1 / 21

ACRE Conference (July 2017)

This research examines the use of performative language by Heads of Physical Education (HoPE) in Free Schools, and its impact on school culture and teacher behaviors. The study employs qualitative interviews and a grounded theory approach. The findings shed light on the relationship between language, power, and governance in the context of Free Schools.

rcandace
Télécharger la présentation

ACRE Conference (July 2017)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACRE Conference (July 2017) The use of Performative language by Heads of Physical Education (HoPE) within Free Schools. Adam Burrows and Gareth Williams Edge Hill University – Department of Sport and PA burrowsa@edgehill.ac.ukwilliamg@edgehill.ac.uk edgehill.ac.uk

  2. The use of Performative language by Heads of Physical Education (HoPE) within Free Schools. PHYSICAL EDUCATION PERFORMATIVITY (HoPE) FREE SCHOOLS

  3. Background

  4. What are ‘Free Schools’? • With a partner you have 30 seconds to discuss what you know about ‘free schools’

  5. What are ‘Free Schools’? The introduction of free schools was arguably one of the major education reforms created by the previous Coalition government. Free schools are state-funded with the same legal status as academies (Gov 2016). They provide a way for groups of parents, teachers, charities, existing schools or other organisations to respond to a need for a new school in their community – whether for extra places, to raise standards or offer choice. Free schools; • have independent governance (outside LA control) • have control over how they spend their budget that comes directly from central government • are ‘all-ability’ schools, so cannot use academic selection processes like a grammar school can (e.g. entrance exams) • set their own pay and conditions for staff • can extend the length of school terms and the school day • don’t have to follow the national curriculum but must offer a broad and balanced curriculum.

  6. The Expansion in ‘Free Schools’. • 2011 – 24 free schools • 2016/17 – 425 with a further 200 approved for the future (this includes primary, secondary, 16-19, special and alternative provision free schools). The government have predicted that 420,000 further places are required up to 2020 (Gov 2017). • Also covers UTC’s, and Studio Schools (both support routes into the workplace e.g. engineering, ICT, business administration). • Such evidence is compelling proof that there is a need for this aspect of current government educational policy to be researched. • The Department for Education (2013) stated that 44% of the free schools that opened up to September 2013 were in the most deprived 30% of local areas and reflects, to some extent the need for new school places.

  7. Conflicting Views…

  8. Research by Academics Disconnect between government policy and the reality regarding provision; • Free schools are serving their own needs (self interest) in promoting and supporting for example, religion or business interests rather than the needs of the local community (a multi faceted argument in itself) (Walford 2014:Higham2013). • Free schools are required to operate on a ‘not for profit’ basis however according to Higham (2014) this is being ‘stretched’. • The existing concept of a free school for disadvantaged communities leading to ‘social mobility’ is far removed from the 19th century concept of community schools for working class children designed to establish community cohesion and community (Gerrard 2014).

  9. The Importance of Language. • Performative language – measurable, high quality, effective, impact, success, achievement, prioritise. • It has already been suggested that the use of language is particularly important within a performative culture (Lyotard 1984) invoking at the very worst a fear of being ostracised in the work place for those who do not comply. • Fielding (1999) believes that performative language has influenced teachers’ thoughts and feelings to the point where it may affect their actions. • In an attempt to fully disentangle this assumption, Frowe (2001) suggests that such an assimilation of language by teachers is either due to genuine attraction or a need to be part of the process, a desire to ‘play the game.’ • Grace (1994) even goes as far to say that the use of such language can have a ‘dehumanising’ effect and could influence teacher behaviours (teachers become programmed in both the written and spoken word). • Marion – English Teacher …‘I’m starting to sound like the language I hate!’ (Savage, cited in Gillies, 2013:100)

  10. METHODOLOGY • A qualitative design involving semi structured interviews with six HoPE in Free Schools across the NW over six months. • Data analysis involved a ‘grounded theory’ model (Silverman, 2014) • The theoretical basis – Foucault’s ‘toolbox’ (Gillies, 2013) • Governmentality • Ethics

  11. Why governmentality? • a ‘neutral’ analysis (Dean, 1999) of state governance and self regulation. • links with neoliberalism; state rigidity replaced by self regulation - ‘steering at a distance’ (Giroux, 1992 cited in Ball, 2007). • the effects of governmentality on rationalising HoPE behaviours leading to ethical considerations.

  12. Subject/school profiles • Martin – Head of PE (mid 50’s) at ‘King’s Grammar School’ a co-ed free school (last 3 years) that originally opened in the 16th century & caters for 4 – 18 year olds. Martin has taught at the school for 28 years. • Chris – Teacher i/c PE (early 70’s) at ‘Brunswick Faith School’ a non-academically selective, co-ed free school (last 6 years) that originally opened in 1986 catering for 4 – 16 year olds. Chris has now entered his 50th year as a teacher. He has taught in a number of schools prior to working at Brunswick. In addition to teaching PE Chris also teaches other subjects including humanities and photography.

  13. Subject/school profiles • Andy – Assistant Head, Teacher i/c PE and Maths teacher (late 20’s) at ‘Milltown Studio Design School’ a non selective alternative provider school focusing upon enterprise education, namely recreation, leisure & tourism, retail, ICT & business administration for 13 to 19 year olds. The school is part of a Trust that operates three schools in total. Andy has been at the school since it opened 3 years ago. For the last 2 years the school has been located within a refurbished ‘lodging house’. During the interview the Head teacher was present at the start. • Lisa – Head of PE (mid 20’s) at ‘Cast Town School’ a co-ed free school (last 5 years) within existing premises (formerly a high school). Lisa has been teaching for 3 years. Minutes before the interview was due to commence the SLT ‘interrogated’ the researcher about the questions.

  14. Subject/school profiles • Katrina – Head of PE (late 20’s) at ‘Greenvale’ a co-ed Free School catering for 11 -18 year olds set up by local residents in 2012 within temporary accommodation before opening up as a new build in 2013. Katrina has been teaching for 6 years and a significant amount of her timetable is devoted towards teaching Humanities. This interview was made possible via an ex Head teacher who in retirement, had been asked (by the DfE) to oversee the school. • Mark – Head of PE & Assistant Head (late 30’s) at ‘County Town School’ a faith school for boys which operates as part of a nationwide educational trust. At the time of the data collection the school was located in an office block; a 6th form will open in 2019. Mark has been teaching for 16 years.

  15. RESULTS, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION • HoPE views on having to write/speak performative language varies between ‘professionalism’ and concern that ‘the language is changing’. • ‘I wouldn’t necessarily say that I set out to actually do it … professional capacity point of view. I’m not a business man, I’m a PE teacher … they're always buzz/key words that you want to get in … gives the impression that you know what you are talking about’ (Martin) Led to questions about ‘playing the game’; ‘Course you do! …. to whom you are accountable …. the hand that feeds you’ (Martin).

  16. A FORM OF ‘NORMALISATION’ WITHIN A SCHOOL ‘RE-POSITIONED AND GOVERNED’ BY DOMINANT POLITICAL RATIONALITIES (Gillies, 2013) (b) ‘the language is changing’ (Mark). (c) Examples of inadvertent use of performative language; - assumption that ‘business language’ referred to competition between schools (Mark). - Use of ‘high quality’ as a phrase in itself (Andy) ‘CONDUCT OF CONDUCT’. RATIONALISATION OF BEHAVIOUR

  17. Age, status and experience of HoPE is a factor regarding language of performativity. • Younger teachers more accepting of performative language? • ‘It’s just standards, it’s professionalism..’ ‘there are types of language for a different audience’ (Katrina) • ‘Yeh, I think you're pushed to use certain language (Lisa)

  18. THESE PERFORMATIVE PRESSURES ARE REFLECTED IN THE FOLLOWING … • Book scrutiny (Katrina) • SEF (Katrina) • OFSTED as a ‘self governing tool’ (Martin) ‘MODE OF SUBJECTION’, ‘SELF FORMING ACTIVITY’ (standards or code used for self-evaluation) This has led towards ETHICAL ‘TENSIONS’

  19. PERFORMATIVE ‘PRESSURES’ AND A FREE SCHOOL STATUS ‘EDUCATORS RE-POSITIONED AND GOVERNED’ ….. (Savage In Gillies, 2013) ‘You know Free Schools have to be successful’ (Mark) ‘There seems to be a lot more about what you must do as opposed to what you might want to do’ (Mark) ‘The local community doesn’t have a school based on the local community any more, it has a school based on numbers’ (Chris) V ‘We are improving all the time’ ‘ … I think you’d get full support’ ‘…. lovely environment to work in …’ (Katrina) ‘Whatever we like to do …. we can. Because you’re not a robot here’ (Lisa) ‘You get more experience, more strings to your bow … it’s that family orientated feel for the place’ (Andy)

  20. CONCLUSIONS Free Schools differ according to type, numbers and history. Attitudes towards performativity expressed by HoPE vary according to age, experience and status of respondents. Any attempt to categorise/label is perhaps unfair. However, they are an example of educators ‘re-positioned and governed’ by ‘dominant political rationalities’ (Savage In Gillies, 2013).

  21. REFERENCES BALL, S. J. 2007. Education plc. Abingdon: Routledge. DEAN, M. 1999. Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage FIELDING, M. 1999. Editorial. “Taking education really seriously: two years hard labour.” Cambridge Journal of Education 29: 173-181 FROWE, I. 2001. “Language and Educational Practice.” Cambridge Journal of Education31:1, p. 89-101 GILLIES, D. 2013. Educational Leadership and Michel Foucault. London: Routledge GRACE, G. 1994. “Education is a public good: on the need to resist the domination of economic science.” In: Bridge D and McLaughlin T (eds) Education and the Market Place. London: Falmer Press. GERARD, J. 2014. Counter-narratives of educational excellence: free schools, success, and community-based schooling. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 35:6, p. 876-894 HIGHAM, R. 2014. Free schools in the Big Society: the motivations, aims and demography of free school proposers. Journal of Education Policy, 29:1, p. 122-139 LYOTARD, J-F. 1984. The Post-modern Condition: a Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Manchester University Press. SILVERMAN, D. 2014. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage WALFORD, G., 2014. Academies, free schools and social justice. Research Papers in Education, 29:3, p. 263-267

More Related