Social inclusion and leadership in education: An evolution of roles ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Nafsika Alexiadousettlement, one that uses as its leitmotiv empowerment, social cohesion and inclusionas well as individual responsibility” (Avis 2007, p. 90). This context requiresschool leaders who manage the impossible task of combining market place success(against other less successful schools), inclusivity of all pupils (but with highlydifferentiated outcomes), and cooperation with other (competing) organisations.This model does not easily accommodate non-instrumental or critical approachesto school leadership, nor does it favour a localising focus for finding solutions toproblems of local disadvantage. The external pressures for good performance ininspections and league tables and the penalties associated with the failure to doso radically restrict the potential for inclusive leadership that would seek criticalengagement with socially disadvantaged children, parents and communities. Thiswould require spaces within the curriculum to develop alternative and critical approachesto teaching and learning and a headship approach that is not defined bythe demands of performativity of the marketplace.Concluding RemarksHow school success is defined, and the norms that shape the direction of educationreforms, are embodied in the way school leadership is conceptualised bothas an organisational issue and as an issue of individual work and practice. Whatconstitutes “good leadership” changes when educational success is re-definedfrom a period where the emphasis is on the “core relational work of teaching andlearning” (Blackmore 2004, p. 286) to one where success is judged in performativeterms, where league tables dominate and where differentiation (academic, and byassociation social) is rewarded. In this article, the example of the English case illustratesquite starkly the ways in which education reforms “embody” normativeassumptions about social categories (in this case of the “successful” or not schoolleader), and how these reforms reflect wider discourses concerning social justice– as equity of access and participation in schooling (Bottery 2004, Lindblad andPopkewitz 2001).Since spring 2010 there has been a new coalition government in the United Kingdomcomprising the Conservative and Liberal parties. Their policies in educationhave been outlined in a very similar trajectory as those of the previous government,with an additional emphasis on giving further autonomy to schools from the localgovernment, an approach that is likely to intensify competition among institutionsfor resources and for “good” pupils. Against the background of a serious economiccrisis and a commitment to cut public spending, the government has been quitekeen to suggest that “fairness” and “social mobility” are amongst its top priorities.In a speech by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg delivered in August 2010, he acknowledgesthe links between educational background and pupil outcomes as anunacceptable pattern that the government is committed to address. But, furtherin the same speech, the rhetoric on “how” the government plans to address these594
Social inclusion and leadership in educationissues is not dissimilar to that of the earlier government, with the emphasis placedquite firmly on: (a) the non-economic dimensions of the problem and on the needto redesign welfare state objectives; and (b) changing the attitudes of parents fromlow socio-economic backgrounds:Tackling poverty of opportunity requires a more rounded approach. Welfare reform, forexample, should be based on the need to improve people’s lives, not just raise their incomes.A young person from a household in the top fifth of the of the income distribution is threetimes more likely to get 5 GCSE’s between grades A and C than a young person brought upin a household in the bottom fifth. Our education policy is squarely aimed at reducing theseinequalities.According to one study, the amount of interest shown by a parent in their child’s educationis four times more important than socio-economic background in explaining educationoutcomes at age 16 … … Parents hold the fortunes of the children they bring into this worldin their hands. All parents have a responsibility to nurture the potential in their children.… … (Clegg 2010)The National College for School Leadership, a product of the previous Labourgovernment, is one of the few organisations the new government has retained andrepresents the quintessential forum for promoting and advocating a leadershipmodel for the marketised and autonomous school of the future. The new governmenthas committed itself to continue the rhetoric of an education policy for socialinclusion (with the accompanied types of leadership), but also continues to promotemeasures that intensify the principles and practices of the market in education. Itdoes not view the two as antithetical, as indeed they may not be, since their definitionof social inclusion draws on a model of citizenship where individuals have thesame right to participate in educational and social activities and they are free tomove between the boundaries of social and economic spheres. Pluralism in typesand forms of educational institutions is seen as a positive feature of the educationmarket, and it is up to autonomous individuals to take advantage of their freedomto enter networks of voluntary exchanges. In this “specialisation paradigm” of socialinclusion (Silver 1994), and in a meritocratic and competitive schooling system,responsibility for success is devolved to individuals and their parents, as the quotefrom Clegg clearly suggests.The role of the state is seen as promoting a general good standard of educationthroughout, and the right incentives for competition in the school market place. Oncethese are in place, the role of the school leader is to use the assets at their disposal(resources, teachers, social capital of pupils, parents and the community, and mostof all their own personality) to position their school in the best place possible in thehierarchy of schools. An “excellent” leader is one who will manage to use these assetsto overcome the problems of disadvantage, and perform over and above expectations.However, this is already discursively put in terms of a vertical differentiation where595
Page 1 and 2: EDUCATIONINQUIRYVolume 2, No. 4, De
Page 3: Education InquiryVol. 2, No. 4, Dec
Page 6 and 7: Nafsika Alexiadouresearch in the tr
Page 8 and 9: Nafsika Alexiadouentitlement to per
Page 10 and 11: Nafsika Alexiadoulittle or no help
Page 12 and 13: Nafsika AlexiadouEducation was part
Page 14 and 15: Nafsika Alexiadouagenda and a stron
Page 18 and 19: Nafsika Alexiadouless excellent lea
Page 20 and 21: Nafsika AlexiadouGunter, H.M. (2001
Page 22 and 23: Nafsika Alexiadou8In 2007, the UK s

Social inclusion and leadership in education: An evolution of roles ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?