'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry
Public education is commonly perceived as a social good endowed with the capacity to equalise western citizens' chance of 'success'. In 2008 Australia introduced standardised testing and reporting procedures to improve educational quality and equity through two policy tools (NAPLAN/My...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of sociology of education 2017-04, Vol.38 (3), p.265-286 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 286 |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 265 |
container_title | British journal of sociology of education |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Ragusa, Angela T. Bousfield, Kellie |
description | Public education is commonly perceived as a social good endowed with the capacity to equalise western citizens' chance of 'success'. In 2008 Australia introduced standardised testing and reporting procedures to improve educational quality and equity through two policy tools (NAPLAN/MySchool). Ensuing public debate culminated in two Senate Inquiries. Qualitative critical analysis of all (N = 268) submissions to Inquiry One evidenced two major themes: marketisation and data (mis)use; and competition, commodification and practice. Marketisation's hegemony shaped discourse and recommendations, with institutions and individuals promoting/engaging in self-aggrandising performance-driven activities seeking market advantage, often whilst simultaneously objecting. Submissions largely opposed MySchool and supported NAPLAN despite detailing maladaptive impacts and recommending changes. Drawing upon Latour, we suggest actors' interactions with these tools (re)produced and re-enacted marketisation principles. Where marketisation, commodification or political rhetoric drives educational change, one ought to be cautious authentic approaches are not truncated by stakeholders lacking legitimate means to compete for resources or social status. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/01425692.2015.1073100 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_jstor_primary_26155544</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1132205</ericid><jstor_id>26155544</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>26155544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-47119de233e57c82f40cd46f7f01dcfce2932ddf97a89a9ec09ff0e4f2b832f83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kFtrGzEQhUVIoW7an2BQyINfsu7otpe3GJOLi5sW0j4LWSthmc3KkbSY_ffZZdP0LU8zzPnOMHMQmhNYEijhOxBORV7RJQUihlHBCMAZmhGei4wxnp-j2chkI_QZfYnxAAA5CDJDcbFJi4hbn3DaG5xMTNfYjaO9P01NF019ucDr4JLTqsGqVU0fXcTe4mO3a5zGwcSjb-Pg9_hx9Xu7ehyoGv_sn_Te-wY_mVYlgzftS-dC_xV9sqqJ5ttbvUB_727_rB-y7a_7zXq1zTQracp4QUhVG8qYEYUuqeWga57bwgKptdWGVozWta0KVVaqMhoqa8FwS3clo7ZkF-hq2nsM_qUbPpMH34Xh-ihJWbCCClKMlJgoHXyMwVh5DO5ZhV4SkGO-8l--csxXvuU7-OaTzwSn3z23PwhhlIL4rx9i8uEdoDkRQnA-6DeT7lrrw7M6-dDUMqm-8cEG1WoXJfv4hFcbnZM1</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1873725178</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Ragusa, Angela T. ; Bousfield, Kellie</creator><creatorcontrib>Ragusa, Angela T. ; Bousfield, Kellie</creatorcontrib><description>Public education is commonly perceived as a social good endowed with the capacity to equalise western citizens' chance of 'success'. In 2008 Australia introduced standardised testing and reporting procedures to improve educational quality and equity through two policy tools (NAPLAN/MySchool). Ensuing public debate culminated in two Senate Inquiries. Qualitative critical analysis of all (N = 268) submissions to Inquiry One evidenced two major themes: marketisation and data (mis)use; and competition, commodification and practice. Marketisation's hegemony shaped discourse and recommendations, with institutions and individuals promoting/engaging in self-aggrandising performance-driven activities seeking market advantage, often whilst simultaneously objecting. Submissions largely opposed MySchool and supported NAPLAN despite detailing maladaptive impacts and recommending changes. Drawing upon Latour, we suggest actors' interactions with these tools (re)produced and re-enacted marketisation principles. Where marketisation, commodification or political rhetoric drives educational change, one ought to be cautious authentic approaches are not truncated by stakeholders lacking legitimate means to compete for resources or social status.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0142-5692</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1465-3346</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1073100</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Routledge</publisher><subject>Accountability ; Citizens ; Commercialization ; Commodification ; Competition ; Data collection ; education ; Educational Change ; Educational Policy ; Educational Quality ; Educational sociology ; Equal Education ; Equity ; Foreign Countries ; Hegemony ; Interest groups ; Legislatures ; Marketing ; marketisation ; National Curriculum ; Political change ; Public Education ; Qualitative Research ; Rhetoric ; Social privilege ; Social Status ; standardised testing ; Standardized Tests ; States</subject><ispartof>British journal of sociology of education, 2017-04, Vol.38 (3), p.265-286</ispartof><rights>2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group 2015</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><rights>2015 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-47119de233e57c82f40cd46f7f01dcfce2932ddf97a89a9ec09ff0e4f2b832f83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-47119de233e57c82f40cd46f7f01dcfce2932ddf97a89a9ec09ff0e4f2b832f83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26155544$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/26155544$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27923,27924,30998,33773,58016,58249</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1132205$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ragusa, Angela T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bousfield, Kellie</creatorcontrib><title>'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry</title><title>British journal of sociology of education</title><description>Public education is commonly perceived as a social good endowed with the capacity to equalise western citizens' chance of 'success'. In 2008 Australia introduced standardised testing and reporting procedures to improve educational quality and equity through two policy tools (NAPLAN/MySchool). Ensuing public debate culminated in two Senate Inquiries. Qualitative critical analysis of all (N = 268) submissions to Inquiry One evidenced two major themes: marketisation and data (mis)use; and competition, commodification and practice. Marketisation's hegemony shaped discourse and recommendations, with institutions and individuals promoting/engaging in self-aggrandising performance-driven activities seeking market advantage, often whilst simultaneously objecting. Submissions largely opposed MySchool and supported NAPLAN despite detailing maladaptive impacts and recommending changes. Drawing upon Latour, we suggest actors' interactions with these tools (re)produced and re-enacted marketisation principles. Where marketisation, commodification or political rhetoric drives educational change, one ought to be cautious authentic approaches are not truncated by stakeholders lacking legitimate means to compete for resources or social status.</description><subject>Accountability</subject><subject>Citizens</subject><subject>Commercialization</subject><subject>Commodification</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>education</subject><subject>Educational Change</subject><subject>Educational Policy</subject><subject>Educational Quality</subject><subject>Educational sociology</subject><subject>Equal Education</subject><subject>Equity</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Hegemony</subject><subject>Interest groups</subject><subject>Legislatures</subject><subject>Marketing</subject><subject>marketisation</subject><subject>National Curriculum</subject><subject>Political change</subject><subject>Public Education</subject><subject>Qualitative Research</subject><subject>Rhetoric</subject><subject>Social privilege</subject><subject>Social Status</subject><subject>standardised testing</subject><subject>Standardized Tests</subject><subject>States</subject><issn>0142-5692</issn><issn>1465-3346</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kFtrGzEQhUVIoW7an2BQyINfsu7otpe3GJOLi5sW0j4LWSthmc3KkbSY_ffZZdP0LU8zzPnOMHMQmhNYEijhOxBORV7RJQUihlHBCMAZmhGei4wxnp-j2chkI_QZfYnxAAA5CDJDcbFJi4hbn3DaG5xMTNfYjaO9P01NF019ucDr4JLTqsGqVU0fXcTe4mO3a5zGwcSjb-Pg9_hx9Xu7ehyoGv_sn_Te-wY_mVYlgzftS-dC_xV9sqqJ5ttbvUB_727_rB-y7a_7zXq1zTQracp4QUhVG8qYEYUuqeWga57bwgKptdWGVozWta0KVVaqMhoqa8FwS3clo7ZkF-hq2nsM_qUbPpMH34Xh-ihJWbCCClKMlJgoHXyMwVh5DO5ZhV4SkGO-8l--csxXvuU7-OaTzwSn3z23PwhhlIL4rx9i8uEdoDkRQnA-6DeT7lrrw7M6-dDUMqm-8cEG1WoXJfv4hFcbnZM1</recordid><startdate>20170403</startdate><enddate>20170403</enddate><creator>Ragusa, Angela T.</creator><creator>Bousfield, Kellie</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Routledge Taylor & Francis Group</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20170403</creationdate><title>'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry</title><author>Ragusa, Angela T. ; Bousfield, Kellie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c382t-47119de233e57c82f40cd46f7f01dcfce2932ddf97a89a9ec09ff0e4f2b832f83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Accountability</topic><topic>Citizens</topic><topic>Commercialization</topic><topic>Commodification</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>education</topic><topic>Educational Change</topic><topic>Educational Policy</topic><topic>Educational Quality</topic><topic>Educational sociology</topic><topic>Equal Education</topic><topic>Equity</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Hegemony</topic><topic>Interest groups</topic><topic>Legislatures</topic><topic>Marketing</topic><topic>marketisation</topic><topic>National Curriculum</topic><topic>Political change</topic><topic>Public Education</topic><topic>Qualitative Research</topic><topic>Rhetoric</topic><topic>Social privilege</topic><topic>Social Status</topic><topic>standardised testing</topic><topic>Standardized Tests</topic><topic>States</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ragusa, Angela T.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bousfield, Kellie</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>British journal of sociology of education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ragusa, Angela T.</au><au>Bousfield, Kellie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1132205</ericid><atitle>'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry</atitle><jtitle>British journal of sociology of education</jtitle><date>2017-04-03</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>265</spage><epage>286</epage><pages>265-286</pages><issn>0142-5692</issn><eissn>1465-3346</eissn><abstract>Public education is commonly perceived as a social good endowed with the capacity to equalise western citizens' chance of 'success'. In 2008 Australia introduced standardised testing and reporting procedures to improve educational quality and equity through two policy tools (NAPLAN/MySchool). Ensuing public debate culminated in two Senate Inquiries. Qualitative critical analysis of all (N = 268) submissions to Inquiry One evidenced two major themes: marketisation and data (mis)use; and competition, commodification and practice. Marketisation's hegemony shaped discourse and recommendations, with institutions and individuals promoting/engaging in self-aggrandising performance-driven activities seeking market advantage, often whilst simultaneously objecting. Submissions largely opposed MySchool and supported NAPLAN despite detailing maladaptive impacts and recommending changes. Drawing upon Latour, we suggest actors' interactions with these tools (re)produced and re-enacted marketisation principles. Where marketisation, commodification or political rhetoric drives educational change, one ought to be cautious authentic approaches are not truncated by stakeholders lacking legitimate means to compete for resources or social status.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/01425692.2015.1073100</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0142-5692 |
ispartof | British journal of sociology of education, 2017-04, Vol.38 (3), p.265-286 |
issn | 0142-5692 1465-3346 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_jstor_primary_26155544 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing |
subjects | Accountability Citizens Commercialization Commodification Competition Data collection education Educational Change Educational Policy Educational Quality Educational sociology Equal Education Equity Foreign Countries Hegemony Interest groups Legislatures Marketing marketisation National Curriculum Political change Public Education Qualitative Research Rhetoric Social privilege Social Status standardised testing Standardized Tests States |
title | 'It's not the test, it's how it's used!' Critical analysis of public response to NAPLAN and MySchool Senate Inquiry |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-13T03%3A47%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle='It's%20not%20the%20test,%20it's%20how%20it's%20used!'%20Critical%20analysis%20of%20public%20response%20to%20NAPLAN%20and%20MySchool%20Senate%20Inquiry&rft.jtitle=British%20journal%20of%20sociology%20of%20education&rft.au=Ragusa,%20Angela%20T.&rft.date=2017-04-03&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=265&rft.epage=286&rft.pages=265-286&rft.issn=0142-5692&rft.eissn=1465-3346&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/01425692.2015.1073100&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_infor%3E26155544%3C/jstor_infor%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1873725178&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1132205&rft_jstor_id=26155544&rfr_iscdi=true |