Finding the 'Enunciative Space' for Teacher Leadership and Teacher

Learning in Schools

John Smyth, Robert Hattam, Peter McInerney & Michael Lawson

Scope of the Paper

I wish I was able to say that the abstract I wrote for this paper was

designed to provocatively grab your attention. Sadly, that is not the

case; what I want to speak about is real and it is deadly serious stuff

-- teachers and what's happening to their work in contemporary

schooling.

In this paper I make no claim to being balanced, detached, neutral or

unaffected by what is happening to teachers' work worldwide at the

moment. We have gone well beyond the stage of niceties like that, and

more drastic treatments are called for. In Beyer & Zeichner's (1982)

terms, I am making a passionate "plea for discontent". My argument,

and I make no apology for it being colourful and polemic on occasions

in the way I put it, is that there has been a massive "collapse of

dialogic space" (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995) within our public schools

as they reel under the effects of so-called educational reforms and

re-structuring, allegedly aimed at converting them into front-line

warriors engaged in the restoration of sagging international

competitiveness, or dragged into what Head (1996) calls the orbit of

the "new ruthless economy".

The larger theoretical terrain upon which this paper is sketched, and

which emerges more directly and practically out of a Collaborative

Australian Research Council project entitled the Teachers' Learning

Project, is based around the recent polemic, ideology and debate in the

educational literature fashionably characterised as: the learning

society (Ranson, 1992; 1994; Hughes & Tight, 1995); the learning

organization (Jones & Hendry, 1992); and lifelong learning (Lengrand,

1989) -- notions that are by no means new, that are far from

unproblematic, and that are more recently traceable to the 1972 UNESCO

declaration "Learning to Be" (Faure, Herra, Kaddowa, Lopes, Petrovsky,

Rahnema & Ward, 1972). At the more populist or trade end of this

literature, these notions have become almost platitudinous, but more

recently they have begun to attract serious scholarly interest sparked

by Stewart Ranson's (1992) inaugural professorial lecture at University

of Birmingham in June 1991.

As Hughes & Tight (1995) note: "The learning society has been advocated

as an answer to the current economic, political and social problems by

a wide coalition of interests, including politicians, employers and

educators" (p. 290). The essence of their argument is that we need to

be cautious because while such ideas may have a degree of emotional

appeal and present a semblance of rationality to very large numbers of

people, their status as "self-evident realities and slogans" (p. 292)

needs to be robustly challenged. They suggest that notions like

"productivity" and "change", have been allowed to take on the status of

all-powerful myths. For example, the notion that productivity

"perpetuates a sense of unlimited potential, and drives individuals,

organizations and nations towards more competitive endeavours" [and

that] . . . continuing economic growth is not just achievable but

desirable and necessary" (p. 293) [or] . . . that there is indeed a

need for "continual updating of knowledge . . . and the use of

education to inculcate flexible transferable skills" (p. 294) -- need

serious and concerted study, something that has not happened up to this

point. These are ideas that when widely accepted, bring with them

powerful mixes of "individualised and collective solutions" (p. 294),

not all of which may be totally justified.

Our concern in this project has been to take the notion of the

"learning teacher" (individually and collectively), and to pursue what

that might mean in an intense study of a small number of schools,

 around quite a different set of questions, like:

¥ how do schools present themselves as learning communities, and what

¥ where are the structured spaces within schools' and teachers' work

¥ what internal processes are feasible and manageable for schools as

¥ how do schools develop and sustain "purposeful pedagogies"

¥ how do teachers struggle to assert the primacy of "dialogical" forms

¥ how do teachers insert their "disruptive voices" (Fine, 1992) into

¥ how do teachers resist the means-end rationality that is increasingly

¥ how does the educational system that employs teachers support teacher

There are two parts to the remainder of the paper. Firstly, a critique

of where schools are headed if they continue with a narrow technical

reconstrual of teachers' work, as they experience this within a growing

"loss of entitlement to speak" (Fine, 1992, p. 25). Over the past

couple of decades there has been a progressive and ruthless

construction of more and more "impoverished enclosures" (Rose & Miller,

1992, p. 188) around teachers' work -- vocationalism, accountability,

testing, performance appraisal, devolved responsibility, school

charters, league tables, re-centralised curriculum frameworks, and

other extraneous limitations on teachers' work and students' learning.

In the second part of the paper I take a more optimistic tack as I

speak about some "purposeful conversations" (Burgess, 1988) we have had

with a number of schools that have found ways of innovatively

reclaiming the pedagogical space within which schools can be moral (as

distinct from "crippling") learning communities (Macedo, 1994, p. 142)

involved in exercising what Soucek (1995) calls "critical sensibility".

These schools are lively educative places that somehow have found ways

of working around the "killing fields of professional values" (Stronach

& Morris, 1996) increasingly foisted upon them by governments. What

these school have created are vibrant indigenous cultures of learning

about themselves, their communities and their work -- all in a wider

context of a commitment to democratic and participatory citizenship and

"democratic accountability" (Epstein, 1993).

Confronting the Contours of the Oppressive Relations of Teaching

One way into the critique of what's happening to teachers' work, or

what Ng (1995) calls the "oppressive relations of teaching" is to look

 at a cameo of the 'preferred' or 'good' teacher, and this seems to have

changed little over time and from place to place. Grace (1985), for

example, reported during the mid 1980s that teachers in the UK at that

time were judged according to notions of "legitimated professionalism"

which translated into qualities of "dependability", "commitment to the

school", "executive efficiency" and "good relations with pupils in the

pastoral care role" (p. 13).

Another piece of research I have finished (Smyth & Shacklock, 1998) and

to be published shortly as a book by Routledge entitled Remaking

Teaching: Ideology, Policy and Practice, found that a policy image of

the preferred teacher was of one:

. . . who is prepared to focus on designated agenda; willing to accept

a view of teaching constructed by others at a distance from the

classroom; technically competent as measured by generic skills;

displaying necessary collaboration and teamwork skills that don't

threaten the aims of the organization; able to match practice to

criteria as required; and, above all, possessing a compliant and

flexible disposition.

The organising icons that frame this notion of the preferred teacher

seem to be around an identity that increasingly regards schools and

classrooms as sites to be more "effectively managed" and where

"teaching" is now almost synonymous with "managing" (Tavares, 1996).

This notion of generic management, whether it be of students,

colleagues, or knowledge, is heavily derivative of an ideology that

classrooms have always been places to be managed -- the only difference

now, is that it is management to satisfy the whims of transnational

capital through the economy and the market (Smyth & Shacklock, 1998,

p. 17).

I worked hard to come up with an emerging cameo of the "preferred

teacher" constructed by current policy manoeuvres, and it goes

something like this:

Teaching is increasingly being constructed as work in which there needs

to be maximum opportunity for a flexible response to customer needs,

where the teacher is hired and dispensed with as demand and fashion

dictates. This ethos of schools as marketplaces means a differentiated

mix of teachers, some of whom are fully qualified, others who are

cheaper to employ for short periods of time and who can rapidly be

moved around within auxiliary and support roles to help satisfy growing

niche markets. Coupled with this is a mindset in which the teacher is

required to act as a kind of pedagogical entrepreneur continually

having regard to selling the best points of the school, promoting image

and impression, and generally seeking to maximise the school's market

share by ensuring that it ranks high in competitive league tables. A

crucial element of this educational commodity approach to teachers'

work is the attention to calculable and measurable aspects of the work,

especially educational outputs, for without that kind of information

the capacity of the school to successfully promote itself will be

severely circumscribed. There will be a need for the teacher to be a

team member within the corporate culture of the school, always mindful

that anything she may do will impact in some way on the schools'

outside image. However, team membership which will sometimes be

glorified with terms like "collegiality", "partnerships" and

"collaboration" will reside very much at the operational and

implementation level, for to involve teachers in strategic decision

making might be to threaten the wider mission of the school.

Interactions with students will occur within an overall framework of

'valued added' in which students are 'stakeholders', continually

deserving of receiving educational value for money. Teaching will be

increasingly managerial in nature, both as teachers are managed, and in

turn, themselves manage others -- there will be clear line- management

arrangements with each layer providing appropriate performance

 indicator information to the level above it about the performance of

individual students against objectives, and the success of the teacher

herself in meeting school targets and performance outcomes. The

remuneration of both the teacher and the school will be based on

attaining these agreed performance targets (Smyth, Shacklock & Hattam,

1997 p. 18).

This reading seems to be very consistent with that given in the UK by

Hodkinson (1997) who said of the "good teacher", in the emerging

neo-Fordist context:

. . . someone who works uncritically within whatever contexts are

determined for him/her, who strives to achieve targets determined for

him/her by others, with resources provided (or not) by others and in

ways increasingly prescribed by others. Such teachers have the

responsibility to succeed, but without access to the power necessary to

bring that achievement about (p. 75).

Hodkinson (1997) argues that this view of the teacher mirrors both the

wider economic and social 'problem and the touted 'solution':

For the Government, technical rationality offers the illustration of a

simple solution, or more accurately, series of solutions, which is

consistent with broader market and tax-cutting policy objectives.

Turning education into a technical process, where quality depends upon

responses of teachers to the measured outcomes which they are set

deflects attention from deeper societal causes of inadequate

educational achievement, effectively blaming the victims for their own

difficulties -- be they individual young people, individual teachers or

single schools or colleges. The focus on 'efficiency' and 'value for

money' deflects attention away from more intransigent problems of

social inequality or inadequacy of funding (p. 75).

The limitations and inadequacies of this technocratic construal of

teachers' work are legion and obvious:

¥ teachers remain fixated with means-end ways of thinking about their

¥ there is an inability to engage students in "big questions" within a

¥ teaching is viewed only in terms of standards, outcomes, performance

¥ a tendency to see the work of teaching in terms of compliantly

¥ the risk of regarding the work of teaching, curriculum and pedagogy in

Our research was "interruptive" in the sense that it was butting into

the everyday lives of these teachers and their schools and asking

questions, but it was also "disruptive" in the ways that it looked for

ruptures, discontinuities, and breaks with tradition and custom in

these places. Above all we were interested in how these schools were

able to lift themselves above the deadening effect of habit and keep

alive the notion that learning about the work of teaching is worthwhile

doing. We were trying to both isolate the categories of teacher

learning, while at the same time interrogating them, trying to capture

the contradictions, the tensions, the paradoxes and the perplexities.

Reclaiming the Shrinking Imaginative Space

Nancy Fraser (1993) argues that in contemporary society there has been

a progressive leaching of "discursive space", in the context of wider

political-cultural shifts amounting to a construction as well as a

contestation of hegemony. In our research we are particularly

interested in the resistance narratives being spoken into existence by

teachers as they search for what Spivak (1988) calls the "enunciative

space" -- that is to say, the opportunity to articulate what it means

to be a teacher; to tangle with social issues beyond the technicalities

of teaching; and having some agency within which to question and

challenge the wider structures surrounding teaching and learning; and

in the process gaining some ownership of the determination of one's own

pedagogical work. In these increasingly managerialist times (Hartley,

1997), that is not something that can be taken for granted; teachers

are continually having to bump up against the barriers and enclosures

constructed by others.

Given our interests in "voiced research" (Shacklock & Smyth, 1997) -- a

term we use to describe the process of capturing silenced and

marginalised perspectives in schools -- we have pursued our fieldwork

according to a number of implicit principles of procedure; namely:-

¥ that individuals are located with a social fabric, a wider shared

¥ the importance of "honouring" voice, which means listening to and

¥ that groups who have historically been subjugated by dominant

¥ that having "authorship" in the research (for that is what it amounts

The way we have begun to theorise the lives and experiences of teachers

as they learn in situ, is in terms of describing how they present a set

of visions or self-definitions they and their schools hold of

themselves. We have found Seyla Benhabib's (1992) "models of public

space", particularly her "critical model of

public space", to be most helpful. Our starting point has been that

there is no such thing as a set of one-size-fits-all teaching

competencies, or a generic view of teachers' work -- rather there is a

complex cultural politics of teachers' work that is culturally specific

and multi-layered. By this we mean, teaching is a social practice that

transcends the domain of being a private activity that can only be

understood by getting up close to the culture of the school,

interpreting how teachers, students and parents are struggling to enact

a vision of good teaching and learning. Using Fernandez-Balboa's

(1997) term, we were trying to get inside their "purposeful pedagogy"

-- how they live and teach from and within a principled moral position.

Enunciative space, then, is a metaphorical shorthand for signifying how

schools have successfully found "reflective space" within which to

engage themselves and their communities dialogically around issues of

teaching and learning, while acknowledging that this occurs in a

context of contestation and resistance. Another way of putting this is

in terms of how schools find ways of overcoming the inertia not to

change, and the space within which to interrogate the countervailing

tendencies of individualism and hopelessness bred by an increasingly

marketised view of the school. Unlike their more affluent

counterparts, the kind of disadvantaged and working class schools we

have been working with cannot take for granted that they will be given

the spaces for interrogation -- they have to fight for this, and the

politics of space and who gets to say what, have to be worked out

discursively. These are schools that regard themselves as having a

commitment to moving beyond "the scripted classroom" (Gutierrez, Larson

& Kreuter, 1995) where actors play out predictable parts -- teachers

dutifully teach by unproblematically imparting knowledge; students

willingly acquiesce to other people's knowledge and agenda; parents act

out their ventriloquist roles of customers exercising choice over

notions of value added education in the marketplace; and principals

somehow float above all of this orchestrating, leading and managing

according to generic principles in contexts where priorities are set in

the national interest. The kind of schools we have been engaging with

don't conform to this agenda at all -- rather, they are struggling

against the progressive intensification of their work as they are

expected to do more with less; they are acutely aware of the growing

separation between conception and execution as the notion of the

devolved school is increasingly constructed within the dramatically

re-centralised (albeit distant) state; and as policies from self-styled

educational experts hold the prospect of generating tighter and tighter

enclosures around what they do.

What this has meant practically is that the Teachers Learning Project

has sought to get up close to the cultural tradition of what it means

to be a teacher in these difficult times of struggling against wider

oppressive social policies, and trying to advance a more socially just

agenda within and through schooling. It seems to us that these

schools operate within Richard Bernstein's (1992) notion of a

"constellation", defined as:

. . . a juxtaposed rather than an integrated cluster of changing

elements that resist reduction to a common denominator, essential core

or generative first principle (p. 8).

The notion of constellation is a particularly apt description of the

way teaching communities operate to hermeneutically interpret their

schools without "determinate negation" (p. 8) -- that is to say, where

there is still an openness to "unexpected contingent ruptures" and

where "difference, otherness, opposition and contradiction" (p. 8) are

not all neatly squared away.

In our theorising about Teacher's Learning we find what we are calling

the heuristics of "constellation" and "juxtaposition" to be

particularly useful, because they permit the assemblage of emergent

ideas that remain open to continual revision, interruption and

re-interpretation in the light of further experience -- theoretical as

well as practical. This is quite a different mindset to thinking about

the hermetically sealed results of research in terms of "findings". We

are searching for an approach in our research that breaks the mould of

linear ways of thinking and acting. We have found so far that

"critically researching lives" (Smyth, 1997) in the way we are, you are

not dealing with static elements, or even dynamic relationships -- it

is much more complex than that. Working with research subjects in

these ways amounts to a process of immanent identity construction in

which the research intervention itself is literally facilitating (or

forcing) the construction of the data or the research account before

your eyes. There is what (Harvey, 1990) terms a continual shuttling

back and forth -- in the form of analysis, critique, deconstruction of

taken-for-granted positions, and reconstructions of non-dominant

accounts -- between particular instances, and structure and history,

and between concrete empirical relations and abstract core concepts.

The way in which we are seeking to do this methodologically goes

considerably beyond the usual notions of transcript verification,

member checking, and the like. We are engaging in major and multiple

struggles at at least 4 levels:

¥ at the level of the reading position we bring to the project which is

¥ at the level of the interpretation being placed on their lives and the

¥ at the practical and ethical level of how we make sense of the stories

¥ at the level of the representation of the account and how we maintain

(a) the other members of the research team who have differing

(b) our industry research partners and collaborators who are joint

(c) groups of 'critical friends', 'experts' and 'reference groups'

(d) a wider interested professional and scholarly audience.

While we started out with some fairly naive research questions that

aimed to find out how teachers learn in the context of their schools as

workplaces, we have now arrived chastened at a much more sanguine stage

where we can at least see the complexity (if not yet fully understand

the issues driving teachers' learning -- and that's an important

realisation). The constellation appears to congregate around notions

like:

(a) democratic practices and politics of the school as socially just

(b) coherent support structures that sustain and advance the pedagogical

(c) a shared public discourse about teaching and learning that becomes

But as we found out when we began to put the results of our theorising

around, even sensible ideas like these are fraught. For example, we

were told that our representations were "too utopian" and that they

failed to adequately acknowledge the struggles and resistances schools

had to go through in arriving at situations like those we described of

teachers' learning. We were told that much of what constitutes teacher

learning is not open to the gaze of observers or even to their probing

questions. School culture we were told was crucial because teachers

cannot learn and take risks unless they feel valued, supported and

encouraged. Schools are also contradictory places in which democratic

processes have to be continually negotiated and re-negotiated within a

hierarchical structure -- and this has to be done in a context mindful

of the need for provisional leadership and how to bring along the

"unwilling". It seemed to us that there was a state of tension here

just short of upheaval!

We believe this preparedness to see research constellations, and to

struggle with how to juxtapose our theoretical readings with the local,

indigenous and anchored readings of their lives by our research

informants, has enabled us to advance our work to the point where we

can see that teacher learning constitutes a sophisticated ability by

schools to be able to show that they have been able to turn themselves

around, become switched on, or unstuck at least to some degree -- and,

become places that have constructed internally persuasive discourses of

grassroots school reform that enable them to contest the hegemony of

the authoritative managerialist discourses of reform.

It seems that these schools have quite a sophisticated way of

understanding and visioning themselves, that enabled them to break out

of the otherwise pessimistic and despondent cycle of "low

expectations, lack of direction and external perception of failure"

(National Commission on Education, 1996, p. 313) so often publicly put

about. For example, each of the schools seems to have a robust,

enthusiastic image of itself and of how they could strive to make their

own futures:

(i) (an R-7 multi-ethnic school with high levels of poverty) -- was

(ii) (an R- 10 newly established Middle School) -- found that stepping

(iii) (in a cluster of isolated rural high schools) -- pursuing

(iv) (a R-7 school struggling with issues of poverty) -- sustained

(v) (senior years 11-12 in an open access college) -- teacher derived

(vi) (all girls high school in an area of high unemployment) -- had a

(vii) (a school in the Aboriginal Lands) -- was institutionalising

While it is extremely risky to attempt to generalise across such a

diverse group of schools, some themes emerging from some of the schools

include:

(a) "teacher talk" is crucial in these schools. As Nias (1989) has

(b) people in these schools exhibit a preparedness to step out and make

(c) these schools have extremely insightful principals who place

(d) leadership is important but not in terms of being forceful,

(e) the direction the school takes is based on a shared and collective

(f) there is a strong "culture of innovation" (Kress, 1993) and

(g) there is a sense in which policy developed at a distance from these

policy unthinkingly, nor do they oppose it outright -- rather, they

move up close to it and ask the question "how will this improve student

learning?", and then selectively appropriate and adapt or modify it to

their particular structures or circumstances;

(h) these schools develop, review and revise the structures within which

(i) these are "political" places in the sense that teachers, students,

(j) these are not places that have to rely on external processes of

Afterword

Already we have started to see that the teachers in these schools have

moved varying distances towards finding "dialogic space: a place for

conversation" as they "collectively create, transform, maintain and

renovate the places in which they live" (Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995).

Following this architectural metaphor of "professional placemaking"

(Schneekloth & Shibley, 1995) our experience to date is that there have

been three broad moments:

(i) Making the "dialogic space" -- that is to say, setting aside the

(ii) The dialogic work of dialectical "confirmation and interrogation"

(iii) Framing action -- which involves practical decisions about

(a) the empirical -- describing what is and how things are, and trying

(b) the hermeneutic -- seeking to understand why things or activities

(c) the critical -- exploring underlying value and power structures, and

There are still a lot of issues to be fully grappled with in the

complexity of this project. We have only just begun to scratch the

surface of how to theorise the notion of teaching as a social practice,

but even at this early stage we have developed a strong sense that some

schools are able to locate that ineffable quality of how to break out

of being unstuck.

References

Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the Self: Gender, Community and

Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Oxford: Polity Press.

Beyer, L., & Zeichner, K. (1982). Teacher training and educational

foundations: a plea for discontent. Journal of Teacher Education,

33(3), 18-23.

Burgess, R. (1988). Conversations with a purpose: the ethnographic

interview in educational research. Studies in Qualitative Methodology,

1, 137-155.

Epstein, D. (1993). Defining accountability in education. British

Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 243-257.

Faure, D., Herrera, F., Kaddow, A., Lopes, H., Petrovsky, A., Rahnema,

M., & Ward, F. (1972). Learning to Be: The World of Education Today and

Tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO.

Fernandez-Balboa, J. (1997, ). Transcending masculinities: linking

personhood and pedagogy. Paper presented at the Gender, Education and

Culture Conference, Deakin University.

Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive Voices: the Possibilities of Feminist

Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Fisher, K. (1996). Critical pedagogy and critical placemaking: an

analysis of the relationship between learning and the power of space .

PhD proposal, Adelaide: Flinders University.

Fraser, N. (1993). Clintonism, welfare, and the autisocial wage: the

emergence of a neoliberal political imaginary. Rethinking Marxism,

6(1).

Giddens, A. (1994). Living in a post-traditional society. In U. Beck,

A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive Modernization: Politics,

Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order . Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Grace, G. (1985). Judging teachers: the social and political context of

teacher evaluation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 6(1),

3-16.

Gutierre, K., Larson, J., & Kreuter, B. (1995). Cultural tensions in

the scripted classroom: the value of the subjugated perspective. Urgan

Education, 29, 410-442.

Hartley, D. (1997). The new managerialism in education: a mission

impossible? Cambridge Journal of Education, 27(1), 47-57.

Harvey, L. (1990). Critical Social Research. London: Allen & Unwin.

Head, S. (1996). The new, ruthless economy. New York Review of Books,

February, 47-52.

Hodkinson, P. (1997). Neo-Fordism and teacher professionalism. Teacher

Development, 1(1), 69-96.

Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (1995). The myth of the learning society.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3), 290-304.

Humphreys, K., & Thompson, M. (1995). Searching for markers: collective

self-appraisal. School Organization, 15(2).

Jones, A., & Hendry, C. (1992). The Learning Organization: A Review of

Literature and practice. London: HRD Partnership.

Kozol, J. (1991). Savage Inequalities: Children in America's Schools.

New York: Crown.

Kress, G. (1993). Participation and difference: the role of language in

producing a culture of innovation. In A. Luke & P. Gilbert (Eds.),

Literacy in Contexts: Australian Perspectives and Issues . Sydney:

Allen & Unwin.

Lengrand, P. (1989). Lifelong education: growth of the concept. In C.

Titmus (Ed.), Lifelong Education for Adults: An International Handbook

. Oxford: Pergamon.

Macedo, D. (1994). Literacies of Power: What Americans Are Not Allowed

to Know. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

McLaren, P. (1997). Revolutionary Multiculuralism: Pedagogies of

Dissent for the New Millennium. Boulder: CO: Westview Press.

National Commission on Education. (1996). Success Against the Odds:

Effective Schools in Disadvantaged Areas. London: Routledge.

Ng, R. (1995). Teaching against the grain: contradictions and

possibilities. In R. Ng, P. Stanton, & J. Scare (Eds.), Anti-Racism,

Feminism and Critical Approaches to Education . Westport: Bergin &

Garvey.

Nias, J. (1989). Primary Teachers Talking: A Study of Teaching as Work.

London: Routledge.

Ozga, J. (1995). Deskilling a profession: professionalization,

deprofessionalization and the new manageralism. In H. Busher & R. Saran

(Eds.), Managing Teachers as Professionals in Schools . London: Kogan

Page.

Ranson, S. (1992). Towards the learning society. Educational Management

and Administration, 20(2).

Ranson, S. (1994). Towards the Learning Society. London: Cassell.

Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1995). Political power beyond the state:

problematics of government. British Journal of Sociology, 43(2),

173-205.

Schneekloth, L., & Shibley, R. (1995). Placemaking: the Art and

Practice of Building Communities. New York: John Wiley.

Shacklock, G., & Smyth, J. (1997). Conceptualising and capturing voices

in dropout research . Working Paper: Students Completing Schooling

Project, Adelaide: Flinders Institute for the Study of Teaching.

Shor, I. (1980). Critical Teaching and Everyday Life. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Shor, I. (1996). When Students Have Power: Negotiating Authority in A

Critical Pedagogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smyth, J. (1997). Teachers' work and the ageing teacher . Research

Grant Application to theAustralian Research Council.

Smyth, J., & Shacklock, G. (forthcoming). Re-making Teaching: Ideology,

Policy and Practice.

Smyth, J., Shacklock, G., & Hattam, R. (1997). Teacher development in

difficult times: lessons from a policy initiative in Australia. Teacher

Development, 1(1), 11-19.

Soucek, V. (1995). Public education and the Post-fordist accumulation

regime: a case study of Australia. Interchange, 26/2, 127-159.

Strain, M., & Field, J. (1997). On 'the myth of the learning society'.

British Journal of Educational Studies, 45(2), 141-155.

Stronach, I., & Morris, B. (1994). Polemical notes on educational

evaluation in the age of 'policy hysteria'. Evaluation and Research in

Education, 8(1 & 2), 5-19.

Tavares. (1996). Classroom management and subjectivity: a geneology of

educational identities. Educational Theory, 46(2), 189-202.