Search

This paper explores the practices of division in operation in primary schools in England in response to the pressures of high stakes tests at age 10/11, known as SATs. Using data from interviews with 20 primary headteachers and information from a survey of nearly 300 primary heads, we argue that the organisation of pupils in preparation for SATs involves 1) the use of grouping by 'ability' in sets, despite the increasing evidence of the disadvantages; 2) forms of educational triage, where borderline or 'cusp' children are prioritised, and more complex forms of 'double triage'; and 3) the growth of 'intervention culture' where some children are withdrawn from normal lessons to resolve 'gaps' in their learning. In this article these practices are understood through a Foucauldian lens as micropractices of power which label and categorise pupils within an accountability system that seeks to classify pupils on a norm/Other binary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article reflects upon the neoliberalisation of higher education and its effects on teaching practice. It is argued that a neoliberal discourse of teaching excellence has the effect of working against, and potentially undermining, the emancipatory potential of higher education. The article reflects upon attempts to navigate disciplinary power in the neoliberal university and considers whether critical, emancipatory praxis is possible or if complicity in, and co-option by, neoliberalism is inevitable. Ultimately, it is concluded that individual teachers have some scope to pursue approaches which counter neoliberal dominance but that this is heavily constrained. A broader, collective, project will therefore be necessary if alternative (critical, emancipatory) visions of teaching and learning in higher education are to successfully challenge neoliberal hegemony and the negative effects of this in the academy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that, despite the obvious and important differences between high-stakes and low-stakes assessment, there remain important points in common. These manifest themselves at a sociological level, where each tradition of assessment shares a similar disposition towards power. It is argued that both high-stakes and low-stakes assessment, as they are practised in England today, act together in support of a wider regime of power. This regime relies upon the construction of specialised subjectivities, defined by a myopic and self-perpetuating concern with individual progression. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]