Abstract
In contrast to the growing literature identifying proletarianisation of teachers' work, and the attendant loss of control, autonomy and professionalism, Lauder and Yee describe a situation in which they claim proletarianisation is not taking place. From this identification, they claim that proletarianisation is not as ‘inevitable’ as ‘the literature tends to suggest’, and that the capitalist state can actually provide the space for socialist educational practice. Given the current rapid redefinition of the role of teaching in Australia and New Zealand (and elsewhere), and the increasingly changing demands being made on teachers, it is important that Lauder and Yee's analysis be challenged, and that their conclusions be revealed as incorrect as well as politically dangerous if accepted by teachers.