2. Literature Review
2.3 Understanding the role of context in interpretations and enactments of policy
interpretations and enactments of
policy
Context is sometimes treated purely as background information by organisations such as Ofsted who, for example, note the size of a school and other features such as the number of pupils with English as an additional language but do not take these factors into account when making their judgements. However, a research team including Stephen Ball and Annette Braun explored the impact of context on policy enactment in schools, describing their work as ‘taking context seriously’ (Braun et al., 2011:585). Focusing particularly upon the factors which cause between-school differences in enactment, the authors describe context as:
… an ‘active’ force, it is not just a backdrop against which schools have to operate, it initiates dynamic policy processes and choices and is continuously constructed and developed both from within and externally in relation to policy imperatives and expectations. (p590)
Local context influences choices and opportunities, it influences enactments of policy and should therefore be taken seriously. Braun et al. (2011) constructed a framework to describe and better understand the various contexts which influenced policy enactment in the secondary schools that they studied. The four dimensions of their framework are:
External contexts (e.g. degree and quality of local authority support,
pressures and expectations from broader policy context, such as Ofsted ratings, league table positions, legal requirements and responsibilities).
Situated contexts (such as locale, school histories, intakes and settings). Material contexts (e.g. staffing, budget, buildings, technology and
infrastructure).
Professional contexts (such as values, teacher commitments and
experiences, and ‘policy management’ in schools). (p588)
I now look at each of these in turn and where possible, relate the contextual dimensions to enactments of mathematics policy.
2.3.1
External contexts
Braun et al. (2011) interviewed staff at four secondary schools, noting that external factors such as ‘league table positions, both locally and nationally, form[ed] a constant backdrop to policy accounts within the schools’ (p594). Other researchers agree that as a direct consequence of the marketised system, teachers and school leaders prioritise good results, and mediations of policy at school-level are in the context of the school’s performance against ‘external’ measures (Lewin and Solomon, 2013; Solomon and Lewin, 2015).
Poor performance in national curriculum tests or a low rating from Ofsted triggers interventions, higher levels of external scrutiny and a short time between inspections (Perryman, 2006). On the other hand, high performance in tests and inspections leads to pressure on Headteachers to maintain standards (Keddie, 2013; Alderton and Gifford, 2018). For example, in research by Keddie (2013), the Headteacher of a secondary school ranked as ‘outstanding’ by Ofsted, displayed pupil data in the staff room as a constant reminder to staff of the performance levels that they were expected to achieve in order to maintain this status and keep Ofsted from the door.
The importance of performance in mathematics has an impact upon school-level approaches to the subject. Extensive research on mathematics learning highlights the importance of developing deep conceptual understanding (Skemp, 1976; Gray and Tall, 1994; Askew et al., 1997). Despite this, since the introduction of NC2014, there has been ‘a shift in emphasis from conceptual knowledge towards procedural knowledge’ and ‘instrumental rather than relational understanding’ (Ehren et al., 2019:29). Additionally, Year 6 teachers have narrowed the curriculum and made decisions to prioritise what would gain pupils more marks in the SATs:
Given the limited instructional time to prepare pupils for the test, they seem to focus on calculations to ensure pupils pass the test, where some teachers now seem to ignore other, less frequently tested, content domains such as shape, algebra or geometry, or the most difficult types of (previously level 6) skills. (p29)
Despite teachers in England being granted freedom to choose how to teach the national curriculum, the professional work of Year 6 teachers is informed by their role in generating the data which defines their school performance (Reay and Wiliam, 1999;
Wyse and Torrance, 2009; Boaler, 2014; Marks, 2014; Alderton and Gifford, 2018). The implications of failure for schools, teachers and pupils are too awful to contemplate. Grouping pupils for mathematics classes has become an acceptable approach to tackling the performance agenda (Hallam and Parsons, 2013). In many larger primary schools, pupils are arranged in ‘sets’, or as is more common in smaller primary schools, sat in ‘ability groups’ with each group of pupils set work at a different level. Marks (2014) coins the phrase ‘educational triage’ to describe this process:
Educational triage is a process of goods distribution whereby a number of linked practices are enacted to achieve a specified aim, usually related to maximising attainment outcomes. (p38)
Marks (2014) found that the practices associated with triage included both an initial grouping of pupils by ‘ability’ and then a process of assigning additional resources to the group where pupils were on the cusp of achieving national expectations. Her research revealed that these practices did increase the number of pupils achieving at expected levels overall however this was at the expense of the lower attaining pupils who were effectively ‘written off’: these pupils received a lesser mathematical learning experience and did not progress at the same rate as their counterparts. The Deputy Headteacher of the school in Marks’ research describes the school-wide adoption of triage as part of how the school plays ‘the accountability game’ (p50), suggesting that they have no choice but to strategically organise learning this way because school results in mathematics matter more than the experiences of individual pupils who are commodified or reduced to ‘discrete units of data’ (Williamson, 2014:1).
2.3.2
Situated contexts
Braun et al. (2011) make a strong case for viewing what they call a school’s ‘situational context’ as having a substantial impact on how policies are enacted within its walls:
Situated factors refer to those aspects of context that are historically and locationally linked to the school, such as a school’s setting, its history and intake. (p588)
Other situated characteristics used in analyses of school test data (DfE, 2017c) are region of England, gender, ethnicity or birth month of pupils, and measurements of deprivation. These contexts can be cited as an excuse for a school’s poor performance or a reason for its successes (Thrupp and Lupton, 2006).
Braun et al. (2011) found that ‘students like ours’ was a popular phrase among the secondary school teachers interviewed. For example, in the case of George Eliot school, the predominantly South Asian intake was described as influencing the school’s specialism (of business and enterprise), the popularity of cricket, and an intervention to ensure that female students become more involved in lessons. Pupil groups became stereotyped – for example characterising all female Asian students as timid – and these stereotypes in turn influenced school priorities and policy enactments. The researchers conclude that ‘schools can become defined by their intake, but they also define themselves by it’ (p589).
For mathematics, schools may label groups of pupils as described above (Hallam and Parsons, 2013; Marks, 2014). ‘Students like ours’ might be described as having particular strengths or facing particular barriers to mathematical success. In addition, ‘cultural beliefs have an influence on the value parents place on their children’s education’ (Kleanthous and Williams, 2010:130) and this, along with the attitude and engagement of ‘parents like ours’ more generally in their child’s mathematics education has an impact on pupil outcomes (Skyrme et al., 2014). National Numeracy (2018) suggest that it has become ‘culturally acceptable in the UK to be negative about maths’ and this negativity towards the subject might well be an attitude shared by ‘parents like ours’.
2.3.3
Material contexts
Material context refers to the ‘physical’ aspects of a school: buildings and budgets, but also to levels of staffing, available technologies and surrounding infrastructure. (Braun et al., 2011:592)
Material context is closely related to the situated context as pupils eligible for ‘pupil premium’ funding – additional funds available where pupils meet certain criteria related to disadvantage (DfE, 2017a) – results in schools in deprived areas receiving more money per pupil than those in more affluent parts of the country. A senior leader interviewed by Braun et al. (2011) described their frustration that schools in a neighbouring authority had a higher level of income enabling them to spend differently and have different school-level priorities. In terms of mathematics, school income level may have an impact on whether a school adopts a mathematics scheme or textbooks, and on the amount of practical mathematics equipment purchased.
2.3.4
Professional contexts
Braun et al. (2011) introduce professional contexts as a broad dimension covering ‘teachers’ values and commitments and experiences and policy management within schools’ (p591). This particular element of local context is important in considering how school-level mediations of policy are formulated to match an institution’s ethos and to be palatable to a staff team.
The ideologies and beliefs of a Headteacher form an important part of school-level interpretations of policy and this can lead Headteachers to appoint teachers who share their values. This is an extension of the ‘preferred teacher’ (Smyth, 2001) who whilst meeting performative demands also shares the beliefs and goals of the Headteacher. Where the values of a teacher are in contrast to the agenda of a Headteacher, or where national policies do not sit comfortably with school ethos, there are ‘potential dissonances’ because ‘there are strong interdependencies between professional values, intake, and what and how policies are pursued’ (Braun et al., 2011:591). This may account for the muted dissent noted by Reay (1998) in her interviews with secondary school teachers which she claimed ‘suggests a grudging rather than a ready compliance [with policies] underlain with resentments’ (p187).
In their recent evaluation of the China-England exchange, Boylan et al. (2017) found that ‘the most frequently mentioned barriers to implementation [of Shanghai informed pedagogy] were teachers' beliefs, weakness in subject knowledge, and/or low confidence levels’ (p13). Adopting a new way of working is more successful when the ideology behind the policy is shared and teachers have the skills to implement it.
The importance of shared ideology was highlighted in research by Marks (2013). She looked at the practices in a school that moved away from grouping pupils for mathematics and instead shifted to a policy of teaching the subject in mixed-ability classes. Her close scrutiny revealed that despite the school-wide rhetoric of integration and mixed-ability, teachers and pupils continued to demonstrate high levels of ‘fixed- ability’ thinking and practices corresponding with the previous approach.