Is The National Primary Strategy transforming or ossifying English ...

Is the Primary National Strategy transforming or ossifying English Primary
Schools? Paper presented at the Nordic Educational Research Association Conference,
University of Orebo, Sweden, 9-11 March 2006 by Bob Curtis, PhD Research Student, Nottingham University, UK. Abstract: Documentary and interview evidence, from current PhD research, into the
implementation of the Primary National Strategy in six schools in areas of
social deprivation in central England has suggested that, despite apparent
freedom to innovate and change, centralised governmental control and power
still dominate. Despite the rhetoric of creativity and devolution, there is
evidence that a Foucauldian panopticon (Foucault, 1977 p184) of
surveillance is continuing, sometimes subtly and sometimes unintentionally,
within the Primary Strategy. In this paper, I consider three issues that
hamper the capacity of primary schools to achieve the goals outlined in the
strategy. In the first instance I consider whether targets, tables,
testing and inspection are inhibiting and distracting schools from creating
environments where democratic decision making and collective ways of
working can flourish. Secondly, evidence from headteachers suggests, in
particular, that the rigid structure and under-funding of statutory
preparation, planning and assessment (PPA) time for teachers may be
limiting curriculum development and creativity by frustrating the model of
collaborative working used in most successful schools (Pollard, 2002).
Finally I highlight evidence of how the long standing primary/secondary
school funding imbalance (Alexander, 2000) is adding to these concerns and
how the onerous burden of implementing other initiatives within the Primary
Strategy is thwarting headteachers from sustaining democratic learning
communities within their schools.
Introduction Excellence and Enjoyment: a strategy for primary schools (DfES, 2003),the
introductory document of the National Primary Strategy, was presented by
the Secretary of State for Education, Charles Clark as the definitive way
forward for English primary education, in May 2003. Building on the
proclaimed success of the New Labour government imposed National Literacy
and Numeracy Strategies (1998 & 1999), it stated emphatically that 'Our
goal is for every primary school to combine excellence in teaching with
enjoyment in learning' (p4). At a time when achievement in national Key
Stage 2 literacy and numeracy tests for eleven year old pupils seemed to
have stalled (Earl et al., 2003), it promoted creativity and cultural
education as ways to further improve results. It also introduced a wide
ranging set of structural innovations with similar intentions. In this paper I intend to explore the structure of the document, how the
policy has been interpreted in six primary schools in areas of social
deprivation in the English midlands, the influence which it has had and
whether it is sustainable within the context of financial restrictions and
innovation overload.
The Origins of Excellence and Enjoyment The publication of Excellence and Enjoyment (DfES, 2003) was the
culmination of a power struggle for the control of primary education that
had been going on in a cauldron of intense political and media pressure for
almost 30 years. In the early 1970s a curious combination of recession, a
three day working week caused by national miners' strikes, petrol
rationing, and student riots and protest had created a climate where the
right wing establishment and the press were looking for scapegoats
(Woodhouse, 1987 p135). They found an educational one in 'their persistent
caricature of anarchic primary schools neglecting to teach the basics of
literacy, numeracy, conformity and deference' (Alexander, 2000 p140).
School teachers could no longer be trusted to deliver. James Callaghan,
Prime Minister highlighted this concern in his introductory speech to the
'Great Debate' on Education in 1976 at Ruskin College, Oxford - 'There is
unease felt about the new informal methods which seem to produce excellent
results when they are in well qualified hands, but are much more dubious in
their effects when they are not' (Callaghan quoted in Jones, 1983 p73). Politicians of all parties, seeing the decline in non-skilled and manual
employment, called for a system of education that would empower children
through the acquisition of skills necessary for the country to survive in a
rapidly changing global economy (Tomlinson, 2000 p21). But there was no
agreement about what this actually meant. The days of consensus were over.
The battle for power and control of the school system had begun. For the
next thirty years a series of structures and regulations were introduced by
central government which constrained schools and removed power from local
education authorities. Schools became subjected to one of the most tightly
controlled and regulated state education systems in Europe (Alexander, 2000
p122). I now consider how the post structuralist approach of French philosopher
Michel Foucault exemplifies the current situation with regard to the
introduction and implementation of the National Primary Strategy.
Why Foucault?
The theorisation of Foucault's' concepts of power-knowledge, discourse and
panopticism can help to explain the origins of the systems of control and
regulation in schools today (Foucault, 1977). His work can usefully be
applied to look at how the current English education system is based on
panoptican principles of penal reform, with the schools and teachers, the
prisoners, subject to the most intense ongoing scrutiny.
In Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison (1977) Foucault examined
the history of the development the prison and how a system of external
physical discipline, involving both capital and corporal punishment was
gradually superseded by the more manipulative imposition of internal
discipline as exemplified in the transparency of the Benthamite Panoptican.
In this system the prisoner was housed in a large windowed cell in which
his behaviour could be constantly monitored from a central point. At the
same time each prisoner was isolated from contact with other adjacent
detainees. Uncertainty in the mind of the prisoner was achieved by a subtle
placing of blinds and screens to shield the observer from the prisoner. He
never knew if or when he was being observed. This method of surveillance
placed the responsibility for conforming to the expectations of the
institution firmly with the prisoner. From initially considering the prison, Foucault was able to apply the same
model of power and control to other organizations; the mental institution,
the factory, the school and the hospital. In considering schooling Foucault
focussed on the power and control of the teacher to instruct children - for
the 'production of knowledge and skills in the school' (Foucault, 1977
p219). Such Foucauldian disciplining and normalization of children has been
clearly identified by Holligan from case studies in nursery schools
(Holligan, 2000). In this study, there is evidence of policy expectations
and discourse controlling the normalization of behaviour. Such Foucauldian
discourse is summarised by Ball 'Discourses are about what can be said and
thought but also about who can speak, when, where and with what authority
(Ball, 1994 p21). In another study Hope has investigated how student access
to the internet is monitored and controlled using panopticon systems of
surveillance by teachers, and how this is often undermined by subversive
(un-observed) activities of pupils in secondary schools. He also considered
the role of the super-panopticon of Poster, associated with the development
of on line technology and complex data handling systems (Hope, 2005;
Poster, 1990) and how the availability of such information may influence
educational choice and accompanying resources.. The power and control of discourse is highlighted by Selwyn when he raises
concerns about the Panopticon nature of National Grid for Learning (NGfL),
an internet based system of communication for teachers and students,
controlled by the government and being installed in every school (Selwyn,
2000). One of the issues raised for future research by Selwyn was - 'What
effect is the Grid having in centralising power towards the government and
the DfEE and away from local stakeholders in education?'(p253). Evidence
of the way that this now well established network has been used to
strengthen central government control of schools is considered later in
this paper.
Foucault's notions of 'disciplinary regime' and 'normalising judgement'
have proved useful in framing teachers' judgements of the most overt
element of government control, the Office for Standards in Education
(OFSTED) (Case, Case, & Catling, 2000) . Foucault himself talks of how
power relations have become ' ... progressively governmentalized, that is
to say, elaborated, rationalized, and centralized in the form of, or under
the auspices of, state institutions' (Foucault, 1994). Griffiths highlights comments made by Foucault taken from an interview in
relation to education in 1988;
'Power is not an evil. Power is strategic games... Let us also take
something that has been the object of criticism, often justified: the
pedagogical institution. I don't see where the evil is in the practice
of someone who in a given game of truth, knowing more than another,
tells him what he must do, teaches him, transmits knowledge to him,
communicates skills to him. The problem is rather to know how you are
to avoid in these practices ... the effects of domination' (Foucault
1988 p18-19 quoted in Griffiths, 1998 p60).
Pignatelli (2002) highlights the way in which the ethical stance of some
people working in education challenges the domination of those attempting
to impose a fixed structure upon them. He explains that the work of
Foucault supports th