Efficiency versus social justice? Teachers’ roles in the epoch of globalisation

Introduction

Over the past decades, social scientists have placed great emphasis on issues intertwined with the phenomenon of globalisation. Globalisation – as an ongoing process – has an important impact on all aspects of human activity: from economy and trade to socio-cultural policies (Razak, 2011). Such effects have increasingly become more apparent due to advances in technology and communication (Tahir, 2011), allowing for the movement of not only peoplescapes or ethnoscapes, but also technoscapes, financescapes and ideoscapes (Appadurai, 1996). Despite difficulties encountered in providing a solid conceptualisation of the notion, globalisation may be identified as the global intensification of social interactions, in which local events are influenced by what is happening in far distance, and vice versa (Perachoriti, 2002). Simultaneously, the ease of travel and the opening up of the labour market has reinforced ‘super diversity’ around the world, while deconstructing the notion of rigid, collective, and territory-attached cultures and identities (Barrett, 2013).

Education ‘has become a primary medium of globalisation and an incubator of its agents’ (Marginson, 1999: 19). Globalisation, through the changes it brought about to various institutions and structures of our post-modern societies, has led to the creation of diverse, and often conflicting, approaches to education (Boutskou, 2012). The tenets attached to the interconnectness of the market around the globe, stemming from hyper-liberalist and post-fordist accounts of globalisation, may be ‘blamed’ for global segmentation in the field of education as portrayed in the global education policies developed by international organisations (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2016). On one hand, liberalist agendas of globalisation that call countries to become economically competitive lead to the increasing standardisation of education policies, processes and procedures, in terms of evaluation, encouraging schools around the world to implement ‘blanket policies’ leading disenfranchised and disadvantaged minority and immigrant groups to further marginalisation, exclusion and suffering (White and Cooper, 2013).

However, such policies often entail culturally assimilative accounts of education focusing on launching indicators and benchmarks aiming to ‘measure’ school success, while disregarding issues pertaining to social inclusion; learning and teaching in the official language of the reception country, while disregarding other mother languages; and introducing English as the medium of instruction as a response to recognising its dominant role in trade and business. On the other hand, globalisation has simultaneously mobilised a global justice movement aiming to inter alia promote egalitarian policies around the world. International and European organisations, as, for example, the United Nations and UNESCO, but also the Council of Europe and the European Union, appear to be strong-willed to safeguard human rights, equity and social justice regardless of national, ethnic or religious backgrounds (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2016).

The adverse economic and social changes associated with globalisation demand the introduction of new ways of thinking in educational systems across the world. In these environments, teachers are called to acquire new, more complicated and ‘sophisticated’ roles in order to address (or even ‘reconcile’) the two aforementioned agendas of neoliberalism and social justice. To this end, the focus of this article is to conceptualise teachers’ roles in the epoch of globalisation. In particular, we examine the following questions: (a) How teachers may engage with global neoliberal discourses of efficiency; (b) how teachers may engage with global agendas of social justice and equity; (c) does globalisation bring teachers in front of a trade-off between efficiency and social justice, or, are there any spaces for teachers to become activist and democratic professionals in neoliberal educational settings? In order to set out the framework of our analysis, we first conceptualise the notion of globalisation, per se, the interrelationship between globalisation and neoliberalirm, and the emergence of the global social justice movement. In addition, we examine the implications of neoliberalism and the global social justice movement on teachers’ roles in the era of globalisation.

Conceptualising globalisation

The era of industrialisation has initiated current debates on globalisation that date back to the early 1970s. Globalisation is often defined as the economic, social and cultural integration of the global society into a ‘global village’ (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2016). Increased communication and interaction between people across the world has directly affected the structures and functioning of both the society and the state. Similarly, Robertson (1992: 6) defines globalisation as ‘a concept which refers to the compression of the world and the intensification of the world as a whole’. In this sense, supranational institutions can affect or even ‘control’ the course of economic, cultural, and educational systems, worldwide. Inevitably, the new requirements attached to globalisation influence today’s culturally diverse societies as governments around the globe appear to turn to common education policy lines (Little and Green, 2009).

Apparently, the process of globalisation increases the economic, political and cultural interdependence of places, individuals and organisations (Verger et al., 2012). Thereafter, Chinnammai (2005: 2) presents an argument that ‘the future of countries often lies within their ability to compete in a global market where industrial-based economies are replaced by knowledge-based industries realising the importance of “knowledge, skills and the intellectual capacity to meet the challenges of accelerated change and uncertainty”’. In this sense, policy development should not only meet the local challenges, but it should endorse innovative global strategies (Robertson et al., 2007: 2). Rizvi and Lingard (2010) explain that globalisation has reshaped the synergies of the education policy field, altering the processes of policy development, implementation and evaluation due to the reworking of the nation- state in which public policy was usually formed. Similarly, Verger et al. (2012: 1) indicate that ‘similar education reforms and a common set of education policy jargon are being applied in many parts of the world, in locations that are incredibly diverse both culturally and in terms of economic development’.

In this context, the process of the internationalisation of higher education has become a prime aspect of globalisation. According to Altbach et al. (2009: 7), ‘internationalisation is defined as the variety of policies and programs that universities and governments implement to respond to globalisation’. Borderless education, education across borders, global education, offshore education and international trade in education services are a few of the cited terms attached to the impact of the globalisation of society on higher education (De Wit, 2011). What has to be noted is that the traditional emphasis on international cooperation in higher education has been gradually challenged by competition, commercialisation and cross-border delivery of higher education. For Knight (2008), the internationalisation of higher education has two intertwined facets, namely ‘internationalisation at home’ and ‘internationalisation abroad’. While ‘internationalisation at home’ refers to the process of integrating an international, intercultural or global dimension to the curriculum, teaching and the learning process, ‘internationalisation abroad’ points to the mobility of faculty and students, programmes, projects and providers. Despite recognising their interconnectness, the literature often draws a distinction between internationalisation and globalisation. What is argued it that while the practice and perceptions of internationalisation stem from the humanistic values of quality and excellence, globalisation reinforces the value competition by challenging higher education as a public good and portraying it as a tradable commodity. Nonetheless, Brandenburg and De Wit (2010: 16) raise their concerns about such a distinction, claiming that ‘this constructed antagonism between internationalisation and globalisation ignores the fact that activities that are more related to the concept of globalisation (higher education as a tradable commodity) are increasingly executed under the flag of internationalisation’.

Taking the aforementioned assertions into consideration, we may argue that within the endeavour of global economy, education has transformed into an international commodity taking the form of an investment in people, skills and knowledge (Al’Abri, 2011). For nation-states to become more competitive in the global economy, they are called to launch reforms in curriculum, pedagogy and assessment ‘embedded within a complex system of local, national, regional and global actors, institutions and practices (politics of education)’ (Robertson et al., 2007: 20). In the following section, we examine the implications of creating a competitive global economy on teachers’ roles by first exploring the global neoliberal model.

Neoliberalism and globalisation

Reflecting upon the notion of a competitive global economy, theorists of globalisation argue that neoliberal discourses or hyper-liberalism entail the most important pillars of globalisation. According to Dale (2007), the dominant globalisation strategies refer to neoliberalism (or even hyper-liberalism) in the economic field, governance without governing in the political field, and commodification and consumerism in the cultural field. The dominant process of neoliberalism can be characterised as the opening and the deregulation of the labour market, the restriction of union power and the inflexible use of workforce in a highly competitive market (Narodowski and Nores, 2003: 139). Cardini (2006), in analysing the ways in which global discourse may influence national policy development and implementation, argues that neo-fordism and post-fordism entail the two typical state responses to globalisation. Neo-fordism implies market flexibility by reducing social overheads and restricting the power of trade unions, while fostering the privatisation of public and welfare services. Individualism is a key concept for neo-fordism, which in education translates into competition and choice (Cardini, 2006). On the other hand, post-fordism has a global character, as it extends beyond protected national markets. The state strategically directs investment in key economic sectors and the advancement of human capital. The development of a flexible, highly responsible, cooperative and multi-skilled workforce has direct implications for education.

In terms of education, Ball (2007) argues that neoliberalism is the dominant politico-economic ideology that influences the formation of global education discourses, suggesting the introduction of market mechanisms in the education domain. What neoliberalism has introduced to education refers to international benchmarking, the privatisation of education, importing management techniques from the corporate sector and other ideals such as choice, competition and decentralisation (Verger et al., 2012). As a consequence, school-based management, teachers’ accountability, public–private partnerships and conditional fund-transfer schemes are some of the global education policies often cited as a result of neoliberalism.

Focusing on the micro-level, Sleeter (2008) argues that neoliberalism pressurises teachers to become classroom ‘technicians’ whose quality is defined in terms of testable content knowledge instead of professional knowledge. In addition, as international attainment targets sharpen global competition, neoliberalism calls teachers to improve their teaching through accountability (Barron et al., 2006). Accordingly, international benchmarking reduces teachers’ control over the curriculum. Drawing upon our discussion above, it seems reasonable to argue that global neoliberalism has greatly influenced teachers’ roles, who are called to implement educational policies preoccupied with efficiency, ‘excellence’, ‘standards’ and ‘accountability’ (Ainscow et al., 2006: 28). Therefore, there is an imperative need to examine how teachers engage with such global neoliberal agendas.

Teachers’ engagement with efficiency

Globalisation has brought about many challenges to the traditional teachers’ roles varying from distance learning, educational Taylorism and standardised teaching to professional competition and diversified market skills (Qureshi, 2008). In this context, Hargreaves et al. (2001) defined the components of the new globalised educational ‘orthodoxy’ stemming from the neoliberal character of globalisation. Namely, they referred to the establishment of higher learning standards, predetermined attainment targets and indicators leading to the development of centralised curricula, corresponding assessments and teachers’ inspection. Accordingly, Hargreaves et al. (2001) highlight that teachers have become more accountable to promote their students’ in-depth learning by fostering conceptual understanding, problem-solving, and shared intelligence as requirements for participating in the global knowledge economy.

In further explaining the implications of neoliberalism on education, Sahlberg (2004) refers to three distinct ways: (a) promoting educational development by drawing upon a globalised unified agenda, (b) improving quality through standardised teaching and learning and (c) increasing competition among schools and individuals. Standardisation, accountability, international testing (i.e. international tests such as PISA, TIMMS, and PIRLS) and alternative forms of financing have come to change the landscape of public education in many countries across the world. According to Sahlberg (2004), in this increasingly competitive context, globalisation calls teachers and students to ‘perform’ in terms of their technological literacy, flexibility of knowledge, and professional skills reinforcing adaptability to labour-market needs.

In describing the professional role of the teacher in the era of globalisation, Switala (2012) drew upon the example of Poland to suggest that hyper-liberal globalisation has led teachers to the forefront of exclusively preparing students to function in the labour market. To this end, teachers ought to make their students competitive to other potential candidates from diverse countries across the world. Accordingly, Switala (2012) suggested that teachers have to provide students with suitable knowledge and skills by deploying new teaching strategies and methodologies, using technological teaching resources and by combining learning with experience.

In a similar vein, Kumar and Parveen (2013) examined the components of teacher education in the era of globalisation. They drew upon Switala’s (2012) remarks to explain that teachers play a key role in building an internationally competitive workforce. They thus argue that teachers are called to implement a competency-based curriculum, by engaging their students in learning activities aiming towards higher order thinking skills. Furthermore, they suggest that teachers should evaluate their students ‘not only on knowledge, but also primarily on their ability to perform tasks associated with knowledge acquired’ (Kumar and Parveen, 2013: 10). According to Kumar and Parveen (2013), teachers’ adaptability, professionalism and preparation to integrate technology into curriculum and their instruction is necessary for quality education. They conclude that as teachers’ preparation should have a global perspective, a global council or a unified teacher registration body should be responsible for teacher professional development allowing also teacher mobility across countries.

However, as we have already explained above, globalisation – beyond its neoliberal facet – has also a socially just orientation that we set out to discuss below.

The global social-justice movement

Reflecting on our discussion above, neoliberalism appears to be the dominant socio-political and economic force globalising capitalism (Rupert and Solomon, 2005). Nonetheless, at the same time, globalisation has introduced global policies of social justice and equity. To begin with, Santos (2006) disputes the assertion that globalisation is a process of consensus, arguing that globalisation bears conflicts legitimising only the interests of the most influential actors in the form of the ‘neoliberal consensus’. He thus draws a distinction between hegemonic and anti- or counter-hegemonic globalisation (Santos, 2006). Such movements confront the contemporary, neoliberal form of globalisation arguing that the increased development of transnational links (due to, i.e. the flourishing of information and communication technology, and reduced travel costs) should rather be used as the means to promote equity, sustainability and social justice.

Santos (2006) names counter-globalisation as ‘insurgent cosmopolitanism’ that is characterised by non-imperialist and anti-hegemonic cultural values, while involving post-colonial or minority perspectives. He goes on to argue that globalised localisms or localised globalisms organised via local/global connections among social organisations, movements and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) representing the groups that are subordinated by hegemonic globalisation may act as resistance mechanisms against exclusion, marginalisation, environmental destruction, and political, cultural or economic oppression. Egalitarian activity promoting counter-globalisation may take the form of ‘transnational North–South and South–South networks of solidarity among social movements and progressive NGOs; the new working-class internationalism (dialogues between workers’ organisations in different regional blocs); transnational coalitions among workers of the same multinational corporation operating in different countries; coalitions of workers and citizenship groups in the struggle against sweatshops, discriminatory labour practices and slave labour; international networks of alternative legal aid; transnational human rights organisations; worldwide networks of feminist, indigenous, ecological or alternative development movements and associations; and literary, artistic and scientific movements’ (Santos, 2006: 397).

Santos (2006) goes on to explain that, contrary to Marxist theories, insurgent cosmopolitanism does not aim to unite social groups on a solely class basis, rather than to bring together the ones marginalised due to social, ethnic, sexual or religious discrimination, by organising the resistance of local/global coalitions while respecting the principles of equity and diversity recognition. Nevertheless, he cautions that insurgent cosmopolitanism is rather instable as the character and activity of cosmopolitan coalitions and initiatives stem from diverse concepts of emancipatory resistance. Despite such concerns, what insurgent cosmopolitanism has offered is contesting the inevitable, top-down, dominant and imperialist character of globalisation by a bottom-up and more egalitarian approach to globalisation.

Evans (2008: 272) in attempting to address the question, ‘if an alternative globalisation is possible’, argues for ‘replacing the dominant (hegemonic) global regime with one that maximises democratic political control and makes the equitable development of human capabilities and environmental stewardship its priorities’. Transnational activist and theorist activity opposing the current hegemonic form of globalisation has been called as ‘the global justice movement’. Globalisation through the lens of social justice and decolonisation should refrain from ‘an overly-simplistic approach (can’t we all just get along?) approach’ to ‘a systemic approach that insists first and foremost on the construction of an equitable and just world’ (Gorski, 2009: 88). Verger et al. (2012) claim that globalisation also ‘fosters the organisation of transnational social justice movements that struggle for the realisation of education as a global public good and its endorsement as a human right’. Civil society movements, such as the Global Campaign for Education, but also coalitions of nation states, such as the ALBA countries in Latin America, are found to contest the domination of neoliberal policies pressing for increased state intervention in education. The conjunction between the neoliberal and social-justice agendas of globalisation has greatly influenced educational policy in developing, but also in developed countries.

In the context of education, globalisation has also brought about increased migration: people coming from diverse national, cultural and social backgrounds are called to coexist and interact in multicultural societies. Although voluntary or forced migration is not a new characteristic of the world history, Appadurai (1996: 4) asserts that ‘when it is juxtaposed with the rapid flow of mass-mediated images, scripts, and sensations, we have a new order of instability in the production of modern subjectivities’. Such subjectivities are responsible for diasporic public spheres phenomena that compel the solidification of the national state as the key negotiator of social change. On one hand, cross-border communication due to large migration waves has planted the seeds for the flourishing of discourses suggesting social justice, tolerance, cosmopolitanism and solidarity. At the same time, though, globalisation has given rise to policies and practices implying intolerance, chauvinism, racism and xenophobia, and imperialism (Santos, 2006).

By bringing to the surface the debate between the two ‘facets’ of globalisation – the neoliberal versus the socially just one – the literature ought to examine the question ‘what are the implications of the global social-justice movement for teachers’ roles within a neoliberal context’. That is the question that we seek to examine in the next section.

Teachers’ engagement with social justice

Arguably, the dominance of the neoliberal model has led to global preoccupation with ‘excellence’, and accountability in education as part of the development of a global knowledge economy (Wilkins, 2015). The need to examine the intersection between such a model and a global egalitarian agenda of equity is thus imperative. Research-wise, such an examination has resulted in diverse, if not conflicting, outcomes. On one hand, the opponents of neoliberalism caution that neoliberal ‘managerialism has been consolidated globally’ as it ‘is inextricably bound up with the continued acceptance of quasi-market mechanisms and the increased emphasis on performance management in order to enhance national competitiveness’. Nonetheless, neoliberal managerialism has led to de-professionalisation of teachers, who merely become ‘classroom technicians charged with the delivery of an instrumentalist curriculum’ (Wilkins: 1144). What they thus argue is that such neoliberal pressures on teachers counteract teaching practices informed by social-justice and equity values (i.e. Ball, 2007). On the other hand, proponents of the neoliberal model suggest that greater efficiency in education can be developed in parallel to a more egalitarian agenda (i.e. Giddens, 2007). What they suggest is that neoliberal policies allow for ‘professional empowerment’ in schools based on increased collegiality that stems from distributive leadership models that are, in turn, more inductive of equity (i.e. Coles and Southworth, 2005).

In critisising the neoliberal character of globalisation, Sahlberg (2004) contends that over-standardisation has led not only to teachers’ demoralisation and burn-out, but also to students’ decreased motivation for schooling. In overcoming this situation, Sahlberg proposes that teachers should play critical roles in re-organising and re-orienting teaching in order to help students learn in, for, and beyond the knowledge economy. Therefore, to counteract the negative effects of globalisation, such as marginalisation and inequity, teachers should sustain flexibility in schooling by promoting creativity, social interaction, and risk-taking in their classrooms as part of their daily routines. In addition, they should adopt teaching ethics that stem from a sense of global responsibility outside the strict boundaries of the knowledge economy. Global responsibility builds on the concept of ‘cosmopolitan identities’, implying ‘learning the principles of democracy’, real-life commitment to group and community life and not just short-term school teamwork, and ‘genuine interest in and understanding of other cultures, humanitarian responsibility of self and others and caring for excluded groups within and beyond one’s own society’ (Sahlberg, 2004: 78).

As a response to the neoliberal effects on education, Sachs (2003) has called for resistance to teachers’ post-professional identities that are based on managerial professionalism. Sachs argues for an alternative type of teacher professionalism called the ‘activist professionalism’. Although activist professionalism draws upon expertise, altruism and autonomy, it is merely political as it brings together ‘alliances and networks of various educational interest groups for collective action to improve all aspects of the education enterprise at the macro level and student learning outcomes and teachers’ status in the eyes of the community at the micro level’ (Sachs, 2000: 77). To this end, activist professionalism is bounded to a transformative professionalism as teachers, who are not imposed with models of ‘good’ practice’, are able to become active agents who pursue a moral purpose (Sachs, 2003). It also suggests the strengthening of professional collegiality that promotes an inquiry-oriented approach.

Professional collegiality, collaborative work and support in resourcing, timing and planning teaching may help teachers to promote social justice and equity in schools. Social justice could be seen as a combination of fairness, equity and a strong dedication to social action. In education, social justice means both educating students in a fair and just manner and preparing them to become change agents, or people equipped to fight for what they believe is right once they enter the world. Social justice calls for socially and educationally transformative activism. It aims to enable all people to play a fully participatory role in society, by substantiating active citizenship as a contributing factor of education (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2016). The concept of active citizenship draws upon the idea of active participation by promoting the feeling of belongingness to a community. Participation in political processes alongside civic and cultural participation is an important aspect of active citizenship, and thus social justice (Niessen and Yongmi, 2004). The paradigm of social justice in a globalised world refrains from an overly-simplistic approach (can’t we all just get along?) approach’ to ‘a systemic approach that insists first and foremost on the construction of an equitable and just world’ (Gorski, 2009: 88). To Gorski, the deconstruction of power, privilege and oppression entails the cornerstone of social justice.

Arguably, critical pedagogy may play a pivotal role in promoting social justice allowing teachers to engage in activist professionalism. Paulo Freire’s social pedagogy defines education as the context within which the individual and society are constructed in either liberating or oppressing ways. What he argues is that for pedagogy to be critical and liberating, it should empower teachers and students towards social change. In Freirean pedagogy, dialogue is a central element (Freire, 1972). In Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a distinction is drawn between dialogue and imposition. On one hand, imposition of views upon others stems from lack of confidence in one’s own beliefs attached to thinking in absolute terms and predetermined conclusions about ‘the Truth’ or ‘the Answer(s)’. Imposition is rather an effort to maintain (false sense of) control over others. On the other hand, dialogue draws from tolerance, respect and curiosity pointing to one’s belief that the answer(s) and the truth emerge or are co-constructed while engaging in an open-ended and creative process of sharing views, behaviours and knowledge with others. Dialogue may only take place when the engaging parties feel confident not only about their beliefs, but also about themselves, thus not misinterpreting others’ disagreement to their beliefs as an effort to prove them wrong. In this sense, dialogue allows us to understand and discover ourselves in the process. In this sense, Freirean pedagogy aims to empower students to critically reflect upon subject matter, doctrines, the learning process itself and society.

In this context, Wilkins (2015: 1151) argues that activist professionalism resonates with the notion of teachers as ‘productive pedagogues’ who ‘locate their practice in a wider context of social justice’. Teachers should refrain from their roles as ‘reproductive pedagogues’ who simply enact, and thus maintain and legitimise existing inequalities (Lingard and Mills, 2007: 234). ‘Productive pedagogy’ and professional collegiality presupposes school autonomy (Hsin-Jen, 2003). School autonomy allows school leaders and teachers to collaborate for the purpose of clearly setting the objectives and successfully operationalising the practices of their egalitarian policies according to the needs of their schools.

Nevertheless, school leaders and teachers are faced with the challenge to develop school policies and practices that address multiple, multifaceted and even contradictory value systems, interests and needs. What we suggest is that ‘productive pedagogy’ (Wilkins, 2015) may empower not only school leaders and teachers, but also parents and their children, and the broader community to be involved in distributive and shared school-based leadership (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to draw upon collaborative partnerships between schools, parents, communities and even other professionals in order to develop operational strategies that allow for students’ preparation to share a socially just globalised world. Multiple-perspective, collaborative and shared school-based leadership may support decision-making for interventions by promoting interdisciplinary and intercultural competencies as ‘by combining all these valuable forms of knowledge, more sustainable practices can be developed and better resolutions to current issues may be achieved’ (Tilbury and Mulà, 2009: 7).

Efficiency versus social justice: a bargain or a trade-off?

Drawing upon our discussion above, it seems reasonable to portray globalisation as a ‘Janus-like phenomenon’, implying that it has two ‘heads’ like the mythical giant Janus: beyond the rise of hyber-liberalism, xenophobia and socio-economic inequity, globalisation has also humanistic and democratic elements. In this context, global discourses of social justice and equity of educational opportunity appear to be often counteracted by global discourses of neoliberalism, which are embedded in international performance indicators, and international tests and scores. Market-oriented education seems to overrule policy reforms aiming to achieve equity in education. Nevertheless, at the same time, globalisation may play a substantial role in the development of minority and immigrant rights, while also moving citizenship debates beyond the idea of the nation state.

What stems from our discussion above is that beyond global neoliberal discourses, globalisation bears the possibility of global anti-discrimination movements, and transnational social protest increasingly invoking the egalitarian principles of social justice, equity, tolerance and respect for diversity (Gibson, 2010). In such a context, it seems reasonable to argue that teachers in the era of globalisation are assigned with diverse, and often ‘unbalanced’, social and professional roles stemming from global neoliberal discourses, on one hand, and a global social-justice agenda, on the other. This observation leads to the following question: Are teachers ‘trapped’ in a trade-off between efficiency and social justice? This question we seek to address in this section.

Our discussion on trade-off or bargain between choice (or agency) and autonomy within professional roles could be further developed using Stephen Ball’s (1997, 2007) idea of how ‘policy actors’ can interpret and alter policy in terms of how it impacts ‘on the ground’. The political assumptions pointing to the types of governance and the role of influential rules in the policy process suggest that human agency plays an influential role in policy formation and implementation. In acknowledging the human agency, we argue for the discursive character of policy, which is subjected to the interpretations of influential groups or of the individual stakeholders (Ball, 1997, 2007). Institutional stakeholders (e.g. teachers) ‘do not mechanically implement policy from the state, nor do those studying and working in educational institutions mechanically implement the policies of their institutional leaders’ (Bell and Stevenson, 2006: 9). As policies are authoritative allocations of values, policy should link the micro-politics of actors’ agency in policy processes to a macro-analysis of power structures (Rizvi and Lingard, 2010).

Policies as products are statements of collective or personal values, while policies as processes entail the operationalisation of such statements. Values are assumptions describing both the current state of affairs and the desirable state of affairs that we want to achieve (Lingard and Ozga, 2007). To move a step forward, collective values are developed through interaction leading to the formation of a subjective sense of shared (or competing) interests, which in turn drives collective action. Ball (2006) argues that the economic structures, such as the funding productivity, may constrain the ideological assumptions and the values underlying a policy agenda and thus, the ways in which policy is perceived, discussed and implemented. In addition, the ideological assumptions and the normative expectations about education are ‘not wholly the product of deliberate rational calculation […] but could vary culturally (Bell and Stevenson, 2006: 63).

To begin our analysis, we draw upon Wilkins (2015) to caution that we should rather question the potential of activist professionalism to pursue social-justice goals in the context of neoliberal policy arenas. As we have argued above, teachers may adopt value-laden practice only in school cultures that reinforce professional collegiality. However, research shows that schools focusing on efficiency and performance cannot easily maintain collegiality as they rather adopt authoritative leadership models (Courtney and Gunter, 2015). Apparently, performative models cultivate teachers’ focus on performance, performativity and performative practices, thus making it difficult to foster collaborative and inclusive environments. According to Alexiadou (2002: 76), in the performative school, social justice is portrayed by a Hayekian ideal ‘as the product of individuals free to use their skills for their own purposes’, meaning that ‘the individual, but also the family, are responsible for their full inclusion and integration in society, and education is used as the vehicle to achieve it’.

In addition, what should also be noted is that the degree of autonomy schools, and thus of individual teachers, have over the content and delivery of the curriculum may inhibit schools’ and teachers’ efforts to maintain active professionalism roles for social justice. For example, in the UK (and particularly in the English) context, state schools have a heavily prescribed curriculum so, therefore, relatively little scope for taking such type of action. National (and international) assessments and curriculum achievement objectives significantly constrain teachers’ autonomy to act towards what Santos calls ‘insurgent cosmopolitanism’. Accountability measures pressurising teachers to work in instrumental and apolitical ways, inhibits their potential to become critical thinkers, active professionals and thus agents of change (McInerney, 2007). Despite such concerns and restrictions, we should pose the question: Are there any spaces for social-justice pedagogy in neoliberal education settings? What we argue is that even in educational settings preoccupied with efficiency – as it is promoted by global neoliberal agendas – schools have the potential to create new autonomous spaces so that teachers develop as activist professionals aiming to fulfil egalitarian goals.

Schools that manage to meet the standards and the performative targets may either earn or be granted with ‘ideological partiality’ that may provide teachers with more autonomy for values-driven professional practice, which may in turn create opportunities for social justice, diversity and equity of education opportunity (Wilkins, 2015). However, as Wilkins contends, ‘even where this teacher-initiated culture does exist, it will only lead to a meaningful engagement with social equity issues where these are central to the teachers’ values (Wilkins: 1155). What we thus argue is that teachers should be empowered to ‘bargain’ efficiency and equity by enhancing their moral and social-justice values through teacher education and professional development. Conklin (2008) discusses such assertion in terms of modelling compassion in critical, justice-oriented teacher education. Conklin argues that only pedagogy of compassion may lead us towards transformative teacher education.

McInerney (2007: 257) contends that despite of constrains attached to contesting market-driven approaches to education, ‘there are “resources of hope” in schools, educational institutions and the broader community to guide teachers and teacher educators in pursuing a goal of socially just schooling’. He goes on to explain that although neoliberal globalised political environments appear to be unconducive to the achievement of more equitable outcomes for disadvantaged groups, schools have actually the final command of the enactment of policies. As such, policies may be invariably resisted, modified and appropriated at the micro-political level of schools. What McInerney argues is that in neoliberal times, social justice should move from naïve optimism to ‘a praxis-oriented robust hope’ that fully acknowledges the complexities and barriers actually promoting social justice. ‘Resources of (robust) hope’ encompass an intertwined set of structural, cultural and pedagogical strategies and resources. To begin with, structural strategies and resources involve the development of the school plan, school curricula and professional learning along the lines of social justice principles. In such an endeavour, there are efforts to match leadership roles to the social justice priorities of the curriculum, and also to involve students in school planning and curriculum development. Second, cultural strategies and resources aim at the development of a school culture that fosters a social justice ethos. School culture should thus reinforce ‘collaborative relationships, success-oriented learning and a culture of debate about teaching and learning (McInerney, 2007: 261). Last but not least, pedagogical strategies and resources aim to prioritise learning along social justice commitment. Arguably, for democratic schools to succeed, the launch and maintenance of dialogic relationships is an imperative need. In this sense, it is crucial to involve students in negotiating both their learning and assessment, but also to develop the curriculum on the basis of their aspirations and interests so as to ‘integrate personal and local concerns with broader social issues’ (McInerney, 2007: 262).

In conclusion, where social-justice values exist, teachers may work in solidarity with other key school actors, such as head-teachers, parents and students, in small school networks. According to Hadfield and Chapman (2009) such networks could potentially become the vehicles for achieving social justice through processes of cultural and attitudinal change, exchange of good practice, and the creation of new knowledge as the basis of better practice. Moreover, Chapman and Aspin (2003: 653) explain that ‘networks are able to function at the meso-level to strengthen interconnections and spread innovation across all levels – the micro, meso, and macro-levels’. Linking their argumentation to Santos’s (2006) model of ‘insurgent cosmopolitanism’ (see section ‘The global social-justice movement’), we may argue that small school networks may organise bottom-up local coalitions resisting the neoliberalist effects of globalisation on education.

Conclusion

Globalisation has been attached to socio-cultural and economic trends that have given rise to international debates on education, often in contradictory ways. In this article, we aimed to address the following question: What roles are teachers called to play in the epoch of globalisation? In our conceptualisation of the teachers’ roles, we acknowledge that global preoccupation with efficiency and performance has contributed to the development of a managerialist model of education causing the de-professionalisation of teachers. Thrupp and Willmott (2003: 28–29) argue that managerialism has reduced first-order values such as ‘autonomy, criticality, care, tolerance, equality, respect and trust’ to second-order values, such as economy, efficiency and effectiveness. It may then be argued that managerialism has restricted teachers’ opportunities to mediate social justice. Nonetheless, we also contend that neoliberal education settings can still provide spaces for teachers to act as democratic agents by developing autonomous, active and collegial professional identities.

What we argue is that the need for re-schooling and re-adapting teaching is essential. Teachers have to perform complex roles in order to meet the demands of the globalised learning environment of modern times. Wang et al. (2011) contend that teachers’ creative agency may become a counterforce to the negative impacts of globalisation. According to Wang et al., (2011) teachers may foster critical perspectives that emphasise pedagogy and learning for the development of critical consciousness, a moral and political vision, and necessary knowledge to participate actively in democratic processes. Therefore, teachers through their creative agency have the potential to ‘negotiate’ social justice and equity within neoliberal endeavours. Nevertheless, teachers may only become ‘creative agents’, if social justice and equity is at the core of their values.

Arguably, teachers have a range of social, ethical and political values. We define values as assumptions describing both the current state of affairs and the desirable state of affairs that we want to achieve. Valuing all students equally is often compounded by diverse meanings and values of social justice. Stone (1997) maintains that values underpinning education offer a continuum between equity and efficiency. Finding the best ‘mix’ between equity and efficiency is often at the core of global debates regarding social justice. Stone disapproves of a zero-sum relationship between equity and efficiency, arguing that education should sustain more equity without sacrificing efficiency. Similarly, Ainscow et al. (2006: 23) depict social-justice values as bounded to ‘equity, participation, community, compassion, respect for diversity, sustainability and entitlement’. On the other hand, they are critical of a standards agenda approach to education, which is exclusively concerned with achievement and attainment scores. Still, they point to a social justice agenda that is ‘no less concerned with achievements but with all the achievements of all children and young people, and with the meaning of achievements within communities’ (Ainscow et al., 2006: 29).

Similarly, Bell and Stevenson (2006: 63) explain that teachers’ values regarding social justice and their normative expectations from education are ‘not wholly the product of deliberate rational calculation […] but could vary culturally’. They suggest that through cultural and ideological struggles, teachers construct their own assertions, interpretations and axioms of social justice in education. For these reasons, professional development courses should aim to educate, persuade and socialise teachers through ideas to support social-justice values (Hajisoteriou and Angelides, 2014). Only then, their social-justice values may become ‘the prism through which new policy proposals are filtered’ (Bleich, 1998: 93).

To this end, teacher education and in-service professional development should encompass teachers’ ethical orientation and efficiency orientation towards the academic and social development and inclusion of their students. Ethical orientation refers to the values and interpersonal attributes, and orientation to diverse people, while efficiency orientation includes the organisational skills and abilities to act in various roles and situations. Teacher education and professional development should also have a pedagogical orientation that entails inclusive and socially-just pedagogical competences (Jokikokko, 2005). It is thus important to examine what kind of pedagogy should be envisaged through teacher education and professional development to promote social justice.

Paris and Alim (2014) assert that teacher education and professional development should facilitate the turn towards social justice through what they call as ‘culturally sustaining pedagogy’ (CSP). CSP ‘seeks to perpetuate and foster linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism as part of the democratic project of schooling and as a needed response to demographic and social change’ (Paris and Alim, 2014: 85). According to Paris and Alim, CSP sets out to meet its goal by placing emphasis on the pluriform and evolving character of cultural identity and practices and by embracing the counter-hegemonic potential of culture, while also criticising the ways in which culture may reproduce systemic inequities.

Changes in teachers’ values and pedagogy may be the outcome of learning processes occurring in-between collaborative school networks, which gradually become communities of learning on social-justice issues. The implementation of school networks may generate new ‘knowledge’ on justice-related issues, while it may influence the decision-making processes at the meso-levels that could potentially influence all levels. Such networks are assembled as ‘learning consortiums’, within which teachers may collaborate with other school actors including head-teachers, parents and students to operate both as learners and partners in the construction of knowledge for social justice (Lieberman and Wood, 2003).

In conclusion, globalisation studies often frame neoliberalism as a top-down approach carried out by international institutions as, for example, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In this sense, neoliberalism is portrayed as an ‘inevitable’ global policy framework and a ‘mandatory’ form of governance that involves ‘extending and disseminating market values to all institutions and social action’ (Brown, 2003) including inter alia education institutions, policies and practices. Nonetheless, an organising framework that is ‘formulated around global frameworks of neoliberal governance’ shapes a ‘landscape of inequalities locally and globally’ (Dutta, 2012: 34). Such argumentation reinforces what Santos’s (2012) assertion of globalised localism or localised globalisms that may act as counter-hegemonic and emancipatory resistance mechanisms against inequity, social injustice, marginalisation and exclusion.

The following questions stem from such discussion: Is neoliberalism indeed inevitable in education? What are the processes through which voices of resistance may counteract the hegemony of global neoliberalism in education? Dutta (2012) argues that resistance may be initiated by local voices that reverse these top-down processes, while driving the politics of change. However, are negotiations between teachers, who work in solidarity within their learning consortiums, capable of bringing bottom-up structural transformation? What are the ways through which teachers may ‘carry on their messages of resistance from local sites of change to national networks and then to global sites of social change through transnational networks of organising?’ (Dutta, 2012: 34).

A prerequisite of this turn is re-engineering teachers’ social, educational and professional roles in order to promote social cohesion and sustainability. Therefore, future research should further explore the conditions of such transformation. It is also important to empirically examine how teachers per se conceptualise the implications of globalisation in education. Moreover, research is needed to look at the ways teachers develop their post-professional identities in the era of globalisation. To this end, research should focus on whether teachers actually perform diversified roles, while also examining the barriers teachers face in attempting to ‘reconcile’ global neoliberal and social-justice agendas. Last but not least, further research should examine the implications of ‘reconciling’ global neoliberal and social-justice agendas for teacher education and professional development.