Ways of thinking.
The educational limitations of ideology.
On the 5th of November, I had the very special privilege of presenting some of the ideas surrounding my research at the Deakin’s Faculty of Arts and Education annual HDR Conference for 2022.
The theme of the conference was ‘Ways of Thinking’, exploring the various factors that inform and impact on thought. In line with my current research direction, I chose to discuss the educational limitations of ideology and what could be done to address this.
For those who are not part of the Deakin HDR community, or could not attend the conference, I figured it would be worth sharing my presentation notes for anyone interested.
Find below the notes that I referred to in my address at the conference.
The Educational Limitations of Ideology
Introduction
In the short amount of time I have to speak with you all, I want to briefly propose how current ways of thinking surrounding education, specifically in relation to its purposes and aims, not only impact on the work of teachers but on how teachers might exist within their profession. In other words, I wish to describe how ideological thinking surrounding education impacts on the subjectivity of teachers and what could be done to challenge this.
I aim to provide some brief examples of how the inter-related ideologies of neoliberalism, social efficiency, and conservatism have contributed to a certain kind of mythologised “common sense” in relation to education and the work of teachers. I will then briefly describe my research direction and discuss how reflexive engagement with educational ideologies presents the possibility of emancipation for teachers to enact alternative visions for education in their practice despite the dominance of the before-mentioned ideologies.
Ideologically dominated thinking in contemporary Australian education
I currently define ideologies as the politically motivated systems of beliefs and convictions regarding the way society ought to be. It is my argument that the inter-related ideologies of neoliberalism, social efficiency and conservatism are the dominating forces guiding educational policy, discourse and practice in Australia currently. Furthermore, these ideologies impact on the very existence of teachers within their profession. Let me provide some examples of this:
Neoliberalism, which values marketisation, consumerism and deregulation frames the teacher as an individual competitor in an educational market. Social efficiency ideology, which is founded upon the perspective that education must serve the pre-determined needs of a client in the most economically efficiency way possible, posits the existence of the teacher as an effective technician and scientist of learning. Finally, conservatism aims to maintain the status quo, resist change and sees the role of teacher as static entity of unflinching values and beliefs.
These three ideologies complement each other and dominate the education space in Australia today, to the point at which they have formed a mythologised “common sense” of what it means to exist as a teacher. It is these three complementary frameworks of the teacher which I would argue ultimately limit the educational potential of teachers through a process of control.
The educational limitations of ideology
Thus far, I have explored what I determine to be the three most dominant ideologies influencing educational thinking in Australia today, as well the ways in which these ideologies frame the existence of the teacher in specific ways. It is here that I wish to describe the educational limitations of these ideologies, by providing some brief examples of how they play out in the experience of teachers.
The teacher as an individual competitor in an educational market is coerced into competition against other teachers for limited on-going positions within schools. They must prove their worth by performing on narrow, standardised metrics of student success. KPI’s, not students, become the foci of one’s attention in this world. Disregarding structural issues of policy and resources, they are made solely responsible for student learning, leading to feelings of failure if they have not already been burnt out by the relentless pressure to adhere to high stakes accountability. We are losing good teachers to this. Nevertheless, suggestions for policy reform continue to draw from these individualised and marketised lines of thinking. Performance pay, choice and competition continue to be presented as ‘solutions’ to complex educational problems, despite the lack of evidence supporting their value.
The teacher as an effective technician and scientist of learning is formed into an agent of control. Value of knowledge is not important. Rather it is the process itself that is valued. What matters is that knowledge has been stored in long-term memory and can be appropriately recalled providing evidence of learning. The teacher diagnoses student learning needs in relation to pre-determined outcomes, implements interventions and assesses the impact of these interventions through an iterative process. Thus, teacher quality becomes narrowly defined by process and implementation of “what works” strategies such as Victoria’s High Impact Strategies (HITS). The opportunity for teachers to critically engage with knowledge is thwarted. Science becomes the trump card and ‘evidence’ becomes to tool with which to effectively silence alternative visions of what it means to be a teacher.
Finally, defining the teacher as a static entity precludes the possibility of an alternative vision, solidifying these perspectives as natural, “common sense”, and the way things really are.
Considering these impacts on teacher subjectivity, what space is there to challenge dominant ways of thinking in relation to the existence of the teacher?
This is where my research comes in. My hope is to explore the emancipatory potential of reflexivity on the subjectivity of teachers in Australian secondary schools.
Moving through ideology
Foucault reminds us that we cannot remove ourselves from the realities of power. Therefore, maybe it is not a matter of attempting to move outside or beyond ideologies but moving through them.
So, how does one move through ideology?
The short answer to this question is:
“I don’t know”
However, I have a hunch that allowing teachers the opportunity to engage reflexively (or in other words critically) with the values and beliefs that impact on their work as teachers could allow a space for emancipation. Individually and collectively considering alternatives to dominant educational narratives might free teachers to test and enact alternative visions to education within their contexts, which may serve to benefit their communities in a tangible and meaningful way.
There is a lack of public spheres to allow teachers the opportunity to engage reflexively with educational ideologies. Therefore, I am hoping to engage a number of teachers around Australia in an online focus group to consider the ideological dimensions of their work and their contexts. To provide the space to challenge current ways of thinking in education and dialogue together about what can be done in schools.
Will this make a difference? And if so, what kind of difference?
I guess we will just have to wait and see.