Does Action Research Have a Future? A Reply to Higgins

This paper presents a view of action research (AR) as a valuable way in which teachers can pose fertile questions and engage in inquiry with transformative possibilities. This counters claims of its being at best a sterile method of teacher research and at worst a perilous trap for teachers.Chris Higgins has argued that AR has lost its original intention of empowering teachers and sealing the theory practice divide. He claims that it has degenerated into a method devoid of thought. In its social science versions, it is harmful to the teacher–student relationship and teachers have been mislead into an impoverished idea of professional development. The impossible challenge for action research is to recover its original intention; impossible because the landscape of educational policy militates against it. The authors challenge Higgin's deep pessimism, his versions of AR and his negative account of the intellectual capacity of teachers. We argue that AR does empower teachers, integrates theory and practice and is alive and well, even though conditions in schools are not optimum. This argument is exemplified with numerous illustrations of actual AR projects, which evidence teachers’ participatory and collaborative work, in which they engage in positive change. There is scope for teachers wishing to develop ‘customised’ AR projects of their own in current conditions which have transformative potential in changing the practice of the individual teacher. This in turn supports building and participating in a ‘community of practice’, which strengthens the communal endeavour to contribute to good teaching and good education.     

A Question of Universality: Inclusive Education and the Principle of Respect

The universalist argument that all children should be educated in inclusive mainstream schools, irrespective of their difficulties or disabilities, is traced to the claims (a) that special schools and disability 'labels' are inherently humiliating, and (b) that no decent society tolerates inherently humiliating institutions. I ask (following Avishai Margalit) whether there is a sound reason for a child to feel humiliated by special schools/disability 'labels' as such, and find none. Empirically, some do and some do not find these humiliating, and it is argued that the failure to address the multiple 'realities' of disability and learning difficulty is responsible for the policy impasse in this area.     

Towards Universal Primary Education: investments, incentives, and institutions

The UN Millennium Project Task Force on Education and Gender Equality, an expert advisory group commissioned by the UN Secretary‐General, was asked to examine how dramatic improvements in education can be achieved in the developing world. The task force investigated the problems of low enrolment, early drop‐out and poor learning outcomes that so profoundly affect many children in the developing world. The experiences of both countries that have achieved important successes in rapidly scaling‐up access to primary education, and countries that have made only slow progress, shed light on the priorities for the leadership in both developing countries and donor agencies. The task force developed specific recommendations about overcoming demand‐ and supply‐side constraints to greater primary school completion; and about how international donors and technical agencies can stimulate and support country‐led progress, with financial resources that are linked to performance.