Of hope and despair: neo-liberalism and schooling on the south coast of England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present study contributes to research that examines the meanings of achievement gaps, when enacting policy. Its findings are both hopeful and unsettling. The absence of equitable outcomes and democratic citizenship, as elements of closing the achievement gaps in our participants' definitions, are troubling, particularly within the context of neo-liberalism, where increases in inequities showcase the negative aspects of policy appropriation. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative case study methodology was used to identify the parameters of the research (Merriam and Simpson, 2000) because case studies are particularistic in nature in that case studies examine a specific instance but illuminate a general problem (Merriam, 1998). This case study is not based on generating generalizations, concepts or hypotheses grounded in systematically obtained data (Abercrombieet al., 1990) but goes beyond the limited notion of context employed in many case studies, as no researcher can enter a situation free from preconceptions but must fit existing perceptions into a pre-existing discourse. This study explores heads of schools' decisions with regards to increasing the number of students who meet standards, as set by the government and reducing achievement gaps among student subgroups. Findings The findings from this study are discussed in three broad categories; the achievement gap, aspirations and parental support and differentiated and targeted solutions. Research limitations/implications These findings raise the question as to whether the education inspection framework (EIF) presents cause for concern. After all, the EIF was developed to hold schools accountable for high standards without consultation with the teachers' representatives, local communities, parents and colleges and universities. Nevertheless, the EIF, as a set of standards, is problematic. Practical implications The leadership practices enacted by heads of schools to bridge the achievement gaps differ from those advocated by the State. This echoes previous findings demonstrating that the same leadership practices can be used to pursue different goals (Leithwood, 2006) and that individuals enact policies in ways that reflect the particularities of their own contexts (Ballet al., 2012). Social implications The absence of equitable outcomes and democratic citizenship, as elements of closing the achievement gaps in our participants' definitions, are troubling, particularly within the context of neo-liberalism, where increases in inequities showcase the negative aspects of policy appropriation. Originality/value The present study contributes to research that examines the meanings of achievement gaps when enacting policy (Ballet al., 2012; Hardy, 2014; Winton, 2013). Its findings are both hopeful and unsettling. The heads of schools demonstrate that they can appropriate definitions of achievement for all students to support their academic learning and wellbeing (Hodgkinson, 1991; Winton, 2013).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".