Diversity, Social Justice and Learning: Assessment 1 Mitchell Cavens

Impact of Difference and Intercultural understandings on Teaching and Learning

The relatively recent discourse of a positive outlook on ethnic acceptance is effectively

shared amongst various schools across Australia. However, issues relating to ethnic

acceptance still exist in many schools around the country. The broad reason as to why this

is the case will be analysed in this essay in regards to policy and social theory, where I will

attempt to find the area in which there is fault, and what is the best solution or option

moving forward in order to provide each student with equal “life chances”. Limitations

extend to every aspect of the claims of this paper, and thus general claims in regards to the

effectiveness of policy and theory will be made. The NSW Department of Educations

policies as well as the Australian Curriculum all claim to arise from a desire for equity in the

broad aspect of schooling as a whole (“Access And Equity | Policy Library”) (“Home – The

Australian Curriculum”). However, even though policy and Curriculum is distributed

nationwide/state-wide, ethical and equitable pedagogy is ultimately at the hands of the

teacher, who is influenced by his or her own ideologies/theories, which ultimately changes

the way in which policy can be made effective in the classroom. Therefore, teaching will be

divided into two aspects in this paper: policy and social theory. Policy will be addressed in

regards to the effective administration of a positive outlook on ethnicity in NSW, and will be

evaluated and discussed as well as social theory, as theory is often described as the “unseen

half” of teaching. Due to the close relationship between the understanding of social theory

and the ability for a teacher to commit to his or her work ethically in relation to ethnicity,

the two most dominant discourses in relation to educational theory of functionalism and

critical theory will be analysed and evaluated according to their ability to function
alongside policy in order to best address a positive outlook on ethnicity, using standardised

testing as a tool to compare the practical efficiency of these theories according to how best

they can effectively support an positive ethical outlook in congruency with policy.

Firstly, it is important to address policy in order confirm or deny its claim on having a

positive outlook on access and equity. According to the New South Wales Department of

Education website, there are a total of eight policies prescribed to NSW schools that are

directly related to access and equity (“Access And Equity | Policy Library”), and out of these

eight, there are three policies that have direct relation to the prevention of issues to do with

ethnicity (Aboriginal Education policy, the Anti-Racism policy and the Multicultural

Education Policy). The Aboriginal Education Policy involves a comprehensive set of policies

which on the face of it, seem to cover just about every aspect in relation to positive learning

for Aboriginal students, with 68 different policy statements outlining ethical criteria in

teaching content and pedagogy as well as various aims and outcomes in regards to ethical

treatment in regards to aboriginal education. The Anti-Racism policy involves 20 different

policies in relation to specific requirements for schools that they must adhere to in order to

best eliminate the issue of racism in schools. And lastly, the Multicultural Education Policy

offers 19 different points outlining how to best address and embrace multiculturalism in

NSW Schools (“Access And Equity | Policy Library”). It is clear then, that the guidelines that

teachers are confined to cannot be pinned down as being un-favourable to the pursuit of

positive ethnicity outlooks considering the vastness of these policy statements.

So what elements influence a teacher’s ability to present these policies in a way that

promotes ethnic acceptance and positivity? If these policies are one half of the teacher’s

ability to teach, then we must analyse the other half: social theory. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz and

Ullman (2015) describe this “unseen half” in ‘Understanding Sociological Theory for
Educational Practices’: “Theoretical knowledge, in the form of sociological theories, can

provide tools to help one recognise and interpret how external forces affect education; with

insight comes opportunities to enact change. Theory is the unseen half of teaching...” In

order for a teacher to teach in an equitable manner in terms of social diversity, it is

important to understand critical theory. Critical theory involves the examination of every

aspect of society through a critical lens. According to Sever (2012), in ‘A Critical Look at the

Theories of Sociology of Education’: ”Critical theories have three major concerns: mapping

injustices in education, tracing those injustices to their source, seeking and proposing

remedies to those injustices.”(p. 650-671) Pre-conceived ideologies as well as current

ideologies should undergo the same critical evaluation according to this theory.

Theoretically then, what is allowed for within this viewpoint is true equity. As each

viewpoint undergoes equal criticism, practically speaking, as every student in the

classroom is different, this theory will individually apply to all students, promoting effective

equitable individualised teaching, theoretically giving each student equal opportunity to

“succeed” in life. Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz and Ullman (2015) describe this theories nature by

drawing on the research data collection text of Denzin and Lincoln (2013): “Critical theory's

concern is driven by emancipatory principles committed to the examination of the

complexities of diversity and difference in how individuals and groups experience

marginalisation, oppression and inequality with a focus on how material and cultural

practices create structures of coercion and domination. Hence, critical paradigms are

concerned with social justice in society in which people have political, economic and

cultural control of their lives (Aliakbari & Faraji, 2011).” But what concept within critical

theory has direct relation to ethical positivity? Ferfolja, Jones-Diaz and Ullman (2015)

define diaspora as “the voluntary or forced disbursement of cultural or 'racial' groups over

different historical time periods and geographical locations.” It denotes “transnational

migration movements linked to globalisation, embedded in a social condition entailing a

particular form of consciousness and sense of identity (Anthias, 1998; Vertovec & Cohen,

1999).” The understanding of this concept can expose teachers to the fact that their

“national” identity holds little in the way of cultural legitimisation in comparison to those of

different ethnic backgrounds, and can effectively expose flaws in pedagogies in relation to

discrimination. This is a practical way in which critical theory can promote a positive

outlook on ethnicity, and thus is effectively congruent with the existing policies of NSW on

these matters.

If critical theory is one half of the sociological theory concerned with education, then the

other half is concerned with functionalism. Functionalist theories are often described using

the analogy of the human body. In the body, each part works independently and has its own

individual role, but if one member fails, then the rest of the body is dysfunctional. In ‘A

Critical Look at the Theories of Sociology of Education’, Sever (2012) links this analogy with

education: “Education as a social institution and part of social organism, for example, is

connected in various ways to the economy, the family, and the political and religious

systems. It has its own functions to perform within an organized whole. In other words,

working in a harmony and for specific functions to perform in “perfect whole” are central to

this approach (Karabel & Halsey, 1977; King, 1983; Meighan, 1981, Blackedge & Hunt,

1985; Majoribank, 1985).” In this, it is expected that educational institutions and teachers

present themselves to high moral standards, integral to the development of the next

generation, with the sole motive of adding to society (The ‘body’). In this way, any

difference in the students’ socio-economic background, race, etc. should be eliminated once

they have completed their education, as education is seen as the factor that ‘irons out’ these

differences in this theory. However the issue with this theory is that it ignores the key
necessity of conflict in society in order to bring out positive change, a phenomenon

effectively explained in ‘Power and Ideology in Education’ by Karabel and Halsey (1978). So

the question is, what can a teacher subscribing to functionalism do in order to improve his

or her pedagogy? Immediately we recognise that the practical functionalist approach differs

greatly from critical theory. As critical theory has very real and practical implications in the

classroom, functionalist approaches suggest an effective operation stemming from the

understanding of society operating a certain way, rather then an approach that can bring

about conscious changes in decision making in the classroom itself. The functionalist

approach then seems to be unconcerned about a students “life chances”, but is far more

concerned about society as a whole.

It is without doubt that these two discourses collide, each having criticisms of each other.

One of the greatest disputes in relation to these theories centres on the topic of

standardised testing. According to critical theory, standardised testing is completely flawed,

as it cannot effectively evaluate the intelligence or capability of a student, as each student is

unique and incomparable to one another. But according to functionalism, the aim of school

is to ‘produce’ students to function effectively within a society that operates in a specific

way, and is therefore important that they are measured to a standard that best represents

the values of society, in order to identify how to best improve the students education so that

they may effectively add to society. The National Assessment Program: Literacy and

Numeracy (NAPLAN) is a standardised nation-wide exam thought up by the Australian

Federal Government. It is clear through research that this exam is ineffective in providing

effective support for those students who have language backgrounds other than English,

publishing results which are a misrepresentation of the reality of these students. These

misrepresentations are discovered and analysed in ‘Language Background Other Than

English’: a problem NAPLAN test category for Australian students of refugee background’ by

Susan Creagh (2013). Creagh discovers that a “student who is in year 9 will be assumed to

have experienced the knowledge contained in those statements of learning described for

year 3, year 5 and year 7. In short, there is an expectation of English as mother tongue and

of continuity of schooling in the Australian context. No recognition or acknowledgement is

given for those students who sit outside or do not satisfy these criteria. The Statements of

Learning which underpin the NAPLAN test do not describe ‘normality’ for all learners and

especially not for ESL learners.” If a nationwide standardised test cannot describe

normality, then those students belonging to various ethnic groups must not belong to

society, according to functionalism. This judgment is supported by the inconsistency of the

functionalist viewpoint when compared to the access and equity policies outlining ethnic

acceptance according to the Australian Government, despite the Governments effective

display of a functionalist viewpoint by the administration of the exam itself.

In conclusion, a teacher’s basis of social theory is preferably swayed to critical theory over a

functionalist approach in order to best remain consistent with the guidelines listed in the

NSW Aboriginal Education policy, the Anti-Racism policy and the Multicultural Education

Policy. This will ensure a more individualised approach to education, catering to the needs

of all students, effectively addressing the issue of negative outlooks on ethnicity, as it

suggests an individualised approach to learning, focusing on the strengths/needs of

students, and will be far more effective then a functionalist viewpoint in providing students

with equal “life chances”.

Reference List:
Access and equity | Policy library. (2016). Education.nsw.gov.au. Retrieved 20 March 2017,
from https://education.nsw.gov.au/policy-library/policy-groups/access-and-equity?
refid=285789

Aliakbari, M., & Faraji, E. (2011). Basic Principles of Critical Pedagogy. 77 2011 2Nd
International Conference On Humanities, Historical And Social Sciences, 17(1), 77-85.

Anthias, F. (1998). Evaluating ’diaspora’: beyond ethnicity. (32nd ed., pp. 557-580). UK:
British Sociological Association Publication Ltd.

Blackedge, D. (1985). Sociological interpretations of education (1st ed.). London: Taylor &
Francis.

Creagh, S. (2013). ‘Language Background Other Than English’: a problem NAPLaN test
category for Australian students of refugee background. Race Ethnicity And
Education, 19(2), 252-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.843521

Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (1st ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.]: Sage Publ.

Ferfolja, T., Jones-Diaz, C., & Ullman, J. (2015). Understanding Sociological Theory for
Educational Practices (1st ed.). West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.

Home - The Australian Curriculum. (2017). Australiancurriculum.edu.au. Retrieved 20 March

2017, from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/

Karabel, J., & Halsey, A. (1978). Power and Ideology in Education (57th ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

King, R. (1983). The Sociology of School Organization. London and New York: The Chaucer
Press.

Majoribank, K. (1985). Sociology of Education. In T. H. T. M. Postleithwaits (Ed.), The

International Encylopedia of Education, Research and Studies (pp. 4680-4700). Oxford:
Pergamon.
Meighan, R. (1981). A Sociology of Educating. London. New York. Sydney. Toronto: Holt,
Reinehart and Wiston.

Sever, M. (2012). A Critical Look at the Theories of Sociology of Education. The

International Journal Of Human Sciences, 9(1), 650-671.

Vertovec, S., & Cohen, R. (1999). Migration, Diasporas and Transnationalism (1st ed.).
Aldershot: Edward Elgar.