The Neo-Liberal Turn in Understanding Teachers' and School Leaders' Work Practices in Curriculum Innovation and Change: A Critical Discourse Analysis of a Newly Proposed Reform Policy in Lower Secondary Education in the Republic of Ireland

Abstract

The study in this article involved a critical discourse analysis of five policy documents in relation to a curriculum reform proposed for lower secondary education in the Republic of Ireland. It examined the (re)positioning of governance in relation to curriculum and teacher education. Findings indicate a predominant clinical discourse closely aligned to a global imaginary and largely directed toward individual learners within a stratification of schools as 'adventurous', 'exploratory' and 'cautious' schools. The study raises important questions about the future of teachers' and school leaders' work practices and autonomy within a discourse of evidence-based teaching, teacher training and surveillance.

Teachers’ Use of Knowledge in Curriculum Making: Implications for Social Justice

“…While commercial resources may be designed and developed with altruistic intentions in relation to education, they are part of a corporate system which values financial capital and, in doing so, positions schools as customers. This reflects wider educational discourses which re-frame education [62], shifting it from a welfare right to a theory of human capital [63]. Neoliberal moves towards centralised control of curriculum or lesson banks are seen globally, presented as ways to address teacher workload but often resulting in a lack of consideration of the local context [6].…”

An ethico‐political analysis of a national teacher competence framework: Unravelling a ‘preferred’ teacher identity

“…While noting the significant influence of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the governance and framing of education (Ball, 2003;Sellar & Lingard, 2013) and the implications of apparatuses such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Grek, 2009;Lewis, 2017) and Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a, 2020b, professional standards bodies have emerged as the main discursive authorities in the production and transmission of teacher competence frameworks. This is particularly evident in the Irish context where a combination of international and national forces (Conway, 2013;Conway & Murphy, 2013;Simmie, 2012Simmie, , 2014 of Ireland, 2007of Ireland, , 2012of Ireland, , 2016. 5.…”

“…While noting the significant influence of the Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development on the governance and framing of education (Ball, 2003; Sellar & Lingard, 2013) and the implications of apparatuses such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (Grek, 2009; Lewis, 2017) and Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (Berkovich & Benoliel, 2020a, 2020b), professional standards bodies have emerged as the main discursive authorities in the production and transmission of teacher competence frameworks. This is particularly evident in the Irish context where a combination of international and national forces (Conway, 2013; Conway & Murphy, 2013; Simmie, 2012, 2014) provided the context that influenced the development of a National Policy on the Continuum of Teacher Education (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2011b). This, in turn, lead to the production of a series of policy texts in relation to initial teacher education (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2011a, 2017a, 2020), induction (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2013, 2017b) and continuing professional development (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2017c) as well as intertextual alignment of existing policy texts such as the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (Teaching Council of Ireland, 2007, 2012, 2016).…”

Innovative methodologies between supply and demand

“…For example, Yeung (2010) called for the analysis of real educational needs and possibilities as opposed to the expectations of innovative methods, as well as, in general, a more humane and realistic approach in pro-innovation policies. Expectations are often set by seductive educational laws that do not take into account the complexity and contradictions within schools (Akin, 2016;Ellis et al, 2019;Moffatt et al, 2016;Simmie, 2014). Hence, there exist different notions of innovation used by educational communities (Cascón-Pereira et al, 2019) or, directly, the criticism of the prefabricated innovations that teachers must incorporate into their classes today (Altopiedi & Murillo-Estepa, 2010;Cañadel, 2018;Rivas et al, 2019).…”