Neighbourhood regeneration through mixed communities: a ‘social justice dilemma’?

Abstract

Since 2005, the English government has adopted a policy of regenerating disadvantaged neighbourhoods by reconstructing them as mixed communities, in which schools appealing to higher income residents are a key feature. This creates some difficulties for those concerned with social justice, who support the notion of integrated schools and neighbourhoods, but are concerned that the re‐modelling of neighbourhoods and schools in this way could further disadvantage existing populations. Mix is supported but mixing is opposed. This article interrogates this ‘social justice dilemma’ by analysing the origins and development of the mixed communities policy. It demonstrates the distinction between the principle of mix and the policy of mixed communities, while illuminating the political and discursive processes that conflate the two. Finally the authors indicate how research can be mobilised in support of neoliberal discourses about neighbourhoods and schools and draw some broader conclusions for education research and policy.

Keywords:

• schools
• neighbourhoods
• regeneration
• policy
• neoliberalism

Notes

1. There are interesting contrasts in the treatment of ‘mix’ between current housing and education policies, and particularly by comparison with France, where ‘la mixité sociale’ and ‘la mixité scholaire’ seem to be seen as parallel goals. This is the subject of a paper in development by the first author.

2. In this respect, mixed communities has more in common with the Urban Development Corporations established by the Conservative government in the 1980s than with ABIs, although even these had pump‐priming funds as well as tax relief.

3. Hodgson and Spours refer to ‘the education state’. Here we translate the notion to the neighbourhood renewal field as ‘the regeneration state’.

4. This point also applies to schools. While US and UK policy may be broadly following the same choice and diversity agenda, the United Kingdom has stronger mechanisms to protect against poorer outcomes for disadvantaged residents – for example, the strengthened Admissions Code.