| Policy Futures in Education |
ISSN 1478-2103 | |
Volume 3 Number 1 2005 | |
Other
issues available | Journal
home page | Publisher
home page |
|
|
| CONTENTS |
| [click on author's name for
abstract and full text] | | Editorial,
pages 1‑2 David Hursh. Neo-liberalism,
Markets and Accountability: transforming education and undermining democracy in
the United States and England, pages 3‑15 Brian
Ford. The Significance of Charter Schools and the Privatization of Standards:
holding the wolf by the ears, pages 16‑29 Henrik
Hansson & Scott Hall. The Future of Schools from a European Union
Perspective: selecting, analyzing and disseminating the most innovative approaches
towards the school of tomorrow, pages 30‑37 Gerard
Macdonald. Schools for a Knowledge Economy, pages 38‑49 George
R. Burns & Robert R. Paton. Supported Workplace Learning: a knowledge
transfer paradigm, pages 50‑61 Donald Christie
& Joan Menmuir. Supporting Interprofessional Collaboration in Scotland
through a Common Standards Framework, pages 62‑74 Sowaribi
Tolofari. The New Public Management and Education, pages 75‑89 Mike
Cole. Transmodernism, Marxism and Social Change: some implications for
teacher education, pages 90‑105 Anne Pirrie.
Reclaiming Basic Skills: in defence of long-life learning, pages 106‑116
REVIEW
ESSAY David Chalmers. The Age of Terrorism, pages 117‑120
VIEW
FULL TEXT
BOOK REVIEWS VIEW
FULL TEXT Critical Rationalism and Educational Discourse (G. Zecha,
Ed.), reviewed by Stephen Gorard, pages 121‑122 The Dissolution
of Mind: a fable of how experience gives rise to cognition (Oscar Vilarroya),
reviewed by Susan Stuart, pages 122‑124 Curriculum Visions
(William E. Doll & Noel Gough, Eds); Curriculum Dynamics: recreating heart
(M. Jayne Fleener); Evaluation Practice Reconsidered (Thomas A. Schwandt),
reviewed by Vicky Gunn, pages 124‑126 
|
| Editorial | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| This issue of Policy Futures in Education was not planned
as a thematic one, yet its contents show strong similarities and overlapping interests.
The emphasis is overwhelmingly on schools – schools in relation to neo-liberalism,
markets and democracy, charter schools, the future of schools in the European
Union, schools for a knowledge economy. We desperately need a more economically
literate education policy given that much education policy originates outside
the realm of education, mostly in economic policy of one form or other. This much
is clearly evident. The Left needs not only an economically literate education
policy that is informed by economic history and the history of economics, but
also by strong analytical readings of current economic policy – not just a policy
sociology aimed at investigating or recording the effects of policy and their
differential effects but also one that intelligently can interpret debates on
globalisation and the knowledge economy through an interrogation of the economic
origins of policy notions. The economics of knowledge and education needs new
research directions that are not simply reactive to the claims and findings
of mainstream economics, whether it be in the form of Chicago-style human or social
capital theories or those of Stanford endogenous growth theory. These new directions
might acknowledge the relevance of contemporary history of economics, of, say,
neo-liberalism, as Michel Foucault did in the early 1980s in his recently published
course at the Collège de France, Naissance de la biopolitique (2004), which
with considerable foresight analysed the post-war recovery of the German economy
under Erhart and the emergence of German neo-liberalism. The new policy analysis
must also necessarily engage in comparison and complete, detailed empirical work
rather than adopted standard off-the-shelf analyses. Both of these innovations
are aspects of PFIE and I think that aspects of both are provided in the
articles that follow. David Hursh examines education reforms in the USA
and England over the last 20 years with their neo-liberal and neo-conservative
policy emphases on standardisation, accountability, choice and privatisation.
He demonstrates how they arise from similar political rationales and differ mostly
only in terms of the effects of different political systems. His analytical and
empirical comparisons are detailed and the theme of the piece is strongly argued.
His considered analysis is that these policies have failed to achieve their goals
and he points to a number of contradictions in neo-liberal policies that will
impact on their future. Brian Ford focuses his attention on educational
policy discourse in the USA surrounding charter schools, identifying three areas
of review – media debates, and debates concerning national policy and local school
reform. He details each of these areas using the Jeffersonian motif of ‘holding
the wolf by the ears’. For Ford charter schools implies the privatisation of standards
and ultimately the end of public education. Henrik Hansson & Scott Hall
turn towards the future of schools, describing a Schools Foresight project undertaken
within the Fifth Framework Programme of the European Community for Research, Technology
and Development that investigates futures learning approaches and innovative uses
of technology in school settings. They describe the framework, the methodology,
and the results of this important project. Gerard Macdonald, by contrast, investigates
the notion of schools for a knowledge economy (see Volume 1, Number 1 for an issue
devoted to education and the knowledge economy), explaining that English schools,
especially since the mid nineteenth century, have always been part of the industrial
economy, preparing students for the production line. Yet he questions whether
this industrial styled school system is up to the demands of a new knowledge economy
and whether a conservative institution like English schools will easily be able
to adapt to the changes required. George R. Burns & Robert R. Paton
in a related article investigate a knowledge transfer paradigm for workplace learning
within the United Kingdom policy arena. They investigate the concepts of knowledge
generation and transfer to sketch knowledge transfer options and draw on two case
studies to analyse the effects of knowledge transfer on organisational structures.
Donald Christie & Joan Menmuir examine the ‘new orthodoxy of interprofessional
collaboration and multidisciplinary practice’ in the caring professions within
the Scottish policy context. They review arguments for and against a common framework
for professional standards and argue that it may enhance professionalism, providing
the means to engage in dialogue across professions and to ‘re-story’ themselves
promoting professional learning and development. Sowaribi Tolofari provides
a general and theoretical account of the relations between New Public Management
(NPM) and education reforms. Tolofari analyses NPM’s theoretical origins, policy
drivers and its emphases on privatisation, marketisation, managerialism, performance
measurement and accountability – all thrusts of New Right ideology. Mike Cole
outlines the Marxist critique of postmodernism and assesses transmodernism, in
the work of Dussel among others, to interpret and understand the legacy of European
invasions of the Americas. He finds both paradigms wanting and returns to the
Marxist notion of ‘racialisation’ as a necessary supplement. His argument then
poses the question of liberal democracy or democratic socialism from the contrasting
viewpoints of transmodernism and Marxism, before investigating these political
choices and their implications for teacher education. Anne Pirie provides a spirited
defence of long-life learning offered as a critique of the European Union’s
Lisbon strategy emphasis on ‘basic skills’ which, she argues, exists in a contradiction
between the goals of economic competitiveness and those of social solidarity. There
is also a review essay by David Chalmers of three recent books on education, 9/11
and the age of terrorism, followed by three book reviews. All in all, this is
a substantial issue and one, it is to be hoped, that will keep the wolf from the
door, so to speak. Michael A. Peters University
of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA Reference Foucault, M. (2004)
Naissance de la biopolitique cours au Collège de France (1978‑1979),
ed. Michel Senellart, with François Ewald & Alessandro Fontana. Paris:
Le Seuil. |
| Neo-liberalism, Markets and Accountability:
transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England |
| DAVID HURSH University of Rochester,
USA | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| Education in both England and the
United States has undergone a profound change over the last two decades as part
of neo-liberal and neoconservative political reforms. The reforms have been characterized
by efforts to standardize the curriculum, to implement standardized tests in order
to hold students, teachers, and schools accountable, to increase school choice,
and to privatize education provision. While the reforms in both countries have
similarities, differences in the structures of schooling and in the relative political
strength of neoconservatives and neo-liberals help to account for policy divergence. |
| The Significance of Charter Schools and the
Privatization of Standards: holding the wolf by the ears | |
BRIAN FORD Columbia University/Walton High School,
New York, USA | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The dynamics of educational policy discourse in the USA are illustrated
by the highly contested positions on charter schools in three arenas: media debates,
national policy and local school reform. In media debates, civil society actors
– including teachers’ unions, think tanks and print media – engage in polarized
exchanges notable for their name-calling and vitriol. In national policy, after
two decades of much consensus where charters were viewed as a way of raising standards,
policy formation is presently shaped by deep splits on funding and privatization
initiatives; charters are increasingly short on the former and seen as potential
vehicles for the latter. This manifests itself on the level of local reform, where
charters are a component part of numerous school reforms, including a systematic
overhaul of the nation’s largest school district. There, a corporate model that
emphasizes the chief executive officer’s role in selecting among productive and
unproductive employees has been deployed. The title image (wolf, ears) responds
to some of the discourse and is taken from Thomas Jefferson’s explanation of the
dilemma slavery posed for the USA. As the privatization of standards seems
to advance incrementally, the article suggests that a similar dilemma now confronts
advocates for public education, especially teachers’ unions, who have previously
supported standards-based reform and the use of charters for the purpose of educational
innovation. |
| The
Future of Schools from a European Union Perspective: selecting, analyzing and
disseminating the most innovative approaches towards the school of tomorrow |
| HENRIK HANSSON & SCOTT HALL Stockholm
University, Sweden | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| What can we learn from European Union
(EU) school projects about future learning approaches? The EU has invested massively
in information and communication technologies (ICT) projects promoting innovative
use of new technologies in school settings. The aim of the project ‘School Foresight’,
with partners in Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Romania, the Czech Republic and Sweden,
was to select and reflect on the best projects done so far. These projects were
popularized and presented at the European Science Week in the autumn of 2004 and
reached more than 10,000 students in five countries. This article describes and
discusses the School Foresight project and the selection process of innovative
EU projects showing the way towards the school of tomorrow. A number of best cases
will be presented and discussed in a European, American and global context. The
school of the future is both a question of what is possible and what is desired.
Different scenarios might be preferable depending on local context, history, language,
etc., or, are we all moving into the ‘global classroom’? |
| Schools
for a Knowledge Economy | | GERARD
MACDONALD University of Brighton, Brighton, United Kingdom |
| VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| English schools have always been
involved with the economy of their time, but it was not until the mid-nineteenth
century that schooling for the poor became primarily an adjunct of industry, rather
than of the Church. This industrial style of education, preparation for the production
line, still informs the school system, though Britain is no longer primarily an
industrial country, but one moving toward a post-industrial economy. Such a ‘new
economy’ will almost certainly be dependent on the production of new, or renewed,
knowledge; and thus on the creativity and innovative capacity of its workers,
and on their ability to continue learning throughout life. To foster these qualities,
our school system – designed for quite different purposes – will have to undergo
significant change. It will need a rethinking of what is meant by learning; a
forward-looking and individualised curriculum (though not necessarily one that
is centrally mandated); a new involvement with economic growth areas; and a quite
different approach to networked technologies. Like any conservative institution,
British schools tend to resist proposals for radical renewal, and that resistance
is now, and will be in future, supported by an influential group of parents. But
the school system’s political paymasters have traditionally seen schooling as
an instrument of economic growth. Since schools are not well fitted to serve a
nascent knowledge economy, at some point there are likely to be radical changes
to their practice. |
| Supported Workplace Learning: a knowledge transfer
paradigm | | GEORGE R. BURNS
& ROBERT R. PATON University of Glasgow, United Kingdom |
| VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The importance of knowledge to the
effective development of economic growth in the twenty-first century has led to
a number of initiatives such as lifelong learning, skills development and knowledge
transfer. Of these, knowledge transfer has predominantly been concerned with the
commercial exploitation of research knowledge. This article suggests that such
a narrow focus on research-led development is really only practical for larger
organisations and misses many opportunities for knowledge transfer related to
improving organisational knowledge and business effectiveness through supported
workplace learning appropriate to small to medium-sized organisations. Two models
of supported workplace learning, one involving a programme of study developed
to reflect the strategic objectives of the organisation, and one developed to
reflect business-led development, are described through case studies. Both illustrate
the effectiveness of knowledge transfer that, although not research-led, had a
significant impact on the competitive advantage of the respective organisations.
In one case the students gained postgraduate awards, while in the other the students
gained considerable business experience, again illustrating the flexibility that
supported workplace learning can offer for individual development. Finally, the
article concludes that effective knowledge transfer into the workplace may legitimately
be structured around objectives that do not depend on research. In this mode,
supported workplace learning offers an approach that is effective for the organisation
and flexible in supporting individual development. It is also noted that one aspect
of the process that became evident in both case studies was the need to manage
the change process that injection of new knowledge created. |
| Supporting
Interprofessional Collaboration in Scotland through a Common Standards Framework |
| DONALD CHRISTIE & JOAN MENMUIR University
of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The context of this article is the
emergence of a new orthodoxy of interprofessional collaboration and multidisciplinary
practice in the caring professions. Several current policy initiatives in Scotland,
especially in relation to services for children, illustrate this trend, which
is evident on an international scale. The article considers the nature of the
challenge to models of professionalism represented by interprofessional collaboration.
The contentious issue of whether it is appropriate to attempt to define standards
of professionalism is examined. In particular, arguments for and against the articulation
of a common framework of professional standards are analysed. The model of professionalism
adopted in The Standard for Initial Teacher Education in Scotland is explained
and the shared features in the equivalent standards in the fields of nursing,
other allied health professions and social work are outlined. The potential value
of a common standards framework is analysed in terms of how such a framework might
help to overcome barriers to interprofessional collaboration. It is argued that
defining professional standards need not diminish or demean professionalism. On
the contrary, it is possible to create a common standards framework which can
serve to enhance professionalism by enabling professional practitioners to ‘re-story’
themselves and at the same time engage effectively in dialogue with colleagues
in other professions with whom they are expected to collaborate. The potential
implications of a common standards framework for patterns of professional education
and training are discussed. |
| New Public Management and Education |
| SOWARIBI TOLOFARI | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| Public administration has always
been under constant review. Such reviews were mostly parochial, incremental, initiated
or driven by low-key staff and often ended as fads. From the end of the 1970s
to the 1990s, however, governments around the world were engaged in widespread
and sustained reforms of their public administration. These reforms were born
out of economic recession, but also had political and social drivers. They were
initiated by the political apex and fuelled by New Right ideology. Collectively,
these reforms came to be termed New Public Management (NPM). NPM is characterised
by marketisation, privatisation, managerialism, performance measurement and accountability.
This employment of corporate attitudes in public administration is grounded on
certain theories, mainly public choice, transaction cost analysis and principal–agent
theory. As with every other sector, the education service was also reformed. In
this field the major signs of NPM are the local management of schools on managerialist
principles and the heightened influence of stakeholders in the daily life of the
school, while the collegiality of academia is diminished. At the higher education
level, institutions are tending towards full-fledged corporate organisations delivering
enterprise education. This article discusses NPM in detail, tracing its origins,
considering the theories and examining its principal characteristics, and then
takes a critical look at its implications for education. |
| Transmodernism,
Marxism and Social Change: some implications for teacher education |
| MIKE COLE Bishop Grosseteste College, Lincoln,
United Kingdom | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The author first briefly outlines
what he considers to be the defining features of transmodernism and its relationship
both to postmodernism and to Marxism. He then suggests that transmodern interpretations
of the legacy of the European invasions of the Americas are illuminating, as is
Marxism, in providing an understanding of how the imperialism in which contemporary
US foreign policy is currently engaged has a specific and long-standing genealogy.
However, he argues that the Marxist concept of racialisation is more convincing
in explaining the source of violence against the Other than the transmodern positing
of ‘basic narcissism’ as the source. Next, he contrasts the transmodern perception
of liberal democracy with Marxist analyses of democratic socialism. After this,
he challenges transmodernism’s conception of Marxism as an imposed and utopian
philosophy locked within modernism. He concludes with a consideration of the political
and economic choices open to us, and, with respect to these choices, the implications
of both transmodernism and Marxism for sustaining resistance to neo-liberal capitalism
and US imperialism within teacher education. |
| Reclaiming
Basic Skills: in defence of long-life learning | | ANNE
PIRRIE Scottish Centre for Research in Education, University of Glasgow, United
Kingdom | | VIEW
FULL TEXT | BACK TO CONTENTS LIST |
| The author draws upon recent experience
of providing consultancy services to a working group established by the European
Commission in 2001 to facilitate the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy for
economic, social, and environmental renewal in the European Union. The article
begins with a critique of the ‘new basic skills’ identified at the Lisbon European
Council on 23 and 24 March 2000. These were information and communication technologies
(ICT), technological culture, foreign languages, entrepreneurship, and social
skills. The article raises questions about the compatibility of the economic and
social aims of the Lisbon Strategy. It also asks whether the Lisbon Process privileges
certain forms of knowledge over others. Furthermore, who are the winners and the
losers in the breathless rush towards increased economic competitiveness? The
author concludes that the logic of competition inherent in the Lisbon Process
may undermine rather than reinforce social solidarity; and that the chronic neglect
of some really basic skills has had dire social and economic consequences. |
|