Conceptions of responsibility within and beyond neoliberal frames

Abstract

This paper explores different conceptions of responsibility within and beyond neoliberal frames. Such exploration draws on the experiences and accounts of ‘Ashleigh’, a head teacher at a primary school in outer London that is part of an academy chain. Ashleigh and her school were key participants in a study that explored matters of accountability, performativity and equity. Through the presentation of interview data gathered from Ashleigh and six of her staff, the paper theorises ways of being a head teacher as aligning with the responsible neoliberal subject – a self-determined and rational actor who readily takes up the modes of regulation and measurement expected of them. It also highlights how this subjectivity sits within and alongside relations of care and concern for the welfare of students and teachers. The paper critically examines the implications of these different conceptions of responsibility in their production of different versions of professionalism. It also seeks to broaden current scholarly understandings of the responsible neoliberal subject and provide a counter-story to the tendency within public and political discourse for responsibility to be constructed in largely neoliberal terms.

Keywords

Responsibilisation neoliberalism school accountability care relations primary school leadership

Introduction

‘Ashleigh’ is in her mid-30s. She has been the leader of ‘Diamond’ Primary School since it became part of an academy chain in 2011. This is her first school leadership appointment and she has been extremely successful. When she took up the post, the school was, in one teacher’s words, ‘on its knees’. Staff morale was low and student achievement and behaviour were poor. Situated in a very deprived area and catering to highly disadvantaged students, the school had a reputation as a ‘dumping ground’. According to Ashleigh it was a place to go (as a head teacher) ‘if you wanted your career to end’. Ashleigh’s foray into the school was turbulent and uncertain. Indeed, given the high number of head teachers the school had had in a short time period (the previous one to Ashleigh lasted only a few days), she was aware that families of the school were having bets on how long she and the school would last. Diamond is now thriving with enrolments increasing from 400 to 510 in less than two years. Their recent ‘good’ rating¹ from Ofsted was, according to Ashleigh, like ‘winning gold in the Olympics’ – as she explained, ‘because it was like everyone said this school was awful and everyone [said] they need[ed] to leave. [Now] we’re part of a good school and people feel really proud’.

The staff attributed the improvement of Diamond to a combination of the support and ethos of the academy chain (which I will call ‘CONNECT’) and Ashleigh’s leadership. Becoming part of CONNECT involved the school taking up particular non-negotiable programmes that, like many such chains, involved a relentless focus on literacy and numeracy and a strong focus on discipline (see Ball and Junemann, 2012). Ashleigh embraced this ethos and the high expectations for improved academic attainment that came with it, as she commented: ‘I think being part of CONNECT, you either believe in what we’re doing or you don’t and if you don’t believe, why are you here in the first place?’ Such belief was clear in Ashleigh’s description of herself as ‘data-driven’ and ‘obsessed’ with raising the school’s performance on tests and their Ofsted rating. She was, however, also acutely aware of the limitations of this data-driven focus in failing to adequately account for the ‘stories behind the data’. Her efforts to tell those stories and to support her students reflected an intense concern for their welfare that went beyond simply caring for the reputation of the school but reflected a notion of caring that was relational and reciprocal (see Noddings, 2005).

This paper explores the different conceptions of responsibility reflected in Ashleigh’s leadership as framed both within and beyond neoliberal discourse. At times Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility – that is, her data-driven focus – reflected the characteristics of the ideal neoliberal subject. This is a subject who is self-determined and rational and who readily takes up the modes of regulation and measurement expected of them (Rose, 1999; Shamir, 2008). At other times, the limitations of this focus were clear in Ashleigh’s intense care for the school’s students, parents and staff. Here, neoliberal subjectivities could be seen as sitting within and alongside relations of care. The paper critically examines the implications of these different conceptions of responsibility in their production of different versions of professionalism. It also seeks to broaden current scholarly understandings of the responsible neoliberal subject and provide a counter-story to the tendency within public and political discourse for responsibility to be constructed in largely neoliberal terms (Trnka and Trundle, 2014).

Conceptions of responsibility within and beyond neoliberal frames

Responsibility for the self within neoliberal frames has come to be referred to as ‘responsibilisation’. This form of responsibility is seen as an imperative of new forms of self-governance and subjectivity (see Rose, 1999; Shamir, 2008). A mechanism of neoliberal governmentality (Foucault, 1991) responsibilisation, according to Shamir (2008: 7–8):

…assumes a moral agency which is congruent with the attributed tendencies of economic-rational actors: autonomous, self-determined and self-sustaining subjects…[a]s the choice of options for action is, or so the neo-liberal notion of rationality would have it, the expression of free will on the basis of a self-determined decision, the consequences of the action are borne by the subject alone, who is also solely responsible for them.

Responsibilisation as self-governance sits within neoliberal ideals of a shrinking state and the mechanisms of privatisation and deregulation – it embodies the neoliberal emphasis on personal choice and freedom. A key way through which notions of the responsible individual are inculcated through these ideals is in the practices of audit and accountability (see Power, 1999; Shore and Wright, 2011; Trnka and Trundle, 2014). An audit culture now governs all manner of social and political life where individuals and collectives are (1) continuously measured and held to public account in relation to particular performance indicators and (2) expected to adopt practices of self-surveillance and self-assessment in holding themselves to account. As Olmedo (2014: 583) argues, ‘responsibility and duty are two key aspects in the new moral agency brought in by neoliberal’ processes. Where ‘obedience is the practical master-key of top-down bureaucracies, responsibility is the practical master-key’ of new governance (Shamir, 2008: 4).

Such forms of governance have significantly impacted on the sphere of education and schooling with responsibility for schools devolved from a state to a non-state matter. While state intervention to support school improvement still exists, the responsibility for such improvement is seen as the domain of the school, local community, family or individual. However, what constitutes school improvement remains firmly located within the province of state authority and rests on the capacity of schools to raise standards on particular performance indicators (see Ball and Junemann, 2012; Exley and Ball, 2011). The changes to England’s education landscape under the academies reform movement amid the increasing rigidity of state-defined parameters of audit and accountability exemplify this logic. Bearing resemblance to the charter school movement in the US and self-managing schools in New Zealand, the policy goals of academisation are to free schools from the encumbrances of bureaucracy in order that they have the autonomy and flexibility to be more responsive to their local communities. There has been long-held political faith in the idea of school autonomy as key to driving up educational performance in England as there has been elsewhere (see OECD, 2011). However, renewed commitment to this idea signified with the Academies Act of 2010 enabled a proliferation of autonomous schools in England. The recent white paper Educational Excellence Everywhere (Department for Education, 2016) has attempted to further accelerate this reform with its proposal that all schools become or be in the process of becoming academies by 2020. Reflecting long-held resistance towards the idea of autonomous schooling, public outrage from the teaching and broader community has led to an abortion of this proposal.

There are many arguments against the academies movement, not least the lack of conclusive evidence in England linking this reform directly to enhancing educational performance (see Hutchings et al., 2014). More broadly, the move towards an autonomised system is seen as undermining public education. Driven by the parameters of the audit culture, the key concern here is that market ideologies and business imperatives have taken hold of this movement and this has undermined educative goals, increased competition between schools and generated greater class segregation and stratification in the system. The ‘disarticulation of state education’ within these parameters (see Ball, 2009) is seen as profoundly undemocratic, particularly in drawing funds away from the public sector and decimating local authority governance of schools (a democratically elected body) (see, for example, Ball, 2009; Gunter, 2011; Wilkins, 2012). In place of such governance, there is a proliferation of new stakeholders who are now responsible for education (including philanthropic organisations like CONNECT, the chain featured in this paper). These stakeholders do not necessarily ascribe to public sector values and sensibilities. Indeed, many, like CONNECT, are unapologetic in promoting a ‘sociality of performativity’ that compels educators to organise their work around raising attainment on the measures that ‘count’ (i.e. standardised tests and school inspections). For many, this sociality reflects a mistrust of teachers’ judgment and capacities and undermines their autonomy. It is a sociality that is seen as fostering an uncritical compliance with, and responsibilisation around, external targets (see Ball, 2009; Gunter, 2011; Wilkins, 2015).

In current public and policy discourse responsibility tends to be constructed and framed by this sociality (Trnka and Trundle, 2014). Responsibilisation, as set against and regulated by the audit culture, has, however, obfuscated other ways of defining responsibility. For Trnka and Trundle (2014) it has concealed the multiple and competing modes of responsibility that circulate in the present moment – some of which align with neoliberal frames and others that challenge or contest these frames. Significant in their work, and of key relevance to this paper, is how responsibility is currently being constructed through the lenses of care. For these authors neoliberal conceptions of responsibility foreground the autonomous individual as making his or her own ‘choices’ about how to act, while relations of care are motivated by one’s commitment to the welfare of others. Consistent with key feminist work in education (see Blackmore, 2006; Boler, 1999; Noddings, 1988, 2005), responsibility through these lenses would reflect a relational view of caring where both the carer and the cared-for contribute in recognising, offering and receiving care. For Lynch et al. (2007, see also Lynch, 2010) this relational view of care is central to working towards affective well-being and equity, and involves recognising and responding to the dependency and interdependency of human life and the vulnerability of people economically, socially and emotionally.

Trnka and Trundle (2014) seek to challenge dominant constructions of the responsible neoliberal subject in their examination of such care relations. They highlight the ‘multiple framings of responsibility [that] at times require a switch between neoliberal logics of self-responsibility and care of the self, and other forms of interpersonal responsibility and obligation’ (2014: 145). Of significance, they argue that social actors can move and shift in their take up of different conceptions of responsibility without necessarily feeling conflicted or in need of resolution. In this respect, they contend that ‘care might lie in conflict with the values of neoliberal forms of responsibility, but can also be incorporated alongside’ such values (2014: 144).

Following some further detailing of the research context and an account of the study upon which this paper is based, these different conceptions of responsibility as they are reflected in Ashleigh’s leadership are explored.

The research context and processes

The paper draws on a broader study that sought to examine matters of equity as they were understood and addressed within several English secondary and primary schools. This study focused on ‘exemplary’ schools (i.e. outstanding schools known for their support of marginalised or disadvantaged students). Drawing on a case study approach, the initial sample was three English schools (two secondary and one primary school). I spent an intensive two-month data collection period in each of these schools (over a three-year period) examining and theorising their different equity concerns and priorities through the methods of document analysis, observations of school and classroom practice and interviews with school personnel. At two of these schools, the reform of academisation was seen as a key equity issue (for the reasons articulated earlier in this paper) and this led to my interest in examining different ways in which this reform was being mobilised in a number of different contexts. One of these contexts was CONNECT – selected in light of its exemplary performance as an academy chain in turning ‘failing’ schools around. My research at CONNECT initially involved interviewing the executive director and four of its head teachers (see Keddie, 2015). One of these head teachers was Ashleigh from ‘Diamond’ Primary School. Following my initial contact with the chain, I sought to conduct further research at this school given its vast and rapid improvement (as measured by Ofsted) as a CONNECT school under the leadership of Ashleigh, despite its extreme disadvantage and challenges.

Diamond Primary School is situated in an area of very high deprivation. Most of its students are in receipt of Free School Meals, many are from violent households and many are English as an Additional Language (EAL) learners of refugee backgrounds. The school continues to struggle with very high levels of transience given its close proximity to several women’s refuges and the UK borders office. As noted earlier, Diamond became a CONNECT academy in 2011. CONNECT is one of the most successful academy chains in England and has an impressive track record of school improvement. It is managed by a large philanthropic organisation responsible for approximately 15–20 schools (secondary and primary) whose mandate is to improve the educational outcomes and life chances of students from deprived backgrounds. As already mentioned, CONNECT is relentless in its focus on literacy, numeracy and strong discipline, with the insistence that all its schools follow particular non-negotiable programmes to lift attainment. The chain is unapologetically data-driven and outcomes-focused in its close monitoring of its schools (see Keddie, 2015). Such accountability mechanisms and their alignment with the priorities of the audit culture as sanctioned by the state have led to chains like CONNECT being described as the new modalities of state power (Ball and Junemann, 2012; Keddie, 2015). Their regulatory parameters effectively responsibilise staff to pursue these priorities.

My initial contact with the school was in 2014 when I first interviewed Ashleigh. This was followed by an intensive two-week fieldwork visit in September–October 2015 to more deeply explore Ashleigh’s leadership in relation to the school’s improvement. During this visit, I conducted 18 interviews with staff including the head teacher, deputy head, business manager, teachers and members of the learning support team. I also conducted daily classroom and playground observations. For Ashleigh and her staff, leadership, accountability and their intersections with equity amid the performative demands of the audit climate were highly significant and thus became a key focus of the interviews.

The paper foregrounds the voice of head teacher Ashleigh but also includes interview data from administrative, teaching and support staff, including: ‘Katrina’ (deputy head), ‘Samantha’ (drama teacher), ‘Derek’ and ‘Jill’ (learning mentors), ‘Lana’ (learning support) and ‘Hannah’ (teaching and learning lead). All of these staff members had been at the school since it became a CONNECT academy (aside from Katrina who was new to the school). All of them participated in at least one lengthy interview (lasting approximately 60–90 minutes). Interviews were loosely structured to explore the participants’ thoughts about the school and their role at the school, with a specific focus on issues of school improvement in relation to the school’s ethos and leadership and student well-being/equity amid current expectations of external accountability. Ashleigh’s leadership was presented in the interviews as highly significant in relation to issues of school improvement and student well-being/equity and, thus, is the focus of this paper.

The interview data were analysed in relation to the literature presented in the previous section. Foregrounded here are different conceptions of responsibility framed within and beyond neoliberal discourse. The analysis brings to light responsibility in relation to imperatives of audit and accountability but also in relation to care. It thus draws attention to the multiple, complex and sometimes competing modes of responsibility that characterised Ashleigh’s work as a head teacher and how she moves between them. The analysis also critically engages with how such constructions of responsibility are associated with different enactments of teacher professionalism. Here responsibilisation set within the neoliberal parameters of audit and accountability is associated with a performative or entrepreneurial professionalism; while responsibilisation that sits outside these parameters is associated with a more traditional version of professionalism.

The following provides three accounts of the different conceptions of responsibility reflected in Ashleigh’s constructions of herself and her work. The first section highlights Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility as defined within a neoliberal frame of audit and accountability exemplified in her description of herself as ‘data-driven’. The second section explores how Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility in relation to her care of and for her students and staff is defined within neoliberal terms. The third section examines relations of care that sit outside these terms where Ashleigh positions affective well-being for her students, parents and staff at the centre of her work (Lynch, 2010; Lynch et al., 2007).

Responsibility within neoliberal frames of audit and accountability

…when I came to observe the school…I couldn’t get to speak to Ashleigh, which some people might have taken the wrong way, but it was Easter and it was coming up to SATs (Standardised Assessment Tests). There was only three weeks to SATs and she was in there, hands on teaching…[I] thought, ‘There’s no way I would have got my [previous] head teacher inside a classroom, teaching.’ She’s amazing. I mean she’s an absolutely inspiring person. So, to me, I didn’t ever get to see her and I thought, ‘You know what, that’s actually really, really good because this is her priority.’ (Katrina, deputy head)

These comments from Katrina resonate with the highly positive views that the staff expressed about Ashleigh’s leadership. What is clear in these remarks and what this section explores is what Katrina describes here as Ashleigh’s prioritising of children’s achievement on standardised tests, so much so that she spends time in the classroom ‘hands-on teaching’ to support her teachers and students amid the busy lead up to SATs. This is something, as Katrina noted, that she found unusual for a head teacher to do but garnered her much admiration because the children and not a meeting with her new deputy head took priority on this occasion for Ashleigh. Such prioritising draws attention to Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility as defined within a neoliberal frame of audit and accountability – most evident, perhaps, in her description of herself as ‘data-driven’. She seemed to have a forensic knowledge of all aspects of the school’s student attainment data and she understood being ‘on top’ of this data as imperative for improving and progressing the school. The following comments were illustrative:

With our Year 6 data, for example you know, I keep talking about ‘data’, because everything is data driven. We are seen as a school that is struggling in Key Stage 2 (Years 3–6), because of our data. Yet, in Key Stage 1 (Years 1–2)…they are outstanding because we have those children for a longer period of time and it is seeping through…(we got higher than national for our Phonics, our Reception [results are] higher than national, higher than [the local area])…whereas Key Stage 2, it is still the transition. And last year was like our big cohort of transition children and we had 87. But [many] of those started between [Years] 5 and 6.

…what happens with exam results is that, you know, I have got to check to see, ‘Okay, when did they come? Are they part of our data or are they not part of our data?’ And you always…have to be on top of things. Because if you are not, then it makes it much harder for us to prove that we are making progress.

But we are still expected – [as with] any school…we are expected to improve. We are expected to make a difference with these children; we are expected to meet full targets…you have got to get the children to the levels. I’m not saying, I’m not giving excuses. I’m not saying that ‘you can’t’, and that’s why I am here. I wouldn’t be doing this job if I thought ‘woe is me’, we can’t do it. I wouldn’t be still here, because I do believe we can do it…

In these comments we can see the targets, comparisons and judgments that regulate Ashleigh’s ways of working (i.e. exam results and meeting levels). We get a sense of the high stakes environment Ashleigh is operating within where the success of her school and her headship is measured through such targets. She, like most teachers living in this performative sociality, has an acute sense of where her students sit in terms of their academic performance at key stages. She is acutely aware of the circumstances undermining the school’s ‘underperformance’ in Key Stage 2 – the high mobility of students in this stage is undermining these students’ attainment while students who have more stability in their schooling are performing at much higher levels. This existence of calculation seems to produce a sense of anxiety and concern for Ashleigh – there is a sense of ontological insecurity in her view of the difficulties she faces in terms of, for example, her ‘check[ing]’ of which students count in ‘proving’ the school is ‘making progress’ (see Ball, 2003).

However, it is evident that Ashleigh accepts this existence; indeed, she seems to see success or failure within the parameters of audit and accountability as her personal responsibility. This is evident in the ‘I’ statements she makes in referring to the school’s performance; for example, ‘I have got to check to see’, ‘you [read ‘I’] have to be on top of things’ (or) it will be difficult to ‘prove’ ‘progress’. She also infers personal responsibility in terms of not ‘giving excuses’ or being self-indulgent (‘woe is me’) reflected in her personal commitment to her job and her reason for being at the school (‘I wouldn’t be here…I do believe we can do it’). Alongside this sense of personal responsibility and commitment is a seemingly unquestioning acceptance of the targets and measures that govern her work – Ashleigh’s reference to improvement expectations tend to be framed by non-negotiable language – that is, ‘we are expected…you have got to get the children to the levels’.

These ways of thinking reflect a strong sense of neoliberal responsibilisation. Ashleigh constructs herself as rational and self-determined in her quest for school improvement within the parameters of the audit culture (Rose, 1999; Shamir, 2008). She assumes a sense of moral agency in her investment in the performative aspects of her job – she ascribes to these modes of regulation as right and true. Ashleigh conveys a strong conception of herself in her role as head teacher as freely choosing how to behave and act and, as such, also subject to, and responsible for, any of the consequences that might arise from such behaviour and action (Miller and Rose, 2008; Shamir, 2008).

Responsibility and care within neoliberal frames of audit and accountability

She’s hot on the data; she’s all up with the data. But she’s in classrooms as well. She’s not just stuck in an office. She’s out; she’s management by walking around…she’s everywhere in this school…(Samantha, drama teacher)

These comments from Samantha about Ashleigh’s data-driven focus align well with the representations of her in the previous section. However, we begin to see here that being a good head teacher for Ashleigh is much more than being focused on data and managing from a distance. We begin to see here the significance Ashleigh places on developing connections and relationships. This section explores Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility in relation to her care of and for her students and staff – as it is defined within neoliberal terms (see Trnka and Trundle, 2014). This version of care was perhaps most evident in Ashleigh’s view that meeting targets is evidence that the school is doing the right thing by the children and staff. As noted earlier, for Ashleigh the school’s ‘good’ Ofsted rating was like ‘winning gold in the Olympics’. She was, however, not satisfied with just being ‘good’, as the following comments illustrate:

I’m obsessed with getting ‘outstanding’…I think these children need it [and] the staff need it as well because they’ve worked so hard…we’ve worked so hard to get here…Ofsted is a way of kind of demonstrating that, that we’ve never given up on our children and nobody else should…

In these comments Ashleigh associates audit and accountability and, in particular, school improvement in relation to Ofsted gradings, with care for both her students and staff. Responsibility as care is set against the backdrop of these external measures – that is, doing well on these measures is evidence that she and the school will ‘never give up’ on the students. A neoliberal framing of care was also apparent in Ashleigh’s determined efforts to ‘tell the story’ behind the data ‘to make sure that’ students weren’t ‘lost within the numbers’, as she explained:

…based on what happened last year and the results and the number of children that came in and the needs and so forth, as I was saying, in the middle of the exams, you know, three of my days were spent with police officers explaining, ‘This child was abused. This child’s mother has turned up’, and immigration and all sorts of things I have just come to the realisation that my role in this school is to tell the story and to make sure that that’s not lost within the numbers. And I need to stand strong; because if I don’t and I don’t know the story as much as I do…if I cannot do that, then we are deemed as failures [as inadequate] and there’s no way that this school is failing with children. No way.

…and to all the members of staff that have worked here so long and are trying to move the school forward that is demoralising because we know how much we put in.

I am just determined to prove that this school is a good school. I have got that head on. If I waivered at this point, I wouldn’t be able to survive the pace and what we need to do here because I haven’t got time to think of anything else but that and it would be unfair to my staff because I have said to them, ‘This is what we are going to do’…I can’t let down my team and I think that’s how we have to work and that’s how I have to believe, ‘Look, I have been sent here for a reason, to make a difference and to tell a story’ and that is exactly what I am going to do.

Ashleigh’s efforts to tell the story behind the data in these comments clearly reflect a sense of care in relation to her students and staff. Care for the welfare of her students is evident in her efforts to know and inform officials about child abuse and immigration issues and in her efforts to ensure that the children’s stories are not lost or reduced to a number within the broader data-driven environment. Her comments illustrate a similar sense of care for her staff – she recognises how this environment can be demoralising and can undermine their efforts to move the school forward. Ashleigh also clearly cares deeply for the school and is keen to defend its quality and reputation (see Ball, 2003; Trnka and Trundle, 2014).

Such care, however, as with Ashleigh’s earlier remarks about increasing the school’s Ofsted rating, is set against a neoliberal frame of audit and accountability. As with the previous section, there is a preoccupation in these remarks with performative demands. Ashleigh’s efforts to tell the story behind the data are driven by her concern to maintain or prove the school’s good reputation. There is also a strong sense of neoliberal responsibilisation in these comments. Ashleigh positions herself as self-determined and solely responsible for maintaining the reputation of the school (see Shamir, 2008). In her view it is her responsibility to ‘prove that the school is a good school’, to not ‘waiver’ in her efforts and to ‘stand strong’ in knowing and telling the children’s stories behind the data. She believes that if she doesn’t do this well enough, the school will be seen as failing and inadequate and that she would be letting her team down. Indeed, she seems to view that her capacity to stay focused and keep up the pace necessary to prove the school is good is key to her surviving the job and being fair to her staff. Care in this context is framed by neoliberal imperatives of audit and accountability, but also a strong sense of efficiency and rationality (see Miller and Rose, 2008; Power, 1999). This is clear in Ashleigh’s seemingly unwavering determination to achieve what she has set forth to achieve – as she states, ‘I have been sent here for a reason, to make a difference…and that is exactly what I am going to do’.

Just as Ashleigh constructs herself as rational and self-determined in her quest for school improvement within the parameters of the audit culture, she also constructs herself as rational and self-determined in her articulations of care within (and towards success on) these parameters (Rose, 1999; Shamir, 2008; Trnka and Trundle, 2014). In this respect, her approach strongly resonates with the entrepreneurial professionalism that is engendered by this culture – a professionalism of competition and compliance (see Tseng, 2015). This version of professionalism is defined around a set of skills and practices based on evidence of ‘what works’ (see Ball, 2003; Wilkins, 2015). It strongly aligns with the data-driven ethos and non-negotiable programmes of CONNECT which indicate that, indeed, there can be a prescription or formula for ‘what works’. What is problematic about this version of professionalism is that it tends to be unquestioning and this serves to de-politicise and normalise current narrow measures of school success as logical and obviously beneficial (Ball and Junemann, 2012; Gunter, 2011). We can certainly see this in Ashleigh’s seemingly uncritical investment in the sociality of performativity expected of her in the current climate.

Responsibility as care relations that sit outside neoliberal frames of audit and accountability

…she loves the school, she loves the kids, she loves teaching…everybody is important, every member of staff, every child…[she has an] open door policy…she supports the staff and she also supports the parents, and she never, you know, if [a] parent is distressed or upset she is always there for them. (Lana, learning support teacher)

These remarks from Lana were illustrative of how many of the other teachers and support staff characterised Ashleigh’s leadership in terms of the centrality of care relations in her work. In contrast with the neoliberal framing of care in the previous section, they highlight Ashleigh’s intense commitment to the welfare of the school’s students, staff and parents beyond this framing. Here Ashleigh adopts a form of personalised care that places affective well-being at the centre of her work (Lynch, 2010). In relation to students, such care was particularly apparent in how she challenged the prioritising of targets:

…we need to have targets because we need to move the children forward…[but] my…worry is [that] we forget…we are here for the children. That is the only thing – if it becomes a ‘show and tell’; ‘oh, my school has got this percentage’ and it is not for the children, it is for their own profit, that is where we have a problem…if we are not careful, that’s going to govern everything, our targets.

In these comments, Ashleigh recognises how the parameters of the audit culture can reduce students to targets and numbers (see Ball, 2003). She is critical of how care for children (i.e. being there for them) can be subsumed by a rationalist focus on the academic performance of students. In these remarks, she expresses concern about how such a focus can end up being about promoting the reputation of a school where targets rather than children and their learning drive teaching (see Sahlberg, 2010). Ashleigh recognises the limits of hyper-rationality and pragmatism that have so subsumed western schooling culture (see Noddings, 2005). Such understanding was further evident in the how she spoke of and attempted to support the children:

These are children. These are children! One day they will be amazing and working really well; next minute something’s happened and, you know, we cannot, we do as much as we can with them, in the time that we have with them…some of these children’s lives, I can’t even imagine how they survive [with] of all the things that are happening in their lives…

…that’s why we have a mentoring program here and that’s why the SEAL (Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning) assembly is so important; and that’s why when a child knocks on my door, ‘Oh, my friends are getting on my nerves, errrrrr’ and they are crying over it, we sit down and we will talk about it…

Consistent with her remarks in the previous section, these comments reflect Ashleigh’s interest in her students and their welfare. She is mindful of the challenges they face within and beyond their school lives in terms of their social and economic positioning and the ways in which these challenges and positioning impact on their behaviour at school. Such mindfulness of the dependencies and interdependencies within the children’s lives that lead to their vulnerability economically, socially and emotionally reflects Ashleigh’s understandings of care as relational (Lynch, 2010). There is a genuine sense here that Ashleigh is motivated by her concern for the children’s welfare. She is committed to ameliorating some of the disadvantages in their lives through the school’s mentoring and SEAL programs and her personalised approach to supporting individual students. Moreover, unlike a neo-liberal framing of care which might involve ‘handing responsibility for decision-making over to the other’ or insisting on an ‘partnership that emphasises equality and agency of both sides’, Ashleigh takes responsibility for recognising what needs to be done for these students (Trnka and Trundle, 2014: 142–143). Relations of care are constructed here as not inherently equal but as allowing for different degrees of dependence and need.

Of course, such efforts are not uncommon in schools. The point here is that these efforts contrast with relations of care driven by neoliberal imperatives. This sense of caring extended to how Ashleigh related to parents, as the following illustrates:

…when a parent comes in and they want to break down and they want to tell me their whole life story, I will listen…I mean, some people would argue me spending, what, three hours with a parent today, who just broke down in front of me…she broke down completely and told me so much stuff…[is] not efficient time because you are not doing progress; you are not in the classroom…

Ashleigh went on to explain how her time with this particular parent led to her taking up support beyond the school that would be of benefit to this parent’s two daughters (students at the school). Again, this is an instance of Ashleigh’s personalised care – a care that is not framed by neoliberal imperatives of audit and accountability but on responsiveness and a concern to alleviate some of the significant challenges confronting families at the school (Lynch, 2010; Lynch et al., 2007; Noddings, 2005). Most of the staff commented positively on such ways of relating as key to Ashleigh’s successful leadership of the school. Many noted the significance of Ashleigh’s ‘open-door’ policy in relation to parents as well as staff. The following remarks were exemplary:

…her characteristics are definitely…she understands the demographic being quite local. She understands, you know, how to deal with them and actually sometimes they might come in shouting and screaming…Now you could have it where some people would automatically [say] ‘Right, out of the office, I’m calling the police bla, bla, bla’ [but she doesn’t, she listens]…let[s] them get it out and they will calm down [and often they say] ‘I’m really sorry the way I acted, I know it’s wrong’…because they just want, a lot of the time [with] conflict resolution, most people just find that they want to be listened to. (Derek, learning mentor)

…she reaches out to everybody. She sees a parent upset in the playground; she would invite them in for a cup of tea and have a chat about it and things like that…parents come to Ashleigh as like a counsellor sometimes, just to kind of get things off their chest; nothing school related at all; just they trust her and they trust the school…(Hannah, teaching and learning lead)

There’s open policy with the staff as well as with parents, and that’s what’s good…her door is always open, always…[I] have [had] difficult times but [I’ve] gone into Ashleigh, said this is what’s happened to me at the moment, and she will sit and listen to you and she will help you…her support is amazing. (Jill, learning mentor)

As noted earlier, in reference to Noddings’ work (2005), care as a relation occurs where both the carer and the cared-for contribute. Should the cared-for deny or not recognise this care, then no caring relation exists. In these remarks, we see evidence of care as a relation in the sense of reciprocity reflected in Ashleigh’s relationships with parents and staff. For Derek, Ashleigh’s manner creates calm because she is prepared to listen and this seems to defuse rather than inflame conflict. For Hannah, Ashleigh’s reaching out, welcoming and counselling of parents creates relations of trust, and for Jill, Ashleigh’s open door policy and preparedness to ‘sit and listen’ and to ‘help’ creates a sense of warmth and support. In all these examples, care is offered and received as such with both parties participating and contributing to the care relationship (Noddings, 2005).

Rather than care being framed by neoliberal imperatives, care in this section is framed outside these imperatives (Trnka and Trundle, 2014). Such care does not involve a focus on audit and accountability (in terms of academic performance) but on closely attending to the relationships and struggles of students, parents and staff. In this section, there is little evidence of the competition and compliance of entrepreneurial professionalism. Rather, Ashleigh’s approach to her work, her staff and her students reflect the criticality, care and activism resonant of a traditional professionalism (see Sachs, 2001, 2003). Such version of professionalism is possible when Ashleigh’s practice is not driven by the imperatives of neoliberalism. Her work is less about meeting targets and outputs and more about creating the conditions to support the welfare of her staff and students. Ashleigh’s open door policy, her challenging of the prioritising of targets and her efforts to find out about and really know her school community align with key aspects of traditional professionalism and its goal to meet broader societal ideals and the values of social justice (Sachs, 2001, 2003).

Discussion

In current public and policy discourse, responsibility tends to be constructed and framed by neoliberal imperatives. The responsible neoliberal subject is a self-determined and rational actor who readily takes up the modes of regulation and measurement expected of them. In schools, this subject leads an existence of calculation where she is constantly being evaluated and is constantly evaluating herself in relation to innumerable targets and outcomes. She not only organises her work around these targets and outcomes, she also accepts sole responsibility to meet them. Such ways of conceptualising responsibility were evident in this paper in Ashleigh’s approach to her work. They were particularly apparent in her forensic knowledge of her school’s attainment data in relation to her students’ differential performance on standardised tests and in the sense of personal responsibility she accepted in relation to improving this performance. In conceptualising responsibility along these lines, Ashleigh was seemingly unquestioning of these targets and outcomes as logical and obvious indicators of the improvement and quality of her school. She assumed a sense of moral agency in her investment in the performative aspects of her job and conveyed a conception of herself as freely choosing how to behave and act and, as such, also subject to, and responsible for, any of the consequences that might arise from such behaviour and action.

Being a good head teacher for Ashleigh, however, was more than being focused on data and managing from a distance. Her efforts to improve the school and raise academic attainment were associated with caring for the students, their families, her staff and the school. Such care was clearly evident in Ashleigh’s efforts to tell the story behind student attainment data so as not to let her students or staff down and to protect the reputation of the school. These efforts, as with her forensic knowledge of the school’s attainment data, were, however, similarly framed by neoliberal imperatives of audit and accountability. While they reflected care for others, such care was directed towards Ashleigh’s quest for school improvement and her sense of personal responsibility in this endeavour.

In contrast with this neoliberal framing of care were aspects of Ashleigh’s leadership that reflected an intense commitment to the welfare of others. This was a form of personalised and relational care that either challenged or was not associated with matters of audit and accountability. Through these lenses, Ashleigh’s sense of responsibility shifted to a critique of the ways in which a preoccupation with meeting targets and outputs can undermine caring for children – because they are seen as data and not as children. Eschewing this reductionism, care as relational was exemplified in Ashleigh’s leadership in her mindfulness of the social, emotional and economic challenges facing her students and their families and her attempts to alleviate some of these challenges. In her work with parents and staff, care as relational was clear. There was a sense of reciprocity apparent, for example, in Ashleigh’s preparedness to listen, welcome and counsel parents and staff and in their positive reception of such preparedness (evident in the calm and trust it generated for instance).

These different conceptions of responsibility, as they were framed within and beyond neoliberal imperatives, reflected different versions of professionalism. When prioritising the imperatives of audit and accountability, Ashleigh’s approach to her work reflected an entrepreneurial professionalism of competition and compliance while, when not prioritising these imperatives, Ashleigh’s professionalism was resonant of the criticality, care and activism of traditional professionalism (Connell, 2009; Sachs, 2001). It is tempting here to draw on this observation to strengthen the well-rehearsed argument in the (more progressive) research literature on teacher professionalism that positions the individualism, competition and compliance of entrepreneurialism as wholly negative products of current performative demands and as undermining teacher autonomy and trust in their capacities (see Connell, 2009; Day, 2007). This argument, however, does not capture the complexity and overlap of teacher professionalism in today’s schools (see Wilkins, 2015). Nor does it capture the utility, or, indeed, perhaps necessity, that both versions of professionalism represent in today’s classrooms. Both forms of professionalism, as this paper has illustrated, play a role in improving students’ academic attainment and well-being.

Levels of compliance and resistance to performative demands are variously described – from ‘willing’ compliance to ‘unwilling’ or ‘strategic’ compliance (see Gleeson and Shain, 2003). These levels of compliance and resistance are associated incrementally with both enabling and constraining the autonomy and, relatedly, the professionalism of teachers. Indeed, the navigation of this compliance/resistance terrain has been described by many (see Ball, 2003) as engendering ‘values schizophrenia’ where educators grapple with reconciling the disparities between their own personal view of professionalism and the professionalism demanded by a performative culture.

While the account of Ashleigh’s practice in this paper is only a snapshot, it does signify a less fixed and conflicting version of professionalism than this idea of values schizophrenia engenders. Perhaps, consistent with Wilkins research (2011, see also Stone-Johnson, 2014), Ashleigh’s approach reflects a ‘post-performative’ identity. This identity is characteristic of many younger educators who, given their limited experience, tend to see the performative culture and matters of compliance in a normalised way. They tend not to see this culture as inconsistent with their sense of professional autonomy (indeed, it is a key part of it) and they thus tend to accommodate, and be flexible in relation to, its demands (see also Wilkins, 2015). This seems to be the case with Ashleigh who identifies, but is able to negotiate, the conflicting demands of this culture. Consistent with this post-performative identity, Ashleigh does not construct the efficiencies and competitiveness of performative cultures as necessarily excluding socially progressive goals (Wilkins, 2015).

Such ways of thinking are particularly evident in how Ashleigh navigates the modes of responsibility in her work. It seems to be the case that she is able to switch between modes of responsibility and care framed by neoliberal logics and other forms of interpersonal responsibility and care (Trnka and Trundle, 2014). As with the work of Trnka and Trundle (2014), Ashleigh’s negotiation of these modes does not appear to necessarily reflect conflict for her or the need of resolution. While she acknowledges how care lies in conflict with neoliberal frames of audit and accountability – evident in her critique of the audit culture as undermining care for children – she incorporates care in her work alongside and beyond these frames.

The picture of Ashleigh presented in this paper illustrates her capacity to navigate the conflicting modes of responsibility and professionalism in her work in critical ways that do not necessarily impede socially progressive goals. Notwithstanding, there is a strong sense that such navigation is frenetic and overwhelming. Within, but also beyond, the parameters of audit and accountability, a reasonable observation is that Ashleigh is assuming too much responsibility. She is, indeed, the ideal neoliberal subject in responsibilising herself around what seem to be impossible and unrealistic expectations. To be sure, unlike other primary schools relying on an increasingly decimated local authority for support, Ashleigh’s school as a CONNECT school is relatively well resourced and supported. Nevertheless, her expectations of herself and the broader expectations that she can be a social agent who can transform the dire conditions of disadvantage that her student cohort is experiencing are neither reasonable nor possible. One can sensibly ask: at what cost are these expectations to her personal and professional well-being? Much research has argued that the current performative demands driven by neoliberal imperatives are counter-thetical to supporting the well-being of educators (see Acton and Glasgow, 2015). In particular, and certainly relevant to the case of Ashleigh, such imperatives lead to work intensification and do not acknowledge the emotional labour of educators. To this extent, these imperatives must be challenged (see Ball, 2003). The level of moral agency in Ashleigh’s investment in the performative aspects of her job and the expectations that others have of her can be seen as too costly and likely to lead to burnout.

Conclusion

The rapid disarticulation of state education in England has generated significant concerns, especially in relation to the acceleration of academies reform. The new stakeholders that have proliferated under this reform, like CONNECT, are compelled to align themselves with the imperatives of audit and accountability mandated by the state. Indeed, alignment with this increasingly rigid sociality of performativity is necessary for survival in the current climate, as is the entrepreneurial professionalism it engenders. Educators, like Ashleigh, are clearly responsibilising themselves around this sociality and professionalism. However, as this paper has argued, this responsibilising is not necessarily uncritical or at odds with pursuing socially progressive goals. Relations of care might conflict with the values of neoliberal forms of responsibility but they can also be incorporated within and alongside them. What is perhaps interesting and instructive in this paper’s account of Ashleigh’s leadership are the ways in which she navigates these modes of responsibility. Within her post-performative sensibilities, she accommodates the demands of the audit culture while also accommodating the welfare and well-being of her staff and students. Exploring such accounts of leadership in the present climate is important. It is important to illuminate the complex realities of how responsibility is operating within schools and the limitations of both (1) conceptualising responsibility solely within neoliberal frames and (2) conceptualising the take-up of entrepreneurial professionalism as necessarily excluding the social criticality and activism of more traditional versions of professionalism. If the current climate demands post-performative sensibilities, then there is a clear warrant for a greater focus on how these sensibilities are being mobilised in both productive and unproductive ways.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council’s Future Fellowship Scheme (grant number FT100100688).

Notes

References

Acton

Glasgow

(2015) Teacher wellbeing in neoliberal contexts: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 40(8): 99–114.

Ball

(2009) Academies in context politics, business and philanthropy and heterarchical governance. Management in Education 23(3): 100–103.

Ball

(2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228.

Ball

Junemann

(2012) Networks, New Governance and Education. Bristol: The Policy Press.

Blackmore

(2006) Social justice and the study and practice of leadership in education: A feminist history. Journal of Educational Administration and History 38(2): 185–200.

Boler

(1999) Feeling Power: Emotions and Education. Routledge: New York.

Connell

(2009) Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies in Education 50(3): 213–229.

Day

(2007) School reform and transitions in teacher professionalism and identity. In: Townsend

Bates

(eds) Handbook of Teacher Education. Springer: Netherlands, pp.597–612.

Department for Education (2016) Educational Excellence Everywhere. London: Department for Education.

10.

Exley

Ball

(2011) Something old, something new…understanding conservative education policy. In: Bochel

(ed) The Conservative Party and Social Policy. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.97–118.

11.

Foucault

(1991) Governmentality. In: Burchill

Gordon

Miller

(eds) The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp.87–104.

12.

Gleeson

Shain

(2003) Managing ambiguity in further education. In: Bennett

Crawford

Cartwright

(eds) Effective Educational Leadership. London: Paul Chapman, pp.229–246.

13.

Gunter

(ed) (2011) The State and Education Policy: The Academies Programme. London: Continuum.

14.

Hutchings

Francis

De Vries

(2014) Chain Effects: The Impact of Chains on Low Income Students. London: Sutton Trust.

15.

Keddie

(2015) New modalities of state power: Neoliberal responsibilisation and the work of chains. International Journal of Inclusive Education 19(11): 1190–1205.

16.

Lynch

(2010) Affective inequalities: Challenging (re)distributive, recognition and representational models of social justice. In: Proceedings of the ISA XVII world congress of sociology: New approaches to understanding inequalities and their significance, Sweden, July 2010.

17.

Lynch

Lyons

Cantillon

(2007) Breaking silence: Educating citizens for love, care and solidarity. International Studies in Sociology of Education 17(1): 1–19.

18.

Miller

Rose

(2008) Governing the Present: Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

19.

Noddings

(1988) An ethic of caring and its implications for instructional arrangements. American Journal of Education 96(2): 215–230.

20.

Noddings

(2005) The Challenge to Care in Schools. 2nd ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

21.

Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) (2015) Ofsted grade descriptors – Quality of teaching, learning and assessment. Available at: http://www.clerktogovernors.co.uk/ofsted/ofsted-grade-descriptors-quality-of-teaching-in-the-school/ (accessed 25 March 2016).

22.

Olmedo

(2014) From England with love…ARK, heterarchies and global ‘philanthropic governance’. Journal of Education Policy 29(5): 575–597.

23.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011) PISA in focus. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49012097.pdf (Accessed 16 October2016).

24.

Power

(1999) The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

25.

Rose

(1999) Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Sachs

(2001) Teacher professional identity: Competing discourses, competing outcomes. Journal of Education Policy 16(2): 149–161.

27.

Sachs

(2003) The Activist Professional. Buckingham: Open University Press.

28.

Sahlberg

(2010) Rethinking accountability in a knowledge society. Journal of Educational Change 11(1): 45–61.

29.

Shamir

(2008) The age of responsibilization: On market embedded morality. Economy and Society 37(1): 1–19.

30.

Shore

Wright

(2011) Conceptualising policy: Technologies of governance and the politics of visibility. In: Shore

Wright

Però

(eds) Policy Worlds: Anthropology and the Analysis of Contemporary Power. Oxford and New York: Berghahn Books, pp.1–26.

31.

Stone-Johnson

(2014) Parallel professionalism in an era of standardisation. Teachers and Teaching 20(1): 74–91.

32.

Trnka

Trundle

(2014) Competing responsibilities: Moving beyond neoliberal responsibilisation. Anthropological Forum 24(2): 136–153.

33.

Tseng

(2015) Changing headship, changing schools: how management discourse gives rise to the performative professionalism in England (1980s–2010s). Journal of Education Policy 30(4): 483–499.

34.

Wilkins

(2011) Professionalism and the post-performative teacher: New teachers reflect on autonomy and accountability in the English school system. Professional Development in Education 37(3): 389–409.

35.

Wilkins

(2012) Public battles and private takeovers: Academies and the politics of educational governance. Journal of Pedagogy 3(1): 11–29.

36.

Wilkins

(2015) Education reform in England: Quality and equity in the performative school. International Journal of Inclusive Education. DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2015.1044202.