education policy

PR OO F1

EDUCATION POLICY

M3959 BALL Volume 01.indd 1

21/04/2016 10:25

Major Themes in Education

A full list of titles in this series is available at: , Recently published titles

Other titles in this series

PR OO F1

Women and Education Edited and with a new introduction by Jane Martin and Joyce Goodman 4 volume set Education and Development Edited and with a new introduction by Walter W. McMahon 4 volume set Physical Education Edited and with a new introduction by David Kirk 4 volume set

Music Education Edited and with a new introduction by Keith Swanwick 4 volume set Second Language Education Edited and with a new introduction by Michael Evans 5 volume set

Critical Education Edited and with a new introduction by Michael W. Apple and Wayne Au 4 volume set Multicultural Education Edited and with a new introduction by David Gillborn 4 volume set Philosophy of Education II Edited and with a new introduction by Richard Smith 5 volume set

Education and Technology Edited and with a new introduction by Chris Davies and Rebecca Eynon 4 volume set


21/04/2016 10:25

EDUCATION POLICY Major Themes in Education

PR OO F1

Edited by Stephen Ball Volume I Theory and Method


21/04/2016 10:25

First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Editorial material and selection © 2017 Stephen Ball; individual owners retain copyright in their own material All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

PR OO F1

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data [CIP data] ISBN: 978-1-138-82781-3 (Set) ISBN: 978-1-138-82782-0 (Volume I)

Typeset in Times by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Stockport, Cheshire

Publisher’s Note References within each chapter are as they appear in the original complete work


21/04/2016 10:25

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

VOLUME I THEORY AND METHOD

PR OO F1

Acknowledgementsxv Chronological table of reprinted articles and chaptersxix General introduction

1

Introduction21 1 Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies

2 The text and cultural politics

37

MICHAEL W. APPLE

3 Studying education policy through the lives of the policy-makers: an attempt to close the macro-micro gap

94

FAZAL RIZVI AND BOB LINGARD

6 Making and moving publics: Stuart Hall’s projects, maximal selves and education

68

PATRICK L. J. BAILEY

5 Edward Said and the cultural politics of education

56

JENNY OZGA

4 The policy dispositif: historical formation and method

22

STEPHEN J. BALL

112

LESLIE G. ROMAN

v


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 7 Schooling and social justice through the lenses of Nancy Fraser

8 Economies of racism: grounding education policy research in the complex dialectic of race, class, and capital

198

MATTHEW CLARKE

10 Putting Spivakian theorizing to work: decolonizing neoliberal scientism in education

216

STEPHANIE L. DAZA

PR OO F1

168

ANTHONY L. BROWN AND NOAH DE LISSOVOY

9 The (absent) politics of neo-liberal education policy

146

AMANDA KEDDIE

11 Considering materiality in educational policy: messy objects and multiple reals

12 Knowing one’s place: space, theory, education

291

VALERIE HEY AND CAROLE LEATHWOOD

15 Policy transfer and the internationalisation of social policy

271

GREG THOMPSON AND IAN COOK

14 Passionate attachments: higher education, policy, knowledge, emotion and social justice

256

KALERVO N. GULSON AND COLIN SYMES

13 Education policy-making and time

236

TARA FENWICK AND RICHARD EDWARDS

309

ROB HULME

16 When transparency obscures: the political spectacle of accountability320

JILL KOYAMA AND BRIAN KANIA

17 From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in U.S. schools

341

GLORIA LADSON-B ILLINGS

18 Beyond the poverty of national security: toward a critical human security perspective in educational policy

363

ALEXANDER J. MEANS

vi


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 19 Policy temporality and marked bodies: feminist praxis amongst the ruins

20 Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research

391

WANDA S. PILLOW

411

THOMAS POPKEWITZ AND SVERKER LINDBLAD

VOLUME II GLOBALISATION/ NEOLIBERALISM Acknowledgements

PR OO F1

Introduction 21 Education, creativity and the economy of passions: new forms of educational capitalism

MICHAEL A. PETERS

22 Learning to plunder: global education, global inequality and the global city

STUART TANNOCK

23 The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order

KAREN MUNDY AND ANTONI VERGER

24 International business and cross-border education: a case of the Janus face of globalisation? GABY RAMIA, SIMON MARGINSON, ERLENAWATI SAWIR AND CHRIS NYLAND

25 The small state, markets and tertiary education reform in a globalised knowledge economy: decoding policy texts in Botswana’s tertiary education reform

MOMPATI MINO POLELO

26 Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism

MARK OLSSEN

vii


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 27 Privatising form or function? Equity, outcomes and influence in American charter schools

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI

28 Researching absences and silences in higher education: data for democratisation LOUISE MORLEY

29 The austerity school: grit, character and the privatization of public education

KENNETH J. SALTMAN

PR OO F1

30 Monumentalizing disaster and wreak-construction: a case study of Haiti to rethink the privatization of public education

ENGIN ATASAY AND GARRETT DELAVAN

31 Transnational private authority in education policy in Jordon and South Africa: the case of Microsoft Corporation

ZAHRA BHANJI

32 Education, globalisation and the future of the knowledge economy

PHILLIP BROWN, HUGH LAUDER AND DAVID ASHTON

33 The varying effects of regional organizations as subjects of globalization of education

ROGER DALE AND SUSAN L. ROBERTSON

34 Privatising education policy-making in Italy: new governance and the reculturing of a welfarist education state

EMILIANO GRIMALDI AND ROBERTO SERPIERI

35 Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: a thesis revisited

S. GOPINATHAN

36 Policy as assemblage

RADHIKA GORUR

37 Globalization, education, and citizenship: solidarity versus markets?

CARLOS ALBERTO TORRES

viii


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 38 Framing and selling global education policy: the promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-income contexts

ANTONI VERGER

39 Education and godly technology: gender, culture, and the work of home schooling

MICHAEL W. APPLE

40 Rethinking education and emancipation: being, teaching, and power

NOAH DE LISSOVOY

PR OO F1

VOLUME III POLICY PROCESSES Acknowledgements Introduction

41 Realising policy: the who and how of policy production

TREVOR GALE

42 Re-inventing public education: the new role of knowledge in education policy making

SOTIRIA GREK AND JENNY OZGA

43 The economics of policy borrowing and lending: a study of late adopters

GITA STEINER-K HAMSI

44 ‘Scaling up’ educational change: some musings on misrecognition and doxic challenges’

PAT THOMSON

45 Researching amid the heat and noise of political debate

MARTIN THRUPP

46 How policies of priority education shape educational needs: new fabrications and contradictions MIQUEL ÀNGEL ALEGRE, JORDI COLLET AND SHEILA GONZÁLEZ

ix


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 47 Sponsors of policy: a network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington State

WAYNE AU AND JOSEPH J. FERRARE

48 Education policy and philanthropy – the changing landscape of English educational governance

STEPHEN J. BALL AND CAROLINA JUNEMANN

49 Policy spaces, mobile discourses, and the definition of educated identities

JASON BEECH

PR OO F1

50 Revising rationality: the use of ‘Nudge’ approaches in neoliberal education policy ALICE BRADBURY, IAN MCGIMPSEY AND DIEGO SANTORI

51 Body pedagogies, P/policy, health and gender

JOHN EVANS, EMMA RICH, RACHEL ALLWOOD AND BRIAN DAVIES

52 An inevitable progress? Educational restructuring in Finland, Iceland and Sweden at the turn of the millennium INGOLFUR ASGEIR JOHANNESSON, SVERKER LINDBLAD AND HANNU SIMOLA

53 Unequal power relations and inclusive education policy making: a discursive analytic approach

ANASTASIA LIASIDOU

54 Mediatizing educational policy: the journalistic field, science policy, and cross-field effects

BOB LINGARD AND SHAUN RAWOLLE

55 Chicago school policy: regulating Black and Latino youth in the global city

PAULINE LIPMAN

56 Policy inroads undermining women in education

CATHERINE MARSHALL AND MICHELLE YOUNG

x


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 57 Civil society, basic education, and sector-wide aid: insights from Sub-Saharan Africa KAREN MUNDY, WITH MEGAN HAGGERTY, MALINI SIVASUBRAMANIAM, SUZANNE CHERRY AND RICHARD MACLURE

58 From England with love. . . ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’

ANTONIO OLMEDO

59 The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics

SARAH RECKHOW AND JEFFREY W. SNYDER

PR OO F1

60 The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of governance in education

SAM SELLAR AND BOB LINGARD

61 Data in practice: conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena

JAMES P. SPILLANE

62 A call for civically engaged educational policy-related scholarship LOIS WEIS, YOSHIKO NOZAKI, ROBERT GRANFIELD AND NILS OLSEN

VOLUME IV POLICY AND PRACTICES Acknowledgements

Introduction 63 An adequate education in a globalised world? A note on immunisation against being-together

JAN MASSCHELEIN AND MAARTEN SIMONS

64 Policy discourses in school texts

MEG MAGUIRE, KATE HOSKINS, STEPHEN BALL AND ANNETTE BRAUN

65 Resettling notions of social mobility: locating refugees as ‘educable’ and ‘employable’

JILL KOYAMA

xi


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 66 Reform, racism and the centrality of whiteness: assessment, ability and the ‘new Eugenics’

DAVID GILLBORN

67 The hunt for disability: the new eugenics and the normalization of school children

BERNADETTE BAKER

68 Teachers, workforce remodelling and the challenge to labour process analysis

BOB CARTER AND HOWARD STEVENSON

PR OO F1

69 Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism

RAEWYN CONNELL

70 Schools in the making: mapping digital spaces of evidence

MATHIAS DECUYPERE, CARLIJNE CEULEMANS AND MAARTEN SIMONS

71 Between policy and a hard pedagogical place: the emotional geographies of teaching for citizenship in low socio-economic schools

ROSALYN BLACK

72 How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition?

ROGER SLEE

73 Translations and transversal dialogues: an examination of mobilities associated with gender, education and global poverty reduction

ELAINE UNTERHALTER

74 Between the estate and the state: struggling to be a ‘good’ mother CAROL VINCENT, STEPHEN J. BALL AND ANNETTE BRAUN

75 Men and women for all seasons: the implications of educational leadership theory and research

DAN GIBTON

76 Distributed leadership: a study in knowledge production

HELEN GUNTER, DAVE HALL AND JOANNA BRAGG

xii


21/04/2016 10:25

contents 77 Ideological think tanks in the States: an inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity

ERIK C. NESS AND DENISA GÁNDARA

78 From policy to pedagogy: prudence and precariousness; actors and artefacts

DAWN PENNEY

79 Being different and the same? The paradoxes of ‘tailoring’ in education quasi – markets

GLENN C. SAVAGE

PR OO F1

80 The governing of education in Europe: commercial actors, partnerships and strategies MAARTEN SIMONS, LISBETH LUNDAHL AND ROBERTO SERPIERI

81 Speaking back to educational policy: why social inclusion will not work for disadvantaged Australian schools

JOHN SMYTH

Index

xiii


21/04/2016 10:25

PR OO F1 M3959 BALL Volume 01.indd 14

21/04/2016 10:25

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

PR OO F1

The Publishers would like to thank the following for permission to reprint their material: Taylor & Francis for permission to reprint S. J. Ball, ‘Intellectuals or Technicians? The Urgent Role of Theory in Educational Studies’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 1995, 43, 3, 255–271. SAGE for permission to reprint Michael W. Apple, ‘The Text and Cultural Politics’, Educational Researcher, 21, 7, 1992, 4–11+19.

Jenny Ozga, ‘Studying Education Policy through the Lives of the Policy- Makers: An Attempt to Bridge the Macro–Micro Gap’, in L. Barton and S. Walker (eds), Policy, Teachers and Education (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1987), pp. 138–150. Taylor & Francis and the author for permission to reprint Patrick Bailey, ‘The Policy Dispositif: Historical Formation and Method’, Journal of Education Policy, 2013, 28, 6, 807–827. Taylor & Francis and the authors for permission to reprint F. Rizvi and Bob Lingard, ‘Edward Said and the Cultural Politics of Education’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 2006, 27, 3, 293–308.

Taylor & Francis and the author for permission to reprint L. Roman, ‘Making and Moving Publics: Stuart Hall’s Projects, Maximal Selves and Education’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 2015, 36, 2, 200–226; reprinted in Leslie Roman (ed.), Hallmarks: The Cultural Politics and Public Pedagogies of Stuart Hall (Routledge, 2015), pp. 40–66. Taylor & Francis and the author for permission to reprint Amanda Keddie, ‘Schooling and Social Justice through the Lenses of Nancy Fraser’, Critical Studies in Education, 2012, 53, 3, 263–279. Taylor & Francis and the authors for permission to reprint A. L. Brown and N. De Lissovoy, ‘Economies of Racism: Grounding Education Policy xv


21/04/2016 10:25

ac k n ow l e d g e m e n t s Research in the Complex Dialectic of Race, Class, and Capital’, Journal of Educational Policy, 2011, 26, 5, 595–619. Matthew Clarke, ‘The (absent) Politics of Neo-Liberal Education Policy’, Critical Studies in Education, 2012, 53, 3, 297–310. John Wiley and Sons for permission to reprint Stephanie Daza, ‘Putting Spivakian Theorizing To Work: Decolonizing Neoliberal Scientism In Education’, Educational Theory, 2013, 63, 6, 601–620. John Wiley and Sons for permission to reprint T. Fenwick and R. Edwards, ‘Considering Materiality in Educational Policy: Messy Objects and Multiple Reals’, Educational Theory, 2011, 61, 6, 709–726.

PR OO F1

Taylor & Francis and the authors for permission to reprint Kalervo Gulson and Colin Symes, ‘Knowing One’s Place: Space, Theory, Education’, Critical Studies in Education, 2007, 48, 1, 97–110.

Greg Thompson and Ian Cook, ‘Education Policy-Making and Time’, Journal of Education Policy, 2014, 29, 5, 700–715. Palgrave for permission to reprint Valerie Hey and Carole Leathwood, ‘Passionate Attachments: Higher Education, Policy, Knowledge, Emotion and Social Justice’, Higher Education Policy, 2009, 22, 1, 101–118. Cambridge University Press for permission to reprint Rob Hulme, ‘Policy Transfer and the Internationalisation of Social Policy’, Social Policy and Society, 2005, 4, 4, 417–425.

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies for permission to reprint Jill Koyama and Brian Kania, ‘When Transparency Obscures: The Political Spectacle of Accountability’, Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 2014, 12, 1, 143–169. SAGE for permission to reprint G. Ladson-Billings, ‘From the Achievement Gap to the Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools’, Educational Researcher, 2006, 35, 7, 3–12.

Taylor & Francis and the author for permission to reprint Alexander J. Means, ‘Beyond the Poverty of National Security: Toward a Critical Human Security Perspective in Educational Policy’, Journal of Education Policy, 29, 6, 2014, 719–741. Taylor & Francis and the author for permission to reprint Wanda S. Pillow, ‘Policy Temporality and Marked Bodies: Feminist Praxis amongst the Ruins’, Critical Studies in Education, 2015, 56, 1, 55–70. Taylor & Francis and the authors for permission to reprint Thomas Popkewitz and Sverker Lindblad, ‘Educational Governance and Social Inclusion and Exclusion: Some Conceptual Difficulties and Problematics in Policy and

xvi


21/04/2016 10:25

ac k n ow l e d g e m e n t s Research’, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 2000, 21, 1, 5–44.

Disclaimer

PR OO F1

The publishers have made every effort to contact authors/copyright holders of works reprinted in Education Policy (Major Themes in Education). This has not been possible in every case, however, and we would welcome correspondence from those individuals/companies whom we have been unable to trace.

xvii


21/04/2016 10:25

PR OO F1 M3959 BALL Volume 01.indd 18

21/04/2016 10:25

Date

1995

1992

1987

2013

2006

2015

2012

2011

2012

Chap.

1

2


3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Matthew Clarke

Anthony L. Brown and Noah De Lissovoy

Amanda Keddie

Leslie G. Roman

Fazal Rizvi and Bob Lingard

Patrick L. J. Bailey

Jenny Ozga

Michael W. Apple

The (absent) politics of neo-liberal education policy

Economies of racism: grounding education policy research in the complex dialectic of race, class, and capital

Schooling and social justice through the lenses of Nancy Fraser

Making and moving publics: Stuart Hall’s projects, maximal selves and education

Edward Said and the cultural politics of education

The policy dispositif: historical formation and method

Studying education policy through the lives of the policy-makers: an attempt to close the macro-micro gap

The text and cultural politics

Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in educational studies

Article/Chapter

Critical Studies in Education, 53, 3, 297–310

Journal of Educational Policy, 26, 5, 595–619


Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 36, 2, 200–226; reprinted in Leslie Roman (ed.), Hallmarks: The Cultural Politics and Public Pedagogies of Stuart Hall (Routledge, 2015), pp. 40–66

Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 27, 3, 293–308

Journal of Education Policy, 28, 6, 807–827

L. Barton and S. Walker (eds), Policy, Teachers and Education (Buckingham: Open University Press), pp. 138–150

Educational Researcher, 21, 7, 4–11+19

British Journal of Educational Studies, 43, 3, 255–271

Source

PR OO F1

Stephen J. Ball

Author

Chronological table of reprinted articles and chapters

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Vol

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

Chap.

C h ro n o l o g i c a l ta b l e

xix

21/04/2016 10:25


2006

2014

2015

18

19

2009

14

17

2014

13

2014

2007

12

16

2011

11

2005

2013

10

15

Date

Chap.

Wanda S. Pillow

Alexander J. Means

Gloria Ladson-Billings

Jill Koyama and Brian Kania

Rob Hulme

Valerie Hey and Carole Leathwood

Greg Thompson and Ian Cook

Kalervo N. Gulson and Colin Symes

Tara Fenwick and Richard Edwards

Source

Policy temporality and marked bodies: feminist praxis amongst the ruins

Beyond the poverty of national security: toward a critical human security perspective in educational policy

From the achievement gap to the education debt: understanding achievement in U.S. Schools

When transparency obscures: the political spectacle of accountability

Policy transfer and the internationalisation of social policy

I

I


I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Vol


Educational Researcher, 35, 7, 3–12

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 12, 1, 143–169

Social Policy and Society, 4, 4, 417–425

Higher Education Policy, 22, 1, 101–118


Education policy-making and time

Passionate attachments: higher education, policy, knowledge, emotion and social justice


Educational Theory, 61, 6, 709–726

Knowing one’s place: space, theory, education

Considering materiality in educational policy: messy objects and multiple reals

Putting Spivakian theorizing to work: Educational Theory, 63, 6, 601–620 decolonizing neoliberal scientism in education

Article/Chapter

PR OO F1

Stephanie L. Daza

Author

19

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

Chap.


xx

21/04/2016 10:25

2000

2009

2010

2015

2011

2009

2006

2013

20

21


22

23

24

25

26

27

Christopher Lubienski

Mark Olssen

Mompati Mino Polelo

Gaby Ramia, Simon Marginson, Erlenawati Sawir and Chris Nyland

Karen Mundy and Antoni Verger

Stuart Tannock

Privatising form or function? Equity, outcomes and influence in American charter schools

Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control: lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism

The small state, markets and tertiary education reform in a globalised knowledge economy: decoding policy texts in Botswana’s tertiary education reform

International business and cross- border education: a case of the Janus face of globalisation?

The World Bank and the global governance of education in a changing world order

Learning to plunder: global education, global inequality and the global city

Education, creativity and the economy of passions: new forms of educational capitalism

Educational governance and social inclusion and exclusion: some conceptual difficulties and problematics in policy and research

Oxford Review of Education, 39, 4, 498–513

International Journal of Lifelong Education, 25, 3, 213–230

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 7, 1, 407–432

Global Business and Economics Review, 13, 2, 105–125

International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 9–18

Policy Futures in Education, 8, 1, 82–98

Thesis Eleven, 96, 1, 40–63


PR OO F1

Michael A. Peters

Thomas Popkewitz and Sverker Lindblad

26

27

II

II

25

24

II

II

23

22

21

20

II

II

II

I


xxi

21/04/2016 10:25


2013

2007

34

35

2012

31

2002

2012

30

33

2014

29

2008

2012

28

32

Date

Chap.

S. Gopinathan

Emiliano Grimaldi and Roberto Serpieri

Roger Dale and Susan L. Robertson

Phillip Brown, Hugh Lauder and David Ashton

Zahra Bhanji

Engin Atasay and Garrett Delavan

Kenneth J. Saltman

Globalisation, Societies and Education, 2007, 5, 1, 53–70

Education Inquiry, 4, 3, 443–472

Privatising education policy-making in Italy: new governance and the reculturing of a welfarist education state

Globalisation, the Singapore developmental state and education policy: a thesis revisited

Comparative Education Review, 46, 1, 10–36

European Educational Research Journal, 7, 2, 131–156

Comparative Education Review, 2012, 56, 2, 300–319


Symplokē, 22, 1–2, 41–57

Higher Education Research and Development, 31, 3, 353–368

Source

The varying effects of regional organizations as subjects of globalization of education

Education, globalisation and the future of the knowledge economy

Transnational private authority in education policy in Jordon and South Africa: the case of Microsoft Corporation

Monumentalizing disaster and wreak-construction: a case study of Haiti to rethink the privatization of public education

The austerity school: grit, character and the privatization of public education

Researching absences and silences in higher education: data for democratisation

Article/Chapter

PR OO F1

Louise Morley

Author

34

35

II

33

32

31

30

29

28

Chap.

II

II

II

II

II

II

II

Vol


xxii

21/04/2016 10:25

2011

2002

2012

2006

2010

2003

2010

2006

2014

2013

2011

36

37

38

39


40

41

42

43

44

45

46

Miquel Àngel Alegre, Jordi Collet and Sheila González

Martin Thrupp

Pat Thomson

Gita Steiner-Khamsi

Sotiria Grek and Jenny Ozga

Trevor Gale

Noah De Lissovoy

Michael W. Apple

III III

Educational Policy, 25, 2, 299–337

How policies of priority education shape educational needs: new fabrications and contradictions

III

III

III

III

II

Policy Futures in Education, 11, 6, 722–732


Oxford Review of Education, 32, 5, 665–678

Public Policy and Administration, 25, 3, 271–288


Harvard Educational Review, 80, 2, 203–220

II

II


Social Analysis: The International Journal of Social and Cultural Practice, 50, 3, 19–37

II

II

American Educational Research Journal, 39, 2, 363–378


Researching amid the heat and noise of political debate

‘Scaling up’ educational change: some musings on misrecognition and doxic challenges

The economics of policy borrowing and lending: a study of late adopters

Re-inventing public education: the new role of knowledge in education policy making

Realising policy: the who and how of policy production

Rethinking education and emancipation: being, teaching, and power

Education and godly technology: gender, culture, and the work of home schooling

Framing and selling global education policy: the promotion of public–private partnerships for education in low-income contexts

Globalization, education, and citizenship: solidarity versus markets?

Policy as assemblage

PR OO F1

Antoni Verger

Carlos Alberto Torres

Radhika Gorur

46

45

44

43

42

41

40

39

38

37

36


xxiii

21/04/2016 10:25


2011

2004

53

54

2013

50

2002

2009

49

52

2011

48

2008

2014

47

51

Date

Chap.

Bob Lingard and Shaun Rawolle

Anastasia Liasidou

Ingolfur Asgeir Johannesson, Sverker Lindblad and Hannu Simola

John Evans, Emma Rich, Rachel Allwood and Brian Davies

Alice Bradbury, Ian McGimpsey and Diego Santori

Jason Beech

Stephen J. Ball and Carolina Junemann

Mediatizing educational policy: the journalistic field, science policy, and cross-field effects

Unequal power relations and inclusive education policy making: a discursive analytic approach

An inevitable progress? Educational restructuring in Finland, Iceland and Sweden at the turn of the millennium

Body pedagogies, P/policy, health and gender

Revising rationality: the use of ‘Nudge’ approaches in neoliberal education policy

Policy spaces, mobile discourses, and the definition of educated identities

Education policy and philanthropy – the changing landscape of English educational governance

Sponsors of policy: a network analysis of wealthy elites, their affiliated philanthropies, and charter school reform in Washington State

Article/Chapter



Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 2002, 46, 3, 325–339

British Educational Research Journal, 34, 3, 2008, 387–402


Comparative Education, 45, 3, 347–364

International Journal of Public Administration, 34, 10, 646–661

Teachers College Record, 116, 1–24

Source

PR OO F1

Wayne Au and Joseph J. Ferrare

Author

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

Vol

54

53

52

51

50

49

48

47

Chap.


xxiv

21/04/2016 10:25

2003

2013

2010

2014

2014

2013

2012

2007

55

56


57

58

59

60

61

62

Lois Weis, Yoshiko Nozaki, Robert Granfield and Nils Olsen

James P. Spillane

Sam Sellar and Bob Lingard

Sarah Reckhow and Jeffrey W. Snyder

Antonio Olmedo

Karen Mundy, with Megan Haggerty, Malini Sivasubramaniam, Suzanne Cherry and Richard Maclure

A call for civically engaged educational policy-related scholarship

Data in practice: conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena

The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of governance in education

The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics


American Journal of Education, 118, 2, 113–141

British Educational Research Journal, 40, 6, 917–936

Educational Researcher, 1–10


III

III

III

III

III

III

Development in Practice, 20, 4–5, 484–497

Civil society, basic education, and sector-wide aid: insights from Sub- Saharan Africa

From England with love. . . ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’

III

III

International Journal of Leadership in Education, 16, 2, 205–219

Race Ethnicity and Education, 6, 4, 331–355

Policy inroads undermining women in education

Chicago school policy: regulating Black and Latino youth in the global city

PR OO F1

Catherine Marshall and Michelle Young

Pauline Lipman

62

61

60

59

58

57

56

55


xxv

21/04/2016 10:25


2002

2012

2009

68

69

2013

65

67

2011

64

2010

2002

63

66

Date

Chap.

Raewyn Connell

Bob Carter and Howard Stevenson

Bernadette Baker

David Gillborn

Jill Koyama

Meg Maguire, Kate Hoskins, Stephen Ball and Annette Braun

Good teachers on dangerous ground: towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism

Teachers, workforce remodelling and the challenge to labour process analysis

The hunt for disability: the new eugenics and the normalization of school children

Reform, racism and the centrality of whiteness: assessment, ability and the ‘new Eugenics’

Resettling notions of social mobility: locating refugees as ‘educable’ and ‘employable’

Policy discourses in school texts

An adequate education in a globalised world? A note on immunisation against being-together

Article/Chapter


Work, Employment and Society, 26, 3, 481–496

Teachers College Record, 104, 4, 663–703

Irish Educational Studies, 29, 3, 231–252

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34, 5–6, 947–965


Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36, 4, 589–608

Source

PR OO F1

Jan Masschelein and Maarten Simons

Author

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

Vol

69

68

67

66

65

64

63

Chap.


xxvi

21/04/2016 10:25


2010

2002

2013

74

75

76

2013

72

2009

2015

71

73

2014

70

Helen Gunter, Dave Hall and Joanna Bragg

Dan Gibton

Carol Vincent, Stephen J. Ball and Annette Braun

Elaine Unterhalter

Roger Slee

Rosalyn Black

Distributed leadership: a study in knowledge production

Men and women for all seasons: the implications of educational leadership theory and research

Between the estate and the state: struggling to be a ‘good’ mother

Translations and transversal dialogues: an examination of mobilities associated with gender, education and global poverty reduction

How do we make inclusive education happen when exclusion is a political predisposition?

Between policy and a hard pedagogical place: the emotional geographies of teaching for citizenship in low socio-economic schools

Schools in the making: mapping digital spaces of evidence

Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41, 5, 555–580

Management in Education, 17, 1, 9–13

British Journal of Sociology of Education, 31, 2, 123–138

Comparative Education, 45, 3, 329–345

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

IV

Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 1–20

International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17, 8, 895–907

IV


PR OO F1

Mathias Decuypere, Carlijne Ceulemans and Maarten Simons

76

75

74

73

72

71

70


xxvii

21/04/2016 10:25


2013

2010

80

81

2013

78

2012

2014

77

79

Date

Chap.

John Smyth

Maarten Simons, Lisbeth Lundahl and Roberto Serpieri

Glenn C. Savage

Dawn Penney

Erik C. Ness and Denisa Gándara

Author

Speaking back to educational policy: why social inclusion will not work for disadvantaged Australian schools

The governing of education in Europe: commercial actors, partnerships and strategies

Being different and the same? The paradoxes of ‘tailoring’ in education quasi – markets

From policy to pedagogy: prudence and precariousness; actors and artefacts

Ideological think tanks in the States: an inventory of their prevalence, networks, and higher education policy activity

Article/Chapter



Journal of Pedagogy, 3, 2, 279–302

Asia-Pacific Journal of Health, Sport and Physical Education, 4, 2, 189–197


Source

PR OO F1 IV

IV

81

80

79

78

IV

IV

77

Chap. IV

Vol


xxviii

21/04/2016 10:25

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

PR OO F1

It would be wrong to attempt to portray the field of education policy studies as a coherent discipline or unified body of thought – it is clearly not. Nonetheless, it is a burgeoning, vibrant and exciting area of research activity. Education Policy Studies is a composite made up of contributions from a variety of disciplines and perspectives. Having said that this collection does attempt to offer some, albeit tentative, coherence while at the same time demonstrating the variety, diversity and vitality of the field.1 Policy has traditionally been a focus of interest in political science, public administration and social policy research but, until very recently, none of these disciplines have shown much interest in education policy. Equally educational researchers and sociologists of education tended to focus their attention on issues of structure and practice rather than policy. Comparative education has addressed itself to policy issues but, again until recently, mainly at the level of description. A few papers from the field of comparative education are included but there is not much in the collection from the economics, philosophy or history of education. The majority of papers included draw upon or have their affiliation to sociology and deploy various forms of sociological theory to the analysis of policy, and some of these display a specific adherence to ‘policy sociology’, a term first coined by Jenny Ozga (1987, 2000), and an approach I have sought to develop in my own policy analysis work (1995, 1997). Generally speaking, this is what Simons, Olssen and Peters (2009, p. 1) call the ‘policy orientation’ in education research. There is no attempt at representativeness in the collection; not in relation to authors, geography, sector, discipline, nor period; indeed many of the papers were published quite recently – and there are good reasons for that, to which I will return. Rather my main criteria for selecting papers were that they should be theoretically informed, adventurous, critical and sceptical, accessible and well written. There are papers that explore the contribution to education policy studies of Spivak (Daza), Actor Network Theory (ANT) (Fenwick and Edwards, Koyama), Critical Race Theory (CRT) (Ladson- Billings, Gillborn), Edward Said (Rizvi and Lingard), Stuart Hall (Roman), Nancy Fraser (Keddie), neo-Marxism and Gramsci (De Lissovoy, Apple), 1


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n

PR OO F1

Bourdieu (Savage, Lingard and Rawolle) and Foucault (Popkewitz and Lindblad, Olssen, Masschelein and Simons). In a paper published in 2006 I sought to make a case for the urgent necessity for theory in educational policy research and research training; its crucial role in epistemological decision making; in ensuring the conceptual robustness of conceptual categories; and in providing a method for reflexivity. That is, for understanding the social conditions of the production of knowledge. I also suggested the importance of the violence that theory does, as a reflexive tool within research practice, in challenging conservative orthodoxies and closure, parsimony, and simplicity. That is, the role of theory in retaining some sense of the obduracy and complexity of the social. It is unfortunate that much of what passes for education policy research is hasty, presumptive, and immodest and theoretically naive. As against the choice to focus on work that is theoretically literate what Beck called methodological nationalism that is ‘the standpoint of social scientific observers who implicitly or explicitly undertake research using concepts and categories associated with the nation’ has been studiously avoided. Beck argues that methodological nationalism produces ‘the zombie science’ of the national, a ‘science of the unreal’.2 The point is that education policy analysis can no longer be limited to within the boundaries of the nation state, what Jessop, Brenner and Jones (2008, p. 391) call methodological territorialism, and indeed some of the on-going developments in global policy raise questions about whether more and more states are losing the ability to control their education systems – a process of denationalisation. Concomitantly, education policy is being ‘done’ in new locations, on different scales, by new actors and organisations, sometimes operating ‘offshore’ – beyond or outside the national – which is again something to which I will return (See Dale and Robertson, Mundy and Verger, Gale, Reckhow and Snyder). So there are no country case studies in the collection. Those papers which address national cases are included because they highlight concepts, theory, or particular points of analysis which have a more general relevance and usefulness in part as ‘cases’ of globalisation in education: see Grimaldi and Serpieri (Italy), Ball and Junemann, Evans et al. (England), Johannesson, Lindblad and Simola (Finland, Iceland, Sweden), Lipman, and Apple (USA), Thrupp (New Zealand), Smyth, and Gale (Australia). What I have sought to include are papers that are transposable. That is, papers offering forms and methods of analysis which can be taken up and applied and used elsewhere – in other settings, sectors, policy fields, etc. The key point is that they should be useful. They should offer ideas, methods, insights, analysis that can be worked with by students, researchers and policymakers wanting to do policy analysis. They should help us ‘read’ and ‘re-read’ policy as Simons, Olssen and Peters (2009) very nicely put it. The intention here is to incite you the reader to do policy work, to ‘read’ and ‘re-read’ policy making use of the tools the papers in the collection offer. 2


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

Thus, in some ways, to rephrase Ulrich Beck the collection aims to offer a resource for what might be called a ‘cosmopolitan policy analysis’. That is, a toolbox for grasping the dynamics of an increasingly cosmopolitan reality. Over and against this, Beck argues that ‘national sociology’ is beset by ‘a failure to recognize – let alone research – the extent to which existing transnational modes of living, transmigrants, global elites, supranational organizations and dynamics determine the relations within and between nation-state repositories of power’ (Beck, 2004, p. 23). A cosmopolitan policy studies must develop conceptual and methodological resources for understanding the world that is subject to the effects and vicissitudes of globalisation (see below). Furthermore, the emphasis in the collection is decisively on policy scholarship rather than policy science. I am referring here to Brian Fay’s (1975) distinction. ‘Policy science’ he says ‘is a set of procedures which enables one to determine the technically best course of action to adopt in order to implement a decision or achieve a goal.’ (p.14) He goes on: ‘Policy scientists do not merely clarify the possible outcomes of certain courses of action, they usually choose the most efficient course of action in terms of the available scientific information.’ (p. 14) The purview of the policy scientist is limited to, and by, ‘the agenda of social and political problems defined elsewhere and by solutions already embedded in scientific practice’. On the other hand: Policy scholarship resists the tendency of policy science to abstract problems from their relational settings by insisting that the problem can only be understood in the complexity of those relations. In particular, it represents a view that a social-historical approach to research can illuminate the cultural and ideological struggles in which schooling is located . . . whereas policy science excludes ideological and values conflict as ‘externalities beyond its remit’. (Grace, 1995, p. 3)

Policy scholarship is invested the basic characteristics of what Simons, Olssen and Peters (2009 p. 17) call the critical education policy orientation (CEPO), which they argue emerged within and from the sociology of education in the 1980s and 1990s. They go on to suggest that although ‘this orientation was not grounded in a firm disciplinary basis’ it does have several characteristic features: a focus on ‘educational, moral and social concerns’; a ‘broad conception of policy, including politics, the mechanisms of power and the relation to the wider social context’ and ‘diverse forms of critical advocacy’. Simons, Olssen and Peters (p. 31) go on to sum this up, specifically in relation to the Handbook they edited as being ‘about gathering people around issues in education as a public, and hence turning education into a matter of public concern. This critical ethos is not in opposition to democracy, but is perhaps a way of living a democratic life. . . .’ 3


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

In practical terms the main task and challenge for me as editor was what to exclude. I identified many more papers for inclusion than could be accommodated. There were many very good papers that could have been included but are not, because of the limits of space. There are also various biases in the selection. There is a western bias to the collection, partly driven by questions of language – English is the medium for most published policy analysis work – this reflects to some extent different national traditions of policy analysis and global flows of policy discourse. I also have to own up to a more overt personal bias in the selection of the papers. These are papers that I like and I think are interesting. These are papers I find useful and challenging and thought provoking, that provide me with analytic resources that I have made use of in my own work. The divisions between the four volumes of this collection are very porous. Several papers could have been placed in more than one volume. Many papers combine theoretical sophistication with analysis of policy processes, explored in relation to globalisation and its effects.

Overview

Given the number and variety of papers I will not attempt to summarise them here, rather I will address some basic and cross-cutting issues that currently animate and define the field of education policy studies. Simons, Olssen and Peters (2009) offer a typology of what they call the ‘challenges, horizons, approaches, tools and styles’ deployed in re-reading education policies (p. 36) and I will not seek to replicate that here. Rather I shall outline and explore the contexts within which education policy is located, or more precisely what Brenner, Peck and Theodore (2010, p. 339) call the ‘context of context’, that is ‘the political, institutional, and juridical terrain within which locally, regionally, and nationally specific pathways of regulatory restructuring are forged’ is being re-worked. In doing so I emphasise the particular ‘reading’ of education policy and education policy studies that informs this collection – one which addresses both the convergence and dispersion of education policy in, across and between the spaces of policy. Globalisation, neoliberalisation and the state are the major components of this conceptualisation of the spaces of policy. I will conclude though by returning to the question of ‘the critical’. Policy always has a history and a context, and as signalled earlier a ‘context of context’ (see Bhanji, Dale and Robertson, Mundy and Verger). There is a proliferation of sites in which policy is being ‘done’, and a global flow of ‘policy technologies’ and practices (PPPs, assessment, data analytics, performance related pay, philanthropic investment, leadership, etc.) and concomitantly a new language of policy (brokering, incubation, scale partners, providers (chains), institutional autonomy, performance management, competition, choice, etc.). The point here is the need to acknowledge that global 4


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

activity can take place at multiple levels and on multiple scales, through complex, evolving network relations, with ‘domestic’ policy actors acting globally in their own right (see Tannock, Polelo). The flows and spaces and recontextualisations that link and intertwine local with global, give substance to what Lingard and Sellar (2014) call new topologies of policy (see Ramia et al., Brown, Lauder and Ashton). This is not a story of simple hegemony, or one-way flows of policy, but rather ‘there are multiple actors, multiple geographies and multiple translations involved in the processes of policy transfer’ (Larner and Laurie, 2010, p. 225). That is to say, the sites from and to which policies are mobilised need to be understood as unconstrained and dynamic, and not as sharply defined territories which emphasise physical or geographic proximity. The space of policy analysis is not defined by geographical entities, but by the space configured through the intersection of global and situated elements. Global, regional, national, state and city, local and institutional levels of policy intersect and diverge. Furthermore, the people who labour within and across these policy sites or ‘globalising microspaces’ are ‘sociologically complex actors . . . whose identities and professional trajectories are often bound up with the policy positions and fixes they espouse’ (Peck and Theodore, 2010, p. 170). It is possible to glimpse through their labour some of the work of ‘assembling’ political rationalities, spatial imaginaries, calculative practices and subjectivities (see Gale, Au and Ferrare, Ball and Junemann). That is to say, policies are made up of ‘embodied geographies’ and their analysis addresses the ways in which ideas travel and orthodoxies become consolidated. New kinds of careers, identities and human mobilities are forged within the processes of education policy and education reform. While education policy analysis is beginning to have things to say about flows, spaces, states and institutions, much less attention has been devoted to the lives and labour of the people producing the changing frames, practices and relationships through which policy work is shaped and done. So the ‘global forms’ through which policy is articulated and instantiated are phenomena that are distinguished by their ‘capacity for decontextualization and recontextualization, abstractability and movement, across diverse social and cultural situations and spheres of life’ (Ong and Collier, 2005, p. 7) (see Beech, Bradbury et al., Reckhow and Snyder). As policies move, and as new sites, new possibilities and sensibilities are established, policy is ‘talked’ and thought differently, and within new limits. What I am writing about is of course what is often referred to, often as a kind of crude and monolithic shorthand, as globalisation. Globalisation as a descriptive or analytic term is ubiquitous both in policy documents and policy research work but is often used loosely or without clear specification. We need to be wary of what Harvey (1996) called ‘globaloney’, the use of the ‘globalization thesis’ to explain almost anything and everything. One way of bringing some precision to bear, as Brown and Lauder (1996, p. 2) suggest is 5


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

that: ‘The significance of globalisation to questions of national educational and economic development can be summarised in terms of a change in the rules of eligibility, engagement and wealth creation.’ As regards eligibility, individual governments, even the apparently most powerful, may have experienced a reduction in their ability to control or supervise the activities of multinational corporations (MNCs), manage national finances and maintain the integrity of their economic borders. This results in the loss of ‘Keynesian capacity’, that is, the ability to pursue independent reflationary policies. However, it is important not to overstate the case here and succumb to what Weiss (1997) called the ‘myth of the powerless state’. She points out quite rightly that within the processes of globalisation ‘domestic state capacities differ’ (Weiss, 1997, p. 26) and that ‘the proliferation of regional agreements suggest that we can expect to see more and more of a different kind of state taking shape in the world arena, one that is reconstituting its power at the centre of alliances formed either within or outside the state’ (Weiss, 1997, p. 27). We also need to acknowledge here other kinds of related changes in the form and scope of state activities in many Western, South East Asian and BRIC and MINT economies. Contracting, deregulation and privatisation have also reduced, in both practical and ideological terms, the capacity for direct state intervention. That is not to say that these devices do not provide new forms of state steering and regulation, again I will come back to this. Regionalisation (like the EU) and free-trade agreements (like Mercosur, NAFTA, TTIP), and the work of GATTS, also involve a ‘giving-up’ of regulatory controls to business and enable the global trade in education services (see Ball, 2012). The rules of engagement describe the relationship between governments, employers and workers. The key change here, at least in the West, is from a Fordist, welfare corporatism to a ‘market model’ wherein ‘the prosperity of workers will depend on an ability to trade their skills, knowledge and entrepreneurial acumen in an unfettered global market place’ (Brown and Lauder, 1996, p. 3). Education policy in some countries reflects such shifts in a number of ways; for example in changes in the status, preparation and terms and conditions of employment of teachers and specifically the introduction on new routes into teaching and performance related pay for teachers; the opening up of education service delivery to for-profit providers; and more generally the subsuming of education policy into the imperatives and values of economic policy. As Tony Blair put it in a speech early in his time as UK Prime Minister (1997–2007): . . . education is our best economic policy. . .. This country will succeed or fail on the basis of how it changes itself and gears up to this new economy, based on knowledge. Education therefore is now the centre of economic policy making for the future. (Blair, 2005) 6


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

The new rules of wealth creation are replacing the logic of Fordist mass production with new ‘knowledge- based’ systems of flexible production. However, there are three crucial caveats to the last point. First, Fordist production systems in the West have not so much been replaced as ‘exported’, cheap labour and unregulated conditions of labour in some developing economies make the relocation of mass production an attractive proposition to MNCs. Furthermore, while MNCs are increasingly dominant, a great deal of capital activity remains ‘nationalistic’. Second, even within the developed Western, BRIC, MINT and Asian Tiger economies the new logic of flexible specialisation and ‘just-in-time’ production is not an inclusive one – low-skill, insecure jobs, particularly in the service sectors, are the main areas of expansion of work in all of these economies. These ‘new’ jobs have also contributed to the feminisation and ‘migrantalisation’ of the labour market (see Koyama, Lipman). Globalisation is producing ‘a new geography of centrality and marginality’ (Sassen, 1996, p. 19). Harvey (1989) makes the key point that ‘Under conditions of flexible accumulation, it seems as if alternative labour systems can exist side by side within the same space in such a way as to enable capitalist entrepreneurs to choose at will between them’ (p. 187). Education systems respond to and reproduce these divisions (Brown, Lauder and Ashton, Alegre, Collet and Gonzalez, Lipman). Thus, thirdly, the polarisations of Fordist/ post-Fordist economies are not so much alternative forms of capital and regulation as ‘a complex of oppositions expressive of the cultural contradictions of capitalism’ (Harvey, 1989, p. 39). The three general points then that I want to make here are that when we think about globalisation and its effects and consequences: (1) things have changed but not absolutely; (2) that while these changes have produced new ‘first-order’ problems, in terms of the demand for new skills for example, they have also produced new ‘second order’ problems, such as threats to the maintenance of political legitimacy and authority. Not everyone has an equal ‘stake’ in the success of the new economic order. Education policy has always addressed and responded to political as well as economic necessities; for example the formation and maintenance of national identities or what we might think about as ‘national imaginaries’; the development of forms of citizenship (which differ from nation to nation) – the EU education policies give particular attention to something called ‘EU citizenship’; and the maintenance of social order and social cohesion. Education policy as a practice of the state first emerged in the West in the nineteenth century as a response to the problems of managing the new urban populations. In the twenty-first century these problems of population management remain a concern for the state in relation to migration and cultural diversity in particular but are inflected somewhat differently in the ‘age of terrorism’. Michael Peters (2005, p. 3) says: In a world split between Jihad and McWorld the question of education in its two dominant political forms – multiculturalism and 7


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n citizenship education – can no longer be viewed simply as ‘therapies’ of the modern state designed to enhance the workings of a pluralistic political culture. More radically, education must actively reach beyond the confines of the modern state and the project of nation-building to establish an orientation to the Other in cultural and political terms as a basis for a new internationalism and world civic culture.

PR OO F1

In practice, at least at the present time, the actual responses of states to what Gray (2003, p. 2) calls ‘the privatized form of organized violence worldwide’ is policies of social cohesion on the one hand and increased surveillance of minorities and ‘Others’ on the other hand (see Means, Gillborn). Nonetheless, within policy, education is now regarded primarily from an economic point of view. That is, the role of education as a producer of labour and skills and of values, like enterprise and entrepreneurship, and of commercial ‘knowledge’, as a response to the requirements of international economic competition. The social and economic purposes of education have been collapsed into a single, overriding emphasis on policy making for economic competitiveness and an increasing neglect or sidelining (other than in rhetoric) of the social purposes of education. Education is increasingly subject to ‘the normative assumptions and prescriptions [of] economism’ (Lingard et al., 1998, p. 84). This is evident across a whole variety of policy texts in virtually every nation on the planet. There is an easy-to-grasp narrative here, an ‘insistent singularity’ that links the reform of educational practices to the global economy. What Fejes (2006) calls ‘planetspeak discourses’ produces a limited set of possibilities for speaking sensibly about education, which recur in many, very different national contexts, with the effect of ‘convergence’ – the deployment of policies with common underlying principles and similar operational methods. Pasi Sahlberg3 refers to this convergence as GERM – the global education reform movement – and argues that since the 1980s a set of basic policy technologies have increasingly become adopted as an orthodoxy of educational reform. He goes on to point out that GERM is often promoted through the interests of international development agencies and private enterprises through their interventions in national education reforms and formulation and dissemination of ‘good practice’. Sahlberg identifies five globally common features of GERM that are employed as strategies to ‘improve’ the quality of education and address the ‘wicked’ problems embedded in public education systems. The identification and naming of these ‘problems’ is a key facet of the ‘work’ of GERM. The definition of policy problems frames the possibilities of solution. The five highly interrelated features are: 1. The standardisation of education – this involves both a focus on o utcomes, i.e. student learning and school performance, and centrally prescribed curricula. 8


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n Consequently, a widely accepted – and generally unquestioned – belief among policy-makers and education reformers is that setting clear and sufficiently high performance standards for schools, teachers, and students will necessarily improve the quality of expected outcomes. Enforcement of external testing and evaluation systems to assess how well these standards have been attained emerged originally from standards-oriented education policies. The result is a homogenisation of education policies worldwide, based upon standardised solutions offered at increasingly lower cost for those desiring to improve school quality and effectiveness. 2. A focus on core subjects in school, in other words, on literacy and numeracy, and science. International student assessment surveys, such as PISA, TIMSS and PIRLS, are used as criteria of good educational performance, in which reading, mathematical and scientific literacy are used as the key indicators of the success or failure of pupils, teachers, schools, and entire education systems, at the expense of other subjects. 3. The search for low-risk ways to reach learning goals. ‘This minimizes experimentation, reduces use of alternative pedagogical approaches, and limits risk-taking in schools and classrooms.’ 4. The use of corporate management models as a main driver of improvement. Organisational practices are lent by and borrowed from business, making educational institutions more business-like and more like business, and a concomitant emphasis on productivity and performance rather than moral goals of human development. 5. Test-based accountability policies for schools. That is, tying of school performance – especially raising student achievement – to processes of accrediting, promoting, inspecting, and, ultimately, rewarding or disciplining schools and teachers. One consequence of this is that teachers devote increased attention to limited aspects of schooling, such as student achievement in mathematical and reading literacy, exit examination results and pedagogy is reduced to ‘teaching to the test’.

PR OO F1

In relation to all of this education is subject to reform, unendingly it seems. In the past 20 years education, like many other areas of social policy, has become subject to ‘policy overload’, or what Dunleavy and O’Leary (1987) call ‘hyperactivism’. That is, the ‘depth, breadth and pace of change’ and ‘level of government activity’ in education is ‘unprecedented’ (Coffield, 2006, p. 2). Policy is becoming ‘faster’ (Peck and Theodore, 2015). In part this activism and speed is tactical. It is about the dynamism of government, about being seen to be doing something, tackling problems, ‘transforming’ systems. Within the complex and expansive political rhetoric of education reform the ideas of transformation, modernisation, innovation, enterprise, dynamism, creativity and competitiveness are key signifiers. They often appear in texts as 9


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

co-occurrences, that is, they are linked together as an ensemble and signify the sense of the pace, movement and constant change that is taken to be required by the demands of globalisation, and of the needs of a globalised economy. These qualities are set over and against the supposed inadequacies, particularly the slowness and unresponsiveness and risk aversion, of the public sector prior to reform. The shift from the latter to the former is taken to be necessary and inevitable and related primarily to economic rather than social pressures and needs, as a response to the urgent demands of globalisation and international competitiveness. This is a key part of the ‘necessarian logic of . . . political economy’ as (Watson and Hay, 2003, p. 295) call it. However, the rhetoric of reform often also couples enterprise and economic success with improvements in social justice and equity, of a particular kind, and the maximisation of social, educational and economic participation in education – Education for All. In particular this is articulated through the ideas of meritocracy and social mobility, the argument being that modernisation and change are meritocratic and just insofar as they are an escape from old social divisions that subordinated talent to social status and are able to generate social mobility – often without any reference to the state of the economy and structure of labour market opportunities. Here individual and collective well-being are totally elided. Equity and enterprise, technological change and economic progress are tied together within the efforts, talents and qualities of individual people and the national collective – the ‘us’ and the ‘we’ of so many policy texts. Such textual constructions in policy documents work in a variety of ways to redraw boundaries, label heroes and villains, create space for action, exclude alternatives, legitimate new voices (like those of the private sector), attribute cause and effect and make some things seem natural and others inevitable, that is, to construct events into sequences – narratives – and thus rewrite history. The public sector is reimagined and within this and as part of the reform process public sector institutions are to ‘be more businesslike’ and ‘more like business’, and business itself, the private sector, is to have an increasing role in the management and delivery of public services. Despite all of this, education policies cannot be read off in their entirety from a global educational agenda, there are many education policies that have local, historic bases to them that are not in any way obviously or directly related to the economics of globalisation. Their exceptionality needs to be explained. This points to and points up a second ‘context of context’ to education policy – and a second way of thinking about the contemporary political economy of education – that is neoliberalism. To understand contemporary education policy we have to understand both globalisation and neoliberalism and their intimate and mutually reinforcing, complex and evolving and contested interrelationships. Like globalisation, neoliberalism is now a widely used term in education policy analysis, again sometimes it is used so loosely and broadly 10


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n that it is rendered almost meaningless (see Atasay and Delavan). The triumph of ‘the neoliberal imaginary’ requires a careful and subtle specification. What I mean here by neoliberalism is expressed very nicely by Shamir (2008, p. 3). Neoliberalism, he says: Is treated neither as a concrete economic doctrine nor as a definite set of political projects. Rather, I treat neoliberalism as a complex, often incoherent, unstable and even contradictory set of practices that are organized around a certain imagination of the ‘market’ as a basis for ‘the universalisation of market-based social relations, with the corresponding penetration in almost every single aspect of our lives of the discourse and/or practice of commodification, capital-accumulation and profit-making’ (Carvalho and Rodrigues, 2006).

PR OO F1

Such a view of neoliberalism recognises both the material and the social relations involved, that is both the neo-Marxist focus on the ‘economisation’ of social life and the ‘creation’ of new opportunities for profit, what Ong (2007) calls neoliberalism with a big N, and a Foucauldian analytics of governmentality, and particularly the governing of populations through the production of ‘willing’, ‘self-governing’, entrepreneurial selves, what Ong calls neoliberalism – with a small ‘n’. Neoliberalism is not simply a new form of political economy, it is a new form of social life, a new ‘way of being’. It ‘aspires to construct a responsible and moral individual . . . whose moral quality is based on the fact that they rationally assess the costs and benefits of a certain act. . .’ (Lemke, 2000, p. 12). The research on parental choice, for example, exemplifies this kind of responsible and assiduous individualism in contemporary education (see Vincent, 2012). The responsible parent, as consumer-citizen (Clarke and Newman, 2007) calculates the relation of choices made now for the shaping of the future lives of their children. This is the ontology of neo-liberalism: ‘. . . The only real agents, must be individuals, or let’s say, if you like enterprises’ (Foucault, 2010, p. 173). Thinking about or reading neoliberalism in these different ways involves, being both ‘post’ and ‘neo’ as Michael Apple (1995) puts it, it is a ‘balancing act’. In the examples deployed in this collection there is a complex interplay of material forces, relations and interests, and a set of ‘practices, relationships and forms of organization that are discursively constituted as economic’ (Clarke, 2008, p. 137). Neoliberalism is about both money and minds, and is a nexus of common interest between various forms of contemporary capital and the contemporary state (see Jessop, 2002). Peck and Tickell (2002a) identify three interrelated and uneven phases, waves or processes of neoliberalism, they are: ‘proto’ neoliberalism, ‘roll- back’ neoliberalism and ‘roll-out’ neoliberalism. ‘Proto neoliberalism’ is the intellectual project, shaped by Hayek and Friedman and other economic 11


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

and libertarian theorists, that was critical in the discursive construction of a political and economic crisis around the Keynesian-welfare state and an ‘alternative’ to it. With intellectual roots traceable back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the catalyst for the revival of liberal economic state theory was Frederick Hayek’s (1944) excoriating analysis of collectivism in The Road to Serfdom. ‘Roll-back neoliberalism’ refers to ‘the active destruction or discreditation of Keynesian-welfarist and social-collectivist institutions (broadly defined)’ (p. 37). The third neoliberal wave, ‘roll-out neoliberalism’, refers to ‘the purposeful construction and consolidation of neoliberalized state forms, modes of governance, and regulatory relations’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002a, p. 37) in order to stabilise or further entrench neoliberalism through the introduction of new institutions, policies and governmentalities. Peck and Tickell also point to the need to consider neoliberalism’s adaptability, its ‘ongoing dynamic of discursive adjustment, policy learning, and institutional reflexivity’ (2002b, p. 392). As already noted, neoliberal reforms are also ‘carried’ and spread globally through the activities of various actors and agencies of neoliberalisation and while it is that case that neoliberalism rests on and is defined in part by its opposite, its antagonism to the state, the state is also crucial in creating the conditions within which neoliberal sensibilities and methods can flourish. Many states, in very diverse political and cultural settings, act as market markers for neoliberalism. As noted already this involves changes in the form and modalities of the state itself and its relationship to and involvement in education service delivery. Concomitantly, new policy actors take on the work of the state. Education policy, as other policy fields within government, is now thought, influenced, and implemented in many different sites and the education policy community is increasingly diverse and unstable (see Ball, 2008). That is, there is a ‘catalyzing of all sectors—public, private, and voluntary—into action to solve their community’s problems’ (Osborne and Gaebler, 1992), and which brings about changes to the ‘boundary between state and civil society’ (Bevir and Rhodes, 2003, p. 42) and between state and the economy. In general terms this is the move towards a ‘polycentric state’ and ‘a shift in the centre of gravity around which policy cycles move’ (Jessop, 1998, p. 32). It involves a transformation and/or displacement of traditional public sector institutions. The effects of these moves, are often referred to as a shift from government to governance, or to ‘network governance’, or towards the ‘post-bureaucratic state’. They involve the development of ‘relations involving mutuality and interdependence as opposed to hierarchy and independence’ (Peterson, 2003, p. 1). However, clearly, older more direct hierarchy and command methods of government and governing have not been totally displaced by network governance (see Dean, 2007) but there are increasing elements of hybridity, intertwining, blurring, and instability in the processes of governance. That is to say: ‘The state, although not impotent, is now dependent upon a vast array of state and non-state policy actors’ 12


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

(Marinetto, 2005) and the state seeks to achieve its ends through an increasing variety of arrangements and forms of relationship. In addressing all of this the challenge is to theorise the continuities and changes together both in relation to education policy and governance more generally and to understand the policy process in relation to the new forms of state work. It is certainly not that network or heterarchical modalities of governance involve a giving up by the state of its capacity to steer policy, this is not a ‘hollowing out’ of the state, rather, it is a new modality of state power, agency and social action – a form of ‘metagovernance’ (Jessop, 2002, p. 242). In effect the current state of educational governance (involving both policy formation and service delivery), at national and local levels, is a complex and evolving mix of hierarchy, networks, and markets. Within this mix, networks are increasingly important. Making sense of the interplay and effects of globalisation and neoliberalisation in relation to the state generally and education policy more specifically requires a diverse and flexible set of analytic tools and a sense of the way in which policy is realised and invested in discourses, organisational forms and practices at various level and scales, in different sites, involving an increasingly diverse set of policy actors. It is also important, as a number of the papers in the collection make clear to research and understand policy in its complex ‘relations’ to practice. Policy is what is done, as much as what is required or specified. Policy is realised in processes of enactment and interpretation. Policy as process involves not only formal codes and directives, but also ‘material’ and ‘technical’ forms such as specific programmes, practices and institutions. Policies are unstable assemblages of values, authority, meaning, and practice. Assemblages bring together various states of things and bodies, as well as utterances, modes of expression, and whole regimes of signs – both material and immaterial objects – ‘a grid of intelligibility wherein power relations, knowledges, discourses and practices cross each other and make connections’ (Tamboukou, 2013, p. 8). Rizvi and Lingard (Vol. I, Ch. 5 in the collection) argue that: The analytic of assemblage shows, in our view, how public policy formations that appear stable, potentially even complete, are never so settled. A great deal of hard political work is done in drawing heterogeneous elements together, forging connections and sustaining them in the face of tensions. Highlighting contingency enables us to show how a range of governmental processes are involved in defining a policy problem, in diagnosing deficiencies and in making promises of improvement. In this way, the notion of assemblage underscores the importance of examining the ways in which alignments are forged, the messiness of the social world is articulated, particular knowledges are authorised, and failures and contradictions are managed. 13


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

We can think about policy as both the effect of interpretation and translation in relation to practice – the ‘work’ of policy actors, and as discourse, which produces teacher subjects and subject positions from which it is possible to speak about practice. These subjects are formed and re-formed by policy and are ‘“invited” (summoned) to speak, listen, act, read, work, think, feel, behave and value’ (Gee, Hull and Lankshear, 1996, p. 10) in particular and specific ways. Policy discourses provide us with ways of thinking and talking about our institutional selves, to ourselves and to others; in other words, they form ‘a regime of truth’ that offers the terms that make self-recognition possible’ (Butler, 2005, p. 22). Such discourses enable us to think about whether we are ‘good’ teachers or ‘effective’ teachers, to think about what learning is and how we recognise it, and to know what a ‘good’ lesson looks like. Given all of this, one task for the policy researcher is to find out how a human being is envisaged in our present and the social practices that constitute this human being. Policies as discursive strategies – sets of texts, events, artefacts and practices, speak to wider social processes of schooling, such as the production of ‘the student’, the ‘purpose of schooling’ and the construction of ‘the teacher’. In the same way, what counts as school is made up of ‘groups of statements’ (Foucault, 1986 p. 125) that constitute the discursive formation of the ‘school’ as a neoliberal institution. More generally, all of this involves working across what Dean (1994) calls the ‘terrains of government’, drawing on Foucault’s conceptualisations of neoliberal government as a particular configuration of the relationship between truth and power and the self (and thus ethics) or what Dean terms ‘the rapport between reflexivity and government’ (p. 211). All of this promises to make ‘government possible and to make government better’ (Rose, 1996, p. 45) through the ‘technocratic embedding of routines of neoliberal governance’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 384) in the everyday life of institutional practices. If we apply this dual abstraction to policy processes, an analytical gap can be bridged between, on the one hand, understanding and attending to the changing ‘global’, or ‘macro’ landscape in and through which education policy is being ‘done’ – what Sahlberg calls GERM, and on the other, focusing in detail on some specific elements and mechanisms which are constituent parts of this landscape at national and local levels – like choice, inspection, performance related pay, school leadership, contracting out, social enterprise and philanthropy. This duality also links government, to governing, or more precisely to governmentality – so that the changes in political and institutional arrangements of governance can be seen in their relation to quotidian changes in the texture of institutional life, the deployments of new practices of ‘management’ and the production of new kinds of self-governing and self- auditing subjects – and thus representing us in particular ways and making us ‘visible at a distance’. Or as Mitchell Dean succinctly puts it: ‘the problem 14


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

of government cannot be dissociated from a reflection on the relation of individuals to themselves’ (Dean, 1994). These acts of governing also rely on new forms of expertise, and knowledge, which serve to represent and make judgements about subjects and objects that are governed (Larner and Walters, 2004). The problem remains that by focusing on actors, the figures who are active across the policy landscape, we may neglect the geomorphology, and changes in terrain and substructure which produce this landscape. On the other hand, a preoccupation with global economic forces, political discourses and rationalities – like neoliberalism – may lead to a misleading neglect of transformative activities and the possibilities of surprise at the local level. It is the interplay between figure and landscape that is important theoretically and empirically. Many of the papers in the collection seek to join up the contexts and spaces of policy – to avoid a macro–micro division and instead seek to understand policy as in movement, as realised in different spaces, over time, in different ways, as different phenomena – to see global processes within institutional spaces, to see classroom interactions as tactics of governmentality, to recognise the limits and possibilities of actor’s enactment of policy, to appreciate both the reiterations and creativity of such enactments. Policies both change what we do (with implications for equity and social justice) and what we are (with implications for subjectivity, personhood and sociality). However, the focus of policy analysis and policy research is not solely on what ‘we’ do, but also, as Foucault puts it, on what, what we do does. That is, on the outcomes, consequences and effects of policy in terms of well-being, equity, democracy and social justice. This brings us back to what Simons, Olssen and Peters (2009, p. 24) call ‘critical advocacy’ and ‘its strong progressive commitment towards education and society’ and ‘a commitment to try to have an impact on education policy and to support educational reforms that lead to a more equal and less coercive society’ (see Smyth, Gillborn, and Weis et al.). This is what Weis et al. (Vol III, Ch. 62) call civically engaged educational policy- related scholarship.

Inequalities and social justice: class, race, gender, sexuality, disability

Education policies both address and reproduce inequality and oppression. Policies ameliorate and exacerbate existing patterns of disadvantage and produce new ones (see Brown and De Lissovoy, Ladson-Billings, Pillow, Marshall and Young, Keddie, Evans et al., Baker, Slee, Unterhalter, Koyama, Smyth). Again here, in terms of contemporary education policy, globalisation and neoliberalisation are a matter of concern. New forms of division, categorisation, marginalisation and exclusion are being produced within and in relation to globalisation and neoliberalisation. Globalisation is producing a 15


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n ‘deepening inequality in salaries and wages and claims to urban space, in new forms of racialization, and in increased contention over cultural representation and power’ (Sassen, 1998, p. xxvi). In the same way the sorting and labelling of students is a hallmark of neoliberalisation. Access and opportunity, and the concomitant educational identities, are distributed in a segmented and stratified educational marketplace. Lipman (Vol. III, Ch. 55 in the collection) says that: Neoliberalism has so thoroughly redefined public education in the USA that an agenda rooted in democracy, equity, and justice is dismissed as unrealistic. The logic of educational differentiation, centralized accountability, and regulation of ‘undisciplined’ youth has become naturalized. (p. 351)

PR OO F1

Slee (Vol. IV, Ch. 72 in the collection) relates this naturalisation of inequality to a general neglect of or turning away from the ‘real’ issues of inequality and social justice in public policy debates, what he calls ‘collective indifference’. This is fostered in part in the way the media represents ‘wicked’ social problems – what the problems are and how they are created. Slee also signals, as above, the different scales and sites of inequality and exclusion. Poverty and exclusion is not a north–south divide; it is not just the called developed and developing growing chasm between the so- worlds. Exclusion, disadvantage and oppressions walk among us; they are frequently unacknowledged inhabitants in our own comparatively affluent neighbourhoods . . . In our local sphere, the war on poverty has transmuted to become a war on the poor. We have returned to walled communities. Our schools too have high walls and narrow gates. (p. 898)

As suggested earlier many current policy texts engage with efficiency and equity – at the same time – often articulated around notions of social mobility and meritocracy. As a result of which inequality is displaced from a matter of structural or institutional disadvantage to focus on individual failings like lack of aspiration – cultural or inherited in some other forms. Gillborn calls this a new eugenics. Neoliberalism assumes that there are always natural differences in intelligence, motivation, moral character, etc; that testing and competition will identify the most able, and concomitantly provide a ‘fair’ basis for the allocation of ‘places’ in education training and the labour market. That the ‘unfit’ or inadequate, those deemed unable to manage themselves, should be subject to policy ‘interventions’ but receive minimum financial support, so as to discourage dependency. In the nexus of increasing economic disparities and neoliberal policy making (that is Salhberg’s GERM), the inequalities of race, 16


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n class, gender and disability intersect here and are articulated in terms of inadequacy and dependency, which has consequences and effects both in terms of distributive injustice and what Fraser (see Keddie) calls identity politics – the political justice issues of representation and mis-framing in the contemporary global era. The question for policy research is not simply a matter of who gets what or where and how educational opportunities and identities are distributed but who decides what is on offer. The spaces in which it was possible for parents, teachers, students, communities, employers, social movements, trade unions, and policymakers to reflect on, and think and speak about what they want from education – such as they were – are being closed down. As Ken Saltman argues:

PR OO F1

As education becomes more and more commodified, stupidity appears as its opposite, and the casualties are curiosity, investigation, disagreement, debate, dialogue, deliberation and dissent – habits of mind which are not only intellectual assets but critical qualities for the participation and ongoing recreation of democratic culture. (2010, p. 133)

Again, this depoliticisation of education and education policy (see Clarke, Vol. I, Ch. 9) acts to render collective conditions of experience into personal problems, displacing political and economic decisions into individual failings and responsibilities. Education policy is marked by a set of absences, as Smyth (Vol. IV, Ch. 81) argues: Absent are the voices of the excluded and the creation of real spaces in which they can be authentically involved in articulating ‘the problem’ as well as being partners in crafting ‘solutions’. Apparently absent is any official sense of trust – the idea that the disadvantaged, marginalized and excluded might actually have something worthwhile to say or that they might be trustworthy witnesses and partners in bringing about change. The reverse seems to be the case – the audit and accountability model comes across as being deeply distrustful, disrespectful and demeaning of those at the grassroots community level as well as the professionals who work there. (p. 125)

Notes 1 I am immensely grateful to Carolina Junemann for her support in all aspects of this task. 2 See Ulrich Beck Online: http://www.ulrichbeck.net- build.net/index.php?page= cosmopolitan. 3 See Pasi Sahlberg http://pasisahlberg.com/text-test/

17


21/04/2016 10:25

g e n e ra l i n t ro d u c t i o n References

PR OO F1

Apple, M. (1995) Education and Power. New York, Routledge. Ball, S. J. (1995) ‘Intellectuals or technicians? The urgent role of theory in Educational Studies’, British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3): 255–271 (reprinted in M. Hammersley (2007) Educational Research and Evidence-based Practice. London, Sage, pp. 106–120). Ball, S. J. (1997) ‘Policy sociology and critical social research: a personal review of recent education policy and policy research’, British Education Research Journal, 23(3): 257–274. Ball, S. J. (2008) ‘The legacy of ERA, privatization and the policy ratchet’, Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 36(2): 185–199. Ball, S. J. (2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary (1st edn). Routledge. Beck, U. (2004) ‘Cosmopolitan realism: on the distinction between cosmopolitanism in philosophy and the social sciences’, Global Networks, 4(1): 131–156. Bevir, M. and R. A. W. Rhodes (2003) ‘Searching for civil society: changing patterns of governance in Britain’, Public Administration, 81(1): 41–62. Blair, T. (2005) Speech on Education, Sedgefield Constituency, 18 November 2005. Brenner, N., J. Peck and N. Theodore (2010) ‘After neoliberalization?’, Globalizations, 7(3): 327–345. Brown, P. and H. Lauder (1996) ‘Education, globalisation and economic development’, Journal of Education Policy, 11(1): 1–25. Butler, J. (2005) Giving an Account of Oneself. New York, Fordham University Press. Carvalho, L. and J. Rodrigues (2006) ‘On markets and morality: revisiting Fred Hirsch’, Review of Social Economy, 64(3): 331–348. liberalism’, Focaal – European Clarke, J. (2008) ‘Living with/in and without neo- Journal of Anthropology, 51(1): 135–147. Clarke, J., J. Newman, et al. (2007) Creating Citizen-Consumers: Changing Publics and Changing Public Services. London, Sage. Coffield, F. (2006) Running Ever Faster Down the Wrong Road: An Alternative Future for Education and Skills. Inaugural Lecture, 5 December 2006, Institute of Education, University of London. Dean, M. (1994) Critical and Effective Histories. Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology. London/New York, Routledge. Dean, M. (2007) Governing Societies: Political Perspectives on Domestic and International Rule. Maidenhead, Open University Press. Dunleavy, P. and B. O’Leary (1987) Theories of the State. London, Macmillan. Fay, B. (1975) Social Theory and Political Practice. London, Allen and Unwin. Fejes, A. (2006) ‘The planetspeak discourse of lifelong learning in Sweden: what is an educable adult’, Journal of Education Policy, 21(6): 676–716. Foucault, M. (1986) The Archaeology of Knowledge (trans.Teresa de Lauretis), Bloomington, Indiana University Press. Foucault, M. (2010) The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the College de France 1978– 1979. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Gee, J., G. Hull and C. Lankshear (1996) The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder, CO, Westview Press.

18


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

Grace, G. (1995) School Leadership: Beyond Education Management. London, Routledge. Gray, J. (2003) Al Qaeda and What it Means to be Modern. London, Faber and Faber. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity. Oxford, Basil Blackwell. Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference. Oxford, Blackwell. Jessop, B. (1998) ‘The rise of governance and the risks of failure’, International Social Science Journal, 155(1): 29–45. Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge, Polity Press. spatial relations’, Jessop, B., N. Brenner and M. Jones (2008) ‘Theorizing social- Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 26(3): 389–401. Larner, W. and N. Laurie (2010) ‘Travelling technocrats, embodied knowledges: globalising privatisation in telecoms and water’, Geoforum, 41(2): 218–226. Larner W. and W. Walters (2004) ‘Globalization as governmentality’, Alternatives, 29(5): 495–514. Lemke, T. (2000) ‘Foucault, governmentality, and critique’. http://www.andosciasociology.net/resources/Foucault$2C+Governmentality$2C+and+Critique+IV-2.pdf Paper presented at the Rethinking Marxism Conference, University of Amherst, MA. Lingard, B. and S. Sellar (2014) ‘Representing your country: Scotland, PISA and new spatialities of educational governance’, Scottish Educational Review, 46(1): 1–5. Lingard, B., J. Ladwig and A. Luke (1998) ‘School effects in postmodern conditions’. In R. Slee and G. Weiner, with S. Tomlinson (eds), School Effectiveness for Whom? Challenges to the School Effectiveness and School Improvement Movements. London, Falmer. Marinetto, M. (2005) ‘Governing beyond the centre: a critique of the Anglo- governance school’, Political Studies, 2003(51): 592–608. Ong, A. and S. Collier (2005) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. Malden, Blackwell. Ong, A. (2007) ‘Neoliberalism as a mobile technology’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32: 3–8. Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler (1992) Re-inventing Government. Reading, MA, Addison-Wesley. Ozga, J. (1987) ‘Studying educational policy through the lives of policy makers: an attempt to close the macro-micro gap’. In S. Walker and L. Barton (eds), Changing Policies, Changing Teachers (pp. 138–150). Milton Keynes, UK, Open University Press. Ozga, J. (2000) Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain. Buckingham, Open University Press. Peck, J. and A. Tickell (2002a) ‘Neoliberalizing space: the free economy and the penal state’. In Neil Brenner and Nik Theodore (eds), Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Malden, MA, Oxford’s Blackwell Press. Peck, J. and A. Tickell (2002b) ‘Neoliberalizing space’, Antipode, 34(3): 380–404. Peck, J. and N. Theodore (2010). ‘Mobilizing policy: models, methods and mutations’, Geoforum, 41: 169–174. Peck, J. and N. Theodore (2015) Fast Policy: Experimental Statecraft as the Thresholds of Neoliberalism. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.

19


21/04/2016 10:25


PR OO F1

Peterson, J. (2003) Policy Networks. Vienna, Institute for Advanced Studies. Peters, M. (2005) ‘Introduction: education in the age of terrorism’. In M. Peters (ed.), Education, Globalization and the State in the Age of Terrorism. Boulder, CO, Paradigm. Rose, N. (1996) ‘Governing “advanced” liberal democracies’. In A. Barry, T. Osborne and N. Rose (eds), Foucault and Political Reason: Liberalism, Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government. London, UCL Press. Saltman, K. (2010) The Gift of Education: Public Education and Venture Philanthropy. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. Sassen, S. (1996) ‘Towards a feminist analytics of the global economy’, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 4(1): 7–41. Sassen, S. (1998) Globalization and Its Discontents. New York, New Press. Shamir, R. (2008) ‘The age of responsibilitization: on market-embedded morality’, Economy and Society, 37(1): 1–19. Simons, M., M. Olssen and M. Peters (2009) ‘Re-reading education policies’. In M. Simons, M. Olssen and M. Peters (eds), Re-Reading Education Policies: A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21st Century. Rotterdam, Sense. Tamboukou, Maria (2013) ‘A Foucauldian approach to narratives’. In M. Andrews, C. Squire and M. Tamboukou (eds), Doing Narrative Research. London, Sage. Vincent, C. (2012) Parenting, Responsibilities and Respect. London, Institute of Education. Watson, M. and C. Hay (2003) ‘The discourse of globalisation and the logic of no alternative: rendering the contingent necessary in the political economy of New Labour’, Policy and Politics, 31(3): 289–305. Weiss, L. (1997) ‘Globalization and the myth of the powerless state’, New Left Review, 225: 3–27.

20


21/04/2016 10:25

INTRODUCTION

PR OO F1

The papers in this volume provide an underpinning for the collection as a whole and constitute a sort of primer in education policy analysis theory. While not exhaustive many of the key theorists currently employed in education policy analysis work are represented here. This is a theoretical toolbox of ideas, concepts, perspectives and modes of analysis that can be drawn upon by policy researchers. As with the collection as a whole the work included here was selected for its usefulness and applicability to different contexts and objects of analysis. Some of these key theorists are writing for themselves here, in other cases overviews are provided by others, on their behalf. These offer different readings of and ways for us to ‘read’ education policy.

21


21/04/2016 10:25