This article examines the influence of Stephen Ball’s work through the eyes of two former teachers turned academics who met through a mutual interest in his paper, ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’. We note our personal reactions to this particular paper and how Ball’s body of work has and continues to influence our thinking, careers and research. We note that his highly readable, provocative style of writing and passionate denunciation of league tables, inspections and the associated paraphernalia of control that appear central to neoliberal models of educational governance continue to prove useful in understanding global educational policy. This article also critically engages with the effects of such a seminal paper on the lived experience of the teaching profession. The first author argues that while Ball’s writing is useful to understand the pressures and struggles that teachers face, Ball’s use of Foucauldian notions such as ‘docile bodies’ and ‘subject-position’ can be seen to flatten out teachers, rendering them passive bystanders rather than agentic professionals. The second author revisits and recalls the influence of the paper on her early work, particularly on her concept of ‘panoptic performativity’, and the impact that the paper, and Stephen Ball’s work in general, continues to have on the wider field.
{"title":"Beyond the ‘terrors of performativity’: dichotomies, identities and escaping the panopticon","authors":"C. Goodley, Jane Perryman","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.29","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the influence of Stephen Ball’s work through the eyes of two former teachers turned academics who met through a mutual interest in his paper, ‘The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity’. We note our personal reactions to this particular paper and how Ball’s body of work has and continues to influence our thinking, careers and research. We note that his highly readable, provocative style of writing and passionate denunciation of league tables, inspections and the associated paraphernalia of control that appear central to neoliberal models of educational governance continue to prove useful in understanding global educational policy. This article also critically engages with the effects of such a seminal paper on the lived experience of the teaching profession. The first author argues that while Ball’s writing is useful to understand the pressures and struggles that teachers face, Ball’s use of Foucauldian notions such as ‘docile bodies’ and ‘subject-position’ can be seen to flatten out teachers, rendering them passive bystanders rather than agentic professionals. The second author revisits and recalls the influence of the paper on her early work, particularly on her concept of ‘panoptic performativity’, and the impact that the paper, and Stephen Ball’s work in general, continues to have on the wider field.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47273968","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Education and skills policy since the 1970s have exhorted employers to put themselves at the ‘heart of the system’, to engage voluntarily with colleges and other providers, in a range of roles and activities, some of which may be beyond their competence and experience. However, employers do have an important role to play, but that role should be clearly defined and directed towards those areas where their expertise and experience can be optimally deployed. To function effectively, a system requires partnership between a range of actors – learners, providers, local communities, businesses and voluntary organisations. Contributions and expectations, all of which are important, require coordination and management. It is argued that colleges are well placed to act as ‘anchor institutions’ for bringing together local partners. This article provides a practical example of how one large general further education college fulfils this role.
{"title":"‘Employers at the heart of the system’: whose system is it anyway?","authors":"Prue Huddleston, Suzie Branch-Haddow","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.28","url":null,"abstract":"Education and skills policy since the 1970s have exhorted employers to put themselves at the ‘heart of the system’, to engage voluntarily with colleges and other providers, in a range of roles and activities, some of which may be beyond their competence and experience. However, employers do have an important role to play, but that role should be clearly defined and directed towards those areas where their expertise and experience can be optimally deployed. To function effectively, a system requires partnership between a range of actors – learners, providers, local communities, businesses and voluntary organisations. Contributions and expectations, all of which are important, require coordination and management. It is argued that colleges are well placed to act as ‘anchor institutions’ for bringing together local partners. This article provides a practical example of how one large general further education college fulfils this role.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48525827","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Across major anglophone college systems, institutions in various jurisdictions have gained the authority to award the bachelor’s degree. That prospect has come late to further education colleges in England. With its long history of teaching for the bachelor’s degree, the English road to awarding powers has features in common with and different from those in North America and Australia. In the modern-day literature on college higher education in England, little attention has been given to the bachelor’s degree in its own right. Accordingly, a summary history and a digest of quantitative and qualitative evidence are assembled. Domestic debates are reviewed. Issues for policy and research are signalled. In this way, a platform is provided by which to better connect with international debates and comparisons.
{"title":"The bachelor’s degree in college systems: history, evidence and argument from England","authors":"Jennifer Allen, G. Parry","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.26","url":null,"abstract":"Across major anglophone college systems, institutions in various jurisdictions have gained the authority to award the bachelor’s degree. That prospect has come late to further education colleges in England. With its long history of teaching for the bachelor’s degree, the English road to awarding powers has features in common with and different from those in North America and Australia. In the modern-day literature on college higher education in England, little attention has been given to the bachelor’s degree in its own right. Accordingly, a summary history and a digest of quantitative and qualitative evidence are assembled. Domestic debates are reviewed. Issues for policy and research are signalled. In this way, a platform is provided by which to better connect with international debates and comparisons.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48611619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Recent consciously curated conditions of political polarisation have prevented English schools from taking even the first tentative steps towards decolonising the curriculum. Since returning to power in 2010, successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Education have resolved to restore traditional learning methods to English classrooms, championing the need for children to passively accept content chosen for them by government appointees who are answerable to political rather than to pedagogical priorities. This had already created an unsupportive political environment for transforming what children might learn, before such difficulties were magnified following the Brexit referendum of 2016. Decolonisation has increasingly been identified by Conservative Party strategists as one of their beloved wedge issues, something that can be used to stoke electorally expedient anger against ‘the Remainer elite’ among Leave-voting communities. Hopes for a serious debate about the principles of decolonisation were frustrated by the Johnson government hijacking the very mention of the word to use as evidence that the ‘woke’ brigade was running hopelessly out of control. The case for decolonising the English school curriculum has been subjected to a full-frontal populist culture-war attack on an educational establishment accused of refusing to allow children to see the good in their country.
{"title":"Decolonising the school curriculum in an era of political polarisation","authors":"Shahnaz Akhter, Matthew Watson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.27","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.27","url":null,"abstract":"Recent consciously curated conditions of political polarisation have prevented English schools from taking even the first tentative steps towards decolonising the curriculum. Since returning to power in 2010, successive Conservative Secretaries of State for Education have resolved to restore traditional learning methods to English classrooms, championing the need for children to passively accept content chosen for them by government appointees who are answerable to political rather than to pedagogical priorities. This had already created an unsupportive political environment for transforming what children might learn, before such difficulties were magnified following the Brexit referendum of 2016. Decolonisation has increasingly been identified by Conservative Party strategists as one of their beloved wedge issues, something that can be used to stoke electorally expedient anger against ‘the Remainer elite’ among Leave-voting communities. Hopes for a serious debate about the principles of decolonisation were frustrated by the Johnson government hijacking the very mention of the word to use as evidence that the ‘woke’ brigade was running hopelessly out of control. The case for decolonising the English school curriculum has been subjected to a full-frontal populist culture-war attack on an educational establishment accused of refusing to allow children to see the good in their country.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47545988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article examines Muslim parents’ private school choice, their understanding of public–private schooling and how they navigate the choice between fee-free public schools and fee-charging private schools. This article draws on qualitative data from open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 38 parents from Muslim-majority areas in Delhi, India. The findings show that parents choose private schools for several reasons, such as their proximity, discipline, emphasis on Islamic teachings and values, safety and caring teachers. The analysis suggests that structural and social factors influence and construct parents’ choice of a particular school. The neighbourhood where they reside, their minority status, their socio-economic and demographic profile, and the type of schools that are available to them influence their decision making.
{"title":"Private school choice among Muslim parents: the public–private school decision in Delhi, India","authors":"Manjuma Akhtar Mousumi, T. Kusakabe","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.25","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines Muslim parents’ private school choice, their understanding of public–private schooling and how they navigate the choice between fee-free public schools and fee-charging private schools. This article draws on qualitative data from open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 38 parents from Muslim-majority areas in Delhi, India. The findings show that parents choose private schools for several reasons, such as their proximity, discipline, emphasis on Islamic teachings and values, safety and caring teachers. The analysis suggests that structural and social factors influence and construct parents’ choice of a particular school. The neighbourhood where they reside, their minority status, their socio-economic and demographic profile, and the type of schools that are available to them influence their decision making.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47205919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Exchanges between the great range of disciplines and experts within IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK), can be very productive. This article celebrates two professors who, in markedly different ways, have transformed interdisciplinary understanding of their chosen specialties. Some of their ideas are summarised here to encourage readers who could benefit from their publications and are not yet familiar with them to be keen to study and gain from them. Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar might seem too dissimilar to fit into one article. Berry worked here for nearly fifty years, Roy for only seven. One was a sociologist, working mainly on empirical research, the other a philosopher developing extremely advanced theories. Yet they both developed critical new ideas and were under-recognised within IOE despite their international influence. Roy is such a prestigious philosopher, many may wonder why a whole article is not dedicated to him. My aims include recording some benefits of the interdisciplinary thinking he promoted. This article briefly considers some of the ideas that each developed and why these are important; their collaborative work; memories from colleagues they have influenced; and their contribution to IOE’s history and, potentially, to its future.
{"title":"Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar: critical thinkers","authors":"P. Alderson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.24","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.24","url":null,"abstract":"Exchanges between the great range of disciplines and experts within IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK), can be very productive. This article celebrates two professors who, in markedly different ways, have transformed interdisciplinary understanding of their chosen specialties. Some of their ideas are summarised here to encourage readers who could benefit from their publications and are not yet familiar with them to be keen to study and gain from them. Berry Mayall and Roy Bhaskar might seem too dissimilar to fit into one article. Berry worked here for nearly fifty years, Roy for only seven. One was a sociologist, working mainly on empirical research, the other a philosopher developing extremely advanced theories. Yet they both developed critical new ideas and were under-recognised within IOE despite their international influence. Roy is such a prestigious philosopher, many may wonder why a whole article is not dedicated to him. My aims include recording some benefits of the interdisciplinary thinking he promoted. This article briefly considers some of the ideas that each developed and why these are important; their collaborative work; memories from colleagues they have influenced; and their contribution to IOE’s history and, potentially, to its future.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43053824","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article makes the case for repositioning values and ethics as central to understanding how curriculum knowledge can be educationally powerful. Disciplinary knowledge can help individuals make sense of the present, explore alternative futures and participate in society, making ethical choices about how to live. This, however, depends on particular relationships between curriculum, disciplinary knowledge, values and ethical perspectives. We argue that the recent research agenda exploring disciplinary knowledge underplays the values dimension in how curriculum knowledge is constructed and used. First, we give an overview of the recent thrust of curriculum debates in subject education communities, placing this in some historical context. Here, we recognise the need to make a robust case for school subjects and their important relationship with disciplines. We go on to examine some arguments around the role of knowledge in curriculum. Taking the concept of the Anthropocene (the human epoch of the planet) and from our perspectives as geography and religious education educators, we propose a focus on ethical disposition and interdisciplinarity to make the values dimensions of curriculum knowledge more visible.
{"title":"Disciplinary knowledge for what ends? The values dimension of curriculum research in the Anthropocene","authors":"David R. Mitchell, Alexis Stones","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.23","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.23","url":null,"abstract":"This article makes the case for repositioning values and ethics as central to understanding how curriculum knowledge can be educationally powerful. Disciplinary knowledge can help individuals make sense of the present, explore alternative futures and participate in society, making ethical choices about how to live. This, however, depends on particular relationships between curriculum, disciplinary knowledge, values and ethical perspectives. We argue that the recent research agenda exploring disciplinary knowledge underplays the values dimension in how curriculum knowledge is constructed and used. First, we give an overview of the recent thrust of curriculum debates in subject education communities, placing this in some historical context. Here, we recognise the need to make a robust case for school subjects and their important relationship with disciplines. We go on to examine some arguments around the role of knowledge in curriculum. Taking the concept of the Anthropocene (the human epoch of the planet) and from our perspectives as geography and religious education educators, we propose a focus on ethical disposition and interdisciplinarity to make the values dimensions of curriculum knowledge more visible.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44763234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article recalls the key concept of due regard in the Equality Act 2010 and outlines how it was increasingly ignored by the Department for Education (DfE) in England in the following decade. Further, it speculates that if the concept of due regard had been observed more rigorously across all government departments, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been less tragic and traumatising in its effects, and less responsible for deepening inequalities throughout British society. It concludes that the Act should be revisited, revised and re-emphasised.
{"title":"Education and equalities in Britain, 2010–2022: due regard and disregard in a time of pandemic","authors":"R. Richardson","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.22","url":null,"abstract":"This article recalls the key concept of due regard in the Equality Act 2010 and outlines how it was increasingly ignored by the Department for Education (DfE) in England in the following decade. Further, it speculates that if the concept of due regard had been observed more rigorously across all government departments, the COVID-19 pandemic would have been less tragic and traumatising in its effects, and less responsible for deepening inequalities throughout British society. It concludes that the Act should be revisited, revised and re-emphasised.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45399088","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The present research aimed to reveal how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the mathematical reasoning of primary school students through mediation analysis. It was designed as ex post facto research. The research sample consisted of two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 415 primary school children who received face-to-face instruction by attending school for six months until COVID-19 emerged. Cohort 2 included 964 children who were taught curricular skills through distance education due to COVID-19 and school closures. In total, 1,379 primary school children were recruited into the research sample. Data were collected through a mathematical reasoning test by sending items from the instrument via Google Docs. The data were analysed with mediation analysis. Results demonstrated that the school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced mathematical reasoning skills. Findings are discussed in the light of human interaction and Cattell’s intelligence theory.
{"title":"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary school students’ mathematical reasoning skills: a mediation analysis","authors":"K. Coskun, C. Kara","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.19","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.19","url":null,"abstract":"The present research aimed to reveal how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the mathematical reasoning of primary school students through mediation analysis. It was designed as ex post facto research. The research sample consisted of two cohorts. Cohort 1 included 415 primary school children who received face-to-face instruction by attending school for six months until COVID-19 emerged. Cohort 2 included 964 children who were taught curricular skills through distance education due to COVID-19 and school closures. In total, 1,379 primary school children were recruited into the research sample. Data were collected through a mathematical reasoning test by sending items from the instrument via Google Docs. The data were analysed with mediation analysis. Results demonstrated that the school closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic negatively influenced mathematical reasoning skills. Findings are discussed in the light of human interaction and Cattell’s intelligence theory.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48289887","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this article, we review the process of building relationships around education and international development at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). The analysis looks at how hierarchies linked to colonialism were inscribed in initial structures, and unevenly and disparately contested by students, staff and a range of interlocutors around the world over one hundred years. The article considers how this history shapes practice in the present and perspectives on the future. In describing and reflecting on processes for change, the article considers some of the questioning, discussion and new forms of relationship that are emerging as part of trying to develop an orientation away from a colonial past. Efforts to decolonise education have raised questions and actions associated with reimagining practice. We reflect on what we have learned and unlearned from our efforts to promote decolonial, socially just alternatives.
{"title":"Education, decolonisation and international development at the Institute of Education (London): a historical analysis","authors":"E. Unterhalter, L. Kadiwal","doi":"10.14324/lre.20.1.18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.14324/lre.20.1.18","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we review the process of building relationships around education and international development at IOE (Institute of Education), UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society (University College London, UK). The analysis looks at how hierarchies linked to colonialism were inscribed in initial structures, and unevenly and disparately contested by students, staff and a range of interlocutors around the world over one hundred years. The article considers how this history shapes practice in the present and perspectives on the future. In describing and reflecting on processes for change, the article considers some of the questioning, discussion and new forms of relationship that are emerging as part of trying to develop an orientation away from a colonial past. Efforts to decolonise education have raised questions and actions associated with reimagining practice. We reflect on what we have learned and unlearned from our efforts to promote decolonial, socially just alternatives.","PeriodicalId":45980,"journal":{"name":"London Review of Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49585744","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：