This article is a part of a larger philosophical and empirical project by the author and collaborators to understand the ways in which high-stakes accountability policy fosters normalizing educational practices and concomitant resistance by educators and students.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study
In this article, the author explores how Michel Foucault's notion of the “care of the self” might provide a conceptual basis for resistance to the normalizing practices and disciplinary power associated with high-stakes accountability and resulting educational practices.
Research Design
The author employs a philosophical analysis of key concepts associated with normalization, the care of the self, the educated self, and high-stakes accountability. The article is presented as a philosophical argument.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The author suggests that to shift attention from limited notions of the self toward expansive and creative possibilities for constituting the self requires clarity on what we mean by the educated self in a context of accountability. It also necessitates a new professional ethics characterized by critical reflection and intersubjective engagement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Evaluation Association. (2002). American Evaluation Association position statement on high-stakes testing in preK–12 education. Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://www.eval.org/hst3.htm
2.
BiestaG. J. J. (1998). Pedagogy without humanism: Foucault and the subject of education. Interchange, 29(1), 1—16.
3.
BiestaG. J. J. (2004). Education, accountability, and the ethical demand: Can the democratic potential of accountability be regained?Educational Theory, 54, 233—250.
4.
CarnoyM., ElmoreR., and SiskinL. S. (Eds.). (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high stakes testing. New York: Routledge Falmer.
5.
ChesterM., PorterA. C., ResnickL. B., BersinA., and ZelmanS. (2006, April). Toward a theory of action for state education agency policy in the context of school improvement. Panel presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
6.
CovaleskieJ. F. (1994). Power goes to school: Teachers, students, and discipline. In and and ThompsonA. (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1993 (pp. 79—85). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
7.
ErevellesN. (2002). Voices of silence: Foucault, disability, and the question of self-determination. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21(1), 17—35.
8.
FendlerL. (2004). Praxis and agency in Foucault's historiography. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 23, 445—466.
9.
FordM. (2003). Unveiling technologies of power in classroom organization practice. Educational Foundations, 17(2), 5—27.
10.
FoucaultM. (1985). The use of pleasure: The history of sexuality, volume 2 (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books (Original work published 1984)
11.
FoucaultM. (1986). The care of the self: The history of sexuality of sexuality (and and HurleyR., Ed. & Trans.) New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1984)
12.
FoucaultM. (1990). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1976)
13.
FoucaultM. (1995). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1975)
14.
FoucaultM. (2005). The hermeneutics of the subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–82 (G. Burchell, Trans.) New York: Picador. (Original work published 2001)
15.
FranzosaS. (1992). Authorizing the educated self: Educational autobiography and resistance. Educational Theory, 42, 395—412.
16.
FreireP. (2005). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare teach (D. Macedo, D. Koike, & A. Oliveira, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. (Original work published 1997)
17.
GarrisonJ. W. (1998). Foucault, Dewey, and self-creation. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 30, 111—134.
18.
GruenewaldD. A. (2004). A Foucauldian analysis of environmental education: Toward the socioecological challenge of the Earth Charter. Curriculum Inquiry, 34, 71—107.
19.
GunzenhauserM. G. (2003). High-stakes testing and the default philosophy of education. Theory Into Practice, 42, 51—58.
20.
GunzenhauserM. G. (2006). Normalizing the educated subject: A Foucaultian analysis of high-stakes accountability. Educational Studies, 39, 241—259.
21.
HoyD. C. (2004). Critical resistance: From poststructuralism to post-critique. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
InfinitoJ. (2003). Jane Elliot meets Foucault: The formation of ethical identities in the classroom. Journal of Moral Education, 32, 67—76.
23.
KohliW. (1999). Performativity and pedagogy: The making of educational subjects. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 18, 319—326.
24.
LechnerD. (2001). The dangerous human right to education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 279—281.
25.
MarshallJ. D. (1996). Michel Foucault: Personal autonomy and education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
26.
MarshallJ. D. (2001). A critical theory of the self: Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Foucault. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 20, 75—91.
27.
MasscheleinJ. (2004). How to conceive of critical educational theory today?Journal of Philosophy of Education, 38, 351—367.
28.
MasscheleinJ., and SimonsM. (2005). The strategy of the inclusive education apparatus. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 24, 117—138.
29.
MathisonS., and FreemanM. (2003). Constraining elementary teachers’ work: Dilemmas and paradoxes created by state mandated testing. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(34). Retrieved July 18, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n34/
30.
MayoC. (1998). Foucauldian cautions on the subject and the educative implications of contingent identity. In and and LairdS. (Ed.), Philosophy of education 1997 (pp. 115—123). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
31.
MayoC. (2000). The uses of Foucault. Educational Theory, 50, 103—116.
32.
McDonoughK. (1994). Overcoming ambivalence about Foucault's relevance for education. In and and ThompsonA. (Ed.), Philosophy of Education 1993 (pp. 86—89). Urbana: University of Illinois.
33.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
34.
PignatelliF. (1993). What can I do? Foucault on freedom and the question of teacher agency. Educational Theory, 43, 411—432.
35.
PignatelliF. (2002). Mapping the terrain of a Foucauldian ethics: A response to the surveillance of schooling. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 21, 157—180.
36.
PopkewitzT. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform: Power/knowledge in teaching, teacher education and research. New York: Teachers College Press.
37.
PopkewitzT., and BrennanM. (1997). Restructuring of social and political theory in education: Foucault and a social epistemology of school practices. Educational Theory, 47, 287—313.
38.
RogersP. J. (2005). Accountability. In and and MathisonS. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of evaluation (pp. 2—4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
SirotnikK. A. (Ed.). (2004). Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
SkrlaL., and ScheurichJ. J. (Eds.). (2004). Educational equity and accountability: Paradigms, policies, and politics. New York: Routledge Falmer.
41.
StoneL. (2005). Break with tradition: Marshall's contribution to a Foucauldian philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 37, 441—447.
42.
WelchS. (2000). A feminist ethic of risk. Boulder, CO: Westview.
