Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Competition in Education
Transcript of Competition in Education
Rupert Higham, 6th Feb 2017
Types of competition
mirror of society
Education as a
Education as the basis
for democratic values
Beyond the self/society
Teachers use competition as a way to motivate students because it's intrinsically enjoyable - e.g. putting students into teams in a quiz
Esteem / Rank
Children are also motivated to earn or demonstrate their superior status with regard to activities they value, e.g.
winning prizes for academic performance
being (seen to be) top of the class
proving your ability in a sport or club
Causing the most disruption / hurt
Being the most desirable / cool
Material goods (shoes, jewellery, sports kit)
Competition for limited resources
Some things are limited or rationed in a way that promotes competition, such as:
Places on on A-level courses
Positions in top sets
Positions in school sporting teams
We can define these as 'positional goods' as having them - or not having them - situates you within a hierarchy of value
Competition / cooperation
In counter to the claim that competition is inherently antagonistic and damaging, Prvulovich argues that cooperation and competition work together in all societies. All competitive games have rules, for example, to which both sides adhere; in society also, rules goven competition in the marketplace. We thus cannot separate competition in order to condemn it.
'High minimum baseline'
White (1994) Argues that there is no moral case for egalitarianism (equality of outcomes), but only for education providing a 'high social minimum' of education that will allow individuals to flourish.
"Minimally, one needs adequate food, shelter,
clothing and good health. More than these, I would claim-and these are needs in our kind
of culture, not necessarily human needs in general-one needs a decent education, a
reasonable income, enjoyable work, friends and lovers, social recognition, and sustaining
virtues like confidence and practical wisdom."
(White 1994, p.175)
Limiting the marketplace
Evidence from sociology
Beauvais, C and Higham, R (2016) A reappraisal of children’s ‘potential’. Studies in Philosophy of Education. 35:6, 573-587
Jonathan, R (1997) Illusory Freedom: Liberalism, Education and the Market, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 31:1
Pruvolovich, R (1982) In Defence of Competition, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 16:1
Sandel, M. J. (2012). What money can’t buy: the moral limits of markets. London: Macmillan.
White, J (1994) The Dishwasher's Child: education and the end of egalitarianism, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28:2
Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K (2010) The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, London: Penguin
Argument from biology:
Whatever gifts and abilities, talents and potentials we have - they are ours. They make us what we are and there is nothing immoral in utilising these gifts, and even benefitting from them, be it physical strength, intelligence, courage, academic ability, athletic prowess or whatever. These differences are not so much social or environmental; they are genetic facts and as such irrefutable by any philosophical, political or ideological arguments.
(Prvulovich, 1982, p.86)
'Natural facts' aren't social facts. Humans build societies around moral codes that supercede biological factors
How we use our 'natural advantages' is also a choice. Need we use our running speed to beat others in races, or our maths ability to win competitions?
This largely rules out education as a significant factor in changing 'the field'
The idea of 'intelligence', for example, as a natural fact is highly questionable
Students can also challenge themselves to beat their best previous work - competition against oneself.
Sport and games are seen as another arena where competition is intrinsically 'healthy' - an extension of the play of early childhood as long as not taken to excess.
Fun / intrinsic motivation
Internal / external friendly competitions (sport / arts)
Agreed focus on collective improvement of targets
Local rivalry (friendly?)
Esteem / Rank
League tables: including grades, university entry, 'value added' and others
Ofsted rating (esp. in relation to local 'competitiors'
Intake / catchment (getting the 'best' students)
Competition between teachers for pay / advancement
Competition for limited resources
Threat of change of management / closure
Changes of school status (academy, training school)
Private school considerations (prices, results, facilities, esteem)
Fun / motivation
National / international friendly competitions (sport / arts / commerce)
Agreed focus on collective improvement of targets (nationally / internationally)
National rivalry (friendly?)
Esteem / Rank
Location of home / work
Friends / partners
Honours and status
International indices of wealth, health, achievement
International prizes (sport, arts, culture)
Competition for limited resources
High value jobs
The 'international marketplace'
Financial treaties / trade agreements
Control of land and resources
Fun / motivation
Argument from society:
Competition is endemic in the structure of society, and schools must acknowledge and prepare students for this
...if a society of a kind which we are urged to create thrives on competition, surely there can be nothing very wrong with our schools (and other walks of life) if the competitive spirit is encouraged in them, rather than ridiculed and considered objectionable as a social ideal. (Prvulovich, 1982, p.80)
However regrettable, the fact is that the necessary means, which make it possible to become educated, are often inadequate or severely restricted. Consequently, some distributive devices are needed to decide on the best and most equitable distribution possible. All this necessitates some means of assessment and selection... Professor Dearden observed that “competition as a distributive device can be both the fairest”, because such competition is related to one’s abilities and merits, and “the most efficient”, because it chooses those most likely to benefit from it. (Prvulovich, 1982, p.81)
What is the definition of 'becoming educated' here for which resources are in short supply?
Might this argument implictly condone a poor education for many?
What are the skills or abilities that are being competitively assessed in this argument?
This argument makes an appeal to fairness. In what sense is competition between schools fair to the students who 'lose out'?
The argument that society thrives because of competition remains contentious. Does it imply a Darwinian justification that doesn't necessarily apply to the social realm?
Is school the appropriate time to expose students to competition? Are they ready?
To what extent is school supposed to be a mirror of society? A preparation for a known future, or for a the possibility of different societies with different possibilities?
The need for standards:
We need doctors, lawyers, engineers etc to be of high quality to support a civilised society; competition for and within these professions raises and maintains their standards
Where's the logical and evidential link between A-level subject performance and suitability for professions?
There may be a conflation between standards within subject disciplines, within educational practice as a whole, assessed educational outcomes, and standards in professions and public life. The relationship between these is complex! In which ones is competition an important element?
The danger of 'levelling down':
Removing competition in education would lead to levelling down of the best performers to the level of the majority (Prvulovich, 1981, p.81)
This may be motivated by the desire of egalitarians to penalise the privileged rather than to benefit the less privileged (White 1994, p.178)
This is a strong argument based on the intrinsic motivational attributes of competition in education and elsewhere - but is this just a cultural habit rather than a universal truth? Might more cooperative approaches also succeed?
Might we not also counter White by questioning what is the inherent value of the elite performance of the privileged? Are they really benefitting society through their success in competition?
Personal achievement need not be comparative, such as in athletic competition. By using this metaphor for achievement, achievement is aligned with self-interest.
Selfishness is also equated with advancement for onself and one's family, and thus argued not to be morally wrong. What if your promotion of your own interests actively disadvantages others?
There is tremendous satisfaction in winning trophies and praise. There is pain in it, but also kudos and a sense of achievement, and this makes it desirable and worthwhile. Recent Olympic winners confirmed this amply...
It may well be selfish to provide for one’s family, to give one’s children the best education possible, to improve one’s qualifications, to get a better and more congenial job and so on, but to do this, though at times it may be unpleasant and even very difficult, is not morally wrong. (Prvulovich, 1982, p.80)
Competition for fun is harmless in school and wider society, but this need not be analogous with the 'marketplace' which governs material winners and losers.
Isn't this just an argument for the status quo? Just because competition is a structural feature of society now, it doesn't imply that it need be.
Might education be seen instead as a mechanism to promote cooperation over competition to limit its destructive effects?
White's argument is for more than a minimum 'safety net', but education of sufficient quality and quantity to enable 'autonomous flourishing (ibid., p.179)
Beyond this, he argues, there is no case for greater equality. Redistribution of wealth as a means to suport a high minimum baseline could be justified - but if it went further, what would it achieve, and how could one justify it?
Egalitarianism should be jettisoned, too, in education. It gets in the way of what educators should be doing - to help to provide the necessary educational conditions of autonomous well-being (just as health-care workers help to provide the medical conditions, or farmers and milkmen, the nutritional). To jettison egalitarianism is not to jettison the principle of ‘equal’ (i.e. universal) respect or consideration. As a central value in our whole ethical system, it will also play a key role in education. (White 1994, p.177)
Both White's and Prvulovich's positions are based on the notion of 'rational autonomy', derived originally from Kant.
This implies that there is a baseline for becoming rational and capable that education must help people to reach.
Once they reach this, people can and should act as free agents in the world.
What is the role of society in this model?
A rule-maker to govern competition
The provider of an education system that at least gives people a chance to compete
Is there really such a baseline?
How could you tell that someone had reached it and 'has a chance'?
Does meeting that baseline enable one to compete with the privileged on equal terms?
Still a marketplace?
... The climate of public debate today tends to represent and treat education on the one hand as a private consumer good, best produced and distributed by the mechanism of free market exchange... and on the other hand as the public site for the production of those skills thought exchangeable to advantage in the global market." (Jonathan 1997, p.2)
Jonathan's argument implies that:
The 'minimum baseline' inevitably views education as a precursor to engagement with the status quo of the competitive market
Focusing on individuality, in the form of rational autonomy, as the aim of education promotes this
by separating us from each other by default
Education becomes property of the individual - it becomes a 'transferrable good' for use elsewhere
Jonathan further argues:
Society is built on cultural practices and a social framework 'for enduring relationships, a political community of trustworthy institutions and conventions'
These require education to prepare students with the values to promote and uphold these valuable practices - which are held to be morally good
The marketplace - which is amoral and allows consumers to exercise their free choice of preferences, relies on these values in turn
The marketplace cannot be a model for education
Unique role of education
Education is the one social practice which both reflects and produces social circumstance and values. Moreover, it is the one 'public service' whose nature and purpose... is inevitably altered by changed mechanisms for its distribution and control. And in turn, with changes in the nature and purpose of education, we create changed parameters for the further evolution of value and circumstance. (Jonathan 1997, p.3)
Is this really not the case of the arts, justice system and other social practices?
If not, would it weaken the argument?
Which features of 'distribution and control' within UK schooling most shape young people's values?
Furthermore, the high value placed on 'elite performance' overlooks the fact that personal excellence requires cultural and material support.
Mozart would not have flourished without a society willing and able to nurture and value his talent (Jonathan 1997, p.132).
Couldn't this be taken as a justification for the creation of cultural elites that generate and value excellence?
Wouldn't it be enough that all have a chance to enter these?
Jonathan's argument implies that the 'high minimum baseline' is not adequate because:
The minimal standard of 'rational autonomy' does not allow for the development of society
It also implies that society is a marketplace, and thus that educational outputs become 'positional goods'
In such a system, those achieving the minimum baseline will still be at a disadvantage comapred to the privileged. There's no level playing field.
'The Spirit Level: Why equality is better for everyone' (Wilkinson and Pickett, 2009) argues that:
There is compelling statisitical evidence from developed countries that income inequality is strongly linked to poor outcomes in health, happiness, crime, trust and other areas
This is in societies where minimum standards for healthy living are largely or completely met by all
This is because clear inequality leads to diminished self-esteem which breeds destructive behaviours
The best off in unequal countries also suffer as a result
Do assess this case for yourself before accepting it. Read the reviews and critiques!
If this were broadly true, how would it change the moral case for competition in education and society?
Competition is often presented as inherently valuable because it gets people to strive hard in the face of challenge. But need this be against others?
In a time of environmental degradation and social unrest, there are no shortage of external challenges against which young people might collectively pit themselves, develop, take pride and achieve success.
Arendt and Biesta argue that we only 'come into the world' through engaging with others. We are not educated in parallel, but together; who we become cannot be undrestood in isolation from others.
This is similar to a dialogic position: "you are, therefore I am".
Whre are the boundaries between healthy and unhealthy competition? Might it be around a form of consensual, playful activity? Or where the stakes of failure are limited? If not, how is it different from warfare?
If we disposed of the need for positional goods in education, what would we focus on instead? The skills and dispositions of productive cooperation?
How might we realise forms of education where preparation for competition for limited resources was not a determining factor?
Do the language and metaphors we use to talk about and understand childhood change how we shape children?
Particularly, what does the metaphor of 'investing in children' imply for our assumptions of their future 'value'?
Does competition in education reflect what Michael Sandel (2012) calls 'a market economy' - or a 'market society'?
...the rising generation is thus seen as the raw material for the future prosperity of society. Ideologically, Prout and James remind us (1997), ... the perception of childhood as ‘full of potential’... resonates with a capitalist understanding of time, education, and individuality. Educating children is here viewed as an investment, whose returns may be alluringly large; the degree to which it will fructify depending on the quality both of the primary material, and of the educational input. Childhood itself is thus conceptualised as a latent state holding the promise of future efficacy in its developed adult form.
Beauvais and Higham, 2016
If we wish to assert that all children should be supported to develop their potential, then this must happen
with and against
others, rather than
them. It requires developing dispositions for ethical, critical and cooperative engagement using influence rather than power. It requires also that we see educational contexts as sites for intersubjective engagement, rather than competitive sites of assertion of the primacy of each individual’s destiny without regard to those of others. Finally, it looks to embrace the difficulty of this process, rather than circumscribe or deny it, as intrinsically valuable and educative.
Beauvais and Higham, 2016