The Third Way and Social Capital: Education Action Zones and a new agenda for education, parents and community?
(International Studies in Sociology of Education, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1999)
EVA GAMARNIKOW & ANTHONY G. GREEN Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Their conceptual analysis presents an attempt to designate an emerging orthodoxy in the contemporary interpretation of social capital theory which, they argue, tends to overlook important elements of the originating formulations in Bourdieu.
New Labour ideology constructs the state as partner, enabler and provider of frameworks for opportunities for improved outcomes by regenerating social capital.
The journey from sociology to social capital does, however, indicate a key shift in discursive causal trajectories. Sociological explanations tend to incorporate, to varying degrees, the articulation of economic considerations with social structures and relations. By contrast, contemporary social capital theories tend to view society as pre-existing economy and being causally implicated in its production. This sidelining of economic, material and structural effects or determinations opens the space for policy interventions in the realm of the social and cultural, so critical for Third Way politics。
Developing his work (Bourdieu, 1977; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) on the relationships between education and cultural and economic capital, Bourdieu (1986, p. 248) argued that social capital ‘is the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition’. Unlike cultural and economic capitals which are distributed unequally, social capital is ubiquitous, but subject to hierarchical valorisations of particular social capitals manifested in class-specific forms of sociability and networks. The universality of sociability and networks obscures their intrinsic differential performativity: lower class networks are as plentiful and varied as middle class ones, but less productive of socially and economically successful outcomes (Portes, 1998).[1] Current orthodoxies of social capital literature, in line with Third Way thinking, abstract society from economy and assume a universal and undifferentiated form for social capital, potentially available to all. The effect is to link outcomes to presence or absence of social capital, rather than to the unequal productiveness of different social capitals.
The concept of social capital, as it is currently being deployed, is most commonly associated with three sources: Coleman’s (1988, 1990) rational action theory and sociology of education, Putnam et als (1993) work on Italian politics, and Fukuyama’s (1995) comparative study of national capitalisms. In spite of their different emphases what all three perspectives share is the links they postulate between successful social outcomes in education, employment, family relationships, health and so on and the presence of social capital. Thus all three locate social capital in a pre-economic civil society. (p.7)
①Coleman identified three aspects of social relations which constitute key sources of social capital: obligations, expectations and trustworthiness of structures; networks and information channels; and norms and effective sanctions. The most important of these are trust, shared norms and effective sanctions
②Putnam et al (1993, p. 167) define social capital as ‘features of social organisation such as trust, norms and networks that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions’.
In this perspective social capital is developed in two ways. The first is similar to Coleman’s, namely through use: engagement in civic networks fosters trust and trust increases the likelihood and success of collective action. The second is at the institutional level where institutions are orientated towards producing collective goods which result in improved outcomes and greater trust.
③Fukuyama’s (1995) contribution to social capital theory focuses specifically on the secondariness of economic structures. Fukuyama’s main argument is that markets are not operated by the proverbial disembodied invisible hand, but by individual actors for whom market relations are forms of sociability.
To sum up, trust is the constitutive element of non-Bourdieuean social capital. The key social locations for its development are in the interconnected social institutions of families, particularly in parent-child and family-school relations; communities with strong norms, values and sanctions; generalised cultural norms of reliability, reciprocity and accountability; dense social networks; and civic engagement (Hall, 1997). Their connectedness may take the form of benign spirals of reinforcement of social capital resources or of vicious circles of deteriorating stocks of social capital and accompanying social disintegration. Current policy formulations tend to overlook these alternative possibilities and assume that social capital is unproblematically beneficial (Portes, 1998).
There are a number of important tensions at the heart of the notion of building social capital through state social policy. In the first instance, social capital is a feature of civil society, and in liberal democratic conceptions civil society and the state are mutually exclusive social arenas.
Secondly, because social capital is a feature of an autonomous civil society, it is difficult for sections of society lacking social capital to build it, since its development is linked to its autonomous, self-sustaining use.
The Education Action Zone (EAZ) policy addresses social and economic deprivation in relation to educational underachievement It was briefly outlined in the government’s first policy document on education, Excellence in Schools (Secretary of State for Education, 1997, pp. 39-40)(p.12)
EAZs have proved to be far more controversial than the Health Action Zones in that the much-vaunted flexibility includes radical changes in the structure and organisation of schools and the employment conditions of teachers: opting out of national agreements on teachers’ pay and conditions in order to provide incentives to attract ‘super teachers’ and ‘super heads’; experimentation with extending the school day and year, including before and after-school, Saturday and holiday provision; opting out of parts of the National Curriculum in order to focus on, for example ‘additional opportunities for work-related learning and community work or ... literacy and numeracy’ (DfEE, 1997, p. 8);
Families are a key element in social capital. Intra-family social capital is the source of children’s educational achievement, while community social capital can be formed around relationships between schools and families. Establishing family literacy and early excellence centres and developing parenting skills classes provide clear examples of building within-family social capital (Coleman, 1988), but in the context of positioning families as deficient and dysfunctional in relation to education. The various proposals and strategies thus include reforming and reshaping families and communities to make them more educogenic, at the level of transmitting both skills and values.
There is little recognition in the EAZ bids, as in the social capital literature generally (Morrow, 1998), of the value of working class family life. (p.14)
What is also relevant, however, is the extent to which these descriptions operate within a social exclusion discourse which tends to regard the effects of poverty, unemployment, racism and other forms of social inequality as attributes of individuals, families and neighbourhoods with little specific consideration of the economic contexts.
We argued that there is a social capital continuum: at the progressive end there is concern with citizenship, empowerment, pluralism and democratisation, whereas at the social and cultural conservative end social capital is located in traditional family structures, family-education relationships and a collective moral order of traditional values, duties and responsibilities. These have more to do with the familiar policy objective of remediating the consequences of social disintegration in the interests of social control (Levitas, 1998), than in tackling the issues of social justice and democracy associated with the problems of social exclusion.
Centrally, a fundamental criticism of social capital theory, as currently incorporated in Third Way thinking, is that it ignores systemic social inequalities. There seems to be a marked reluctance in Third Way Britain to talk about systemic inequality, or, indeed, social class as a key mediating variable. Educational underachievement, poverty and social exclusion are explained in terms of family, community and values deficits. This discourse obscures the links between social class relations and educational structures and processes, conceptualised by Bourdieu over 20 years ago, as systemic patterns of economic inequality articulated with social, cultural and symbolic power. In the context of economic polarisation this is a source of deep concern.
However, these tensions are glossed over by accepting that a lack of social capital in families causes educational failure, hence interventions have to be aimed at families, cultures and communities. This Third Way discourse is returning to a deficit approach to educational underachievement (Halsey, 1972, 1977; Bernstein, 1973; Silver, 1973; Power & Whitty, 1999) that will do little to generate social trust and may contribute to deepening demoralisation. As such, this represents a potentially repressive agenda which is unlikely to disturb the status quo, let alone build a civil society of effective, ever-expanding partnerships and equalising of social and economic opportunities.(p.19)
Written by M.Y.Kim
ICT (Information & Communication Technology) has been considered to be one of the most effective tool to close the academic achievement gap between the poor and the rich. I have been interested in the education policy focused on equal opportunity and tried to figure out what changes ICT can bring to our daily classroom activities in that vein.
In this article, I’ll introduce the recent Korean education policy concerning the free internet access for the less fortunate students in compulsory education stages. A short comparison with Japanese and US will be also given.
After an Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Korean government had to deal with many disparity-related issues such as income, health care, etc. But, most of all, education achievement gap has attracted many policymakers’ attention. Traditionally, Korean governments in the past are said to have spent only small amount of money on welfare, whereas the equal opportunity policy in education had played an important role as a social equalizer. Equal education opportunity, to put it roughly, has been the most vital social ethos in terms of social justice and peace.
The Free Access Policy in Korea (‘FAP` hereafter) had been come into being for that purpose and its services can be divided into two big categories: providing free computers and free internet access. The FAP started in 2000 and up to 2014(for 14 years), some 24 billion-Yen were spent in total and 15,000 students every year could get free internet services in average. According to an annual report of Education Ministry of Korea, the FAP could bring many positive effects, especially for narrowing the achievement gaps and empowering the students in poor families.
In June 2013, the US president Obama also announced a policy named the ConnectED initiative, which aims to provide next-generation broadband to 99% American students by 2018. Obama stressed that those connectivity will help transform the classroom experience for all students, regardless of income.
In contrast, the Japanese government has been criticized for their lack of effort to close the digital divide or to provide more equal ICT access. A recent survey made it clear that the accessibility to ICT differs from prefecture to prefecture and local schools, as a whole, turned out to have much worse ICT environments. For instance, number of students per computer differ from 4.3 to 8 and the average number of computers used in schools also varies.
The most vital problem about digital divide is, it is not just about the issue of accessibility of an internet, but closely related to a job option or strengthening the inequalities of income in the future. To bridge the digital divide, therefore, government’s involvements are desperately needed in Japan.
ICT (Information & Communication Technology) has been considered to be one of the most effective tool to close the academic achievement gap between the poor and the rich. I have been interested in the education policy focused on equal opportunity and tried to figure out what changes ICT can bring to our daily classroom activities in that vein.
In this article, I’ll introduce the recent Korean education policy concerning the free internet access for the less fortunate students in compulsory education stages. A short comparison with Japanese and US will be also given.
After an Asian financial crisis in 1997, the Korean government had to deal with many disparity-related issues such as income, health care, etc. But, most of all, education achievement gap has attracted many policymakers’ attention. Traditionally, Korean governments in the past are said to have spent only small amount of money on welfare, whereas the equal opportunity policy in education had played an important role as a social equalizer. Equal education opportunity, to put it roughly, has been the most vital social ethos in terms of social justice and peace.
The Free Access Policy in Korea (‘FAP` hereafter) had been come into being for that purpose and its services can be divided into two big categories: providing free computers and free internet access. The FAP started in 2000 and up to 2014(for 14 years), some 24 billion-Yen were spent in total and 15,000 students every year could get free internet services in average. According to an annual report of Education Ministry of Korea, the FAP could bring many positive effects, especially for narrowing the achievement gaps and empowering the students in poor families.
In June 2013, the US president Obama also announced a policy named the ConnectED initiative, which aims to provide next-generation broadband to 99% American students by 2018. Obama stressed that those connectivity will help transform the classroom experience for all students, regardless of income.
In contrast, the Japanese government has been criticized for their lack of effort to close the digital divide or to provide more equal ICT access. A recent survey made it clear that the accessibility to ICT differs from prefecture to prefecture and local schools, as a whole, turned out to have much worse ICT environments. For instance, number of students per computer differ from 4.3 to 8 and the average number of computers used in schools also varies.
The most vital problem about digital divide is, it is not just about the issue of accessibility of an internet, but closely related to a job option or strengthening the inequalities of income in the future. To bridge the digital divide, therefore, government’s involvements are desperately needed in Japan.
Written by M.Y. Kim
The equal opportunity and closing the achievement gap in public education has been an issue for a long time and the governments of many countries have implemented various educational policies to promote that. However, modest results have been reported repeatedly, regardless of their great efforts.
Some social scientists maintain the different levels of social capital can play a vital role, when it comes to curbing the achievement gap. Why do some students benefit only little, while others can make many progresses from those social equalizer programs? Apart from economic and cultural capital, social capital can be considered as one of the reasons causing the educational achievement gap.
There are several famous scholars who have stressed the importance of social capital. Coleman and Putnam(2006) define the social capital as a public goods which promotes social norms and trust. On the other hand, Lin (2008) regards the social capital as an individual goods and emphasizes that a success of an individual is dependent mostly on the quantity and quality of social capitals. All three scholars, however, share the idea that the academic achievements are closely related to the social capital.
So, how can you define the social capital? To clarify the term, the questionnaire of Shimizu Hirokichi(志水宏吉)、 who are well-known for the survey of the relation between national tests and the prefectures’ educational policy, can be introduced.
#Social Capital on parents' side#
1.You talk to your partner frequently about a children’ education or child-rearing
2.You have a close relative to consult with about a child.
3.You take part in PTA activities.
4.You join the regional activities such as Children’s Club(子供会)、town meetings, etc.
5.You have someone close to you to be able to leave your child.
#Social Capital on students’ side#
1.You talk your parents about the happenings in school
2.You have a dinner together with your family on weekdays.
3.You feel fun to meet friends at school.
4.You take part in the events of your town.
5..You are interested in the history or the nature of your town.
According to Shimizu, the social capital has little to do with the economic or cultural capital, so children from less financially well-off families also can have an advantage from that. However, he concludes the parents` social capitals have great influence on children’s social capital, therefore an educational policy to promote parents` social capital is of importance.
To date, the policies to enhance the equity of an education are mainly focused on children’s academic performance and less interested in invisible social factors, such as social capital of parents. As the recent research shows, however, the academic achievement gaps cannot be bridged without more parents’ involvements in education. To achieve a real equity in education, we should take ‘the family’s (especially parents’) invisible hands’ into consideration more seriously.
The equal opportunity and closing the achievement gap in public education has been an issue for a long time and the governments of many countries have implemented various educational policies to promote that. However, modest results have been reported repeatedly, regardless of their great efforts.
Some social scientists maintain the different levels of social capital can play a vital role, when it comes to curbing the achievement gap. Why do some students benefit only little, while others can make many progresses from those social equalizer programs? Apart from economic and cultural capital, social capital can be considered as one of the reasons causing the educational achievement gap.
There are several famous scholars who have stressed the importance of social capital. Coleman and Putnam(2006) define the social capital as a public goods which promotes social norms and trust. On the other hand, Lin (2008) regards the social capital as an individual goods and emphasizes that a success of an individual is dependent mostly on the quantity and quality of social capitals. All three scholars, however, share the idea that the academic achievements are closely related to the social capital.
So, how can you define the social capital? To clarify the term, the questionnaire of Shimizu Hirokichi(志水宏吉)、 who are well-known for the survey of the relation between national tests and the prefectures’ educational policy, can be introduced.
#Social Capital on parents' side#
1.You talk to your partner frequently about a children’ education or child-rearing
2.You have a close relative to consult with about a child.
3.You take part in PTA activities.
4.You join the regional activities such as Children’s Club(子供会)、town meetings, etc.
5.You have someone close to you to be able to leave your child.
#Social Capital on students’ side#
1.You talk your parents about the happenings in school
2.You have a dinner together with your family on weekdays.
3.You feel fun to meet friends at school.
4.You take part in the events of your town.
5..You are interested in the history or the nature of your town.
According to Shimizu, the social capital has little to do with the economic or cultural capital, so children from less financially well-off families also can have an advantage from that. However, he concludes the parents` social capitals have great influence on children’s social capital, therefore an educational policy to promote parents` social capital is of importance.
To date, the policies to enhance the equity of an education are mainly focused on children’s academic performance and less interested in invisible social factors, such as social capital of parents. As the recent research shows, however, the academic achievement gaps cannot be bridged without more parents’ involvements in education. To achieve a real equity in education, we should take ‘the family’s (especially parents’) invisible hands’ into consideration more seriously.
Written by M.Y. Kim
Japan has been under criticism for its low spending on public education since 2000. According to an OECD’s annual report (Education at a Glance 2014), Japan’s total public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was far under average. Over the past years, as the term ‘kakusa shakai’ (meaning a disparity-ridden society格差社会) has come into vogue, the notion of social upward mobility has been challenged. From a historical, political, and cultural perspective, I would like explain why Japanese public spending on education has stayed in a low level for a long time.
Firstly, Japanese welfare system had been supported not only by a government, but also companies or families until the middle of 1990. Thanks to a full-employment policy and its strong economy, many companies could offer various welfare benefits to its workers. Historically, individual families were also expected to cover most of the expenses for a daycare, a higher education and a retirement life and the like. However, as the globalization hit Japanese economy around the late 90’s, its stable job market could not be maintained any longer. As a result, its welfare system dependent on the companies’ benefits and families’ devotion has witnessed many limitations.
Secondly, as Suetomi Kaori(2010) coins the term ‘Public-private mixed-type of spending structure for education(公私混合型の教育費負担構造)’, Japanese government has adopted an education policy for private individuals to be responsible for most of basic educational expenditures. Policy makers in the 70’s had a shared perception that benefits for the less privileged had been more than enough. This policymakers’ perception created a policy for individual families to pay most of ‘gray zone’ spending (for example, textbooks, school lunches, a school trip cost).
Lastly, there exists a strong tendency that the profits acquired from a higher education are basically ‘private matters’, so it should be not a government, but an individual family to account for education spending as a whole. Compared to other OECD countries, the Japanese also tend to regard the public education as less useful and irrelevant, which made educational issues hard to be on the spotlight among the election agendas.
What differences can public money make for better schools and more equal educational opportunities? One out of every 6 children in Japan live in a poverty line and their chances of going up a social ladder have been said slimmer over years. Social mobility is an index that gauges a country's social justice and openness. Needless to say, public education with ample resources can play a vital role to enhance a social mobility in general. Therefore, Japanese policy makers should think twice what the small spending on education can mean in this ‘gap-widening’ society.
Japan has been under criticism for its low spending on public education since 2000. According to an OECD’s annual report (Education at a Glance 2014), Japan’s total public expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP was far under average. Over the past years, as the term ‘kakusa shakai’ (meaning a disparity-ridden society格差社会) has come into vogue, the notion of social upward mobility has been challenged. From a historical, political, and cultural perspective, I would like explain why Japanese public spending on education has stayed in a low level for a long time.
Firstly, Japanese welfare system had been supported not only by a government, but also companies or families until the middle of 1990. Thanks to a full-employment policy and its strong economy, many companies could offer various welfare benefits to its workers. Historically, individual families were also expected to cover most of the expenses for a daycare, a higher education and a retirement life and the like. However, as the globalization hit Japanese economy around the late 90’s, its stable job market could not be maintained any longer. As a result, its welfare system dependent on the companies’ benefits and families’ devotion has witnessed many limitations.
Secondly, as Suetomi Kaori(2010) coins the term ‘Public-private mixed-type of spending structure for education(公私混合型の教育費負担構造)’, Japanese government has adopted an education policy for private individuals to be responsible for most of basic educational expenditures. Policy makers in the 70’s had a shared perception that benefits for the less privileged had been more than enough. This policymakers’ perception created a policy for individual families to pay most of ‘gray zone’ spending (for example, textbooks, school lunches, a school trip cost).
Lastly, there exists a strong tendency that the profits acquired from a higher education are basically ‘private matters’, so it should be not a government, but an individual family to account for education spending as a whole. Compared to other OECD countries, the Japanese also tend to regard the public education as less useful and irrelevant, which made educational issues hard to be on the spotlight among the election agendas.
What differences can public money make for better schools and more equal educational opportunities? One out of every 6 children in Japan live in a poverty line and their chances of going up a social ladder have been said slimmer over years. Social mobility is an index that gauges a country's social justice and openness. Needless to say, public education with ample resources can play a vital role to enhance a social mobility in general. Therefore, Japanese policy makers should think twice what the small spending on education can mean in this ‘gap-widening’ society.
Korea has been known for its people’s enthusiasm for education and the author in the book tries to reveal a primary mechanism of Korean education system in this regard. Simply put, he is focusing on a relation between a social mobility and academic achievements in Korea.
Firstly, drawing upon various data, he identifies a fact that an upward social mobility and economic benefits attained by a higher education are found about the same with other countries. Nonetheless, Korean tend to put a lot more value on getting a diploma in a higher education institution. Why is that?
From a historical perspective, Confucianism had a strong influence on its culture, so we cannot deny the tradition still lingers on.
The author, however, points out one other important aspect: a Korean government’s educational policy to use a public education system as a means of overcoming economic inequalities between social classes.
In general, in order to curb a widening gap between the poor and the rich, a government can take advantage of a welfare system or take a legal action. But, according to the author, a Korean government has relied mainly on its public education for that purpose.
Korean government’s had this hidden message for the people: ‘No matter how poor and disadvantaged you are, you can make it with a public education system. So, it’s your own responsibility to succeed or fail.’
As the author has insisted, education itself has two different functions (a selection of the talented and socialization), but a Korean government put an emphasis mostly on the first one.
Grown up in the Korean culture, I cannot agree with his insight more.
Written by M.Y. Kim
The NHK program above is dealing with an argument for or against ICT(Information &Communication Technology) in an education field. The first half of the program is introducing an actual case in Saga prefecture, which has adopted digital textbooks lately. The last half is focusing on recent anti-technology movement in Korea.
Over a decade, Korean government has strived for building a solid public education system through ICT, such as digital textbooks, online teacher in-service training and the like. It is said to have spent some 200 billion Yen only to change paper textbooks to computer-based ones.
In spite of this effort, however, some teachers started to insist that ICT has not worked for the kids in terms of reading, let alone critical thinking skills and negative effects on learning are also found.
As above, empirical studies show ICT has its own pros and cons. But, my opinion has been, without a real paradigm shift in teaching and education, even a digital revolution cannot make any meaningful differences in a public education setting.
So, what is a paradigm shift, then?
Let me clarify on this by one example. It is more like, you buy a brand new car, but all the skills you have is how to ride a horse. This example might sound somewhat illogical, but to achieve a real success by using ICT, we have to rethink our old teaching practices in the first place. It means we have to keep in mind that a self-motivated learning, not a compulsory one, is a key element.
Khan academy, a highly reputable website for an online free education, can give us a glimpse of how ICT should be used and what it can be done with it.
Written by M.Y. Kim
To overcome the influence of a pre-war Japanese educational system of which main purpose was to serve Emperor and build a strong nation, some education scholars in a post-war era have endeavored to develop its own democratic theories.
There has been, however, a controversy over one English-to-Japanese-translated word, “a right to education”. It is from an UN provision to mention a human`s fundamental right to an education, but under process of interpretation, the original meaning had been changed in a subtle way. It was translated into “a right to RECEIVE an education(教育を受ける権利)” and in a Japanese context, this expression sounds more submissive and has a connotation that education is a benefit from government, not our inborn rights.
Some scholars argue the phrase has been intentionally translated in such a way, with a purpose to make people accept the governmental policies more easily without any critical thinking. To date, there`s no clear evidence about whether or not there was such an ill-spirited intention .On the surface, this controversy seems quite trivial, but on a second thought, we can see there`s a stark contrast between two phrases and those also can impact on our views about education in a totally different way.
Is education one of fundamental human rights which should never be violated and we have our own rights to ask the contents of what we`re taught, accordingly? Or can education be carried out only by a government and the only thing we can do is just to receive those decent services without asking anything?
“Who decides?” My study about education starts with this profound question.
To overcome the influence of a pre-war Japanese educational system of which main purpose was to serve Emperor and build a strong nation, some education scholars in a post-war era have endeavored to develop its own democratic theories.
There has been, however, a controversy over one English-to-Japanese-translated word, “a right to education”. It is from an UN provision to mention a human`s fundamental right to an education, but under process of interpretation, the original meaning had been changed in a subtle way. It was translated into “a right to RECEIVE an education(教育を受ける権利)” and in a Japanese context, this expression sounds more submissive and has a connotation that education is a benefit from government, not our inborn rights.
Some scholars argue the phrase has been intentionally translated in such a way, with a purpose to make people accept the governmental policies more easily without any critical thinking. To date, there`s no clear evidence about whether or not there was such an ill-spirited intention .On the surface, this controversy seems quite trivial, but on a second thought, we can see there`s a stark contrast between two phrases and those also can impact on our views about education in a totally different way.
Is education one of fundamental human rights which should never be violated and we have our own rights to ask the contents of what we`re taught, accordingly? Or can education be carried out only by a government and the only thing we can do is just to receive those decent services without asking anything?
“Who decides?” My study about education starts with this profound question.