Trading a survival of the richest for a survival of the smartest: the abolition of public schools and double standards in the fight for educational justice.
This research will argue that educational justice theory is incomplete as long as it attempts to achieve justice for one disadvantaged group (the poor) whilst refusing to address the injustice in the disadvantage of another (the socially or genetically poor). It is not sufficient for those seeking equality of opportunity to strive towards the abolition of public schools without concerning themselves with the morality or empirical consequences of its replacement: namely meritocracy. A full analysis of the injustice in ability-based advantage is needed, illustrating how its unfairness lies not only in a natural endowment (and thus luck) being the source of victory in the competition for life’s limited resources, but that, due to uncompensated disadvantages, some are restricted from even developing the skills needed to compete.
As both relate to characteristics that the individual has no responsibility for, is it contradictory to criticise the existence of public schools (and thus advantage through wealth) whilst championing a merit-based system of equality of opportunity (and thus advantage through ability)? Can we ‘deserve’ the rewards of one but not the other? Why does it appear possible to propose a theory of educational justice that contains such an apparent double standard? Does whether merit comes from an ‘innate’ ability with which we are born or is developed by the environment in which we live affect attitudes? How far does our responsibility to compensate go? In sum, in the quest for equality of opportunity, how far does our responsibility go?
Dr David Stevens and Dr Mathew Humphrey
Self funded
-
Equality of opportunity
-
British political parties
-
feminism