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.     

The application of Gestalt to organizational interventions in universities

Abstract

This paper will outline the Gestalt cycle, (Perls, 1947) used as the basis for modelling the process of Gestalt therapy and counselling. Then we will go on to describe how it (Gestalt) can be used as a way of understanding organizational processes and culture. For staff developers to be effective in influencing the organizations in which they work they have to be able to make appropriate interventions. The necessary skills and attributes required of a staff developer operating in a Gestalt role will be discussed. Gestalt offers one model that can help the staff developer decide what interventions are appropriate when and why.

The paper will then move on to look at what happens if an organization gets stuck at any point in the Gestalt cycle and what this will feel like for employees and students. We will then offer intervention strategies for moving the organization on round the cycle.

Finally we will draw some general conclusions about how staff developers have a key role in helping universities cope, manage and adapt in these times of rapid change in Higher Education.     

Referencing and borrowing from other systems: the Hong Kong education reforms

Abstract

Background: This paper analyses the role of, and approach to, policy referencing and borrowing in Hong Kong’s recent reforms that culminated in the creation of its New Academic Structure and the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education.

Main argument: It argues that Hong Kong has gone further than most jurisdictions not just in responding to global influences on education reform, but in taking explicit steps to internationally benchmark its curriculum and assessment, and in involving the global community at multiple levels in the process of education policy planning and implementation.

Sources of evidence and method: The paper is based on the documentary analysis of policy documents in Hong Kong, and 23 interviews with key stakeholders in the policy network, including policy-makers, practitioners and community leaders.

Discussion and conclusions: While policy referencing and borrowing in the Hong Kong context can, in part, be traced to a colonial legacy, the Special Administrative Region of China demonstrates a collaborative approach to education reform involving local and international engagement that may be relevant to other systems. Its approach was informed by a measured use of policy referencing that involved ‘horizon scanning’ of other systems’ policies and practices; international benchmarking; and engaging international expertise to facilitate implementation.