Search

In this paper, we draw on policy sociology and democratic theory to illustrate how evidence-based practice not only limits teachers' capacities to exercise professional discretion and authority, but also jeopardises the democratic project of schooling more broadly. Using theoretical concepts from Foucault's discipline with Connolly's pluralisation, we argue that evidence-based practice disciplines teachers to comply with a prescribed set of criteria, which constrains their capacity to respond to the evolving and emergent needs of their students and communities. Our argument is built from two projects conducted separately, but concurrently, in Australia and Denmark. The projects involved in-depth interviews with teachers, extensive observations within schools, and the collection and analysis of policy documents and artefacts. Using illustrative excerpts from both studies, we show how teacher participants expressed and embodied inclinations to do (or be) differently, but nonetheless felt the need to adhere to what the evidence established as the right way to do or be. In our view, this points to an increasingly rigid ontological space through which teachers can do, be and become, which raises questions about the extent to which an 'ethos of pluralisation' is possible within these schools.

This paper interrogates whether technical democracy is well-suited to contend with possible technical controversies, including the increasing prevalence of EdTech in public schooling. Drawing across Habermasian 'deliberative democracy' that seeks consensus-derived resolution, as well as more agonistic approaches that embrace conflict as the means for pursuing pluralistic values, we use this paper to problematise technical democracy for its potential to produce agonistic and pluralistic im/possibilities. Drawing on case studies developed from our previous research into digital platforms and infrastructures, we consider what an alternative to technical democracy might offer towards realising democratic ideals through what we call technical agonism. Using these thinking tools, we argue that a move towards technical agonism would centre dissension and scepticism as fundamental features of liberal democratic institutions, while also providing opportunities for schooling to be reimagined in ways that are more democratic and ethical.

Modes of feedback such as audio or video are thought to foster relationality because they humanise feedback encounters. Few studies have examined teacher feedback literacies for relationality. This knowledge gap is significant as students want to be seen by their teachers and for their teachers to express care within the feedback encounter. Teacher feedback literacies are the knowledges, skills and dispositions needed to enhance and sustain a student-centred feedback process. Using a qualitative approach, our research question centred on what teacher feedback literacies and strategies are required to implement relational technology-enhanced feedback. We interviewed 10 higher education teachers with diverse characteristics and identified three teacher literacies for relational technology-enhanced feedback: socio-affective facilitates an awareness to student attitudes toward feedback and teacher self-expression; design empowers a consciousness of the logical arrangement and purpose of feedback to better prepare and engage students; and communication reflects the construction of a deliberate, empathetic message. The implications are for higher education institutions and teachers to consider how the relational can enable the strengths of feedback that can better support and encourage students' engagement with feedback.

The purpose of this commentary is to push the boundaries (real and perceived) of how we think about teacher accountability, education and the purpose of schooling in contemporary times. It takes as a starting point a view that recent changes to the Every Student Succeeds Act does little to shift the underpinning logics of high-stakes teacher accountability that ultimately threaten the stability and adaptability of public schools. Building from this presumption, it explores more universal features of contemporary schooling practices (e.g., standardization, datafication and evaluation) that undermine teacher expertise, autonomy and professional discretion. The purpose is to provide a new lens for thinking about the role of education and to radically disrupt the 'norms' we have come to accept as necessary features of modern schooling. Ultimately, it serves as a thought experiment to provide some space for imagining new possibilities and thinking "outside of" the traditional accountability "box."

Contemporary accountability frameworks position school leaders as being essential to improving school performance and driving innovation. Simultaneously, new accountability demands have forced the restructuring of school leadership, both in terms of form and function. In this paper, we look at the growing trend of distributed leadership among teachers who are tasked to assume leadership roles while maintaining their (sometimes reduced) teaching responsibilities. In the US, federally backed programs have incentivized schools to bolster teacher leadership opportunities, often predicated on claims of teacher empowerment and leadership democratization. Given the rise in distributed leadership as a prescribed local governance structure, we examined one popular distributed leadership model in the US to better understand how the teacher leaders are experiencing their dual roles and responsibilities. Drawing on focus group interviews with mentor teachers, we found tension between the teachers' expectations with regard to increased collegiality and mentoring opportunities, and their actual experiences of bureaucratic control and finding that their expectations were unrealistic. We argue that prescribed, incentive-driven forms of distributed leadership can place teacher leaders in precarious positions that demand more of their time, while limiting their capacities to participate in the leadership practices they deem most valuable.

Educators have many "meetings of the minds": Grade-level planning sessions, PLCs, coaching meetings--which together should allow teachers ample opportunities to create high-quality, rigorous lesson plans that deepen student learning. But do these meetings actually work? Frequent planning sessions often become a time for teachers to discuss the standards for the week, think about the content, or talk about what they may or may not use. But before they know it, the bell rings, and the only thing accomplished is an "idea" of what "might" be taught to students the following day or week. If teachers are able to brainstorm, think, and/or reflect "before" they come to a collaborative planning session, the meetings themselves could be more productive and helpful. Preparing for planning can make teachers' time together richer and generate better ideas. This article discusses effective ways for teachers to "prepare for planning," which provides them independent time to "pre-think and prepare" for planning meetings, resulting in a more powerful and meaningful session time with grade-level teams and coaches. Though some teachers may view preparing for planning as "just one more thing," when the process is implemented well, teachers begin to see the value in having the pre-work done and realize how planning sessions can produce high-quality, engaging lesson plans that are ready to be implemented.

This article examines the re-professionalization of teaching across a transformative decade of market-based and standards-based reforms in the U.S.A. The first section works with the sociological concept of the 'new professionalism' to situate the No Child Left Behind act, Race to the Top, and CAEP accreditation within a broader movement to align the professions with the commercial and managerial values of the private sector. The next section compares teacher interviews conducted at the onset of NCLB with interviews conducted at the height of Race to the Top to highlight how the ongoing shift from 'occupational' to 'organizational' governance of teaching can change how teachers think about and fashion themselves as teachers. This policy analysis and qualitative analysis aims to help the education field recognize, situate and interrupt education reforms that govern teaching and teacher education through standardization, commercialization and outcomes-based performance management.

The collection of papers presented in this issue of Critical Studies in Education adds to the expansive body of work on teachers and teaching. Collectively, the papers draw our attention to new ways the field is problematising the emerging and evolving conditions that shape the work, lives and identities of teachers. With this editorial introduction to the issue, I not only summarise the various themes of the collection, but also offer a provocation that I hope will inspire new questions moving forward. As critical researchers, we have an obligation to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions -- not only by looking outwards at the policymakers, edu-businesses, and intergovernmental agencies (e.g., the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development [OECD]), but also by looking inwards and challenging our own assumptions about power, discourse and subjectivity. The authors in the special issue take up both challenges in their geographically diverse accounts of 'the teacher' and 'teaching', demonstrating what it means to do critical research well.

Teachers, as frontline providers of education, are increasingly targets of accountability reforms. Such reforms often narrowly define 'teacher quality' around performative terms. Past research suggests holding teachers to account for student performance measures (i.e. test scores) damages their job satisfaction, including increasing stress and burnout. This article examines whether the relationship between test-based accountability and teacher satisfaction can be, in part, explained by the emphasis of student test scores in teacher appraisals. Although historically used for formative purposes, recent research demonstrates that across a large range of countries, nearly all teachers work in a system where their appraisal is based, in part, on students' test scores. Using data from the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey, we pool data from 33 countries to evaluate the direct and indirect effect of school testing culture on teacher satisfaction. Results suggest that there is a direct relationship between the intensity of the testing culture and the satisfaction of teachers, as well as an indirect relationship with test score emphasis in teacher appraisals suppressing potential positive effects of appraisals on teacher satisfaction.

This paper troubles notions of 'social justice' as being compromised and fractured by the autonomous school agenda. Drawing on interviews with 13 autonomous school principals in Australia, it demonstrates how the devolution of schooling simultaneously rips the seams of the 'social' fabric that makes "collective" justice possible. The stories of these principals signal a fracturing of the social cohesion that is necessary for creating a just and equal society. We aim to distinguish between "individual" efforts to create socially just conditions at the "local" level versus "collective" projects to create socially just conditions at the "system" level. We argue that, on the one hand, school autonomy affords individual principals opportunities to exercise what might be considered socially just discretion; on the other hand, this sometimes occurs at the expense of fracturing the cohesion of the greater public education system. In doing so, we challenge the extent to which social justice can be realised within a decentralised schooling system.

For this study, researchers critically reviewed documents pertaining to the highest profile of the 15 teacher evaluation lawsuits that occurred throughout the U.S. as pertaining to the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers. In New Mexico, teacher plaintiffs contested how they were being evaluated and held accountable using a homegrown value-added model (VAM) to hold them accountable for their students' test scores. Researchers examined court documents using six key measurement concepts (i.e., reliability, validity [i.e., convergent-related evidence], potential for bias, fairness, transparency, and consequential validity) defined by the "Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" and found evidence of issues within both the court documents as well as the statistical analyses researchers conducted on the first three measurement concepts (i.e., reliability, validity [i.e., convergent-related evidence], and potential for bias).

In this study, researchers compared the concordance of teacher-level effectiveness ratings derived via six common generalized value-added model (VAM) approaches including a (1) student growth percentile (SGP) model, (2) value-added linear regression model (VALRM), (3) value-added hierarchical linear model (VAHLM), (4) simple difference (gain) score model, (5) rubric-based performance level (growth) model, and (6) simple criterion (percent passing) model. The study sample included fourth to sixth grade teachers employed in a large, suburban school district who taught the same sets of students, at the same time, and for whom a consistent set of achievement measures and background variables were available. Findings indicate that ratings significantly and substantively differed depending upon the methodological approach used. Findings, accordingly, bring into question the validity of the inferences based on such estimates, especially when high-stakes decisions are made about teachers as based on estimates measured via different, albeit popular methods across different school districts and states.

Discourse has featured in studies of educational policy as an analytic and methodological tool, theoretical frame, realm of implication, and even a foundational definition of educational policy itself (e.g.) Despite the centrality of discourse as a frame for exploring educational policy and its implications, the ways that discourse is defined or operationalized in educational policy research are often left implicit which can lead to murky relations to larger onto-epistemological questions of how we construct findings from data as well as the nature of policy. In this interpretive analysis, we synthesize a corpus of 37 peer-reviewed journal articles that bring together educational policy and analyses of discourse from varying theoretical and methodological perspectives in order to better understand the breadth and scope of how discourse is defined and operationalized in studies of educational policy, including in ways that are sometimes incommensurate with authors' stated theoretical and methodological positions. After first laying the theoretical groundwork for analyses of discourse in the field of educational policy, we then illustrate how discourse analysis is used differently, and sometimes inconsistently, within contested paradigmatic landscapes. We conclude with an argument for discussions across theoretical frameworks and methodological paradigms about how the concept of discourse lends itself to different epistemological vantage points on educational policy.

This paper explores issues of social justice in relation to the practice of two principals from two Australian public schools. The stories of these principals are set against a policy backdrop in Australia that has seen renewed emphasis on school autonomy reform, on the one hand, and heightened external accountability and compliance, on the other. Drawing on interview data from a small-scale study, we highlight some of the tensions for redistributive justice arising within this context. We examine the ways in which the principals' efforts for redistributive justice at the local school level compromise redistributive justice more broadly. We highlight the ongoing significance of examining how principals are framing their decision-making in relation to social justice. Within the freedoms of the present climate, the paper draws attention to the enduring imperative of centralised equity-focused accountabilities.

Our aim in this paper is to examine how standards-based reforms (SBRs) relating to teachers and teaching are being constituted in Australia and the US. Our focus is not the specific impacts of these policies as enacted practices in schools or teacher training institutions, but rather the dynamics of policy production, with a specific focus on how federally-driven policies have been assembled in each country. Bringing together the notion of 'global forms' with the dual concepts of 'political rationality' and 'political technology' from governmentality studies, we consider SBRs as a "global techno-scientific form" that coheres at the level of political rationality and which can be abstracted across contexts, but which also manifests in unique "place-specific assemblages" of political technologies. The global form of SBRs thus represents the logics by which policymakers may attempt to align and create commonality across systems in the search for standardisation, even if this can never be fully realised in practice.

Despite the concerns regarding value-added models (VAMs), advocates hold strong to VAMs' theoretical strengths and potentials, while adopting a set of agreed-upon albeit "heroic" set of assumptions, without research in support. These assumptions transcend promotional, policy, media, and research-based pieces, but they have never been made explicit as analyzed as a set or whole. The purpose of this study was to make unambiguous the assumptions that have been made within the VAM narrative that have often been accepted without challenge, and situate these assumptions within the research. Sources for analyses included 470 pieces, published within traditional and nontraditional outlets, from which we derived 27 prevailing assumptions.

As a post-structural critique of US teacher evaluation policy, this paper aims to disrupt accepted conceptualizations of teachers by (1) identifying discursive constructions of teachers in political talk, action, and legislation; (2) unpacking the ways that these constructions operate to legitimize punitive accountability policies and practices; and (3) mapping the associated accountability practices used by one school district to understand how they function to manage teachers and shape teacher subjectivities. Drawing on data that include official federal- and state-level policy documents, policy supplemental materials, and local teacher evaluation materials, this analysis demonstrates how teachers have been discursively positioned as 'risky' subjects. By doing so, the means to mitigate such 'risks' are rationalized, insofar as high-stakes accountability policies and practices 'make sense' to protect the well-being of students and the country. This has enabled a set of intrusive and punitive mechanisms that assess and discipline teachers to behave as low-risk subjects.

This paper examines whether, to what extent, and how international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) have influenced education policy-making at the national level. Based on an exploratory review of the research and policy literature on ILSAs and two surveys administered to educational policy experts, researchers, policymakers, and educators, our research found that ILSAs, with their multiple and ambiguous uses, increasingly function as "solutions in search for the right problem" -- that is, they appear to be used as tools to legitimize educational reforms. The survey results pointed to a growing perception among stakeholders that ILSAs are having an effect on national educational policies, with 38% of respondents stating that ILSAs were generally misused in national policy contexts. However, while the ILSA literature indicates that these assessments are having some influence, there is little evidence that any positive or negative "causal" relationship exists between ILSA participation and the implementation of education reforms. Perhaps the most significant change associated with the use of ILSAs in the literature reviewed is the way in which new conditions for educational comparison have been made possible at the national, regional, and global levels.

This paper explores how data-driven practices and logics have come to reshape the possibilities by which the teaching profession, and teaching professionals, can be known and valued. Informed by the literature and theorising around educational performativity, the constitutive power of numbers, and affective responses to data, it shows how different US educators experienced, and came to embody, new forms of numbers-based accountability. Drawing on interviews with teachers, and school- and district-level leaders, as well as relevant school-based documents, it is argued that such data are now both "effective" (i.e. they change 'what counts' within the profession) and "affective" (i.e. they produce new expectations for teachers to profess data-responsive dispositions over actual educative practices). This prevalence and use of data have combined not only to change teaching into a 'data profession', but also to change teachers into 'professors' of data.

This article analyzes the constitutive and productive effects of one US middle school's teacher evaluation system, and the way it operates to (re)make teacher subjects. Using transcripts from interviews with teachers and evaluators, as well as policy and system protocol documents, the article demonstrates how a positive evaluation discourse has become the structuring framework for legitimizing high-stakes evaluation, normalizing constant surveillance and audit, and producing new teacher subjects who assemble themselves as perpetually imperfect. The article illustrates how the evaluation system has produced a culture of compliance where the teacher's professional and ethical identity is constituted by the tools, practices, and norms of evaluation. It argues that the evaluation system is an onto-epistemic regime that fundamentally reconstitutes the purpose, identity, and function of the teacher subject. This article raises new questions about who a teacher can be, what types of attitudes can be imagined, and what actions can be exercised.

Using the stories of two autonomous public schools in Australia, this paper demonstrates how commercialisation can simultaneously position schools as both consumer and for-profit producer. Drawing on Foucault's articulation of discourse as that which constitutes and makes available what is possible to be said, done and imagined, the paper illustrates how the current marketised articulation of education is allowing for new possibilities of commercialisation in schools. Together these stories demonstrate that there are creative ways that these schools have embraced their autonomy, while relying on market solutions to acquire the resources they deem necessary for their students and their communities. However, it also shows how these resources and the attainment for them are inextricably constituted by the market orientation of education more broadly and how this presents potential dangers for what schools may be and become as a result.

The policy of inclusion in the Scandinavian countries is often related to the idea of the welfare state, and specifically to notions of equality, equity and democracy. The image of the welfare state seems to live well, even though structural and social barriers seem to maintain inequality when it comes to access to education. Instead of overcoming the barriers, the politics of inclusion may actually make the gap between ideals and realities more visible. In this article, we analyse the political efforts to create a more inclusive education system in Denmark in relation to these structural barriers. By applying the notions of discourse and dispositive of Foucault, we argue that the policies of educational inclusion encompass rationales and governing techniques directed at the societal and individual levels that may in itself challenge the inclusive agenda. By highlighting some of the political notions of inclusion, we highlight the discrepancies between inclusion as a political project and the structural barriers on the one hand, and inclusion as educational practice on the other. This challenges the previously accepted image of how well the Scandinavian welfare state is doing, especially as it relates to solving the gap between privilege and disadvantage in education.

In this article, we explore the concept of belonging and its utility as a means for understanding academics' experiences of working in the academy. Transformative changes have reorientated academic work in recent years and continue to do so as we grapple with what it means to work and live in a post-digital, post-covid, world. We engage a collective biography methodology to highlight the embodied spatial-material assemblages in which belonging can be (un)made, the ways in which belonging may stick, slip and slide, as well how we might support colleagues to deal with the fragility and fluidity of academic work. Collectively, we sketch a portrait of the currents, spaces and relations of belonging that sit uncomfortably alongside common conceptions of belonging as linear, or as an internal, individual, emotion. This study therefore offers new possibilities for enhanced understandings of belonging as mobile, flickering and processual, that are generative within education and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this study, researchers compared the concordance of teacher-level effectiveness ratings derived via six common generalized value-added model (VAM) approaches including a (1) student growth percentile (SGP) model, (2) value-added linear regression model (VALRM), (3) value-added hierarchical linear model (VAHLM), (4) simple difference (gain) score model, (5) rubric-based performance level (growth) model, and (6) simple criterion (percent passing) model. The study sample included fourth to sixth grade teachers employed in a large, suburban school district who taught the same sets of students, at the same time, and for whom a consistent set of achievement measures and background variables were available. Findings indicate that ratings significantly and substantively differed depending upon the methodological approach used. Findings, accordingly, bring into question the validity of the inferences based on such estimates, especially when high-stakes decisions are made about teachers as based on estimates measured via different, albeit popular methods across different school districts and states.

This article draws from Stephen Ball's work on markets, managerialism, and performativity to frame a comparative study that examines the reconstitution of the teacher-subject across a pivotal decade in which neoliberal standards and accountability reforms effected significant changes in US education. It juxtaposes two qualitative studies conducted during the implementation of successive standards and accountability movements. The first study of early career English teachers coincided with the implementation of the Bush administration's No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), and the second took place nearly a decade later as states began to implement value-added teacher assessments in conjunction with the Obama administration's Race to the Top (RTTT). The juxtaposition of these two studies points to a paradigmatic shift in the construction of teachers' professional knowledge and subjectivity. While teachers of the first accountability stage positioned NCLB's (self-) disciplinary mechanisms as external intrusions on their autonomy, professionalism, and practice, the second group positioned RTTT's accountability mechanisms as the very modes by which they knew themselves and their quality. Thus, these studies show a collapse between the governed (i.e. teachers) and the government (i.e. accountability mechanisms) and the normalization of the marketized teacher, the managed teacher, and the performative teacher.

Increasing difficulties in recruitment and retention of dentists and dental care professionals in general dental practice in the UK is affecting delivery of NHS dental services. Reports of dissatisfaction among the general dental practice workforce indicate there is a significant risk to the future dental workforce supply which will affect access to dental care and worsen oral health inequalities. Understanding the factors related to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of dental professionals would be useful in managing recruitment and retention issues and ensure a dental workforce exists which is able to meet the needs of the population. The aim of this literature review was to identify factors which contribute to job satisfaction and dissatisfaction of clinical staff in general dental practice. Database searching was conducted systematically through PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Ovid, and the National Grey Literature Collection. Part 1 of this two-part series discusses the factors relating to dentists. Twenty-two relevant articles were identified, which were qualitatively analysed using Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory as an analysis tool. Target-driven and restrictive contractual arrangements are a major factor contributing to dissatisfaction of dentists, as well as time pressures, poor quality equipment, and unfair remuneration. Dental contract reform should aim to minimise factors contributing to dissatisfaction and increase factors which increase satisfaction, if sufficient numbers of dentists are to be persuaded to continue to provide state-funded dentistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As described in the first paper of this two-part series, increasing difficulties in recruitment and retention of dentists and dental care professionals (DCPs) in general dental practice in the UK is affecting delivery of NHS dental services. There is a significant risk to the future dental workforce supply which will affect access to dental care and worsen oral health inequalities. Understanding what factors contribute to job satisfaction and prevent job dissatisfaction of dental professionals would be useful in managing recruitment and retention issues. The aim of this literature review was to identify factors which contribute to job satisfaction of DCPs in general dental practice. Database searching was conducted systematically through PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Ovid, and the National Grey Literature Collection. Eleven relevant articles were identified, which were qualitatively analysed using Herzberg's motivation-hygiene theory as an analysis tool. Unfair remuneration is a major contributor to dissatisfaction of DCPs, but job satisfaction could be promoted through increased recognition, variety of work, and opportunities to progress. Dental contract reform in the UK should aim to minimise factors contributing to dissatisfaction and increase factors which increase satisfaction, including the development of an acceptable remuneration model for NHS dentistry that facilitates skill mix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]