Creativity and performativity policies in primary school cultures

Cultures of performativity in English primary schools refer to systems and relationships of: target‐setting; Ofsted inspections; school league tables constructed from pupil test scores; performance management; performance related pay; threshold assessment; and advanced skills teachers. Systems which demand that teachers ‘perform’ and in which individuals are made accountable. These policy measures, introduced to improve levels of achievement and increased international economic competitiveness, have, potentially, profound implications for the meaning and experience of primary teachers’ work; their identities; their commitment to teaching; and how they view their careers. At the same time as policies of performativity are being implemented there is now increasing advocacy for the adoption and advancement of ‘creativity’ policies within primary education. These major developments are being introduced in the context of a wide range of social/educational policies also aimed at the introduction of creativity initiatives into schools and teaching. This complex policy context has major implications for the implementation process and also primary teachers’ work and how they experience it. The ethnographic research reported in this article has been conducted over a school year in six English primary schools in order to analyse the effects of creativity and performativity policy initiatives at the implementation stage. The article concludes by arguing that in the schools of our research the drive to raise pupil test scores involves both performative and creative strategies and that this critical mediation goes beyond amelioration toward a more complex view of professional practice. Implementing creativity and performativity policies provided important contextual influencing factors on teacher commitment. These were: curriculum coverage and task completion; and providing psychic rewards of teaching.     

ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS IN EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY

It is quite clear that the university‐sector of higher education will be facing severe financial restraint over the next four or five years. Publicly‐financed service industries (of which the university is but one example) find decision‐making in times of retrenchment difficult. Self‐governing bodies with dispersed centres of power can operate without too many problems in periods of growth. Conflicts of interest can be controlled and Departments can accept short‐term limitations as long as it seems that “their turn will come” in future years. But now decision‐making in universities will probably become more rigorous, more questioning, and much more liable to adopt an adversary approach towards Departments which resist decisions.

In these circumstances it is important to examine the role of educational technology within universities, and the decisions to be made in assessing their cost‐effectiveness.     

Reflections on developing an offshore,action research/learning-based Ph.D. program

In this paper, the authors describe their experience of establishing an action research/learning-based doctoral program in Singapore by an Australian university, which was designed to help managers get academic accreditation while solving workplace problems. The program was designed by four managers working in Singapore and their supervisors. These managers had completed a Ph.D. program using action learning/action research in their workplace under the supervision of Australian academics. The paper describes the various challenges faced by the candidates, supervisors and administrators in developing and implementing the new program.     

Developing the Coach Analysis and Intervention System (CAIS): establishing validity and reliability of a computerised systematic observation instrument

We outline the evolution of a computerised systematic observation tool and describe the process for establishing the validity and reliability of this new instrument. The Coach Analysis and Interventions System (CAIS) has 23 primary behaviours related to physical behaviour, feedback/reinforcement, instruction, verbal/non-verbal, questioning and management. The instrument also analyses secondary coach behaviour related to performance states, recipient, timing, content and questioning/silence. The CAIS is a multi-dimensional and multi-level mechanism able to provide detailed and contextualised data about specific coaching behaviours occurring in complex and nuanced coaching interventions and environments that can be applied to both practice sessions and competition.