This article was downloaded by: [University of Auckland Library]On: 04 November 2014, At: 14:27Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Cambridge Journal of EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccje20

‘Trendy Theory’ and TeacherProfessionalismIvor Goodson aa Professor of Education, School of Education , University ofEast AngliaPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Ivor Goodson (1997) ‘Trendy Theory’ and Teacher Professionalism,Cambridge Journal of Education, 27:1, 7-22, DOI: 10.1080/0305764970270102

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305764970270102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 27, No. 1, 1997

'Trendy Theory' and TeacherProfessionalismIVOR GOODSONProfessor of Education, School of Education, University of East Anglia

ABSTRACT The attempt to stigmatise theory as trendy theory denotes an attempt to demeanand demote educational theory. Likewise the advocacy of practice driven theory marks anattempt to drive theory onto a particular highway, possibly a narrow one with many cul-de-sacson either side. We should do well to remain on the broad highways on which the best theory hastraditionally travelled.

Will Hutton recently argued that 'the parlous condition of the country is noaccident, it is the consequence of a misguided project informed by a misguidedtheory' {Guardian, 1994). With regard to education, I would argue that theparlous condition of public schooling is also no accident, it is the consequenceof a misguided project, wilfully uninformed by theory or research study. In thepast decade and a half, politicians in a variety of Western countries who areconcerned with education have launched continuing attacks on people they call'educationists': the researchers and theorists of education. In Britain, where Iprovide the bulk of my exemplary material, 'trendy theory' has been the brushwith which these politicians have sought to tar all educational expertise in theform of research and reflection. Since a good deal of educational expertise mighthave warned against some of the wilder Government schemes, the accusation of'trendy theory' was a way of stigmatising that expertise, denying and dismissingaccumulated expertise as somehow unworthy of consideration. Theory is alwayseasy to dismiss as impractical—a theorist like Albert Einstein was after allridiculed for not being able to tie up his shoelaces. But, in general, the dismissalof expertise is not a terribly smart strategy and so it has proved in the pastdecade and a half.

So, in this article I want to explore the much derided role that theoreticalknowledge and, more generally, educational research can play in enhancingteacher professionalism. I want to argue that, in fact, theoretical bodies ofknowledge, action research studies and reflective action—all modes which takeus beyond the uncritical and unreflective implementation of a practice dennedby others—are central to the development of teacher professionalism and arealso crucial in confirming the public's perception that teaching is a professionalactivity. A secondary concern of the paper is to explore the degree to which

0305-764X/97/010007-16 © 1997 University of Cambridge Institute of Education

7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

8 /. Goodson

theoretical knowledge and educational research, far from being useless andtrendy, should be a major factor for any government seriously interested in costeffectiveness and efficient schooling. Far from being a waste of money, as thevery term 'trendy theory' implies, I shall argue that to ignore theory andeducational research is to ignore some of the basic expertises on which policyshould be founded. The alternative is to make policy in the face of theoreticalexpertise and research knowledge, and the section on the British NationalCurriculum explores what happens when you turn your face against expertise inthis manner. This has been a well-documented episode and is chosen toexemplify the issue of the use or abuse of educational theory.

Firstly then, the relationship between educational research, reflective ac-tion, theoretical knowledge and the professional requirements of the teachingforce. The important relationship to explore is between the pre-service andin-service needs of teachers and the continuing need for research into and studyof the educational endeavour. Until recently in Britain these needs had beenheld in reasonable harmony. The university schools of education in Britain [1]developed after the McNair Report of 1944. McNair advised that universitiesshould be involved in teacher education to ensure that teacher professionalismrose in public esteem. University involvement it was argued would maketeaching 'become attractive to intelligent and cultured men and women' (quotedin Taylor, 1987, p. 14).

Schools of education located in universities were given responsibilitythrough their area training organisations for the provision of pre-service trainingnot only in their own departments but in many 'training colleges'. It was thedepartments and schools of education that pioneered courses in the study ofeducation as a significant contribution to the professional education of teachers.Courses were begun in educational psychology, in the history of education, ineducational measurement, in experimental educational research, in child devel-opment and in the philosophy of education. From the first then, universityschools of education established 'foundational' disciplines as the basis of educa-tional study. In due course, sociology of education, curriculum studies andeducational administration came to be added to the range of courses.

The courses of study taught in schools of education moved from a part-timeto a largely full-time basis. Post-graduate training of teachers with degrees tookplace in year-long courses at the university. Teachers often spent a year onsecondment to the university to complete a master's course.

The standard of work achieved by the students was sound if academic.Classroom teachers were taught how to reflect on their teaching, onpupil learning, on the structure and organization of schools, to ques-tion educational assumptions and to understand how sexism andracism operated in the classroom, (quoted in Taylor, 1987)

These courses then enshrined the 'theoretical mission' of university study aswell as practical preparation. But the theoretical mission should not be divorced

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 9

from the assumption of practical effect. At its best, theory works back intoinformed and improved practice. Hence,

some students used their new knowledge to render worthwhile changesin their teaching, to influence colleagues, to introduce new ways ofexamining, to improve the quality of discourse at staff meetings and themanagement and efficiency of teaching departments, (quoted in Tay-lor, 1987)

The presence of a diverse and informed student clientele provided enor-mous on-going support for the work of educational scholarship in the universityschools of education. At its best, in the university the work could move betweentheoretical pre-occupation and practical predilection in ways that challengeboth. But the two foci, theory and practice, have to be continually monitoredand kept interlinked and 'in balance'.

The important point to grasp about the relationship between the varietiesof theoretical knowledge and professional practice is that there is no inevitabilityabout whether the relationship is good or bad. We know only too well what theview of theory is from many classrooms. A major factor in whether theoreticalknowledge and educational research works symbiotically with professional prac-tice is the civic mission and purposes of schooling in general. When thosecivilizing forces of civil cohesiveness are central as an objective in schooling,then theory and practice tend to work well together. When, however, the agendais more divisive, when 'there is no such thing as "society" '(Margaret Thatcher),when individual aggrandisement is promoted, it is not surprising that thecohesive forces which bind theoretical knowledge and professional practicetogether come under some strain. At times of divisiveness, theory is divorcedfrom practice and can be presented as trendy: but such a claim is more a badgeof civic abdication than of any intrinsic judgement on the nature of theory.

Certainly, histories of the relationship between theory and practice point towide differentials in the nature of the gap between the two. The dichotomy, farfrom being wide and intractable, seems to be, at least partially, tractable andhighly variable over time. Simon (1985) examined the relationship betweentheory and practice in three periods 1880-1900, 1920-1940 and 1940-1960. Inthe first and last periods he found 'a close relation between theory and practice'.For instance, in the period 1880-1900:

For a whole concatenation of reasons, and from a variety of motives,it was thought that the masses should be educated, or at leastschooled—and they were. This whole enterprise was, as it were,powered by an ideology—or theoretical stance—which emphasized theeducability of the normal child, a view underpinned by advances in thefield of psychology and physiology relating to human learning. (Simon,1985)

The point is that the potential for close relationship, or at the other extreme norelationship, between theory and practice depends on the aspirations of school-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

10 /. Goodson

ing and their social and political purposes in particular historical periods.Certainly, in the 1960s and 1970s new modalities sought to link theory andpractice in generative ways—Stenhouse's (1975) critique of objectives modellingand development of the 'teacher as researcher' movement, Macdonald's (1978)work on 'democratic evaluation', Elliott's (1991) work on 'action research' andSchon's (1983) arguments for the reflective practitioner.

As we now know, in the period following 1979 'trendy theory' became themonolithic enemy of those seeking to reform teacher education. An inevitableand continuous problem of balance, of how to reinstate and reinscribe a balancebetween theory and practice was reinterpreted as a simple problem of location.As a result (like the Narodnik's in nineteenth century Russia with their revol-utionary 'back to the land' movement), we saw a 'back to the schools' move-ment develop. During the 1980s this fundamentalist programme made steadyprogress.

The initial period was one of incidental attrition. In the mid 1980s, moneybegan to be re-directed away from faculties of education. Social science researchstudentships rapidly decreased in number—so, therefore, did full-time mastersand doctoral students. More significantly, in April 1987 the 'pool' of money bywhich local education authorities paid for the secondment of serving teacherswas drained. Slowly the 'critical mass' of students required to keep up mastersand research degrees disappeared. Deprived of this student clientele and associ-ated research discourse, a good deal of faculty research also dried up. Particu-larly as faculty now became more and more concerned with designing shortschool-based courses which were 'practical and relevant'.

In January 1992 attrition changed to outright re-direction with KennethClarke's new policy announced at the North of England Conference. Clarkeannounced that, at least in all secondary school subjects, henceforth 80% oftraining would be moved from the university faculty of education schools to thesecondary school; this was later changed to 66% of training time.

In Britain, I suspect the hasty embrace of the practical may lead to acollapse of the academic and theoretical mission of faculties of education.Logically this would seem to lead to the question being raised as to why suchfaculties without substantial academic and theoretical missions should anylonger be located within the universities. This question may arise forcibly asuniversities seek to restructure themselves because of financial retrenchment.Because of the sharp pendulum swing away from too much theory towards'practical relevance', the whole basis of the enterprise could be at risk. In short,in this time of change we need to strike a new balance between theory, critiqueand practical matters. If we cannot strike such a balance, I believe the reflectiveand theoretical enterprise, broadly conceived, and educational research studygenerally, will begin to collapse. Far from this being solely a problem foreducational scholars, I see it as a central problem for the teaching profession.For teaching is seen to be a profession because it is based on a set of researchexpertise and theoretical bodies of knowledge. This, incidentally, is true of allprofessions. Their claim to be professional is partially linked to the existence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 11

theoretical bodies of expertise and knowledge. Once that is taken away, teachingcan be presented as essentially a task for technicians and, once that is achieved,the capacity essentially to deprofessionalise teaching—thereby incidentallychopping away at working conditions, salaries and all of the other perks ofprofessionalism—will be enormously strengthened. Hence, what I'm sayingis that the attack on trendy theory may also be an attack on teacher profes-sionalism. So, to revive and reinstate the relationship between research know-ledge, theoretical knowledge and teacher's professional knowledge is a crucialpart of the task of enhancing teacher professionalism at this point in historicaltime.

EXAMINING 'TRENDY THEORY': THE CASE OF THE BRITISHNATIONAL CURRICULUM

One way to examine if 'trendy theory' is indeed as useless and empty as hasoften been implied is to look at some of the predictions which curriculumtheorists made before the national curriculum exercise was launched. In lookingclosely at what was said, we will be able to judge whether theorists were really,in any sense, in touch with what was likely to happen. We can see whether theiradvice would have been effectively wrong-headed and inaccurate for thosearticulating new policies or whether it might not have been sensible to spend alittle time and even money in funding educational research and theoreticalstudies before launching a massive new national initiative. The point to bear inmind about so much educational scholarship is that it is not written in avacuum. Much of it grows from a very detailed understanding of the history,psychology, sociology and philosophy of education. It takes seriously thenotion that we can learn something from history, rather than just ignore it ordeny it.

History in fact pointed to the likely response of teachers to dictated anduniform curriculum guidelines. Previous episodes such as 'Payment by results'in the period 1862-1895 led to 'a dismal failure' and to 'mechanical obedience'on the part of teachers and pupils.

Far from believing in 'the end of history', as some contemporary punditsdo, curriculum theory believes that history can teach us profound lessons aboutthe present and indeed the future. Hence, let me test the limits of intoleranceto egocentricity by quoting a section of an article I wrote in the TimesEducational Supplement in December of 1987 when the National Curriculumwas first being formulated (it was introduced through the Education Reform Actof 1988). I said that in scrutinising the arguments for government interventionin school syllabuses, it was important to point to previous episodes when thiswas actually attempted. The historical period and many of the actual details ofthe intervention are quite distinct from anything that was envisaged in 1987.They do, however, point up the possible dangers in too detailed an interventionin school syllabuses. And I then looked at The Lower Revised Code which was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

12 /. Goodson

applied to elementary schools in 1862. From then until 1895 a major part of thegrant received by each school was paid on the results of yearly examinations heldby HM Inspectorate on a detailed syllabus, formulated by the government andbinding on all schools. So it was similar to the linked pattern of NationalCurriculum and staged assessment.

In 1911 Edmond Holmes, a former Chief Inspector of Schools, wrote adevastating critique in his book What is and What Might Be. First, he wasconcerned about the effect on the teachers. On the official report of the yearlyexamination depended the reputation and financial prosperity of the school:

The consequent pressure on the teacher to exert himself was well-nighirresistible; and he had no choice but to transmit the pressure to hissubordinates and his pupils. The result was that in those days theaverage school was a hive of industry. (Holmes, 1928, p. 103)

So far, so good, but 'it was also a hive of misdirected energy'. The impacton the teacher was passed on to the pupil:

What the Department did to the teacher, it compelled him to do to thechild. The teacher who is the slave of another's will cannot carry outhis instructions except by making his pupils the slaves of his own will.The teacher who has been deprived by his superiors of freedom,initiative, and responsibility, cannot carry out his instructions except bydepriving his pupils of the same vital qualities, (ibid., 1928, p. 104)

There might be two categories of objection to the argument so far. First,there would be those in government who would argue that the 'minor' educa-tional deficits Holmes describes are well worth accepting for the sake of finallyestablishing political control over the secondary school curriculum—besides,they would say, the problems are merely short-term, a transitional psychologicalproblem for teachers and taught. Second, there would be those who wouldquestion any similarities with the historical episode described—this is the 20thcentury and we are not discussing the re-establishment of the Lower RevisedCode. In saying this they would, of course, be strictly correct. But as waspointed out at the beginning, the intention is merely to draw attention to thepotential problems inherent in detailed government intervention in schoolcurricula. Here Holmes was clear about the essential timelessness of the problem.After all, he said:

It is not only because mechanical obedience is fatal, in the long run, tomental and spiritual growth, that the regulation of elementary or anyother grade of education by a uniform syllabus is to be deprecated. Itis also because a uniform syllabus is, in the nature of things, a bad syllabus,and because the degree of its badness varies directly with the area ofthe sphere of educational activity that comes under its control, (ibid.,pp. 104-105, my emphasis)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 13

In arguing that the problem was not specific to any historical period, butrecurrent. Holmes was aware that the syllabuses issued by the department in thelate 19th century were 'a grotesque blend of tragedy and farce'. But he warnedthat the problem was not merely to do with the passing inadequacies of thegovernment department, but was much more fundamental: 'Let us of theenlightened Twentieth Century try our hands at constructing a syllabus' and inso doing 'entrust the drafting of schemes of work in the various subjects to acommittee of the wisest and most experienced educationalists in England' (ibid.,p. 105).

Holmes was quite sure the 'resultant syllabus would be a dismal failure'(ibid., p. 105).

In our contemporary schools, the imposition of a series of 'core' syllabusesdenned by the government with the eradication of the innovative, but deviant,Mode 3 teacher-moderated examinations fall straight into the trap Holmesdefines:

For in framing their schemes these wise and experienced educational-ists would find themselves compelled to take account of the lowestrather than of the highest level of actual educational achievement.What is exceptional and experimental cannot possibly find a place in asyllabus which is to bind all schools and all teachers alike, and whichmust therefore be so framed that the least capable teacher, workingunder the least favourable conditions, may hope, when his pupils areexamined on it, to achieve with decent industry a decent modicum ofsuccess. Under the control of a uniform syllabus, the schools which arenow specialising and experimenting, and so giving a lead to the rest,would have to abandon whatever was interesting in their respectivecurricula, and fall into line with the average school; while, with theconsequent lowering of the current ideal of efficiency, the level of theaverage school would steadily fall, (ibid., pp. 105-106, Holmes'emphasis)

The implications for the teacher of more uniform curricula were madeabundantly clear:

The State, in prescribing a syllabus which was to be followed, in allsubjects of instruction, by all the schools in the country, without regardto local or personal considerations, was guilty of one capital offence. Itdid all the thinking for the teacher. It told him in precise detail whathe was to do each year in each 'Standard', how he was to handle eachsubject, and how far he was to go in it; what width of ground he wasto cover; what amount of knowledge; what degree of accuracy wasrequired for a 'pass'. In other words it provided him with his ideal, hisgeneral conceptions, his more immediate aims, his schemes of work....(ibid., pp. 103-104)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

14 /. Goodson

The growing impotence of the teacher was the expense of increased governmentpower—educational criteria sacrificed to political imperatives. Hence,

it was inevitable that in his endeavour to adapt his teaching to the typeof question which his experience of the yearly examination led him toexpect, he should gradually deliver himself, mind and soul, into thehands of the officials of the Department—the officials at Whitehall whoframed the yearly syllabus, and the officials in the various districts whoexamined on it. (ibid., p. 104)

I concluded that too detailed a set of government syllabuses would fail tocarry the teaching force with it and would in the end contain the seeds of its owncollapse, leading to a collapse of teacher support and morale. One stream ofgovernment policy in recent years had seen detailed intervention in schoolcurricula and syllabuses as a way of arresting Britain's economic decline. As adiagnosis this policy seemed to be treating the wrong part of the patient'sbody—rather like putting an arm in plaster when the patient has tuberculosis.

On top of this, the folly is compounded by the manner of treatment.Holmes' strictures against government intervention warn us of the dangersinherent in a policy of uniform 'common core' curricula implemented throughdetailed syllabus guidelines. He warns of the inevitable 'lowest common denom-inator' element in such exercises. Learning from history and Holmes, I judgedthat:

In our state schools we have a wide variety of abilities, motivations andsocial characteristics. A starting point for achieving any common aims(or 'cores') with such a pupil clientele would be the acceptance thatdifferential strategies will be required in the classroom. These strategieswill not be amendable to uniform dictation from above for they dependon the kind of working knowledge of local and individual difference inwhich our teachers specialize.

Since Holmes' early critiques, a very wide range of literature on educationalchange has confirmed the thrust of his critique of centralised prescriptions—themodel of top-down dictation of change. This critique covers a wide range ofcountries—the work of Arthur Wirth (1983) and Ernest House (1974) on theinappropriateness of industrial models of change to the educational enterprise inthe 1970s and 1980s developed this line of critique in the USA. Similarly, inCanada George Tomkins' (1986) studies of curriculum change over timepointed to the continuities and contradictions which stand against mandatedchange, and in Britain Macdonald and Walker's (1976) critiques of teacher-proof innovations and seminally, the work of Lawrence Stenhouse (1975), JeanRuddock (Ruddock & Hopkins, 1985) and John Elliott (1991) arguing againstsimplistic prescriptive objectives planning and arguing instead for processmodels and action research.

At the time of the launching of the National Curriculum, such trendytheory-type insights were widely ignored. This is true not just of my own article

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 15

but of all those scholars warning against too draconian a definition of what theteacher should do. Essentially, the government view was that finely detailedsyllabuses would define the teacher's task in ways that were beneficial for schoolstudents and, more broadly, the national interest. In its editorial of the time ofthe launching of the National Curriculum, The Times applauded the definitionof detailed curriculum guidelines and linked this with the assertion that 'inshort, standards will rise'. This sort of optimism was in defiance of some of thehistorical and theoretical insights that might have been brought to bear on thisissue.

In the event, the government chose not to spend a few hundred thousandseeking advice from educational researchers and curriculum theorists but tospend instead £750 million on a range of curriculum definition exercises. Thebelief was that by closely defining the teacher's delivery of the curriculum,'standards would rise'. So, trendy theory and research expertise were ignoredand gut instincts were followed. It was not a case of competing expertises whenthe National Curriculum was launched, it was a case of ignoring existingresearch and theoretical expertise and pushing ahead in denial and defiance ofit. In general, I would argue, just commonsensically, that to ignore expertise,whether you stigmatise it as trendy theory or not, is not a very smart move; thisis being clearly indicated in the fate of the National Curriculum exercise.

I don't want to discuss all of the various battles in the different subjectcommittees or the various boycotts when teacher groups reacted in the way thathistory fairly clearly indicated they might. I will just review a few culminatingcomments about the National Curriculum to show that my own jaundiced viewis not a singular one based on the ignoring of theory. Actually, for anyonewanting to understand the rapid learning curve of people watching the NationalCurriculum, they should compare the original Times editorial, which assumedthat the close definition of syllabuses would immediately lead to rising stan-dards, with the astonishing panicky article in The Times at the time of theteachers' boycott, where the government is accused of gross incompetence fortrying to define the curriculum and its assessment too closely and draconianly.A few years is a very short curve. Unfortunately, £750 million was spent duringthe learning curve when a fairly basic perusal of theory and expertise would haveindicated clearly what the pitfalls were. However, let us just summarise whathappened. Let me, for example, quote the Observer.

Sir Ron Dearing finally buried the Baker legislation and unveiled anational curriculum remarkably similar to that which existed beforeBaker began to meddle.The whole sorry exercise has wasted in the region of £750 million,driven thousands of teachers into early retirement and brought unhap-piness and disruption to home and school. (Observer, 1994)

With regard to the question of stress, the recent work of Professor CaryCooper has shown quite dramatically how stress among teachers has risen sincethe National Curriculum was unveiled. Cooper (1994) argues above all 'lack of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

16 /. Goodson

control induces stress—losing control, particularly so'. The National Curricu-lum is then seen as the major agency for teachers' sense of loosing control andfor the dramatic increase in stress levels, the collapse of teacher morale and theflood of early retirements that have been noted.

In teaching, 'the nature of the job has totally changed', saysDr. Cooper, who has recently conducted a national study of 1,800teachers. 'They have had the imposition of the national curriculum,assessment and local financial management of schools. A teacher nowaged 40 to 45 went in expecting a lot of autonomy in the job. Controlhas now been taken away'. (Bosely, 1994)

Lest you think that I'm only quoting from newspapers sympathetic to myview, let me quote the Daily Telegraph's conclusion about the National Curricu-lum. As you know, the Daily Telegraph is hardly a bastion of the New Left.

In the end, it was the complex and time consuming system of assess-ment devised by yet another working crew that led to the nationalteachers' boycott and the collapse of the entire structure.Evidence from Her Majesty's Inspectors suggest that the principlegains are a beefing up of the primary curriculum, the introduction ofdesign and technology, and a requirement that all pupils should at leasthave a nodding acquaintance with a modern foreign language.Whether that could have been achieved more simply and cheaply wasnot a question Mrs. Sheppard was prepared to discuss. {DailyTelegraph, 1994)

The most interesting aspect from the point of view of the argument I ammaking about theory is the way that media commentators have begun to askwhy the government ignored theory and history and educational research. Letme quote Simon Jenkins from The Times, a newspaper which was euphoric atthe prospects of the National Curriculum 8 years ago but became rapidlydisillusioned. Jenkins notes:

The outgoing chairman of the National Curriculum Council, DavidPascall, moans in the Times Educational Supplement that teachers 'seemto be teaching the test'. What did he and Mr. Patton expect? If theyimpose upon teachers a detailed curriculum and testing regime, andtell them they will be paid and their schools judged on the outcome,the schools will teach the test. This is no surprise, it happened whengovernment last tried payment by results in the 19th century. Is historynot studied in the education department. (The Times, 1993)

So, The Times and the Daily Telegraph conclude, along with the other qualitynewspapers, that the major problem in the whole National Curriculum exercisewas that the government refused to listen to research expertise, to historical andtheoretical studies and, therefore, failed to even consider the lessons of historyand theory. The result of this stigmatisation of previous expertise as 'trendy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 17

theory' has been to cost £750 million for an exercise which simply proved whatthe original trendy theorists were so desperately trying to indicate was likely tohappen. I take that as a massive vote of confidence in trendy theory and a closewarning to any future government not to ignore and stigmatise theory in thisway.

As I have indicated in the previous section, I see theoretical and academicknowledge and teacher's professionalism as inextricably and desirably linked.Let me quote once more the conclusions about the strange fate of the NationalCurriculum initiative.

The key message Sir Ron delivered on Thursday was that professionalresponsibility is to be handed back to the teachers within a broadframework, they will decide what goes on in the classroom. This iscommonsense; it is what we train them, and pay them to do. Goodteachers are driven by their imagination, their knowledge, their love ofthe subject. We want more individuality and eccentricity in the class-room, not less. But like actors, artists and other creative people,teachers need constant ego massage—it is difficult to perform wellwhen subjected to constant abuse. {Observer, 1994)

Empirical work on the National Curriculum has substantiated the critiquesmade by 'trendy theorists'. A wide survey of teachers interviewed by Helsby &McCulloch (1997) showed how the government onslaught of edicts and initia-tives demolished planning and professionalism. In their study they concluded:

The introduction of a centralized and prescriptive National Curricu-lum appears to have weakened their professional confidence, loweredmorale and left them uncertain both of their ability to cope and of theirright to take major curriculum decisions. These findings are consistentwith the view of increased State control of the curriculum underminingteacher professionalism.

In other countries the same pattern has emerged. Robertson's (1997)investigation into contemporary restructuring of teachers' work in Australia andelsewhere also makes reference to 'a new professionalism', but her own use ofthe term is decidedly ironic.

There is little scope in the promise of professionalism to wrest a degreeof autonomy because the crucial margin for determination—that isideological control—has been unceremoniously split from teachers'work and placed in the firm hands of administrators, politicians andtransnational capital. The margin of indetermination is now located atthe level of decisions to meet the system specified outcomes, ratherthan at the point of judgement about what might constitute an ad-equate framing of knowledge. Gains to teachers are thus largelyillusory. Teachers will be weighed down by the pressure of (self)management, time constraints, larger classes and the management of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

18 I. Goodson

other workers. What flows from this is a depersonalized authority—anoutcome teachers have confused with professionalism. Teachers havenot been provided or promised an opportunity to negotiate the chang-ing shape of their work. Rather, their work has increasingly beenmoulded by economic imperative and expediency, and is the outcomeof the state's need to establish the new conditions for accumulation.

Educational researchers, and educationists generally, suffer from a similartrivialising fate when they are subjected to abuse. The fate of the trendy theoristhas been synonymous with the fate of the classroom teacher. They have beenabused and have reacted to that abuse. But clearly the time has come for thependulum to swing back, it is time to bring the teacher back into the fold and,with them, educational researchers and theorists who seek to support theteacher's professional knowledge.

In the next section I want to move away from this rather negative tone thatI've been striking to articulate, in a somewhat personal and 'first person'manner, some ways in which I think theory and practice can be harmonised inthe new terrain in which we find education.

DEVELOPING TEACHER-CENTRED THEORY

Whilst I have argued that theory, even trendy theory, has much to offer, I wouldbe the first to agree that theory can be improved. The particular problem thatI want all too briefly to focus on in the rest of this article is how to maintain,revive and establish a collaborative and theoretical mission within a new, morefield-based and school-based terrain and in so doing bring new strength andvigour to collaborative research and theory work with teachers. As well asdeveloping the already substantial literature on teacher-teacher collegiality andcollaboration—a very important directional shift—I believe this means lookingclosely at the potential collaboration between teachers and externally locatedresearchers in faculties of education. I think the best mechanism for improvingpractice is if teachers, in an on-going way, research and reflect upon their ownpractice. This may not seem as self-evident as I've stated it: many great teacherswould say 'why the hell should I need research, I can teach already'.

Let me look closely at the 'great teacher' notion. I have studied a lot ofthem over the years. They all have one thing in common, whilst they may saythey are uninterested in research, in their own lives and in their teaching theyconstantly reflect upon and refine their practice. They try new things, work atwhat is not working well and generally think through the problems that facethem. In a word, in an on-going way, they research their own practice. Now youmight say that since they do this and are great teachers, obviously there is noplace for externally located researchers to aid their on-going research. And youmight well be right. But even if you were, it still leaves the 95% of us who arenot great teachers looking for help. For us, I believe a collaborative relationship

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 19

which focusses on researching our own 'life and work' is the most hopefulavenue for enhanced professional development.

So what I'm trying to do is to define what the collaborative relationshipwould look like between teachers and externally located researchers in facultiesof education. I want to argue that a narrow focus on 'practice' in collaboratingon research, a panacea that is politically popular at the moment, will not takeus too far. This is for two reasons.

(1) Practice is a good deal more than the technical things we do inclassrooms—it relates to who we are, to our whole approach to life.Here I might quote C. Wright Mills talking about scholars, but it's asrelevant to any member of the community. He said 'the most admirablethinkers within the scholarly community...do not split their work fromtheir lives. They seem to take both too seriously to allow such disasso-ciation and they want to use each for the enrichment of others' (quotedin Cole, 1991). So I would want to argue for a form of research whichlinks the analysis of the teacher's life and work together.

(2) The interactive practices of our classrooms are subject to constantchange. Often in the form of new government guidelines, like theNational Curriculum—these initiatives outside the classroom, what Icall pre-active actions, set crucial parameters for interactive classroompractice. Pre-active action effects interactive possibilities. In their col-laborative research, teachers as researchers and external researchersneed to focus on both the pre-active and the interactive. What thismeans in short is that we need to look at the full context in whichteacher's practice is negotiated, not just at the technical implemen-tation of certain phenomena within the classroom. If we stay with thelatter definition then our research is inevitably going to involve themere implementation of initiatives which are generated elsewhere. Thisreduced the involvement and commitment of everyone involved.

The lens of inquiry I want to sketch out would focus on the teacher's workand practice in the full context of the teacher's life.

The project I am recommending is essentially one of reconceptualisingeducational research so as to ensure that teachers' voices are heard, heard loudlyand heard articulately. In this respect the most hopeful way forward is, I think,to build upon notions of the 'self-monitoring teacher', 'the teacher as re-searcher', the teacher as 'extended professional'. For instance, in the early 1970sat The Centre for Applied Research in Education at the University of EastAnglia in England, a good deal of work was conducted into how to opera-tionalise this concept. Perhaps the most interesting developments were withinthe Ford Teaching Project conducted by John Elliott and Clem Adelman in theperiod 1973-1975. They sought to rehabilitate the 'action research' modepioneered by Kurt Lewin in the post-war period. In the interim period educa-tional action research had fallen into decline. Carr and Kemmis, who have done

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

20 /. Goodson

a good deal to extend and popularise the concept, give a number of reasons forthe resurgence of action research:

First, there was the demand from within an increasingly professional-ized teacher force for a research role, based on the notion of theextended professional investigating his or her own practice. Second,there was the perceived irrelevance to the concerns of these practi-tioners of much contemporary educational research. Third, there hadbeen a revival of interest in 'the practical' in curriculum, following thework of Schwab and others on 'practical deliberation'. Fourth, actionresearch was assisted by the rise of the 'new wave' methods ineducational research and evaluation with their emphasis on partici-pants' perspectives and categories in shaping educational practices andsituations. These methods place the practitioners at centre stage in theeducational research process and recognize the crucial significance ofactors' understandings in shaping educational action. From the role ofcritical informant helping an 'outsider' researcher, it is but a short stepfor the practitioner to become a self-critical researcher into her or hisown practice. Fifth, the accountability movement galvanized andpoliticized practitioners. In response to the accountability movement,practitioners have adopted the self-monitoring role as a proper meansof justifying practice and generating sensitive critiques of the workingconditions in which their practice is conducted. Sixth, there wasincreasing solidarity in the teaching profession in response to the publiccriticism which has accompanied the post-expansion educational poli-tics of the 1970s and 1980s; this, too, has prompted the organizationof support net-works of concerned professionals interested in thecontinuing developments of education even though the expansionisttide has turned. And, finally, there is the increased awareness of actionresearch itself, which is perceived as providing an understandable andworkable approach to the improvement of practice through criticalself-reflection.

The focus of action research has, however, tended to be very practice-oriented. In introducing a survey of action research for instance, Carr &Kemmis (1986) note:

A range of practices have been studied by educational action-researchers and some examples may suffice to show how they haveused action research to improve their practices, their understandings ofthese practices, and the situations in which they work.

Not surprisingly, with the notion of an extended professional in mind, workershave 'used action research to improve their practice'. But it is ever moreimportant to develop a holistic base for teacher professional knowledge, lookingat the teacher's life and work in a more general perspective.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

'Trendy Theory' 21

Taking the 'teacher as researcher' and 'action research' as expressingdefensible value positions and viable starting points, I want to argue for abroadened sense of purpose. Moving from a sole focus on practice to developtheory and research knowledge about the full panoply of the teacher's workinglife.

Much of the emerging study in this area indicates that this focus allows arich flow of dialogue and data. Moreover, the focus may (and I stress may) allowteachers greater authority and control in collaborative research than has oftenappeared to be the case with practice oriented study. What I am asserting hereis that, particularly in the world of teacher development, the central ingredientso far missing are the teachers' voices. Primarily the focus has been on theteacher's practice, almost the teacher as practice. What is needed is a focus thatlistens above all to the person at whom 'development' is aimed. This meansstrategies should be developed which facilitate, maximise and in a real senselegitimate teachers' voices. These strategies need to develop areas of research,particularly collaborative research, which examine the teachers life and work. Ihave shown in a range of studies how work of this sort can develop theoreticaland contextual insights into the teacher's world (see Goodson, 1991, 1992,1993; Goodson & Walker, 1991). In this respect, school and university collab-oration is an important continuing route for theory and practice. In short, forpractical theory, university schools of education have important symbolic as wellas strategic value. Let me end by quoting Philip Taylor, England's first holderof a Chair in Curriculum Studies:

any profession whose essential theoretical and practical knowledgedoes not have a high place in universities and other institutions ofhigher education, must count itself deprived and, in the long run, bediminished in status. (Taylor, 1987)

We should beware of the attack on theory, it can so easily become an attack onthe status and significance of teaching as a profession.

Correspondence: Ivor Goodson, School of Education, University of East Anglia,Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK.

NOTE

[1] Variously known as Schools of Education, Departments of Education and Faculties ofEducation.

REFERENCES

BOSELY, S. (1994) Old disease made acute by family and job changes, Guardian, 17 November,p. 3.

CARR, W. & KEMMIS, S. (1986) Becoming Critical: education knowledge and action research,pp. 166-167 (New York, NY, Falmer Press).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014

22 I. Goodson

COLE, R. (1991) Participant observer research: an activist role, in: W.F. WHYTE (Ed.) Participa-tory Action Research, p. 160 (London, Sage).

COOPER, C. (1994) Guardian, 18 November, p. 14.Daily Telegraph (1994) 11 November, p. 21.ELLIOTT, J. (1991) Action Research for Educational Change (Buckingham, Open University Press).GOODSON, I.F. (1991) Sponsoring the teacher's voice: teachers' lives and teacher development,

Cambridge Journal of Education, 21, pp. 35-45.GOODSON, I.F. (Ed.) (1992) Studying Teachers' Lives (London, Routledge).GOODSON, I.F. (1993) Forms of knowledge and teacher education, Journal of Education for

Teaching, 19, pp. 217-229.GOODSON, I.F. & WALKER, R. (1991) Biography, Identity and Schooling (London, Falmer Press).Guardian (1994) 13 June, p. 5.HELSBY, G. & MCCULLOCH, G. (1996) Teacher professionalism and curriculum control, in: I.F.

GOODSON & A. HARGREAVES (Eds) Teachers' Professional Lives (London, Falmer Press).HOLMES, E. (1928) What Is and What Might Be, p. 103 (London, Constable).HOUSE, E.R. (1974) The Politics of Education Innovation (Berkeley, CA, McCutchan).MACDONALD, B. (1976) Evaluation and the control of education, in: D. TAWNEY (Ed.) Curriculum

Evaluation Today: trends and implications (London, Macmillan Educational).MACDONALD, B. & WALKER, R. (1976) Changing the Curriculum (London, Open Books).Observer (1994) 15 November, p. 28.ROBERTSON, S. (1996) Teachers' work, restructuring and postfordism: constructing the new

'professionalism', in: I.F. GOODSON & A. HARGREAVES (Eds) Teachers' Professional Lives(London, Falmer Press).

RUDDOCK, J. & HOPKINS, D. (1985) Research as a Basis for Teaching: readings from the work ofLawrence Stenhouse (London, Macmillan Educational).

SCHON, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action (London, TempleSmith).

SIMON, B. (1985) Does Education Matter?, p. 49 (London, Lawrence & Wishart).STENHOUSE, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development (London, Heine-

mann).TAYLOR, P. (1987) Whiff of defeat in schools scandal, Times Higher Education Supplement, 13

November, p. 14.Times (1993) 12 May, p. 14.TOMKINS, G. (1986) A Common Countenance: stability and change in the Canadian curriculum

(Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice Hall).WIRTH, A. (1983) Productive Work—in industry and schools, becoming persons again (New York, NY,

University Press of America).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f A

uckl

and

Lib

rary

] at

14:

27 0

4 N

ovem

ber

2014