A critique of the teaching standards in England (1984–2012): discourses of equality and maintaining the status quo

Abstract

This study presents a critical analysis of the state-prescribed teaching standards from 1984 to 2012 in order to reveal discourses of equality imbued within. Critical discourse analysis and critical race theory are employed to explore and explain how the discourses of equality are shaped by the prevailing political ideology of the state. Up to 2007, the analyses revealed the gradual emergence of two seemingly incompatible discourses: recognition of the difference within notions of appropriacy of curriculum input vs. the assertion of a homogenised knowledge valid for all. It is argued that because this tension remained unexamined in the documents, damaging assumptions of deficit were obscured, thereby effecting a failure to critique the hegenomic norms against which such deficit was assumed, with the ultimate effect of maintaining the status quo of inequitable outcomes. The standards of 2012 also operate to maintain the status quo, but do so far less discretely. Here homogeneity appears overtly approved through an overarching assimilationist agenda. Deficit is now more openly articulated as attached to those who need to assimilate. The paper concludes with ideas for an alternative transformative teacher education.

Keywords:

• critical discourse analysis
• critical race theory
• whiteness
• teaching standards
• equality

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments.

Notes

1.Tomlinson (1993) describes what happened when a task group was set up by the National Curriculum Council (NCC) to provide non-statutory guidance suitable for teachers to develop principles, policies and practices for a multicultural society. After substantial work, the task group was informed ‘the decision of the council was not to publish any curricular guidance on multicultural education apart from an article in the NCC newsletter and a short circular on linguistic diversity’ (Ibid. 24).

2.According to the Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008), 94.3% of the teaching population is white.

3.As Berry (2012, 274) argues however, it was clear from the very beginning, given the Government’s ‘background of unremitting control and scrutiny’, that this promise is a mere illusion.

4.We have yet to see the new school curriculum, but the Guardian reported a speech by Michael Gove (Education Secretary) at a Conservative conference in October 2010, in which he said the move to involve Simon Schama in the revised history curriculum would ensure that no pupil leaves school without learning ‘narrative British history’. They also reported news that English teaching will also be reformed to ensure that ‘the poetry of Pope and Shelley, the satire of Swift and the novels of Dickens and Hardy are at the heart of classroom teaching’, signalling interest in a renewed cultural elitism (Hill 2009), in this case intersected with ethnicity, in conceptions of Britishness. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/05/simon-schama-ministers-history-curriculum).

5.The Multiverse website, a result of a consortium of eight ITE providers, was an excellent source of information for students and teacher educators on a variety of diversity topics including race and racism, and included a selection of research papers.

6.In the discussion document: ‘Training our Next Generation of Outstanding Teachers’ (DfE 2011, 14), the word ‘theory’ appears only once and in the sentence, ‘there is some evidence that university-based trainees see their training as too theoretical’.

7.Academies are schools which are out of local authority control, run by a private sponsor, and able to set their own curriculum and pay and conditions for staff. Michael Gove announced a proposal that academies could hire unqualified teachers (on the day of the London Olympics opening ceremony).