A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest

Abstract

The aims of this research were to explore the relationship between parents and the UK government within primary education and to critically analyse neo-liberal modes and technologies of governmentality within the testing regime. This article focuses on the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign, which was an online protest by parents. The protest aimed to force the UK government to stop the new Standard Assessment Tests due to be taken by primary school children in the summer of 2016. The research considers, via a critical discourse analysis approach, the potential tension between the government and the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest. The analysis focuses on how the parents positioned themselves as either complying with or rejecting government educational policy. The research findings concentrate on four themes: the paradox of parent power, the discourse of success, the educational experience and the emotional effects of testing. Whilst the campaign sought to challenge the government’s testing regime, the neo-liberal rhetoric that the purpose of education is for future employment was maintained by both sides, with the protesters adopting the same neo-liberal discourse to justify an opposing position. Ultimately, for parents to challenge the government within education, the neo-liberal discourse that supports the current education policies needs to be recognised and addressed.

Non-Cooperation within a School-Based Wellness Program during the COVID-19 Pandemic—A Qualitative Research

“…Hornby et al [ 38 ] have shed light on the diminished authority of local education, strengthening parents’ role as consumers. In a state of defensiveness and disintegration of the education system due to COVID-19, parents felt even more compelled to protect their children’s educational rights and diminish their frustration when confronting the program’s materials by assuming responsibility [ 44 ]. COVID-19 thus intensified the neo-liberal parenting paradox; to protect the well-being of their children, the parents saw it as their duty to reject a school-based wellness program that could have supported their children in times of crisis.…”