Abstract
In this chapter, we look at the interlinked discourses through which quality and equity are constructed as objects within current neoliberal education policy in England and at the consequences for teachers’ practice. We do this by carrying out a poststructural analysis of two sets of data: policy documentation and qualitative in-depth interviews with four prospective primary teachers. We argue that within the policy documents quality is conflated with measurable progress—both national (economic growth and competitiveness) and individual (personal growth and self-fulfilment). Equity is constructed as opportunities for all. In our analysis of the interviews, we argue that the rational neoliberal discourses of policy conflict with hierarchical discourses of mathematics. This conflict is exemplified in the practices of ‘ability’ grouping which lead to the normalisation of pupils. Thus, ‘progress’ is not possible for all.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Archer, L., Hollingworth, S., & Mendick, H. (2010). Urban youth and education: Exploring the identities of educationally ‘at risk’ young people. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. Bristol: The Policy Press.
Butler, J. (1997). The psychic life of power. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Carlile, A. (2010). Meeting rooms, documentation, and the policy community: Finding space for social justice in the administration of permanent exclusion from school. Journal of Power and Education (in press).
Coffield, F., & Edward, S. (2009). Rolling out ‘good’, ‘best’ and ‘excellent’ practice. What next? Perfect practice? British Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 371–390.
DCSF. (2008). Making good progress in mathematics. London: DCSF.
DCSF. (2009a). Your child, your schools, our future: Building a 21st century schools system. London: The Stationery Office.
DCSF. (2009b). Securing level 4 in Key Stage 2 mathematics. London: DCSF.
du Gay, P. (1996). Consumption and identity at work. London: Sage.
du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony walkman. London: Sage.
Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham: Duke University Press.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Routledge.
Francis, B. (2006). Heroes or zeroes? The discursive positioning of ‘underachieving boys’ in English neo-liberal education policy. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 187–200.
Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform, and equity. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Gillies, D. (2008). Quality and equality: The mask of discursive conflation in education policy texts. Journal of Education Policy, 23(6), 685–699.
Grek, S., Lawna, M., Lingard, B., & Varjoc, J. (Eds.). (2009). Special Issue, North by northwest: Quality assurance and evaluation processes in European education. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2), 121–133.
HM Government. (2009). New opportunities: Fair chances for the future. London: HM Stationary Office.
Houssart, J. (2001). Setting tasks and setting children. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the British Congress of Mathematics Education, 21(2), 136–146.
Hultqvist, K., & Dahlberg, G. (Eds.). (2001). Governing the child in the new millenium. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994). The making of men: Masculinities, sexualities and schooling. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Mendick, H. (2006). Masculinities in mathematics. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Mendick, H. (2008). Subtracting difference: Troubling transitions from GCSE to AS-level mathematics. British Educational Research Journal, 34(6), 711–732.
Ofsted. (2008). Mathematics: Understanding the score. London: Ofsted.
Reay, D., & Wiliam, D. (1999). ‘I’ll be a nothing’: Structure, agency and the construction of identity through assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 25(3), 343–354.
Skeggs, B. (2004). Class, self, culture. London: Routledge.
Stronach, I. (2001). Quantifying the qualitative as contemporary fool’s gold. Paper presented at British Society for Research in Learning Mathematics, Manchester, March.
Walkerdine, V. (1990). Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.
Walkerdine, V., & Lucey, H. (1989). Democracy in the kitchen: Regulating mothers and socialising daughters. London: Virago.
Williams, P. (2008). Independent review of mathematics teaching in early years settings and primary schools. London: DCSF.
Woodrow, D. (2003). Mathematics, mathematics education and economic conditions. http://www.esri.mmu.ac.uk/respapers/papers-pdf/Paper%20-%20maths,%20maths%20ed%20&%20economics.pdf.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Llewellyn, A., Mendick, H. (2010). Does Every Child Count? Quality, Equity and Mathematics with/in Neoliberalism. In: Atweh, B., Graven, M., Secada, W., Valero, P. (eds) Mapping Equity and Quality in Mathematics Education. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9803-0_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9803-0_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9802-3
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9803-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)