Search results

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore and foreground secondary religious education (RE) student teachers’ accounts of the dilemmas they experienced in their classrooms and schools in a highly racialised post referendum environment. Teacher narratives are analysed in order to suggest ways in which a transformative teaching and learning agenda drawing from a pluralistic human rights framework can be reasserted in place of government requirements to promote fundamental British values (FBV).

Qualitative data were collected in focus group interviews to gain insights into how the referendum environment was experienced phenomenologically in localised school settings.

The interview data reveals the complex ways in which the discourses circulating in the post referendum milieu play out in highly contingent, diverse secondary school settings. These schools operate in a high stakes policy context, shaped by the new civic nationalism of FBV, the Prevent security agenda and government disavowal of “multiculturalism” in defence of “our way of life” (Cameron, 2011). A key finding to emerge from the teachers’ narratives is that some of the ways in which Prevent and FBV have been imposed in their schools has reduced the transformative potentials of the critical, pluralistic RE approaches to teaching and learning that is promoted within the context of their university initial teacher education programme.

The findings suggest that existing frameworks associated with security and civic nationalism are not sufficient to ensure that young citizens receive an education that prepares them for engagement with a post truth, post Brexit racial and political environment. Transformative teaching and learning approaches (Duckworth and Smith, 2018), drawing upon pluralistic, critical RE and human rights education are presented as more effective alternatives which recognise the dignity and agency of both teachers and students.

This paper is an original investigation of the impact of the Brexit referendum environment on student teachers in a university setting. In the racialised aftermath of the referendum the need for transformative pluralistic and critical educational practice has never been more urgent. The data and analysis presented in this paper offer a compelling argument for a root and branch reformulation of current government security agendas in education.

This chapter offers an alternative to mainstream policy studies analysis of educational policy in postcommunist Ukraine. Taking its many insights from Foucault-inspired studies of education policy (Besley and Peters, 2007; Doherty, 2006, 2007; Fejes and Nicoll, 2007; Fimyar, 2008a, 2008b; Lindblad and Popkewitz, 2004; Marshall, 1998; Masschelein, Simons, Bröckling, and Pongratz, 2007; Peters, 2001, 2004, 2006; Peters and Besley, 2007; Popkewitz, 2007; Tikly, 2003), this chapter identifies and examines a new domain of analysis, termed in this chapter policy rationalities or policy why(s). Policy rationalities are conceptualized in this chapter as structures distinct from policy discourses that enable the emergence of some discourses and constrain the emergence or reception of others. “Conditions of possibility,” “background practices,” or “epistemes” are some other ways of thinking about the abstract – yet important for the study of policy – term of “policy rationalities.” Fourteen policy documents and 17 years of policy-making (1991–2008) represent textual and temporal borders of analysis. The official authorship of the documents is limited to the three state actors, namely, the President, Parliament, and the Cabinet of Ministers. The rationale for not including the ministerial documents in the analysis is explained in the chapter. The main methods employed by the study are deconstruction and discourse analysis. The chapter discusses three sets of policy rationalities: the rationalities of nation- and state-building, the rationalities of comparison and critique, and, what I will call, the rationalities of “catching-up” Europeanization. The study also traces the textual constructions of the models of individual, society, and the state as well as the definitions of education, upbringing, and educational governance in the documents under analysis. The chapter makes an important contribution to the current debates in policy sociology and governmentality studies by mapping out a new terrain of inquiry, i.e., policy rationalities, as an important starting point for the analysis of educational reform and change.

Recent trends in Western civics education have attempted to secure democratic institutions from perceived threats. This paper investigates how political securitisation historically operated within civics textbooks in Australia and Aotearoa, New Zealand. It further evaluates how Māori, Aboriginal and other Indigenous peoples were variably incorporated or marginalised in these educational discourses.

This discourse analysis evaluates a sample of civics textbooks circulated in Australia and New Zealand between 1880 and 1920. These historical sources are interpreted through theories of decoloniality and securitisation.

The sample of textbooks asserted to students that their self-governing colonies required the military protection of the British Empire against undemocratic “threats”. They argued that self-governing colonies strengthened the empire by raising subjects who were loyal to British military interests and ideological values. The authors pedagogically encouraged a governmentality within students that was complementary to military, imperial and democratic service. The hypocritical denial of self-government for many Indigenous peoples was rationalised as a measure of “security” against “native rule” and imperial rivals.

Under a lens of securitisation, the discursive links between imperialism, military service and democratic diligence have not yet been examined in civics textbooks from the historical contexts of Australia and New Zealand. This investigation provides conceptual and pedagogical insights for contemporary civics education in both nations.

This chapter contributes to the field of educational standardisation by critically discussing the recent preoccupation with social and emotional abilities as performance standards in education policies and curriculum. The chapter is philosophical-theoretical in scope and sheds light on standardisation of social and emotional abilities through the different theoretical layers of the Foucauldian notion of governmentality. By bringing the writings of the late Foucault to the fore, I will argue that the power structures imbued in social and emotional standards are not merely oppressive and vertical structures of subjection, but can also be seen as enabling, relational and productive means for subjectivation. Thus, although social and emotional standards certainly can be seen as governmental measures in the production of a flexible, diligent, self-managing workforce, ensuring the kind of transferable non-cognitive skills that are so much needed in the knowledge economy, educators can ambiguously also construct public spaces for political-ethical self-creation and resistance in context of these ‘standards of the self’.

We undertake a genealogical critique to undermine the very noble but hardly questioned implementation of inclusive education in Indonesia, less to identify dubious neo-colonial powers of particular groups, than to deconstruct ill-defined understandings of schooling as a process of ‘normalisation’ of the ‘abnormals’. We approach inclusive classes through Foucault's concept of Heterotopia, a space which is deviant from the norm. Instead of questioning inclusive education as a heterotopian way of schooling only, we contest regular schooling itself and the power normalisation. Along a second Foucauldian concept of Heterochronia we connect historical insights of seating Indonesian children at a regular school desks in 1920 with the training of children with special needs to be seated in Indonesian disability centres 2020. We argue that ‘normalisation’ as such can hardly be critiqued, because it is an existing social and institutional normality. But taking critique as a conflict between colonial, globalising and even humanitarian forces, enables a Foucauldian analysis of normalising technologies of education and of inclusive education in particular.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a critical analysis of the policy of moral and civic education in the non-tertiary education system in Macao and to examine the kinds of citizens it prepares.

It is a qualitative research design informed by the Foucauldian concepts of “governmentality” and “technology of the self” to analyze the moral and civic education policy in Macao.

The governmentality or art of government of the moral and civic education policy in Macao is made possible by three strategies, namely “governmentalisation of the state,” construction of “moral and civic education as a field of actions” and creation of “social harmony as a new form of civic virtue.” Based on the disclosed governmentalities, three approaches adopted by the government are identified, “normalising the school system,” “educating the students” and “disciplining the scapegoats.” Through these approaches, two technologies of the self are identified, namely disciplinary power and bio-politics, which are used to prepare citizens. In Macao, it seems that there is a tension between the discourses of active democratic citizenship and patriotic education.

The type of policy and theoretical analysis the author has adopted in investigating moral and civic education policy illuminates the local and national policy and, in so doing, creates opportunities for building comparative research on similar issues and their implications for education.

This paper can contribute to the local discussion of the possibility of rewriting the meanings of citizenship.

This paper is comprehensive and can therefore provide a ground for further and future research.

This chapter will use the lens of Foucault’s governmentality to critique the use of foreign qualification recognition (FQR) in Australia’s skilled migration programme. Foucault suggests that an imperative for governments is to find ways to manage its population to ensure its security and well-being. Foucault notes the explosion of measures designed to facilitate this imperative. We argue that FQR’s use in Australia’s skilled migration programme is another such measure. It is a process designed to ascertain the relative value of one person against another using educational attainment as the meter. We examine the literature on the subject and find there are three key themes: scale, barriers and the persistence of the problem. We explore the concept of value in FQR and find arguments are divisible according to two camps. The first finds that an education qualification represents some objective and meritocratic value that a migrant possesses and that the barriers and persistence of problems are traceable to an inability to find the right way to realize this value. The second supposes that qualifications essentially represent a claim that need not have any basis in a form of essential value. Using Foucault’s governmentality, we suggest that FQR’s primary source of value in Australia’s skilled migration process is its utility as a part of a regime that identifies and classifies migrants and establishes a regime with which to assure governments of the acquisition of a population it believes are most likely to contribute to its security and future prosperity.

This chapter contributes to the field of educational standardisation by analysing and discussing the relationship between risk conceptions, standards and subjectivation in education. The empirical case for investigation is the implementation of a new interdisciplinary topic in Norwegian curriculum, called ‘health and life skills’, a topic that has gained momentum in educational systems worldwide in recent decades. We perform a theoretical reading of policy and curriculum document through the perspective of Foucault's notion of governmentality. Our reading suggests understanding ‘health and life skills’ as a soft governance practice, instigating ‘standards of the self’ that direct and control the conduct of young people in the Norwegian curriculum. Furthermore, the chapter discusses how becoming a subject in modern education implies acquiring a set of standard skills derived from societally perceived risks thought to affect the mental and physical health of young people. Building on this analysis, we discuss if standards can be regarded as measures aimed at managing and safeguarding against societal risks, and the consequences this may have for subjectivation processes in education.

This chapter briefly explores selected English and general education policy documents, curricula, and textbooks within the context of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) from a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective and examines how they have changed pre- and post-21st century. First, a policy document related to education in KSA in general (pre-21st century) is analyzed along with an English language teaching (ELT) policy document of the same period. Next, two general policy documents post-21st century are explored, followed by one related to ELT policy. Finally, one post-21st century document related to higher education is discussed. The “network of practices” within which these documents are situated are first detailed, as well as the structural order of the discourse, and some linguistic analysis of the choice of vocabulary and grammatical structures (Meyer, 2001). Issues which might be problematic to the learning and teaching identities of the students and teachers interpreting these documents are also highlighted. Finally, we consider whether the network of practices at this institution and KSA in general “needs” the problems identified in the analysis and critically reflect on the analysis.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between theory and history, or more specifically the role and use of theory in the field of history of education. It will explore the following questions: What is theory, and what is it for? How do historians and, in particular, historians of education construe and use theory? And how do they respond to openly theoretical work? The author poses these questions in light of ongoing discussions in the field of history of education regarding the role, relevance, and utility of theory in historical research, analysis, and narratives.

The explicit use of theory in historical research is not altogether new, tracing an intellectual genealogy since the mid-1800s when disciplinary boundaries among academic fields were not so rigidly defined, developed and regulated. The paper analyzes three books that are geographically located in North America (USA), Australia, Europe (Great Britain) and Asia (India), thereby offering a transnational view of the use of theory in history of education. It also examines how historians of education respond to explicitly theoretical work by analyzing, as a case study, a 2011 special issue in History of Education Quarterly.

First, the paper delineates theory as a multidimensional concept and practice with varying and competing meanings and interpretations. Second, it examines three book-length historical studies of education that employ theoretical frameworks drawing from cultural, feminist poststructuralist and postcolonial approaches. The author’s analysis of these manuscripts reveals that historians of education who explicitly engage with theory pursue their research in reflexive, disruptive and generative modes. Lastly, it utilizes a recent scholarly exchange as a case study of how some historians of education respond to theoretically informed work. It highlights three lenses – reading with insistence, for resistance, and beyond – to understand the responses to the author’s paper on Foucault and poststructuralism.

Setting theory to work has a fundamentally transformative role to play in our thinking, writing and teaching as scholars, educators and students and in the productive re-imagining of history of education.