In this paper, we critically examine the international trend of victim-blaming when issues related to underperforming students from families with lower socioeconomic backgrounds are discussed at the policy level (Baker & Wright, 2017; Sharma & Lazar, 2014). Using the latest report on equality in education from the Ministry of Education in Norway (2024) as an example, we discuss the prevalent influence of a deficit thinking that shapes the report and its subsequent recommendations. Norway is an interesting example due to its long-standing tradition of inclusive and equitable education, dating back to the unified school system of 1920 and reinforced by modern legislation ensuring the right to inclusion. The report provides a unique insight into how a system with strong intentions for equity can still be influenced by deficit thinking, making the findings relevant for broader international discussions

In our analysis, we express concerns about the specific approach adopted in the report and inquire how teacher education can stimulate critical thinking among student teachers to uphold the principle of equal opportunities for all students, irrespective of their backgrounds. The paper is guided by the following question: What are the implications that may follow from a deficit explanation of school results and how can a critical analysis of policy enhance student teachers’ nuanced understanding of social reproduction and inequality in school?

A large body of research has explored school’s role in reproducing existing social structures and inequalities (Abrahams, 2024; Ball, 2003; Blanden et al., 2022; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). In a review of research on educational inequality and social mobility, Blanden et al. (2022) found that structural models, particularly perspectives that critically address the system’s role in social reproduction, have been highly influential in attempts to understand the role of schooling and education in this context. Nonetheless, as noted by Blanden et al. (2022), individual explanatory models continue to shape and inform discourses on educational inequality, especially at the policy level. Within such models, the responsibility for low performances is placed on individual students or groups of students (Sharma & Lazar, 2014). Rather than developing a self-critical institutional perspective, the blame for poor performances is placed on those who fall outside socially and academically, a practice that Cummins refers to as ‘blaming the victim’ (Cummins, 2018). Individual students and groups are not only seen as deficient in their engagement with the education system, but they are also assigned responsibility for their own misfortune. Sharma and Lazer (2014) label this viewpoint as deficit thinking, positioning groups of students and their families as culturally, linguistically, and socially deprived and in need of repair. Hence, the responsibility for low achievements is placed on the affected individuals or communities, overlooking the larger cultural and socio-economic structures in which they are embedded.

In this paper we propose that more attention should be paid towards the structural level in schools, investigating how the school system contributes to reinforce and reproduce social inequalities (Bourdieu, 1998, Abrahams, 2024). In particular, we draw attention to how individual and groups of students are caught up in socially mediated interactions between themselves and the educational system that limit their options to perform academically (Bunting & Moshuus, 2017). Anchoring our discussion in Bunting and Moshuus’s interplay between individual and structural conditions, we debate how institutional structures and practices are shaped by deficit explanations, such as in the case of the report from the Ministry of Education in Norway (2024). In addition, we ask how a critical analysis of policies can help prospective teachers to develop an understanding of the complexity of the reproduction of barriers to achievement and social mobility in school.

Methodologically, we employ a critical-hermeneutical analysis to engage with the guiding research question (Alsaigh & Coyne 2021; Paterson & Higgs 2005). When analysing the report (Ministry of Education, 2024) and the potential implications of a deficit thinking for pedagogical practice, we engage in critical dialogues with various positions and theories. Hence, our analysis is explorative in the sense that we draw on our own experiences as teacher educators, scholarly debates about the role of school and education in social mobility, and theoretical texts. By framing our study as critical hermeneutics, we aim to challenge the ideological power structures of texts and the possibility of understanding and urging reflection on their construction and motivation (Tomkins & Eatough, 2017). At the same time, we acknowledge that our interpretations are shaped as teacher educators situated in a particular academic and socio-political environment. Thus, we view our interpretations and reflections in a dynamic and cyclical manner: our practice informs our reflections, and our reflections inform our practice. Drawing on Gadamer’s (1986) philosophical hermeneutical underpinnings, the discussions and reflections we provide aim to enhance an understanding in which the results are open to alternative analyses. Therefore, the propositions we put forward should be seen as argumentative contributions to the debate on how a deficit explanation of school results relates to social reproduction and inequality in school. Through such an approach, we hope to stimulate further discussions on student teachers’ critical consciousness and social justice.

Based on our analysis of the Norwegian Ministry of Education's report on equality in education (2024), we find that the report adopts a partly deterministic view of students. By placing the responsibility for learning on individual students and their parents, the report appears to convey that little can be done to enhance the experience of young people in schools under challenging circumstances unless the students and their families themselves proactively surmount these challenges and actively engage in the learning process. In doing so, the report seems to ignore the structural barriers that disadvantaged students encounter in school, such as the legitimization of existing power relations by the education system through the endorsement of the middle class's cultural capital as the norm. This reproduction manifests through the selection of content, assessment forms, and social norms that favor those who already have access to the type of cultural capital esteemed in school. This is evident in the substantial emphasis placed on academic skills early in the educational journey, without adequate consideration for students' diverse starting points and backgrounds. Consequently, students from lower socioeconomic classes face amplified challenges in achieving success, which subsequently restricts their opportunities within the education system. As a constructive contribution, we propose that any initiative aiming to promote more equitable education should acknowledge that all students bring learning resources into the classroom. Such a resource-oriented pedagogy would strive for a greater alignment between the content of education, work methods, and students' cultural and linguistic prerequisites. We suggest that incorporating critical policy analysis in teacher education would aid student teachers in acquiring a more nuanced understanding of social reproduction and inequalities in education.

Abrahams, J. (2024). Schooling Inequality: Aspirations, Opportunities and the Reproduction of Social Class. Policy Press. Alsaigh, R. & Coyne, I. (2021). Doing a hermeneutic phenomenology research underpinned by Gadamer’s philosophy: A framework to facilitate data analysis. International Journal ofQualitative Methods, 20: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211047820. Baker, C. & Wright, W. E. (2017). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (6. utg.). Multilingual Matters. Ball, S. J. (2003). Class Strategies and the Education Market: The Middle Classes and Social Advantage. Routledge. Blanden, J., Doepke, M., & Stuhler, J. (2022). Education inequality. Centre for Economic Performance. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1990). Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage. Bunting, M. & Moshuus, G. H. (2017). Young peoples’ own stories about dropping out in Norway: An indirect qualitative approach. Acta Didactica, 11(2), 1–20. Gadamer, H. G. (1986). Text and Interpretation. In H. G. Gadamer, Gesammelte Werke, bd. II (pp. 330-360), Tübingen. Ministry of Education. (2024). Ekspertgruppe om betydningen av barnehage, skole og SFO for sosial utjevning og sosial mobilitet. https://www.regjeringen.no/no/dep/kd/org/styrer-rad-og-utvalg/ekspertgruppe-om-betydningen-av-barnehage-skole-og-sfo-for-sosial-utjevning-og-sosial-mobilitet/id2959445/ Paterson, M. & Higgs, J. (2005). Using hermeneutics as a qualitative research approach in professional practice. The Qualitative Report, 10: 339–57. Sharma, S., & Lazar, A. (2014). Pedagogies of discomfort: Shifting preservice teachers' deficit orientations toward language and literacy resources of emergent bilingual students. In Y.Freeman & D. Freeman (Eds.), Research on preparing preservice teachers to work effectively with emergent bilinguals (pp. 3-30). Emerald. Tomkins, L. & Eatough, V. (2017) Hermeneutics. Interpretation, understanding and sensemaking. In C Cassell, A. Cunliffe, A. & G. Grandy (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook ofQualitative Business and Management Research Methods (pp.1-36). Sage.