Abstract
The well-documented global economic disinvestment in schooling necessitates critical examination of policy discourses that influence educational systems and student learning. Situated within the critical policy studies tradition, the present study conducted a critical discourse analysis of the Donaldson Report (2015), a proposed comprehensive Welsh learning and accountability system. We begin with a brief discussion of research focused on global accountability reform within the new economy. To situate the Donaldson Report within this research, we review literature on reforms within the United Kingdom, with special attention to the Welsh educational policy context, which also includes incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) into national policy. Findings highlight a limited Report focus on core educational rights embodied within the UNCRC and recommendations for a new system that leans toward a more technocratic and performance orientation. We conclude with implications for the exercise of children’s rights within Welsh schooling.
Keywords
Introduction
While business interests and outside experts have had a lengthy presence in shaping public education around the globe, interconnected financial and technological systems hasten the pace of earlier and well-documented scientific management education models (Tyack, 1974). Whether internationally-driven by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA), or more locally rooted, teachers and students largely shoulder the burden of neoliberal educational reform. Through so-called value-neutral logics, elite actors infuse the language of choice, competition, and entrepreneurship into educational policy, structures, and curriculum—wherein teacher performance and corresponding professional worth increasingly is quantified (Ball, 2015). The stakes within already high-stakes accountability systems are amplified, drastically altering the role education has in promoting student civic engagement and rights-based principles.
In Wales, a series of education statutes and related legislation established educational priorities and practices that differed from other United Kingdom (UK) nations, including in relation to teacher training, funding, school governance, and curricula (Davies et al., 2016; Smith, 2015). Prior to 1999, when the first devolution statutes came into force, administrative functions relating to educational policy and leadership were exercised separately in Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland. Devolution reinforced these distinctions and offered new opportunities to devolved governments and legislatures. As understood through the framework established by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), in 2011 child rights acquired an emblematic status within Welsh national policy—a status that is notably distinct from the rest of the UK.
It was within this broader political context that the Welsh Government commissioned
In the following section, we outline key literature on global educational accountability reform, as well as reforms within the UK and Wales specifically. Our critical discourse analysis makes clear the failure of the Donaldson Report to propose a curriculum that engenders child rights consonant with the spirit of the UNCRC. Rather than finding a mismatch between the intentions of the Report and its authors, the routinized use of language associated with performance, technology, and digital skills revealed that the proposed curriculum places child rights at the periphery as opposed to the center of Welsh educational reform. Whether actualized or not, we conclude our analysis with implications of the Donaldson Report for comprehensive Welsh educational reform.
The new economy and educational reform
Scholars have argued that new economy restructuring not only is linked to diminished wages and professional judgment (Connell et al., 2009), but to increased surveillance of public sector workers, including those in the fields of health (Newman and Lawler, 2009), social services (Healy, 2009), and education (Brennan, 2009). To this extent, much is written on the public sector effects, including those in education. Since the 1970s, market-driven educational reform has slowly, but unequivocally infused business-oriented schemes competition, entrepreneurship, and performance into state and local educational structures around the globe (Dolby et al., 2004; Plehwe et al., 2006).
Educational scholarship increasingly aims to unpack the everyday ways neoliberalism operates in pedagogical practice, student learning, and policy. Scholarship exists on commercialism in education (Ritzer, 2015), ideologically-scripted state curriculum standards (Lemke, 2015), corporatized teacher training models (Sleeter, 2008), and the increased surveillance of educators (Brennan, 2009). Studies point to the ways elite actors and networks pressure political actors to support choice, skills-oriented, and market-driven visions of education (Au and Ferrare, 2014; DeBray-Pelot et al., 2007; Maxcy, 2009). Research also explores the challenges posed by a new managerialism for educational organizational culture and leadership practice (Burch, 2009), and what these shifts mean specifically for female leadership (Jabbar et al., 2016; Lynch et al. 2012; Mahitivanichcha and Rorrer, 2006). Finally, market-driven choice orientations were found to create racial inequality through differential access to schools, concomitantly shaping the behavior and thinking of educators who view parents and students as a means to maximize profit (Buras, 2011; Brunner et al., 2010; Frankenberg and Lee, 2003; Lipman, 2011; Orfield and Frankenberg, 2013).
Copious research also considers heightened attention to globalized accountability-driven standardized testing through the OECD PISA project. As a major intergovernmental organization that works on social policies, according to Sahlberg and Hargreaves (2011), the OECD has become the main driver for the “global education reform movement” (p. 99). Considered by OECD to be a most successful policy tool, PISA measures, “the ability to complete tasks relating to real life, depending on a broad understanding of key concepts, rather than limiting the assessment to the understanding of subject-specific knowledge” (OECD, 2007: 20).
Yet, notable critiques exist on PISA’s reliability, curricular relevance, and assessment capacity between nations (Dohn, 2007; Gür et al., 2012; Solano-Flores and Milbourn, 2016). Goldstein (2004) for example, pointed out the inappropriateness of national rankings through comparative surveys when attempting to consider contextually complex, multidimensional educational issues. As local and current topics are not included in PISA testing, Sj⊘berg (2014) raised concerns about the fairness and objectivity of claims by PISA that testing can measure learning in real life situations across countries and cultures. Scholars also argue that OECD uses PISA to underpin its neoliberal agenda to privatize education by pressuring countries to reform their educational systems, thereby creating unnecessary national competition through a global high-stakes accountability climate (B⊘yum, 2014; Bulkley and Fusarelli, 2007; Fowler, 1995; Lingard and Rawolle, 2011; Ozga, 2009; Woodward, 2009). Failure discourses tied to low PISA scores also are leveraged in ways that expand the scope, scale, and explanatory power of testing, namely enhancing the influence of the OECD in schools, nations, and global education governance (Ball, 2015; Sellar and Lingard, 2014).
Educational reform in the UK
To begin, broad comparative educational policy analysis of systems and processes in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland provide certain challenges owed to the complexity of sociocultural, economic, and political context between and within each nation (Raffe et al., 1999). In the era of devolution, although the educational systems of all four constituent parts of the UK share certain commonalities, they also are fundamentally distinct. The following review of the literature aimed less at offering comparative analysis of educational reform throughout the UK, but rather aimed to situate the uniqueness of Welsh governance, schooling, and the Donaldson Reform within this context.
Beginning in the late 1970s, unprecedented and wholesale educational reform began throughout in the UK so much so that it was argued to have altered, “the power structure of the education system” (MacLure, 1989: v.). Akin to the educational reform movement in the USA, the UK witnessed a shift to market-driven and neoconservative values, most notably through the Education Reform Act (1988). Among other landmark changes, the Reform Act established a National Curriculum, abolished tenure for academics, removed Local Education Authority (LEA) direct financial control of certain schools, and pushed differentiation through individual performance (Ball et al., 1994; Phillips, 2003). Although the impact of neoconservative centralization varied throughout the UK, Government policies centered on five main principles including quality, diversity, parental choice, autonomy, and accountability (Phillips, 2003).
By 1999, devolution throughout the UK was complete with the establishment of Parliament in Scotland, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, all of which legislatively were charged with managing their own education systems (Raffe et al., 1999). Prior to this time, LEAs were the basis of compulsory education and the allocation of state financial resources throughout the UK. Though schooling plurality already existed (e.g., state versus private, LEA versus Church schools, single sex versus co-education) (Taylor et al., 2005), the Education Reform Act (1988) adopted a distinctive policy framework that centralized funding and promoted increased school diversity. Key to this was the grant-maintained (GM) schools and the City Technology Colleges (CTCs), both outside LEA control. Although “New Labour” eventually abolished GM schools, it continued in the direction of marketized schooling models. CTCs also were funded by both private and public funds further linking education with job training and industry (Taylor, 2001a). Other options also included faith-based, foundation, specialist, Beacon, and Training (Taylor et al., 2005). Academies, which are similar to charters in the USA, eventually replaced CTCs, and receive centralized as opposed to LEA funding and also are privately sponsored by businesses.
Thus, in the post-devolution era, New Labour’s education policy in England unequivocally utilized a market-driven approach to allocate resources and increase parental choice over student schooling. Effectively diminishing the influence of the LEAs, budgets were allocated through formula funding that focused on the age and number of students that LEAs could attract; delegated management also was instituted through Local Management of Schools (Taylor, 2001a). Additionally, schools could opt out of LEAs completely, with diversity of schooling options promoted through a parental appeals process that allowed them to contest school allocations; publication of exam league tables also became a mechanism to assist parental choice (Taylor, 2001a).
New Labour encouraged beneficial partnerships with private organizations and a zero tolerance policy for failing schools, which pushed privatization as the answer to failing and unpopular schools (Ball, 1993). Studies reported that there were a number of factors such as surplus places, appeals, admissions procedures, and sheer parental activity, associated with the actualized level of choice in this system (Taylor, 2001a). The position of English schools within a such a hierarchical system for example, was found to be associated with their relative examination performances (Taylor, 2001b). Studies also reported increased socioeconomic segregation in areas of higher levels of school choice (Allen, 2007; Gorard and Taylor, 2002).
Devolution states diverge from market-driven educational reform
Northern Ireland initially demonstrated some adherence to the English system after the Irish Partition of 1920 (Raffe et al., 1999). In a major evaluation report to the Department of Education for Northern Ireland, however, Gallagher and Smith (2000) proposed that Northern Ireland distance itself from England’s choice model and end the selective system. Northern Ireland currently maintains a state-endorsed selective system in secondary education motivated by class-based interests within the 68 grammar schools in the country (Gardner, 2016). As implemented, this system demonstrates resistance to the system developed in England (Gallagher and Smith, 2000).
In the mid-1960s, comprehensive schooling was introduced in Scotland and has since received consistent civic support (Howieson et al., 2017). In the post-devolution period, Scotland also was successful at systematically rejected Thatcherite policies that were labeled as anglicizing and thus did not accommodate Scottish society (Arnott, 2005). In education, Scotland resisted implementing the UK’s National Curriculum and replaced it with what was known as Curriculum Guidance 5–14 (Arnott, 2005; Arnott and Menter, 2007). In 2000, the Scottish Parliament identified five priorities for educational policy, which included achievement and attainment, framework for learning, inclusion and equality, values and citizenship, and learning for life. In this system, LEAs and educational professionals retained stronger control over educational priorities and performance (Ozga, 2005). Scotland also maintained a more homogeneous school system that emphasized the ability and efforts of students as compared with the English parental choice model focused on performance and numbers. As of 2016, approximately 94% of Scottish secondary students attended public comprehensive schools (Howieson et al., 2017).
A civil service and inspectorate was created within the Welsh Office in 1970 to manage educational responsibilities (Phillips, 2003). Despite lengthy political and administrative ties, unique to the Wales educational policy context was a clear desire to promote equity, justice, human rights, and community through comprehensive schools (Phillips, 2000). Administered by the Curriculum Council for Wales, between 1990 and 2000 the implementation of the National Curriculum in Wales diverged from England and moved in the direction of accommodating a Wales-specific context. The National Assembly for Wales (2001) published, Our commitment to equality leads directly to a model of the relationship between the Government and the individual which regards that individual as a citizen rather than as a consumer. Approaches which prioritize choice over equality of outcome rest, in the end, upon a market approach to public services, in which individual economic actors pursue their own best interests with little regard for wider considerations.
Key Welsh educational reform involved the Foundation Phase program, the flagship policy of a devolved Wales. Progressive in orientation, the Foundation Phase program is a statutory curriculum for children, aged 3 to 7 years, attending both maintained and funded non-maintained sectors (National Assembly for Wales, 2003; Taylor et al., 2016). A constructivist child-centered pedagogy, it included the following components: personal and social development; well-being and cultural diversity; language, literacy, and communication skills; mathematical development; Welsh language development; knowledge and understanding of the world; physical development; and creative development (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008). Piloted in 41 settings across Wales in 2004, by 2011 the Foundation Phase program was implemented in all primary schools (Welsh Assembly Government, 2016).
Drawing on the experiences of Italy and Scandinavia, the Foundation Phase curriculum represents a landmark educational policy divergence from England (Taylor et al, 2015). Despite this achievement, of note is Wales’ performance on the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE), wherein an increase of GCSE performance difference between England and Wales was found (Burgess et al., 2013). Wales’ dwindling performance results were attributed by some to abolishing league table publications, which detailed school performance (Burgess et al., 2013). Other research however, found no decline in test scores of Welsh students since abolishment of league tables (Goldstein and Leckie, 2016). Ultimately, a devolved Welsh Government sought to address inequalities in early childhood. Assisted by the language, purpose, and orientation of the UNCRC (1989), Wales adopted a progressive pedagogical orientation that acknowledges the unique needs of children and youth.
Wales and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
Significant to the development of the Foundation Phase and educational policy in Wales is the incorporation of the UNCRC (1989) into Welsh national policy. The UNCRC (1989) requires state parties to guarantee a wide range of rights for children (aged 0 to 18 years), including that of education, and to take steps such as relegating maximum resources to ensure access to such rights exists. The UNCRC is the most ratified human rights instrument ever, with only the United States holding out against ratification. The ideological influences behind the Convention are complex and include concepts such as child protectionism, the best interests of the child, and more progressive understandings on the moral worth of children (Milne, 2008). Broadly, the UNCRC asserts the entitlement of minors to participate in decisions which shape their environments and requires adults to listen, engage, and understand the child not as citizens in the making, but citizens of the now (Breen, 2002; O’Halloran, 1999; Rios-Kohn, 2007).
In the first decade of devolved Government, the UNCRC acquired prominence in Wales. Not only is the position of the UNCRC in Welsh national governance not found elsewhere in the UK, but it is unique compared with other ratifying nations and nations that have embraced human rights education models dating to the 1970s (Suárez, 2007; Williams, 2013). The earliest Wales Assembly framework for planning and funding local children’s services was
Cross-party support for the Assembly’s pro-UNCRC stance was reiterated in 2004 when it passed a plenary resolution that adopted the Convention as the framework of principle for all actions concerning children and young people. The Welsh Government also published
By 2007, this separate Welsh approach was reflected in the treaty-monitoring process under the UNCRC. The UN Committee (2008) for example, viewed Wales favorably in comparison with England in relation to the Assembly’s position on child rights and its support for coalitions like the Children and Young People’s Assembly for Wales. In 2011, the National Assembly for Wales passed the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure containing a requirement that Welsh Ministers, whenever they exercise their functions, must have
Butler and Drakeford (2013) attribute the apparent enthusiasm for the UNCRC in Wales to a combination of the people, politics, and policy within particular place and time. In other words, in concert with changes made to the educational system through the Foundation Phase, children’s rights both represented something a devolved government
Research has examined the connections between child rights and education. Connolly (2012) found that school exclusions in England breached UNCRC Article 3 and Article 12, which respectively require that children be considered when making decisions concerning them and that their views should be taken into account. Unlawful exclusions also were carried out under the disguise of unofficial or informal exclusions, where students were required to leave school or they would be formally excluded on the record. Devine and McGillicuddy (2016) explored teaching pedagogies in 12 Irish schools through the lens of children’s rights, and found a focus limited to the level of recognizing individual children’s voices as opposed to identifying potential injustices against groups of children. In a mixed methods study that examined the needs of Irish students with autistic spectrum disorders, Prunty (2011) found that when the best interests of the child under UNCRC Article 3 was taken into account by teaching staff, emerging themes included the participation of parents, collaboration between key parties responsible for the education of the student, and the coordination of IEP staff. Finally, legal scholars have examined advances of children’s rights in education, including things such as access to school councils, school exclusion, appeals (Hosking, 2013), and the ability, or lack thereof, of children to participate fully in decision-making affecting them (Crowley, 2013).
Yet research on child rights as it relates to market-driven curriculum policy supported in England, and more specifically educational policy within the Welsh context is sparse. Moreover, if implemented, the recommendations in the Donaldson Report will build on the Foundation Phase, which according to Taylor et al. (2016) will, “require a similar breadth and scale of change to the curriculum and pedagogy” (p. 302). The progressive nature of the Foundation Phase and the rights-based national policy context within which it operates, warrants examination of how child rights are addressed throughout the Donaldson Report. As such, our research presents a timely response to both the lack of research in this area and the potential comprehensive educational reform that could unfold across Wales.
In the following section, we outline our research methodology, data collection, and analysis procedures. Situated within critical policy and discourse analysis traditions, our study answers the following question: How are children’s rights discourses expressed within the Donaldson Report? Although a prescribed, accountability-driven curriculum was not the stated goal of the Report, a thoroughly integrated discussion and focus on the child-oriented aims of the UNCRC did not exist, thus having a minimal focus on empowering, enabling, and respecting child rights was found. Moreover, though not readily apparent, technocratic and performance-oriented language was present throughout the Report, as learning and teacher training also was tied to concerns about increasing workplace literacy, numeracy, and digital skills.
Methodology
One area of critical policy studies (CPSs) has been the examination of the relationship between the new economy and educational reform such as that of the national curricular and pedagogical recommendations proposed by the Donaldson Report. CPSs are dedicated to unpacking how educational policy and respective implementation is shaped by power dynamics, normative culture, and ideology (Prunty, 1985). Key to this is how technocratic, hidden, and seemingly value-neutral policy discourses work to the benefit of some institutional arrangements, while giving the false appearance of addressing the needs of the policy’s intended audience (Bensimon and Marshall, 2003; Lemke, 2018).
Lipman (2011) for example, focused on thirty years of educational policy and processes that emphasize quantitative, efficiency, and evaluative metrics that detracted from the role of education in fostering the public good. Concerned with linkages between educational reform and broader social discourses about youth exploitation, Lemke (2018) examined how political and normative dynamics within a conservative U.S. state context mediate and shape policy that has the “supposed” aim of training educational personnel about human trafficking. Whether at local, national, or international levels, when operationalized, such studies reveal factors that work to the advantage of some groups and ideas, while disadvantaging others. Thus, it is argued that complex educational policy networks with elite orientations now influence largescale educational policy and reform (Ball, 2012) in ways not witnessed even 10 years prior. Overall, critical studies of policy aim to map developments in new economy educational politics, by treating “education as nested in larger theories about economic thinking” (Burch, 2009: 10).
Critical discourse analysis
The goal of this analysis was to examine how key children’s rights discourses related to education were incorporated within a comprehensive Welsh educational reform proposal. As such, critical discourse analysis (CDA) was an apt methodological approach for answering our research question. CDA is a qualitative research strategy used to explain and interpret relationships between discourse, social practice, and broader sociopolitical context (Rogers et al., 2005). There are multiple ways educational scholars study discourse to make sense of educational policy processes and related contexts. Rooted in a critical theoretical tradition that is equally as diverse as the methods used for studying social discourse, at its core CDA does not take spoken or verbalized language as neutral. Rather, all discourse is tied to sociopolitical, economic, and cultural formations. Fundamentally concerned with power dynamics, CDA helps to explain why, “language does the work that it does…with an interest in understanding, uncovering, and transforming conditions of inequality” (Rogers et al., 2005: 369).
This study drew from Gee’s (1996, 1999) discourse analysis work. While Gee (2004) does not refer to his style of analysis as CDA, he does assume language to be both social and political. According to Rogers et al., (2005), his work thus can be taken as “critical” in the sense that social discourse also is ideological wherein certain information is valued more than others. Discussed in the next section, our analysis of the Donaldson Report focused on what Gee defined as “little d” discourse, or linguistic elements, and “big D” discourse, or linguistic elements and social and cultural modes of operation. As used in this study, both were understood to be constitutive and embedded by power dimensions—here the tensions between proposed comprehensive curricular reform with links to the OECD PISA project and Welsh national policy inclusive of child rights.
Data collection
We did not conduct field research for this study. We also did not interview Donaldson Report Committee members. Thus, data collection relied primarily on policy texts. Data collection included,
As part of our CDA, we also read and analyzed secondary policy and informational resources that provided additional information about the Donaldson Report policy processes and respective players. To help contextually situate our analysis, we searched, collected, and reviewed 11 newspaper articles relative to Welsh educational performance and the Report’s publication. Though news reporting was limited, our search timeline included the years 2015 and 2016. We reviewed two policy documents containing information related to Report public comments. The first of those was public comment offered by National Association of Schoolmasters Union of Women Teachers, the largest teachers’ union representing teachers and school leaders in Wales and the UK. The second was a final report to the Welsh Government that was prepared by the Wales Institute of Social and Economic Research, Data and Methods (WISERD) titled,
Data analysis
After completing data collection, we each read the Donaldson Report separately from the other policy texts. We then read all policy documents, wrote initial memos, and discussed our initial readings of both the Report and the supporting texts. Iterative readings of the Donaldson Report focused on the degree to which child rights were covered, curriculum purpose and structure, and language focused on testing, performance, and workplace skills.
To add structure to this analysis, we drew from Gee’s work (1996, 1999) on doing discourse analysis. We created a Microsoft Word template for the eight chapters of the Donaldson Report, which allowed each of us to contribute and compare memos on specific chunks of text. This template allowed each of us to read and identify main ideas covered on each page of the Report. We then each examined how the language of three UNCRC Articles that cover education, namely Articles 28 (right to education), 29 (goals of education), and 31 (leisure, play, and culture) were embedded, if at all, within the Donaldson Report (“little d”). Finally, we looked for the presence of language that would indicate an environment of increased accountability and desire to address workplace needs (e.g., student testing, performance measures, and digital or technological skills) (“little d”). As the processes involved in the creation of and potential enactment of recommendations in Donaldson Report contextually are situated within a country that adopted the UNCRC into national policy, as well as broader neoliberal educational accountability reform efforts throughout the UK (“big D”), we then considered the potential impact on the exercise of child rights in Welsh schools.
All researcher questions and memos were compared over three separate readings of the policy texts. As recommended by Charmaz (2011), we paused the research process several times, revisiting our dataset with new questions, which resulted in several analytic memos. These memos served as the basis for our findings on the Donaldson Report. Though limited only to policy texts as opposed to the collection of survey or interview data, our research process helped to create consistency in our separate analyses so to reach a degree of consensus on themes that emerged from the core dataset (Armstrong et al., 1997; Miles and Huberman, 1994).
Cognizant of how one’s positionality can influence research, we aimed to increase study trustworthiness through a detailed and reflexive audit trail, which contained the template, data, memos, and writings on initial themes (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). This audit trail was used to document all decisions made about how the texts were read and analyzed in a manner that sought congruence between theory guiding critical policy and discourse analysis. Template and constant comparative analyses helped to legitimate interpretations we each found, as well as avoid data fabrication and discounting (Crabtree and Miller, 1999). Overall, our analysis was targeted at offering a research-based and methodologically sound
The politics of squaring children’s rights with business logics
In light of the UNCRC’s incorporation into Welsh national policy, our analysis focused on if and how the Donaldson Report balanced the competing interests of the OECD PISA project with that of learning and pedagogy in a devolved Welsh state. Specifically, we examined how child rights as understood under UNCRC Articles 28, 29, and 31 were addressed in the Report. Overall two main findings emerged from this analysis including: (a) the minimized role of child rights and the UNCRC in the Donaldson Report’s proposed curriculum policy; and (b) a hidden agenda of developing a more technocratic and high-stakes Welsh educational system. To begin, the following section outlines key information related to the development of the Donaldson Report including media coverage of national educational rankings and key outsider policy actors.
Setting the stage for an OECD PISA project in Wales
Wales diverged from the English educational market-driven reform model, a move celebrated for catering to the needs and aspirations of Welsh people (Rees, 2010). However, as found in our review of media reports, the poor performance of Wales in OECD’s PISA test rankings shifted local and national discourse to one of Welsh educational system failure, a phenomenon discussed in the research literature outlined previously. Wales routinely was cited in the news as performing poorly on PISA by comparison with other UK members and the international community. Media headlines included titles such as,
Alongside the focus of PISA scores, news article reporting also included the abolishing of league table publication as detrimental to school effectiveness in Wales. While the Donaldson Report did not weigh into the debate over publication of league tables, it did mention that the Government was not currently publishing tables on school performance and that teacher assessment was being studied. Though news reporting was limited, since its release in 2015 public opinion of the Donaldson Report largely was positive, lacking any concern for the possible influence of increased accountability reform in Wales. Support for the proposed curriculum existed among Welsh Conservatives, Welsh Liberal Democrats, and Plaid Cymru (the Party of Wales) with the Minister for Education and Skills, Huw Lewis AM, deeming the work of the Donaldson Report a “compelling, exciting and ambitious vision for the curriculum in Wales” (Evans, 2015d: 3). Intending to implement Report recommendations in full, the Welsh Government also allocated £3 million in funding for Donaldson Report recommendations (Evans, 2015b). Support for the proposed policy also was found in union statements such as, “the nation’s education system is on the edge of something revolutionary and the profession now has the opportunity to shape the educational future” (Evans, 2015a). Finally, head teachers from the South-East Wales Consortium also held an optimistic view that the strong links with the Scottish model would benefit Wales and improve student learning (Evans, 2016b).
Criticism of the Donaldson Report focused largely on the Scottish influence, as well as the ambitious timeline of the proposed reform’s implementation. Professor Graham Donaldson, the primary policy actor and for whom the reform has colloquially been named, has a forty-plus year career in Scottish education and governance (Donaldson, n.d.). In 2011, Professor Donaldson completed the report,
While the Minister for Education and Skills Huw Lewis considered the 7–8-year timeframe to be realistic for Wales to implement “the biggest shake-up to education since 1944” (BBC Wales, 2015: 1), certain concerns were voiced by head teachers. A former head teachers’ leader and exam board manager cited the gap between the ambitious plan and a more realistic implementation timeline (Evans, 2016a). ATL teaching union director Philip Dixon also compared the new curriculum policy’s timeframe with implementation of the Foundation Phase, and warned that a quick transformation might lead to gaps between what is stated in the Donaldson Report and implementation in practice (Wales Politics, 2016). Finally, though limited, academic critiques included that of Professor Geraint Jones, Dean of Education at the University of Buckingham, who focused not on the presence of child rights framing in the proposed reform, but that if implemented it would widen the academic gap between Wales and England (Evans, 2015c).
Minimized child rights orientation
To begin, the Donaldson Report stated that it utilized “broad, evidenced-based data” from “educators and over 300 students” across Wales and that it is “student-centred” (p. 2). While the Report indicated that various groups comprising educators and unions were consulted, it is not clear from the Report who these groups were, how often they were consulted, and where specifically their input affected Report recommendations, thereby raising issues of transparency. Though
The Donaldson Committee composition itself was narrow in representation of educational policy stakeholders and practitioners. The Donaldson Committee constituting nine members, including Professor Graham Donaldson, and two Key Advisors who formerly worked for Estyn, which under Section 104 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 is responsible for schooling quality and standards. There were three External Advisors each of whom occupied the role of Headteacher. Finally, the Civil Service Team also lacked broad-based inclusivity, including the Diary Secretary to Professor Donaldson, a Project Manager, and Curriculum Advisor to the Review having an extensive background in religious education. The lack of a student emissary on the Donaldson Committee and failure to directly quote students at length in the Report violates the spirit of the UNCRC, which urges children to participate fully in all decision-making affecting them. Though it would be up to the Welsh Ministers to give
Gathered from discussions with “school leaders, teachers and other stakeholders,” the “principles enshrined in the UNCRC” were considered one of the three best things about Welsh education (Donaldson, 2015: 24). The Report did state that a core curriculum aim is for students to be entitled to a “high-quality education for every child and young person and taking account of their views in the context of the UNCRC, and those of parents, carers and wider society” (p. 14). It covered various policy documents that shaped the curriculum principles, including the Welsh Government’s commitment to the UNCRC in 2004, articulated through the seven core aims, and the Welsh Measure 2011. Finally, as part of the four purposes of the curriculum, the Report also stated that Welsh students should be
Yet, aside from these mentions, no in-depth Report engagement with UNCRC discourses existed in relation to curriculum purpose, structure, pedagogy, assessment, and more significantly implications. Furthermore, in the chapters on pedagogy and assessment, the concept of play (Article 31) was discussed only in the sense of learning demonstrated through, “talks, debates, plays, choirs and so on” (2015: 67) and that “performance-related assessments” could involve “role play, practical experiments, presentations, portfolios, etc.” (2015: 78). Leisure only was mentioned once as being a by-product of increased digital competence. Finally, Welsh culture and values were mentioned multiple times throughout the Report, though not in terms of child rights. Aside from these mentions, child rights as articulated under Articles 28, 29, and 31 were not a focal point of the Report.
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, appointed under Article 44 of the Convention, issues General Comments and other aids to interpretation and implementation of the Convention. To emphasize the high importance attached to education, the first General Comment was issued on Article 29, which covers the aims of education. Article 29 makes clear that the right to education concerns both access (which is dealt with in Article 28), and content. Specifically, children’s participation in all aspects of school life should be promoted, including in peer education, peer counselling, and disciplinary processes (United Nations, 2001). Thus, while a rights respecting values framework for educational curricula, processes, and environment has been developed, it was not taken into consideration by the Donaldson Report.
Rather than focus on these Articles and implications of the UNCRC for a newly proposed Welsh educational policy, the structure of new curriculum fundamentally was
Thus, in line with its title
Thus, unlike what was found in the Donaldson Report, the effective promotion of Article 29 (1) requires the fundamental reworking of curricula and pedagogy. This would include educational aims, policies, textbooks, teaching materials, and technologies (United Nations, 2001). Accordingly, reforms that only seek to superimpose the aims and values of the Article on the existing system without the aim of deeper more transformational change would be considered inadequate. Moreover, “the relevant values cannot be effectively integrated into, and thus be rendered consistent with, a broader curriculum unless those who are expected to transmit, promote, teach and, as far as possible, exemplify the values have themselves been convinced of their importance” (United Nations, 2001). Although lacking in the Donaldson Report, integral to promoting the principles reflected in Article 29 (1) are pre-service and in-service training, as well as rigorous focus on teaching method essential to teachers, educational administrators and all those involved in education. The Report (2015) was clear to state,” All of these developments will require bespoke training to ensure that teachers and learning support workers have the skills and confidence to deliver the new curriculum. This should be seen as an important part of the New Deal for the Education Workforce” (p. 100). Yet, lacking was a detailed discussion of the how educational leadership and teacher training will occur.
The hidden agenda of neoliberal educational reform
While existent Welsh educational strengths were noted, the Report more heavily focused on failures of the system, also linking Wales to broader UK reform. Report authors discussed UK reform beginning in 1988, but failed to underscore political context, including the institution of neoliberal reforms under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990. This narrative discussed Welsh reform at this time, including a common entitlement. Finally, it emphasized that from 2008-forward, reforms were tied to a range of surveys and reports, calling for changes in the Welsh system, including those from PISA, OECD, and Estyn. In fact, the Report indicated these institutions support continuity between primary and secondary years, a focus on personal, social, and health education, a need for global competitiveness, and a desire to address underachieving students.
The Report reiterated that a prescribed, accountability-driven curriculum was not sought after. In fact, the Report stated that school curriculum is a highly contested area globally, wherein the “skill/competence debate creates unhelpful polarisation” (Donaldson, 2015: 6). It continued with: The demand for young people with improved levels of literacy, numeracy and wider skills, including critical thinking, creativity and problem solving, has fuelled an international trend towards curricula that give greater emphasis to the development of skills, alongside, or embedded in, a traditional subject or ‘area of learning’ approach. Changes in response to such pressures can even challenge hitherto accepted purposes of schooling itself as, for example, where economic pressures narrow what is taught to the reduction or even exclusion of the humanities or the arts. (Donaldson, 2015: 7)
The Report acknowledged that gaps exist between policy and implementation in practice. Yet, the Report also more heavily emphasized performance and reform in high-performing nations. Utilizing pro-market language at odds with the UNCRC, as opposed to standing alone as a value in its own right, critical thought was partnered with entrepreneurship Although expressed differently in the policy documents of each of the high-performing countries, there is a common, general aim to develop in their learners the necessary attitudes, values, skills and knowledge they need in order to achieve success and fulfilment as engaged thinkers and ethical citizens with an entrepreneurial spirit. (Donaldson, 2015: 22)
According to Donaldson Report recommendations, the new curriculum would not be significantly different from the Foundation Phase for ages 3–7, with most changes occurring for ages 7–11. Under the veil of a future orientation, at the secondary level, increasing standards, curriculum integrity, alignment between and across grade levels, and assessment were recommended. Desiring a “single organising structure for the curriculum should apply for the entire age range from 3 to 16,” limited mention, meaning only one, is given to special needs populations (Donaldson, 2015: 38). Instead the Report emphasizes that six Areas of Learning should be skill based as opposed to individual based, with a heavy focus on literacy, numeracy, and digital competence for all. Finally, citing their “value” among high-performing nations, a series of “wider skills” like “critical thinking and problem solving, planning and organising, creativity and innovation, and personal effectiveness” were argued as necessary to students’ success in modern life (Donaldson, 2015: 42).
In conclusion, a broad 25-year view of needed curricular change in the areas of workforce efficiency was considered by the Report. Yet, within this trajectory, little emphasis was placed on educational equity—and for whom and to what end. The concept of student choice, which is consonant with the UNCRC, in research and activity selection was highlighted as key to successful student learning and development. In particular and without defining the term “choice,” the Report indicated that there should be choices in coursework from the ages of 14–16. Teaching the Welsh language from ages 3–16, was viewed as having multiple cognitive (and financial benefits) for the Welsh society wherein bilingualism would help with job creation in the area of bilingual teachers. Thus, a focus on Welsh language to support youth culture, empowerment, and democratic thinking for its own sake, was supplanted in the Report by a vision of the Welsh language as one linked to economic progress.
The Donaldson Report suggested keeping intact the Foundation Phase, focusing on the Welsh language and bilingualism, and concern for the Welsh identity. It proposed six Areas of Learning and Experience for students aged 3 to 16, including: “expressive arts; health and well-being; humanities; languages, literacy and communication; mathematics and numeracy; and science and technology” (p. 39). This framework is similar to the Foundation Phase, which was organized around seven Areas of Learning including: “personal and social development, well-being and cultural diversity; language, literacy and communication skills; mathematical development; Welsh language development; knowledge and understanding of the world; physical development; creative development” (Welsh Assembly Government, 2008: 14). Maintenance of the Foundation Phase was evident in the Report in that key stages should be replaced by phases and students’ skills should develop progressively and coherently (Donaldson, 2015). Still, it is important to note that pilot schools fared worse in literacy and mathematics assessment comparing with students in Key Stage 1 of the National Curriculum, and a lack of understanding of the child-centered theories behind the Foundation Phase and the pressure to raise academic performance has challenged its overall successful implementation (Taylor et al., 2016). Though some studies found child-initiated activities and outdoor environment in Foundation Phase curriculum would build up students’ interests and help “underachieving students” reposition themselves as competent students (Maynard et al., 2013; Wainwright et al., 2016; Waters and Maynard, 2010), how it would fit students in higher grades and their learning needs remains questionable. Thus, extending the Foundation Phase to all age groups might cause more problems, dynamics the Report does not address.
As outlined in the Report and over time, learning and teaching increasingly would be tied standardized accountability models so to increase literacy, numeracy, and digital skills needed for the workforce. In fact, demonstrating its support of PISA, the Report states that it drew on a range of wider United Kingdom and international evidence in the form of discussions, visits, research papers and policy documents, among other things…While the international evidence cannot therefore provide us with a curriculum model, it does offer useful insights into the international landscape. International policy development is often heavily influenced by PISA and other international surveys. (Donaldson, 2015: 17).
Student inputs and subject knowledge were considered key to traditional views of the curriculum with alternative modes, such as personal, social, and economic outputs, also mentioned. While calling for increased student autonomy and more creativity including interactive social engagement outside the classroom, the Report advocated for a curriculum that would be less subject-based and more rooted in cross-curricular literacy, numeracy, and digital competence. The Report indicated that the six learning areas (expressive arts, health and well-being, humanities, languages, literacy and communication, mathematics and numeracy, science and technology) should focus on democratic rights and multiple languages including Welsh as compulsory through 16. Still the mention of child rights is more peripheral to this discussion. The inclusion of a language dimension also could signal maintenance of a national identity in a globalized world. Yet, the Report more heavily emphasized that students should focus on entrepreneurship and have digital and financial skills needed for the workplace.
Finally, the Report called for increased teacher autonomy, that teacher assessments should not be reported to the Welsh Government, and that the Ministers should have an “arms-length” involvement in curriculum development and implementation (Donaldson, 2015: 94). This recommendation begs the question of which private actors might further involve themselves in Welsh educational policy if a public vacuum where to occur. Teacher assessment should be used systematically together with other data points to understand teacher capacity and whole school evaluation. In stating that assessments should focus on whole school self-evaluations and “avoid unnecessary bureaucracy,” the Report continually emphasized a language of increased accountability and OECD data that focused on weaknesses in the current Welsh system (Donaldson, 2015: 74). This also indirectly tied teachers to a failed system. Furthermore, while there is no nationally agreed upon form of assessment and evaluation, it cited an OECD Report to state that “curriculum, teaching and assessment” should be aligned “around key learning goals and include a range of different assessment approaches and formats” (Donaldson, 2015: 85). Ultimately, increased standardized, accountability-driven, and business logic framing were cited as mechanisms to accomplish Donaldson Report goals and recommendations.
Discussion
Given the long-term implementation goals of the Donaldson Report, our analysis accounted for multi-level policy context and actors, as well as how the values embedded in this policy text address children’s rights—and ultimately broader Welsh society. Rather than the possibility for a more progressive educational system attuned to critical pedagogy and rights-based learning, teaching, and praxis, we found embedded technocratic, business, and performance-oriented language. Instead of highlighting ways to increase creative play, critical thinking, humanities education, and civil deliberation among youth, skills needed for the workplace and measurable outputs undergirded proposed Donaldson reforms. While mentioning terms like inclusion, equity, and disadvantage, complex social and economic dynamics driving these issues was not included in the Report, nor was how the UNCRC attempts to address such dynamics. Educational reform as proposed in the Report is a linchpin to upward mobility, without focusing for example, on what supports presently are needed to assist students living in poverty. Thus, although Donaldson articulated a proscribed, accountability-driven curriculum as a problem, the alternative educational model it outlined was just that.
Our analysis is not without limitations. First, it only involved analysis of primary and secondary source policy texts. Survey or interview data collected from policy actors would add substantially to understanding policy dynamics that contributed to reform recommendations and that might influence its eventual implementation. Our analysis also did not offer an analysis of the Foundation Phase program and therefore we could not discuss how current aspects of its implementation might be constrained by recommendations in the Donaldson Report (see: Taylor et al., 2016 for a detailed discussion of the Foundation Phase development and implementation). Finally, our analysis did not examine the Scottish model, which helped shape recommendations in the Report. Still, a critical analysis of the Donaldson Report, how it addressed child rights, and what that means for its situatedness within a global accountability context is missing from the research literature. Our analysis helped to fill this gap.
Particularly challenging to new economy policy discourses is that Article 29 (1) insists upon a holistic, child-centered approach to education. This approach should ensure that educational opportunities appropriately balance the promotion of intellectual, social, and practical dynamics of education, the emotional, mental, spiritual, and physical dynamics, and any childhood or lifelong aspects (United Nations, 2001). Here the main objective of education is to maximize the child’s ability and opportunity to participate fully and responsibly in a free society. In this vein, education should be child-friendly and schools should foster a humane environment that permit the development of individual student talents (United Nations, 2001) and more importantly, include them in the processes that govern that development.
Indeed, the Donaldson Report utilized discourses that failed to thoroughly integrate consideration for child rights and that lean in the direction of increased managerialism, business logics, and digital competencies. The focus on outputs are akin to shifts in the USA, a nation cited as a high-performing nation in the Report. Although what does it mean to be high-performing, particularly if research evidence suggests that something is wrong with accountability models at both federal and individual US state levels? As previously discussed, extensive research on US market-driven accountability reform demonstrates multi-level damage wrought on learning and teaching when critical pedagogy is supplanted by testing outputs and teacher annual yearly progress indicators. The Report failed to account for this research. Instead it used OECD reports on student performance and assessment models as the basis for its proposed Welsh educational policy overhaul. Clearly illustrating bias for the OECD PISA project in Wales was nothing less than the following Report statement (2015), “The Review proposes that the Welsh Government should develop an overall assessment and evaluation framework as recommended by the OECD” (p. 110).
The bottom line for new economy educational policy and its cornucopia of business-minded actors is money. Overall, we conclude that there is disconcerting evidence from the Report to suggest Wales might no longer diverge from England and other nations that have adopted market-driven approaches. Further, and to its detriment, a uniquely Welsh policy vision that boldly incorporated the UNCRC into national policy could be subsumed by new economy marketization.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.