• OMC (social) areas politically linked to economic project
• European level in areas like education brought into being by
OMC, which provides the means of constructing (European)
‘unity’ and enabling national diversity
• Benchmarks for E+T ‘are not concrete targets for individual
countries.. ..but reference levels for European average
performance’ (Gornitzka)
• OMC involves ‘unlearning and partial demolition of
(nationally) entrenched institutional patterns, that brings
home to MS political elites…the need for ‘modernization’ and
‘recalibration’ of their hitherto adopted social policies’ (Offe)
• This entails a restricted scope for Europe in
education, and this produces a focus on:
• policy paradigms rather than policies (Hall),
• programme ontologies rather than programmes
(Pawson),
• and OMC as basis of competitive comparison
• It becomes ‘Decoupled’ from the sphere of politics
(Barbier 2007),
• and directed at national education systems rather
than national education policies (Halasz 2003)
The forms and status of European Project
of Modernisation
• In terms of focus and context, the European PoM can be seen
as an instantiation of the Principles of Modernity, related to
MS practices and institutions seen as based on the
(obsolescent) practices and institutions of Modernity.
• And this separation between the Principles and the
Institutions of Modernity is reflected in the distinction
between policy Outcomes and Outputs
• European Modernisation can be seen as constructing a set of
desirable Outcomes (which are also to be attractive to, and a
model for, the rest of the world), to which MS Outputs are to
be directed—and this is the basis of a non-exclusive division
of labour between them
• So, the status of ‘European Outcomes’ is as targets for
national Education ‘outputs’
The framework of the European project
This means shifts from lingering Fordist institutions and practices
and from :
• Central focus on ‘Qualifications’ (Human Capital) to
‘Competences for Knowledge Economy and Lifelong Learning’
(KnELL)
• School effectiveness to ‘Quality’ measures
• School management to ‘Distributed leadership’
• Centrality of Curriculum to centrality of Pedagogy
• Hierarchy to Networks/Stakeholders
• ‘Grammar of Schooling’ to ‘Totally Pedagogised Society’
• Government to Governance
• From ‘School-Work’ to lifecourse transitions
• No ‘name and shame’ to competitive comparison
• Schools to “multi-purpose learning centres”, EC (2000)
• 2000 (post Lisbon) Memo on LLL; ‘LLL is no longer just one
aspect of E+T; it must become the guiding principle for
participation across the full continuum of learning contexts
• 2006, emphasis on need to accelerate pace of reform..in
LLL,seen as a ‘sine qua non of achieving the Lisbon goals
while strengthening the ESM’, calls for ‘Effective interMinisterial synergy between ‘knowledge policies’ (education,
training, employment/social affairs, research)
• Following MTR redirected goals for E+T, with an ‘integrated
action programme in the field of LLL ‘as the basis of new
generation of EU education programmes’
European ‘Effects On’ MS Education Systems
• Usually held to be negligible or non-existent
• BUT, NB
• Effects may be registered in terms of different conceptions of
both ‘effect’, source and mode of transmission
• ‘effects on’ typically registered in terms of Lukes’ first
dimension of power—affecting decisions—rather than
agenda setting or preference formation
• Ignores effects at other than national level
• Ignores possible side effects (cf Musselin on Bologna)
• Effects may be concealed under ‘hybridity’, or wider effects of
functional and scalar division of labour
• And finally, what are the Effects on’ ‘Europe’?