An investigation into localised policy-making during a period of rapid educational reform in England A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of PhD in the Faculty of Humanities 2014 Ruth McGinity Manchester Institute of Education, School of Environment, Education and Development Table of Contents Abstract 5 Declaration of Original Contribution 7 Copyright Statement 8 List of Tables 9 Abbreviations 10 Dedication 11 Acknowledgements 12 1 Introduction 13 1.1 Introduction 13 1.2 Thinking about localised education policy 15 1.3 Thinking with Bourdieu 17 1.4 Rationale for study 18 1.5 Structure 21 2 Situating the case: Policy and research in neoliberal times 26 2.1 Introduction 26 2.1.2 A policy scholarship approach 27 2.3 Explaining the neoliberal policy complex 28 2.4 Field theory and the neoliberal policy complex 34 2.5 Mapping the policy context: the doxa of the neoliberal policy complex 37 2.6 The development of autonomy in the neoliberal policy complex 43 2.7 Diversification, equity and access 46 2.7.2 Autonomy, social justice and standards 49 2.8 Localised policy-making 53 2.8.2 Studies into localised policy-making: leaders, teachers and students 56 2.9 Scene setting: contextualising Kingswood 61 2.10 Summary 66 3 Research design 67 3.1 Introduction 67 3.2 Designing the research 68 3.2.1 The development of the research relationship 68 3.2.2 The organisation of the ESRC CASE studentship 70 3.2.3 Developing an ethnographically informed approach 71 3.2.4 Developing the research questions 74 3.3 The thesis project 76 3.3.1 Sampling and interviewing with students 80 3.3.1.2 Student interview schedules 81 3.3.1.3 Student focus group schedules 82 3.3.2 Sampling and interviewing with parents 84 3.3.2.1 Parent interview schedules 84 2 3.3.3 Sampling and interviewing with teachers 86 3.3.3.1 Teacher interview schedules 87 3.3.4 Sampling and interviewing support staff 88 3.3.4.1 Support staff interview schedules 88 3.3.5 School leaders 89 3.3.5.1 School leaders interview schedules 90 3.3.5.2 Head and deputy 91 3.3.5.3 Head and deputy interview schedules 91 3.3.6 Governing body 92 3.3.6.1 Governing body interview schedules 93 3.4 Observations 93 3.4.1 Student observations 94 3.4.2 Meeting observations 95 3.5 Policy documentation 97 3.6 Analysis and understanding 99 3.6.1 Thinking and theorising with Bourdieu 102 3.6.2 Triangulation 102 3.6.3 Reliability and reflexivity 104 3.7 Access, ethics and power 108 3.8 Summary 4 Student positionality and localised policy processes 109 4.1 Introduction 109 4.2 Attainment and institutional position-taking in the field 110 4.2.1 Attainment policy as text 113 4.3 Student position-taking in the field: target and ability setting 116 4.4 Reproduction, class and setting 124 4.5 Student position-taking in the field: uniform and behaviour policies 127 4.6 Summary 141 5 Teacher positionality and localised policy Processes 143 5.1 Introduction 143 5.2 Teachers, deliverology and the national standards agenda 145 5.3 School structures and policy processes 149 5.3.1 School structures and policy processes: Teacher positioning 153 5.4 Positionality and performativity 158 5.5 Positionality and the Professional School concept 162 5.6 Personal position-taking and the neoliberal doxa 167 5.7 The professional illusio in localised policy-making 171 5.8 Summary 176 3 6 Leadership and policy 178 6.1 Introduction 178 6.2 The field of educational policy-making: The symbolic economy as a legitimating force 180 6.3 The accumulation of symbolic capital and professional habitus 184 6.4 Staff positioning in a culture of non-disagreement 195 6.5 Networks and networking 198 6.6 Summary 207 7 Interruptions, opportunities and threats: discussing localised school policy-making in a time of rapid reform 209 7.1 Introduction 209 7.2 Analysis so far 210 7.3 Synthesising the findings: addressing the research questions 216 7.4 The doxa of misrecognition in localised policy-making 225 7.5 Re-imagining the purposes of education in the neoliberal policy complex 229 7.6 Summary 232 8 Contributions to the field and directions for future research 234 8.1 Introduction 234 8.2 Contributing to knowledge, speaking to the literatures 235 8.3 Directions for future research 241 8.4 Summary 243 References 246 Appendices Appendix A, List of participants and contact 270 Appendix B, Student information sheet 275 Appendix C, Interview schedule (students) 276 Appendix D, Information for parents 278 Appendix E, Interview schedule (teachers) 283 Appendix F, Interview schedule (governors) 285 Appendix G, Observation schedule 286 Appendix H, Fictional vignettes 288 Appendix I, A Post-Viva Addendum 290 4 Abstract Ruth McGinity, PhD University of Manchester, Faculty of Humanities, July 2014 Title: An investigation into localised policy-making during a period of rapid educational reform in England The research reports on an ethnographic study undertaken at Kingswood, a secondary school in the North West of England, during a period of rapid reform within educational policy-making in England. The research project sets out to offer an empirical account of localised policy-making and a conceptual analysis as to how and why different social actors within and connected to the school are positioned and position-take in response to the schools’ localised development trajectory. In order to do this, the study operationalises Bourdieu’s thinking tools of field, capital and habitus as a means of theorising the complex relationship between structure and agency in the processes of localised policy-making. In order to present a detailed analysis of the positioning and position-taking I develop and deploy the conceptualisation of the neoliberal policy complex. I use this to describe and understand how the political and economic fields of production penetrate localised decision-making in which the connected agendas of performativity and accountability frame much of the localised policy processes at the research site. The neoliberal policy complex is defined by an on-going and increased commitment to legislative interventions, not least through an approach to the modernisation of public service in which autonomy and diversification are hailed as hallmarks for success. Drawing on data collected in a year long embedded study, from interviews and, observations with 18 students, five parents, 21 teachers, and seven school leaders, and documentary analysis, it is argued that within this neoliberal policy complex, the field of power is located as a centralising force in structuring the policy-making development and enactments at the local level. In order to achieve distinction within the schooling field and thus be acknowledged as legitimate within the neoliberal policy complex, Kingswood’s localised development trajectory reveals how the discourses of neoliberalism have been internalised by the social actors within the study, to produce subjective positioning which reveals a commitment to the neoliberal doxa. Within this theorisation certain knowledges, capitals and ways of doing and thinking are privileged and presented as common sense. At Kingswood, the conversion to an academy in April 2012 and the attendant re-organisation of the school provision into a Multi-Academy Trust, which has on site a ‘professional’ and a ‘studio’ school, are presented as a necessary construction for the school’s future, and the employability skills that will be subsequently embedded within the curriculum are framed as a common sense development of the purposes of education. The study concludes that such position-taking ultimately reveals how the centralising and hierarchical notions of power work to produce a narrative of 5 misrecognition with regards to how the school must develop localised policy-making in order to remain a viable and legitimate entity in the schooling field. The research makes a contribution to the field of policy scholarship by applying Bourdieu’s thinking tools to the empirical findings from a range of social actors in and connected to the school in order to construct an understanding of the relationships between power and positionality in localised policy-making in neoliberal times. 6 Declaration of Original Contribution No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. 7 Copyright Statement i. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and she has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. ii. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. iii. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trade marks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions.