This article was downloaded by: [Jo Frankham]On: 09 March 2012, At: 05:57Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Education PolicyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedp20

The Master’s in Teaching and Learning:expanding utilitarianism in thecontinuing professional development ofteachers in EnglandJo Frankham a & Sandra Hiett aa Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, Liverpool JohnMoores University, I M Marsh Campus, Liverpool, United Kingdom

Available online: 23 Aug 2011

To cite this article: Jo Frankham & Sandra Hiett (2011): The Master’s in Teaching and Learning:expanding utilitarianism in the continuing professional development of teachers in England, Journalof Education Policy, 26:6, 803-818

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.554997

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

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.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

The Master’s in Teaching and Learning: expanding utilitarianismin the continuing professional development of teachers in England

Jo Frankham* and Sandra Hiett

Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure, Liverpool John Moores University,I M Marsh Campus, Liverpool, UK

(Received 25 July 2010; final version received 9 January 2011)

The article focuses on the policy rhetoric of the Masters in Teaching and Learn-ing (MTL). This is a new degree being launched in the summer of 2010 aimed,initially, at teachers who have just joined the profession. The degree presagesthe aspiration for a Master’s level teaching profession in England. Professionaldevelopment as conceived in the MTL is continuous rather than continuing andpermeating the vision is the language of ‘personalisation’. Teachers will beaccompanied on the journey by an ‘in-school coach’. These notions suggest ahighly tailored approach to continuing professional development (CPD), withcareful attention to the identification of teachers’ needs and close support from acolleague. The article argues that, contrary to this impression, the MTL marks anew and significant step in expanding the utilitarianism of the English educationsystem. The MTL represents a deepening hold on education by the state and agrowing scepticism about the value of higher education in the CPD of teachers.It also aspires to a changing culture in schools as the workplace becomes thelocus for the CPD of teachers. As other authors have described, the nationalcharacter of education systems in Europe and in the Americas, Australia, NewZealand and Asia reflect an increasing instrumentality. The MTL, then, can beseen as part of a global phenomenon; in this case the policy lever of CPD isemployed to support performative and audit policy agendas via a rigid account-ability system. The MTL also represents a particular form of neo-liberal govern-mentality where increasing centralisation is ‘masked’ by a ‘simulacra of care’.

Keywords: discourse/analysis; state

Introduction

The recent past has seen significant shifts both in the initial training and continuingprofessional development (CPD) of the school teaching profession in England; Mas-ter’s level work has been introduced into undergraduate and postgraduate routesinto teaching and in 2008 a new degree was launched – the Master’s in Teachingand Learning (MTL). This presaged the aspiration for a ‘Master’s level (teaching)profession’ (DCSF 2007) in England. The MTL will initially be offered to NewlyQualified Teachers in their first five years of work with the first eligible cohortsbeginning in 2009 and 2010 (TDA 2009a). The plan is to extend the qualificationacross England by 2012 (TDA 2010). For the first time in England, a master’s

*Corresponding author. Email: j.frankham@ljmu.ac.uk

Journal of Education PolicyAquatic InsectsVol. 26, No. 6, November 2011, 803–818

ISSN 0268-0939 print/ISSN 1464-5106 online� 2011 Taylor & Francishttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2011.554997http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

degree aimed at teachers will be entirely school-based with teachers being supportedby a colleague, who will act as ‘coach’ to the teacher, and a university tutor.

This article focuses on the policy rhetoric that surrounds the MTL, representing asit does the official or state view of CPD. As Patrick, Forde, and McPhee (2003)describe, the quality of CPD tells us much about how teaching is conceptualised andhow the profession of teaching undergoes re/construction; it is regarded that profes-sional development is a ‘key policy lever’ in education systems (Timperley, Parr, andBertanees 2009; Larsen 2010). The primary documentation that is analysed here ema-nates from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF)1 and the Tea-cher Development Agency (TDA).2 The DCSF represents the ‘policy voice’ of centralgovernment and the TDA is the agency charged with the implementation of policy. Inaddition, training materials which have been employed across the North West of Eng-land consortium of Higher Education Institutions providing the degree are examined.These materials draw, in turn, on ideas from the TDA. This layered analysis sets outto look at the dialogic relations within and between texts, analysing, for example how‘when discourses are recontextualised they are articulated with discourses whichalready exist within these new contexts’ (Fairclough 2005, 11). This is facilitated,Fairclough (2005) says by ‘ethnographical methods in the collection of data, in that itis only by accessing insider perspectives in particular localities, companies, etc. thatone can assess how discourses are materialized, enacted and inculcated’ (11). It is typ-ically difficult to reference these ‘insider perspectives’, drawing as they do on multipleother texts (sometimes not fully referenced) and with no clear ascribed editorship.Here, we have chosen to reference these materials as North West HEI Consortium(NWHC) (2009) and made clear where they draw on other sources. The approachtakes seriously the idea that wider processes of change often begin in changes in dis-course (Fairclough 2005, 5). ‘... the official rhetoric is not just an illustration of policy;it is also a vehicle through which social reality is constructed and maintained’(Suspitsyna 2010, 581). We also acknowledge that ‘A new discourse may comeinto an institution or organisation without being enacted or inculcated’ (Fairclough2005, 7).

Significant in the discourse of the MTL is the construction of the teacher as alifelong learner and permeating the vision is the language of ‘personalisation’.Teachers will be accompanied on the journey by an ‘in-school coach’. Thesenotions suggest a highly tailored approach to CPD, with careful attention to theidentification of teachers’ needs and close support from a colleague. We argue thatcontrary to this impression, the MTL marks a new and significant step in extendingthe utilitarianism of the English education system. The MTL, we argue, represents adeepening hold on education by the State and a growing scepticism about the valueof higher education in the CPD of teachers. It also aspires to a changing culture inschools as the workplace becomes the locus for the CPD of teachers. As otherauthors have described, the national character of education systems in Europe(Morgado and Sousa 2010) and in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and Asia(Suspitsyna 2010) reflect an increasing instrumentality. The MTL, then, can be seenas part of a global phenomenon; in this case, the policy lever of CPD is employedto support performative and audit policy agendas via a rigid accountability system.The MTL also represents a particular form of neo-liberal governmentality whereincreasing centralisation is ‘masked’ by a ‘simulacra of care’ (Fielding 2006).

The article begins with some further background to the degree outlining thevision of ‘lifelong learning’ that is embedded in the McKinsey Report (Barber and

804 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Mourshed 2007), widely seen as the document informing the development of thedegree. This is followed by discussion of personalisation within the degree and therole of the in-school coach. It is argued that these elements of the degree, in vary-ing ways, help to ‘soften’ the utilitarianism of the MTL via a ‘simulacra of care’(Fielding 2006), foregrounding as they do notions of individual needs, responsive-ness and collegial support. The article concludes by putting the MTL into thebroader context of changes in the forms of governance in England and how this isreflected in the changing roles of schools and higher education in the CPD ofteachers.

Continual professional development and the MTL

Learning in the MTL is to be ‘lifelong’ (TDA 2009b, 3) and professional develop-ment ‘continuous’ rather than ‘continuing’. This is a shift which has been evidentfor some time and that is sedimented in the discourse of the MTL with its emphasison ‘continual learning’ (Day 2008). ‘Lifelong Learning’, of course, is the ‘meetingpoint’, as Gewirtz (2008) describes, of ‘a range of different, and sometimes compet-ing, ideas’ (415). A much earlier piece by Coffield (1999) was already listing a‘bewildering number of different guises’ of ‘lifelong learning’ (487). What are theparticularities, then, of the discourse of ‘lifelong learning’ as it enters the debateabout the CPD of teachers via the MTL? This contextual information provides thebackdrop to what we argue is a highly utilitarian model of CPD.

The McKinsey report (Barber and Mourshed 2007), has been credited as thesource of the idea for the MTL by, amongst others, Wilkins (2009). This report,produced by a private management consultancy and co-written by Michael Barber,set out to document ‘How the world’s best performing school systems come out ontop’ and focuses on ‘three things that matter most’ in ‘top school systems’:

(1) Getting the right people to become teachers.(2) Developing them into effective instructors.(3) Ensuring that the system is able to deliver the best possible instruction for

every child (Barber and Moushed 2007).

The terminology employed is indicative of a wider tone. The language is not ofeducation, or even training; this is about instruction and being ‘top’ is a conceptdefined according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD2007). This is surely, par excellence, an example of Ball and Exley’s (2010) obser-vation that there is ‘a shift in the types of knowledge deemed valuable to policy...away from academic expertise and towards simple messages that can be easilyunderstood by politicians, policy makers and the public’ (153). And AndreasSchleicher (OECD), in his Foreword to the report (2007), sets the wider context:‘Success will go to those individuals and countries which are swift to adapt, slowto complain and open to change. The task for governments will be to ensure thatcountries rise to this challenge’ (no page numbers in document). ‘Swift to adapt,slow to complain, and open to change’ has a shamanistic character, similar to formsof sloganeering that Beecham (2008) describes. Flexibility is at the heart of theattitude required with an implied threat associated with expressing dissatisfaction atthe shape of things to come. This, then, is ‘authoritarian discourse’: abstract and

Journal of Education Policy 805

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

propagandist, about ‘conformity and control’ (Beecham 2008). The ‘simple’ mes-sage is also, significantly, communicated via tropes of movement (change, swift,slow, pace and so on) rather than by tropes of meaning.

Schleicher (2007) also emphasises that national standards alone will not beenough to gauge success in the future and this is echoed during the launch of theMTL (DCSF 2008): ‘We have made huge progress, but to keep pace with our inter-national competitors we need to set out sights higher still’ (6). Of course, the man-agement consultancy McKinsey has a longstanding reputation in prescriptions forchange. Its ‘international best seller’ (Rose 1989, 115) of 1982 was called ‘InSearch of Excellence’ and considered how ‘America’s Best Run Companies’ weremanaged. This report and that on the ‘top schools’ assume unproblematic transferof lessons from one system to another as these: ‘transcend cultural and socio-eco-nomic contexts’ (Barber and Mourshed 2007); their best practice recommendationswill work irrespective of the culture in which they are applied (Barber andMourshed 2007). Here, we see the work of company consultants who are the ‘carri-ers of global institutionalized management concepts’ (Hansen and Lairidsen 2004,515 in Ball 2009) and one example of the now widespread use of private compa-nies in the transformation of the state education sector (Hatcher 2006; Ball 2009).As Ball (2009) describes: ‘These are generic concepts which at the organizationallevel have no specificity to education or schools. These programmes disseminatethe discourses of reform and modernization and work to embed them within institu-tional cultures. (...) Through the recontextualisation of business and managementlanguage, the work of governance is pursued and contributes to changes in every-day social relations in schools, colleges and universities’ (87).

The approach that is recommended, then, represents a technologisation of peda-gogy which Bernstein (2001) described; a systemised approach ‘aimed at producingchanges in individual experiences, knowledges and competency, in an almostmechanical way’ (380). This is connected to Bernstein’s observation that in the eraof ‘lifelong learning’, what matters most is that people are ‘trainable’, that they areable to respond to change, regardless of the context or content of the material.Indeed, the TDA emphasise the MTL will be a ‘consistent and coherent’ (TDA2009c, 3) programme for all, it will be ‘structured and systematic’ (TDA 2010)compared to the ‘ad hoc’ nature of the previous system. As others have remarked,this ‘one size fits all’ response is a key de-professionalising ‘move’ from discretionto prescription (Stronach et al. 2002). It is dominated by what Fielding (2006)describes as ‘questions of technique and the management of accomplishment’(350). It ignores how professionals have been seen to learn as they ‘collectivelyconstruct, modify, resist and select different meanings of knowledge within thecomplex dilemmas of the everyday’ (Fenwick 2009, 234).

This summary of the ‘backdrop’ to the MTL via the McKinsey Report suggestsa highly utilitarian model of CPD. A highly systemised model is driven by concernsthat are external to the field (largely economic) and by global imperatives. Its worthis determined by narrowly prescribed performative outcomes. Teachers are largelypassive in the process, flexible and docile in temperament, although they are‘invited’ to be proactive, within strict parameters, as we argue later. In importantrespects, then, this is about the diminishment of teaching to a quasi-professional ortechnical role. The MTL exemplifies, then, the sort of ‘engineering’ that is evidentin ‘paracapitalist discourse’ Stronach (2010). As Stronach (2010) describes, this is:‘... a discourse that is nostalgic for the economic power that the state once exercised

806 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

through a national and imperial capitalism, and which therefore expresses a cargo-cult kind of enthusiasm for aping the “efficient” and “effective” as capitalism’s divi-dend to civil society’ (185).

Of course, the model of lifelong learning which is employed and promulgatedin the MTL depends on the ways in which it is combined with other discourses,and the emphasis that is put upon them. These elucidate the ideological inflectionsimplicit to the notion. Thus far, we have suggested that the vision of lifelong learn-ing in the MTL is highly utilitarian and functionalist. We want to argue that one ofthe ways in which the highly deterministic competence ideology of the MTL is‘reconciled’ with more liberal versions of professionalism and values associatedwith Master’s level work (reflexivity, autonomy, criticality, the development of per-sonal judgement, etc.) is through the discourse of personalisation. The degree is also‘inflected’ with humanistic qualities, and those associated with the importance oflearning from teaching colleagues, through the role of the coach. It is to‘personalisation’ in the MTL and the role of the ‘in-school coach’ that we nowtherefore turn.

Personalisation in the MTL

As others have described, personalisation is an emerging ‘movement’ in education,principally evident in requirements to teachers to ‘personalise’ their pedagogies(Hartley 2009). It is also a ‘watchword’ in the mode of governance known as theNew Public Management (Hartley 2007; Ecclestone 2007). Here, for the first time,we believe, it is being applied to a professional group. Looking at the TDA frame-work alone, personalisation appears many times and in a number of guises. In short‘Personalisation will affect MTL programme content, delivery, assessment methodsand pace for each teacher’ (our emphasis) (TDA 2009d, 3). It will be delivered ‘ina range of ways that will enable all teachers to access personalised learning oppor-tunities’. This is a reference to technology, which we discuss, further, below. Andwith the in-school coach (and to a lesser extent) the university tutor, parties willcome to tailored/co-produced solutions to the learning needs of the students (TDA2009b, 6). The TDA are at particular pains to emphasise that the MTL ‘does not inany way undermine the work–life balance that each teacher is expected to be ableto achieve’. This is a likely response to on-going concerns over workload. Inductionprogrammes have also been shown to increase the pressure on NQTs (Smethen andAdey 2005). The TDA are particularly tentative when it comes to assessment; ‘flex-ibility’ in the form, number and timing of the assessments is emphasised (TDA2009b); they stress that assessment should be ‘non-burdensome’. In these ways,‘the self’ is ‘put back’ into the pedagogy of the MTL as it has written into it atten-tion to teachers’ concerns and a recognition of the demands upon them.

Personalisation also appears to allow for a democratic and autonomous view ofpursuing the MTL, characterised as it is by connotations of student-centredness(Hartley 2007, 638) and its ‘semantic affinity to individualisation’ (Hartley 2009,423). More than this, in emphasising the individuals involved in the endeavour, per-sonalisation appears to signal ‘a much needed return to concerns for the wider,human purposes of schooling that give education its enduring significance and satis-faction’ (Fielding 2006, 348). Personalisation is also a ‘call to voice’ (Hartley2009) in that its ‘targets’ are invited to express their learning needs and desires andto make active choices about how they wish to pursue them. In this respect,

Journal of Education Policy 807

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

personalisation elides with traditional professional values associated with autonomyand making personal judgments to adapt to unforeseen circumstances and events.

These positive ‘readings’ of personalisation relate to Fielding’s (2006) observa-tion that there is ‘a substantial ambivalence – if not a deep unease – about some ofthe consequences of neo-liberal reform policies’ (349), and that personalisation hasbeen a response to these concerns (also, Ecclestone 2007). And as David and Clegg(2008) (and others) have described ‘personalisation’ is a very mobile, or elastic,term which can be highly persuasive despite its origins in marketing theory. Thishelps to feed the uncertainty about ‘whether personalisation is a seductive rearticu-lation of corporate insinuation or a genuinely different orientation to what we doand how we might do it’ (Fielding 2006, 356). In light of this, we are going tobriefly examine three insights into personalisation in the MTL documentation.These are: What is personalisation, as defined in the MTL; the use of students’ ‘per-formance management outcomes’ in the personalisation process; and the use oftechnology in affording students ‘personalised learning opportunities’. The sectionthat follows, on coaching, builds on these arguments as the coach is key to the pro-cess of personalisation. With the HEI tutor, the coach has a ‘key role in workingwith the teacher to achieve this personalisation’ (TDA 2009d, 3).

What is ‘personalisation’?

Personalisation is defined in the Glossary to the Framework of the MTL (TDA2009d). ‘Personalised Learning Opportunities’ for teachers on the MTL ‘are plannedto meet a teacher’s individual professional needs in the context of the school’s pri-orities. This planning should reflect good practice in induction and performancemanagement’ (TDA 2009d, 3). Hartley (2009) has described how personalisationfor pupils has eluded an agreed definition. Certainly, the MTL both assumes it is a‘given’ and the glossary to the MTL puts only some meagre ‘flesh on the bones’.Not surprisingly, the language of ‘needs’ is invoked, although these are quickly cir-cumscribed by the ‘context of the school’s priorities.’

Other insights can be gained from the description of the four content areas thatMTL students will cover. The first of these is ‘[a] range of teaching and learningstrategies, including pedagogies of personalisation and intervention’ (TDA 2009b,15). This is followed by a section on ‘Assessment for learning’ (AfL), via whichthe aforementioned personalisation and intervention will be informed: ‘to determinewhere they [their pupils] are in their learning, where they need to go next, and howbest to get there’. AfL is also described ‘as the basis for deploying appropriate andpersonalised teaching and learning strategies, including targeted intervention forthose not achieving national benchmarks’, and ‘baseline data and measures of pro-gress’ should be used ‘for setting personalised targets’ (TDA 2009b, 15). The lan-guage of needs, here, has been replaced by the necessity to meet measurable targetsand the setting of ‘personalised targets’ which will hopefully lead to the larger goalsbeing achieved. Elsewhere these personalised targets are described as ‘stretching tar-gets’ (TDA 2009b, 14).

There is a sense of a learning ‘journey’ here, then, but one which is also highlyinstrumental. The ‘endpoints’ are not in question as evident in the phraseology:‘where they are in their learning, where they need to go next, and how best to getthere’. And the ‘stretching’ targets that need to be set are underwritten by thediscourse of ‘keeping pace with our competitors’. As Sidhu (2009) observes these

808 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

metaphors of the race and racing suggest that lest we run we will stay still. Thesemetaphors also pervade discussion of the role of the coach (and indeed the termitself has sporting connotations) (see below). It is also evident in the second themewe wish to briefly pursue here, the use of performance management outcomes inthe personalisation process.

Performance management outcomes and personalisation

The identification ‘of a teacher’s individual professional needs’ or their ‘persona-lised professional learning journey’ is to be informed by the teacher’s ‘perfor-mance management outcomes’ (TDA 2009b, 7). As others have described, theobservations through which these outcomes are derived tend to focus on a limitedagenda inspired by managerial priorities (Smethen and Adey 2005; Devos 2010;Wilkins and Wood 2009). This, then, may translate into a very limited form ofautonomy for the learner. It may be ‘co-constructed’ with the coach but the over-all process may be dominated by the achievement of pre-determined goals. AsParker (1997) describes, this prefiguration of ‘ends’ leads to the ‘means’ beinghighly circumscribed: ‘The only notion of rationality available is one in whichmeans to ends are assessed in terms of the bureaucracy’s own notions of effec-tiveness. What is rational, therefore, is whatever stands the best chance of effec-tively achieving predetermined ends as efficiently as possible. The endsthemselves are not suitable objects for rational scrutiny’ (Parker 1997, 17 inHarrison 2000).

This comes sharply into focus when the ‘improved outcomes for pupils’ whichteachers on the MTL are required to prove, are allied with their own ‘performancemanagement outcomes’ in the assessment procedures for the degree. Thus, theorganisational aims and the ‘self’ that is being managed are aligned; the same‘rational processes’ are used to assess the teachers’ strengths and weaknesses on thebasis of how well they have addressed their pupils’ strengths and weaknesses, andthey are scored accordingly. Harrison (2000) ‘The project of the self is thenenclosed within the positivistic, technical rational discourse of project management,where the only legitimate form of action “consists in instrumental problem solvingmade rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique” (Schon 1983,21)’ (317). This is a form of totalitarianism, in a sense, much as Fielding (2006)and Matheson and Matheson (1996) describe in relation to some manifestations of‘lifelong learning’: ‘... far from the autonomy and democracy sought by Faure inhis view of a “learning society”, we are in Orwell’s 1984 – the ultimate totalitarianstate, perhaps made all the more totalitarian by preserving the illusions of autonomyand democracy’ (230).

Technology and personalisation

The programme will also be personalised in respect of technology and manages toappear both individualised and ‘forward thinking’ in this respect. In addition, teach-ers on the MTL are encouraged to refer to databases which will give them accessto the ‘evidence base’ (TTRB 2009). There is also an aspiration for an ‘on-linenational knowledge base’ to be developed in order to support learning in the fourcontent areas of the MTL (TDA 2009e, 2). And coach training may also be ‘deliv-ered’ by ‘on-line resources and virtual learning environments’ (TDA 2009e, 6).

Journal of Education Policy 809

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Technology, as Strathern (2002) describes, ‘points to its own potency’, it signalsthat an endeavour is innovatory, ‘cutting edge’, and associations with ‘the networksociety’ connote an ‘open’ and expansive learning context (Frankham 2006). Tech-nological responses also have the benefit of reinforcing the individualised nature ofthe MTL. As Hartley (2009) describes, the rhetoric of personalisation suggests thatindividual needs are paramount and if these are not met by traditional means these‘will be re-configured into a new solution-space which cuts across existing struc-tures and processes’ (428). Technology is increasingly deployed as a meanswhereby individuals can have their own learning needs attended to; in the case ofteachers, it is promoted as a tool whereby they can, in addition, personalise the ped-agogies they employ with their students (TDA 2009e, 7).

What Tyler (2001) makes clear are the risks involved if teaching is reduced to ade-authored ‘package’ of which the MTL teachers are passive recipients. Techno-logical developments, he says, risk ‘being misappropriated by the distortions ofideological, political, and managerial interests, becoming the medium of an unre-flective, de-centred, and de-historicised subjectivity and, as Valentine (2000) haswarned, the instrument of a covert, intrusive, and ubiquitous governmentality’(358). This concern seems particularly apt given the competence ideology (Menter,Brisard, and Smith 2006) of existing forms of teacher training and the ‘unreflective,de-centred, and de-historicised subjectivity’ (Tyler 2001, 358) which is writ large inthe discourse of lifelong learning in the MTL.

Coaching in the MTL

We now turn to the role of the ‘in-school coach’ as elucidated by the TDA andtaken up by the North West Consortium of HEIs ‘delivering’ the MTL. Coaching iscentral, according to the McKinsey Report (Barber and Mourshed 2007), in devel-oping teachers ‘into effective instructors in the classroom’ (Schleicher 2007). Thisis an extension of longer term developments in the use of coaches in Englishschools. Much like personalisation, coaching has an ‘emotional appeal’; the coachis an expert colleague, but also a ‘peer’ along ‘for the journey’ – ‘support will beprovided by a fellow experienced teacher’ (TDA 2009f, 2). The coach will alsofacilitate learning with and from the beginning teacher’s ‘community’ of co-teach-ers, which has a ‘soft’ appeal. As Hartley (2007) has described, the ‘liberal use ofthe prefix “co-” (as in co-customisation and co-production) lends to it the impres-sion that here is emerging a democratic practice wherein hierarchies, league-tablesand the old mantras of efficiency and effectiveness can all be set aside’ (639).

The practice-based nature of the MTL is also stressed throughout the documen-tation; the locus of ‘real’ learning is the classroom with a ‘coach’ alongside; teach-ers will learn ‘in the classroom, in school, in real time’ (TDA 2009b, 3). Thepractice-based nature of the degree is another of the appeals the DCFS make to sig-nal attention to teachers’ values and concerns; teachers continue to widely expressthe view that school is where teachers really learn to be teachers (Stronach 2010).We continue to argue, however, that there is a paradox evident in the discourse ofthe MTL. It is practice-based, it foregrounds experienced teachers in the processand it accords weight to the notion of the ‘community’ of which new teachers willbecome a part. And, of course, this may result in critical, engaged, context-specificforms of professional learning as described earlier by Fenwick (2009). We argue,however, that the technologies of the MTL (specifically the notion of coaching)

810 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

when placed alongside the forms of personalisation we have described suggest avery different orientation in the policy discourse to the development of teachers inthe workplace.

In order to elucidate this point, we briefly examine three ‘dispositions’ of the in-school coach as evident in the discourse of the MTL, although the coach is neverexplicitly labelled in these ways in the documentation. Each of these dispositions,we argue, illustrates how the personal is increasingly being used for the sake of thefunctional in a ‘simulacra of care’ (Fielding 2006, 357). In different ways, thesepromote the ‘innovative and flexible knowledge worker’ that will serve the stateinterest of economic competitiveness (Edwards and Nicoll 2004). We draw here ontraining materials developed by the North West Consortium of Higher EducationInstitutions when preparing to launch the degree (NWHC 2009). These materialsdrew on ideas provided by the TDA who, in turn, draw on a number of private andpublic agencies for their ideas.

Coach as guide

The first of the dispositions – Coach as Guide – is evident in material drawn fromthe TDA (TDA 2009e, 16) using a ‘Touchdown Analogy’ (NWHC 2009). This isone of a number of analogies the TDA use. The metaphor of an aeroplane isaccompanied by a descriptor of the roles in the ‘Tri-Partite Relationship’. TheCoach is ‘the navigator’, the participant ‘the pilot’ and HEI tutors are ‘traffic con-trol’ (TDA 2009e, 16). Coaching in this analogy then, is explicitly about how tomost efficiently and safely get from ‘a’ to ‘b’; there is a clear parallel here withforms of personalisation the teachers are encouraged to enact with their pupils toinclude evaluation of ‘where they are now, where they need to go next, and how toget there’ (TDA 2009b, 15). Clearly, the ‘destination point’ in this learning journeyhas been decided in advance lest ‘air traffic’ mayhem ensues. And the ‘support’ thatis acknowledged now translates into a minimisation of risk via the role of ‘naviga-tor’. The care that is evident here is ‘held’ in the notion of being accompanied on ajourney – but the simulacra is evident in the fact that this guide already knows theroute and is there to help in reaching the prefigured destination.

Coach as counsellor

The second disposition – coach as counsellor – is evident in other material that theNWHC (2009) draw on from the TDA. The TDA, in their turn, have drawn ontraining materials from the National College of School Leadership (2005) and theprivate companies, ‘The Boston Coaching Company’ and ‘Training Attention’.3

Here, the care provided to teachers in the role of counsellor is reconciled with thenecessity for teachers to change and develop in the notion of ‘a gift’ from coach tobeginning teacher: ‘Changes come through people’s actions. We cannot or shouldnot seek to re-shape people. They cannot change unless they are aware. Confrontingunawareness can be a gift’ (NWHC 2009, 35). Coaches are encouraged in the samematerials to ‘hold up a mirror’ for the beginning teacher to enable ‘more effectivereflection’ (taken from TDA 2009e, 20). The process of reflection, it is suggested,will be facilitated by ‘clean setup’ ‘clean questions’ and ‘clean feedback’, a methoddeveloped by ‘Training Attention’ called ‘Learning @ Your Best’ (NWHC 2009,60, 61). Clean language ‘helps people to convey their own meaning, free of

Journal of Education Policy 811

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

emotional or other distracting interpretation from others’. This promotes ‘better clar-ity of communications, neutrality and objectivity (absence of emotional “spin”, biasand prejudice), ease of understanding and cooperative productive relationships’(Businessballs 2009) The discourse, once again, is highly impersonal, ironically;personal and professional history, insight from theory, emotion and interpretation allbeing regarded as likely to ‘contaminate’ the learning process if ‘clean questions’are not used.

‘Confronting unawareness and reflection’ come together in the NWHC (2009)training materials in Boyatzis’ ‘Theory of self-directed learning’. After workingthrough a series of ‘discoveries’ about the self and the ideal self, the teacher movesto the fifth and final discovery: ‘At some point in the process, we discover that it ismuch easier to change ourselves with the support of people we can trust. Indeed itmay not be possible to achieve that change without the encouragement of otherpeople who are well-disposed towards us. In order to change, we need to take risks.We discover that to feel able to experiment and practice we need to feel a measureof psychological safety. We can find that in supportive and trusting relationships’(this material comes from the TDA 2009e, 55). This model has been developedusing Goleman’s (1998) principles about ‘emotional intelligence’ (NWHC 2009,55). Ecclestone (2007) has described how Goleman’s work has been taken upenthusiastically in organisational and professional development for teachers. Shehas described how ‘a powerful cultural narrative about emotional vulnerability anda fragile subjectivity’ (456) are increasingly translated into institutional practicesand beliefs. In the MTL, this is evident in the emphasis put on notions of ‘trust’and ‘support’ as suggested in the disposition of counsellor who must attend ‘withperception to the powerful emotions involved in deep professional learning’ (TDA2009e, 56).

Coach as partner

The third disposition – coach as partner – neatly ‘sidesteps’ the power/relationsbetween coach and beginning teacher. As many other authors working in this fieldhave observed (Hartley 2007; 2009; Fielding 2006; David and Clegg 2008), one ofthe many lacunae in the discourse about ‘co-production’ of solutions relates toquestions of power. Fenwick (2009) suggests, for example, that teachers ‘positionthemselves carefully in what professional “weaknesses” or “growth areas” theywould reveal to a supervisor as a learning goal’ as ‘trust and risk issues were upper-most’ in their minds (232). The notion of ‘partner’ then helps to defuse the tensionsin such relationships by emphasising how parties should ‘work together to establishclear lines of communication... to avoid confusion or ambiguity’ (TDA 2009h, 3).

The NWHC (2009) training materials quote from the TDA (2009e) in acknowl-edging the need to ‘establish confidence about the boundaries of the relationship byagreeing and upholding ground rules that address imbalances in power, authorityand accountability’ (TDA 2009e, 56) in the joint formulation of a ‘learning agree-ment’. The template which is provided (NWHC 2009) (immediately diminishingnotions of formulation) focuses on the goals of the beginning teacher (‘Progress todate from the previous meeting goals for enquiry’ and ‘Description of achievablegoals’ with the ‘Pedagogical change’, the ‘Expected outcomes for children andyoung people’ and the ‘Date for completion’ to be added). This is a ‘learning agree-ment’ in the form of an ‘action plan’ as described by Doyle (2003). These are

812 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

typically used in forms of ‘learner-managed learning’ to monitor progress; ‘the pro-cess seems rooted in a rationality and a discourse which is instrumental rather thancommunicative, domesticating rather than emancipatory’ (8). Such agreements takeno account of the fact that learners may not know what they need to know or thatlearning itself is a process of ‘indirection’ as Polanyi (1969) describes. ‘We makesense of experience by relying on clues of which we are often aware only as point-ers to their hidden meaning; this meaning is an aspect of a reality which as suchcan yet reveal itself in an indeterminate range of future discoveries’ (Polanyi 1969,119). Neither does the documentation have anything to say about how bureaucraticprocedures that have already been put into place in order to judge ‘success’ on theMTL (e.g. ‘improved outcomes’) might be in contradiction with a jointly formu-lated plan that does not accord with these priorities.

As suggested above, the workplace is a key site for translating the interests ofthe state into realisable goals (Edwards and Nicoll 2004, 161). As Edwards andNicoll describe, ‘Fashioning people’s values, norms and dispositions thereforebecomes a key dimension of organisation change’ (168). In addition to the workcoaches carry out with beginning teachers, it is an aspiration of the MTL that coa-ches play a crucial bridging role between the ‘new culture’ of lifelong learningamongst beginning teachers and existing staff. ‘The MTL is an opportunity, not justfor individuals, but the school team as a whole’ (TDA 2009e, 30). It is also impliedthat the role of coaches, in future, should be even wider to include (initial?) ‘train-ing’: ‘The trained coaches could make a wider contribution to induction, trainingand development across the school and MTL should serve to support an increas-ingly collaborative culture in professional development’ (DCSF 2008, 15). In therole of the coach, via the simulacra of ‘collaboration’, we see how the notion of ashared ethic towards learning might be dispersed throughout the school. This sharedethic ‘both exposes all those within the workforce to the risks of failure and failingto change, but also tries to invest those within the organisation with shared goalsand aspirations’ (169).

Professional development after the MTL

We want to end with observations about the putative changes the MTL implies inthe respective roles of schools and higher education in the CPD of teachers. Millerand Rose’s (2008) analysis of forms of government is apposite. They describe how,in a number of respects, we are experiencing the ‘death of the social’; that is formsof government which tend to be organised ‘from the centre’ and that presupposeforms of social organisation through which ‘the social’ is governed. The last twodecades have seen a reconfiguration, they say, of the means of government, increas-ingly envisaged as achieved through the construction and management of ‘commu-nities’. This ‘morally invested’ term (88) changes not just the language that isemployed but the allegiances that are required of the members of these notionalcommunities. Ties are emphasised within the community and members have obliga-tions to a ‘circumscribed “network” of other individuals’ (91) within them. At thesame time, if power is characterised as ‘community-based’ – as existing in theeffective mobilisation and ‘empowerment’ of the individuals within the community– this presents new motivations for self-government. Communities can ‘reactivateself-motivation, self-responsibility and self-reliance in the form of active citizenshipwithin a self-governing community’ (92).

Journal of Education Policy 813

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Miller and Rose (2008) also describe the ways in which ‘projects of regulation,reform or mobilisation’ are governed through these ‘communities’. They describehow a variety of strategies are employed for inventing and instrumentalising alle-giances between individuals in these groups to achieve the purposes of government.One such strategy in respect of professional groups relates to shifts in the organisa-tion of ‘experts’ (‘social government was expert government’ (108)). ‘... expertsand their judgements were not only vital relays in the links between political objec-tives and personal conduct, they also had considerable capacities to “enclose” them-selves and their judgements, to make demands in terms of their own perceptions oftheir interests and the requirements of the apparatuses they operated – in short todeploy a range of tactics to render themselves difficult for politicians to govern, ifnot actually “ungovernable” (108)’. This would apply, for example, to teachers andto teacher educators (at least in an ‘ideal world’). Increasingly, however, ‘Localesand activities that were previously part of the assemblages of the “social” are beingautonomised from the machinery of politics and novel devices are being used togovern the activities of those who work within them. In a plethora of quasi-autono-mous units, associations and “intermediate organisations”, experts are allocated newresponsibilities and new mechanisms are developed for the management of profes-sional expertise “at a distance”, that is, outside the machinery of bureaucracy thatpreviously bound experts into devices for the government of “the social”’ (108).

‘Autonomisation’ from the state in the education sector has included graduallydevolving power and control to head teachers, over a period of nearly 30 years, forexample through local management of schools. This, and other moves (for example,the widespread use of audit mechanisms) has, in turn, precipitated shifts in the roleof the head teacher from one of ‘senior colleague’ to one of ‘institutional manager’(Sachs 2000). As Miller and Rose describe: ‘The allocation of budgetary responsi-bilities to professionals... requires them to calculate their actions not in the esotericlanguages of their own expertise, but by translating them into costs and benefits thatcan be given an accounting value’ (109). Speaking of the Australian context, Sachsdescribes how: ‘In this form of governance and management, teachers are placed ina long line of authority in terms of their accountability for reaching measurable out-comes that stretches through the principal, to the district/regional office, to the cen-tral office’ (79, 80). This is what Bernstein (2001) aptly describes as ‘centraliseddecentralisation’ (367).

Devolution and decentralisation have relied on the managerialist structures out-lined above to ensure continuing compliance with target-led imperatives in educa-tion. But there are wider shifts evident too, in this ‘reorganisation’ of the ‘expert’sphere. In this ‘devolved’ structure, allegiances are to the local community (i.e. tothe individual school) rather than to wider professional mores, groupings or associa-tions. Sachs quotes from Ferguson (1994) in respect of the effects of these movesin terms of socialisation into the profession of teaching. ‘The potential impact onthe constitution, standing, identity, autonomy and authority of the profession isenormous. The socialisation of intending teachers into the mores, values, under-standings of what it means to be a teacher will switch from being developed in acollective setting of debate informed by theory, research and evidence, to one inwhich socialisation is entirely dependent on two or three teachers. New teachers’capacities to act autonomously, work independently and most of all mount well-grounded challenges to managerial diktat are likely to diminish, and their sense ofmembership and solidarity of a larger body to be diluted’ (106–107). Although

814 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Ferguson may express a somewhat utopian vision of the past, the shift to CPDbeing entirely school-based does warrant concern about socialisation being depen-dent on ‘two or three teachers’.

This also puts exhortations to be ‘slow to complain’ into a different context asEdwards and Nicoll (2004) describe: ‘The refashioning of actor-networks through thepractices of workplace learning themselves involve a re-ordering of discipline andgovernmentality. Mobilizing workers as learners as a strategy of governmentality doesnot overlay existing practices but, rhizome-like, seeks to refashion current actor-net-works, including the desire for docile bodies, or at least ones that are not revolting’(171). At the same time, work from Australia does indicate the importance of ‘actualclassroom engagement’ in the professional development of teachers (Saunders 2009)and we would reiterate that this article can only, at this stage, look at rhetorics notrealities.

And what of the possible future of higher education in the CPD of teachers?Evidence from individual higher education institutions in the North West of Eng-land suggests that their involvement in the practical development of the degree hasbeen minimal. An indication may come from the Universities’ Council for the Edu-cation of Teachers (UCET) (2008) document which summarises their ‘advice to theGovernment’ on the introduction of the degree. As far as we are aware, there is noother official response from UCET to the MTL. UCET summarise what they see asthe main roles of universities in the process. These are validation of the degree,compliance with assessment and quality assurance procedures, and marketing of thedegree (UCET 2008, 3). As UCET also say, however, ‘This does not mean that itshould be delivered in “ivory towers” by universities operating in isolation fromschools. Indeed, as we have made clear, its success will depend on it being devel-oped and delivered in genuine partnership and on its having a practical focus’ (3).In promotional material produced by the TDA (2009c) and aimed at prospectivestudents they say ‘you should not have to traipse off to far-flung venues’ (4) inorder to follow the MTL. The body that technically ‘owns’ the MTL ‘does not mat-ter’ (3) UCET say, although in their characterisation it is clearly not ‘owned’ byHigher Education. The physical site – the ivory tower – the far-flung venues – seemsomewhat obsolete; the site of ‘real learning’ is the school. This apparent acquies-cence to the obsolescence of the university as a body which should ‘own’ a degreeseems to confirm Menter, Brisard, and Smith (2006) prediction that politicians of aneo-liberal persuasion ‘were determined to reduce the influence of the academy onteaching’ (283).

Certainly, there is little in the discourse associated with the MTL which wouldsuggest a university (traditionally conceived) would be necessary to the endeavour.Knowledge in the MTL is conceptualised as ‘value free’, universal, and disinter-ested; this is all about ‘technical decision-making’. This is knowledge as ‘“inter-changeable” modules, “black boxes” of knowledge, separated from the contexts andinterests associated with their use’ (Friesen 2008, 9). This is knowledge as a com-modity to be applied with utilitarian precision in the global competitive ‘marketplace’. Hartley (2009) has described how personalisation, in respect of children, isabout the ‘would-be consumer’s voice, not that of a citizen-in-the-making’ (430). Inrespect of teachers, we believe that there is much in the discourse of the MTL tosuggest that this is not about a professional-in-the-making but a technician-in-themaking. Ironically, given the talk of personalisation with its connotations ofindividualisation, and the emotional appeal of working alongside a trusted colleague

Journal of Education Policy 815

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

(the coach), the MTL represents a monolithic and totalising response to the CPDneeds of beginning teachers. Personalisation and coaching are illusory forms ofindividualised and practice-based solutions setting out to engender the ‘emotionalengagement’ that Ecclestone (2007) has described in order that participants ‘buy in’to the government’s vision. It is yet to be confirmed whether these beginning teach-ers will also be ‘slow to complain’.

AcknowledgementsWith thanks to the Teacher Education Research Network and Ian Stronach.

Notes1. The Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) (2007–2010) was a UK

government department responsible for issues, including education, affecting childrenand young people in England. The DCSF was replaced by the Department for Educationafter the change of UK government in 2010.

2. The Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) is the UK state-fundedagency responsible for the training and development of the school workforce.

3. ‘Training Attention’ is one of the growing number of private companies providing front-line services to schools in the place of Local Authorities.

Notes on contributorsJo Frankham is senior research fellow in the Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure,Liverpool John Moores University.

Sandra Hiett is senior lecturer in the Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure,Liverpool John Moores University.

ReferencesBall, S. 2009. Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational

research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy24, no. 1: 83–99.

Ball, S.J., and S. Exley. 2010. Making policy with ‘good ideas’: Policy networks and the‘intellectuals’ of new labour. Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2: 151–69.

Barber, M., and M. Mourshed. 2007. How the world’s best-performing school systems comeout on top. London: McKinsey.

Beecham, R. 2008. The language of higher education. London Review of Education 6, no. 2:111–23.

Bernstein, B. 2001. From pedagogies to knowledges. In Towards a sociology of pedagogy,ed. A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, and B. Daniels, 363–9. New York: Peter Lang.

Businessballs. 2009. Clean language. http://www.businessballs.com/clean_language.htmCoffield, F. 1999. Breaking the consensus: Lifelong learning as social control. British Educa-

tional Research Journal 25, no. 4: 479–99.David, M., and S. Clegg. 2008. Power, pedagogy and personalization in global higher educa-

tion: The occlusion of second-wave feminism. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politicsof education 29, no. 4: 483–98.

Day, M. 2008. ‘Masters in Teaching and Learning’, presentation to ITT Providers’ Confer-ence, TDA, May, 7.

DCSF. 2007. The children’s plan: Building brighter futures. Norwich: HMSO.DCSF. 2008. Being the best for our children. Releasing talent for teaching and learning.

Annesley, Notts: DCSF.Devos, A. 2010. New teachers, mentoring and the discursive formation of professional iden-

tity. Teaching and Teacher Education 26: 1219–23.Doyle, M. 2003. A reflexive critique of learner managed learning. Education-Line. http://

www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002420.htm

816 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Ecclestone, K. 2007. Resisting images of the ‘diminished self’: The implications of emo-tional well-being and emotional engagement in education policy. Journal of EducationPolicy 22, no. 4: 455–70.

Edwards, R., and K. Nicoll. 2004. Mobilizing workplaces: Actors, discipline and govern-mentality. Studies in Continuing Education 26, no. 2: 159–73.

Fairclough, N. 2005. Critical discourse analysis. Marges Linguistiques 9: 76–94.Fenwick, T. 2009. Making to measure? Reconsidering assessment in professional continuing

education. Studies in Continuing Education 31, no. 3: 229–44.Ferguson, R. 1994. Managerialism in education. In Managing social policy, ed. J. Clarke,

A. Cochrane, and E. McLaughlin. London: Sage.Fielding, M. 2006. Leadership, personalization and high performance schooling: Naming the

new totalitarianism. School Leadership and Management 26, no. 4: 347–69.Frankham, J. 2006. Network utopias and alternative entanglements for educational research

and practice. Journal of Education Policy 21, no. 6: 661–77.Friesen, N. 2008. Critical theory: Ideology critique and the myths of e-learning.

ACM Ubiquity. 9(22). http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/volume_9/pf/v9i22_friesen.pdf?CFID=94604561&CFTOKEN=99355997 (accessed June 27, 2010).

Gewirtz, S. 2008. Give us a break! A skeptical review of contemporary discourses of life-long learning. European Educational Research Journal 7, no. 4: 414–24.

Goleman, D. 1998. Working with emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Books.Hansen, M.B., and J. Lairidsen. 2004. The institutional context of market ideology: A com-

parative analysis of the values and perceptions of local government CEOs in 14 OECEcountries. Public Administration 82: 491–524.

Harrison, R. 2000. Learner managed learning: Managing to learn or learning to manage?International Journal of Lifelong Education 19, no. 4: 312–21.

Hartley, D. 2007. Personalisation: The emerging ‘revised’ code of education? Oxford Reviewof Education 33, no. 5: 629–42.

Hartley, D. 2009. Personalisation: The nostalgic revival of child-centred education? Journalof Education Policy 24, no. 4: 423–34.

Hatcher, R. 2006. Privatisation and sponsorship: The re-agenting of the school system inEngland. Journal of Education Policy 21, no. 5: 599–61.

Larsen, M.A. 2010. Troubling the discourse of teacher centrality: A comparative perspective.Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 2: 207–31.

Matheson, D., and C. Matheson. 1996. Lifelong learning and lifelong education: A critique.Research in Post-Compulsory Education 1, no. 2: 219–36.

Menter, I., E. Brisard, and I. Smith. 2006. Making teachers in Britain: Professional knowl-edge for initial teacher education in England and Scotland. Educational Philosophy andTheory 38, no. 2: 269–86.

Miller, P., and N. Rose. 2008. Governing the present: Administering economic, social andpersonal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Morgado, J.C., and F. Sousa. 2010. Teacher evaluation, curricular autonomy and professionaldevelopment: Trends and tensions in the portuguese educational policy. Journal of Edu-cation Policy 25, no. 3: 369–84.

NCSL. 2005. Leading coaching in schools. http://www.nationalcollege.org.uk/index/docinfo.htm?id=17252

North West HEI Consortium (NWHC). 2009. Training materials. Provenance unclear.OECD. 2007. PISA 2006. Science competences for tomorrow’s world, Vol. 1: Analysis. Paris:

OECD.Parker, S. 1997. Reflective teaching in the postmodern world: A manifesto for education in

postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press.Patrick, F., C. Forde, and A. McPhee. 2003. Challenging the ‘new professionalism’: From

managerialism to pedagogy? Journal of In-Service Education 29, no. 2: 237–53.Polanyi, M. 1969. Knowing and being. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Rose, N. 1989. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Free Associa-

tion Books.Sachs, J. 2000. The activist professional. Journal of Educational Change 1: 77–95.Saunders, S. 2009. The role of planned professional learning in becoming an accomplished

teacher: The Quennsland experience. Babel 44, no. 1: 12–5.

Journal of Education Policy 817

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2

Schon, D. 1983. The reflective practitioner. London: Temple Smith.Schleicher, A. 2007. Introduction. In How the world’s best-performing school systems come

out on top, ed. M. Barber and M. Mourshed. London: McKinsey.Sidhu, R. 2009. Running to stay still in the knowledge economy. Journal of Education Pol-

icy 24, no. 3: 237–53.Smethen, L., and K. Adey. 2005. Some effects of statutory induction on the professional

development of newly qualified teachers: A comparative study of pre- and post-inductionexperiences. Journal of Education for Teaching 31, no. 3: 187–200.

Strathern, M. 2002. Abstraction and decontextualisation: An anthropological comment. InVirtual society? Technology, cyberbole, reality, ed. S. Woolgar. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Stronach, I., B. Corbin, O. McNamara, S. Stark, and T. Warne. 2002. Towards an uncertainpolitics of professionalism: Teacher and nurse identities in flux. Journal of EducationPolicy 17, no. 1: 109–38.

Stronach, I. 2010. Globalizing education, educating the local: How method made us mad.Abingdon: Routledge.

Suspitsyna, T. 2010. Accountability in American education as a rhetoric and a technology ofgovernmentality. Journal of Education Policy 25, no. 5: 567–86.

TDA. 2009a. How the masters in teaching and learning will work. http:www.tda.gov.uk/teachers/mtl/how_will_mtl_work.aspx

TDA. 2009b. The national framework for masters in teaching and learning. London: TDA.TDA. 2009c. The masters in teaching and learning degree, TES May 15.TDA. 2009d. The national framework for masters in teaching and learning: The glossary.

London: TDA.TDA. 2009e. The masters in teaching and learning: National training programme for the

MTL school-based coach – cohort 1. London: TDA.TDA. 2009f. Masters in teaching and learning: Coaching strategy. London: TDA.TDA. 2009g. An introduction to the masters in teaching and learning 2009/10 for head

teachers. London: TDA.TDA. 2009h. The masters in teaching and learning national framework for the school-based

coach – year 1. London: TDA.TDA. 2010. Masters of the classroom, Guardian, January 19.TTRB. 2009. Using research and evidence to improve teaching and learning. Presentation to

ESCalate conference 2009. http://www.ttrb.ac.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?contentID=15433Tyler, W. 2001. Crosswired: Hypertext, critical theory and pedagogic discourse. In Towards

a sociology of pedagogy, ed. A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, and B. Daniels, 339–56.New York: Peter Lang.

Timperley, H.S., J.M. Parr, and C. Bertanees. 2009. Promoting professional inquiry forimproved outcomes for students in New Zealand. Professional Development in Educa-tion 35, no. 2: 227–45.

UCET. 2008. Masters in teaching and learning: Making it work. Advice to TDA and DCSF.London: UCET.

Valentine, J. 2000. Information technology, ideology and governmentality. Theory, Cultureand Society 17, no. 2: 21–43.

Wilkins, C. 2009. The masters level teaching profession: Enhancing or managing profes-sionalism? Paper presented at European conference educational research, Vienna. Sep-tember 2009.

Wilkins, C., and P. Wood. 2009. Initial teacher education in the panopticon. Journal of Edu-cation for Teaching 35, no. 3: 283–97.

818 J. Frankham and S. Hiett

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Jo F

rank

ham

] at

05:

57 0

9 M

arch

201

2