Modelling Capabilities Approach to Education – Journal of Educational Research and Theory – Vol 2

Modelling a Capabilities Approach to Education

Dr. Richard Bustin, Director of Pedagogy, Innovation and Staff Development and Head of Geography at Lancing College, UK

Abstract: A Capabilities Approach to education focuses on the ways that the powerful knowledge of school subjects can enable students to develop real freedoms to ‘be’ and to ‘do’ in life.  This paper explores how powerful knowledge might be expressed across a range of subjects, and what educational capabilities might derive from these, such as students making sense of themselves and the world to develop critical thinking and agency. This paper summarises ideas published in Bustin (2024) and goes on to offer an illustrative model of a capabilities approach to education.

Keywords: Powerful knowledge, capabilities approach, curriculum, subject disciplines.

Introduction

What teachers choose to teach in schools is subject to much debate, with opposing voices proposing varying models of curriculum. The traditional position is one that sees a rigorous subject based curriculum, where the role of the teacher is to introduce students to the best of human thought in what could be described as the ‘canon’ of knowledge (e.g. the work of E.D. Hirsch 1988). The more progressive approach to curriculum is more child centred, built around a range of broad competencies like ‘resilience,’ and ideas like ‘learning to learn’ and subject boundaries are much more fluid as cross subject project work dominates (e.g. Reiss and White 2013, Claxton 2018).

Yet the extreme ends of both of these positions could be considered problematic. A traditional approach stuck in rigid subject boundaries seems to leave little room for exploring messy, real world phenomena. Here, factual recall is prioritised over skill and value development and there is the vexed question about whose knowledge is being taught in a world of white male hegemony; a question particularly pertinent for literature such as the choice of texts to teach in humanities subjects (e.g. Milner 2020). A progressive curriculum means young people might miss out on some of the most significant discoveries in science or most impactful pieces of art.

The ways in which young people access information is changing, adding an additional challenge for teachers. An overreliance on technology to look up information when needed can outsource independent thinking. Research from Ofcom (2022) identified that the top three sources of news for young people are You Tube, TikTok and Instagram. In an era of ‘fake news’ and the shaming of expertise that does not fit a particular political agenda and given the rapid advances in information technologies such as AI, discussions around what a contemporary curriculum should aim to achieve have never been more significant.

One approach to thinking about a curriculum that both moves beyond traditional and progressive approaches comes from the discourse of the ‘capabilities approach’ applied to curriculum thinking.

The Capabilities Approach

The capabilities approach derives from the field of welfare economics, earning its key creator, Amaryta Sen, a Nobel prize in 1998. Rather than judging the success of a country based on its economic output- the richer the country the better it is- Sen (1980) argues that we should instead look at the freedoms the people in the country have to live life in the ways they choose.  These ‘capabilities’ allow people to ‘do’ and to ‘be’ and to live as autonomous free citizens. Amartya Sen never specified a list of what capabilities should be, arguing that it is up to each country to decide upon what capabilities are valued. Other writers have produced lists of ‘universal’ capabilities, such as Martha Nussbaum (2000); her list includes capabilities such as life, bodily health, and practical reason. The capabilities approach was instrumental in the creation of the Human Development Index, now a key measure of development adopted by the United Nations.

A Capabilities Approach to curriculum

When applied to education thinking, a capabilities approach argues that, rather than judging the success of an education based on the exam pass rate or the number of top grades achieved – the higher the better – one should instead look at how the education a young person has received has given them real freedoms to live life in the way they choose (e.g. Walker and Unterhalter, 2007). This is not an approach that looks at what grades a student has achieved, important those these are, but how their education has taken them beyond their everyday experience and enabled them to see themselves and the world in new ways.

To be of practical use in a curriculum, capabilities need to be expressed in some way. Several writers have attempted to list what educational capabilities might include, and figure 1 shows those from educationalists Lorella Terzi (2005) and Melanie Walker (2006).

 

Terzi (2005) Literacy: Being able to read and to write, to use language and discursive reasoning functionings. Numeracy: Being able to count, to measure, to solve mathematical questions and to use logical reasoning functionings. Sociality and participation: Being able to establish positive relationships with others and to participate without shame. Learning dispositions: Being able to concentrate, to pursue interests, to accomplish tasks, to enquire. Physical activities: Being able to exercise and being able to engage in sports activities. Science and technology: Being able to understand natural phenomena, being knowledgeable on technology and being able to use technological tools. Practical reason: Being able to relate means and ends and being able to critically reflect on one’s and others’ actions.

Walker (2006) Practical reason: Being able to make well-reasoned choices. Emotional resilience: Able to navigate study, work and life. Knowledge and imagination: Being able to gain knowledge of a chosen subject—disciplinary and/ or professional—its form of academic enquiry and standards. Being able to use critical thinking and imagination to comprehend the perspectives of multiple others and to form impartial judgements. Learning dispositions: Being able to have curiosity and a desire for learning. Social relations and social networks: Being able to participate in a group for learning, working with others to solve problems and tasks. Respect, dignity and recognition: Being able to have respect for oneself and for and from others. Emotional integrity and emotions: Not being subject to anxiety or fear which diminishes learning. Bodily integrity: Safety and freedom from all forms of physical and verbal harassment.

 

Figure 1: Expressions of educational capabilities from Terzi (2005) and Walker (2006)

These two lists are vastly different from each other yet seem to encompass elements of both traditional and progressive curricular visions. Terzi’s (2005) list was created for students with special educational needs so as such can be pitched as a minimal entitlement to education- all students should leave school with basic proficiency in literacy and numeracy, for example. Walker’s (2006) list was created for students in Higher Education.

Given their child-centred nature, a direct translation of most of these ideals in a curriculum would result in a very progressive view of education. A few education capabilities scholars have argued that subject knowledge should be at the heart of any educational capabilities list (e.g. Young and Lambert 2014). This is not a traditionalist position which sees subject knowledge as an inert list of facts to be learnt but one which seeks to identify what empowerment might come from thinking with and through school subjects. This way of thinking renders knowledge ‘powerful’, a term from educational sociologist Michael Young (2008).

Michael Young was a school chemistry teacher before becoming an influential figure in educational discourse. He initially argued that, as all knowledge is a human construct, it can never be free from the positionality of those who claim it, and as such, knowledge is ‘of the powerful’ (1971). Yet he later redefined his position, arguing that we need to ‘bring knowledge back in’ (2008) to curriculum debates and that some knowledge claims can be said to be more powerful than others. Subjects are the key to that distinction, and ‘powerful knowledge’ attempts to articulate the unique knowledge contribution of a particular subject discipline. It represents the best knowledge available in that discipline at that time, but in a way that is always tentative as new knowledge is created which changes and displaces previous thought.

Powerful knowledge derives from a ‘social realist epistemology’. Epistemology describes the philosophical basis for exploring the nature of knowledge; it is ‘social’ in that it identifies the role people pay in deciding upon and creating knowledge, and ‘realist’ in the sense that not all claims to truth are equal. For Michael Young and his colleague Johan Muller (2010), this type of curriculum thinking is what they identify as a ‘Future 3’ (F3) approach, a response to the fact driven traditional ‘Future 1’ curriculum and the skills driven ‘Future 2’ curriculum. The F3 curriculum respects the disciplined thought processes within subjects – the way artists create meaning is different to the ways scientists think, and these disciplined thought processes give knowledge claims a greater ‘power’ to truth than random blog posts or musings.

If powerful knowledge is to be at the heart of an F3 capabilities curriculum, then identifying and articulating what powerful knowledge is in each school subject is the next step. A series of curriculum development projects from the late 2000s explored what the powerful knowledge of school geography might look like and how the subject can contribute to capability set of young people (e.g. Solem et al 2013). Figure 2 models these ‘GeoCapabilities’.

 

Figure 2: A model of GeoCapabilities (based on Solem et al 2013, from Bustin 2024)

In this model, the expression of the powerful knowledge of school geography is from the work of David Lambert and John Morgan (2010), both former teachers, teacher educators, and now professors of geography education. The capabilities that these enable have been slightly rephrased from the list of broad human capabilities from Martha Nussbaum (2000). Developing citizenship, sustainability, and being productive and creative in global economy and culture relies on developing a deep understanding of geography.

My own research, published more fully in ‘What are we Teaching? Powerful knowledge and a capabilities curriculum’ (2024), took these discussions to other subjects in the curriculum. In this research, 200 teachers across three schools were asked ‘what makes your subject a powerful knowledge for young people?’ They discussed the answer in their subject teams. The research showed that despite teaching the same subject, teachers in different schools often articulated the value of their subject in different ways, broadly reflecting both traditional and progressive approaches as well as a range of different ideological perspectives (as identified by Rawling 2000).

To bring some coherence to their responses I used ‘deductive coding’ to identify similar words, phrases and themes for each subject. I then applied the same coding to the existing literature about knowledge skills and values in those subjects. Based on this I was able to posit the following tentative expressions of powerful knowledge of different subjects (Bustin 2024, figure 3).

Subjects	Powerful knowledge could be expressed as:
Mathematics	Knowledge of the rules of mathematics to solve numeracy problems. This includes an increasing complexity from addition, through algebra to statistics. Being able to identify solutions to mathematical problems and finding alternative solutions to the same problem. Identifying problems and ways to express them mathematically. This has often been called ‘thinking mathematically’. Knowledge of data manipulation: presentation, claims to representativeness, relative bias and reliability. Knowledge of mathematical problems of the past and how they have been solved in the real world. Knowledge of how mathematics can aid understanding in other data-reliant subjects, especially the sciences.
English Literature	Knowledge of the greatest works of literature written in the English language. This includes an understanding of novels, plays, the impact that they have had in the past and continue to have in the present. The choice of this ‘canon’ of works is constantly changing and teachers are key to deciding what is taught. Knowledge of the processes of eliciting meaning from a variety of texts. This includes the intentions of the writer as well as the ways in which the reader is responding to and making meaning from those words. Knowledge of the socio-cultural and political situations in which texts are initially created and how this may influence interpretation. This includes links to contemporary texts written in the same genre. Knowledge of how the meaning created through writing can assist in other subjects in the curriculum, including languages and humanities.
Science	A rigorous and replicable methodology following strict rules of knowledge production. Experiments allow scientists to replace previous theories with new ones as science advances. Students should have opportunities to design and carry out their own controlled experiments, and to present and analyse the results. The substantive knowledge of science comes from the different specialisms: physics covers matter, laws, astronomy; chemistry covers processes and properties; biology focuses on the living world. Students should also be able to critique the scientific knowledge claims of others and discern science fact from science fiction.
History	Deep, descriptive chronological knowledge of the past. This includes a knowledge of dates, locations, and people and their behaviours (individual, group and mass). Analysis of sources of historical data (such as contemporary narratives, physical evidence, architectural styles, written records, oral histories) to evidence and explain the past. Where the evidence allows this necessarily should be from a range of different perspectives to build up a holistic picture of the past (developing the skills of historiography or ‘thinking historically’). The propensity to place historical events into a broader framework of time, enabling our understanding of the causes and impacts of decisions that people have taken in the past.
Religious Studies	Descriptive knowledge of world religions, and faith traditions including prevalence, significant cultures and traditions and the impact on people (such as providing a manual for ‘believers’, as well developing an understanding of impacts on cultures, art, science, faith practices) around the world and over time. Knowledge of philosophical, spiritual and ethical debates, including evidencing, construction of arguments and arriving at one’s own conclusions whilst understanding alternatives.
Creative Arts	Knowledge of the socio-cultural and political settings in which art is created and how this has influenced the nature of the art, and how the art itself has influenced the culture around it. This should be exemplified by exposure to great works of art from the past and present from around the world. Knowledge of how art can evoke and provoke a reaction from those who create it and how that creates meaning with those who interact with it through embodied knowledge. In art this is through the careful use of colour, texture, tone; in drama through ideas like style and communication; in music through key, melody; and in DT through functionality and aesthetics. Knowledge of how to create art in different styles and genres. The procedural knowledge here is followed by deliberate practice to develop skill over extended periods of time. Knowledge of art across time and space. This would include traditional art, music and drama from different cultures around the world and how these interact to create new hybrid forms.
Languages	Deep analytical knowledge of the structure and morphology of language. This includes the vast and ever-changing substantive and procedural knowledge of vocabulary, the rules of grammar, and the ability to translate passages of text into and from other languages to determine meaning. For modern languages, the knowledge required to communicate meaning with other people through a different language. This requires attention not just to the written form of the language but to aural pronunciation and deep listening. An appreciation of the links between language and the places where that language is spoken (or was spoken historically). This includes geography, politics and culture, which can include art, music, cuisine and fashion. For classical languages this is about civilisations long gone such as Ancient Greece and for modern languages it is about countries and, for many European powers, their former colonies and international territories which still speak the language.
Physical Education	Knowledge of the rules of various sports. This includes the laws of the games, as well as the physical techniques needed to play them effectively. Embodied knowledge expresses the way in which the procedural knowledge of a particular sport becomes naturalised in players. Knowledge of physical literacy, and how participation in sport can lead to a healthy lifestyle. This includes choices a student can make over diet and exercise, the links between these and the impacts on health. Knowledge of the self through the development of sportsmanship and teamwork. This includes quick thinking, rapid decision making and reacting to evolving situations.

Figure 3: Expressions of the powerful knowledge of different school subjects (from Bustin 2024).

These expressions of powerful knowledge are tentative and now need further discussion and reworking from subject specialists. This could form part of teacher professional development in schools.

Exploring capabilities

The ideas from figure 3 were coded to identify a series of educational ‘capabilities’ (Bustin 2024). These are not competencies that would characterise a Future 2 approach to thinking but can only be developed through the rigorous study of school subjects. These include:

• Capabilities associated with students making sense of themselves and the world.
• Capabilities associated with students mediating different claims to truth.
• Capabilities associated with students critical thinking.
• Capabilities associated with students making choices about how to live.
• Capabilities associated with students developing agency (Bustin 2024)

These can be modelled as in figure 4. Each school subject can contribute in a meaningful way to these educational capabilities whilst retaining their unique knowledge, skills and values contribution to an educated person. Effective teaching and learning from a subject specialist, framed as ‘powerful pedagogies’ (e.g. Roberts 2013) is key to linking the curriculum to capabilities.

Figure 4: A Model of the capabilities approach to education.

Each capability can be developed through rigorous subject knowledge as follows:

• Capabilities associated with students finding new ways to make sense of themselves and the world.

This is the broadest of the capabilities and each subject develops this in different ways. In the humanities subjects of geography, history and religious education, as well as literature (of all languages) students are directly studying the nature of what it means to be human. The perspectives of each of the humanities differs- geography focuses on the relationships between people and place, history between people and the past and religious education focuses on beliefs. Physical education develops this capability through students participating in sport and exercise, understanding and improving on the limits of their own physicality. Knowledge takes young people beyond their everyday experience.

In science, knowledge about real world phenomena is about the seeking of objective truths through rigorous replicable methodologies. Each science subject differs in its object of study. In creative arts, knowledge is a co-creation between the artist and the person consuming the art. This allows a young person seeing art for the first time to explore their own reaction to it as much as exploring the intentions of the artist, if that is even something available or desirable to know. This is where discussions around powerful knowledge in the way that Young (2008) describes can be problematic, and the concept has been critiqued in many ways (e.g. White 2018, 2019). If knowledge creation is constructivist between creator and observer then the idea of ‘better’ knowledge, or indeed the top-down dominance of an academic discipline being a gatekeeper to truth becomes problematic- modern foreign languages evolve through conversations between people in other countries rather than through an active academic discourse (e.g. Freeman and Johnson 1998). It is in part why some of the discussions around the significance of subject knowledge in an F3 curriculum use the idea of knowledge that is ‘empowering’ rather than simply ‘powerful’ (Bustin 2024).

• Capabilities associated with students mediating different claims to truth.

This capability is developed by focusing on whose knowledge, skills and values are being taught and perhaps more interestingly, whose voices are lost in a particular discourse. If powerful knowledge is at the heart of a Future 3 school curriculum then so too is the disciplinary knowledge of each subject. This is an understanding of how each subject ‘works’, what it means to think mathematically, or to think scientifically. In a rush to cover content and skills this can be something missed, yet it is key if students are able to discern fact from fiction. This will enable students to question the validity of claims put to them, to ask for evidence, and to gain the ability to judge for themselves. In science this is about knowing the scientific method, and understanding why certain experiments have been conducted, and what is still unknown and untested. In mathematics the idea of ‘proof’ can be helpful for students when solving equations and seeking alternative methods to approach the same problem (e.g. Crisan 2021). In literature and humanities, it is about identifying whose truth is being presented and why, and whose is not. In a world where students are seeking news from social media, and increasingly AI, this capability helps students to understand the limitations of what is being presented to them.

• Capabilities associated with students critical thinking.

Critical thinking can emerge from a powerful knowledge led curriculum. It is the challenging thought process that students engage in. It goes beyond just remembering facts or applying a skill. It involves extrapolation of understanding, applying thinking learnt in one context to another unfamiliar context. Whilst it is possible to identify some key critical thinking ideas that apply to all subjects, such as identifying whose knowledge is being presented, critical thinking looks different in different subjects.

Critical thinking in creative arts, for example, is about spotting detail and nuance in a piece of art that gives a clue to the artists possible intention which in turn can then enable the piece to be re-interpreted in some way to those consuming it. In languages, a student may have some basic fluidity in one language before being presented with a sentence in another similar language. The student can apply their thinking about grammar to try to decode the sentence structure, identify the verb and subject and then guess at some of the words. The process of trying out different words, reworking, changing them around is a form of critical thinking that can then enable the student to make sense of the new language. An online AI driven translation tool may well be able to short cut the process to get to the translation, but critical thinking is not about the outcome but the thought process to get there.

• Capabilities associated with students making choices about how to live.

Through their education a young person is able to make positive choices about their lifestyle. In physical education students will not only learn how to play various sports, but the advantages that come from an active lifestyle. This lesson will be reinforced in biology lessons, where an understanding about nutrition, diet and fitness can lead young people to make choices about how to spend their recreation time. They would also learn about the dangers of drugs and fast food. Students should not be told exactly how to live their lives but can be given the knowledge, skills and values to make the right choice for themselves.

This capability is also concerned with career choices of young people. Through their education students will be exposed to a range of professionals working in different careers- in geography they could encounter the work of town planners, or flood managers, and this can inspire them to make choices to pursue those careers. Capabilities themselves won’t guarantee a student a job; students need to gain the measurable outputs of examination grades and the level at which these are achieved will help students to make career choices. Capabilities can provide a language with which to make sense of the choices available.

• Capabilities associated with agency

This capability is an extension of the last, it is about young people taking responsibility for themselves and their decision making. It is about young people becoming active citizens, engaging in democratic processes and understanding the implications of their wider decision making. Its development will avoid falling into the trap of students believing everything they read but will instead encourage studies to be autonomous free thinkers. With agency, students will be able to shape the world around them through consumption choices, and choices about what to say, think and do. With agency, students will, in time, be able to take part in local and national elections shaping societies with a deep understanding of what they are voting for and why that matters to them.

In geography, students learn about global and local issues such as climate change, overpopulation, pollution, globalisation and how their actions can shape and mould sustainable futures. In history students learn about the implications of decisions taken by people in the past. Dramatic pieces of art can provoke a reaction in students that might spur them on to think in a particular way.

Yet any attempt to teach students what to think does not develop their agency. The inculcation of a set of values is a form of ‘capability deprivation’ (a term which derives from Sen 1999). This means teachers have to think carefully about how they present information to young people. Subject specialist teachers are key to this process; skilled religious studies teachers, for example, are able to elicit a range of viewpoints from students without indoctrination. To develop agency, students need to take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and this comes through a rigorous understanding of a range of subjects.

Conclusion

The curriculum vision outlined here is broad and ambitious. By placing powerful knowledge at the heart of an F3 curriculum resists the temptation to build a curriculum around a set of vacuous ideas like ‘learning to learn’, or ‘building resilience’ but instead trusts that these outcomes will emerge from a rigorous, scholarly curriculum. To achieve it firstly relies on teachers having a deep understanding of the unique educational benefit of their subject and using this to drive the curriculum. It also relies on having subject specialists in front of every class. A sports teacher might well be able to teach some history by being a couple of pages ahead in the textbook, but to really ground the young people in the disciplined thought processes that come from thinking historically would require a much deeper engagement with the subject. Embracing a capabilities curriculum also loosens our obsession with exam grades, instead focusing on the more intangible aspects of education.

Teachers and school leaders can use the ideas here to start discussions in their own schools about what matters in education, and the role that subject knowledge, skills and values can really play in a contemporary curriculum.

 

References

Bustin, R. (2024). What are we Teaching? Powerful knowledge and a capabilities curriculum Carmarthen: Crown House.

Claxton, G. (2018). The Learning Power Approach: Teaching Learners to Teach Themselves.  Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing.

Crisan, C. (2021). Mathematics. In A. Sehgal Cuthbert and A. Standish (eds), What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, Subjects and the Pursuit of Truth, 2nd edn. London: UCL Press, pp. 234–250.

Freeman, D. and Johnson, K. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3): 397–417.

Hirsch, E. D. (1988). Cultural Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know. New York: Random House.

Lambert, D. and Morgan, J. (2010). Teaching Geography 11–18: A Conceptual Approach. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Ofcom (2022). Instagram, TikTok and YouTube teenagers’  top three news sources (21 July). Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/news-centre/2022/instagram,-tiktok-andyoutubeteenagers-top-three-news-sources.

Milner, C. (2020). Classroom strategies for tackling the whiteness of geography. Teaching Geography, 45(3): 105–107.

Rawling, E. (2000). Ideology, politics and curriculum change: reflections on school geography 2000. Geography, 85(3), 209–220.

Reiss, M. and White, J. (2013). An Aims-Based Curriculum: The Significance of Human Flourishing for Schools. London: IOE Press.

Roberts, M. (2013). Geography through Enquiry: Approaches to Teaching and Learning in the Secondary School. Sheffield: Geographical Association.

Sen, A. (1980). Equality of What? The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Delivered at Stanford University, 22 May 1979. Available at: https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_resources/documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf.

Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Solem, M., Lambert, D. and Tani, S. (2013). GeoCapabilities: toward an international framework for researching the purposes and values of geography education. Review of International Geographical Education, 3(3):214–229. Available at: https://rigeo.org/menu-script/index.php/rigeo/article/view/204/190.

Terzi, L. (2005). Equality, Capability and Justice in Education: Towards a Principled Framework for a just Distribution of Educational Resources to Disabled Learners. Paper prepared for the 5th International Conference on the Capability Approach: Knowledge and Public Action. Paris, 11–14 September 2005. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lorella_Terzi/publication/253934371_Equality_Capability_and_Justice_in_Education_Towards_a_Principled_Framework_for_a_Just_Distribution_of_Educational_Resources_to_Disabled_Learners/links/0deec5304cc288b1cd000000.pdf.

Walker, M. (2006). Higher Education Pedagogies: A Capabilities Approach. The Society for Research into Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press and McGraw-Hill.

Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. (eds) (2007). Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

White, J. (2018). The weakness of ‘powerful knowledge’. London Review of Education, 16(2): 325–335.

White, J. (2019). The end of powerful knowledge? London Review of Education, 17(3): 429–438.

Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and Control: New Directions for the Sociology of Education. London: Collier-Macmillan.

Young, M. (2008). Bringing Knowledge Back In: From Social Constructivism to Social Realism in the Sociology of Education. Abingdon: Routledge.

Young, M. and Lambert, D. (2014). Knowledge and the Future School: Curriculum and Social Justice. London: Bloomsbury.

Young, M. and Muller, J. (2010). Three educational scenarios for the future: lessons from the sociology of knowledge. European Journal of Education, 45(1): 11–27.