23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Knowledge-Based Resistance: The Role of Professional Organisations in the Struggle Against Statutory Assessments in England
Diego Santori1, Jessica Holloway2
1King's College London, United Kingdom; 2Australian Catholic University
Presenting Author: Santori, Diego
Standardised testing has become a ubiquitous part of schooling across economically developed nations (Lingard, Martino, & Rezai-Rashti, 2013; Verger, Fontdevila & Parcerisa, 2019). At the same time, various stakeholders, including scholars, practitioners, parents, and politicians continue to debate the merits, purposes, and utility of testing. Some actors have grown increasingly sceptical of how tests are being used, leading various groups to mobilise around a desire to resist such trends in education. In the US, for example, a group of New York-based parents initiated the Opt-Out Movement, which has grown in number and force over the past several years (see Hursh et al., 2020; Pizmony-Levy, Lingard, & Hursh, 2021). In Chile, students and teachers have banded together to resist high-stakes testing and other forms of neoliberal control of the education sector (Stromquist & Sanyal, 2013). Whilst there is a growing body of research around traditional forms of contestation and transgression such as opting out of statutory assessments, there is virtually no evidence of concerted, multi-actor forms of resistance. Drawing on a year-long network ethnography, this paper focuses on the More than a Score (MTAS) campaign in England, with particular attention to the role of professional organisations. The MTAS organisation is made up of multiple actor groups, but the professional organisations occupy a particularly significant role in helping the network accomplish its primary goals through the deployment and strategic mobilisation of various forms of expert knowledge.
To this end, we use this paper to illustrate how the development and use of knowledge-based mechanisms and practices of resistance allowed MTAS to move beyond traditional forms of contestation and transgression, towards more complex and granular modes of refusal and struggle. Drawing upon Foucault’s conceptualisations of power/knowledge and resistance (Foucault, 1972) and Heclo’s (1978) notion of ‘issue networks’, we analyse the professional organisations affiliated to the MTAS campaign with a focus on their use of expert knowledge as a technology of resistance. In particular, by examining their transactions and exchanges we identify three main mechanisms of resistance: i) a diffused policy approach, ii) expert reports, and iii) a deep understanding of network boundaries. We conclude with a discussion about how this work can extend our understanding of resistance, and the tensions and compromise that multi-stakeholder resistance involve.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedPowerful policy players in global education have been well researched, such as the OECD, the World Bank and UNESCO, and others, such as edu-businesses, EdTech companies, philanthropies and social enterprises, have only recently started to be explored. In our previous work (AUTHOR, 2017; AUTHORS, 2022), we gave primary attention to the new actors in the global education policy network (foundations, education corporations, think tanks, funding platforms and management service companies) while acknowledging the need to study voices of dissent. These dissident voices question and challenge shared beliefs of the mainstream global policy community members, and they are unwelcome and often unheard, or rarely attended to. Such voices are excluded from the mainstream global education epistemic community because they speak about education differently and constitute a network among themselves, which we continue to investigate in this paper. We suggest that ‘network ethnography’ (Ball and Junemann, 2012; AUTHOR, 2017) is best suited to our attempt to specify the exchanges and transactions between organisations involved in resisting standardised testing in England, and the roles, actions, motivations, discourses and resources of the different actors involved. The network we describe and research is primarily focused on the More Than a Score campaign, and includes teacher, parent, and head teacher-led organisations, as well as other related professional bodies.
There are different sorts of data involved in network ethnography, and a combination of techniques of data gathering and elicitation. Network ethnography requires deep and extensive Internet searches (focused on actors, organisations, events and their connections). Drawing on initial findings from actor and organisation-focused searches (including newsletters, press releases, videos, podcasts, interviews, speeches and web pages, as well as social media such as Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs), we developed topic lists and open-ended questions to inform each in-depth interview with nodal actors within the network. We have conducted a total of 20 semi-structured interviews with directors and spokespersons of member organisations of the MTAS coalition. In order to maximise the relational potential of interviews, we heavily rely on follow up questions, as a way to explore emergent associations. We also conduct post-interview searches, that in turn inform subsequent interviews. Network ethnography also involves participating in some of the key occasions where the network participants under consideration come together. Whilst COVID-19 restricted the possibility to attend face-to-face events, as part of our network ethnography we attended a series of online events including conferences, Q&A sessions, and webinars.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsWhile resistance in education (broadly) has been investigated in a variety of ways, resistance to high-stakes testing remains a space that is relatively under-explored and theorised (AUTHORS, 2022). Across the literature, some have focused on the more overt forms of resistance, like the Opt-out Movement in the U.S. (Hursh et al., 2020; Pizmony-Levy, Lingard, & Hursh, 2021), or the collective protests against neoliberal reforms in Chile (Stromquist & Sanyal, 2013). Others have focused more on the ‘everyday’ forms resistance that takes place in classrooms and schools (Anderson & Cohen, 2014; Blackmore 2004; Perryman et al., 2011). We argue that MTAS as a conglomerate of organisations have operationalised resistance in a way that sit outside of this obvious binary.
As we have shown in this paper (and elsewhere, see AUTHORS, forthcoming), some forms of resistance cannot be described as overt or covert. MTAS, for example, brings together a variety of strategies, and it is the careful coordination of these sometimes disparate interests and strategies that make MTAS successful in its efforts. On one hand, the campaign does not self identify as a resistance group, yet their tactics are indisputably aimed at disrupting a system they see as harmful to students. This raises important questions about how we, as researchers, define resistance and how we make sense of the varied ways stakeholders are pushing for change and creating new possibilities. In this particular case, knowledge mobilisation is a key strategy for appealing to different audiences, and helps acquire buy-in from groups who may not naturally align otherwise. While it might not look like resistance in a traditional sense, it arguably succeeds in achieving similar goals.
ReferencesBall, S.J. and Junemann, C. (2012). Networks, new governance and education. Bristol, Policy
Press.
Bradbury, A., & Roberts-Holmes, G. (2017). The Datafication of primary and early years education: Playing with numbers. Abingdon: Routledge.
Börzel, T.A. (1998). “Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks”. Public Administration 76(2): 253-273.
Burt, R. (1978). ‘Applied network analysis: An overview’, Sociological Methods Research
7(2):123-130.
Cook, I. R. and K. Ward (2012). ‘Conferences, information infrastructures and mobile policies: the process of getting Sweden “BID Ready”.’ European Urban and Regional Studies 19(2): 137-152.
Foucault, M. (1972) "Truth and Power" in Colin Gordon (ed.) Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings From 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Heclo H (1978) Issue networks and the executive establishment. In: King A (ed) The new American political system. American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,
Hogan, A. (2015) Boundary spanners, network capital and the rise of edu-businesses: the case of News Corporation and its emerging education agenda. Critical Studies in Education, 56(3), 301-314.
Hursh, D., Deutermann, J., Rudley, L., Chen, Z., & McGinnis, S. (2020). Opting Out: The Story of the Parents’ Grassroots Movement to Achieve Whole-Child Public Schools. Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Hutchings, M. (2015) Exam factories? The impact of accountability measures on children and young people. London: National Union of Teachers.
Lingard, B., Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: Commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 539–556.
Lundin, M., Öberg, P. (2014) Expert knowledge use and deliberation in local policy making. Policy Sciences 47, 25–49
Perryman, J., Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). Life in the pressure cooker –school league tables and English and mathematics teachers’ responses to accountability in a results-driven era. British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 179–195.
Pizmony-Levy, O., & Saraisky, N. G. (2016). Who opts out and why? Results from a national survey on opting out of standardized tests (pp. 1-64). New York, NY: Columbia University. Retrieved from http://academiccommonc.columbia.edu/
Pizmony-Levy, O., Lingard, B., & Hursh, D. (2021). The Opt-Out Movement and the Reform Agenda in U.S. Schools. Teachers College Record, 123(5).
Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Parcerisa, L. (2019). Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 40(2), 248–270.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Democratic legitimacy in policymaking: a critical analysis of the General Teaching Council for Scotland’s Professional Standards Review
Charlaine Simpson1, Anna Beck2, Louise Campbell3
1University of Aberdeen; 2University of Glasgow, United Kingdom; 3General Teaching Council for Scotland
Presenting Author: Simpson, Charlaine;
Beck, Anna
In the current international policy milieu, deliberative democracy, defined as ‘representative public deliberation to improve collective decision making and strengthen democracy’ (OECD, 2021, p.5), is valued for its equitable and inclusive dimensions. It is seen as a method by which public participation is harnessed to influence and shape decision-making and policy development (Bua & Escobar, 2018; Smith, 2009) and it is increasingly being offered across Europe as a counterbalance to a rising distrust in authoritarian and centralised governance (Butzlaff & Messinger-Zimmer, 2020).
Consulting with and gathering the perspectives of a range of stakeholders and community-wide voices en route to shaping policy for education, amongst other social institutions, has been utiised as a method for ensuring that centralised policymaking remains accountable to the people whose lives or work it touches (Fischer, 2016). It is also presented as a way to encourage policymakers to engage with ethical concerns related to meaningful democratic representation and human flourishing (Lees-Marshment, Huff & Bendle, 2020).
In Scotland, education policymaking is usually delegated to national working groups and developed in partnership through consultation with networks of stakeholders, often with government retaining a governing role. It has been acknowledged that the Scottish style of education policymaking is somewhat distinct from other jurisdictions in the UK. This 'partnership' approach is based on a national commitment to social justice, inclusion and democracy (Hulme & Kennedy, 2016) and great effort is made to involve a wide range of affected actors in a number of ways (Humes, 2020). Despite this, there is a tendency to rely on prominent ‘insider’ actors, who are often known to each other personally and/or professionally (Humes, 1997) and who subscribe to a set of values, traditions and social norms, which can make it difficult for new actors, and new ideas, to enter this space. While these features and concerns might be a result of the nature of policymaking in a small country, it is important to look beneath the surface in order to question the assumed relationship between partnership models and democratic legitimacy in policymaking.
The General Teaching Council (GTC) for Scotland aligns itself with the Scottish style of policymaking described above, in that it seeks to make its policy development work increasingly inclusive and representative of affected actors. This paper will explore the extent to which these underpinning principles for policymaking can be observed in the case of the recently refreshed GTC Scotland Professional Standards. To do so, we conceptualise the wider network of stakeholders engaged through consultation as a ‘governance network’ (Rhodes, 1997). Using Sørensen & Torfing’s (2018) anchorage points for democratic legitimacy as a framework for policy analysis, we interrogate the existing narrative around consensus policymaking in Scotland and consider the extent to which the process used by GTC Scotland reflects these principles. We then reflect on the contribution that this analysis makes to ongoing thinking about policy development in Scotland and internationally.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedFor a governance network to perform ‘democratically’, Sørensen and Torfing (2018) argue it must meet four ‘anchorage points’. Firstly, it is important that the governance network is metagoverned by democratically elected actors. As well as investigating who becomes a ‘metagoverner’, we must look at network-design, the formulation of goals and the nature of member participation. Network membership must provide fair and equal representation of affected groups: those upon which the intended policy change will directly impact, in this case, teachers and those who support them in education. Network accountability is concerned with the extent to which network activity is made publicly available so that it can be shared with and scrutinised by those upon whom it will directly impact. The final anchorage point relates to democratic rules and the extent to which all members of the network can participate. A shared understanding of rules and processes, as well as equal opportunities for participation and engagement, are essential.
The data collection was considered in four phases, beginning with a commissioned literature review, which gave evidence of current practice and thinking about Professional Standards and might be recognised as a first step towards an element of ‘democratic legitimacy’ (Sørensen & Torfing, 2018). The next phase involved the convening of working groups drawing once more on the use of experts to inform development and create a dataset for writing groups to develop a first draft of the suite of Professional Standards. This draft was subjected to a full public consultation, the analysis of which helped improve the suite of Professional Standards before finally focus groups offered refinements to create a refreshed suite of Professional Standard, which were approved by GTC Scotland Council and was launched in January 2021.
Using the criteria from Sørensen and Torfing’s (2018) framework and focusing on the moments described above, this paper analyses the extensive qualitative dataset generated through the policymaking activity described, namely: the literature review; reports and minutes from the strategic group, the operational groups, writing groups; the CIS commissioned report; the full public consultation and a number of focus groups. This dataset offers a unique overview and insight into the processes used by GTC Scotland to develop policy.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsFrom this critical analysis of the policymaking process used in the refresh of the GTC Scotland Professional Standards for teachers, we hope to offer an informed perspective of policymaking. Drawing on the development of Professional Standards as a case study, we highlight the complexity involved in attempting to co-develop inclusive and representative policy.
Using the democratic ‘anchors’ (Sørensen, & Torfing, 2018), we aim to demonstrate the different ways in which widespread representation through extensive stakeholder engagement of affected actors can substantively inform policymaking. Our paper provides space for debate to inform the iterative process of data gathering, prior to policy intentions being committed to policy text and the creation of ‘policy technologies’ (Torrance & Forde, 2017), which are subsequently translated through the different levels of the education system, ultimately to be enacted by teachers in classroom. However, in this specific case, the process of ‘recontextualisation’ begins with initial consultation, and it is for this reason that we examine consultation processes in detail.
This conceptualisation could offer an understanding of the support required by democratic education systems around the world to enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voice across the education community, to add to the policy community and ‘close the gap between policy intention and life in schools’ (Murphy, 2014, p.88). Through a better understanding of a democratic policymaking process, we can find a better balance between the intentions of policy makers, the needs of the professional education community and the views of the public and stakeholders, to create a policy landscape that is meaningful and manageable to achieve the system-wide objective of supporting all of our children and young people to flourish.
ReferencesBua, A. & Escobar, O., (2018) Participatory-deliberative processes and public policy agendas: lessons for policy and practice. Policy Design and Practice, 1(2), pp.126-140.
Butzlaff, F. & Messinger-Zimmer, S., (2020) Undermining or defending democracy? The consequences of distrust for democratic attitudes and participation. Critical Policy Studies, 14(3), pp.249-266.
Fischer, H. W., (2016) Beyond Participation and Accountability: Theorizing Representation in Local Democracy. World Development, Volume 86, pp.111-122.
Lees-Marshment, J., Huff, A.D. & Bendle, N. (2020) A Social Commons Ethos in Public Policy-Making. Journal of Business Ethics, 166, pp.761-778
Hulme, M. & Kennedy, A. (2016) 'Teacher education in Scotland: Consensus politics and ‘the Scottish policy style’. In G. Beauchamp, et al. (eds) Teacher Education in Times of Change: Responding to Challenges Across the UK and Ireland. Bristol: Policy Press. pp. 91-108.
Humes, W. (1997) Analysing the Policy Process. Scottish Educational Review. 29(1), pp.20-29.
Murphy, D. (2014). Schooling Scotland: Education, equity and community. Argyll Publishing.
OECD, (2021) Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy, OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 12, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press
RIZVI, F. & KEMMIS, S. (1987) Dilemmas of Reform (Geelong, Deakin University Press)
Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2018) The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership. Public Administration. 96(2), pp.302-317
Torrance, D., & Forde, C. (2017). Redefining what it means to be a teacher through professional standards: Implications for continuing teacher education. European Journal of Teacher Education, 40(1), 110-126.
23. Policy Studies and Politics of Education
Paper
Rethinking Educational Policy: Ideological Implications of Educational Reforms
Cennet Engin, Elif Erberk Kabataş
Midde East Technical University, Turkiye
Presenting Author: Erberk Kabataş, Elif
Ideologies have influenced the development of social, political, economic, and educational concepts since the 18th century. The modern national state, on the other hand, has kept ideology's effectiveness in areas like the economy, technology, science, and education (Green & Green, 1990). When the key topic of ideology is addressed, the idea that ideology typically reflects a group's belief system and is effective in determining policy comes to the fore (Gutek, 2019; Van-Dijk, 2006).
Ideologies represent a particular group's point of view. Ideologies also serve to legitimize calls for action (Anyon, 2011). The core element of the desire for ideological legitimacy is political power's conviction and willingness to acknowledge its own decisiveness in order to guarantee society's obedience and govern it (Khong, 1995). Legitimacy is considered the reason for the existence of political power and seen as the only guarantee of its survival. Legitimacy is the cornerstone of all political rules and orders that people accept and follow in society. Ideologies also have an impact on politics through the development of economic, political, social, and educational values and judgments (Çetin, 2001; Çetin, 2003).
Education in particular is one of the key methods the government employs to propagate its dominant ideology. Governments transfer the values that reflect their own thoughts to society through education, so they perpetuate their dominance (İnal, 2008). It is obvious that ideologies in the field of education generally play an important role in the restructuring process of society (Chan, 1984) and are put forward as educational reform (Molk & Welch, 2003). Accordingly, it might be claimed that changes and reforms serve the education system under the control of the state. There is a parallelism between this thought and Althusser's perspective. According to Althusser (2014), education is an ideological state apparatus. Furthermore, Althusser argues that ideologies play crucial roles in the education process, such as maintaining the status quo, creating a rich and just society, ensuring a better future, and maintaining order in society.
Educational ideologies penetrate the global system, and bring examples of how schools ought to be administered (Fiala & Lanford, 1987). In this way, the state ensures that society stays in the order it determines and that social integrity is formed among individuals in line with its worldview (Poulantzas, 2014). The curriculum is an effective way to achieve this. Through the curriculum, the State indoctrinates pupils with its ideologies (Apple, 1992; Murillo, 2017). According to Apple (1992) there is no neutral knowledge in the school curriculum. Instead, there is knowledge that comes from complex politics, disputes, and agreements between different organizations. Additionally, Apple (1979) underlines that the school curriculum aims to create awareness of national identity in students and that the roles of individuals are arranged with the school curriculum to promote social cohesion. Thus, the State can produce individuals who have citizenship awareness and live together in harmony with society through education. In other words, the State conveys its ideology to individuals both subtly and overtly in schools through educational changes (Stevenson, 2007). In this context, this study aims to investigate the consequences of educational reforms on students from the viewpoint of teachers and to reveal how these reforms play a role in expressing the state's ideology. The following questions guided the data collection process and data analysis of the study:
1.What are the purposes of educational reforms in the school system of Turkey in the last decade from the perspectives of teachers?
2.What are the characteristics of ideologies propagated through educational reforms implemented in the school system in the last decade from the perspectives of teachers?
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedThe study is a qualitative study examining teachers' perceptions of the consequences of government policies on educational reforms. Qualitative research is conducted through methods such as ethnographic research, phenomenological research, narrative and case studies (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). This study was designed in a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology is the study of opinions about a phenomenon or concept (Creswell, 2013). Further, phenomenological studies are needed to present the experiences related to the concept being studied in great detail (Patton, 2014). In this context, the study was carried out in a phenomenological pattern in order to examine the views and experiences of teachers working in primary, secondary, and high schools about state policies and educational reforms.
The study group of the research consists of 18 teachers working in different provinces in the 2022-2023 academic year. The study group was determined by the purposive sampling method. The purposive sampling method gives the opportunity to examine situations and events rich in content in depth. Snowball sampling, one of the purposeful sampling methods, was used in the study. The snowball sampling approach is believed to be particularly successful in finding individuals with in-depth subject knowledge (Patton, 2014).
In this study, an information form containing the demographic characteristics of the participants and a semi-structured interview form were used as data collection tools. The interview form included questions revealing teachers' views and experiences on educational policies and educational reforms. First, review of the literature was carried out to prepare the questions. After creating the interview form, expert opinions were requested. Following that, the form was redesigned and applied to the teachers. The Ethical Review Committee approved the research. In addition, participants were asked to consent before the interviews began. During the data collection process, all interviews were audio-recorded and each interview lasted approximately 40 minutes.
The qualitative data were analyzed through content analysis in this study. While identifying themes from the data, the content analysis makes the researchers' workflow easier (Yildirim & Simsek, 2016). The data were analyzed according to Miles and Huberman’s (1994) procedure. In the process of analyzing the data, firstly recordings were listened to before interview transcription. Second, all data were examined in light of the research questions. Third, data were grouped, transcriptions were coded, initial codes were created, and the themes were identified. Finally, these all were used to depict teachers’ experiences and perceptions of the role of government policies in educational reforms.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsAccording to the findings of the study, eight themes emerged regarding teachers' perceptions of the role of government policies on educational reforms. These include "education and the goals of education, the influence of education on society as a magic lamp, schools as the locus of ideological hegemony, the curriculum as an ideological scheme of education, educational reforms and synthesis of Islam, teachers as implementers of reforms, education as a puzzle board, and education as the ideological apparatus of the state.”.
Teachers first emphasized the significance of education, the general and specific goals of education, and the role of education in society while explaining the implications of state policies on educational reforms. A large number of teachers highlighted that the state created an ideological hegemony through schools, and asserted that the state conveyed its ideology to students through the hidden curriculum. Moreover, the majority of the teachers claimed that the most recent educational policies had been developed within an Islamic framework and that the reforms implemented for this reason had altered the rules by taking a different course from the policies that had been in existence before. The number of teachers who claim that the current government retaliated against the previous government under the name of compulsory education policy and presented their own truth as an education policy is too great to be underestimated. While most of the teachers explained that teachers could do nothing about the implementation of educational reforms and remained silent in a passive situation, a small number of teachers emphasized that the reforms had no effect unless they wanted to. Almost all of the teachers believe that the ideology of the state is transferred to the society through education, that the state utilizes education as a tool and accomplishes its ideological objectives through education.
ReferencesAlthusser, L. (2014). On the reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. Verso Books.
Anyon, J. (2010). Ideology and United States history textbooks. In E. F. Provenzo, A. N. Shaver, and M. Bello, (Eds.), The Textbook as Discourse. Routledge, 119-149.
Apple, M. (1979). Curriculum and ideology. Routledge.
Apple, M. W. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational researcher, 21(7), 4-19.
Bogdan, R. & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson Publication.
Chan, C. P. P. (1984). Ideology and education: A case study of the major debates and ideological conflicts in the development of contemporary Chinese education. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, London.
Creswell, J.W. (2013). Nitel araştırma yöntemleri. (Çev. M. Bütün, S. B. Demir). Siyasal Yayın Dağıtım.
Çetin, H. (2001). Devlet, ideoloji ve eğitim. Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 25(2), 201-211.
Çetin, H. (2003). Siyasetin Evrensel Sorunu: İktidarın Meşrutiyeti-Meşrutiyetin İktidarı. Ankara Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 58(3), 61-88.
Fiala, R., & Lanford, A. G. (1987). Educational ideology and the world educational revolution, 1950-1970. Comparative Education Review, 31(3), 315-332.
Green, A., & Green, A. (1990). Education and state formation. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gutek, G. L. (2019). Eğitime felsefi ve ideolojik yaklaşımlar. [Philosophical, Ideological and Theoretical Perspectives on Education]. (N. Kale, Trans). (Original work published 2014). Ütopya Publications.
İnal, K. (2008). Eğitim ve ideoloji. Kalkedon Yayınları.
Khong, C. (1995). Political legitimacy through managing conformity. In M. Alagappa (Ed.), Political legitimacy in Southeast Asia: The quest for moral authority, Stanford University Press, 108-135.
Mok, K-H., & Welch, A. (2003). Globalization, structural adjustment and educational reform. In K-H Mok and A. Welch (Eds.), Globalization and Educational Restructuring in the Asia Pacific region, Palgrave Macmillian, 1-31.
Murillo, F. (2017). Ideology, Curriculum & The Self: The psychic rootedness of ideology and resistance in subjectivity. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 15(3).
Özek, B. Y. (2019). Eleştirel kuram (Frankfurt okulu) bağlamında ideoloji ve eğitim ilişkisinin çözümlenmesi. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(3), 1535-1557.
Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Poulantzas, N. (2014), Siyasal iktidar ve toplumsal sınıflar. [Political Power and Social Classes]. (Ş. Ünsaldı, Trans). (Original work published 1975). Epos Publications.
Stevenson, R. B. (2007). Schooling and environmental education: Contradictions in purpose and practice. Environmental Education Research, 13(2), 139-153.
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 115-140.
|
