In 2000, Skills for Life, a new strategy for literacy, numeracy and language education was introduced in England. It included new core curricula, tough new targets for learner achievement, and significantly increased accountability requirements for teachers and colleges. Many teachers found aspects of this new system difficult. This paper analyses interviews carried out with teachers in 2002 to identify the reasons underlying their resistance. In the interviews, teachers consistently drew on a welldefined discourse which defined 'good' teaching as teaching that is responsive to the learner, negotiating teaching in response to learners' goals and characteristics, and flexible in the teaching moment. Resistance arose when aspects of the centralised strategy were perceived to constrain teachers' ability to respond to learners in this way, being driven more by external demands and advance planning than by responsiveness to learners. Teachers attempted to develop strategies to maintain responsiveness while working within the new strategy.
IntroductionIncreasing accountability demands in education -often referred to in shorthand as 'the paperwork' -have been identified as being among the significant factors contributing to teacher stress and perceived to be drawing teachers away from tasks which really matter to themselves and to their students. This paper explores this issue in relation to the introduction of the Skills for Life language, literacy and numeracy strategy in England in 2000. Interviews with teachers carried out shortly after the strategy was introduced show that teachers drew on a very specific model of 'good' teaching, central to which is responsiveness to learners. Analysis of these interviews will demonstrate that resistance to the new system arose when it was perceived to constrain specific aspects of teachers' ability to respond to learners.
Textualisation in educationIn ethnographic studies of workplace stress in education, 'paperwork' has been identified as a particularly significant factor contributing to the pressures of work intensification (Troman 2000, Jeffrey andTroman 2004). This is part of a broader social trend, in which increased 'textualisation' (Iedema and Scheeres 2003) has changed the nature of work for many.