Social Justice In Schooling

An individual's schooling success relies upon the supply of social justice, and it is R. Connell's introductory chapter to Social justice in Education which aims at highlighting its need and place in education; illustrating the importance of social justice in schools and proposing action in achieving it. Connell reminds readers firstly of the value of the education system as a major public asset; and predicts that its value will continue to climb with its simultaneous growth as future employable success gate keeping. Explaining the nature of education, Connell insists that social justice cannot be kept separate from such an industry that operates through relationships and social rules. The second half of Connell's chapter reviews past attempts made at reaching educational equity, and attempts to explain their shortcomings. Concluding with the claim that equal distribution of goods alone does not complete social justice, he stresses the need for additional curriculum reassessment and consideration into exactly how and what is actually being distributed.

More and more the importance of education is being recognised, and large-scale funding is being injected into the industry to ensure its success. The sheer significance of the education system as a major public asset is illustrated in Connell's example of the Canadian yearly schooling expenditure over 1990-1 as being approximately 54.1 billion. Australia spends roughly 22.6 billion on government schools, with the figures only predicted to rise with the simultaneous climb in education's value. The economic value placed upon education is increasing, illustrated by the example of Australian government's recent 'Earn or Learn' initiative which recognizes the need and growing desirability for students to earn academic or technical credentials. The magnitude of governmental support for schooling already invites a question of social justice: who is most benefiting?

If we presume 'benefiting' to mean the duration and level of education achieved by an individual, Connell supplies examples that indicate clear trends of inequality among students. Presenting a graph of social class and corresponding outcomes of study levels achieved, those from a higher socio-economic background are shown to be two to four times more likely to advance to higher education than those from lower socio-economic levels. Duration of schooling exerts a sizeable effect on lifetime earnings in almost every country and for each additional year there is about a ten percent return on investment, with a slightly higher rate for college or university education (Psacharopoulos, 1972). A US census study showed males that did not complete high school to be earning only 85 per cent of the national average income, as opposed to 170 per cent for college graduates (Tyler, 1977). Although student retention rates are slowly climbing in Australian schools, showing a steady increase over the past decade from 73.4 per cent in 1995 to 76.5 per cent in 2005 (ABS, 2005) the same groups of people are leaving school early; 59 per cent of children from low socio-economic backgrounds are receiving their high school certificates as apposed to 79 per cent from high socio-economic backgrounds (Youth Facts, 2005).

This factor of social class is what Connell focused in on as one of the most significant influences that determine schooling success. Although there are numerous determinants that influence schooling success such as ethnicity, gender and locality, it is often joked that the best thing a child can do to improve their education is to choose wealthier parents. Children from poorer backgrounds repeatedly seem to never have, in the words of the Newsom Report, 'an equal opportunity for acquiring intelligence' (Tyler, 1977). The definition and origins of this 'intelligence', however, can vary. When a school recognises 'intelligence' to be 'innate ability' it is often not solely due to the students' academic outcomes, but also influenced by their ability to excel within their school's hidden curriculum and expectations. This 'intelligence' then, can be argued as no more than skills learned from a privileged background, where rich and intellectually competent parents are likely to have passed down advantages and academic know-how to their children, who by then knowing the role they are expected to play within the academic school, experience more success than those who are not 'trained' by their parents (Tyler, 1977).

The Australian government in 1990, Connell points out, seemed to think that the biggest factor was perhaps unequal distribution of goods, and attempted to remedy it through their A Fair Chance For All initiative, aiming at ensuring everyone an equal opportunity to participate in higher education. It is here that Connell points out the flaw in this policy: the missing link between distribution and content. To solely distribute goods evenly, he argues, is not fulfilling social justice when the approach to how it is taught and what will be taught is left unconsidered. Connell calls this an 'indifference to the nature of education itself' and continues, 'Justice cannot be achieved by distributing the same amount of standard good... that 'good' means different things to ruling-class and working-class children, and will do different things for them (or to them).' We have already touched on this earlier in relation to advantages gained by having parents familiar with academics and high social class practices which schools tend to value. Connell understands that for schools to be just, they must consider how and what they are teaching - curricular justice - instead of only distributive justice.

Similarly, John Rawls' has proposed in his book A Theory of Justice a justice that does not solely rely on equal opportunity or share, but equal outcome. Simple issues, he argues, are to be governed by an equal distribution of socially valued goods, yet when social issues such as education are concerned, Rawls proposes an additional 'difference principle' to achieve equality, where the social ideal is that 'All social primary goods are to be distributed equally unless an unequal distribution of any or all of these goods is to the advantage of the least favoured' (Rawls, 1971). The significance here is that Rawls' objective is not to equalise people's shares or opportunity, but to equalise their results or outcomes by supplying more to the underprivileged. This 'difference principle' encourages policy to implement a kind of compensatory model that issues greater resources into the least advantaged in schools. But will this really make a difference? Research in the seventies found that funding does a surprisingly small difference to the quality of ones