Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The transformative paradigm, social justice and the practice of rural and remote school leaders in England
K AT IE M OR IGI -EADES
U N I V E R S I T Y O F H U D D E R S F I E L D , U K
Vale of Belvoir, UK, June 2020
Outlineo Defining ‘rural and ‘remote’ – globally and in England
o Defining social justice for this study
o Rural primary school leaders and social justice?
o Exploring the Transformative Paradigm
o Potential opportunities
o Developing a theoretical framework:o Rawls (2001; 2013) – Justice as Fairnesso Miller (2016) – Economic-Motor Model of Schooling
o A theoretical framework for rural leadership exploration and its application to a study
o What next? – conclusions and implications
o Questions
Funding: Vice Chancellor’s Scholarship, University of Huddersfield, UK
Backgroundo Context is central to the practice of school leaders, but there is scant research on this in
relation to rural and remote leaders in England
o International research suggests leaders in these contexts do not feel heard or represented
by policy or in wider society
o Early in the study, it became increasingly apparent that this may be a case of bringing
‘visibility’ (Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan, & Wilson, 2010) and giving voice to a community
that is not understood as well as its urban counterpart
o ‘Traditional’ paradigms and methodologies did not seem to go far enough, particularly
when exploring policy and the rural/remote context – a need for this to be reframed and
viewed with a social justice lens
Defining ‘rural’ and ‘remote’ - globallyo Commonly based on population density, geographical location, distance between
settlements or the size of the community
o Often simply referred to as ‘rural’ – no definition given
o ‘National statistics offices are in the best position to distinguish between urban and rural
type areas’ (UNESCO 2003, p. 38) as long as figures remain stable
o The most recent OECD typology is based on the access rural areas have to Functional
Urban Areas (FUAs)
o Recognition that ‘more remote areas may require much differentiated policy responses
that address their particularities’ (OECD, 2019, p. 18)
o Drawing comparisons between countries remains difficult
Defining ‘rural’ and ‘remote’ - Englando Local authorities assigned to categories based on what percentage of the population lives
in a rural area
o ≥ 50% of the resident population lives in a rural area = predominantly rural (DEFRA, 2017)
although ‘authorities classified as urban may have wide of areas of countryside and may
have sizeable rural populations’ (DEFRA, 2017, p. 2)
o Urban and Rural Area Definitions for Policy Purposes in England and Wales (Bibby &
Brindley, 2013) – any settlement with a population of less than 10,000 is considered as
‘rural’
o Six typologies:
RUC2011 Typology Output Area (Bibby & Brindley, 2013, p. 5)
o Determines the physical context in which a school sits
o Labelling of schools’ contexts are, potentially, of great significance with regards to local and
national policy (e.g. local government funding) as well as the practice of school leaders
o In educational leadership, context matters
Villages (non-sparse or sparse setting)have a population density of ‘greaterthan 0.18 dwellings per hectare at the800m scale’ (Bibby & Brindley, 2013, p.11). Anything less should be consideredas hamlets and isolated dwellings.
Defining social justice for this studyo A concept that is difficult to define ‘since it is not a specific structure to be reified,
defined, reduced, observed or replicated’ (Furman & Shield, cited in Miller, Hill-Berry,
Hylton-Fraser & Powell, 2019)
o More than simply distributing resources fairly – processes that facilitate inequality or
encourage practices such as oppression or privilege should also be scrutinised (Vera &
Speight, 2003; Young, 2011)
o Recognition and inclusion of marginalised cultures, communities or groups must also be
addressed – national or institutional policy level (Bell, 2016; Young, 2011)
o Resources and recognition are intertwined (Bell, 2016; Young, 2011)
Rural primary school leaders and social justice?o Education is seen as a useful instrument for economic development (Miller, 2018; Miller
et al, 2019; Schafft, 2016)
o David Cameron and Nick Clegg sought ‘a radical reform’ for schools (DfE, 2010, p. 4)
o Michael Gove vowed to enact ‘whole-system reform in England’ (DfE, 2010, p. 7) and to
act on a list of inequalities – including geographical limitations of education
o 11 years after the 2010 White Paper, inequalities relating to geographical context can still
be seen
o ‘Urban-centric’ policies (Corbett, 2007; Bagley & Hillyard, 2019; Herbert, 2020; Jutras,
Wallin, Newton et al., 2020; Preston, Jakubiec, Kooymans et al., 2013; Roberts & Green,
2013)
Leicester Leicestershire DifferenceNumber of schools 163 399 236
Pupil numbers 2017-18 49,919 88,759 38,840Pupil numbers 2018-19
and 2019-20 51,277 90,190 38,913
Provisional funding per pupil 2017-18 £ 4,592 £ 4,092 £ 500
Provisional funding per pupil 2019-20 £ 4,732 £ 4,295 £ 437
Funding for mobility factors 2017-18 £ 1,288,618 £ - £ 1,288,618
Provisional funding through the NFF pupil-led
factors, NFF school led factors and the funding
floor 2019-20
£ 234,766,002 £ 383,030,753 £ 148,264,751
Average funding through NFF pupil-led factors per
school£ 1,440,282.22 £ 959,976.82 £ 480,305.40
Pupil number and funding comparison for all schools in Leicester and Leicestershire (Department for Education, 2019)
o Socioeconomic disadvantage
o Culturally isolated with limited access to resources
o Rural schools are ‘teetering more closely to the precipice’ (Huspeth, 2017)
o Issues identified globally include:
o Increased accountability
o ‘Double-loading’ (Clarke & O’Donoghue, 2017)
o Unexpected community commitments
o Contextual intelligence
o Lack of infrastructure
o Expected to meet expected standards and bench lines
o Imperative to establish the ‘current status’ and ‘bring visibility’ (Mertens, 2009, p. 145)
Exploring the Transformative Paradigmo The aim is not necessarily to ‘transform’
o A response to the three ‘traditional’ paradigms
o Uncovering the true power of social and political truths amongst marginalised
communities (Mertens, 2007)
o Reality is socially constructed – power and privilege influence this
o Political power and privilege vs. school leaders and teachers
o Rejection of value-neutral research
o Researcher/participant relationship is paramount as is their involvement in the research
process – research is done with the community not to them
o Axiological belief is key to framing the research – cultural competence
Potential opportunitieso A focus on ‘bring[ing] visibility’ (Mertens, Bledsoe, Sullivan & Wilson, 2010, p, 196) and
‘provide[ing] a picture’ (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 243)
o Exploration of the practice of school leadership in the current policy context with the
practitioners themselves, not of them
o Co-exploration and reflection on practice – potential for individual transformation
o Identifying the ‘current status’ (Mertens, 2009, p. 145) and any potential
interventions/further research required at different levels
o Feeling heard and/or visible
o Bringing these leaders voices to the forefront of the discussion
Developing a theoretical frameworko Transformative paradigm = transformative framework?
o A need to address fairness, equality and the power relationships between policy and
practice of school leaders
o Introduction of a theoretical lens through which issues such as social justice can be
explored (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Poth, 2018; Mertens, 2010a, 2010b; Sweetman et
al., 2010)
o Applying a lens of social justice to education can be problematic (Miller, 1999)
o Combination of two theories:
o Rawls (2001; 2013) - Justice as Fairness
o Miller (2016) – Economic-Motor Model of Schooling
Rawls’ Justice as Fairnesso Goes further than the transformative framework
o Notion of fairness in marginalised or under-represented communities
o Two assertions:
o Economic efficiency is much less important than justice
o Justice is the ‘first virtue of social institutions…[it] denies that the loss of freedom for
some is made right by the greater good shared by others’ (Rawls, 2013, pp. 3-4)
o Education is ‘bound up’ (Starr, 2016, p. 45) with the economic development of nations
o Outcomes and improvement are regarded as the only important part of education
o How can schools be expected to perform to the exacting standards outlined in policy if
resources are not distributed fairly or in sufficient measure?
Economic-Motor Model of Schooling – Miller (2016)
Growth (or development) is the outcome of education; education is the engine (or tool) of growth; thegovernment is the owner and narrator of the policies; technocrats and policy officials are policydispensers; the policies represent fuel and/or a roadmap; school principals are the drivers; teachers arethe mechanics; and students represent the different parts of the vehicle (2016, p.140)
Economic-Motor Model of Schooling (Miller, 2016, p. 147)
Government (policy owners and
narrators)
Technocrats (policy dispensers)
Policies (fuel, road map)
Principals (drivers)
Adapted from the Economic-Motor Model of Schooling (Miller, 2016, p.147)
A theoretical framework for rural leadership exploration
o Overarching lens of social justice
o Investigation of fairness and equality
o Evaluative lens of schooling
o Interrogation of power and
relationships between context,
personal agency and the regulatory
environment in the education
community
o Exploring how leaders practice school
leadership in rural remote contexts
The theoretical framework for this study, adapted from Rawls (2001) and Miller (2016)
Applied to a studyResearch Questions:
1. How do leaders of rural and remote
primary schools engage with policy in their
context?
2. To what extent is personal agency an
important factor in how school leaders
engage with policy in their context?
3. What unique challenges do they have to
tackle in their context and how do they
seek to address these?
The theoretical framework for this study, adapted from Rawls (2001) and Miller (2016)
What next? – Conclusions and implicationso Alternative way of framing educational leadership research
o Applying a social justice lens that is rooted in fairness and equality
o Interrogating power relationships between the education community and those involved
in policy-making and distribution
o Investigation of potential and actual ‘inherent injustices’ (Kučerová, Gristy & Šmíd, 2019,
p. 333) relating to rural and remote schools and the practice of their leaders
o Further potential to ‘give voice’ to the participants involved – raise awareness and ‘bring
visibility’ (Mertens et al. 2010, p. 196)
o Opens up a different level of research/intervention in the future if required:
Critical/descriptive Emancipatory
[email protected] @KatieMorigi
Key referenceso Mertens, D.M. (2009). Transformative Research and Evaluation. New York: The Guildford Press.
o Mertens, D.M, Bledsoe, K., Sullivan, M., & Wilson, A. (2010). Utilization of Mixed Methods for Transformative Purposes. In C. Tashakkori, Abbas. and Teddlie (Ed.), SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research (2nd ed., pp. 193–214). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.
o Mertens, D.M. (2007b). Transformative paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412950596.n553
o Miller, P. (2016). Exploring school leadership in England and the Caribbean: new insights from a comparative approach. London: Bloomsbury.
o Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness (E. Kelly, Ed.). New Delhi.
o Rawls, J. (2013). A theory of justice (6th ed.). New Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.
