An argument for open education policy

Abstract

While many historically contingent barriers to individual liberty have been deconstructed, I argue that current education policy continues to maintain a discriminatory educational milieu that constitutes individuals as dis/abled. I describe this current government formulation of educational spaces as Closed Policy. Various contingent environmental barriers, dynamically intersecting with, for example, gender, class, ethnicity, physiology, and neurodiversity; inhibit individuals due to constructed notions of ability and disability. I draw upon the principles of Open Futures, Open Society, piecemeal social engineering, and prioritarianism to call for a deconstruction of Closed Policy and movement towards Open Policy. I argue that current educational policy is unjust and should be deconstructed to free individuals from coercion, prejudice, and harm. I argue for a shift towards Open Policy so that difference can be celebrated and the potential for Open Futures is maximised.

Keywords

Education education policy open society closed society open policy equity

Introduction

Imagine if we allowed people to develop their talents rather than concentrating on their difficulties… Imagine if we were able to exclude fear from school, rather than excluding children. Imagine that we really valued difference and cared about enabling people to be the best they could become and did not place such a high value on conformity (Jordan, 2008: p.14).

The goal of this paper is to argue for a shift towards Open Policy, and more specifically, Open Educational Policy, as a means of deconstructing barriers to individuals’ Open Futures. UNESCO (2021) have called for a new social contract for education, one where education is for all. It is an educational vision that ‘accounts for all forms of discrimination and segregation in access, including children and youth with special educational needs, and those who face bigotry based on race, gender identity, class, disability, religion or nationality’ (UNESCO, 2021: 52-53). This project will argue that this new social contract should have Open Futures as its foundational principle.

Background

Historically, social policy has constructed various barriers to individual liberty. For example, The Great Reform Act excluded women from voting (An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales, 1832). The African Trade Act of 1698 ‘confirmed the right of all English subjects to trade in slaves’ (Pettigrew, 2007: 14). The 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act extended the criminalisation of homosexuality. Access to university education and award of degrees was restricted on the basis of gender (Dyhouse, 1995; University of Oxford, 2020) and religious affiliation (Universities Tests Act, 1871; University of Oxford, 2023). The 1921 Education Act presided over a period of segregated education, labelling some children as deficient (Tomlinson, 2012).

Within Britain a political shift towards the deconstruction of historically constructed barriers can be observed. The trade of slaves in Britain was prohibited (Slave Trade Act, 1843). The Representation of the People Act (1928) provided women equal rights to vote. The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (2013), legalised the marriage of same sex couples. Most significantly, the Equality Act 2010 bestows power upon the idea that all individuals should live a life free from discrimination related to age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.

This paper argues that, despite the movement towards the deconstruction of barriers, the current formulation of UK educational policy is reflective of Closed Policy – policy that constructs and maintains barriers to individuals’ Open Futures. Open Policy is proposed as a means of deconstructing such barriers with the intention of maximising the future opportunities for all. I thus seek to challenge the ‘structures of ableism’, normalcy, and the constitution of individuals as categorically ‘other’ (Roulstone et al., 2012: 4). I call for Closed Policy to be deconstructed through a process of piecemeal social engineering. This is proposed as an ongoing movement towards Open Policy, creating situations where individuals are supported to develop a range of talents without the impingement of externally imposed environmental barriers. To describe Open Policy I will draw upon a range of concepts including Open Futures (Feinberg, 2007), Open Society (Popper, 2011), piecemeal social engineering (Popper, 2011), and prioritarianism (Parfit, 1991, 1997; Popper, 2011; Schouten, 2012). I will draw upon intersectionality to present an understanding of dis/ability as interwoven with, for example, class, gender, ethnicity, physical impairment and neurodiversity (Annamma et al., 2013; Crenshaw, 1989; Ellis et al., 2023; Erevelles and Minear 2010; Gillborn, 2015; Roulstone et al., 2012). I will present the environment as a central variable in the constitution of individuals as able or disable (Annamma et al., 2013; Brown, 2016; Deacon et al., 2020; Ellis et al., 2023; Goering, 2015; Leveto, 2018; Mac, 2021; Oliver, 2009; Peer and Reid, 2021; Roulstone et al., 2012; Toro et al., 2020), and recognise the interrelationship of an individual’s body with socio-political environment (Foucault, 1980, 1995, 2001; Shakespeare and Watson, 2001; Zola, 1989).

Dis/ability

I argue that the current construction of UK educational policy should be seen as Closed Policy due to its contribution to a dis/abling educational milieu – enabling some and disabling others as a consequence of the inequitable educational environment in which students are constituted. Dis/ability will be conceptualised as a contingent environmental barrier to Open Futures; used to describe how any individual can be constituted as able or disable at any given moment. The extent to which an individual is dis/abled is thus not seen as a product of a person’s body, ways of thinking, sexuality, ethnicity, class or gender; but how congruent the environment is to their body, ways of thinking, sexuality, ethnicity, class or gender. Where barriers are deconstructed and diversity is valued, while individuals can still be supported to develop, people can be recognised and credited for what they can do and do know; to open up as many future possibilities as possible. Where barriers are created, particular individuals will be constituted as either able or disable. For example, if social policy constructs an environment where there is a narrow perspective on what knowledge and skills are valuable, excluding others, some will be enabled and others disabled. Or if knowledge and skills are only credited as valuable when demonstrated in particular ways, in particular settings, at particular times, places, and under particular time constraints; some will be enabled and others disabled. Or if individuals are constrained to learn in particular ways, in particular conditions, at a particular pace, in a particular order, or using particular resources; some will be enabled and others disabled. In other words, if social policy judges individuals as dis/able based on normalised political conceptions, social policy can be understood as that which stands in the way of Open Futures for all.

The paper does not seek the creation of a utopian education system, nor does it propose that such a system could be achieved. Rather, it is suggested that a process of piecemeal social engineering (Popper, 2011) should be employed as an ongoing exercise to deconstruct socially constructed barriers to individuals’ Open Futures. This process would involve actively seeking the voices of pupils, families and communities, prioritising the removal of barriers affecting those who are most disadvantaged (Parfit, 1991, 1997; Popper, 2011; Schouten, 2012). This is perceived to be a never-ending task, with no hope of an ultimate end. It is also perceived to be a logistically complex task with no simple macro system that can be easily monitored, audited or graded. It is viewed as a theoretically complex task, involving difficult decisions, where errors are likely to be made, and additional unforeseen barriers created within an ongoing reflective process of removing social barriers to maximise each individual’s right to an Open Future.

Open futures

One of the key tenets of Open Educational Policy is Feinberg’s conception of an Open Future. Feinberg (2007) identifies categories of rights such as A-C-rights, A-rights and C-rights. A-C-rights, represent those rights to which both adults and children are entitled, for example the right not to be physically assaulted. A-rights are allocated solely to autonomous adults, such as the ‘legal rights to vote’ (p.112). He loosely and cautiously affords the idea of particular rights to children (C-rights), or ‘rights-in-trust’, designed to avoid closing off potential options for them in the future. However, this category of rights is used more as an abstract idea to illustrate the right to an Open Future. He uses the analogy of an infant, who is yet to acquire mobility, having their legs cut off, thus preventing their future liberty to walk. This analogy is used, as part of the wider argument, to illustrate the importance of constructing a nurturing, non-coercive and loving environment – particularly during a period in an individual's life where they are physically and mentally vulnerable, so that they have a full range of opportunities to determine their own futures in adulthood. Using this analogy, I argue that educational policy should be evaluated and constructed around the concept of Open Futures. That is to say that what an individual’s ‘true interests are and what [s/he]... needs to know to pursue them are the starting points not only of educational philosophy but also of any general philosophical basis for social policy’ (Reimer, 1971: 64). I argue that education policy should act as a mechanism for freedom (Freire, 2005) to support students ‘to act for themselves, [rather than] … restrain them in a fate of perpetual pupillage’ (Godwin, 1793: 669). Or in the words of Feinberg,

education should equip the child with the knowledge and skills that will help him [sic] choose whichever sort of life best fits his [sic] native endowment and matured disposition. It should send him [sic] out into the adult world with as many open opportunities as possible, thus maximizing his [sic] chances for self-fulfillment (Feinberg, 2007: 116).

As education and educational policy does not exist in isolation, Open Futures and Open Educational Policy must be understood within the context of wider society and Open Policy.

Open and closed societies

Popper (2011), responding to horrors relating to fascist and totalitarian regimes, distinguished between Open and Closed Societies. Open Policy, as conceptualised here, is inextricably linked to the principles of an Open Society and could only operate within this macro framework. According to Popper (2011) Open Societies are democratic, equalitarian, humanitarian, individualised, autonomous, abstract, and depersonalised; where rigid social groups collapse, relationships are entered into freely, and individual responsibility is taken for actions. The Open society is anti-slavery and anti-nationalist. It is where dogmatism is supplanted by critical reasoning. To illustrate the Open Society Popper (2011) first quotes Democritus, ‘[e]very man is a little world of his own’ (p.176), and then Pericles ‘[o]ur city is thrown open to the world; we never expel a foreigner … We are free to live exactly as we please’ (p.176).

In contrast to Open Societies, Closed Societies are characterised by an emphasis on homogeneity; totalitarianism, collectivism (or tribalism), strong social solidarity between members, rigid social customs, slavery, fixed class systems. Closed Societies are anti-humanitarian, anti-equalitarian, anti-democratic; focused on the arrest of social change, and the restriction of individual liberty (Popper, 2011). Closed societies are theoretically linked to the utopian beliefs of authors such as Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Hegal and Marx (Popper, 2011). These are societies where the needs or wants of an individual are superseded by that perceived to be valued by society as a whole. Popper (2011) identifies that theological, economic and racialist ideas; united by the collective belief that there is a supreme guiding utopian principle – be that designed by God, economics or biology - have been used to rationalise Closed Societies. These societies are epitomised by the condition where ‘nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader … [one] should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals … only if [they have] been told to do so’ (Plato, cited in Popper, 2011: 3). A core element of Closed Societies is the submission of individual liberty to a greater power, be that a deity, ruler, or perceived necessary social good for society per se (Popper, 2011). With reference to Heraclitus, Popper (2011) suggests that despite the recognition that morality is relative, Heraclitus nonetheless champions a society where democracy is undermined and the majority are subordinate to the will of those in charge. While Popper (2011) recognises that advocates of closed societies likely champion such a system due to noble intentions, such as the maintenance of social stability, Popper argues the consequences mean ‘that the therapy is worse than the remedy’ (p.189).

The problem

Drawing on Feinberg’s (2007) principle of an Open Future and Popper’s (2011) contrast between Open and Closed Societies, Closed Policy will be conceptualised as that which constructs barriers to Open Futures. The problem to which this paper is addressed is the concern that the current construction of UK educational policy is reflective of Closed Policy. Viewing the environment as the paramount variable in an individual’s constitution as dis/abled, ‘success’ or ‘failure’ within the education system can be understood as a consequence of the constructed discriminatory environment within which people are situated. This claim does not seek to dismiss or undermine the pain that individuals may experience due to chronic illness, which is a criticism Shakespeare (2017) has raised against the social model of impairment, but to draw attention to the contingent nature of dis/ability that is within our power to deconstruct.

The barriers constructed and maintained by current UK education policy include, but are not limited to: the enforcement of an ethnocentric, socially biased and homogenised narrow curriculum with an overemphasis on content that disenfranchises and disengages individuals (Ball, 1993, 1994; Jordan, 2008; Joseph-Salisbury, 2020; Leite and Christofoletti, 2018; Miller et al., 2005; Ross, 2021; Smith, 2014; Wallace and Joseph-Salisbury, 2022); accountability measures, such as Ofsted inspections and the publication of league tables, that contribute to labelling, stigmatisation and discrimination (Gillborn and Youdell, 2000); discriminatory assessment procedures that do not value or credit a diverse range of knowledge and skills (Ball, 2017; Miller et al., 2005); school selection criteria that disadvantage those without economic capital and cultural capital from accessing high quality learning environments (Gewirtz et al., 1994; Taylor, 2009; Teague, 2014); a biological conception of ability that systematically disadvantages individuals who do not meet a socially constructed definition of ‘normal’ – constraining individuals according to Government policies that espouse a ‘language of medical deficit’ (Brown, 2016: 8), involving the ‘homogenisation of understanding … [and] pathologization of education’ (Leite and Christofoletti, 2018: 113); and a relentless rhetoric of ‘standards’ that shapes institutional policies in a way that systematically disadvantages minority groups (Gillborn and Youdell, 2000) and thus perpetuates ‘systemic injustices’ (Smith, 2014: 37). Some children are discriminated against due to uniform policies and hair styles (Joseph-Salisbury and Wallace, 2021; Virk, 2020), others are excluded to protect school results (Done, 2022; Martin and Mackie, 2023; McShane, 2020; UNICEF, 2018) in a process of ‘intelligence cleansing’ (Martin and Mackie 2023: 1), or face barriers related to being a refugee (UNICEF, 2018); where the discrimination is hidden in a tail of limited resources (Done, 2022).

Understanding the environment as the fundamental variable in constituting an individual as dis/abled, the systemic differences related to class, ethnicity, gender and SEND, found in Standardised Assessment Tests (Department for Education, 2016, 2017; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c, 2019, 2022, 2023) can be viewed as the symptom of discriminatory Closed Educational Policy that limits rather than maximises an individual's opportunity for an Open Future. Following Annamma et al. (2013) I do not wish to label people with particular identities, instead I seek to ‘highlight how the process of structural … [inequity] that externally imposes identities on individuals by applying socially constructed labels… [has] real material outcomes in terms of lived experiences’ (p.9). Roulstone et al. (2012) identified the need to theoretically consider dis/ability with a critical understanding of gender, ethnicity, sexuality and social class. This paper thus argues that dis/ability, whether that be related to gender, ethnicity, neurodiversity, physiology, cultural capital, economic capital, or any other characteristic, is a product of the discursive-material environment within which individuals are situated.

Barriers constructed by Closed Policy not only inhibit the ability of particular individuals to achieve according to the constructed notions of success within the system, but also shape harmful, less caring and less democratic environments (Ball, 2016) that result in feelings of ‘ambivalence, alienation, humiliation…, anger [and]… hopelessness’ among staff and students (Teague, 2014: 8) ‘producing docile subjects who are tightly governed’ (Davies and Bansel, 2007: 3). This also creates high levels of stress and test anxiety (Brown et al., 2022; Putwain, 2008) and contributes to psychological harm (The Children’s Society, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023; Richardson, 2022). The British Medical Association (2022) blames the failures of the government to address ‘the mental health crisis in this country [which] is spiralling out of control and is failing some of the most vulnerable in society’ (p.1). UNICEF (2021) identifies that in Europe ‘[t]ragically, almost 1,200 children and adolescents aged 10–19 end their own lives every year’ (p.5). According to The Good Childhood Report, school is the aspect of life where children are most unhappy (The Children’s Society, 2022). The factors that had the most negative impact on an individuals’ well-being were ‘not being listened to’, ‘schoolwork’ and ‘things learned in lessons’ (The Children’s Society, 2022: 38). Additional analysis of this issue identifies that the most negative response from students was that they do not feel as though they have autonomy within their learning, for example, one individual reported not having ‘a say in decisions that are important to me at school’ (The Children’s Society, 2022: 38).

Lived experience

Steph (2022) is a parent of two young girls, Tasmin and Sasha. Sasha was diagnosed with a form of Autism called Pathological Demand Avoidance at 2 years old. She attended a mainstream primary school with an Education Health Care plan (EHCp) until the age of 10. Steph has shared the views of Sasha, and her experiences of the English State Education System. While Steph identifies that there have been some amazing people that have supported her and Sash, ‘we have also come across those who have not understood and those who have been tied to a system that hasn’t let them have our child’s interests and abilities as a priority’ (p.1). Sasha describes her experience as follows:

I think we can all agree when I say that education sucks. The entire education system sucks. But I don’t think a lot of people recognise that some people fall victim to it and by that I mean trapped in a never ending cycle of torture till the end of our lives and the worst part is, no one can understand why, not even us…

... the education system assumes we all fit under one category and that one category happens to be one that doesn't appeal to the vast majority of us but most of them trudge through it anyways because they've been convinced this is just how the world works and there's no changing it. Others however are just barely hanging by a thread unable to call for help or just out of options. And then there's us who aren't able to push through at all and, as I said at the start of the video, fall victim to this horrible method of education. Things shouldn't have to be this way. Things shouldn't be this way. The system shouldn't have to force a huge amount of people into unwinnable fights. Things need to change, we can't let this torture happen to future kids. … Mainstream schools failed me, special schools failed me, the education system failed me (Sasha cited in Steph, 2022)

It is perhaps tragically ironic that while one of the foundational principles of neoliberal educational policy is the prioritisation of the economy (Davies and Bansel, 2007; Smith, 2014; Teng et al., 2020), a view which continues to be touted by government (Gibb, 2015; Ofsted, 2022; The Conservative Party, 2019), many believe the current construction of the education system to be outdated and not fit for the demands of a late-modern 21st century economy (Fletcher, 2021; Independent Assessment Commission [IAC], 2021; World Economic Forum [WEF], 2020). The education system we have today was constructed as a result of the significant world changes that were brought about as a result of the industrial revolution (WEF, 2020). Over eight years ago the WEF (2016) identified that the education system was out of date due to ‘20th century practices that are hindering progress on today’s talent and labour market issues’ (p.8). The Chief Executive of Young Enterprise identified that ‘[y]ear after year, decade after decade, we continue down the narrow academic path, ignoring and sidelining students’ (Mercieca, 2017: 1). Furthermore, the fact that ‘the final years of school and college are dominated by constant testing and examination rehearsal … does little to encourage [students] to become the lifelong learners needed by current and future society and the economy in England’ (IAC, 2021: 3)

How many hundreds of thousands – indeed millions – of young people has the system let down, and how many billions has it cost them and the country? How much wasted potential have we left untapped and how many young lives have we sabotaged, all for the sake of grades and league tables? In the years to come, the league table legacy will be seen as a betrayal of young people's life chances and a misuse of the country's finances… Surely we can't stand by much longer (Mercieca, 2017: 1).

Therefore, if one were inclined to do so, it would perhaps be a mistake to justify the current barriers constructed by UK education policy, and the suffering related to it, on a utilitarian or utopian appeal to economic prosperity.

Contingency of closed policy

I argue that the barriers and harm experienced by individuals in the UK education system are not natural or inevitable, but contingent upon the socially constructed nature of the Closed Policy. ‘[T]he structure of our social environment is man-made… its institutions and traditions are neither the work of God nor of nature, but the results of human actions and decisions’ (Popper, 2011: 304). There is a clear distinction between ‘natural laws’, such as gravity and ‘normative laws, or norms’ such as social policy or laws (Popper, 2011: 56). Natural laws are beyond human construction. They can be tested through experimentation, and identified as facts (Popper, 2011). Normative laws, by contrast, are ‘alterable’ (p.56), ‘arbitrary’ (p.59), cannot be considered true or false in any objective sense, but are ‘made and changed by man’ (Popper, 2011: 59). Social policy, while it may appeal to facts, is socially manufactured. While it is possible to accurately describe actions of individuals in accordance with normative laws, for example, one could observe the adherence of individuals to a social policy or measure how many people agree or disagree with it, which could be considered a ‘sociological fact’ (Popper, 2011: 61); the norm per se ‘is not a fact’ (Popper, 2011: 61) it is a social construction. Yet, while normative laws and social policies are brought about as a result of human construction, this does not imply relativism (Popper, 2011). ‘[M]athematical calculi, for instance, or symphonies, or plays, are highly artificial, yet it does not follow that one calculus or symphony or play is just as good as another’ (Popper, 2011: 62). There is an interconnectivity between the imagined and the observable. ‘Even mechanical engines are made, as it were, not only of iron, but by combining iron and norms; i.e by transforming physical things, but according to certain normative roles, namely their plan or design’ (Popper, 2011: 65). The acknowledgement of a socially constructed social world does not entail the rejection of biological facts or ‘laws of biology’ (Popper, 2011: 66). While particular delicacies or culinary customs are constructed, ‘a man will die if he takes either insufficient or too much food’ (Popper, 2011: 66). Following these principles, I argue that social policy, and consequently, the social world within which individuals are constituted, is a construction. The economic and cultural situations that individuals find themselves in are not necessary but a contingent consequence of social conditions. The dis/abling conditions constructed by Closed Policy are not natural or inevitable, but contingent on political perspectives.

Reality can thus be conceived of as a dynamic relationship, or a matrix, between the imagined and the material – each influencing the other to construct our perception of reality. What is real ‘originates in [people’s] thoughts and actions, and is maintained as real by these’ (Berger and Luckmann, 1967: 33). As Hacking (1999) notes ‘it can really matter to someone to be classified as a woman refugee; if she is not thus classified, she may be deported, or go into hiding, or marry to gain citizenship. The matrix can affect an individual woman’ (p.11). However, this is not to imply that the conditions which have brought about this situation, that is truly experienced by the individual, are inevitable, natural or independent from human construction. The conditions that have created the experiences experienced by the individual are the result of socially constructed conditions. ‘Hence in that indirect way … the individual herself is socially constructed as a certain kind of person’ (Hacking, 1999: 11). While discrimination is viewed as constructed, the material consequences are real. ‘To say that a category such as race and gender is socially constructed is not to say that the category has no significance in our world. On the contrary, a large and continuing project for subordinated people… is thinking about the way in which power is clustered around certain categories and is exercised against others’ (Crenshaw, 1991: 1296).

Popper postulated the existence of Three Worlds as an analogy to illustrate the dynamic relationship between the human imagination and the physical world. World 1 is used to represent the physical world, for example, trees, bones, muscles and brains. World 2 includes our thoughts, emotions and feelings; such as pain. World 3 comprises the products of our thoughts. For example, printed academic works or literature (World 3) are produced from human thoughts (World 2) but also exist materially (World 1) (Popper, 1978). I argue for a conceptualisation of dis/ability as a World 3 phenomenon as it is an environmental condition originating from the mind (World 2) that interacts with human bodies (World 1) and constructs barriers to individuals’ Open Futures.

The individual differences in humans such as the number of limbs an individual has, differences in sex organs, skin pigmentation, the functionality of limbs or organs, the proportion of white and grey brain matter in the brain (Bauman and Kemper, 2005; Cauda et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2005), brain activity (Di Martino et al., 2014; Goldstein and Naglieri, 2014; Lathe, 2006; Nickl-Jockschat et al., 2012) and cognitive functioning (Baron-Cohen, 1997; Baron-Cohen et al., 1985; Hill and Firth, 2003) or challenges related to speech, working memory, rhythm, concentration, phonic skills and a tendency to reverse letter formation (Elliott and Gibbs, 2008) may be observable facts that exist as aspects of World 1. The observable differences in attainment (Department for Education, 2016, 2017; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c, 2019, 2022, 2023), which can be considered sociological facts, are not natural or inevitable, they are produced by the socially constructed conditions within which individuals are constituted as dis/abled.

The human thoughts related to architectural design (World 2) result in the use of materials (World 1) to construct schools and classrooms as places of learning (World 3). Where a school building is constructed with stairs leading to a place of learning, an individual who is confined to a wheelchair due to the functioning of their limbs (World 1) experiences the stairs as a disabling barrier to their access. The stairs exist as a constructed material artefact (World 3) produced by the human imagination (World 2) that operates as a material (World 1) barrier to an individual’s access to a learning environment, which may result in negative experiences (World 2). In this environmental situation the individual is constituted as disabled (World 3). This disability is thus not conceptualised as a necessary outcome of the individual’s biology, but a contingent dynamic product of the environmental matrix. An individual recognising the stairs as a constructed social barrier (World 2) may then redesign the access route to remove the barrier thus deconstructing the disabling barrier and reconstituting the individual as able (World 3). The extent to which the individual is constituted as able or disable is thus the result of a complex dynamic between the human imagination and the material world. Dis/ability is thus understood as a World 3 phenomenon. It is a product of the dynamic relationship between the human imagination and material. The environment that an individual resides within will either enable or disable them. While the functioning of the body can be understood as an objective fact (and part of World 1) the barrier to learning is a product of the human imagination that has observable and material effects on the individual, and thus part of World 3. Where racist or sexist ideas (World 2) based on skin pigmentation or sex organs (World 1), deny access to learning (e.g. the opportunity to undertake a university degree); this acts as a barrier to the individual acquiring a degree certificate and the potential benefits (such as employment and remuneration) that may be granted to others (World 3).

Where ideas about particular ways of demonstrating knowledge and skills (World 2) construct Standardised Assessment Tests, some will be enabled and others disabled (World 3). Where ideas dictate that certain knowledge and skills are valuable (World 2), this denies acknowledgement, credit and reward for knowledge and skills that individuals have but not viewed as valuable. Where decisions about which knowledge and skills are considered valuable results in access, or denied access to future learning, employment and related remuneration, individuals who have other knowledge and skills may experience suffering as a result. The ideas about what knowledge and skills are valuable (World 2) thus constitute some as able and others as disabled (World 3). If different knowledge or skills were considered valuable, some who were previously constituted as able would now be disabled and some previously constituted as disabled would now be constituted as able. Where ideas about education dictate what students should look like while learning, where learning will happen, in what way, at what time, at what location, how it is delivered, assessed, regulated, codified, measured, monitored and controlled (World 2) – this will construct environments where some are enabled and others disabled.

Discourse of deficit

While I argued that dis/ability exists as a result of the environment, discourses of deficit act as mechanisms of displacement, shifting attention from the contingent material conditions of dis/ability to ‘deficits’ within the body, family, or culture – labelling disenfranchised individuals and communities as the source of deficiencies (Gorski, 2011; Greenberg, 1997; Smith, 2014). Such discourses, rather than seeing all as potentially able and valuing a diversity of individual talents, ‘mistake difference … for deficit’ (Gorski, 2011: 152) and focus on what an individual cannot do rather than what they can (Gorski, 2011). The problem is thus ‘located within, rather than as pressing upon, disenfranchised communities so that efforts to redress inequalities focus on “fixing” disenfranchised people rather than the conditions which disenfranchise them’ (Gorski, 2011: 154). Rather than seeing the issue originating in the inequitable dis/abling structure, the problem is relocated to, for example, being ‘lazy… deficient… [or] deviant’ (Gorski, 2011: 154).

Deficit discourses employ a process of labelling or categorisation to distinguish between us, for example, the hardworking or able, and them, the contrary (lazy or disable), which functions to ‘pathologize disenfranchised communities’ (Gorski, 2011: 155) and shift the focus of blame away from the discriminatory social structures towards a perceived innate problem in the individual or community. Ergo, while, ‘[w]hat is considered pathological changes with the time and differs in different cultures’ (Gambrill and Lacasse, 2014: 20) the deficit discourse seeks to channel attention from the contingency of dis/ability and legitimise the current ‘existing social, political, and economic conditions, such as gross inequities in access to healthcare or educational opportunity’ (Gorski, 2011: 155).

Some of the particular factors that deficit discourses seek to deflect attention to include ‘broken’ homes (Gorski 2011: 156) or troubled families (Cameron, 2011; DfE, 2011), low parental aspirations (Demie and Lewis 2010; Gorski, 2011; House of Commons Education Committee 2014), ‘decline in moral values’ (Gorski, 2011: 162), behaviour (DfE, 2011), language deficient homes (Demie and Lewis, 2010; Gorski, 2011; House of Commons Education Committee, 2014), or deficient parenting (DfE, 2011; Gorski, 2011; House of Commons Education Committee, 2014). Deficit discourses, such as the medical model of disability (Engel, 1977) seek to locate, for example, an individual’s inability to walk upstairs, as a problem with their biological functioning, rather than viewing the stairs as the environmental barrier that constitutes the individual as disable – if the stairs are removed, the individual is no longer disabled (Goering, 2015). Similarly, deficit discourses locate the disability of an individual with particular ways of thinking as a problem with their brain, rather than seeing their way of thinking as neutral, a way of being – not necessarily good nor bad, nor natural (Ellis et al., 2023). Discourses of deficit can thus be understood as mechanisms of discursive control, turning what can be understood as neural ways of being into abnormalities and constituting individuals as dis/abled.

Along with shifting the locus of problem to within the body, the solution also shifts from seeking to deconstruct the dis/abling macro structures, to fixing the deficient individual’s body or community. Family interventions (DfE, 2011) or ‘parenting classes’ (Gorski, 2011: 156) are thus established and framed within social policy to support (DfE, 2011: 8) families. Exam Access Arrangements (EAA), such as additional time in exams or speech recognition technology, are presented as a means to ‘allow candidates with specific needs, such as special educational needs, disabilities or temporary injuries to access the assessment and show what they know and can do without changing the demands of the assessment’ (Joint Council for Qualifications [JCQ], 2023: 7). Through this statement the JCQ (2023) present the assessment as an infallible and omniscient tool to identify what individuals ‘know and can do’ with no acknowledgement of the narrow judgement of knowledge and skills tested within such assessments, nor how this construction contributes to the constitution of individuals as able or disable by, for example, excluding from the assessment an array of things that individuals do know and can do – but are not credited for in the assessment. The JCQ (2023) make clear that any EAA considered too costly, time consuming, or a threat to the ‘integrity of the assessment’ will be refused; thus overtly placing greater value on cost cutting, time efficiency and assessment integrity; rather than the deconstruction of barriers to individual capacity to demonstrate what they do know or can do. Adopted from the Equality Act, the definition of disability used as part of the decision to allocate or deny EAA, is a ‘physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on someone’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities’ (JCQ, 2023: 11). This definition provides additional clarity on how the origin of dis/ability is being shifted from the environment to the individual body. Drawing on the conceptualisation of a deficit discourse (Gorski, 2011; Greenberg, 1997; Smith, 2014), EAAs can thus be seen as an overt mechanism of shifting the problem from the contingent macro social policy structure that constitute individuals as dis/abled towards an issue within the individual body.

Annamma et al. (2013) highlights one example of the subjective nature of the dis/ability narrative through reference to the classification of mental retardation. When the American Association of Mental Deficiency altered the intelligence quotient score that classifies someone as retarded from 85 to 70 ‘in a stroke of a policy change, many people who had been labeled [sic] as mentally retarded were essentially “cured”’ (p.3). This case can be extrapolated to the dis/ablement of individuals in GCSEs. Within England, the allocation of a grade 4 identifies a pass (DfE, 2019) and by consequence, labelling anyone below this standard as a failure and limiting opportunities to pursue particular subjects at A-level, University and/oremployment. The attainment of a grade 4 is not a neutral meritocratic process. The chance of an individual achieving the 4 is contingent upon the extent they are dis/abled by the macro, meso and micro environment including the construction of the curriculum (what is constructed as desirable knowledge) and assessments (in what ways are students expected to demonstrate knowledge). Where curriculums are formulated in culturally exclusive ways that demotivate or disengage certain individuals, this social policy choice contributes to a disabling environment. To free individuals from dis/abling environments would then involve a commitment to ‘demolish the false dividing line between “normal” and “disabled” and attack the whole concept of physical normality’ (Sutherland, 1981: 18, cited in Shakespeare, 2017: 26) shifting the locus of ability and disability from the individual body, social identity, or culture; towards the deconstruction of the Closed Policies that constitute individuals as dis/abled. Therefore, I argue that discourses of deficit fail to consider the contingency of the educational milieu within which individuals are constituted as dis/abled.

Where discourses of deficit present ideas that locate dis/ability within the individual body, rather than recognising the disabling environmental barriers to individuals’ Open Futures (World 2), the differences in human bodies (World 1) are more likely to be labelled as ASD, ADHD, ADD – labelled as deficient. This labelling constitutes individuals as disabled and results in materially observable disenfranchisement from attainment (DfE, 2016, 2017; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) which acts as a material barrier to individuals’ Open Futures (World 3). I therefore argue that Closed Educational Policy is creating harm and inequality through a materialisation of dis/ability which should be deconstructed.

Piecemeal social engineering

This paper does not imply that we search for a utopian education system, simply that we should seek out environmental barriers which affect the most vulnerable and deconstruct these barriers through a process of piecemeal social engineering to move towards a system that prioritises maximising Open Futures of all. Popper (2011) rejects the pursuit of ultimate aims (and a blueprint for society) as this leads to unnecessary suffering of individuals in the name of utopian ideals. ‘Plato’s educational aim’ (Popper, 2011: 50) involved controlling the curriculum for the greater good of the state, eroding democracy and mirroring a caste system in favour of stabilisation based on a utopian ideological conception of society as an organic entity. Instead, a process of trial and error, via piecemeal social engineering to reduce the suffering of individuals and increase individual liberty, ‘searching for and fighting against, the greatest and most urgent evils of society’ (Popper, 2011: 148) is presented as preferable. Much suffering can be ignored or justified when social engineering is focused on society as a whole or in the pursuit of an ideal state (Popper, 2011). In piecemeal social engineering ‘we can make mistakes, and learn from our mistakes’, constantly re-evaluating, experimenting and adjusting the social conditions (Popper, 2011: 152) without doing too much harm as we can easily redress our mistakes. Whereas, those who seek ‘to realize an ideal state’ take the form of a ‘benevolent dictator’ (Popper, 2011: 149). Rather than controlling the actions of others according to a macro social goal ‘[w]e must demand… that every [person] should be given, if [s/he] wishes, the right to model [their] life [themselves], as far as this does not interfere too much with others’ (Popper, 2011: 155). ‘[M]any mistakes would be made which could be eliminated only by a long and laborious process of small adjustments’ (Popper, 2011: 157). The goal here is thus to move towards a process of deconstructing the barriers to Open Futures in a way that avoids creating an alternative closed system as ‘we do not and cannot know the form of the ideal society’ and it is thus ‘essential to enable the free interplay of human imagination and experimentation as far as possible’ (Suissa, 2014: 13). Therefore, the suggested outcome would be an ongoing process of re-evaluation, prioritising the most vulnerable in a never-ending reassessment and readjustment of education policy, and by consequence, educational spaces. I therefore argue that piecemeal social engineering should be employed to move educational policy towards Open Futures as the paramount epistemic goal.

Prioritarianism

I believe that there is, from an ethical point of view, no symmetry between suffering and happiness, or between pain and pleasure… human suffering makes a direct appeal, namely, the appeal for help, while there is no similar call to increase the happiness of a man who is doing well anyway. [F]rom a moral point of view, pain cannot be outweighed by pleasure, and especially not one man’s pain by another man’s pleasure… one should demand, more modestly, the least amount of avoidable suffering for all (Popper, 2011: .602).

This paper will argue that those experiencing the most significant barriers to their right to an Open Future should be prioritised when reshaping educational social policy. Those who are most disenfranchised by the constructed social conditions have the strongest claim for change. Those suffering as a result of the constructed social conditions voice a cry for help and should thus be treated with more urgency than an appeal for more privilege or happiness (Margalit, 2001; Parfit, 1997; Popper, 2011). This claim is made here on the basis that all social policies are ‘man-made’ (Popper, 2011: 304) a social construction (Berger and Luckmann, 1967; Hacking, 1999). The way the social world is ‘need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is … [it is] not determined by the nature of things; … [nor is it] inevitable’ (Hacking, 1999: 6). The contemporary discursive-material reality can be understood as the contingent culmination of relations of power (Foucault, 1980, 1995, 2001) that are constructed via the human imagination that will inevitably result in the priority of some over others. Those most disenfranchised by the construction thus have the strongest claim for deconstruction. Social engineering ‘must uphold equalitarian and individualistic principles’ (Popper, 2011: 155). Within this reasoning, even if some more privileged individuals are likely to have a benefit reduced ‘[w]e should sometimes choose a smaller sum of benefits, for the sake of a better distribution’ (Parfit, 1997: 203). This should not take the form of levelling down all social actors to produce equality (which I would relate to Closed Policy and authoritarian governance), but should restructure the social conditions of any social space to deconstruct barriers to Open Futures. Ergo, it is argued, with the consciousness that all social policies lack a rational foundational principle, all social policies should be constantly reviewed to deconstruct Closed Policies – prioritising those most disenfranchised by the discriminatory social conditions (Margalit, 2001; Popper, 2011) to maximise opportunities for Open Futures.

Conclusion

In 1975 The Union of The Physically Impaired Against Segregation (UPIAS) conceptualised disability as related to environmental discriminatory practices beyond the physical makeup of any individual that results in people who collectively face discrimination as an ‘oppressed group’ (p.4). A situation which brings about ‘isolation and segregation, in every aspect of life, such as education, work, mobility [and] housing’ (UPIAS, 1975: 4) results in material outcomes such as poverty or educational attainment, which is a ‘symptom of our oppression … not the cause’ (p.4). Extrapolating from this position to an intersectional understanding of dis/ability as a contingent environment barrier to Open Futures, the educational ‘underachievement’ of individuals classified by the government according to class, gender, ethnicity, or SEND (DfE, 2016, 2017; 2018a; 2018b; 2018c, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023) is understood here as a symptom of the constructed educational macro, meso and micro environments – a symptom of a dis/abling educational milieu constructed by Closed Policy. The Official Statistics thus provide not an indication of incompetence, deficit in culture or biology, but an observable record of discrimination within which individuals are constituted as dis/abled.

Whilst it is acknowledged that individual differences in human bodies and minds exist as part of an objective reality, the construction of environments that discriminate against these differences is viewed as a sign of discriminatory Closed Policy and should be deconstructed. The goal is to make ‘the world a better and more just place for everyone, no matter what their bodily conditions may be’ (Goering, 2015: 137). This is not a relativist argument. It is acknowledged that some are more skilful than others. Yet what is deemed a valuable skill is subjective – temporally and socially contingent. Anyone can be constituted as able or disable depending on the environmental conditions and what knowledge or skill is required. When diversity is valued more individuals will be recognised as able. It is an argument that constructed discriminatory barriers to Open Futures should be removed so that diversity is valued, and individuals are freed to learn and develop without surveillance according to constructed notions of normality or value. I therefore call for a process of piecemeal social engineering to deconstruct the discriminatory educational policies that maintain a dis/abling educational milieu, prioritising those most disenfranchised, so that education policy can act as a proponent of Open Futures for all.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Blair Richard Carter

Blair Carter is a PhD student at University College London. His PhD thesis seeks to put the Foucauldian concept of the Dispositif to work, shining a light on how government documents, academic research and media publications strategically align to construct a discursive and non-discursive discriminatory educational milieu. Prior to embarking on his PhD, Blair undertook an MSc at the University of Oxford, where he explored how pedagogical approaches related to personalised learning may support individual needs within the confines of a macro neoliberal educational discourse.

References

An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales 1832 . c XLV. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Uq0uAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA154&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false accessed 14 January 2024.

Annamma

Connor

Ferri

(2013) Dis/ability critical race studies (DisCrit): theorizing at the intersections of race and dis/ability. Race, Ethnicity and Education 16(1): 1–31. DOI: 10.1080/13613324.2012.730511.

Ball

(1993) Education policy, power relations and teachers’ work. British Journal of Educational Studies 41(2): 106–121. DOI: 10.1080/00071005.1993.9973954.

Ball

(1994) Education Reform: A Critical and Post-structural Approach. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Ball

(2016) Neoliberal education? Confronting the slouching beast. Policy Futures in Education 14(8): 1046–1059.

Ball

(2017) The Education Debate. 3rd edition. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Baron-Cohen

(1997) Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Baron-Cohen

Leslie

Frith

(1985) Does the autistic child have a ‘theory of mind? Cognition 21(1): 37–46.

Bauman

Kemper

(2005) Structural brain anatomy in autism: what is the evidence. In: Bauman

Kemper

(eds) The Neurobiology of Autism. 2nd edition. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 121–135.

10.

Berger

Luckmann

(1967) The Social Construction of Reality : A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Westminster, London: Penguin.

11.

British Medical Association (2022) Shameful statistics show a mental health crisis that is spiralling out of control as demand far outweighs capacity, warns BMA. https://www.bma.org.uk/bma-media-centre/shameful-statistics-show-a-mental-health-crisis-that-is-spiralling-out-of-control-as-demand-far-outweighs-capacity-warns-bma (accessed 14 March 2023).

12.

Brown

(2016) Inclusive Education: Perspectives on Pedagogy, Policy and Practice. London, UK: Routledge.

13.

Brown

Woods

Nuttall

(2022) I’m going to feel stressed, but now I know how to handle it: reducing test anxiety and improving student well-being at GCSE. Support for Learning 37: 351–372. DOI: 10.1111/1467-9604.12412.

14.

Cameron

(2011) Troubled families speech. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/troubled-families-speech (accessed 19 January 2024).

15.

Cauda

Costa

Palermo

, et al. (2014) Concordance of white matter and gray matter abnormalities in autism spectrum disorders: a voxel-based meta-analysis study. Human Brain Mapping 35(5): 2073–2098. DOI: 10.1002/hbm.22313.

16.

Crenshaw

(1989) Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago legal Forum 1(8): 314–343.

17.

Crenshaw

(1991) Mapping the margins: intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–1299.

18.

Davies

Bansel

(2007) Neoliberalism and education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 20(3): 247–259. DOI: 10.1080/09518390701281751.

19.

Deacon

Macdonald

Donaghue

(2020) “What’s wrong with you, are you Stupid?” Listening to the biographical narratives of adults with dyslexia in an age of ‘inclusive and ‘anti-discriminatory’ practice. Disability & Society 37(3): 406–426.

20.

Demie

Lewis

(2010) Raising the achievement of white working class pupils: barriers and school strategies. https://mynpqh.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/whiteworkingclassachievementexecutivesummarydemie.pdf (Accessed 19 01 2024).

21.

Department for Education (2011) Monitoring and evaluation of family intervention services and projects between February 2007 and March 2011. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/184031/DFE-RR174.pdf (accessed 19 January 2024).

22.

Department for Education (2016) Revised GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2014-2015. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/gov (accessed 10 April 2019).

23.

Department for Education (2017) Revised GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2015-2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/584473/SFR03_2017.pdf (accessed 10 April 2019).

24.

Department for Education (2018a) Revised GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2016-2017. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/676596/SFR01_2018.pdf (accessed 10 April 2019).

25.

Department for Education (2018b) Provisional GCSE and equivalent results in England, 2017 to 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/748503/2018_KS4_statistical_release.pdf (accessed 10 April 2019).

26.

Department for Education (2018c) Special educational needs in England: january 2018. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729208/SEN_2018_Text.pdf (accessed 10 April 2019).

27.

Department for Education (2019) Is your child studying for GCSEs. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cd2ea00e5274a3fd33baa6f/GCSE_factsheet_for_parents__final_.pdf (accessed 31 January 2024).

28.

Department for Education (2020) Academic year 2019/20 key stage 4 performance. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance/2019-20 (accessed 12 January 2024).

29.

Department for Education (2021) Academic year 2020/21 key stage 4 performance. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance/2020-21 (accessed 12 January 2024).

30.

Department for Education (2022) Academic year 2021/22 key stage 4 performance. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance-revised/2021-22 (accessed 12 January 2024).

31.

Department for Education (2023) Academic year 2022/23 key stage 4 performance. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/key-stage-4-performance-revised (accessed 12 January 2024).

32.

Di Martino

Yan

(2014) The autism brain imaging data exchange: towards a large-scale evaluation of the intrinsic brain architecture in autism. Molecular Psychiatry 19(6): 659–667.

33.

Done

(2022) Researching ‘off rolling’ as a sensitive topic: ‘Hard’ evidence and experiential accounts. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties 27(3): 243–253. DOI: 10.1080/13632752.2022.2152589.

34.

Dyhouse

(1995) The British federation of university women and the status of women in universities, 1907-1939. Women's History Review 4(4): 465–485. DOI: 10.1080/09612029500200093.

35.

Elliott

Gibbs

(2008) Does dyslexia exist? Journal of Philosophy of Education 42(3-4): 475–491. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9752.2008.00653.x.

36.

Ellis

Kirby

Osborne

(2023) Neurodiversity and Education. London, UK: Corwin.

37.

Engel

(1977) The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine. Science 196: 129–136.

38.

Equality Act . c 15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/introduction (accessed 14 January 2024).

39.

Erevelles

Minear

(2010) Unspeakable offences: untangling race and disability in discourses of intersectionality. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies 4: 127–145.

40.

Feinberg

(2007) The child’s right to an open future. In: Randall

(ed) Philosophy of Education: An Anthology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

41.

Fletcher

(2021) The state of education - TIme to talk. https://www.hmc.org.uk/news/hmc-survey-finds-curriculum-and-assessment-is-no-longer-fit-for-purpose/ (accessed 11 February 2024).

42.

Foucault

(1980) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972 - 1977. New York, NY: Pantheon.

43.

Foucault

(1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (Trans. Alan Sheridan). New York, NY: Vintage Books.

44.

Foucault

(2001) The subject and power. In: Faubion

(ed) The Essential Works of Foucault. London, UK: Penguin, 326–348.

45.

Freire

(2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary Edition. London, UK. Continuum.

46.

Gambrill

Lacasse

(2014) The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders as a major form of dehumanization in the modern world. Research on Social Work Practice 24(1): 13–36.

47.

Gewirtz

Ball

Bowe

(1994) Parents, privilege and the education market-place. Research Papers in Education 9(1): 3–29.

48.

Gibb

(2015) The purpose of education. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-purpose-of-education (accessed 11 February 2024).

49.

Gillborn

(2015) Intersectionality, critical race theory, and the primacy of racism: race, class, gender, and disability in education. Qualitative Inquiry 21(3): 277–287.

50.

Gillborn

Youdell

(2000) Rationing Education: Policy, Practice, Reform and Equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

51.

Godwin

(1793) Enquiry Concerning Political Justice. London, UK: G.G.J and J. Robinson.

52.

Goering

(2015) Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine 8(2): 134–138.

53.

Goldstein

Naglieri

(2014) Handbook of Executive Functioning. New York, NY: Springer New York.

54.

Gorski

(2011) Unlearning deficit ideology and the scornful gaze: thoughts on authenticating the class discourse in education. Counterpoint 402: 152–173.

55.

Greenberg

(1997) Right answers, wrong reasons: revisiting the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM. Review of General Psychology 1(3): 256–270.

56.

Hacking

(1999) The Social Construction of what. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

57.

Hill

Frith

(2003) Understanding autism: insights from mind and brain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B: Biological Science 358(1430): 281–289. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2002.1209.

58.

House of Commons Education Committee (2014) Underachievement in education by white working class children. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/142/142.pdf (Accessed 19 January 2024).

59.

Independent Assessment Commission (2021) The future of assessment and qualifications in England: interim report of the independent assessment commission (IAC). https://downloads2.dodsmonitoring.com/downloads/Misc_Files/IAC-Interim-Report.pdf (accessed 11 February 2024).

60.

Joint Council for Qualifications (2023) Access Arrangements and reasonable adjustments. https://www.jcq.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/AA_regs_Revision_One_Sep23_FINAL.pdf (accessed 19 January 2024).

61.

Jordan

(2008) Autistic spectrum disorders: a challenge and a model for inclusion in education. British Journal of Special Education 35(1): 11–15.

62.

Joseph-Salisbury

(2020) Race and Racism in English Secondary Schools. London, UK: Runnymede. https://assets.website-files.com/61488f992b58e687f1108c7c/61bcc0cc2a023368396c03d4_Runnymede-Secondary-Schools-report-FINAL.pdf (accessed 11 Februrary 2024.

63.

Joseph-Salisbury

Wallace

(2021) How, still, is the Black Caribbean child made educationally subnormal in the English school system? Ethnic and Racial Studies 45(8): 1426–1452.

64.

Lathe

(2006) Autism, Brain, and Environment. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley.

65.

Leite

CDP

Christofoletti

(2018) Childhood and education: between medicalization and subjectivation processes in school. Foro de Educación 16(24): 113–123.

66.

Leveto

(2018) Toward a sociology of autism and neurodiversity. Sociology Compass 12(12): 1–17.

67.

Mac

(2021) Neoliberalism and Inclusive Education. Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

68.

Margalit

(2001) Privacy in the decent society. Social Research 68(1): 255–268.

69.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act (2013). c 30. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/30/part/1/enacted (accessed 14 January 2024).

70.

Martin

Mackie

(2023) Pupils' exclusion 'trauma' revealed as some schools “remove special needs students to protect results. https://news.sky.com/story/pupils-exclusion-trauma-revealed-as-some-schools-remove-special-needs-students-to-protect-results-13008254 (accessed 10th Februray 2024.

71.

McShane

(2020) We know off-rolling happens. Why are we still doing nothing? Support for Learning 35: 259–275.

72.

Mercieca

(2017) Our Education System Isn’t Working. It’s Time For A New Approach. https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/our-education-system-isnt-working-its-time-for-a-new-approach_uk_5a1fe92ce4b064ca3c15121b 01 May 2024.

73.

Miller

Keil

Cobb

(2005) A Review of the Literature on Accessible Curricula, Qualifications and Assessment. London, UK: Disability Rights Commission.

74.

Nelson

(2005) Size of head and brain in autism: clue to underlying biological mechanisms? In: Bauman

Kemper

(eds) The Neurobiology of Autism. 2nd edition. Baltimore; London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 23–33.

75.

Nickl-Jockschat

Habel

Maria

(2012) Brain structure anomalies in autism spectrum disorder-a meta-analysis of VBM studies using anatomic likelihood estimation. Human Brain Mapping 33(6): 1470–1489.

76.

Ofsted (2022) Ofsted strategy 2022-27. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/626677b6e90e0716945b1722/Ofsted_Strategy_2022_2027.pdf (accessed 11 February 2024).

77.

Oliver

(2009) Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. 2nd edition. New York, NY: Plagrave Macmillan.

78.

Parfit

(1991) ‘Equality and Priority’ the Lindley Lecture. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas. Department of Philosophy University of Kansas. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/12405/Equality-or-Priority-1991.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed 01 May 2024)

79.

Parfit

(1997) Equality and priority. Ratio 10(3): 202–221.

80.

Peer

Reid

(2021) Special Educational Needs: A Guide for Inclusive Practice. London, UK: Sage.

81.

Pettigrew

(2007) Parliament and the escalation of the slave trade, 1690-1714. Parliamentary History 26(1): 12–26.

82.

Popper

(1978) Three worlds. The tanner lecture on human values. The University of Michigan. https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/p/popper80.pdf (accessed 02 February 2024).

83.

Popper

(2011) Open Society and its Enemies. London, UK: Routledge.

84.

Putwain

(2008) Deconstructing test anxiety. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties 13(2): 141–155. DOI: 10.1080/13632750802027713.

85.

Reimer

(1971) School is dead : an essay on alternatives in education. https://www.arvindguptatoys.com/arvindgupta/dead.pdf (accessed 24 February 2023).

86.

Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act (1928) c12. https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/case-study-the-right-to-vote/the-right-to-vote/birmingham-and-the-equal-franchise/1928-equal-franchise-act/ accessed 14 January 2024.

87.

Richardson

(2022) Rebuilding Public Confidence in Educational Assessment. London, UK: UCL Press.

88.

Ross

(2021) Curriculum diversity and social justice education: from new labour to conservative government control of education in England. Educational Research for Social Justice 1: 223–247.

89.

Roulstone

Thomas

Watson

(2012) The changing terrain of disability studies from. In: Watson

Roulstone

Thomas

(eds) Routledge Handbook of Disability Studies Routledge. London, UK: Routledge, 3–11.

90.

Schouten

(2012) Fair educational opportunity and the distribution of natural ability: toward a prioritarian principle of educational justice. Journal of Philosophy of Education 46(3): 472–491.

91.

Shakespeare

(2017) The Social Model of Disability. In: Davis

(ed). The Disability Studies Reader . 5th ed. London: Routledge, 195–204.

92.

Shakespeare

Watson

(2001) The Social Model of Disability: An Outdated Ideology? Exploring Theories and Expanding Methodologies: Where we are and where we need to go. 2nd ed. Leeds: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 9–28.

93.

Slave Trade Act (1843) c 98. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/6-7/98/enacted (accessed 14 January 2024.

94.

Smith

(2014) A national curriculum for all: a cautionary tale. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy 11(1): 35–37.

95.

Steph

(2022) What happens if your child is Not Fine in School? https://www.stephstwogirls.co.uk/2022/09/what-happens-if-your-child-is-not-fine.html (accessed 27 February 2023).

96.

Suissa

(2014) Towards an anarchist philosophy of education. In: Lewin

Guilherme

White

(eds) New Perspectives in Philosophy of Education. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academic Press, 139–159.

97.

Taylor

(2009) Normativity and normalization. Foucault Studies 7: 45–63.

98.

Teague

(2014) Subjectivity, agency and political pedagogy in the primary school. Global Studies of Childhood 4(1): 3–10.

99.

Teng

Bakar

Layne

(2020) Education reforms within neoliberal paradigms: a comparative look at the Singaporean and Finnish education systems. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 40(4): 458–471.

100.

The Children’s Society (2019) The good childhood report. https://saphna.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/the_good_childhood_report_2019.pdf (accessed 13 January 2024).

101.

The Children’s Society (2020) The good childhood report. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2020-11/Good-Childhood-Report-2020.pdf (accessed 13 January 2024).

102.

The Children’s Society (2021) The good childhood report. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-08/GCR_2021_Full_Report.pdf (accessed 13 January 2024).

103.

The Children’s Society (2022) The good childhood Report. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-09/GCR-2022-Full-Report.pdf (accessed 24 February 2023).

104.

The Children’s Society (2023) The good childhood report. https://www.childrenssociety.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/The-Good-Childhood-Report-2023.pdf (accessed 13 January 2024).

105.

The Conservative Party (2019) The conservative and unionist party manifesto 2019. https://www.conservatives.com/our-plan/conservative-party-manifesto-2019 (accessed 11 February 2024).

106.

The Union of The Physically Impaired Against Segregation’s (1975) Fundamental principles of disability. https://disability-studies.leeds.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/library/UPIAS-fundamental-principles.pdf (Accessed 01 May 2024).

107.

Tomlinson

(2012) A Sociology of Special Education. Oxford, UK: Routledge.

108.

Toro

Kiverstein

Rietveld

(2020) The ecological-enactive model of disability: why disability does not entail pathological embodiment. Frontiers in Psychology 11(1162): 1–15. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01162.

109.

UNESCO (2021) Reimagining Our Futures Together: A New Contract for Education. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

110.

UNICEF (2018) Education for refugee and asylum seeking children: access and equality in England, Scotland and Wales. https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Access-to-Education-report-PDF.pdf (accessed 01 May 2024).

111.

UNICEF (2021) The state of the world ’s children 2021. https://www.unicef.org/eu/media/2021/file/State-of-the-World’s-Children-2021.pdf (accessed 14 March 2023).

112.

Universities Tests Act (1871) c 26. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/34-35/26 (accessed 14 January 2024).

113.

University of Oxford (2020) A short history of women’s education at the university of Oxford. https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/article/a-short-history-of-womens-education-at-the-university-of-oxford (accessed 01 May 2024).

114.

University of Oxford (2023) Opening Oxford: 1871-2021. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-06-16-opening-oxford-1871-2021 (accessed 01 May 2024).

115.

Virk

(2020) Ruby Williams: No child with afro hair should suffer like me. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094 (accessed 10th February 2024.

116.

Wallace

Joseph-Salisbury

(2022) How, still, is the Black Caribbean child made educationally subnormal in the English school system? Ethnic and Racial Studies 45(8): 1426–1452. DOI: 10.1080/01419870.2021.1981969.

117.

World Economic Forum (2016) The future of jobs: employment, skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs.pdf (accessed 24 September 2024).

118.

World Economic Forum (2020) Our education system is losing relevance. Here's how to unleash its potential. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/04/our-education-system-is-losing-relevance-heres-how-to-update-it/ (accessed 11 February 2024).

119.

Zola

(1989) Towards the necessary universalizing of a disability policy. The Milbank Quarterly 67(2): 401–428.