Abstract
The aims of this research were to explore the relationship between parents and the UK government within primary education and to critically analyse neo-liberal modes and technologies of governmentality within the testing regime. This article focuses on the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign, which was an online protest by parents. The protest aimed to force the UK government to stop the new Standard Assessment Tests due to be taken by primary school children in the summer of 2016. The research considers, via a critical discourse analysis approach, the potential tension between the government and the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest. The analysis focuses on how the parents positioned themselves as either complying with or rejecting government educational policy. The research findings concentrate on four themes: the paradox of parent power, the discourse of success, the educational experience and the emotional effects of testing. Whilst the campaign sought to challenge the government’s testing regime, the neo-liberal rhetoric that the purpose of education is for future employment was maintained by both sides, with the protesters adopting the same neo-liberal discourse to justify an opposing position. Ultimately, for parents to challenge the government within education, the neo-liberal discourse that supports the current education policies needs to be recognised and addressed.
Introduction
In the summer term of 2016, English primary school children in Years 2 and 6 were the first to take the new Standard Assessment Tests (SATs), based on a new national curriculum, which were intended to be more rigorous. SATs have been part of primary education in England since the introduction of the 1988 Education Act. Alexander (2010), Ball (2013), Carr (2016), Hutchings (2015) and Whitty (2008) highlight that, throughout this time, the government has persisted despite the disapproval of head teachers, teachers, parents and academics. SATs are used to hold schools accountable for the percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard and whether pupils make sufficient progress based on new value-added measures (Department for Education, 2016a). The Let Our Kids Be Kids (2016a) grass-roots protest was initially led by a small group of parents of Year 2 children who had, in their words, ‘had enough … enough of endless testing, enough of teachers not being trusted to teach, enough of an Ofsted [Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills]-driven, dull, dry curriculum aimed solely at passing National Curriculum Tests (SATs)’. The protest culminated in parents removing their children from school on 3 May 2016 in what was referred to as a ‘kids’ strike’; this was a protest day before SATs for Year 2 and Year 6 pupils were due to start. Instead, the parents arranged what they described as a fun day of learning, which in some cities became communal activities in local parks.
The hope of the campaigners was that the protest would encourage schools to boycott SATs. Over the seven weeks of the protest, it received strong support. Although the actual number of those who did participate in the ‘kids’ strike’ is not known, the campaign website claimed that 8000 children were absent, over 45,000 people signed the online petition, and that the absence-letter template provided was downloaded over 63,000 times. Additionally, according to the website, some press sources reported that as many as 40,000 children missed school (Let Our Kids Be Kids, 2016a). Whilst the numbers are not large when compared to the 1.19 million children who were registered within state-funded primaries in Year 2 and Year 6 (Department for Education, 2016b), the protest made an impact. It was covered by both local and national media, as well as generating a large following on social media, highlighting the issues of high-stakes testing within primary education. The Let Our Kids Be Kids protest emphasised the role of parents as activists, presenting a counterdiscourse via social media in protesting against the government, and thus it can be considered as a site of resistance.
The focus of this study was to consider how the power relationship between the government and parents is enacted through the education system and, ultimately, the question of who knows best for a child, and to what end. This article investigates the relationship between parents and the government; whilst parent–school and school–government relationships are also an integral part of education, it is beyond the scope of this article to consider these relationships within the research. The study considered the potential tension that resulted between the government and parents in the creation of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest in the degrees of compliance with, and rejection of, government educational policies. In order to address these aims, the research utilised a critical discourse analysis approach in conjunction with a thick description to analyse the campaign in detail. The findings are explored through the themes of the paradox of parent power, the discourse of success, the educational experience and the emotional effects of testing.
The neo-liberalisation of education
Government education policy currently reflects a neo-liberal ideology, whose discourse has shaped the current education system. Neo-liberal policies that focus on the testing of children have been increased in order to respond to the government’s need for data to create parental choice within education. Rudd and Goodson’s (2017) research highlighted that, since the financial crisis in 2007/2008, rapid policy changes have enhanced previous marketisation and privatisation strategies, altering the educational landscape. Within the realms of educational research, there is a wealth of literature exploring the effects of neo-liberalism within both policy and practice, as considered by Apple (2006), Ball (2013), Rudd and Goodson (2017) and Saltman (2014). Humphreys (2017) affirms that market-orientated economics have reinforced a neo-liberal narrative within education reforms, both globally and nationally.
In order to ensure that the country can compete globally, policies within education have become ever more focused on accountability measures, resulting in a vertical, top-down process of control. Accountability works as a technology of governmentality through managerial organisation, in which schools and those within them implicate themselves in their own governance to achieve the prescribed targets. Accountability therefore becomes both internalised and enacted as part of what Foucault (2010) would describe as the political project of the government. Many reforms throughout education are centred on raising children’s attainment within specific subjects that are considered to enhance future employment. Schools, teachers and children have all become units of measurement within the education system, reflecting technologies of power, in which a policy discourse of accountability has become normalised (Ball, 2013; Carr, 2016; Hayler, 2017). As a result, the focus on further control has been seen within primary education with the introduction of the new, more rigorous forms of primary SATs.
The discourse of testing
Government education reforms have had an increased focus on the rigorous testing of primary school children, with the rhetoric that schools must set high expectations for all pupils and be held accountable via pupil performance (Department for Education, 2016a). Teaching strategies and practices now support the testing of pupils and the use of test data, through which schools endeavour to meet government accountability standards (Atkinson, 2015; Carr, 2016; Hayler, 2017; Hutchings, 2015). Reliance on testing can be considered as dehumanising to teachers and pupils, whereby all are reduced to numerical value based on test scores. This form of dehumanisation could also apply to parents, as poor pupil performance is often attributed to poor parenting (Wood and Brownhill, 2018). Research suggests that pupil identities and their worth to the school system are linked to their test scores via pupil tracking technologies (Hayler, 2017; Rutledge et al., 2013). Numerous research studies, both nationally and globally, report the negative effects of the testing regime on children (Alexander, 2010; Hayler, 2017; Hursh, 2008; Hutchings, 2015; Lingard et al., 2013; Saltman, 2014; West, 2010). Many reports suggest that SATs are causing anxiety, disaffection and mental health problems within children as young as six. The negative effects of testing are reported by teachers as stress, anxiety and panic attacks, which they considered to have increased in 78% of primary schools over the past two years (Weale, 2017). The Department for Education’s (2016c: 34) own research identifies that ‘[a]t any one time, three pupils in an average class of 30 are suffering from a mental illness’.
Furthermore, evidence suggests that high-stakes tests have failed to increase a child’s overall knowledge and learning (Alexander, 2010; Hutchings, 2015; Organisation for Economic Co-operation, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010). Therefore, testing has proven unsuccessful in the improvement of standards by the government’s own measurements, yet its use persists. Government failure to change the testing regime has resulted in reports of children’s mental ill health becoming normalised. This reflects Foucault’s (1995: 224) theory of power and knowledge, which ‘regularly reinforce one another in a circular process’; consequently, the need for testing is continually reinforced as an accepted part of schooling. It is this conflict that was reflected in the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest, in which parents no longer saw the merit in the constant testing of their children.
A discourse of parental responsibility
Neo-liberal education policies promoting parental choice have generated an ethical framework which both encourages and legitimises self-interest in the pursuit of competitive family advantage (Oria et al., 2007). Through the notion of educational choice, parents experience new forms of governmentality as they are now deemed responsible for gaining the best advantage via education for their child’s future life.
Educational success is therefore linked to parental involvement. Vincent (2017: 542) highlights how education policies have continued to incorporate the role of the parent within polices, and how parents, particularly mothers, are strongly positioned as responsible for their child’s ‘emotional, social, educational, and physical development’. Reay et al. affirm the idealised version of the parent: Historically white middle class identity in the UK has been an idealised one held up for others (namely, the working class masses) to aspire to (Carey, 1992). Currently, in the 2000s the white middle classes, and particularly as they are inscribed in policy discourses, best fit this ideal of the democratic citizen – individualistic, responsible, participatory, the active chooser. (Reay et al., 2008: 238)
Many government policies over the past decade have been aimed at raising aspirations. Some parents are considered to be ‘failing’ parents due to a lack of engagement with their child’s education and having low expectations; as a result, they are connected with societal problems (De Benedictis, 2012; Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson, 2011; Wood and Brownhill, 2018). Whilst the purpose of the research was not to discuss issues of social class, the discourse of how parents can be considered as either allies or enemies of the government’s education policies is relevant. Choice for parents and increased involvement in their child’s education can provide opportunities to resist the mainstream education discourse. Research by the National Foundation for Educational Research suggests that parents choose schools based on the ‘school that suits my child’ and the ‘location’ of the school. The data suggested that school choice based on examination results was less important to parents (Wespieser, 2015). This implies that there is a site of resistance between parents and government policies on the need for testing.
Parents’ acts of resistance within education are increasing; the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign website highlights and supports the differing parent groups that disagree with various government education policies. These assorted groups include Parent Education Hub, More Than A Score, Take Childhood Back – NaturePlay, Better Without Baseline and Too Much Too Soon, to list but a few. The groups are all concerned with the pressure on children with regard to testing, and the removal of play and creativity from education (Let Our Kids Be Kids, 2016a). They address issues from boycotting SATs and requesting the extension of the Early Years Foundation Stage curriculum to the end of Year 2, to the increase of creativity within primary education. The rise of parents acting collectively as activist groups reflects Foucault’s (2007: 201) notion of ‘counter-conduct’, which refers to ‘the struggle against the processes implemented for conducting others’. Within this context, the current research was based on consideration of parents as activists within education who create sites of resistance to a neo-liberal form of education and the testing regime within primary schools.
Governmentality and the educational self
The Let Our Kids Be Kids protest, as a site of resistance against the government’s neo-liberal education policies, was explored via Foucault’s (2008) theory of governmentality. Foucault first referred to the term ‘governmentalities’ in his lectures concerned with the genealogy of the modern state (Lemke, 2002). This notion of governmentality was concerned with the problem of government: ‘how to govern oneself, how to be governed, by whom should we accept to be governed, how to be the best possible governor?’ (Foucault, 2007: 88). According to Foucault, the term ‘government’ does not only refer to the political, but also incorporates philosophical, religious, medical and pedagogical texts. Furthermore, the term ‘government’ also incorporates the governing of the family, as Foucault (2007: 94) identifies: ‘when a state is governed well, fathers will know how to govern their families, their wealth, their goods, and their property well, and individuals will also conduct themselves properly’. Therefore, governmentality is concerned with the conduct of individuals, families and groups, and the regularities of everyday existence. This notion of how families govern themselves is particularly salient within current neo-liberal education policies, in which parents are positioned as responsible for ensuring that their child receives the best education. This creates a ‘defining “strategic field of power relations in their mobility, transformability, and reversibility,” within which the types of conduct, or “conduct of conduct,” that characterize “government” are established’ (Foucault, 2007: 389). Governmentality thus creates a ‘reciprocal constitution of power techniques and forms of knowledge’, in which the government is considered as adumbrating the close link between power relations and processes of subjectification (Lemke, 2001: 191). Within this theory, the government is understood as a discursive field in which the exercise of power is ‘rationalized and structures specific forms of intervention’ (Lemke, 2001: 191). This intervention can be related to government institutions as a technology of government power, which aims to produce citizens as a result of policies. A citizen is produced within a neo-liberal mode of governmentality, and is described by Rose and Miller (2008: 195) as an ‘enterprising individual in search of meaning, responsibility and a sense of personal achievement in life’. Such individuals conduct their lives as a form of ‘enterprise of the self, striving to improve the “quality of life” for themselves and their families through the choices that they took within the marketplace of life’ (195). This notion of the neo-liberal subject is salient within education policies.
From a governmentality perspective, the analysis of education policy creates a critical space centred on ‘that dimension of our history composed by the intervention, contestation, operationalization and transformation of more or less rationalised schemes, programmes, techniques and devices which seek to shape conduct so as to achieve certain ends’ (Rose, 1999: 20). Problems within education policy ‘are resolved not just by enactment or change of policy but also through an alteration in how existing policy reaches subjects’ (Cheney-Lippold, 2011: 173). A government seeks to influence the subject via the use of power, which Foucault (2002b) describes thus: ‘The exercise of power is a “conduct of conducts” and a management of possibilities. Power is less a confrontation between two adversaries or their mutual engagement than a question of “government”’ (341). Power is not manifested through violence but via coercion; power is exercised through the conditions of freedom, involving ‘individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several kinds of conduct, several ways of reacting and modes of behavior are available’ (342). The power of the government, which functions by being the overseer, becomes the regulator and ‘the distributor of all power relations in a given social ensemble’ (344). The context of education is a relevant social space within which governmentality power relations can take place. Thus, parents can be considered to be coerced through education policies to ensure that their child is receiving the best education possible to ensure future economic success; this is reflected in the freedom of choice for parents to send their child to the ‘best’ school being an accepted part of society.
However, within governmentality, the individual subject is governed by the state and, at the same time, governs him/herself. Ball and Olmedo (2013) describe the individual subject as ‘the result of endless processes of construction of identities that are to a greater or lesser extent, but never completely, constrained by the contingencies of the particular historical moment in which they are inscribed’ (87). This creates a paradox whereby the idea of resistance can become a central aspect in the analysis of power relations (87). Foucault (1997: 292) affirms: ‘In power relations there is necessarily the possibility of resistance because if there were no possibility of resistance (of violent resistance, flight, deception, strategies capable of reversing the situation), there would be no power relations at all’. In relation to the dominant discourse of neo-liberal education policies on which this study focused, the parents supporting the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest by removing their child from school can be viewed as no longer governing the family to the will of the government. Instead, via the protest, parents were able to use the notion of power in the opposite direction, which therefore can be considered as a specific form of resistance. The research considered an analysis of the neo-liberal modes and technologies of governmentality within the testing regime of primary education.
Methodology
The research aimed to explore the relationship between parents and the government within primary education via the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign. In order to achieve these research aims, a critical discourse analysis of government education policies, the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign’s communication and the corresponding newspaper reports was utilised. In conjunction, thick description was used to provide a detailed account of the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign and the government’s response. The discourse within the institution of education is central to this research and how the Let Our Kids Be Kids activists sought to challenge the government’s dominant position.
The importance of discourse
Discourse as a social practice implies a ‘dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s) and social structure(s) which frame it: the discursive event is shaped by them but also shapes them’ (Wodak and Meyer, 2016: 6). The notion of discourses represents the object of the research: to study specifically those discourses that consider the testing regime within education, and how different discourses are used in the Let Our Kids Be Kids activists’ and the government’s rhetoric within education. Foucault (1988) affirms that power is everywhere, diffused and embodied in discourse, knowledge and regimes of truth through general politics; the convergence of power and knowledge establishes particular forms of expertise in discourses that exert a mode of normalisation on the individual. Fairclough (2013: 30) further explains that social institutions contain diverse ‘ideological-discursive formations (IDFs)’; thus, Fairclough suggests that IDFs via discourse norms construct institutional subjects in accordance with the norms of an IDF. Discourse is therefore linked to the institution of education, which ‘disciplines’, regulates and legitimatises the ‘conduct’ of those associated with the institution (MacLure, 2003). This represents the basis of the research as a dialectical relationship within the institution of primary education between parents and the government.
Critical discourse analysis
Discourse is an important part of both government policy and the social action of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest, as well as how the events were reported within the media. This research utilised a critical discourse analysis approach in conjunction with thick description as a qualitative analysis method. Critical discourse analysis includes a set of theories and methods for the examination of discourse and social life; Van Dijk (2011: 352) explains that critical discourse analysis is a form of ‘discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context’. Fairclough (2013: 11) suggests that critical discourse analysis is a useful form of research when considering the neo-liberal era of free markets – how it can ‘enable but in other respects prevents or limits human well-being’ . Critical discourse analysis is often used within education research through an interdisciplinary interest in language, power and ideology (Rogers et al., 2016).
Many differing types of discourse are analysed within critical discourse analysis. Traditionally, the media represented a one-way flow of content from the few power elites to the masses or ordinary person, via newspapers, radio and television. However, the introduction of social media, through websites such as Facebook and Twitter, has provided a ‘new space of (communicative) power’ (Khosravinik and Unger, 2016: 211). Khosravinik and Unger (2016: 211) explain that a consequence of social media has been a shift in the lines that separate text between official and unofficial – thus, ‘the traditional dichotomy of powerful/powerless voices is eroding as more content is produced and consumed socially’. Activist and protest movements, including the Let Our Kids Be Kids parents, are now increasingly aware of the differing kinds of media for consensus and action mobilisation. Therefore, both social media and traditional media have the means to provide data sets of resistance discourses, which were pertinent to this research.
Thick description
In conjunction with a critical discourse analysis approach, the researcher followed a method of thick description to provide a review of the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign. The thick description method reflects that of Holloway (1997), who refers to the method as providing a detailed account of participants’ perceptions and experiences. The use of thick description made explicit the perceptions and experiences of the Let Our Kids Be Kids activist parents in relation to the cultural and social context of primary school education. Additionally, the use of thick description is considered as a way of achieving a form of external validity (Lincoln and Guba, 1985): by describing the events in sufficient detail to evaluate the extent to which conclusions can be drawn that are transferable to other events. Whilst the research sought to describe the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign and the government’s response, to provide a detailed thick description would go beyond the scope of this article.
Purposive data sample and ethical considerations
The data gathered for this research reflects a purposive sample, which enabled qualitative data to be obtained. The data collection was focused on three areas. First, government education policies were analysed, which included Educational excellence everywhere (Department for Education, 2016a), ‘DfE strategy 2015–2020: World-class education and care’ (Department for Education, 2016c) and ‘Five things you need to know about changes to primary assessment’ (Department for Education, 2016d). Second, data was gathered from the campaign website of Let Our Kids Be Kids and its public Facebook page, which detailed many parents’ and teachers’ varying viewpoints in support of the campaign. Third, the research gathered national newspaper and online news data covering the broad spectrum of political persuasions via the LexisNexis search engine, with the date parameters set between 26 March and 4 May 2016 – these dates cover the national media reporting of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest leading up to, including and one day after the kids’ strike. However, the national press did not start covering the protest until 29 April 2016, and it is this short period of eight days that provided the source material. This collection of data reflects Wodak and Meyer’s (2016: 22) summary of data sampling procedures, which states that ‘there is no accepted canon of data sampling procedures; indeed many critical discourse studies (CDS) approaches work with existing data, i.e. texts not specifically produced for the respective research projects’. The researcher, out of ethical considerations, gathered data whilst not logged onto Facebook, so as not to access comments from people who had privacy controls on their comments.
Data analysis framework
The initial analytical process focused on the identification of emergent themes from the reading of the content of the sourced materials. This was then categorised by the researcher into four themes. The critical discourse analysis followed Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework of analysis, whereby the aim is to map three separate forms of analysis onto one another: analysis of (spoken or written) language texts, analysis of discourse practice (processes of text production, distribution and consumption) and analysis of discursive events as instances of sociocultural practice. (Fairclough, 1995: 2)
Data analysis and discussion
The paradox of parent power
Based on the textual analysis, a key feature of the government’s discourse is that it highlights the importance of parents within education policies. The current White Paper Educational excellence everywhere expresses the intention to empower pupils, parents and teachers, stating: ‘Our approach puts parents and children first … through engagement with schools, a voice in the key decisions about their child’s school’ (Department for Education, 2016a: 65). Parents, as described in government policies, could be viewed as being complicit with the desire to improve schools based on the vision presented in the White Paper. The government employs statements such as ‘the best for their child’, ‘challenge schools to improve’ and ‘parents can support their child’s learning and demand more from the school’, which are connected through the White Paper to the rhetoric of the ‘child to achieve their full potential … raise standards … set high expectations for every child’ (3). These statements reinforce a neo-liberal ideology within education, where success is defined by an increase in measurable attainment, which justifies the use of SATs, so that ‘every child [is] measured rigorously and fairly’ (9). However, whilst the government clearly states that it means to give power and a voice to parents, it is the power only to challenge schools to improve, based on test scores.
Of interest in the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign was that it directly addressed the government, not schools, with regard to SATs. The Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign sent an open letter directly to Nicky Morgan, then Secretary of State for Education; its discourse positions the parents as within the normative neo-liberal version of ‘good middle-class parents’, with the opening paragraph stating: ‘We represent the voice of parents across the country. Parents are everybody. They are teachers, they are junior doctors, they are steel workers, they are speech therapists, neuro scientists, academics, small business owners, stay at home mums’ (Let Our Kids Be Kids, 2016b). Here, the Let Our Kids Be Kids activists are asserting their power through their middle-class status by citing various job titles, reflecting Bourdieu’s (1977) notion that they are in possession of the cultural capital to comment and address the Secretary of State for Education on the matter of education. The letter thus located the parents within a position of power based on their privileged access via their job statuses (Van Dijk, 2011). Yet, the government failed to respond to the letter until after the strike. Whilst the government’s own policies suggest that it wants to empower parents within education, its actions were contrary to this. Therefore, the concerns of the Let Our Kids Be Kids parents could be considered to have been dismissed as irrelevant or without substance.
Although the campaign challenged the dominance of the government within education by raising various criticisms of mistakes made, in the letter the parents later reposition themselves as powerless and concede power back to the government, stating: ‘You have the power to stop these tests’ (Let Our Kids Be Kids, 2016b). The conceding of power to the government returns us to Foucault’s (2002b) notion that power is exercised as a ‘conduct of conducts’ and a management of possibilities – that is, power is exercised through the conditions of freedom. With the parents relinquishing power back to the government, the government is positioned as the overseer of education. Whilst the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest did seek to resist the government’s education policy specifically on SATs, as reflected in the open letter – ‘
The discourse of success
The second theme was the perceived need for success within education, divided into the subthemes of high expectations and success or failure.
High expectations
Primary education is linked to the discourse of high expectations. The recent updating of the government’s White Paper for education continues with the rhetoric to raise aspirations and have high expectations of all children; this notion was used to justify the introduction of the newer and more rigorous forms of SATs (Department for Education, 2016d). This rhetoric reflects Raco’s (2009) belief that the discourse of aspirational politics has been normalised within mainstream practices and is now considered as fact. The government used this argument against the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign parents, labelling them as bad parents for failing to have high expectations for their children (De Benedictis, 2012; Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson, 2011). The negative responses from the government to the Let Our Kids Be Kids activists worked to create a discursive construction of ‘us and them’.
De Benedictis (2012) and Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson (2011) identified that the government considers failing parents as not being engaged with their child’s education; this contrasts with the Let Our Kids Be Kids parents, who positioned themselves as actively involved in their children’s education. However, this negative classification functioned as a means to validate the exclusion of these parents’ opinions, which maintained the government’s power regarding the justification of the SATs. The Let Our Kids Be Kids protest sought to directly address these criticisms – of failing to have high expectations – on the campaign’s website. However, whilst several parent commenters did consider non-measurable attributes (such as good manners), some listed measurable attributes, reflecting a neo-liberal model of selfhood. The parents’ aspirations for their children aligned with Ball’s (2013) notion that pupils have been transformed by a neo-liberal discourse of the self, in which self-improvement has become the norm. Foucault (1988) argues that the construction of the ‘subject’ is central within governance and control; this form of governance is at work within the dominant neo-liberal discourse in education.
Success or failure
Government education reforms continue to strive for success based on measurable attainment. The notion of the production of human capital being linked to an individual’s success in school was further reflected in the government’s response to the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign letter: ‘it is critical that we get primary assessment right, with tests fit for purpose, because mastering the basics in primary school is vital to the future success of young people’ (Morgan, 2016). The government’s statements continued to reiterate a neo-liberal discourse via the rationalisation of primary school tests, with the notion that succeeding in SATs is a precursor of success throughout all stages of education and in the child’s future life (Richardson, 2016).
The use of high-stakes testing seeks to mobilise children as human resources towards an individual objective of being a future means of sustainable success. In contrast, the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign reported a recurring theme: the negative effects of testing on a child. These included fear of failure, anxiety and stress, which is consistent with the findings in Hutchings (2015) and Rutledge et al. (2013). This fear of failure following a child within education, rather than the descriptor of success, was a concern expressed by the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign. The neo-liberal discourse of success in primary education has become a legitimatised, self-evident, natural and unquestionable truth (Fairclough, 1995; Foucault, 2002a). Whilst the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign sought to challenge the need for testing in primary education, the parents involved in the campaign still adopted a neo-liberal position of not wanting their child to fail, now or in later life. This reflects Foucault’s (1988) position that the subject becomes central within the governance of control. Therefore, succeeding in education is still the main objective.
The educational experience
This theme considered the conflicting views of different styles of education raised by the government and by the Let Our Kids Be Kids activists.
Knowledge
A main point of agonism by the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest and parents who supported the campaign was the educational experience that the children were, or were not, receiving. 1 The government’s neo-liberal rhetoric in its education policies is to equip children with the knowledge and skills for their future life as adults in Britain (Department for Education, 2016a). It is this expressed need to ensure that children are productive in adult life that is reflected in the government’s control of the national curriculum. Hayler (2017: 19) argued that there was a ‘conflict between teachers feeling able to help pupils to learn and develop knowledge and skills that equip them for life and the narrow focus on knowledge and skills that equip them for tests which are imposed’, yet skills for life are still considered the focus of education. This is also an area of agreement with the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest – that children should be prepared for the world of work. However, the rhetoric used by the protesters claims that the current system is failing. Their letter to the government informs: ‘Children who have been taught in a system obsessed with passing tests rather than learning for learning’s sake enter the world of work unprepared. We know this because parents are also business owners’ (Let Our Kids Be Kids, 2016b). The activist parents have adopted the government’s neo-liberal discourse of the purpose of education being for future employment, regardless of their campaigning against the government. Therefore, both the government’s and parents’ position ascribes the child as being an economic resource for the future economy. Thus, the neo-liberal ideology of education to support the economy has been naturalised by both the government and the parents.
The learning experience
A key area of agonism is the learning experience that children have whilst in school. The Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign focused on a discourse of creativity and fun being returned to schools and learning. The Let Our Kids Be Kids (2016a) protest affirmed: ‘We want our kids to be kids again and enjoy learning for learning’s sake not for Ofsted results or league table figures. Bring back the creativity and the fun – say goodbye to repetition and boredom!’ The Let Our Kids Be Kids (2016a) campaign website reported issues relating to the tests, stating: ‘outdoor learning has decreased, childhood anxiety has increased, games have been replaced with grammar, playing with punctuation’. The Mirror reported that the ‘parents we spoke to talked about their fears the tough new curriculum is turning their conscientious children against school, stunting their creativity, ruining their self-esteem and above all “setting them up to fail”’ (Ellis, 2016). These views reflect Hutchings’ (2015: 10) finding that, as a result of the testing regime, the focus on SATs is considered to be a priority within the classroom.
The government sought to defend its position on creativity within education – however, only in relation to creativity within the confines of it being useful for the skills required for reading and writing (Morgan, 2016). Notably, throughout the government’s White Paper Educational excellence everywhere, the words ‘fun’ and ‘creativity’ do not feature (Department for Education, 2016a). As previously argued, schools are judged on the basis of the performance of children in tests, thus the tests become the focus of a child’s daily life in school (Atkinson, 2015; Au, 2007 ; Carr, 2016; Hutchings, 2015). The Let Our Kids Be Kids (2016b) activists concur, stating: ‘The new curriculum related to these tests demands that teachers teach a dulled down, test driven curriculum to our children for months in advance’. It is this notion that testing drives teachers’ practice and the curriculum that the campaign sought to challenge. The Let Our Kids Be Kids (2016b) protesters asserted that: ‘By the time children who have been through this exam factory end up at university they have to be re taught how to learn in a curious way’. The question of whether a child can be creative and have fun whilst learning has become a site of contestation and resistance between parents and the government.
The emotional effects of testing
A main site of resistance for the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign was the reported negative impacts of the government’s testing regime. The well-being of children was a key debate within the material analysed. Within the ‘DfE strategy 2015–2020: World-class education and care’, the government acknowledges the effects poor mental health can have on children, advising that it is investing in mental health services for children with funding of £1.4 billion (Department for Education, 2016c). However, the government only refers to mental health within the neo-liberal rhetoric of linking a child to their worth in later life.
The Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign gathered support from academics, teachers and parents regarding the negative effects of testing. Despite the evidence presented by the campaigners, the government sought to defend its use of testing, insisting that SATs are for children’s own good (Busby, 2016), and furthermore sought to blame schools and teachers for being the cause of stress in how the tests were administered. The government’s failure to acknowledge both the research evidence and parental opinions on the negative effects of high-stakes tests on children’s mental health reflects Foucault’s theory of power and knowledge, whereby the formation of knowledge and the increase of power regularly reinforce one another in a circular process [with] a refinement of power relations; a multiplication of the effects of power through the foundation and accumulation of new forms of knowledge. (Foucault, 1995: 224)
There is further contradiction within the government’s rhetoric with regard to a child’s education, whereby harm via testing is legitimised, yet missing a day for the Let Our Kids Be Kids strike was presented as damaging. The then Secretary of State for Education advised: ‘Keeping children home – even for a day – is harmful to their education’ (Morgan, 2016). The Let Our Kids Be Kids activists defended their position on Facebook by citing Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), which states: ‘Governments must protect children from work that is dangerous or harms their health or education’. It was the response by the activists to accusations of parents harming and damaging their own children that raised a counterdiscourse to that of the government’s rhetoric. The discourse of the government still works through a neo-liberal logic in defence of the testing regime, whereby the government prioritises the child’s future economic worth over their well-being. Furthermore, the government attempts to undermine the protest, asserting its power by positioning the parents as bad or irresponsible. However, the support given to the protest by head teachers and teachers highlights the failure of the neo-liberal ideology reflected in the testing regime of education. The defence of children’s well-being became a site of resistance through the parents’ challenge of the system, the professionals who supported that challenge, and the children themselves as they failed to replicate the required neo-liberal qualities of a competitive, individual neo-liberal subject.
The struggle against primary testing
In summary, the analysis of the findings has sought to identify the areas of agonism and struggle between the Let Our Kids Be Kids activist parents and the government in relation to the testing regime within primary education. The evidence provided has identified differing areas of compliance and rejection between the protesters in relation to government education policies. Throughout the research, it became apparent that, whilst government policies express the aim of empowering parents to influence their child’s education, parents only have the power to influence the local school within the discourse of raising attainment and increasing standards. The government continued to adopt a position of power in response to the campaigners by dismissing their opinions and labelling them as bad parents. Whilst the Let Our Kids Be Kids protesters tried to adopt the position of parent power by challenging the government’s educational policies on testing, they failed to challenge both the government’s power within the education system and the neo-liberal discourse that supports the testing regime. It has been shown that the Let Our Kids Be Kids protesters continually adopted the same neo-liberal discourse that links success within education to a means of successful future employment. In Foucauldian terms, this could be considered a success of neo-liberal ideology within education policies as a form of governmentality, as both the government’s and parents’ position ascribes the child as being an economic resource for the future.
However, it can also be noted that, within the Let Our Kids Be Kids protests, there were areas of agonism. These are highlighted in the differing concepts of the child’s educational experience and the child’s well-being. The government continued to utilise a neo-liberal discourse to defend the national curriculum and use of testing, which dictate a teacher’s practice and thus the child’s experience within the school day. In contrast, the protesters employed a counterdiscourse to invoke a socially constructed view of the child within education – one that should have happiness, outdoor play and creativity at its heart. Arguably, it was the child that provided a key site of resistance to the embedded neo-liberal ideology in education and the testing regime. Many children’s negative experiences of fear of failure, and feeling stressed and anxious about the tests, present a counterdiscourse to the requirement of education to produce competitive, resilient and successful neo-liberal subjects.
Ultimately, for parents truly to challenge the government within education, the neo-liberal discourse that supports current education policies needs to be addressed, as the power within education still resides with the government. This notion of the reoccurring nature of government power returns us to Foucault’s (1997: 292) aforementioned quotation: ‘In power relations there is necessarily the possibility of resistance because if there were no possibility of resistance … there would be no power relations at all’. Therefore, whilst the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign failed in its attempt for the primary school tests to be withdrawn, the protest as a site of resistance to the testing regime effected some change by mobilising many parents and other supporters. The campaign was successful in raising awareness and challenging the negative effects of testing in primary education.
Conclusion and recommendations
The study showed that the notion of power was realised both through government discourse and policies and within the parent–government relationship. For the government, the education system operates a technology of governmentality, in which the parent is seen as complicit in pressurising schools to continually raise standards for education in order to compete globally and provide a skilled future workforce. The government discourse of choice is directed at parents as a means of empowerment to enable them to choose the best school based on test scores. Whilst the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign was aimed at boycotting SATs, which are a mechanism of neo-liberal governmentality, the parents failed to wholly challenge the neo-liberal discourse of education being necessary for future employment. Moreover, although this research did not specifically focus on the discourse of social class, it arguably formed part of the debate. The activist discourse was situated within a privileged position of the middle classes: not only did the protesting parents have the cultural capital to mobilise in the first instance, but they also replicated much of the neo-liberal discourse that supports the current education system. Interestingly, this played out as both compliance and resistance to a greater and lesser extent. The research demonstrated that whilst an interrogation of the dominant discourse should open up a space for practical action to challenge neo-liberal educational policies, the dominant discourses have become legitimatised as self-evident and natural. Therefore, the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign failed to present a strong counterdiscourse to challenge the current neo-liberal ideology within education.
The power of the government is evident within the structure of education, with the focus on developing children to become productive adults in society. An analysis of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest revealed that the parents seemed to share this core value. However, it was the notion of childhood itself that was the site of contestation for these parents. Throughout this research, it was evident that, for the government, the child represents an investment for future means of production; however, for the parent, childhood should be an enjoyable experience. The pressure and subsequent stress placed on the children as a result of testing was the main motivation of the proposed Let Our Kids Be Kids boycott. It is this notion of a happy childhood that presents a counterdiscourse to neo-liberal education policies. The children’s negative experiences of the testing regime further present an opposition to the government’s neo-liberal education policies, as the children failed to be constructed within a neo-liberal subjectivity. However, it is noted that the child’s voice is not represented within this research; instead, children’s experiences are reported by parents who are against the tests. Therefore, another area for future research could be to explore children’s own understanding and experiences of testing in school. The government’s rhetoric states the need to continually raise standards in order to compete within the global market of education. However, with the number of children considered failing, fearing failure and having negative responses to the testing regime, the validity of neo-liberal policies is brought into question: if children are unable to meet the ever increasing standards and are then classed as failures, does this ultimately also make the government’s neo-liberal policies a failure?
In conclusion, the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign’s aim was for the government to withdraw primary school testing. As the tests were not withdrawn, the campaign could initially be considered a failure. However, more recently, the primary school assessments introduced in 2016, which were the focus of the Let Our Kids Be Kids protest, have undergone a parliamentary consultation process (UK Parliament, 2017), with Year 2 SATs due to become optional from 2023, although there is no evidence to prove whether this was as a result of the Let Our Kids Be Kids campaign. The current study has identified that future protests against single issues within the education system could be more effective if parent groups were supported to understand how they are framed within government neo-liberal policies, and to challenge the boundaries this paints for them in relation to their child’s education.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.