Researching Educational Policies and Professional Identities: Essay assignment
Student number: 15970153
"The best that has been thought and written": an analysis of the representation of high expectations in the White Paper 'Educational Excellence Everywhere'.
Introduction
The White Paper ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’ (DfE, 2016) sets out the policy agenda for the government from the present to 2020. Lumby and Muijs (2014) remind us that in the UK, a government White Paper is intended to set out legislation and to invite response to it. The suggested legislation presented in the 2016 White Paper proposes some controversial initiatives, including a radical reshaping of educational structure in which schools will become academies, directly funded by the secretary of state for education.
Context
The ongoing marketisation of the English state education system, exemplified by the current growth of academies and free schools, is not a new phenomenon. The Education Reform Act (1988) introduced the concept of the National Curriculum, and this standardisation of the content of the curriculum of all state schools enabled uniformed assessment of students. League tables allowed the quality of education to be measured and compared, and the Education Act (1992) created a further device for measurement of quality in the form of national school inspection body Ofsted. The chosen policy lever for thestructural reform proposed in this White Paper is the Multi Academy Trust - clusters of schools with combined purchasing power, operating models and brands.
Although the structural reform outlined in the White Paper is highly significant, proposedreforms to the curriculum are arguably equally so. Therefore, this essay intends to analyse the chapter in the document concerned with curriculum and pedagogy. Chapter 6, entitled ‘High expectations and a world leading curriculum for all’, builds on reforms to the curriculum announced in the document ‘The Importance of Teaching’ (DfE, 2010), in which the previous Coalition government set out its agenda for education reform shortly after it came to power in 2010.
Methodology
In order to deconstruct the discourse of Chapter 6 of the 2016 White Paper, ‘Educational Excellence Everywhere’, I intend to use a blended approach of content analysis and discourse analysis to systematically analyse the text. This approach will include quantitative data on the content of the text, and qualitative data on the literary strategies used within it.
Daniel (2011) suggests that content analysis is useful for describing trends, but used with discourse analysis, content analysis facilitates a robust triangulation of key themes within the data set. Although content analysis and discourse analysis are derived from different philosophical bases, they are both concerned exploring social reality and can be complementary. Lumby and Muijs (2013) combine content and discourse analytic methods, believing that the blending of these methods leads to a more rounded insight into texts, and to uncovering what a text is aiming to achieve. Thus, in my analysis of Chapter 6 of this White Paper, I also intend to use a blended approach, with the aim of fully deconstructing the discourse of this text.
Discourse analysis and politics
Chilton and Schaffner(2011) claim that the increased mediation of political messages in the twenty-first century, and our increased exposure to them, has important implications, including the need for awareness and critical evaluation. Furthermore, Woods (2006) suggests that it is frequently unclear where to draw the line between the discourses of politics, media and advertising. Although we now have greater opportunity to examine the language used by politicians due to rapid media expansion, we tend only to have the opportunity to observe the business of politics through the carefully managed filters of the media. This stage-managed approach to political discourse is exacerbated by the employment of unelected policy-making advisers and consultants. As politics has as its central aim the acquisition and retention of power, and the authority to control the accumulation and distribution of a society’s economic wealth and good, the linguistic devices the political world employs can have far-reaching effects, and therefore warrants detailed and critical examination. Concerns such as these give us moral and ethical reasons for analysing political discourse.
Discourse analysis is not solely the linguistic analysis of texts: texts should be seen in terms of the different discourses, genres and styles they draw upon and articulate together. Fairclough (2003) sees discourses as ways of representing aspects of the world: different discourses are different perspectives. They are associated with the different relations people have to the world, which in turn depends on their position, identity and social relationships. In terms of educational policy, neoliberal and neoconservative trends are transforming many aspects of social life, and therefore transforming language. It is impossible to make sense of these transformations without thinking about the language dialectically interconnected with them. Taylor (2013) similarly proposes a definition of discourse analysis as “the close study of language and language use as evidence of aspects of society and social life” (Taylor, 2013, p.7). The study of language is evidence of a system or formation of meanings, and the connection of those meanings to society, including the power relations within it. Moreover, meaning is dependent on, and changes with context, and meanings are constituted through practices and processes.
Discourse analysis: a caveat
It is important to note that there is no such thing as a definitive analysis of a text. Fairclough (2003) suggests any analysis will inevitably be partial. It is also selective: we ask certain questions about the text, and not others, therefore, an objective approach to text analysis cannot exist. Fairclough (2003) explains that discourse is a particular way of subjectively representing the world; there are alternative and often competing discourses, which differ according to what is excluded or included. Hence, it is important to consider what is missing from the chapter as much as to analyse what is admitted. Taylor (2013) agrees that discourse analysis is interpretive, but suggests that part of its theoretical foundation consists of “challenges to the notion of a simple, objective truth” (Taylor, 2013, p.83).
Content analysis
According to Drisko and Maschi (2015), content analysis is best known as a methodology for empirically identifying and describing themes or content, as well as the devices used to deliver this content. It is widely used to detail the proportion or percentage of a text devoted to specific topics, allowing researchers to establish emphasis within the materials. The results of content analysis are often used to document a perceived problem, and as evidence from which to advocate for change. In this instance, the content analysis is in two phases. The first phase consists of the generation of a word cloud, an image composed of words used in the text, whereby the size of each word indicates its frequency or importance.
Table 1: Word frequency findings
Word / Frequency / CollocationCurriculum / 20 / Juxtaposed with knowledge, national, ambitious
Knowledge / 15 / Juxtaposed with curriculum 6 times
Teachers / 12 / N/A
National / 7 / Juxtaposed with curriculum 7 times
Ambitious / 5 / Juxtaposed with curriculum 3 times
The initial stage of the content analysis suggests that the authors of the White Paper equate high expectations with an ambitious knowledge-based national curriculum, delivered by teachers in the state sector.
Weber (1990) suggests that a central idea in content analysis is that words of the text are classified into content categories; these may be based on words sharing similar connotations. Therefore, the second phase of the content analysis utilises the qualitative research software Nvivo to systemically code the text, and uncover the discourses present, as well as to identify the percentage of coverage the White Paper gives to these discourses.
Table 2: Content analysis findings
Discourses / % coverageSupport for teachers / 20.73
Knowledge-based curriculum / 18.82
Autonomy / 16.96
Ambition and challenge / 11.24
Academic rigour / 9.53
Social mobility / 8.03
21st Century Britain / 5.44
Funding for initiatives / 5.14
International competition / 1.99
The second stage of the content analysis reveals further themes inherent within the text. References to support for teachers is given coverage of a fifth of the chapter, with references to a knowledge-based curriculum being given marginally less coverage. The third most common discourse is that of teacher autonomy. Additional discourses revealed by this stage of thecontent analysis are those of social mobility, 21st century Britain, funding and international competition.
Although content analysis has determined the presence of these discourses within the text, the method could be seen as reductive, and disregarding of the text’s context. Therefore, this essay will analyse these discourses, deconstructing the language in the White Paper, and therefore its representation of the world. There will be an emphasis on highlighting how the text is ideologically shaped, with a focus on exploring trends in policy, and partial interpretations of these trends. I will mainly examine the words in the text, in addition to commenting on whole text organisation, clause combination and grammatical and semantic features (Fairclough, 2001).
Overview and chapter opening
The aim of the DfE (2016) strategy overview from 2015-2020is “to provide world-class education and care that allows every child and young person to reach his or her potential, regardless of background” (DfE, 2016). The problem being presented here is the need to create a “world-class” education in concurrence with the social democratic discourse that “every child and young person should reach his or her potential, regardless of background” (ibid.). The structure of the opening of the chapter uses a text box and listing to highlight and summarise the key points to be made. These structural devices can be seen as reader-friendly, but they also tend to be reader directive rather than discursive (Taylor, 2004).
Social mobility and democracy
The discourse of social mobility and democracy is evident in the chapter summary. The chapter begins with a brief vision statement, suggesting there is a need for change: “we want every child, wherever they live and whatever their background and needs, to receive a 21st century education” (DfE, 2016, p.88). The repetition of the inclusive pronoun “we” presents an argument for change, emphasised by the use of the imperatives “want” and “will”. The text is written using a problem/solution structure, expressing a necessity for change; it outlines a solution (an ambitious, knowledge-based curriculum) and explains how this solution will be achieved (through evidence-based teaching materials, text books and resources).To suggest goals of social justice and fairness, the author uses the determiner “every” in reference to children to reinforce the use of “wherever” and “whatever”.
However, the discourse of social mobility and democracy is not exclusive to the present Conservative government. Characterised by a belief in the power of markets, neoliberalism displaced the Keynesian consensus which dominated the West following the end of the Second World War to the end of the 1970s. Neoliberal influences have since been evident throughout contemporary British politics, including state education in England. The ongoing marketisation of state education in England represents one facet of Thatcher’s neoliberal legacy. Wright (2012) suggests that New Labour sought out ways of rearticulating social democracy so that they were compatible with a market society, believing that the government could intervene and build on the neoliberal market society, but with strong communitarian values. This centralised stance led to a stipulation of a one-dimensional model of educational success, and to the seemingly incompatible goals of social justice and fairness being subsumed by market logics.Goldthorpe (2012) similarly suggests that a focus on social mobility had attractions for New Labour as a means of appealing to aspirational families, while appropriating a Conservative emphasis on greater equality of opportunity. However, for any government, attempts at increasing equality of opportunity are unlikely to be effective unless the class-linked inequalities of condition are themselves significantly reduced.
Ball (1997) suggests the rhetoric of reform couples improvements in social justice with the maximisation of social, educational and economic participation. He explains that “equity and enterprise, technological change and economic progress are tied together within the efforts, talents and qualities of individual people and the national collective” (Ball, 1997, p.17). This allows for a reimagining of the public sector.Alternative ideas and differing narratives to those deemed acceptable by the state are marginalised and new narratives are promoted. One example of a new narrative inherent in this chapter of the White Paper is the promotion of ‘evidence-informed’ policy. In this chapter, all academic references are to Willingham (2009), whose guide to cognitive psychology has been feted by various politicians (Gove, 2012; Gove, 2014; Gibb, 2015; Cameron, 2016).Willingham himself expresses reservations that the science will be applied in schools in the way politicians expect: “I can confidently say this - hard as it is, good science is easier than good policy” (Willingham, 2012).
A knowledge-based curriculum, ambition and challenge, and academic rigour
The title of the chapter, ‘High expectation and a world-leading curriculum for all’ presents expectation presented as inextricably linked with the curriculum through the conjunction “and” (DfE, 2016, p.88). This can be seen as ideological dominanceas politicians manipulate education systems to pursue political goals or ideals (Kelly, 1999).Conservative politicians may be seeking a curriculum that is perceived to be traditional, driving up moral and educational standards. Cannadine, Keating and Sheldon (2011) refer to the influence of neoconservative policies espoused byThatcher who, as Prime Minister had sought to restore Britain to the perceived greatness of Victorian values. It was deemed necessary to outline what schools should teach, and ensure they did so to a testable, comparable standard.Apple (1990) posits that cultural capital in schools is an effective filtering device in the reproduction of a hierarchical society, and that any society which increases the gap between rich and poor in the control of and access to cultural capital should be questioned in terms of the legitimacy of this inequality. This happens because the cultural capital of the middle class is taken as natural, and employed as if all children have equal access to it.
The chapter summary includes the verb “equip” in reference to “knowledge” and “character”. There is a sense of urgency and necessity created here: the reception of this interpretation of education is the only possible pathway to “success” (DfE, 2016, p.88). Children are portrayed a tabula rasa, a blank slate, ready and willing to be moulded.Friere(2014)suggests that this view of education is comparable to the “act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositer” (Friere, 2014, p.72). Knowledge can be seen as a “gift by those who consider themselves knowledgeable upon those whom they consider to know nothing” (ibid.). Thus, this characteristic of the ideology of oppression negates education and knowledge as processes of enquiry. The concept of ambition is presented “unapologetically”, the adverb challenging the reader: there can be no counter-argument (DfE, 2016, p.88). Ball (2003) suggests that discourses mobilise truth claims, and constitute rather than reflect social reality: within the processes of policy discourse credibility and truthfulness are established, providing ways of thinking and talking about policies that make them sound as if they are reasonable solutions to social and economic problems.
The discourse of social justice is used to justify change and present a solution to the problem of social inequality.The world is “rapidly changing”: the agency for change is explicit, as is the need to prepare our students for these challenges, helping them to “navigate” this brave new world with “confidence” (DfE, 2016, p.88). The colonial language here is perhaps a reference to the discourse of international competition.In order to prepare young people for a world of precarious employment and ruthless individualism, students must experience schooling in the same terms: society, and therefore education, is portrayed as a race that must be won.
In economic terms, this can also be seen as part of the ‘welfare to work’ discourse. Brine (2011) reminds us that during the 2010 election campaign, all three major parties in England spoke in threatening terms of deep economic cuts and hard times to come. Against this economic backdrop, the concept of the deserving and undeserving poor has become more prevalent, as has the pathologization of the undeserving recipient of state benefit. To adequately equip our young people for the future they face is to help them avoid becoming part of the contemporary discourse of ‘benefit cheats’. The aim is to avoid social exclusion and instead “interrupt the experience of deficit and disadvantage” (Ball, 1997, p.153).
The repetition of the adjective “ambitious” is also a rationale for curriculum change, and justification of increased teacher workload. An example of intertextuality can be seen inthe statement “the new national curriculum…equips children with core knowledge about the best that has been thought and written” (DfE, 2016, p.89). This refers to the title of Arnold’s (1869) essay “The best that has been thought and written”. In his collection of essays‘Culture and Anarchy’, Arnold proposes that “study of the best which has been thought and said in the world” is the “best hope for our present difficulties” (Arnold, 1869, Preface). This reference to the Victorian cultural agenda could be a further example of neoconservative trends evident in this chapter of the White Paper.
The vision of the curriculum presented in this chapter also owes much to the work of Hirsch. Gibb explains that Hirsch’s (1999) work provides a “compelling social justice case with which to argue for a knowledge-rich curriculum” (Gibb, 2015, p. 14). Hirsch (1999) argues that the goal of building knowledge and developing cultural capital is to achieve social justice. However, it is important to consider who decides what knowledge matters, and whether cultural literacy can be objectively identified. We could hypothesise that a body of knowledge can never truly be value free.Apple (2004) interprets Hirsch’s work as a condemnation of progressivism, which is seen as being in the dominant position in educational policy and practice, and which is portrayed as destroyed a valued past. Hirsch’s view implies that it is only by tightening control over curriculum and teaching, and by making education more disciplined and competitive that we can have effective schools.