UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Foucault, power/knowledge, and the recent literature on school improvement Ross, Murray 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 R68.pdf [ 7.88MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055737.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055737-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055737-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055737-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055737-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055737-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055737-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055737-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055737.ris

Full Text

FOUCAULT, POWER/KNOWLEDGE, AND THE RECENT LITERATURE ON SCHOOL  IMPROVEMENT  By MURRAY ROSS B.A., T h e U n i v e r s i t y  of British  C o l u m b i a , 1973  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE (Department  of Social  STUDIES  and E d u c a t i o n a l S t u d i e s )  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s  as conforming  to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1987 0  Murray  D. R o s s , 1987  In  presenting  degree  this  at the  of  department  publication of  partial  British Columbia,  thesis by  for  his  this thesis  or  scholarly her  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6G/81)  of  the  I agree  requirements  for  may  representatives.  It  be is  advanced  that the Library shall make it  I further agree that permission  purposes  an  granted  for extensive  by the head  understood  that  for financial gain shall not be allowed without  permission.  Date  fulfilment  for reference and study.  this or  in  University of  freely available copying  thesis  of  my  copying  or  my written  ABSTRACT  This thesis examines some of the recent l i t e r a t u r e on school improvement: namely, teacher effectiveness research, school effectiveness research, and four of the commissioned reports on education that were published in the United states during 1983.  The analysis r e l i e s on a number of central  concepts  from the s o c i a l theory of Michel Foucault, in p a r t i c u l a r his notions of power/knowledge and d i s c i p l i n e . It is argued that these bodies of educational research are in themselves either inadequate  or inappropriately employed in p o l i c y discussions, and  that as a r e s u l t the manipulation of students and teachers seems reasonable and necessary.  It i s further argued that the teaching  practices and educational p o l i c i e s c a l l e d for in t h i s research are l i k e l y to produce unintended,  and undesirable consequences  which are completely at odds with the stated goals of school improvement.  ii  TABLE OF CONTENTS  CHAPTER ONE  A presentation of the research problem  p.l  CHAPTER TWO  A discussion of Foucault's theories on power, knowledge and d i s c i p l i n e  p.7  CHAPTER THREE  CHAPTER  FOUR  CHAPTER FIVE  A discussion of teacher effectiveness research with a preliminary sketch of the u t i l i t y of applying Foucauldian theory to i t  p.32  A discussion of school effectiveness research with a preliminary sketch of the u t i l i t y of applying Foucauldian theory to i t  p.87  A discussion of the recent commissioned reports on American education  iii  p.128  CHAPTER ONE:  INTRODUCTION  One of the most puzzling features of much of the educat i o n a l research over the l a s t 25 years i s the manner in which students have been characterized in the research l i t e r a t u r e . T y p i c a l l y , students are depicted as being the passive  recipients  of one or another of various educational "treatments" or "inputs",  or as being subject to the Influence of a host of  stimuli that w i l l , i t i s hoped, produce the desired educational "outcomes". Various c r i t i c s of t h i s conception of the student have not f a i l e d to notice i t s p e c u l i a r i t y . John Meyer, for instance, has observed that in the p r e v a i l i n g research t r a d i t i o n s  "the student  is seen as a mildly i n t e l l i g e n t monkey (or occupant of a monkeyl i k e r o l e ) , constrained by the immediate d i s t r i b u t i o n of rewards." (Meyer,1980,p.25)  In Meyer's view, "too much research  looks at the technology of teaching as i f i t were the mechanical action of a person on an object." (Meyer,1980,p.53) fashion, Alan Tom  In a similar  (1984) has seen a connection between just t h i s  sort of mechanistic conception of the student and the f a i l u r e of process-product research to y i e l d s i g n i f i c a n t findings. Essentially,  in Tom's view, process-product research i s  flawed because i t conceives of learning s o l e l y in terms of what teachers do. In e f f e c t , teaching "behaviours" or processes are said to lead d i r e c t l y to student "outcomes" or products, hence the category, process-product research.  1  Teachers, according to  t h i s view, cause learning.  What i s so s t r i k i n g about this  conception o£ teaching and learning, aside from the fact i t has f a i l e d to produce t r u l y e f f e c t i v e teaching methods, i s that in such a conception, the student remains passively subject to whatever the teacher does to induce learning. Tom c a l l s  this  conception of teaching the " b i l l i a r d b a l l hypothesis", where the teaching/learning r e l a t i o n s h i p i s understood  i n terms of an  analogy between teaching and shooting a b a l l i n b i l l i a r d s . The pool player (teacher) aims the cue b a l l  (his behaviour) so that  i t w i l l s t r i k e the target b i l l i a r d b a l l  (the student) at exactly  the right angle to cause the b i l l i a r d b a l l to go into the pocket (the achievement of what the student i s supposed to learn). (Tom, 1984, p.82) S i m i l i a r to Tom's objection, i s Richard Murnane's. In his review of school effectiveness research, Murnane (1981) points to the peculiar methodological  basis of t h i s research  t r a d i t i o n . An underlying assumption of school effectiveness research i s that teaching and learning can be viewed as a stable, well-defined production process, similar to that of growing hybrid corn. In fact, according to Murnane, the production of hybrid corn i s the substantive area from which t h i s research t r a d i t i o n stems. As he notes, the chief difference between corn production and education i s that " i n corn production, the key inputs, seed, water, and f e r t i l i z e r , are inanimate and t h e i r productivity depends only on the resource mix and the weather...[while) i n education, the key resources are students and teachers." (Murnane,1981,p.13) I r o n i c a l l y enough Murnane  2  himself i s not free of the language of "people as resources".  Aside from investigations with a narrowly pedagogical  focus  there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t body of educational research devoted to broad s o c i a l issues l i k e the need for equity and equal educationa l opportunity, or the matter of education and the national interest.  Educational philosopher, Kenneth Strike, has observed  that i n America, schools are seen as "the basic s o c i a l  institution  in which opportunities to develop marketable talents are d i s t r i b uted."  Quite r i g h t l y s t r i k e has seen that what i s assumed i n .  t h i s i s that schools can teach "the kinds of talents which are important  i n economic competiton."  (Strike,1983,p.185)  Notions such as these have generated a large and expanding l i t e r a t u r e devoted  on the one hand to the d i s t r i b u t i v e e f f e c t s of  schooling, and more recently on the other hand to the r e l a t i o n ship between schooling and the material well-being of the entire s o c i a l body. Some of t h i s e a r l i e r l i t e r a t u r e greatly influenced the courts, and led to legal decisions and l e g i s l a t i o n which altered the l i v e s of m i l l i o n s of people. The findings contained in this l i t e r a t u r e  quite l i t e r a l l y generated  the power needed to  move large numbers of people from one school to another  in a  distant neighbourhood. They s i m i l a r l y provided the grounds for funding compensatory education programs and a l t e r i n g  admission  standards to colleges and u n i v e r s i t i e s so that minorities underrepresented i n these i n s t i t u t i o n s  might have better opportun-  i t i e s for further education. The more recent research, on the other hand, has made i t seem imperative that p o l i c y makers t l g h t 3  en up  course  insist  requirements  upon h i g h e r  Whether c o n c e r n e d e d u c a t i o n and  for graduation  standards with  of a c h i e v e m e n t  the apparent  American  life  i n educational standards  decline  might  things  the  of t h e  student  and  literature as  "an  w i t h i n the s c h o o l s .  w i t h an  implications of  life,  have  one  apparent  such of  a  the  i n common i s a  educational resource"  be  either  more e q u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t e d  developed  i n the  interests  of n a t i o n a l  and  of e q u i t y i n American  the  A m e r i c a n way  studies in this  conception should  f o r the  lack  high school,  or s i m p l y c o n c e r n e d  decline  hold  from  o r more  security  that  fully  or p r o s p e r i t y  or  both.  What, t h e n , student  and  viously  fail  a r e we  of e f f e c t i v e to square  seem t o s u b o r d i n a t e  ual  to those  i t may  educational teachers that the  o f one  the  our  daily  interests  and  h e l p t o summarize what  research. F i r s t l y  from  this  and  welfare  B e f o r e we  of the answer  i s a t work  relationship  in  Secondly  the  between power  the  action. to  use  Teachers  are  new  them or have good  administrators and  learn  learn  expected  to  what a r e  f o r not d o i n g  the  so.  f e a t u r e s o f an  i n t r o d u c e or m a i n t a i n  4  and  in  this  power t o s h a p e human  methods o f t e a c h i n g and  reasons  findings  and  research  same t i m e  and  for action  knowledge g e n e r a t e d  a t the  this  this  k n o w l e d g e seems e v i d e n t e n o u g h . The generates  ob-  individ-  most o b v i o u s l y s t u d e n t s  o b j e c t s of s t u d y .  The  the  o f human a c t i o n s  s t u d y have p r o v i d e d g r o u n d s  basis for policy.  of  when t h e y s o  experience  group or a n o t h e r ?  have become t h e  emerge  conceptions  teaching, especially  with  and  question  t o make o f t h e s e  are  expected  School  effective  them. L e g i s l a t o r s  school and  their constituents learn of the e f f e c t s of r a c i a l composition of classrooms on achievement and f e e l the pressure to l e g i s l a t e a particular r a c i a l mix in the schools. Or l e g i s l a t o r s find confirmation i n the research of what they supposed a l l along and feel compelled and empowered to act on the basis of t h i s knowledge. Seen in t h i s way the aforementioned  research takes on  a somewhat d i f f e r e n t character. No longer does our question seem to be simply concerned with the characterizations of students as b i l l i a r d b a l l s and monkeys or with research programs modelled on systems for the production of hybrid corn.  STATEMENT OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM It seems reasonable to ask,in l i g h t of the foregoing discussion of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between power and knowledge: What is the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the fact that these conceptions of students, teachers, and learning function and c i r c u l a t e in eductional discourse as i f they were true?  It may  often be assumed that the history of attempts to  improve the schools w i l l reveal l i t t l e more than the reasons one group or another had for wanting to reform schools, along with the arguments and evidence needed to document the s u p e r i o r i t y of their p a r t i c u l a r program. What appears to be lacking i s an analysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the knowledge that i s gathered and produced  i n educational research,(along with the  s o c i a l practices that emerge from t h i s knowledge), and the workings of power.  For i f i t can be shown that "power produces 5  knowledge  (and n o t s i m p l y by e n c o u r a g i n g  i t because i t s e r v e s  p o w e r , o r by a p p l y i n g i t b e c a u s e i t i s u s e f u l ) ; knowledge d i r e c t l y  i m p l y one  t h a t power  a n o t h e r ; t h a t t h e r e i s no  r e l a t i o n without the c o r r e l a t i v e  constitution  constitute  and  have i m p l i c a t i o n s about  f o r t h e way  education view themselves  (Foucault,1977,p.27) workings  i n which  As  t o why  we  might  participants and  6  that  may  in policy  the debate  be a p p r e h e n s i v e  o f p o w e r / k n o w l e d g e i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l w o r l d we  to M i c h e l F o u c a u l t .  be  t h e o p e r a t i o n o f power  knowledge i n t h e e d u c a t i o n a l w o r l d , an a p p r e h e n s i o n  debates  of  a t t h e same t i m e power r e l a t i o n s " , t h e n t h e r e may  grounds f o r our b e i n g a p p r e h e n s i v e about and  power  of a f i e l d  knowledge, nor any knowledge t h a t does not presuppose  and  itself. about  the  must  turn  CHAPTER TWO: MICHEL FOUCAULT AND POWER/KNOWLEDGE  French philosopher-historian Michel Foucault has been concerned  with the idea of p o l i t i c a l power in v i r t u a l l y a l l of  his writing, e s p e c i a l l y i n the books and a r t i c l e s written since 1970.  In these Foucault rejects both what he c a l l s the  t r a d i t i o n a l , j u r i d i c a l conception of p o l i t i c a l power as well as the Marxist conception of power. In their place he argues for a r a d i c a l l y new conception of power. He suggests both the t r a d i t i o n a l and Marxist conceptions are incomplete and anachronistic. "The t r a d i t i o n a l conception of power", Foucault says, " [ i s that of] an e s s e n t i a l l y j u d i c i a l mechanism...which lays down the law."  (1980, p. 183) In t h i s view the law derives  i t s power from the transfer of i n d i v i d u a l powers to the sovereign or the state. Thus  power i s taken to be a r i g h t , which one i s able to possess l i k e a commodity, and which one can, i n consequence, transfer or alienate, either wholly or p a r t i a l l y , through a legal act or through some.act that establishes a r i g h t , such as takes place through cession or contract. Power i s that concrete power which every individual holds, and whose p a r t i a l or t o t a l cession enables p o l i t i c a l power or sovereignty to be established. This t h e o r e t i c a l construction i s e s s e n t i a l l y based on the idea that the c o n s t i t u t i o n of p o l i t i c a l power obeys the model of a legal transaction involving a contractual type of exchange." (1980, p. 88)  The Marxist conception, on the other hand, i s s i m i l a r l y economistic and rejected as incomplete  for that reason. In i t  "power i s conceived primarily i n terms of the role i t plays i n the maintenance simultaneously of the relations of production and  7  of a class domination which the development and s p e c i f i c forms of the forces of production  have r e n d e r e d  possible." (1980 p. f  88)  Foucault doubts that power can be modelled on a commodity that is held, accumulated, ceded and recovered,  although he r e a d i l y  admits that power r e l a t i o n s are asymmetrical in modern society. He doubts as well that power i s always in a subordinate p o s i t i o n r e l a t i v e to the economy or that i t is destined to maintain and reproduce the r e l a t i o n s e s s e n t i a l to the functioning of the economy.  In i t s place or rather alongside  t h i s conception  there  operates another form of power - bio-power. Bio-power, according to Foucault,  "brought l i f e and  i t s mechanisms into the realm of  e x p l i c i t c a l c u l a t i o n and made knowledge-power an agent of the transformation  of human l i f e . " (1979, p. 143)  It exists at  poles: one pole i s the human body, the other i s the human species.  One of these poles - the f i r s t to be formed, i t seems centered on the body as a machine ; i t s d i s c i p l i n i n g , the optimization of i t s c a p a b i l i t i e s , the extortion of i t s forces, the p a r a l l e l increase of i t s usefulness and i t s d o c i l i t y , i t s integration into systems of e f f i c i e n t and economic controls, a l l t h i s was ensured by the procedures of power that characterized the d i s c i p l i n e s : an anatomo-politics of the human body. The second, formed somewhat l a t e r , focused on the species body, the body imbued with the mechanics of l i f e and serving as the basis of the b i o l o g i c a l processes: propagation, births and mortality, the l e v e l of health, l i f e expectancy and longevity, with a l l the conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a b i o - p o l i t i c s of the population. The d i s c i p l i n e s of the body and the regulations of the population constituted the two poles around which the organization of power over l i f e was deployed. The s e t t i n g up, in the course of the c l a s s i c a l age, of t h i s great bipolar technology...characterized a power whose highest function was perhaps no longer to k i l l , but to invest l i f e through and through. (1979, p. 143) 1  8  two  The f i r s t pole, therefore, represented a power over  bodies,  d i s c i p l i n a r y power. And while there i s , in a sense, nothing  new  in having p o l i t i c a l power exercised over bodies, there is a fundamental difference between d i s c i p l i n a r y power as Foucault conceives i t and the age-old power of l i f e and death exercized by sovereigns. D i s c i p l i n a r y power applies I t s e l f more continuously and to more people d i r e c t l y than sovereign power in i t s e l f could hope to. Moreover, the threats that l i e behind  i t are at the same  time less severe and more numerous than the floggings, hangings and mutilation that made up the catalogue of j u d i c i a l punishments. It would be behind the "gentle mask of expressed  Man"  in the human sciences that these threats would operate.  These threats, alongside a range of rewards, would serve in the d i s c i p l i n a r y regime to transform individuals into more productive, more obedient people. D i s c i p l i n a r y power would begin and for most of i t s history be exercised in i n s t i t u t i o n s to improve or r e h a b i l i t a t e the people  designed  in their care. In these  i n s t i t u t i o n s we have not only the exercise of d i s c i p l i n a r y power, but the production of knowledge as well. Power brought individuals to these i n s t i t u t i o n s and would for varying lengths of time keep them there, subject to a range of p e n a l i t i e s and g r a t i f i c a t i o n s . It would also extract from i n d i v i d u a l s , by means of supervision, a knowledge of human beings that would form the foundation of many of the s o c i a l sciences and would ultimately allow d i s c i p l i n a r y power to move beyond an i n s t i t u t i o n a l setting and spread to society i t s e l f . One  9  of the conditions which made  this expansion possible lay in the development of the second pole of  bio-power.  The second pole - power over the species in the form of regulatory control -  would be exercised over the s o c i a l body and  would be dependent upon a concise mapping of i t . Beginning with demography in the 18th century and a general Interest in a l l matters r e l a t i n g to the growth and care of populations we have the development of the knowledge of the human species, knowledge that could be used to organize l i f e and maximize i t s usefulness. Administrators in 18th century Europe approached the population as something to be known, taken care of and made to f l o u r i s h . Foucault (1979) observes that " i t was  necessary to analyze the  b i r t h r a t e , the age of marriage, the legitimate and  illegitimate  b i r t h s , the precocity and frequency of sexual r e l a t i o n s , the ways of making them s t e r i l e or f e r t i l e , the e f f e c t s of unmarried  life  or of the prohibitions, the impact of contraceptive practices." (p.  25-26)  concerned  In t h i s i n d i r e c t manner 18th century bureaucrats  themselves with human sexuality and i t s e f f e c t s on  society as a whole. By the mid 19th century, according to Foucault, the focus had s h i f t e d to medical analyses of sexuality. By the end of the century the understanding and regulation of sexuality appeared to give access to the future well-being of society and to provide the means of understanding  the i n d i v i d u a l  human psyche.  Like so many of the ideas he has introduced, Foucault developed  t h i s notion of power through his h i s t o r i c a l studies. In 10  DisclplIne and Punish Foucault became concerned with the r i t u a l s of  sovereign power connected with the public torture and  execution of criminals in the 17th and 18th centuries. In these r i t u a l s he noticed what he took to be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c feature of sovereign power - the right to decide l i f e and death. It was not that the sovereign could exercise t h i s power over h i s subjects in an absolute and unconditional way; rather the right to take  life  depended upon external enemies who might overthrow him or contest his  r i g h t s . In the international sphere such threats j u s t i f i e d  armed r e t a l i a t i o n ; that i s , the sovereign could require h i s subjects to take part in the defense of the state. By t h i s means the sovereign had the power to expose h i s subjects to death and thus he exercised an i n d i r e c t power over their l i v e s . In the case of a subject who dared to attack him d i r e c t l y or v i o l a t e h i s laws, the sovereign could exercise a more d i r e c t power over the subject's l i f e : the offender could be put to death.  It  i s with just such circumstances - the execution of a  regicide - that Foucault begins D i s c i p l i n e and Punish. The opening pages recount the gruesome public torture and execution of  Damiens the regicide in 1757. The sentence instructed his  executioners to tear Damiens' f l e s h with red hot pincers, burn the hand that held the murder weapon, pour a mixture of b o i l i n g o i l , molten lead and burning r e s i n into the wounds i n f l i c t e d by the pincers, draw and quarter his body with four horses, then burn the remains u n t i l nothing but ashes were l e f t .  Eyewitness  accounts reveal the manner in which the executioners bungled the  11  job, how the horses, untrained in executions, f a i l e d to tear the limbs apart quickly, necessitating the executioners hacking away at the conscious Damiens while the horses strained at their traces. A l l the while confessors exhorted Damiens to confess p u b l i c l y to his crime.  In t h i s horrible event Foucault sees manifested the power of the sovereign and the l i m i t s to that power. Public torture and execution were c l e a r l y p o l i t i c a l r i t u a l s designed to demonstrate the superior power of the sovereign and thereby serve as a deterrent. Within the framework of j u r i d i c a l theory, v i o l a t i o n s of the king's law amounted to attacks against the king himself. As such, the king, with j u s t i f i c a t i o n , could respond with an  in kind, but  excessive force that showed the power of the law. Not  only would such r i t u a l s demonstrate the power of the king i n a l l i t s "murderous splendor", the addition of confession on the s c a f f o l d would serve to validate the whole proceedings.  The  r i t u a l was not then simply one of power but one of power and knowledge. It became possible in these r i t u a l s to r e - e s t a b l i s h the truth that crime didn't pay, as well as the truth of the charges themselves.  Torture i n t h i s way brought together a  complex of power, truth and bodies. For Foucault i t provided a simple and clear model for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between power and knowledge, a r e l a t i o n s h i p that would preoccupy Foucault from the early 1970s u n t i l h i s death a decade l a t e r .  Power produces knowledge (and not simply by encouraging i t because i t serves power or by applying i t because i t is useful); that power and knowledge d i r e c t l y imply one 12  another; that there is no power r e l a t i o n without the c o r r e l a t i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n of. a f i e l d of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power r e l a t i o n s . " (1977, p. 27)  One  of the chief e f f e c t s of power in Paris on March 2,  was a knowledge of pain and i t s connection to the w i l l sovereign and his laws. While t h i s lesson was keenly understood his  death), i t was  understood  1757  of the  no doubt most  by Damiens, (even though i t s e f f e c t ended with generally intended that i t would also be  by those present, the king's other subjects. The  sovereign's power led to knowledge e f f e c t s ("the c o n s t i t u t i o n of a f i e l d of knowledge"), which in turn, at least among the prudent, constituted a strengthening of the power r e l a t i o n .  The king's power over his subjects in criminal matters  was  e s s e n t i a l l y a power to decide whether subjects were to continue to l i v e or to d i e . This p a r t i c u l a r feature of sovereign power i s , for Foucault at least, c l o s e l y related to i t s other features. For Foucault, sovereign power was exercised as a means of deduction; i t consisted of a right "to apppropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products, goods, and services, labour and blood, levied on the subjects. Power in t h i s instance was e s s e n t i a l l y a right of seizure: of things, time, bodies, and ultimately l i f e (1979, p. 259)  itself."  However i t could not be applied uniformly and  continuously. It was too easy for subjects to escape t h i s network of power.  Eighty years after the execution of Damiens, bodies were  13  being controlled i n a d i f f e r e n t , less spectacular way. Instead of transgressors being subjected to physical torture, they were being imprisoned, and while i n prison subject to a regime of subtle and r e l a t i v e l y painless coercions. Time was f i r s t of a l l t i g h t l y organized, and within the spaces of time in the day prisoners were uniformly put to their tasks; each pair of hands, arms and legs were required to carry out the same functions in i d e n t i c a l ways.  According to the regulations for the conduct of  prisoners in Paris' House for Young Prisoners, prisoners were required to r i s e and r e t i r e at the same time each morning and night and work at the same time throughout  the day. "At quarter  to s i x in the summer, a quarter to s i x in the winter ... [prisoners] must wash their hands and faces ... In the evening at the f i r s t drum r o l l they must undress, and at the second get into bed."  (Foucault, 1977, p. 6-7) These seemingly t r i v i a l  details  are for Foucault the indications that a new type of power was in the process of being invented. "In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we have the production of an important phenomenon ... the invention of a new mechanism of power ... [one] possessed of highly s p e c i f i c procedural techniques, completely novel instruments, quite d i f f e r e n t apparatuses..." 104) Power s t i l l possessed  (Foucault, 1980, p.  i t s c i r c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p with  knowledge; i t s chief difference, however, lay in that i t was a form of power unrelated to sovereign power. As we have seen Foucault has termed i t " d i s c i p l i n a r y power". It would no longer be dealing with "legal subjects over  whom the ultimate dominion  was death, but with l i v i n g beings, and the mastery i t would be able to exercise over them would have to be applied at the level 14  of  life  i t s e l f ; i t was  the taking charge of l i f e , more than the  threat of death, that gave power i t s access even to the body." (1979, p.  148)  This new mechanism of power i s more dependent upon bodies and what they do than upon the Earth and i t s products [seen by Foucault as the t r a d i t i o n a l targets of sovereign power]. It i s a mechanism of power which permits time and labour, rather than wealth and commodities, to be extracted from bodies. It i s a type of power which i s constantly exercised by means of surveillance rather than in a discontinuous manner by means of a system of levies or obligations over time. It presupposes a t i g h t l y knit grid of material coercions rather than the physical existence of a sovereign. It i s ultimately dependent upon the p r i n c i p l e , which introduces a genuinely new economy of power, that one must be able simultaneously both to increase the subjected forces and to improve the force and e f f i c a c y of that which subjects them. (1980, p. 104)  The point of t h i s new  form of power i s to produce "subjected  and practiced bodies", "docile bodies". In Foucault's view, " d i s c i p l i n e increases the forces of the body (in economic terms of u t i l i t y ) and diminishes these same forces (in p o l i t i c a l of obedience)." manifested  terms  (1977, p. 138) Unlike sovereign power which  i t s e l f through the right of death, this new power -  bio-power - manifested  i t s e l f as the power over l i f e . Whereas in  preceding periods the soul was  the object and target of power,  the body and the manner in which i t could be shaped, trained" was  "manipulated,  the focus of t h i s new power. As we have  seen, Foucault noticed that by the late 18th century bodies were brought increasingly under control not only to a greater degree than ever before, but in a d i f f e r e n t manner. While in the past bodies had been controlled by the threat of physical punishment, 15  a threat which was  p e r i o d i c a l l y made manifest In the form of  spectacular public executions, by the late 1700s bodies came to be controlled by various forms of d i s c i p l i n e . In these forms of d i s c i p l i n e Foucault saw "an uninterrupted, constant coercion" supervising the actions of the body in order to make i t both docile and useful by the ever finer p a r t i t i o n i n g of time, space and movement.  Among the forms of d i s c i p l i n e most c l o s e l y examined by Foucault are those associated with penal d i s c i p l i n e . It would be from the prisons that technologies of d i s c i p l i n e would emerge and spread to other i n s t i t u t i o n s and s i t e s : monasteries,  armies,  workshops and schools. In contrast to the prisons of the late Middle Ages where prisoners were locked away from sight and more or less forgotten for long periods of time, Foucault provides us with the panopticon, Jeremy Bentham's design for a modern prison. The panoptican was a design for a prison which consisted of a large courtyard containing a tower at i t s center, and on the perimeter, t i e r s of c e l l s containing inmates. In each c e l l were two windows: one facing the tower and the overseer, the other admitting l i g h t , thus permitting the continuous supervision of the silhouetted inmate, who,  s i g n i f i c a n t l y , could not see his  overseer. Because the inmate could not t e l l when he was under scrutiny, he was  forced to assume he was always under scrutiny.  In Foucault's words, "the panopticon provides an inspecting gaze which each individual under i t s weight w i l l end by i n t e r i o r i z a t i o n to the point he i s his own  16  overseer." (1977, p.  156)  Foucault sees In t h i s design the guiding p r i n c i p l e of  modern d i s c i p l i n a r y power: supervision. In a manner similar to that of public torture and execution, the panopticon, for Foucault demonstrates the workings of power-knowledge, but with an important difference. Power in the case of the panopticon i s applied continuously and to everyone,  including the overseer, but  with l i t t l e or no violence. Moreover i t can operate anywhere so long as the following conditions obtain. F i r s t individuals need to be placed within a " f i e l d of v i s i b i l t y " , a panoptic f i e l d . Once v i s i b l e , they need to know they are v i s i b l e and need to be aware of a range of penalties and g r a t i f i c a t i o n s associated with behaving in reference to some standard or norm. "He who i s subjected to a f i e l d of v i s i b i l i t y , and who knows I t , assumes r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself, he inscribes himself In a power r e l a t i o n in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the p r i n c i p l e of his own subjection." (1977, p. 202-203)  What  is s i g n i f i c a n t for Foucault i s the fact that t h i s form of power spread to so many other l o c a l i t i e s . That Bentham's panopticon was never f u l l y r e a l i z e d i s unimportant  to Foucault. What i s  important i s that the technologies of d i s c i p l i n e spread to become a "general formula of domination". This sort of d i s c i p l i n a r y power, he says,  may be i d e n t i f i e d neither with an i n s t i t u t i o n nor with an apparatus; i t i s a type of power, a modality for i t s exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of a p p l i c a t i o n , targets; i t i s a "physics" or an "anatomy" of power, a technology. And i t may be taken over either by " s p e c i a l i z e d " i n s t i t u t i o n s (the penitentiaries or 17  "houses of correction" of the nineteenth century), or by i n s t i t u t i o n s that use i t as an e s s e n t i a l instrument for a p a r t i c u l a r end (schools, h o s p i t a l s ) , or by preexisting a u t h o r i t i e s that find in i t a means of r e i n f o r c i n g or reorganizing their internal mechanisms of power..." (1977, p. 215)  D i s c i p l i n e was to operate throughout society by means of three instruments -- h i e r a r c h i c a l observation, normalizing judgement and the examination —  and was to serve as a means of  making bodies more productive at the same time i t made them more obedient. Hierarchical observation refers to the connection between v i s i b i l i t y aand power in situations where groups of individuals are arranged in such a way they can be e a s i l y observed. The r e s u l t of such s p a t i a l arrangement i s a "technology" for the production of knowledge of human actions. This knowledge produces i n turn e f f e c t s of power, once space i s organized and arranged to f a c i l i t a t e  observation of those within  i t , and once those within i t are brought into view, i t becomes possible to know them and thereby a l t e r them. Where d i r e c t observation i s not possible i t then becomes necessary to develop i n d i r e c t supports or "relays" that would over time connect the information of accumulated  periods of time. Power in t h i s  Foucauldian scheme i s not seen as the possession of any p a r t i c u l a r individual or group, but rather as a machine or apparatus through which power and individuals are d i s t r i b u t e d i n a continuous f i e l d . With normalizing judgement norms are established and depending on the degree of one's v a r i a t i o n from the norm one i s either punished or rewarded. A chief e f f e c t of t h i s system of g r a t i f i c a t i o n and punishment i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n  18  of  individuals along a continuum.  The t h i r d instrument of  d i s c i p l i n e i s the examination, an instrument which combines the techniques of h i e r a r c h i c a l observation and normalizing judgement to produce a normalizing gaze through which individuals could be judged and c l a s s i f i e d . The examination as an instrument of d i s c i p l i n e reveals the manner in which i t i s possible to bring about the "subjection of those who are perceived as objects and the o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n of those who are subjected..." (1977, p.  185)  The examination mechanism i s capable of producing three e f f e c t s which serve to link power and knowledge. The f i r s t e f f e c t i s the transformation of the f i e l d of v i s i b i l i t y into the domain of power. The second e f f e c t i s the c o l l a t i o n of f i l e s , documents, and records. The t h i r d e f f e c t of the examination i s the c o n s t i t u t i o n of individual cases. In t h i s manner i t becomes possible, that as a r e s u l t of the examination, individuals are situated in a f i e l d of v i s i b i l i t y , subjected to scrutiny and o b j e c t i f i c a t i o n , and thereby made subject to the exercise of power.  In D i s c i p l i n e and Punish Foucault devotes considerable  space to a discussion of these instruments or "technologies of d i s c i p l i n e " as they operate in prisons. In addition to discussions of t h i s sort, however, there i s a discussion of d i s c i p l i n e in schools. Foucault notes the s p a t i a l arrangements of desks and chairs that permit those in authority to survey and supervise pupils, so that in the event of some transgression the overseer could not help but notice, a fact not lost on pupils.  Secondly, he notes the presenqe of a l l sorts of norms, some that w i l l be used to j u s t i f y punishment, others whose purpose i s 19  to permit d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of individuals insofar as they deviate from the norm.  In short, the art of punishing, in the regime of d i s c i p l i n a r y power, i s aimed neither at expiation, nor even p r e c i s e l y at repression. It brings f i v e quite d i s t i n c t operations into play: i t refers i n d i v i d u a l actions to a whole that i s at once a f i e l d of comparison, a space of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and the p r i n c i p l e of a rule to be followed. I t d i f f e r e n t i a t e s individuals from one another, in terms of the following r u l e : that the rule be made to function as a minimal threshold, as an average to be respected, or as an optimum toward which one must move. It measures in quantitative terms and hierarchizes in terms of value the a b i l i t i e s , the l e v e l , the "nature" of Individuals. It introduces, through t h i s "value-giving" measure, the constraint of a conformity that must be achieved. Lastly, i t traces the l i m i t that w i l l define difference in r e l a t i o n to a l l other differences, the external f r o n t i e r of the abnormal.... The perpetual penality that traverses a l l points and supervises every instant in the d i s c i p l i n a r y I n s t i t u t i o n s compares, d i f f e r e n t i a t e s , hierarches, homogenizes, excludes. In short, i t normalizes." (19 77, p. 19 5)  Even though i t so often appears to be in the  general  interest that d i s c i p l i n e is demanded, there is a cost for productivity and e f f i c i e n c y ; for methods of d i s c i p l i n e r e l y on norms, whose e f f e c t s production  and whose power l i e as much in the  of failures,deviants and delinquents  as they do in  successes and paragons. In the case of schools, achievement and excellence are r e l a t i v e terms and can be understood only in terms of the r e l a t i o n s of rank among students,  where the standard  which students are judged i s most frequently the norm.  The Normal is established as a p r i n c i p l e of coercion in teaching with the introduction of a standardized education and the establishment of the ecoles normales 20  by  (teachers' t r a i n i n g colleges)...Like surveillance and with i t , normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of the c l a s s i c a l age. For the marks that once indicated status, p r i v i l e g e , and a f f i l i a t i o n were increasingly replaced - or at least supplemented - by a whole range of degrees of normality indicating membership of a homogeneous s o c i a l body, but also playing a part in c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , h i e r a r c h l z a t i o n , and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of rank. In a sense, the power imposes homogeneity; but i t i n d i v i d u a l i z e s by making i t possible to measure gaps, to determine l e v e l s , to f i x s p e c i a l i t i e s , and to render the differences useful by f i t t i n g them one to another. It i s easy to understand how the power of the norm functions within a system of formal equality, since within a homogeneity that is the rule, the norm introduces, as a useful imperative and as a r e s u l t of measurement, a l l the shading of i n d i v i d u a l differences. (1977, p. 184)  Students therefore and by extension  t h e i r teachers are  pushed towards normalcy. Yet the examination w i l l unmask those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Individual that f a i l to meet the norm or are abnormal in some other way.  It w i l l after a time allow each  individual to be made into a case, "a case which at one and  the  same time constitutes an object for a branch of knowledge and a hold for a branch of power." (1977, p. 191) an i n d i v i d u a l who  may  with others..., who  be "described,  Each case  judged, measured, compared  has to be trained or corrected,  normalized, excluded." (1977, p.  represents  classified,  191)  In order for these ranks to be e f f i c i e n t l y determined, time must be f u l l y u t i l i z e d . "Time measured and paid must be time without impurities or defects; a time of good q u a l i t y , throughout which the body i s constantly applied to i t s exercise." Thus wasting time has become one  of the cardinal sins in a d i s c i p l i n e d  environment. In school, punctuality i s stressed, units of work  21  marked o f f  i n minutes and days,  e f f i c a c y of i n s t r u c t i o n measured  by p u p i l time on t a s k .  In order f o r such r a n k i n g to be a c c u r a t e , examination, the broadest sense,  is  formal examinations,  necessary.  By t h i s  F o u c a u l t means not  in  only  but c l o s e s u p e r v i s i o n as w e l l . The more  examination comes to c h a r a c t e r i z e a s c h o o l , the more d i s c i p l i n e d a p l a c e i t becomes, and, the more l i k e l y i t producing knowledge.  is  The s c h o o l becomes "a s o r t  u n i n t e r r u p t e d examination t h a t d u p l i c a t e s along the o p e r a t i o n of t e a c h i n g . " schools  develop a host of  (1977, p. 136)  to be e f f i c i e n t of apparatus its  entire  By means of  in  of  length  supervision  micro-penalties:  m i c r o - p e n a l t i e s of time ( l a t e n e s s , a b s e n c e s , i n t e r r u p t i o n s of t a s k s ) , of a c t i v i t y ( i n a t t e n t i o n , n e g l i g e n c e , lack of z e a l ) , of behaviour ( i m p o l i t e n e s s , d i s o b e d i e n c e ) , of speech ( i d l e c h a t t e r , i n s o l e n c e ) , of the body ( i n c o r r e c t a t t i t u d e s , i r r e g u l a r g e s t u r e s , lack of c l e a n l i n e s s ) , of s e x u a l i t y ( i m p u r i t y , i n d e c e n c y ) . (1977, p. 178)  With each examination there comes a r a n k i n g , person i s marked o f f individualized,  from the o t h e r s .  o b j e c t i f i e d i n numbers,  such means i n d i v i d u a l s "slow average"  In t h i s way he  labels  of " r o b i n s "  examination does more than rank is.  while t r a n s m i t t i n g  his  language and r e p o r t s .  d y s l e x i c or g i f t e d , although  v e r y young student these c a t e g o r i e s  f u n c t i o n as t h i s  is  become known to themselves and o t h e r s  or " b r i g h t " ,  innocent sounding  where each  or " b l u e j a y s " .  "The examination  22  as  f o r the  may operate under the  individuals,  knowledge,  By  as  But  important a  [enables!  the t e a c h e r ,  to t r a n s f o r m h i s p u p i l s  into a  whole f i e l d of knowledge...The examination i n the s c h o o l constant exchanger of knowledge;  it  [guarantees]  knowledge from the teacher to the p u p i l , but i t  [is]  a  the movement of [extracts]  from  the p u p i l a knowledge d e s t i n e d and r e s e r v e d f o r the t e a c h e r . The school  [becomes] the p l a c e of e l a b o r a t i o n f o r pedagogy...The  age  of the "examining" s c h o o l marked the beginnings of a pedagogy t h a t f u n c t i o n s as a s c i e n c e . "  (1977, p. 198)  T h i s i s so much more  the case today i n the i n s t a n c e of l a b o r a t o r y s c h o o l s , schools  or the  upon which teams of e d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h e r s descend with  diagnostic  " i n s t r u m e n t s " and a d e s i r e to study t e a c h e r - p u p i l  i n t e r a c t i o n s or the r e l a t i v e m e r i t s of one i n s t r u c t i o n a l method over a n o t h e r .  A notion that  i s c e n t r a l to F o u c a u l t * s  e s p e c i a l l y in his h i s t o r i c a l studies hospitals,  of p r i s o n s ,  thought,  asylums,  and  i s t h a t when human beings began to be t r e a t e d as  s u b j e c t s of s c i e n t i f i c s t u d y , another sense.  they began to become s u b j e c t s  In the Middle and C l a s s i c a l  in  Ages human beings  in  Europe were s u b j e c t to the power of a s o v e r e i g n ; they were h i s s u b j e c t s . By the time of Freud human beings were w e l l on t h e i r way to becoming s u b j e c t s  in this  same sense, but to a n o t h e r , more  d i f f u s e power; one t h a t was both w i t h i n and' o u t s i d e the p e r s o n . A c c o r d i n g to F o u c a u l t the o b j e c t of h i s h i s t o r i c a l s t u d i e s  "has  been to c r e a t e a h i s t o r y of the d i f f e r e n t modes by which, i n our culture,  human beings are made s u b j e c t s . "  The f i r s t mode he c a l l s  (Rabinow, 1985, p. 10)  " d i v i d i n g p r a c t i c e s " . By t h i s  the p r a c t i c e s by which i n d i v i d u a l s  23  he means  have been p h y s i c a l l y  isolated  and c o n f i n e d . The most confinement are confinement the P a r i s  of  associated France,  of  the the  1656,  hospitals,  stigmatizatlon  of  the  of  lepers insane  of  clinical  and c l i n i c s ,  dividing  exclusion."  as  main t h e m e s . individuals s u c h as  Firstly, who were  deviance.  science  "modes  he c o n s i d e r e d t h e  practices  with  sciences.  Thirdly,  relationship containment  that  dividing  were  Foucault the  from the  and  of  the C l i n i c , focussed  on  in  or t h e  19th c e n t u r y F r a n c e .  historical  Lastly,  Foucault  (the  control,  humanitarian  and on  examined the a p p l i c a t i o n  of  to dominated groups  i d e n t i t y through  mad, t h e d e l i n q u e n t ,  24  social  rhetoric  power and k n o w l e d g e an  the  classification, of  four  juvenile  Foucault  tradition  well  u n d i f f e r e n t i a t e d masses  the  of  as  of  of  modes  as  Foucault's  f o r m a t i o n and d e v e l o p m e n t investigated  the  practices  objectification  districts  formed and g i v e n  practices  manipulation  dividing  and an e m e r g i n g  of  their  of  between t h e s e  procedures  of  At  interconnections  r e f o r m and p r o g r e s s .  groups  drawn  class  Secondly,  the  these,  medicalization,  a number of  the  into  Dividing  for  in  century  or p s e u d o - s c i e n c e  i n 17th c e n t u r y P a r i s ,  from working  entry  sexual  he d i s c u s s e d first  the vagabonds  delinquents  In  19th  of  (Rabinow,1985,p.8)  and P u n i s h .  and  the  are  the  disease  lastly  Madness and c i v i l i z a t i o n . The B i r t h  Discipline  these  its  Ages,  General  in early  and  and  Hopital  and  practices of  of  medicine  modern p s y c h i a t r y  isolation  i n the Middle i n the  t h e y a r e d e f i n e d here formed the b a s i s books:  this  t h e new c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  combine t h e m e d i a t i o n  practice  of  and n o r m a l i z a t i o n  most e s s e n t i a l , that  p o o r and  of  prisons  examples  isolation  practices  the r i s e  famous  or  to  the  the c r i m i n a l ,  etc.)  The second mode can be termed " s c i e n t i f i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n " . It grows out of modes of inquiry which concern themselves with building conceptions human beings. These conceptions  of human beings or types of  o b j e c t i f y i n human understanding  features of humanity that go to make up "human nature". In economic theories such as those of Ricardo or of Marx, the human subject i s defined i n terms of h i s labour or the r e l a t i o n s that make up the world of productive delinquent  labour; in criminology the  i s a "type" of human being whose d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s i s  defined not so much by what he does as by what he i s . "The delinquent  i s to be distinguished from the offender by the fact  that i t i s not so much his act as his l i f e that i s relevant in characterizing him." (1977, p. 251) In a related fashion one who commits acts defined by psychology as homosexual acts i s one who is to be understood i n terms of the type of person he i s , the type of imperatives  that p r e c i p i t a t e his actions. His actions are  i n t e l l i g i b l e i n terms of the type of person he i s , the s c i e n t i f i c category to which he belongs. As a measure of the influence of s o c i a l science, since the 19th century, the law, which had previously only concerned i t s e l f with the criminal act, had been forced more and more to consider the nature of the criminal i n i t s d e l i b e r a t i o n s . To t h i s l i s t one might add the modes of inquiry which likewise t r y to give themselves the status of sciences and which o b j e c t i f y the subject that teaches and the subject that learns.  The t h i r d mode may be termed " s u b j e c t l f i c a t i o n " . i t 25  concerns  "the way a human being turns him- or herself into a  subject." In addition to "operations on [people's] own their own souls, on their own thoughts, on their own  bodies, on conduct',  s u b j e c t i f i c a t i o n involves as well the mediation of an external authority figure —  a physician, a p r i e s t , a psychoanalyst. For  example, Foucault demonstrates that during the nineteenth century there developed  an enormous l i t e r a t u r e on sex, p a r t l y because  people had become convinced that an understanding sexuality led to an understanding  of one's  of oneself. To use Freud's  interpretation of dreams as an example, the sexual imagery of dreams, combined with the psychoanalyst's hermeneutic powers could be used to open the windows on one's inner being. Out of t h i s collaboration of speaking subject and erudite interpreter grew a discourse that pose sex "as a drive so powerful and so i r r a t i o n a l that dramatic forms of i n d i d i v i d u a l self-examination and c o l l e c t i v e control were Imperative  in order to keep these  forces leashed." (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, to understand  p. 169) One could come  oneself by making oneself a subject of one's own  investigation.  With respect to Foucault and the state, i t i s p l a i n that Foucault noticed a number of key h i s t o r i c a l changes in the state's r e l a t i o n to the i n d i v i d u a l . It seems to Foucault that by the 16th century in Europe the concern of government began to extend from the sovereign and his manner of r u l i n g down to  how  the sovereign's subjects l i v e d . By this time a great many t r e a t i s e s on government began to emerge where the subject of  26  these works was  society i t s e l f . Unlike e a r l i e r discourse, these  t r e a t i s e s focussed on a wide range of topics: the "governing  of a  household, souls, children, a province, a convent, a r e l i g i o u s order, or a family". (Foucault, 1979, notes that p o l i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n was  p. 8-10)  extended to include almost  a l l forms of human a c t i v i t y . "Society was target." (p.15)  Rabinow (1984)  becoming a p o l i t i c a l  According to Foucault these t r e a t i s e s on  government became linked to the r i s e and growth of centralized state bureauracracles along with the demand for detailed knowledge about the country and  i t s inhabitants. "The a r t of  government and empirical knowledge of the state's resources  and  condition - i t s s t a t i s t i c s - together formed the major components of a new  p o l i t i c a l r a t i o n a l i t y which i s s t i l l with us."  (Foucault, 1980,  p. 14)  Among the most important  of the state's  "resources" are i t s people and their a b i l i t y to reproduce themselves. The concern  for the v i t a l i t y of populations and  the  u t i l i t y of individuals came by the 19th century to be united in the concept  of s e x u a l i t y . Attention turned to "the body, to l i f e ,  to what causes i t to p r o l i f e r a t e , to what reinforces the species, i t s stamina,  i t s a b i l i t y to dominate, or i t s capacity for being  used." (Foucault, 1979, t h i s concern  p. 269) Foucault  (1979) recognizes in  for the strength of the species the seeds of modern  racism and i t s concern with "protecting the purity of the blood and ensuring the triumph of the race." (p. 271)  This concern  makes a problem out of the body; that i s , the body of individuals and the s o c i a l body in general. Bodies are a problem from this perspective because they can be both "scarce and numerous, submissive and r e s t i v e , r i c h and poor, healthy and sick, strong 27  and weak,...more or less u t i l i z a b l e , more or less amenable to p r o f i t a b l e Investment, ...with greater or lesser prospects of survival,...with more or less capacity for being u s e f u l l y trained." (1979, p. 279)  Thus i t became imperative that any  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of human sexuality dangerous to health be known and c o n t r o l l e d .  In his attempt to understand regarding sex, Foucault was  the V i c t o r i a n s e n s i t i v i t y  struck by how  h o r r i f i e d Victorians  appeared to be of sexual matters, e s p e c i a l l y i f those matters  had  l i t t l e to do with conjugal, procreative sex. More puzzling given t h i s prudishness was  the manner in which sex was  such a large  part of their l i v e s , a point well documented by Peter Gay Bourgeois Experlence.  Ultimately, claims Foucault, this  in The interest  in sex, confined in many cases to sexual abnormalities and perversions, produced a conception of sexuality that was  central  to the way human nature would be defined. Sexuality "came to be seen as the very essence  of the individual human being and the  core of personal i d e n t i t y . It was possible to know the secrets of one's body and mind through the mediation of doctors, p s y c h i a t r i s t s and others to whom one confessed one's private thoughts and practices." (1979, p. 68)  This s o c i a l construction  of "sexuality" became, according to Foucault, another means of s o c i a l c o n t r o l . As individuals sought access to the core of their personal i d e n t i t i e s through sexual discourse with "experts", the knowledge contained in t h i s discourse created power e f f e c t s touching children (whose i r r e p r e s s i b l e onanism was  28  legendary),  women (seen as possessing l i m i t l e s s sexual appetites) and perverts (who stood as testimony to the f r a g i l e l i m i t s of human s e l f - c o n t r o l ) . Foucault notes "the s e x u a l i z a t i o n of children was accomplished  in the form of a campaign for the health of the race  (precocious sexuality was presented from the eighteenth century to the end of the nineteenth as an epidemic menace that risked compromising not only the future health of adults but the future of the entire society and species); the hysterization of women...was carried out i n the name of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y they owed to the health of their children, the s o l i d i t y of the family i n s t i t u t i o n , and the safeguarding of society...In the case of [the] p s y c h i a t r i z a t i o n of perversions... the intervention was regulatory i n nature...and  had to r e l y on i n d i v i d u a l d i s c i p l i n e s  and c o n s t r a i n t s . " (1979, p. 268) The discourse on abnormality, for Victorians the overwhelming focus of investigation i n sexual matters, helped to reinforce the notion of the powerful, i r r a t i o n a l nature of sexuality, a notion that served to legitimate the confinement of deviants, the close supervision of children and the narrowly defined s o c i a l role of women. It was these people, i n the Foucauldian scheme of things, who represented the high cost of "normality" and a healthy population.  Foucault has noted i n h i s study of discourses on sexuality that s o c i a l research often does not develop along methodologically rigorous l i n e s . With respect to the early discourses on sexuality Foucault  29  observed:  When we c o m p a r e t h e s e d i s c o u r s e s on human s e x u a l i t y w i t h what was known a t t h e t i m e a b o u t t h e p h y s i o l o g y o£ a n i m a l and p l a n t r e p r o d u c t i o n , we a r e s t r u c k by t h e i n c o n g r u i t y . T h e i r f e e b l e c o n t e n t f r o m t h e s t a n d p o i n t of r a t i o n a l i t y , not t o m e n t i o n s c i e n t i f i c i t y , e a r n s them a p l a c e a p a r t i n the h i s t o r y of knowledge. ( 1 9 7 8 , p. 69)  I t seems t o F o u c a u l t discourse  on  s e x u a l i t y " was  prevent i t s very with  "a s y s t e m a t i c  s u p e r i m p o s i t i o n and  1979,  69)  One  m i g h t ask  p a r t i c u l a r l y as  there  to s t a t e the  The  discourse  b l i n d n e s s : a r e f u s a l t o see  and  to  t r u t h , barring access to tactics  This  the  question  blindness...  their  a r e f u s a l t o see  seems e q u a l l y t r u e b o d y as  and  certification  (Foucault,  research,  relation  to understand",  much t h a t  on  a t any  one  understanding  w e l l i t may 30  be  to  testing. the  time.  It  some o f  h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e of grades  i n s c h o o l i n g . As  and  i s relevant  i n d i v i d u a l s or  by s t u d e n t s  a bearing  "a  hold?  t e s t i n g of  i t i s represented  to  research  t h a t s t r e s s e s norms and  f o r the  l i k e l y e f f e c t s of the  has  gave a  i s i n the  i s , what s i g n i f i c a n c e d o e s t h i s  seems a l s o t h a t h i s work has the  and  imbued  i t , masking  t o know."  of e d u c a t i o n a l  i t regards students  to  i f by  through a l a s t minute detour,  i n a d i s c u s s i o n of r e s e a r c h  social  w h i c h as  the  but  was  I t seems c l e a r t h a t F o u c a u l t say  truth, sex  through l e a r n i n g , whether t h e r e  systematic if  o f so much o f  form to a fundamental p e t i t i o n  p.  teachers  aim  on  t h e s e were so many l o c a l  paradoxical  not  emergence."  understand... evading the it:  t h a t the  t h a t h i s work  and can  throw some l i g h t on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between competing bodies of research and power, a theme that invites examination  in the  matter of whether or not schools and teachers "make a difference."  One f i n a l remark i s needed on the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of Foucault in a  discussion of educational reform l i t e r a t u r e . Foucault  isolates as a form of power - d i s c i p l i n a r y power. He i l l u s t r a t e s the manner in which this power operates i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y . He makes i t possible therefore to consider somewhat separately from the aims of educational reform the practices that are emerge from the implementation  l i k e l y to  of recommended reforms. Is i t the  case that the ends (increases in valued s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s ) j u s t i f y the means (among them the d i s c i p l i n a r y mechanisms discussed thus far)? Or rather i s i t the case that there i s in t h i s l i t e r a t u r e a r e l a t i v e disregard for these ends; indeed that these ends serve mainly to j u s t i f y d i s c i p l i n e and mask i t s operation?  Perhaps there i s nothing more s i n i s t e r i n t h i s  l i t e r a t u r e than an innocent f a i l u r e to apply the same amount of care and attention to the goals of reform as to the means of effecting  them. Yet the we11-documented persistence of f a i l u r e in  other i n s t i t u t i o n s that aim at transforming human beings should give us pause for thought.  31  CHAPTER THREE: TEACHER EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH  The section on teacher effectiveness research which immediately follows w i l l make clear the extent to which the l i t e r a t u r e i s characterized by a systematic blindness with respect to the nature of students, how they learn, the adequacy of the constructs by which their e f f o r t s and those of their teachers are measured, as well as the i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y  of the  concepts upon which teacher effectiveness research rests. This blindness stems from our reliance on a research paradigm that promises a degree of c e r t a i n t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y which i t cannot d e l i v e r . Our quest for certainty has resulted in the development and refinement of classroom practices which may be viewed as examples of what Foucault means by d i s c i p l i n a r y mechanisms. While these practices appear to promote generally desirable levels of s c h o l a s t i c achievement, i t w i l l be argued they do just the opposite.  Because these classroom practices appear to promote  achievement, t h e i r use i s widely supported and i s , in some cases, demanded.  Doing one's job as a teacher or an administrator comes  to mean acting according to the prescriptions in t h i s at least to some degree.  literature,  What i s s i g n i f i c a n t , of course, i s that  these practices tend not to promote any such thing as s c h o l a s t i c achievement, except where achievement i s understood  in t r i v i a l  terms. In fact, the use of these practices tends to necessitate their further use, since the goals which j u s t i f i e d  their use in  the f i r s t place inevitably f a i l to be reached. That researchers persist in recommending their use i s another of the puzzles which w i l l be considered in the following pages. 32  To understand how such a state of a f f a i r s could come about, i t helps to consider the context of c r i s i s from which i t emerged. There has grown, since the mid-1970s, a conviction that the American public school system i s a f a i l u r e . At various times i n the h i s t o r y of American schools, of course, similar convictions have emerged. But there i s reason now to believe the current c r i s i s i s more menacing.  Newspaper e d i t o r s , business leaders and  u n i v e r s i t y professors in p a r t i c u l a r have complained about d e c l i n i n g standards school graduates.  and r i s i n g rates of i l l i t e r a c y among high  Data from the early 1970s which has re-emerged  in recently commissioned reports suggest that "23 m i l l i o n American adults are f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e by the simplest tests of everyday reading", while SAT scores over the l a s t 20 years are said to reveal consistent declines i n achievement In science, and even greater declines i n English. The dominant view among those who decry the lowering of standards  i s that the current c r i s i s i s  the r e s u l t of the educational reforms of the 1960s. Chester  Finn  (1982) sums up t h i s p o s i t i o n n i c e l y . The sad fact i s that for close to two decades now we have neglected educational q u a l i t y i n the name of equality. Trying to ensure that every c h i l d would have access to as much education as every other c h i l d , we have f a i l e d to attend to the content of that education. Seeking to mediate c o n f l i c t and f o r e s t a l l controversy over the substance of education, we begin to find ourselves with very l i t t l e substance needed. S t r i v i n g to avoid invidious comparisons among youngsters we have stopped gauging individual progress by testing ... Hesitant to pass judgement on l i f e s t y l e s , cultures and forms of behaviour we have Invited r e l a t i v i s m into the curriculum and pedagogy, (p. 32) It i s interesting to note in Finn's remarks the assumptions 33  that educational q u a l i t y i s in some way n a t u r a l l y at odds with equality, and that objective standards exist for judging students' work. Although these assumptions do not figure s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n the l i t e r a t u r e on teacher effectiveness, they do represent a common theme i n much of the l i t e r a t u r e on school reform. In addition to an atmosphere of alarm over d e c l i n i n g standards, there are several other aspects of the s o c i a l context of reform i n the 1970s and 1980s which are noteworthy. The f i r s t i s the public concern over the r i s i n g costs of education. As early as 1970, Patrick Moynihan suggested that i n terms of costs and benefits, educational spending had very l i k e l y passed the point of diminishing returns. (Hodgson, 1979, p. 56) In addition, there has been a s h i f t i n the attitude of policy-makers and educators from equating q u a l i t y with inputs such as -  i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials, q u a l i f i e d s t a f f , etc. to equating q u a l i t y with outcomes or test r e s u l t s . A t h i r d factor i s the growing b e l i e f that evaluation methods can be perfected to the point where precise objectives for learning can be set with confidence while the f a i l u r e to reach them means f a i l u r e , plain and simple. (Ornstein, 1983, p. 42) Understandably  then, much of the focus of educational  research since the 1970s has been on improving  instructional  effectiveness i n ways that can be measured, and which are compatible with a mood of f i s c a l r e s t r a i n t . The sort of considerations which were common i n the 1960s, such as a concern  34  for the way  in which schools could be instruments of s o c i a l  change, or the appreciation that i n d i v i d u a l differences and interests influence school success,  tend to be much less evident  in the current l i t e r a t u r e on effectiveness. Discussions teachers  of what  should do tend to be couched in technical rather than  therapeutic language. Rather than i n s i s t i n g that schools do more than they have to help the disadvantaged, teacher  effectiveness  advocates have argued that teachers can do a better job of teaching by r e l y i n g on proven methods. Unfortunately,  attempts to Improve i n s t r u c t i o n a l  methods, which have most often taken the form of attempts to discover the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher  "behaviours" and  student achievement, have not been successful. Their lack of success, according  to Garrison and Macmillan (1984), can  attributed to four assumptions which undergird Teacher effectiveness researchers anything  the  be  research.  have tended to assume that  which exists does so in some measureable amount, with the  r e s u l t that s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of quantifiable variables has become the main investigative technique. This assumption in turn depends upon a number of subsidiary assumptions. One, is uniform over time. Two,  that nature  that i t is possible in every case to  give a causal explantion for phenomena. Three, that our knowledge depends ultimately upon our experience of the world. Four, that the only phenomena suitable for s c i e n t i f i c  inquiry are those  which can be quantified and measured. The second major assumption in teacher research  effectiveness  is that teaching brings about student achievement in a  causal manner, one discovers  these causes by finding the  s t a t i s t i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n between measures of teacher behaviour and measures of student outcomes. Within t h i s research is not legitimate to attend  t r a d i t i o n It  to the intentions of teachers or  students, since intentions are too d i f f i c u l t to measure. Ideally researchers are to make as few inferences as possible i n t h e i r observations.  It i s further assumed that investigations into the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between teaching  and learning w i l l y i e l d rules which  can be used to guide i n s t r u c t i o n a l planning and classroom management. L a s t l y , i t i s assumed that the content of teaching i s not relevant  i n assessing  the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teaching and  learning. The chief objection Garrison and Macmillan have with teacher effectiveness research as central to both teaching  i s i t s f a i l u r e to see intentions  and learning.  The problem of intention i s c e n t r a l . The process-product t r a d i t i o n e x p l i c i t l y ignores the intentions of teachers and learners i n i t s investigations. In part t h i s i s for reasons having to do with basic methodological assumptions. Intentions cannot be investigated by the usual low-inference methods embraced by t h i s t r a d i t i o n . But teaching i s a human a c t i v i t y , and l i k e a l l human a c t i v i t i e s i t i s i n t e n t i o n a l , a matter of moods and tenses, aspirations, b e l i e f s , and goals... Processproduct research i s conducted i n the language of analysis of variables, but i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i s i n the Intentional language of action and belief.(p.18) Garrison and Macmillan point out that i f we look at human "behaviour" as i f takes place without a s o c i a l context of  36  b e l i e f s , d i s p o s i t i o n s , goals, desire and the l i k e , we  will  probably construct a false view of why we act as we do. By means of an analogy between a chess game and teaching Garrison and Macmillan  i l l u s t r a t e how process-product researchers are l i k e l y  to get i t wrong.  Imagine a researcher who knows nothing of chess but who wishes to understand how chess players play the game, with a view, eventually, to t r a i n i n g novices and being able to assess players' a b i l i t y . . . Our researcher might begin by forming two groups of players, one group consisting of strong players and the other group containing weak players...If our researcher should then proceed -- by analogy with many an educational researcher — by determining the frequencies with which pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, and the other pieces on a chess board are moved by representatives of the two groups in the course of their games, then his understanding of the players and of the game w i l l be s l i g h t indeed, no matter how extensive or how objective may be his research. For although differences between the groups w i l l be found to e x i s t , l i t t l e w i l l be gleaned of players' stategies and t a c t i c s , which are what d i s t i n g u i s h the more able from the less able players, (p.19)  While i t s t r i k e s Garrison and Macmillan that such an enterprise as this i s bound to f a i l , they i n s i s t they would be w i l l i n g to accept process-product research i f i t produced  promising r e s u l t s .  This i t has not done. By their estimates, empirical research on teaching shows correlations between teacher behaviour and student outcomes that range from .10 to .20. While correlations of this magnitude may be viewed as s i g n i f i c a n t in medical research where i t safer to assume that nature i s uniform and that s t r i c t l y causal explanations are acceptable -- a point made elsewhere  by  Gage (1983) -- they cannot be viewed s i m i l a r l y where there i s reason to believe intentions are intervening variables. Gage's 37  (1983) protests notwithstanding, correlations are measures of association, not cause. The values quoted above would be considered low for any research endeavour; too low c e r t a i n l y to betoken causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  Beginning with what appears to be an obvious truth teachers and what they do cause learning —  —  teacher effectiveness  researchers have focussed their attention on the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of a repetolre of successful teaching methods or "behaviours". Duncan and Biddle (1974) state t h i s assumption  in the following  way: There seems to be no more obvious truth than that a teacher i s e f f e c t i v e to the extent that he causes pupils to learn what they are supposed to learn ... If teachers do vary in their effectiveness, then i t must be because they vary in the behaviours they exhibit in the classroom, (p.13-14)  It f e l l to researchers, therefore, to i d e n t i f y e f f e c t i v e teaching "behaviours" and see i f these behaviours could c o n s i s t e n t l y produce gains in learning over other methods or behaviours, i n t h i s way a research agenda has  developed.  It i s worth noting at the outset a number of the features of t h i s statement  by Duncan and Biddle. Few people, I believe,  would strongly object to the f i r s t sentence. They might object to what seems the peculiar use of cause,  but would l i k e l y be  inclined to agree that success as a teacher must in some way connected with how much i s learned by students. The  38  second  be  sentence,  however, i s more p r o b l e m a t i c . I t seems s e l f - e v i d e n t  t h a t t h e r e are v a r i a t i o n s which cannot cannot  i n the extent to which students  be a t t r i b u t e d  to the t e a c h e r . So e f f e c t i v e n e s s  r e f e r to outcomes a l o n e , but must be judged  circumstances These may  over which  t e a c h e r s have l i t t l e  i n r e l a t i o n to  or no  i n c l u d e student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as  i n t e r e s t , h e a l t h , energy,  learn  control.  intelligence,  emotional w e l l - b e i n g or any number of  o t h e r s . Or, they may  i n c l u d e f a c t o r s other than teacher i n f l u e n c e  which have an  on l e a r n i n g : the adequacy of  impact  instructional  m a t e r i a l s or the s t a t e of the s c h o o l ' s p h y s i c a l p l a n t . There i s little  reason to b e l i e v e we  know enough about the number and  s t r e n g t h of p o s s i b l e i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e s t o suggest the c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e s t a t i s t i c a l  t h a t with  methods we are a b l e to  i s o l a t e the l e a r n e r from the many f a c t o r s t h a t i n f l u e n c e achievement.  Throughout most of i t s h i s t o r y , the r e s e a r c h i n t o teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s has c o n s i s t e d i n attempts  to develop a method of  i s o l a t i n g teacher e f f e c t s on achievement from these mediating  i n f l u e n c e s . In some cases t h i s has meant a d o p t i n g  b e h a v i o u r i s t language, important  concepts  while i n others i t has meant r e d e f i n i n g  i n ways t h a t make i t p o s s i b l e to measure  outcomes. In t h i s way u s e f u l and  other  the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s have come to appear  c o m p e l l i n g , when r e s e a r c h e r s conclude  that teaching  method x produces higher l e v e l s of r e a d i n g achievement t e a c h i n g method y,  than  and can s u b s t a n t i a t e t h i s c l a i m with d a t a , i t  i s d i f f i c u l t to ignore such a c l a i m . However, when the most fundamental of e d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s , l i t e r a c y and 39  numeracy, come to  be operationally defined for the purposes of conducting research, a great deal gets  the  lost.  Our goals, i t would seem, are being defined by the l i m i t s of the means we have to measure our success "Reading achievement" and  in reaching them.  "mathematics achievement" are given  operational d e f i n i t i o n s in the research which allow investigators to measure teaching effectiveness on pencil and paper t e s t s . As i t turns out, such constructs as these have caused considerable confusion; in part because they deviate so sharply in meaning from those we are accustomed to in ordinary language and i n part because researchers have not taken the necessary pains to make the difference between the two as clear as they might. If more people r e a l i z e d that reading a b i l i t y as i t i s defined in t h i s research means l i t t l e more than the a b i l i t y to decode vocabulary in short, unrelated passages, they might feel less inclined to believe the teaching methods which bring about gains on such tests are so valuable after a l l .  Process-product reasons. Two  research i s objectionable for a number of  s h a l l be emphasized here. The recommendations for  teaching that emerge from t h i s research can be objected to on the grounds that they are morally hazardous, and  insofar as  teacher  effectiveness research influences teaching practice, p o t e n t i a l l y dlsasterous to our e f f o r t s to educate the young. It s t r i k e s many of us as i n t u i t i v e l y false to suggest students are objects which "learn" when teachers "behave" in  40  c e r t a i n ways. Anyone who has ever t r i e d to teach a c h i l d anything knows that a c h i l d ' s learning x i s dependent on a number of. factors, his wanting to learn x primary among them. As well, there i s , i n teacher effectiveness research, l i t t l e or no mention of the role "understanding" i s to play in any of t h i s . Any of the familiar features of coming to understand something such as paying attention or noticing —  those features associated with  the conscious e f f o r t s of the learner —  are missing from accounts  of learning in this l i t e r a t u r e . Nor i s there much discussion of the point any of t h i s teaching might or should have; as i f i t were possible to view teaching merely as a c o l l e c t i o n of techniques which needn't be linked to a defensible conception of education or the sort of goals l i k e l y to inher in such a conception.  It seems clear that process-product research ignores the agency of a c e r t a i n class of persons, in t h i s case students in school. At the same time i t provides teachers with reasons for  acting in a p a r t i c u l a r way, yet, i n e f f e c t , denies the s i g n i f i c a n c e of "reason for acting" explanations of human behaviour  i n school  settings. Instead i t r e l i e s on a simple causal theory of learning and f a i l s thereby, i n the teaching practices i t recommends, to respect the r a t i o n a l i t y of the person. Why does i t matter that students be treated as persons? How do the teaching practices which have been derived from t h i s research m i l i t a t e against the l i k e l i h o o d that teachers w i l l treat their students with the respect they deserve as persons?  41  One o£ the most notable features of talk about persons or respect for persons i s the lack of agreement among philosophers about what i s meant by "person". For most people i t seems the concept i s an unproblematic one. Invariably they i n s i s t that a person i s a human being, that a human being and a person are one and the same. Philosophers, on the other hand, have tended to disagree that the concept of a person i s quite so simple. In fact The Encyclopedia of Philosophy admits that " i t i s somewhat misleading to speak of Locke's, or any other philosopher's theory of persons, for there i s no antecedently agreed upon d e f i n i t i o n of what these should be theories of. Rather we must at best speak of t h i s or that philosopher's use of "person" as a semitechnical term in his system."  (p.Ill)  Generally, philosphers are agreed  that persons, as opposed to things, are valuable in themselves. "That a person i s d i s t i n c t from a (mere) thing, and that any human being, insofar as he i s a person, i s in consequence of t h i s status to be treated in a special manner, are two of the l o g i c a l features of this concept." ( p . I l l )  Where much of the  disagreement arises i s over the question of what i t i s that makes a person valuable and d i s t i n c t from that which has value as a means to someone's end. Things, most of us would agree, may  be  used for our own purposes. They are valuable p r e c i s e l y because to some degree they may be of use to us in the pursuit of our goals. Persons, on the other hand, must not be used merely as means to our ends; they are as Kant has said "ends in themselves and sources of value in their own r i g h t . "  (p.Ill)  But in what does the value of persons consist? A common way 42  o£ going about answering t h i s question has been to Identify or attempt to i d e n t i f y the a t t r i b u t e s of a person.  The most commonly  c i t e d a t t r i b u t e s r e l a t e in one way or another to s e l f consciousness. For Kant, "that which i s conscious of the numerical i d e n t i t y of i t s e l f at d i f f e r e n t times i s insofar a person." ( p . I l l ) Leibniz characterized a person as that which i s capable of r e t a i n i n g "consciousness, or the r e f l e c t i v e inward f e e l i n g of what i t i s : thus i t i s rendered l i a b l e to reward and punishment." (p.Ill)  S i m i l a r l y , Wolff held that persons are d i s t i n c t from  animals simply because persons have "a consciousness of having been the same thing previously in t h i s or that s t a t e . " It i s t h i s feature of persons that helps make i t possible for us to claim r e p o n s i b i l i t y for our actions; for without an i d e n t i t y over time we could not be or become moral agents. A related a t t r i b u t e , and one dependent on self-consciousness,  i s r a t i o n a l i t y , defined in  part by the condition of s e l f consciousness over time. Locke put the matter in t h i s way: A person i s a thinking i n t e l l i g e n t being that has reason and r e f l e c t i o n and can consider  i t s e l f as i t s e l f ,  the same thinking thing, in d i f f e r e n t times and places; which i s inseparable  from thinking, and seems to me e s s e n t i a l for i t . "  (p.Ill)  From these, something of the character of the concept of persons begins to emerge. We can see from the above that we cannot, in every case, treat people as things, or as means to our ends, since our concept of persons involves the recognition that persons are moral agents who have the capacity to stand in moral  43  relationships with others. This however t e l l s us very  little  about how we should treat persons. In response to this problem moral philosophers have developed the p r i n c i p l e of respect for persons as the basis of our moral relationships with persons. To respect a person i n t h i s context  i s to value or hold them i n  esteem. But we are soon driven to an examination of the attributes of a person i n order to see just what i t i s we value and why.  Downie and Telfer  (1970) suggest that "human beings ...  ought to be respected for what i s valuable i n them." (p.30) In their view persons are to be seen as ends in themselves and valuable i n their own r i g h t , much as Kant saw them. "Hence, to respect a person as an end i s to respect him for those  features  which make him what he i s as a person and which when developed, constitute h i s f l o u r i s h i n g . " (p.15) For Downie and Telfer the feature of a person that i s valuable and which should be esteemed is the capacity for the exercise of r a t i o n a l w i l l . This capacity is characterized by two other features: self-determination and the a b i l i t y to follow r u l e s . The exercise of r a t i o n a l w i l l i s to be seen, then, as something at once (in old fashioned terminology) cognitive, conative and a f f e c t i v e . It i s the a b i l i t y to exercise such a w i l l i n self-determination and r u l e following which gives human personality i t s i n t r i n s i c value, (p.22)  Respect for these capacities has two necessary  components:  an attitude of "active sympathy" and the i n c l i n a t i o n to consider the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of other individuals' rules to ourselves. 44  Active sympathy and the readiness to consider others' rules as being applicable to us are, i n t h i s view,  "Independently  necessary and j o i n t l y s u f f i c i e n t to constitute the attitude of repect which i s f i t t i n g to d i r e c t at persons, conceived as r a t i o n a l w i l l s . " (p.29) The problem with Telford and Downie's account of respect for persons  i s , however, that i t leaves open  the question of why we should consider r a t i o n a l w i l l so valuable that i t should form the basis of our respect for persons. Why not value some other a t t r i b u t e of persons as most  important?  Moreover, what are we to do about the fact that there are wide variations among human beings i n the extent to which they are r a t i o n a l . Do these variations permit d i f f e r e n t i a l treatment of individuals according to the extent they appear to act rationally?  PUt another way, how can respect be something which  is due a l l persons; are there circumstances under which respect is not due a person? One might also ask these additional questions regarding respect: i s respect a single kind of a t t i t u d e , or i s i t even primarily a moral attitude which can only be directed toward other persons? Darwall  (1977) i n Two Kinds of  Respect attempts to answer these questions by d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the two d i f f e r e n t ways i n which persons may be the object of respect, or more p r e c i s e l y the two d i f f e r e n t kinds of attitude which are both referred to by the concept of respect. These two attitudes of respect he terms recognition respect and appraisal respect. Recognition respect, he suggests, i s that form of respect which must be given to some feature of i t s object when one deliberates on what to do:  45  The most g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n w h i c h I have given recognition respect i s that i t i s a d i s p o s i t i o n t o w e i g h a p p r o p r i a t e l y some f e a t u r e or f a c t i n one's d e l i b e r a t i o n s . S t r i c t l y s p e a k i n g , t h e o b j e c t o f r e c o g n i t i o n r e s p e c t i s a f a c t . And recognition respect f o r that fact consists i n g i v i n g i t t h e p r o p e r w e i g h t i n d e l i b e r a t i o n . Thus t o have r e c o g n i t i o n r e s p e c t f o r p e r s o n s i s t o give proper weight t o the f a c t t h a t they are persons. ( D a r w a l l , 1977, p.39)  Recognition  respect,  such t h i n g s  as p e r s o n s ,  judges  or m i n i s t e r s ,  sensible  on t h i s  or persons  or a n y t h i n g  t h e law, a n o t h e r ' s  respect  recognizes  deliberations this  account is  i n deciding  were t r e a t e d  could  r o l e s s u c h as  be i n v o l v e d  i s any f a c t  i s morally  i t would  connected  with  it."  to this  respect.  s o r t of  of something i n object  be t a k e n  into  sense  respect  This  of  notion  object  suggests  of  i s , i f an e s s e n t i a l  be l e g i t i m a t e  respect  feature  t o say such a lack of  form of r e s p e c t  ( p . 39) T h i s  mean when we t a l k a b o u t  shall  see, quite  i s the s o r t  respect  regards  of respect  f o r persons.  d i f f e r e n t from a p p r a i s a l  respect  might  i t s object  on t h e m o r a l a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f a c t i o n s  often  Appraisal  that  wrong. T h i s  "requiring restrictions  should  o f an a p p r o p r i a t e  inappropriately,  This  the fact  that  what t o d o . R e l a t e d  or f e a t u r e  list  i n any  t o be d o n e . The a p p r o p r i a t e  of moral r e c o g n i t i o n  were n o t r e s p e c t e d ,  as  that  into account  what o u g h t  s o r t of respect  i f some f a c t  respect  in specific  f e e l i n g s , or n a t u r e .  or takes  about  the notion  that  i s commonly e x t e n d e d t o  d e l i b e r a t i o n a b o u t what t o d o . A p a r t i a l  include  of  account,  I t i s , a s we  respect.  i s an a t t i t u d e of r e s p e c t 46  we most  whose  objects,  In Darwall's  view, are persons or some feature of persons that  are i n d i v i d u a l l y d i s t i n c t i v e and praiseworthy.  Darwall gives as  examples of t h i s attitude a respect for someone's i n t e g r i t y , or for some other q u a l i t y . "Appraisal respect, then, consists in an attitude of p o s i t i v e appraisal of that person either as a person or as engaged in some p a r t i c u l a r pursuit." (Darwall, 1977,  p.38)  unlike recognition respect, appraisal respect does not c a l l for an appropriate behaviour with respect to i t s object. We may may  not have t h i s sort of respect for someone or we may  or  have i t  to varying degrees. It has two aspects: respect for persons as persons, and respect for their accomplishments. Appraisal respect for persons as such refers to an appraisal of them in l i g h t of the moral attitudes they hold, while respect for a person's accomplishments within a p a r t i c u l a r pursuit refers to the developed features of their character that have a bearing on t h e i r being successful in their pursuits. Such features are not talents or capacities for which a person can take no c r e d i t , but instead character t r a i t s such as resoluteness which are a product of the w i l l or can be taken as c o n s t i t u t i v e of the w i l l . Taken together these two aspects represent respect for those long term dispositions which i d e n t i f y a person as a moral agent. "Those features of persons which are appropriate grounds for appraisal respect are their features as agents -- as being capable acting on maxims, and hence for reasons."  of  (p.43) character then  is l n e x t r i c i a b l y bound up with a conception of persons as moral agents who  deserve respect. The d i s t i n c t i o n between recognition  respect and appraisal respect helps us get at the ambiguity  47  surrounding  the concept of respect. While appraisal respect  not be owed to everyone, and may  may  be owed to varying degrees,  recognition respect is due to a l l persons by virtue of the fact they are persons.  These two kinds of respect are connected with  one another in a number of important  ways. F i r s t l y , there is a  connection between the basis for appraisal respect and the facts which are taken as appropriate objects of recognition respect. For example, i f a person i s considered unworthy of respect because he is lazy (an a p p r a i s a l ) , then determination  or drive are taken  to be appropriate objects of recognition respect. Those who appraise a lazy man  would  in this way are committed to recognition  respect for determination  or d r i v e . Secondly, as argued by  Chelsom (1982), our appraisal of persons depends on whether they show appropriate recognition respect for considerations which merit i t , those features of persons as moral agents capable of acting and acting for reasons. The only beings who are appropriate objects of appraisal respect are those who themselves are capable of recognition respect, that i s capable of acting d e l i b e r a t e l y . (p.32) As h e l p f u l as a l l t h i s seems, there i s a c e r t a i n emptiness to i t . The suggestion that there is a difference between respecting persons for their accomplishments and respecting them because of the " f a c t " they are persons, or the " f a c t " they are moral agents possessing a r a t i o n a l w i l l t e l l s us nothing about why  we should respect them. It only provides us with the c i r c u l a r  notion that we should value that which i s valuable and esteem the estimable. Alongside  the l i s t s of a t t r i b u t e s that appear to  constitute a person i s talk of "merit", "appropriate objects of  48  respect" and of giving "proper weight to the fact they are persons." The l i s t s of a t t r i b u t e s provide us with nothing more than a l i s t of what we commonly view as most valuable i n human beings. We are l e f t to conclude that we should value that which we believe to be valuable i n human beings. Daniel Dennett gives one of the better, recent accounts of the concept of a person, one that demonstrates  i t s normative  nature and emphasizes the regulative function t h i s concept performs i n the language. Dennett i d e n t i f i e s s i x necessary conditions of personhood,  of which the f i r s t three are mutually  interdependent: 1) persons are r a t i o n a l beings. 2) persons have as a central a t t r i b u t e a state of consciousness to which psychological or mental or intentional predicates are ascribed. 3) for something to count as a person we must have a c e r t a i n attitude toward i t based on i t s i n t e n t i o n a l i t y . Dennett c a l l s t h i s attitude the Intentional stance and says "nothing to which we could not adopt the Intentional stance with i t s presupposition of r a t i o n a l i t y , could count as a person." (p.180) It i s not so much that once we recognize another "being" as being intentional we f e e l we should treat him as a person. In Dennett's view " i t i s not the case that once we have established the object fact that something i s a person we treat him or her or i t i n a c e r t a i n way, but that our treating him or her or i t i n t h i s c e r t a i n way i s somehow and to some extent constitutive of i t s being a person." (p.178) 4) the object toward which t h i s personal stance i s taken must be capable of reciprocating i n some way. 5) persons must be capable of verbal  communication.  6) persons can be distinguished from other e n t i t i e s by their being conscious in a special way, by their having a sort of s e l f consciousness characterized by second order v o l i t i o n s . It seems clear from Dennett's account that he sees the concept of a person as being a construct that both i d e n t i f i e s the attributes of a person 49  ( r a t i o n a l i t y , verbal a b i l i t y ) that are the a t t r i b u t e s of a human being and that are at the same time c r i t e r i a for being a moral human being. In his account of the conditions of personhood, however, he does not give the same amount of weight to each condition. He c l e a r l y emphasizes second order v o l i t i o n s as being those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of personhood which are d i s t i n c t l y human As Dennett points out, personhood i s not simply a sort of status that we bestow on an e n t i t y once we recognize in i t a number of key a t t r i b u t e s , l i k e r a t i o n a l i t y or verbal a b i l i t y . It is p a r t l y because we treat an e n t i t y in a p a r t i c u l a r way that we c a l l i t a person and are likewise e n t i t l e d to be c a l l e d ourselves. or  persons  But what does i t mean to treat a person as a person,  to treat him with respect? The answer to t h i s question, as Richard Peters has  emphasized, has a l o t to do with the way  of l i f e we have been  born into and in general are committed to maintaining.(Peters, 1966)  Central to t h i s way of l i f e i s a commitment to the idea of  the i n d i v i d u a l as a r a t i o n a l , self-determining and assertive s e l f . People  in our society are encouraged to have t h i s concept  of s e l f , and, i t seems to Peters, are only l i k e l y to develop t h i s concept f u l l y i f they are so encouraged. At the heart of the type of encouragement Peters has in mind is the treatment of individuals as i f they are r a t i o n a l and self-determining to begin with. We should treat our fellow humans as persons not only because i t is hateful "to be treated as a moron or merely as an instrument of the purposes  of other  men",  but also because to be treated as a person allows and encourages us to be persons.  50  People only begin to think o£ themselves as persons, as centres of valuation, decision and choice, i n so far as the fact that consciousness i s individuated into d i s t i n c t centres, linked with d i s t i n c t physical bodies and with d i s t i n c t i v e points of view, i s taken to be a matter of importance i n society. And they w i l l only r e a l l y develop as persons in so far as they learn to think of themselves as such. (Peters, 1966, p. 211)  An a d d i t i o n a l aspect of being a person, already recognized by Kant, Liebniz, Locke and numerous others, i s that to be a person one must be aware of oneself as d i s t i n c t from others. The sense of being an e n t i t y d i s t i n c t from other e n t i t l e s comes not only from an awareness of other bodies, but as Peters has pointed out, from our awareness of other points of view.  Our society i s also committed to the idea that the truth i s Important, that the search for truth i s important,  not simply for  prudential reasons, but also because i t i s a fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of human beings  i n the modern world to want to  know the t r u t h . L i f e i s for human beings a context where the demands of reason are inescapable, where d a i l y we are faced with the question: What ought to be done? The answer to t h i s question w i l l most often, i f not always, involve considerations of what might be the truth of the matter.  And one of the chief means we  have for a r r i v i n g at the truth i s , in Peters' view, serious r a t i o n a l discussion. By r a t i o n a l discussion Peters means that c e r t a i n p r i n c i p l e s must govern the actions of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Participants must not interfere i n an unreasonable way with the wishes and interests of other p a r t i c i p a n t s ; they must not be  51  p a r t i a l or prejudiced in considering what i s being said; they must take others' views into account. If one accepts  these  p r i n c i p l e s as binding on oneself, then they must serve "to safeguard  the experiences  which we most Intimately associate with  being a person, i . e . not being a r b i t r a r i l y interfered with in respect of the execution  of our wants and decisions and not  having our claims and interests ignored or treated in a p a r t i a l or prejudiced manner." (Peters, 1966, p.214)  We value persons, therefore, and l e t the respect for persons p r i n c i p l e serve as a guide because by doing so we maximize the l i k e l i h o o d i t w i l l be possible for us to pursue our interests in a world governed by r a t i o n a l discourse, and therefore i n one more predictable, than would be possible in a world dominated by the whims and wishes of those whose influence rests s o l e l y on their status or i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . Unfortunately  for most of us, the world, even the parts of i t  where r a t i o n a l discourse and the respect for persons are encouraged, i s a place where people are dominated by the whims and wishes of those whose influence rests on their status and i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n . Indeed, very often, i t i s the whims of those who are held to be most r a t i o n a l that lead to the domination of others, since status, i n s t i t u t i o n a l p o s i t i o n and power are commonly the rewards held out to those most adept at p r a c t i c a l reasoning. Moreover, Peters' view of things notwithstanding,  there i s more to why we value persons than t h i s .  As Dennett has noted, despite the diminished  capacities of people  who are severely retarded or comatose, we continue 52  to treat them  as i f moral considerations are s t i l l relevant. In cases where an individual human being i s less a self-determining agent than say a dog or a chimpanzee, we are s t i l l unwilling to treat him as an object or as a means to another's ends i n the way we routinely do with animals i n medical experiments. We wouldn't think of k i l l i n g human beings so we could eat them, even i f they i n no way could be said to be capable of second order v o l i t i o n s . The e t h i c a l theories l i k e Peters', which t r y to j u s t i f y respect for persons on the grounds that persons are estimable because they are r a t i o n a l , s e l f determining agents, f a l l well short of the e t h i c a l rules we commonly adhere to already. If we look to Darwall's notion of recognition respect i n an attempt to find an object of respect that doesn't vary across i n d i v i d u a l s , we can do no better than find the one feature a l l l i v i n g human beings have i n common: namely, that they are l i v i n g human beings. The objects we need to take into account i n our deliberations concerning what to do are individual human beings, not some a t t r i b u t e they may or may not possess. One may grant that the sort of deliberations required i n our dealings with the comotose are of a much narrower  range than  those which we w i l l have with"self determining, r a t i o n a l i n d i v i d u a l s . And that only in a few cases w i l l the comatose or brain damaged represent an obstacle to our reaching our goals or pursuing our interests, since i t i s a r e l a t i v e l y simple, a l b e i t expensive, matter to accommodate the needs and wants of the severely retarded, senile or comatose. There seems no disputing, however, that sympathy for fellow human beings i s a persistent human t r a i t when circumstances allow the adoption, of the moral  53  point of view. Circumstances of want, fear, s c a r c i t y and mistrust make i t supremely d i f f i c u l t  for people to adopt such a point of  view, although despite such hardships men and women have i n the past and continue today to act as i f the people around them are as Kant said "ends i n themselves and sources of value i n their own r i g h t . " That i t i s easier to think of people i n t h i s way when they lack the a b i l i t y to form intentions or the power to r e a l i z e them as i n the case of the comatose, etc. underlines the point that asymmetries  i n power and the fear of s c a r c i t y serve to keep  us from t r e a t i n g other human beings i n ways that, were the circumstances reversed, we would l i k e them to treat us. In a way that surprises no one, then, a person, as we said at the outset, is a human being; a human being and a person are the same thing. And the concept of a person, although i t does not pick out with any p r e c i s i o n just what we ought to do,  does act as a reminder  that we ought at least to adopt a moral point of view i n our dealings with human beings. That we w i l l do so i s less  likely  when we r o u t i n e l y conceive of human beings as passive objects. I t is t h i s sort of conception of human beings that t y p i f i e s the depiction of students i n process-product research.  Recently Brophy and Good have reported in the Third Handbook of Research on Teaching that "the fund of available information on producing student achievement  has progressed from  a c o l l e c t i o n of disappointing and inconsistent findings to a small but well established knowledge base." (Brophy & Good, 1986,p.337)  T y p i c a l l y , the knowledge base they refer to  developed from a progression of studies that f i r s t sought to  i d e n t i f y promising teaching methods, then test them i n controlled experimental s i t u a t i o n s . yet  Much of the research has not  reached the experimental stage, with a good deal of i t based  on c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies.  Nevertheless, N.L. Gage, speaking of  these c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies, suggests that they are just beginning to give promise of quantitative knowledge... We are beginning to have evidence that the correlations betoken causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s , so that changing teaching practices cause desirable changes in student achievement,attitude and conduct. (Gage, 1984, p. 93)  Evident i n t h i s remark i s the b e l i e f that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teaching and learning Is a causal one, and that not only is i t desirable to produce higher levels of student achievement, i t i s desirable also to "manipulate v a r i a b l e s " to produce i n human beings c e r t a i n attitudes and c e r t a i n types of conduct.  A  b e l i e f such as t h i s leaves l i t t l e room for a conception of the student as a purposive being with intentions of her own.  If one  were to conceive of the student as a r a t i o n a l person possessing an independent  w i l l , the b i l l i a r d b a l l analogy used e a r l i e r by  Tom would look quite d i f f e r e n t . Instead of the cue b a l l (teacher behaviour) s t r i k i n g the target b i l l i a r d b a l l (the student) at the precise angle needed to d e f l e c t that b a l l into a pocket (a learning goal), we now see that the target b i l l i a r d b a l l i s a cause of i t s own movement i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i r e c t i o n . Student motives, for example, can act as an I r r e g u l a r l y shaped barrier located just i n front of the target b i l l i a r d b a l l ; t h i s barrier absorbs the impact of the cue b a l l , but does not necessarily transmit the force of the cue b a l l exactly i n the way t h i s force was received. In fact, the b i l l i a r d b a l l completely overrides the intended e f f e c t of the cue b a l l , i f , for instance, the student decides to drop out of school. (Tom, 1984, p. 59)  55  An additional feature of the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p said to hold between teacher behaviour and student outcomes i s the of a one way  assumption  flow of influence. It i s taken for granted that  Influence flows from the teacher to the student, and that the student i s the more or less passive recipient of inputs from the teacher. Yet, as we s h a l l see, a major component of teacher effectiveness research, classroom management, i s predicated on the idea that students can have enormous influence on the tone of the classroom and the ease with which teachers can conduct  their  lessons. In i t s various manifestations over time teacher effectiveness research has conceived of the d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher behaviour and student learning in one of three ways. At f i r s t researchers attempted  to e s t a b l i s h a linear r e l a t i o n s h i p between  what teachers do and what students learn. Later researchers then came to conceive of the r e l a t i o n s h i p as either c u r v i l i n e a r or s i t u a t i o n a l . The linear conception took for granted that the frequency of a teacher behaviour had a d i r e c t bearing on the extent to which learning occurs. Several prominent researchers in t h i s f i e l d have conducted  studies in which they counted  the  number of teacher behaviours thought to be of a type linked to e f f e c t i v e teaching, then determined  the correlations between  these behaviours and a c r i t e r i o n of effectiveness l i k e pupil gain scores or supervisory ratings. ( Gage, 1963; Medley,  1973)  David Berliner (1976) admits he began to doubt the l i n e a r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between teacher behaviour 56  and  outcomes when during the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study observers noticed the operation of individual Intentions and interests competing with the teacher's e f f o r t s to reinforce p o s i t i v e l y a p a r t i c u l a r student  behaviour.  In our classroom observations...we have seen positive verbal reinforcement used with a new c h i l d in the c l a s s , one who was trying to win peer-group acceptance, and whose behaviour the teacher chose to use as a standard of excellence. We watched s i l e n t l y as the class rejected the intruder, while the teacher's count in the verbal praise category went up and up and up. (p. 372)  It seemed evident to Berliner that the teacher praise in this case.could not have had the intended e f f e c t , even i f i t were taken as genuine praise by the new student, since what counted for t h i s student at the moment was being accepted by his new classmates. Berliner's response to t h i s apparent  flaw in the  process-product view of learning was to suggest that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a c e r t a i n teacher behaviour and student behaviour was  in some cases c u r v i l i n e a r , or perhaps s i t u a t i o n a l .  That i s , that after a certain point or under c e r t a i n conditions a p a r t i c u l a r teacher behaviour w i l l no longer be e f f e c t i v e . As  Tom  points out however, t h i s suggestion moves us into the realm of individual student perception and thinking, a move that leaves l i t t l e room for a crudely behaviourist explanation of learning. Moreover i t hardly seems adequate to imply that certain teaching behaviours cause learning, only to add that these may  not work  under a l l conditions, a l l of the time, since they depend on a measure of congruence between student intentions and which cannot be f u l l y s p e c i f i e d in advance. 57  purposes  The teacher's  effectiveness in Berliner's example depended on her insight into a student's motives. Unfortunately for teachers, a student's motives do not announce themselves  unambiguously, and beyond a  banal l e v e l of generality i t i s impossible to predict accurately what a youngster's motives w i l l be. Even though c e r t a i n teachers seem more able than others to interest their students in their lessons, we should not l e t this fact lead us Into denying that i n d i v i d u a l i n t e r e s t s , intentions, and preoccupations can at any time compete with a teacher's e f f o r t s at i n s t r u c t i o n . That there may be a d i f f e r e n t set of purposes and intentions for teachers and students i s , of course, no secret.  The large body of  l i t e r a t u r e on the e f f e c t s of student culture and  school climate  t e s t i f i e s to the influence of broadly held b e l i e f s , and  further  points to the inadequacy of causal explanations of teacher influence.  Doubts of the sort expressed by Berliner are by no means rare in educational research.  In fact, according to Doyle (1977)  there Is a large body of research devoted to such instances where "certain processes ... intervene in the relationships between teacher variables and student learning outcomes" and which c l e a r l y stand in opposition to t h i s sort of causal conception of learning, (p.165) These include student motives  in general, or  student r e j e c t i o n of schooling (Anderson,1970; Dole,1977; Glick.,1968); the demands of the classroom environment (Cusick,1973;  Doyle,1977); student attention to i n s t r u c t i o n a l  tasks (Anderson,1970); degree of student f a m i l i a r i t y with the  58  i n t e l l e c t u a l operations employed by the teacher (Berliner,1976); the classroom peer group (schmuck & schmuck,1983;  zeichner,1978);  student perception of the fairness of the teacher i n her dealings with students (Smith & Geoffrey,1968);  teacher a b i l i t y to  interpret for the c h i l d the s i g n i f i c a n c e of objects, events, and ideas (Feuerstein,1980); and the structure of a subject matter (Bantock,1961; Resnick & Ford,1981; Shulman, 1974) . a finite l i s t ,  While t h i s i s  i t seems l i k e l y that the l i s t could go on forever,  given the conceivably vast number of choices a person i s capable of.  So despite the existence of a research l i t e r a t u r e that  documents what already seems s e l f - e v i d e n t l y true —  that  teachers can't cause learning i n the way envisioned by Gage and hi3  colleagues i n the f i e l d of teacher effectiveness research,  the notion that they can p e r s i s t s . And while i t can be admitted that the question of whether and to what extent learning i s caused by the actions of others remains an open one, i t i s clear nevertheless that teacher behaviour alone cannot be s u f f i c i e n t to cause learning.  One of the e f f e c t s of our accepting t h i s simple causal theory of learning i s that a language of manipulation begins to seem reasonable. Tom notes that once the student i s conceived as the passive r e c i p i e n t of "treatments" he becomes l i t t l e a receptacle of Inputs or an object to be manipulated.  more than This  c a r r i e s a number of consequences. The student i s to a large extent freed of any r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for learning; the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y therefore s h i f t s elsewhere.  In discussions of  teacher effectiveness i t s h i f t s p r i m a r i l y to the teacher. In 59  discussions of s o c i a l p o l i c y i t frequently s h i f t s to the state and i t s agencies, or to the family. R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for learning, and therefore achievement, once i t has been taken away from the student, can be moved about according to the context in which i t figures. With each context a set of obligations faces d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s , and with each set of obligations, opportunities for the exercise of power.  What might explain a good part of the  i n i t i a l attractiveness of causal explanations of learning is that they expanded the area of influence for educators. If i t can be shown that what teachers do is more Important  to student learning  than was thought to be the case, teachers gain a c e r t a i n amount of power.  For instance, i f i t can be demonstrated that teaching  behaviour accounts for learning more than family background does, then teachers gain, at the expense of others who  wish to  administer one intervention or another, a broader area of jurisdiction.  Foucault notes a similar state of a f f a i r s in the history of medicine and the emergence of criminal psychiatry. Throughout most of European history, murderers were routinely put to death once their g u i l t had been established. From the moment they were apprehended u n t i l their deaths, murderers belonged to the courts and to those who  operated the penal system. Foucault, as we have  indicated elsewhere, saw in the ceremonies of the penal system a r i t u a l i s t i c demonstration  of this power over bodies. In the case  of Pierre Riviere, an eighteenth century peasant who murdered his mother and s i s t e r s , Foucault noticed a dramatic difference in the  60  way he was treated. Instead of being sentenced to death as soon as his  g u i l t was determined, Riviere became the object of a struggle  between j u r i s t s and those we would recognize today as p s y c h i a t r i s t s . In the end the medical men won  out; Riviere  was  confined to an i n s t i t u t e where he could be studied for the rest of his l i f e . For these early human s c i e n t i s t s , murderers whose motives were incomprehensible to ordinary people were too valuable a source of knowledge to be put to death. These " s c i e n t i s t s " insisted "there are crimes which are our business, these people belong to us." (Foucault, 1980,  p. 205) In these  insane criminals doctors had a source of knowledge and power. Foucault can't help suspecting that the emergence of a discourse on homicidal mania was as much dependent on the f a b r i c a t i o n of a pathology that would j u s t i f y criminal psychiatry as i t was on a genuine desire on the part of these early physicians to discover the truth about the darker side of human nature. The postulation that there was  indeed a darker side to human nature, one which i s  beyond the apprehension of ordinary people, i s in Foucault's view, one of the fundamental  conditions of p o s s i b i l i t y for the  emergence of psychiatry. I would be tempted to say that there was, in f a c t , a necessity here ... linked to the very existence of a psychiatry which had made i t s e l f autonomous but needed thereafter to secure a basis for i t s intervention by gaining recognition as a component of public hygiene. And i t could e s t a b l i s h this basis only through the fact that there was a disease ... for i t to mop up. There had also to be a danger for i t to combat, comparable with that of an epidemic ... Now, how can i t be proved that madness constituted a danger except by showing that there exist extreme cases where madness, even though not apparent to the public gaze, without manifesting i t s e l f beforehand through any symptom except for a few minute f i s s u r e s , miniscule murmurings, perceptible only to the' 61  highly trained observer, can suddenly explode into a monstrous crime. This was how the diagnosis of. homicidal mania was constructed. Madness i s a redoubtable danger p r e c i s e l y in that i t i s not forseeable by any of those persons of good sense who claim to be able to recognize i t . Only a doctor can spot i t and thus madness becomes e x c l u s i v e l y an object for the doctor, whose right of intervention i s grounded by the same token. (1980, p. 205)  So power ( p a r a s l t i c a l l y drawn from the law) enabled doctors to Isolate and examine murderers who would otherwise be executed, and the patient, grateful perhaps  for a reprieve and a  sympathetic ear, would by his discourse give forth the raw material for a new truth of homicidal mania, a truth which would j u s t i f y the l i f e of the patient, the a c t i v i t y of the doctor, and the new science of psychiatry.  The case of process-product researchers i s c l e a r l y not so dramatic. They are not claiming they understand students or teachers better than anyone else; they are saying merely that they are gaining a clearer idea of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c e r t a i n teacher behaviours and student learning which enables them to generalize about the best way to teach. That there i s a best way to teach which i s s t i l l somewhat of a secret opens up the p o s s i b i l i t y that whatever shortcomings there have been in student achievement might be due to i n e f f e c t i v e teaching. It i s this l a t t e r idea that school effectiveness advocate  Ronald  Edmonds (1979) has seized upon and which has proven so popular. If Edmonds i s right about the reason for low achievement levels among the poor, then interventions by others - state l e g i s l a t o r s and bureaucrats concerned with equity, for example - may  62  not be  as necessary as they once seemed. It i s worth noting, however, the p a r t i c u l a r way  in which  the causal theory of learning employed in process-product research leads to a paradoxical e f f e c t . On the one hand educators are given a broader those who  f i e l d of operation than might be granted by  see achievement in school c l o s e l y related to family  background c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . On the other hand, educators can then be held in a larger net of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for any f a i l u r e s that might r e s u l t from their e f f o r t s . It i s for this reason that i t would be more than prudent for educators to be sure of the adequacy of the research findings. For i f the teaching practices which have emerged from the l i t e r a t u r e as being most e f f e c t i v e lead to more dramatic declines in achievement than already e x i s t , teachers w i l l again face severe c r i t i c i s m , while children from low income families w i l l once again look unteachable.  In much the same way that students are viewed as objects to be manipulated  by teachers, the logic of t h i s conception of  learning c a l l s for the manipulation of teacher behaviour, which of course means a manipulation of teachers. Tom points to this in a comment designed to show the passive role in learning given students in t h i s research. The b i l l i a r d b a l l analogy also helps highlight the passive role attributed to the student by teacher effectiveness researchers. Just as pool players naturally think of how they can use the cue b a l l to move the other b i l l i a r d b a l l s to desired locations, so too do teacher effectiveness researchers think in terms of how teacher behaviour can be manipulated in order to obtain the desired r e s u l t s , that i s , student learning.(p.56)  63  Insofar as this research i s viewed with approval i t carries a certain force. It sets norms for what constitutes effectiveness in teaching. And to disregard these norms may leave teachers and administrators i n the position of appearing  i n d i f f e r e n t or out of  date, an image they would l i k e l y be anxious to avoid. We can see from t h i s , another  instance of the manner i n which power and  knowledge operate. To the extent that teacher effectiveness research i s respected, i t i s taken, at best, to be made up of defensible propositions regarding how to teach, or at least, recommendations about how to teach, that are worth a t r y . In between these two extreme views i s the more common one that teacher effectiveness research offers p r e s c r i p t i o n s for teaching which are superior to anything else c u r r e n t l y a v a i l a b l e . The need for educators to show that reform e f f o r t s i n education are underway and e f f e c t i v e , m i l i t a t e s against a c a r e f u l consideration of approaches to teaching that are less capable of pinpointing the successes and f a i l u r e s of teachers and their students. To the extent the research comes to represent the basis for teaching orthodoxy  i t expresses c e r t a i n "truths" about learning and the  best ways to teach.  A teacher who ignores these truths i s l e f t  appearing negligent. The teacher who refuses to accept at least some of the research findings can be seen to have an obligation to j u s t i f y her position; a formidible task given the mountain of data and the prestige afforded empirical research. Research findings, insofar as they are taken to be true, have powerful effects. Process-product  research, then, has l a r g e l y been the search 64  for a one best way, behaviours  a set of generic teaching s k i l l s or  that w i l l serve equally well in a l l subjects at a l l  grade l e v e l s . If such a set of behaviours were to be found i t would then be possible to persuade teachers to teach in more or less i d e n t i c a l ways. Under such conditions of formal e q u a l i t y i t would also become easier to compare one teacher with another, especially  i f i d e n t i c a l means of judging teaching success could  be applied. When the means of judging teaching success are i d e n t i c a l with the measures of student success  (test scores) then  i t becomes a simpler matter to rank both students and teachers. It i s in t h i s way that the conception of learning found in process-product research begins to show i t s p o l i t i c a l usefulness. With teachers and students caught in the grid of v i s i b i l i t y provided by test scores, they are vulnerable to coercion and control. They can conform to the norms of schooling that begin to emerge from test scores, or t r y to evade the panoptic gaze. Since test scores define e f f e c t i v e teaching in the research, i t i s only a matter of time before they come to define effectivness for school supervisors. By the same token, since test scores define acceptable standards  in classrooms, schools,  and d i s t r i c t s , and are the outcome of the best way to teach, students who  do poorly w i l l , by d e f i n i t i o n , be abnormal.  It i s instructive to trace the development of teacher effectiveness research since i t reveals the manner in which pedagogy has evolved and the steps i t has taken along the way. is the evolution and development of t h i s search for a one best  65  It  way that gives us a sense o£ the character of this search. In i t a good many people have been w i l l i n g to s a c r i f i c e a good deal of common sense i n order to develop superior means of measuring r e p o n s i b i l i t y , i n order to find ways of s t r i p p i n g away a l l the obstacles that separate the researcher from his a b i l i t y to say with confidence —  "This i s the cause of that."  Medley (1979) has Identified i n the history of teacher effectiveness research five successive conceptions of the e f f e c t i v e teacher: one who possesses desirable personal t r a i t s ; one who uses e f f e c t i v e methods; one who i s capable of creating and maintaining a good classroom atmosphere; one who possesses a repertoire of teaching competencies; and l a s t l y , the professional decision-maker  who possesses the requisite competencies plus the  sense of when to apply them.  The very e a r l i e s t research into teaching i n America attempted to describe the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the best teachers by asking pupils what they thought distinguished good teachers from poor ones,  one study from the mid 1890s asked pupils to l i s t the  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers they had found to be most e f f e c t i v e . From the data researchers d i s t i l l e d four c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  The  e f f e c t i v e teacher was one who "makes greater demands of students," "has more teaching s k i l l , "  "has more knowledge of  subject matter," and "has better d i s c i p l i n e . " (Medley,1979, 13) The implications for teaching practice seemed clear enough. Teachers should be s t r i c t , demanding, and knowledgeable. might also become s k i l l f u l remained a problem, however. 66  How they Despite  t h e i r commonsense a p p e a l , there were doubts as w e l l about the v a l i d i t y of these s u b j e c t i v e judgements.  It  seemed l i k e l y  that  s c h o o l age c h i l d r e n would lack the m a t u r i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y needed to a s s e s s t h e i r t e a c h e r s competently. n e c e s s a r y to look  would be  elsewhere.  By the 1920s expert judges.  It  investigators  looked to the o p i n i o n s  of  In one study from 1929, c o n s i d e r e d by Medley to  be one of the best from t h a t p e r i o d , s i x c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s effective  teacher were i d e n t i f i e d : good judgement,  considerateness, (Medley,  enthusiasm,  1979, p. 13)  magnetism,  and  self  By the 1930s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as  i n widespread use as teacher e v a l u a t i o n d e v i c e s . emerged a p i c t u r e of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s c h o o l c o n s i d e r e d most important loyalty),  (Medley,  characteristics, specificity. teaching s k i l l  in teachers.  which were  From t h i s  study  inspectors  These were  p e r s o n a l magnetism,  breadth and i n t e n s i t y of leadership."  control,  adaptability.  these had been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o teacher r a t i n g s c a l e s  (helpfulness,  of an  "cooperation  p e r s o n a l appearance,  i n t e r e s t , considerateness,  and  1979, p. 13) The c h i e f problem with these  l i k e those t h a t preceded them, was t h e i r  Terms l i k e p e r s o n a l magnetism,  lack  of  good judgement or  were hard to p i n down, and too o f t e n meant  d i f f e r e n t t h i n g s to d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . As w e l l there c o u l d be little  room f o r such normative  language i n a d i s c i p l i n e  aspiring  to be a s c i e n c e . So d e s p i t e the widespread use of teacher scales,  rating  there was a g e n e r a l and growing sense t h a t more exact  ways of i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an e f f e c t i v e teacher were needed. As e a r l y as  1912, E.L. 67  Thorndike saw the promise  of  such precision i n science: Education, l i k e history, economics, sociology, and the other sciences of man, i s just beginning to give promise of quantitative knowledge, of descriptions of facts as numerically defined amounts, and of r e l a t i o n s of laws in terms of r i g i d unambiguous equations. The changes that take place i n i n t e l l e c t and character are coming to be measured with the same passion for clearness and precision, which has served the physical sciences for the l a s t two hundred years. (Tom, 1984, p. 13)  Since the 1960s educational research has Increasingly come to be expressed  i n such terms: q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , where facts are  presented as numerically defined amounts and r e l a t i o n s h i p s are seen i n terms of r i g i d , unambiguous equations. Where i t has not been possible to e s t a b l i s h r e l a t i o n s h i p s of this sort promoters of these methods have c a l l e d the r e l a t i o n s h i p s c u r v i l i n e a r or suggested that their effectiveness i s r e s t r i c t e d to s p e c i f i c contexts.  Medley notes that the f i r s t studies to compare various teaching methods proved inconclusive.  These studies f a i l e d  because the experiments i n each case were designed to use the pupil (rather than the teacher) as the unit of a n a l y s i s . . . It became apparent that sound research i n teacher effectiveness must focus both on teacher behaviour (what the teacher does) and on pupil learning (teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s ) , (p.15)  Hence there developed an interest i n tracing from superior results the things teachers do when they teach, and from the relationships between teacher behaviour and achievement, a l i s t 68  competencies that could provide a standard by which other teachers might be judged and to which pre-servlce teachers could aspire.  Such a project required the observation of teachers  while they taught, the recording of what methods they used, and an examination  of the relationships that seemed to hold between  c e r t a i n teaching practices and test scores. It took a s u r p r i s i n g l y long time for researchers to r e a l i z e t h i s . Medley (1979) notes that systematic observation of behaviour in the classroom as a means of studying the nature of e f f e c t i v e teaching was uncommon before 1960... As early as 1930 Barr and others advocated the use of c r i t e r i a of teacher effectiveness based on measured pupil gains rather than on expert opinion, but nobody seems to have paid them any heed. (p. 15)  By 1970, systems.  however, there were more than 100 classroom observation Most of these had been developed  for teacher t r a i n i n g ,  but some l i k e that by Flanders (1970) were used extensively in research.  From this research i t was  possible for Rosenshine and  Furst to report in 1971 that c e r t a i n teaching behaviours were consistently correlated with student achievement gains. Nevertheless, Rosenshine and Furst admitted these correlations were not always s i g n i f i c a n t and most often were only marginal to moderate in strength.  Rosenshine and Furst's review drew upon 50  c o r r e l a t i o n a l studies and from these emerged five variables for which they f e l t there was strong support and s i x more for which the support was  less strong.  These eleven variables were:  c l a r i t y of teacher presentation; v a r i e t y of i n s t r u c t i o n a l  69  procedures and materials; teacher enthusiasm;  task-oriented or  business-like teacher behaviour; student opportunity to learn what i s subsequently tested; teacher recognition and use of student ideas; c r i t i c i s m of students (negatively related to achievement);  teacher use of structuring comments; varied types  of questions; teacher probing of student responses; and student perception of the d i f f i c u l t y of i n s t r u c t i o n . Rosenshine's  By  1979.  analysis of subsequent research on the eleven  variables showed that only two variables correlated s a t i s f a c t o r i l y with gains in student achievement.  These were  task-oriented teacher behaviour and student opportunity to learn what w i l l later be tested.  (Tom,  1984,43)  From the 50 studies  reviewed by Rosenshine and Furst in 1971, Medley in 1979 could find only 14 s i g n i f i c a n t studies and these showed correlations of only .39 or lower. Gage in 1984  reported that  c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s in t h i s research t y p i c a l l y have values between .2 and  .5. (p.89) In the most recent review of the  l i t e r a t u r e on teacher effectiveness, Brophy and Good (1986) admit that "even the most generally replicated findings tend to be based on low to moderate c o r r e l a t i o n s , and are not always strong enough to reach s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e " (p.360) It i s d i f f i c u l t to see why such research i s so i n f l u e n t i a l .  What i s also remarkable  about these findings, expressed in  terms of inputs, outputs and variables, i s their normative  nature.  V i r t u a l l y none of the variables can be said to be objective or stable over time, what, for example, i s meant by task oriented teacher behaviour?  C l e a r l y not any old task w i l l q u a l i f y as one 70  of the sort of task3 we might want to associate with s c h o l a s t i c achlevment. What sort of a c t i v i t y or lesson do the researchers wish to d i s q u a l i f y when they speak in t h i s way?  Despite the inadequacies of these studies, there has emerged from them a model of i n s t r u c t i o n known as d i r e c t instruction.  From two variables —  behaviour and teaching to the test — developed  task oriented teacher Barak Rosenshine (1979)  a model of i n s t r u c t i o n which has in the l i t e r a t u r e  Increasingly come to stand for the single best i n s t r u c t i o n a l method.(Peterson,1979,p.58; Good,1979,p.60; Good,Grouws,& Ebmeier,1983; Stevens & Rosenshine, 1981;  B.O.  Rosenshine defines d i r e c t instruction in t h i s  Smith,  1980)  way:  Direct Instruction refers to academically focused, teacher directed classrooms using sequenced and structured materials. It refers to teaching a c t i v i t i e s where goals are clear to students, time allocated i s s u f f i c i e n t and continuous, coverage of content i s extensive, the performance of students i s monitored, questions are at a low cognitive l e v e l so that students can produce many correct responses and feedback to students i s immediate and academically oriented. (1983, p. 38)  It should be noted that many of the words in t h i s passage are purely evaluative. It i s not clear what i s meant by clear goals, s u f f i c i e n t time, or extensive coverage of content. Despite these problems, the message i s clear enough in other ways.  Put  simply, the teacher i s to keep a close eye on her students to see that they pay attention to their school work, which i s usually i d e n t i c a l and r e s t r i c t e d to what i s c a l l e d in the l i t e r a t u r e  71  "basic s k i l l s a c q u i s i t i o n " , but which may i n fact be something else altogether, something l i k e excessive practice and rote memorization.  Rosenshine emphasizes the teacher-centered focus of d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n artd points to the main reason for l i m i t i n g the class to a single a c t i v i t y at any one given time. Although i t would s t i l l seem important for students to have a v a r i e t y of ways to learn the same material, classrooms i n which a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s are occurring simultaneously are usually more d i s o r d e r l y , and students are less attentive because the teacher i s unable to monitor a l l a c t i v i t i e s . Students, as we s h a l l see, are more task oriented when they are being supervised. (Rosenshine,1979,p.30)  Rosenshine further reports that researchers came to t h i s conclusion after they had c a r e f u l l y recorded the variations in the amount of "academically engaged time" d i f f e r e n t teaching practices seemed to produce.  According to the findings of phase  III of the Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study: In the second grade, an average of 122 minutes (42 percent) are allocated to a l l academic subjects. The remainder of the time is spent i n nonacademic a c t i v i t i e s (story time, breaks, l i n i n g up, taking seats, quieting down, c o l l e c t i n g and d i s t r i b u t i n g money or material, making arrangements for events, free time, music, a r t ) . If we take the engagement rate into account, the average student inthe second grade i s engaged i n academic a c t i v i t i e s for about eighty-nine minutes. (Rosenshine,1979,p.37) Such an interest i n academically engaged time echoes Foucault's emphasis that In a d i s c i p l i n e d environment  72  "time  measured and paid must be time without time of good q u a l i t y , throughout applied to i t s exercise".  impurities or defects; a  which the body i s constantly  And Rosenshine's insistence on c l a s s -  wide a c t i v i t i e s which permit easier supervision r e c a l l Foucault's notion of the panopticon and i t s normalizing gaze.  In fact a  considerable amount of the emphasis of teacher effectiveness research has to do with classroom management and the control of students.  Brophy in 1983  began his review of the l i t e r a t u r e on  classroom management techniques with the assumption that "good classroom management implies good instruction".(p.  )  At  first  i t seems Brophy i s making the commonsense claim that a noisy classroom, f u l l of d i s t r a c t i o n s , does not represent an ideal learning environment, and that to the extent teachers can convince their students of the need to be co-operative and d i l i g e n t they should make every reasonable e f f o r t to do so. But as Brophy continues i t becomes clear that he i s making a d i f f e r e n t and much larger claim, namely that poor i n s t r u c t i o n , because i t i s poor, promotes unruliness among students, and that good i n s t r u c t i o n , because i t i s e f f e c t i v e , promotes co-operation and "task-oriented behaviour".  Students who  disrupt the class or  defy the teacher are doing so, in t h i s view, because  the poor  q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n leaves them bored or confused, or simply i n s u f f i c i e n t l y engaged in their work. It i s evident that for Brophy good i n s t r u c t i o n consists i n , among other things, a set of organizational p r i n c i p l e s which permits easy supervision of students, easy tasks, and a steady pace of i n s t r u c t i o n which 73  leaves students l i t t l e time to behave inappropriately. "Because successful classroom managers maximize the time their students spend engaged in academic tasks, they also mazimize their students* opportunities to learn academic content, and this is exhibited in superior performance on achievement t e s t s . " (Brophy, 1983,  It  p.  266)  i s d i f f i c u l t to know what sort of claim Brophy i s  making. If he i s making an empirical claim then his evidence in support of i t i s , as we have noted, quite weak. Because the chief empirical support for t h i s view i s the c o r r e l a t i o n between the amount of academic engaged time and test scores, the generally weak to moderate correlations that t y p i f y this research raise some doubts about the claim's v a l i d i t y .  And again, the  conceptualization of learning that undergirds this account i t stands, completely unconvincing.  i s , as  Gains in learning, i t seems  c l e a r , do not stem from increases in the amount of time students are confronted with books, films, or other materials; nor are they the product of the number of minutes for which teachers can require students to s i t q u i e t l y during lectures.  In t h i s  l i t e r a t u r e , a student's being engaged in an academic task requires l i t t l e more than that he not behave in a way that seems overtly unproductive.  In  his description of how researchers came to t h i s  conclusion, Brophy mentions the landmark study by Kounin (1970) that serves as the foundation for the view that good teaching  74  minimizes d i s c i p l i n e problems in the classroom. In t h i s study Kounin videotaped two types o£ classes —  "smoothly  functioning  classrooms" where students were attentive to presentations and chaotic classrooms where they were not. Brophy's comments on this study are i n s t r u c t i v e . Kounin began by analyzing the teachers' methods of dealing with misconduct and d i s r u p t i o n . Considering the great differences in management success displayed by these two groups of teachers, the researchers expected major differences in methods of dealing with misconduct. To their surprise, they found no systematic differences at a l l . Good classroom managers were not notably d i f f e r e n t form poor ones when responding to student misconduct. The two groups of teachers d i f f e r e d in other ways, however. In p a r t i c u l a r , the e f f e c t i v e classroom managers systematically minimized the frequency with which students became disruptive in the f i r s t place. (1983, p. 266)  What sort of evidence would enable an observer to conclude that differences in the way students behaved in orderly, as opposed to d i s o r d e r l y classes, are linked to observable differences in the actions of their teachers? For Brophy i t i s enough that there be a coincidence of teacher "behaviour" in orderly classrooms. Let  us examine Brophy*s explanation of why one set of classes  was  better behaved than the other.  Brophy observes that " e f f e c t i v e classroom managers systematically minimize the frequency with which students [are] disruptive in the f i r s t place." (p.267)  He i d e n t i f i e s a number  of Kounin's management techniques as being central to the e f f e c t i v e classroom: "withitness", overlapping, signal continuity and lesson momentuum, group a l e r t i n g and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y in  75  lessons, and v a r i e t y and challenge in seatwork. teacher, he suggests, i s one who Teachers who  The  effective  possesses "withitness".  are "with i t " prevent problems before they can  become disruptions, with the r e s u l t that when students see their teachers are "with i t " they are less l i k e l y to become f r a c t i o u s . E f f e c t i v e teachers, then, are those who  prevent small problems  from escalating into major disruptions by monitoring the classroom regularly, "stationing themselves a l l of the students continuously", (p. 267)  where they could see Similarly,  "overlapping", another of Kounin's techniques, consists in the teacher being able to do more than one thing at once, such as being able to monitor the whole class while conferring with a single student.  (Brophy's example)  Signal continuity, on the  other hand, i s that q u a l i t y found in lessons which are characterized by a steady pace, free of interruptions or distractions. is one who  Thus the teacher who maintains signal continuity  comes to class prepared and organized and who refuses  to l e t student disruptiveness disturb the lesson.  In Brophy's  words, signal continuity i s e f f e c t i v e because students tend to be attentive when they are presented with a continuous academic " s i g n a l " to attend to. Problems begin when students have no clear " s i g n a l " or task to focus on, and these problems w i l l escalate the longer the students are l e f t without such a focus, (p. 267) E f f e c t i v e teachers also use presentation and questioning techniques to keep students a l e r t and accountable.  These  techniques include "looking around the group before c a l l i n g on someone to r e c i t e , keeping the students in suspense as to who 76  would be c a l l e d on next by s e l e c t i n g randomly, getting around to everyone frequently..." (Brophy, 1983,267)  The idea here is for  the teacher to d i s t r i b u t e questions in such a way that no student can be c e r t a i n he w i l l not be c a l l e d upon next.  In this way  the  student w i l l pay attention in order to avoid the unpleasant consequence of being found out.  Lastly, e f f e c t i v e teachers,  according to Kounin, are those who varied and challenging seatwork.  provide their students with It is assumed here that "the  appropriateness and interest value of the assigned work w i l l influence the q u a l i t y of task engagement".(p.268) Appropriate seatwork in t h i s instance i s that which i s "easy enough to allow successful completion but d i f f i c u l t or d i f f e r e n t enough from previous work to challenge each student".  (p. 268)  Brophy notes  that more recent research suggests that challenging seatwork does not lead to an orderly learning environment as much as does easy seatwork.  He adds that when the teacher i s available to give  immediate feedback, teachers should aim at a l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y that ensures success rates of 70%-80%.  When students are to work  independently the l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y should be lowered to ensure success rates of 95%-100%. (p.268) Given that an additional feature of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e i s an emphasis on teaching to the whole class i t seems l i k e l y that whole class i n s t r u c t i o n and class wide sets of seatwork - worksheets and textbooks - w i l l characterize a c t i v i t i e s .  It seems equally l i k e l y that  i n s t r u c t i o n a l materials or methods that ensure success rates of this magnitude for the least able and most able at the same time are bound to be addressed to the least able.  77  Brophy stresses  that "confusion about what to do or lack of even a single important concept or s k i l l w i l l frustrate students' progress and lead to both management and i n s t r u c t i o n a l problems for teachers", (p.268)  This i s e f f e c t i v e teaching?  It should be noted in his account that one must accept beforehand  that the teachers in the orderly classroom were  responsible for the class being well-behaved, must accept in advance what t h i s account  attentive, etc. One  i s intended to  demonstrate, namely that attentive, hard working students are the product of c e r t a i n teacher behaviours. Given the same set of circumstances: d i s r u p t i v e , r e b e l l i o u s students in one set of classes and attentive, cooperative students in the other, d i f f e r e n t observers could have just as e a s i l y drawn the conclusion that one set of classes was made up of d i f f i c u l t students who  for one reason or another did not want to cooperate,  and another made up of students who  for one reason or another  had  decided to be cooperative and a t t e n t i v e . When for one reason or another these students became d i s t r a c t e d or r e s t i v e , a mere glance from the teacher, or the knowledge that t h i s teacher asks everybody questions would be s u f f i c i e n t to ensure  their  attention, or perhaps only their passive cooperation.  Brophy's  account, while i t does have a surface p l a u s i b i l i t y , i s only t r u l y convincing  when a conception of students as active, purposive  beings i s absent.  His students are not given c r e d i t for acting  in ways that teachers, at least, would deem commendable. It i s as i f they had l i t t l e choice, for i f these students did wish to defy the teacher and do as they pleased i t i s hard to imagine how 78  the  following  techniques  have s u b d u e d  their  used  by  wills.  s u c c e s s f u l classroom  Those  management s u c c e s s " were t h o s e that or  did l i t t l e  less  more t h a n  continuous  would  need  order  for this  who  t o appear  students  view g e t t i n g  teacher  as  more i n t e r e s t i n g  "effective  classroom  teaching  b u s y and  s t a y out  effective.  several  being  displayed "greater  m a n a g e r s " would  the  of  f o r more  students  trouble in  In c l a s s r o o m s  i n t r o u b l e and than  practices  allow  s u p e r v i s i o n . Even so,  t o keep b u s y and  teacher  who  employed  keep s t u d e n t s  teacher  to decide  teachers  managers c o u l d  bothering  their  the  schoolwork,  have t h e i r  hands  where  Brophy"s  full,  one  suspects.  These p r e s c r i p t i o n s supervised students  are  a r e aware t h e i r  secondly, costs  classrooms  appear  effective  seatwork,  is a  students  level  are  capable  effective  busy, a t  closely  especially  One  of  during periods  t h a t can  when  s u p e r v i s o r s , and  classrooms.  least  of d i f f i c u l t y  down t o t h i s :  classrooms,  teachers are  busy classrooms  of keeping  to b o l l  o n l y be  the  of  described  as  trivial.  This account intelligibility tendency  the  work  of s i g n a l little isn't  Nevertheless, contradicted  w e l l managed c l a s s r o o m  on a c o n c e p t i o n  i s to r e s i s t  importance There can  of t h e  instruction  f o r the  too d i f f i c u l t  by  the  picture  student  at every  c o n t i n u i t y and  excuse  this  of the  trivial  student  and  of the  image o f t h e  79  there  who  depends  as  one  t u r n ; hence levels  of  is acting  for i t s  whose the difficulty. out,  i s always something  reluctant student  learner is  nervously  paying  since to  do.  attention to his teacher's every word for fear of being asked a question for which he i s unprepared. It seems quite reasonable to suppose that a student could be completely i n d i f f e r e n t to a lesson many of his classmates found i n t e r e s t i n g , or to suppose that another student would want to be seen defying her teacher. In such circumstances  i t i s hard to see how teacher eye contact,  randomly d i s t r i b u t e d questions, or any other form of teacher "withitness" are l i k e l y to make the sort of difference Brophy claims they w i l l . Unless, of course, a range of more powerful penalties and rewards than c u r r e n t l y exist in the schools are introduced. Without s i g n i f i c a n t penalties and g r a t i f i c a t i o n s the d i s c i p l i n a r y apparatus that these techniques amount to lack much force.  It has been observed that one r e s u l t of the wide-spread acceptance  of the prescriptions contained in teacher e f f e c t i v e -  ness research i s that r e p e t i t i v e low-level i n t e l l e c t u a l s k i l l s are now surrounded by a halo of legitimacy. F i l l i n g in blanks, getting test-wise to multiple choice items and completing exer cises elevate tedious tasks to the status of e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . . . . Learning [has become] a series of r e p e t i t i v e tasks that need to be completed, placed in folders, and marked by the teacher. (Cuban, 1984, p. 131)  In response  to questions concerning his h i s t o r i c a l  interest  in prisons, poorhouses, m i l i t a r y barracks and the l i k e Foucault has observed that h i s t o r i c a l l y these, and schools as well, have been s i t e s where work has had a l a r g e l y symbolic function. 80  Unlike work in f a c t o r i e s and o f f i c e s , schoolwork i s not productive of goods or services that can at some future time be purchased.  And while there i s in the capacities and a b i l i t i e s  that are "produced" in school an element of value similar to the exhange value of goods and services, much of what students do in school, Foucault i n s i s t s , can be viewed as a form of dressage, like military d r i l l ;  j u s t i f i e d in p r a c t i c a l terms that seem  unconvincing, but nevertheless widely taken as evidence of e f f i c i e n c y and effectiveness.  The r e a l point of t h i s sort of  work i s to make obedience automatic, to remove independent judgement and w i l l , and to make, in the case of m i l i t a r y the  drill,  movements of individuals i d e n t i c a l to one another. That such  a thing i s possible and even common in armies seems l i k e l y to be due to the compelling reasons s o l d i e r s have for following orders. No such compelling reasons exist in school, however.  A system of i n s t r u c t i o n which depends on supervision and inspection, broadly conceived, that i s in some ways l i t t l e more than a system of supervision and inspection, i s a system which is u n l i k e l y to promote l i t e r a c y , numeracy or any other of the sorts of  capacities or a b i l i t i e s that commonly stand as the goals of  education. In a manner of speaking, the classroom of the " e f f e c t i v e " teacher i s , in the Foucauldian sense, a completely d i s c i p l i n e d environment. The central c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of such an environment  —  h i e r a r c h i c a l observation, normalizing judgement  and examination -- define the e f f e c t i v e classroom. Classrooms are organized, and a c t i v i t i e s are selected, on the basis of the degree  81  of. v i s i b i l i t y they allow. The teacher must be able to see what everyone i s up to. This "seeing" takes various forms: simple observation of students at work to the detailed examination  that  comes from moving questions around the c l a s s . Reading k i t s and mathematics notebooks consist of questions which can be quickly answered and e a s i l y marked. Ranking and ordering students becomes a r e l a t i v e l y simple matter. Scores and progress can be recorded and where based on results from standardized tests can be used by teachers and their superiors to make comparisons and evaluations. The school that contains " d i s c i p l i n e d classrooms" apparatus  of uninterrupted examination  i s "a sort of  that d u p l i c a t e t s ] along  i t s entire length the operation of teaching. It [ i s ] less and less a question of jousts in which pupils [pitch] their forces against one another and increasingly a perpetual comparison of each and a l l that [makes] i t possible both to measure and to judge." (Foucault, 1984,  p.  198)  Deborah Meier believes that in reading i n s t r u c t i o n the current recipes for effectiveness are turning the schools into "coaching i n s t i t u t i o n s which are preparing their subjects for the t r i c k y world of tests (the "real world")." (Meier, 1981,  p.  460)  In her view, test coaching masquerading as reading i n s t r u c t i o n i s one e f f e c t of the conviction that test scores are the best indicators of e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n . the late 1970's she f e l t  As t h i s conviction grew in  teachers  were being pushed into programs aimed at ever narrower and more t r i v i a l s u b s k i l l s that, i t was hoped, would show up quickly on paper-and-pencll t e s t s . The heart of a good education -- respect for subject matter and 82  i n t e l l e c t u a l inquiry -- was sidetracked in favor of prescribed k i t s f i l l e d with disguised reading t e s t s , hundreds of one paragraph reading "tasks" followed by multiple choice questions. (Meier, 1981, p. 460) Reading i n s t r u c t i o n was nearly continuous  beginning to become a process of  t e s t i n g , insofar as prescribed reading programs  were adhered to and student work graded.  What troubles Meier  about t h i s trend i s the l i k e l i h o o d that as a r e s u l t of teaching reading in t h i s way students w i l l not learn to read.  In her view  reading requires searching for meaning in the text in such a that errors of a certain type are l i k e l y .  way  But these errors, she  suggests, are noticed by capable readers because of their impact on meaning. Redundancy and Involvement in the meaning of the material generally corrects the errors that good readers make as they proceed f a i r l y r a p i d l y through the written page. But, reading t e s t s , which involve f a i r l y short and generally pointless passages followed by t r i c k questions and answers, require being constantly a l e r t to p r e c i s e l y the kinds of errors that are unimportant in most real reading. Also, the heavy emphasis on phonics, s y l l a b i f i c a t i o n , and pronunciation in most tests for young c h i l d r e n require schools to overemphasize slow oral reading, the conscious mastery of phonic rules and word perfect, prononunciation-perfeet reading, (p.460)  The  irony of our dependence on test outcomes in reading  i n s t r u c t i o n , says Meier,  i s that t h i s dependence is leading us  further away from the promised end of better readers and toward ever more deepening concern over i l l i t e r a c y .  Given the logic of  effectiveness as i t i s c u r r e n t l y defined, i t seems l i k e l y that the proposed solution to the l i t e r a c y c r i s i s w i l l be more of the same: an emphasis on reading s u b s k i l l s , standardized and norm referenced reading materials, and r e c a l l questions. 83  Perhaps of  even greater significance  is the  l i k e l i h o o d that along with this  sort of emphasis w i l l be an increased reliance on tests measures of student performance and  instructional  as  effectiveness.  Although the d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n model i s p l a i n l y derived from research in primary l e v e l reading and  computation  "skills"  of the most basic kind, Good, l i k e Rosenshine, claims that comparison to other available  "in  treatments (or at least those  conventionally present in classrooms), d i r e c t instruction  may  have superior general e f f e c t s for a l l types of students". (Good, 1979,  p. 60)  Tom  (1984) rejects the  idea that d i r e c t  instruction  is the best i n s t r u c t i o n a l method currently a v a i l a b l e .  Because  the d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n model emerged from research on a p a r t i c u l a r classroom context, that of reading and  mathematics  achievement in the primary grades "there i s neither a conceptual nor an empirical instruction", empirical  basis to support the generic potential of d i r e c t  (p.48)  While there may  generalizations  be a number of low  level  that can be developed from this  research i t seems hardly adequate to greet what i s l i t t l e more than a cluster of factual correlations the one  best way  Duncan and  as i f i t were a model of  to teach.  Biddle (1974) in their review of the  product l i t e r a t u r e complained of the near universal researchers "to make educational prescriptions  process-  tendency of  based on untested  t h e o r e t i c a l commitments rather than convincing empirical (cited in Brophy and  Good, 1986,  p. 332)  84  In addition  data."  they noted  that in too many cases the research did not show e f f e c t s that were strong or independent  of other e f f e c t s ; nor did the research  show that e f f e c t s applied over a wide range of teaching contexts. More importantly, i t was clear that in a great many cases researchers did not understand why the e f f e c t took place, (p.  332)  Although  i t i s not always evident in the reviews of the  l i t e r a t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y those that conclude with advice for teachers, the bulk of the research findings apply only to very few populations and circumstances.  Brophy and Good caution that  the findings are drawn almost exclusively from basic s k i l l s i n s t r u c t i o n in mathematics and reading at the primary l e v e l and not s u r p r i s i n g l y tend only to apply in similar circumstances.  In  addition they note that the i n s t r u c t i o n a l practices seen as most e f f e c t i v e in the l i t e r a t u r e , do not relate to achievement gains for high SES students as much as they do for low SES students, e s p e c i a l l y in the case of students beyond the t h i r d grade l e v e l , (p.  337)  One wonders, therefore, what could have led Good to say  that d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n has "superior general e f f e c t s for a l l types of students."  Management techniques i d e n t i f i e d in the l i t e r a t u r e as most e f f e c t i v e in producing gains in achievement are s i m i l a r l y r e s t r i c t e d in t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y .  "Within any p a r t i c u l a r study,  gains on lower-level objectives were associated primarily with r e c i t a t i o n , d r i l l , and other low-cognitive-level, high teacher focus a c t i v i t i e s , and gains on tests of higher-level s k i l l s were associated more with discussion and other a c t i v i t i e s o f f e r i n g more pupil freedom", (p.337) Nevertheless in the same a r t i c l e 85  Brophy and Good proclaim the fund of available information on producing student achievement (especially the l i t e r a t u r e related to the general area of classroom management and to the subject areas of elementary reading and mathematics instruction) has progressed from a c o l l e c t i o n of disappointing and inconsistent findings to a small but well established base.(p.316)  Brophy and Good are here going beyond the data they take considedrable pains to describe i n their review. From their remarks i t seems as i f the research has uncovered  a number of  superior methods for producing student achievement in general, and that these methods are p a r t i c u l a r l y e f f e c t i v e i n the areas of classroom management and elementary reading and mathematics i n s t r u c t i o n . What their review has shown however i s that there are r e l a t i v e l y weak relationships between the teaching and management practices favoured by teacher effectiveness researchers and a p a r t i c u l a r l y narrow d e f i n i t i o n of achievement, and that these relationships hold primarily, not e s p e c i a l l y , i n the areas they mention: basic operations in reading and mathematics i n grades one to three. Researchers believe i t Is l i k e l y that these methods w i l l be as e f f e c t i v e in other contexts but at t h i s point lack the data to demonstrate t h i s .  What appears to be at work here i s the j u s t i f i c a t i o n of a p a r t i c u l a r way of dealing with students in school by means of looking for some d e f i n i t i o n of learning, achievement, reading, etc. that w i l l make t h i s approach look " e f f e c t i v e " . For t h i s attempt  to begin to appear successful a great many conceptual 86  weaknesses must be ignored and the spurious nature of the evidence overlooked. Do these oversights amount to anything? Do they point us to any conclusions other than the usual complaints about appalling i n t e l l e c t u a l standards in f a c u l t i e s of education? They do seem to lead us to conclude that a great deal more work of better q u a l i t y needs to be done before we can say we have discovered e f f e c t i v e teaching methods. It may very well be that the search for c e r t a i n t y in education can only lead us to t h i s sort of conclusion. The search for Thorndike's r i g i d unambiguous equations has led us to remove intention and w i l l from a conception of learning and thereby make objects of students; i t has encouraged us to redefine achievement, success, effectiveness in ways that serve the research paradigm more than i t does the enterprise of educating children. And as a r e s u l t we are l e f t with teaching methods which while they grow in popularity diminish the l i k e l i h o o d our children w i l l become l i t e r a t e , thoughtful adults. The benefactors of t h i s state of a f f a i r s well be the s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s who,  may  using the c r i s i s in education  as the grounds for their research, are given an opportunity to refine their methods and bring people more f u l l y into view and therefore more subject to c o n t r o l . A research program as flawed as teacher effectiveness seems to be i s l i k e l y to generate years of research. V i r t u a l l y every report, review, or assessment of the l i t e r a t u r e c a l l e d for more work in one way or another. Very few (Tom  i s among them) suggested abandoning the current  approach.  87  CHAPTER FOUR: SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH As we have seen, the t r a d i t i o n of teacher effectiveness research i s a long and durable  one. Only recently has i t been  overshadowed and absorbed by larger scale analyses  that commonly  f a l l under the category of school effectiveness research. While to a large extent current research into school effectiveness is concerned with improving a l l schools, i t was  o r i g i n a l l y the case  that school effectiveness research grew out of the conviction in the late 1960s that for the poor and s o c i a l l y disadvantaged, schools did not make enough of a difference to be able to a l t e r income d i s t r i b u t i o n patterns or e x i s t i n g s o c i a l categories. This conviction had  i t s source in a number of studies: some large  scale empirical ones l i k e the Coleman report; later analyses Christopher  by  Jencks, Averch et a l , Mosteller and Moynihan; and  even later work by Bowles and G i n t i s . Arthur Jensen's work on the hereditary basis of i n t e l l i g e n c e and the questions  which his work  raised regarding the e d u c a b i l i t y of blacks added to the already pessimistic atmosphere.  But mainly i t was  the Coleman report  that upset the applecart..  in 1954,  in Brown v. The Board of Education,  Court of the united States repudiated doctrine contained  in the 1886  the separate  the supreme but  equal  decision from Plessy v. Ferguson.  Plessy v. Ferguson had upheld the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of a Louisiana law which required r a i l r o a d companies to provide but separate  accommodations for the white, and coloured  Plessy, u n t i l Brown, had provided the necessary legal  88  "equal  races."  j u s t i f i c a t i o n for r a c i a l segregation in schools.  Relying on research by s o c i o l o g i s t s and c h i l d psychologists, Chief Justice Warren in Brown observed:  Segregation of white and colored children i n public schools has a detrimental e f f e c t upon the colored children. The impact i s greater when i t has the sanction of law; for the p o l i c y of separating the races i s usually interpreted as denoting the i n f e r i o r i t y of the negro group. A sense of i n f e r i o r i t y a f f e c t s the motivation of a c h i l d to learn. Segregation with the sanction of the law, therefore, has a tendency [to retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive i n a r a c i a l l y integrated school system. (Strike, 1983, p. 192)  Because the stigma attached to segregated  schools for  blacks was f e l t to destroy the motivation of black children to learn, Justice Warren saw that segregated  schools led to  inequality of educational opportunity and, by extension, inequality of opportunity i n l i f e . Justice Warren  concluded:  In these days, i t i s doubtful that any c h i l d may reasonably be expected to succeed i n l i f e i f he i s denied the opportunity of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide i t , i s a right which must be made a v a i l a b l e to a l l on equal terms. (Strike,1983,p.192)  The Court's decision -- that segregated  schools are  inherently unequal and produce an unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o c i a l and educational goods -- determined that segregated  schools were  i l l e g a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y . This decision in turn legitimated the view found throughout s o c i a l science l i t e r a t u r e that many i f not 89  most, of the  incapacities for learning that plague children  are  the r e s u l t of the c h i l d ' s background. It is worth noting that Brown decision made segregation i l l e g a l on the basis  the  of  controversial s o c i o l o g i c a l and  psychological  standpoint of those interested  in promoting equity the power of  t h i s p a r t i c u l a r body of s o c i o l o g i c a l and had  claims. From the  psychological  discourse  positive e f f e c t s that overturned the e f f e c t s of the e a r l i e r  legal decisions  found in the Plessy v. Ferguson r u l i n g .  Despite the apparent f i n a l i t y of the Supreme Court r u l i n g in Brown, the case was  not considered closed by everyone.  Legal  authority Edmond Cahn noted in a law review at the time of Brown decision that "I would not have the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l of Negroes -- or of other Americans -- rest on any  the  rights  such flimsy  foundations as some of the s c i e n t i f i c demonstrations in these records." (Strike, 1983,  p.  193)  In the Brown case, despite the protests  of skeptics, s o c i a l  science knowledge combined with the power of the way  law  in such a  that the r e s u l t profoundly altered e x i s t i n g r e l a t i o n s between  the races, and  between the schools and  their primary c l i e n t s .  Moreover, t h i s decision added impetus to the already growing conviction legal and  among l i b e r a l s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s that the state had c o n s t i t u t i o n a l obligation to overcome the sort of  incapacities  i d e n t i f i e d in Brown as being products of  circumstances over which the state had this conviction, new  a  some control. Alongside  perhaps even the source of i t , was  s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective that had  90  a relatively  emerged as America  was  transformed from a set of i n t e r n a l l y focussed, l o c a l communities to a nation i n which the focus was national, s i g n i f i c a n t l y so i n the marketing, d i s t r i b u t i o n , and advertising of goods. Coleman (1980) observes of this period:  Washing machines, made by a few national firms, [had come to replace] washtubs and washboards, made and sold l o c a l l y . Breakfast cereals, heralded by entrepreneurs with persuasive public relations s k i l l s , [came to replace] l o c a l l y cracked wheat and oats cooked by mothers each morning ....One of the consequences of this change was that a new set of s o c i o l o i c a l problems emerged. These were problems related to the national markets and national audiences — i n short, problems of market research and audience research, (p.335)  From these problems arose new methods —  random samples,  national samples, "questions that were appropriate to the population as a whole", (p.336) In t h i s way a s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective was born, and along with i t , s o c i o l o g i s t s with an interest and some expertise i n measuring various aspects of the national body. The conviction that the state had an obligation to intervene i n the matter of equal opportunities, plus the existence of the s o c i a l science apparatus capable of gathering and sorting vast amounts of data made i t possible to conduct the sort of mammoth study undertaken determine  by Coleman i n the mid-sixties to  the extent of a "lack of a v a i l a b i l i t y of equal  opportunity" i n American public schools.  In Foucauldian terms, we have, with the development of these new s o c i o l o g i c a l tools,  "the production of e f f e c t i v e  instruments for the formation and accumulation of knowledge -  91  methods of observation, techniques for  of r e g i s t r a t i o n , procedures  investigation and research, apparatuses of c o n t r o l " .  (Foucault, 1980,  p. 102)  In t h i s manner developed s i t e s for the  production of c e r t a i n type of knowledge. Not only would t h i s knowledge pertain to c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l body in general, i t would pertain to the general c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l body, the norm. The establishment  of norms, as we have  noted, can allow a process of normalization to begin. Rabinow (1984) interprets Foucault's sense of normalization in the following  way:  By normalization,Foucault means a system of f i n e l y gradated and measurable intervals in which individuals can be d i s t r i b u t e d around a norm - a norm which both organizes and is the r e s u l t of t h i s controlled d i s t r i b u t i o n . A system of norms i s opposed to a system of law or a system of personal power....Normative order is an e s s e n t i a l component of the regime of bio-power, for "a power whose task is to take charge of l i f e needs continuous regulatory and corrective mechanisms.... Such a power has to q u a l i f y , measure, appraise, and h i e r a r c h i z e . . . i t e f f e c t s d i s t r i b u t i o n s around the norm. (Rabinow, 1984, p. 20)  Foucault has noted of the relationship between s o c i a l science discourse and the law that a process of systematic normalization of the law took place in the 19th century as medicine, psychiatry, and other s o c i a l sciences entered  legal  debates. In these debates there was a tendency to r e l y on s t a t i s t i c a l measures and judgements about what was  normal (or  healthy) and what was abnormal (or unhealthy) for a given population. Foucault observed that t h i s process of normalization served a key role in the creation, c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and control of  92  anomalies in the population. The  "purpose" of these anomalies  becomes clear when one considers the claims of t h e i r promoters. The  f i r s t claim i s that c e r t a i n d i s c i p l i n e s serve to isolate  anomalies; the second that one can then normalize  or cure the  anomalies by means of the corrective or therapeutic procedures developed by these d i s c i p l i n e s . counter-productive  tendencies  In t h i s way are dangerous or  checked.  In both D i s c i p l i n e and Punish, and The History of Sexuality Foucault goes to great lengths to show that "the advance of biopower in the nineteenth century i s in fact contemporary with the appearance and p r o l i f e r a t i o n of the modern categories of anomaly - the delinquent, the pervert - which [the d i s c i p l i n e s ] are supposedly designed p.21)  to eliminate but never do."  (Rabinow,  1984,  It i s not that people in the 19th century cared for  delinquents, or madmen, or perverts only to the extent they could be used to refine methods for c o n t r o l l i n g them. Rather Foucault is arguing that one of the e f f e c t s of i d e n t i f y i n g these people as types who  needed to be isolated, studied and treated was  the  development of ways to control people on grounds that could be seen as s o c i a l l y acceptable and morally defensible.  The mechanisms of the exclusion of madness, and of the surveillance of i n f a n t i l e sexuality, began from a p a r t i c u l a r point In time, and for reasons which need to be studied, [began] to reveal their p o l i t i c a l usefulness and to lend themselves to economic p r o f i t , and that as a natural consequence, a l l of sudden, they came to be colonized and maintained by global mechanisms and the entire State system....The bourgeoisie is interested in power, not in madness, in the system of control of i n f a n t i l e sexuality, not in that phenomena i t s e l f . The 93  bourgeoisie could not care less about delinquents, about their punishment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n , which economically have l i t t l e importance, but i t i s concerned about the complex of mechanisms with which delinquency i s c o n t r o l l e d , pursued, punished, and reformed etc. (Foucault, 1980, p. 101-102)  So then i t i s i n the development  of technologies of d i s c i p l i n e  within the s o c i a l science d i s c i p l i n e s themselves that Foucault sees the workings of power/knowledge.  In 1964, the US Congress commissioned  University of  Chicago s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t James Coleman to determine the extent of r e s t r i c t i o n s to equal opportunity i n American schools. Despite Coleman's expectation that he would find evidence of glaring i n e q u a l i t i e s in the q u a l i t y of school buildings, class s i z e s , texts and trained teachers, he found few such i n e q u a l i t i e s . More surprising was the finding that differences i n school-related variables d i d not account for the differences i n s c h o l a s t i c achievement as much as d i d students' socioeconomic  background.  Also, the school variable which seemed to have the most e f f e c t on student achievement was the socioeconomic status of the peer group. The unequal d i s t r i b u t i o n of educational resources as they had hitherto been conceived did not, then, seem to contribute s i g n i f i c a n t l y to inequality. Rather i t was the socioeconomic status of students and how these students were d i s t r i b u t e d within the school system that seemed s i g n i f i c a n t . The p o l i c y implication seemed c l e a r . In order to ensure equality of opportunity in education, and to a large degree i n the competition for jobs outside of schools, socioeconomic and r a c i a l integration would be 94  necessary, i n the words of philosopher Kenneth Strike, "students, therefore, [were] considered an educational resource to be equitably d i s t r i b u t e d . " (Strike, 1983, p.197) In 1972, Christopher Jencks, i n a follow-up study of the Coleman data, concluded that schooling accounts  for l i t t l e of the  v a r i a t i o n i n cognitive s k i l l s among students, and that moreover, differences i n cognitive s k i l l s are not so c l o s e l y linked to future income as was commonly believed. As he put i t "equalizing the q u a l i t y of high schools would reduce cognitive inequality by one per cent or l e s s ; . . . a d d i t i o n a l school expenditures are u n l i k e l y to increase achievements, and r e d i s t r i b u t i n g resources w i l l not reduce test score inequality." (cited i n Rutter, 1983, p . l )  Whereas Coleman had argued that socio-economic  status was a  better predictor of school achievement than educational resources, thus casting some doubt on the e f f i c a c y of schools to develop cognitive a b i l i t i e s , Jencks  1  study led many to suppose that  "schools don't make a d i f f e r e n c e " . What f a i t h  i n schools that  remained in the wake of the Coleman report was shaken even further by Jencks' conclusion that:  as long as e g a l i t a r i a n s assume that public p o l i c y cannot contribute to economic e q u a l i t y d i r e c t l y but must proceed by ingenious manipulations of marginal i n s t i t u t i o n s l i k e the schools, progress w i l l remain g l a c i a l . If we want to move beyond this t r a d i t i o n , we w i l l have to e s t a b l i s h p o l i t i c a l control over the economic i n s t i t u t i o n s that shape our society. This i s what other countries usually c a l l socialism. (Jencks, 1972, p.265) 95  The  implication that educational  opportunities had l i t t l e  to do with a t t a i n i n g equality of condition struck r i g h t at the heart of one of the state's primary reasons for mass public schooling. Given the p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f that education  was the  fundamental means by which a democracy could provide equal access to good jobs and a decent standard  of l i v i n g , the findings by  Coleman, Jencks et a l , represented  a serious blow to the prestige  of educators and brought into question the orthodox view that providing equal access to educational  opportunities was an  e f f e c t i v e way to promote equality. Jencks, as we have seen, drew the conclusion that only income r e d i s t r i b u t i o n was l i k e l y to prove an e f f e c t i v e means for promoting equality. In.his view, c o n t i n u i n g to r e l y on schools to redress  imbalances in wealth and  i n f l u e n c e could only be viewed as Utopian since "you cannot have equality of opportunity without a good deal of equality of condition." (cited i n Hodgson, 1973, p.38)  Hodgson (1973) notes  that a main e f f e c t of these investigations into the r e l a t i o n s h i p between schooling and i n d i v i d u a l prosperity was the growing conviction that s o c i a l science findings supported the abandonment of s o c i a l reform. He feared that "this new skepticism which i s eroding the confident l i b e r a l assumptions could be d i s t o r t e d and used to r a t i o n a l i z e a second period of indifference i n a nation once again weary of the stress of reform." (p. 43)  Significantly,  however, both Coleman, and to a lesser degree, Jencks suggested that there was some point to tinkering with the school system in an e f f o r t to Improve s o c i a l conditions a f f e c t i n g the poor. Both  96  admitted  that r a c i a l integration in schools could contribute to  reducing achievement d i f f e r e n t i a l s between higher income whites and poor blacks.  It was  not long before competing bodies of educational  research would attempt to show that schools were not the i n s t i t u t i o n s Jencks claimed they were; there was  marginal  too much at  stake for i t to be otherwise. Removing from education i t s t r a d i t i o n a l promise of s o c i a l mobility for those with merit  upset  l i b e r a l s and conservatives a l i k e . Hodgson (1973) notes that top l e v e l bureaucrats  in the Nixon administration such as Patrick  iioynihan advised the president "that enormous expectations b u i l t up [in the us]  had  that you could achieve r a c i a l equality  through compensatory education, and  i t was  not working. Point  two: a proposition had been put forward by Dr. Jensen which democracy could not l i v e with. Therefore, point three: you had to move d i r e c t l y to income d i s t r i b u t i o n . "  This was  (p.44)  not the sort of news President Nixon wanted to  hear. Policy-makers  were just beginning to f e e l the pressure to  lower spending levels that has since become a near permanent feature of the p o l i t i c a l scene. Growing concern over the size of government and the tax burden associated with t h i s growth c a l l e d for a d i f f e r e n t sort of research finding. What was  needed  was  research which would suggest that what f a i l u r e s there were in the educational system could l a r g e l y be placed at the feet of i n d i f f e r e n t or incompetent teachers, and that an e f f e c t i v e school system for the poor needn't be expensive or p o l i t i c a l l y d i v i s i v e . 97  Certainly, t h i s suggestion did not appear as p l a i n l y as t h i s . If i t had  i t is u n l i k e l y that educators  would have embraced the  school effectiveness l i t e r a t u r e as they have. It was  the gloomy  implications of Coleman's, Jencks' and Jensen's work that paved the way  for the enthusiastic reception school effectiveness  research would enjoy. As well, Coleman's conclusions were simply contrary to the experience  of thousands of teachers working in  schools. Despite the mountain of data produced by the Coleman report, the conviction that Coleman had to be wrong would not go away.  As we have noted, the bleak appraisal of the schools' a b i l i t y to "make a d i f f e r e n c e " t y p i f i e d by the work of Coleman et a l was  not accepted  w i l l i n g l y by those who  viewed the schools as  one of the few avenues of s o c i a l mobility available to the poor and disadvantaged, and whose own  futures were t i e d up with the  maintenance or expansion of the public school system. To a number of prominent educators new  i t seemed l i k e l y that, i f unopposed, the  s o c i a l science orthodoxy with respect to school e f f e c t s would  ensure systematic  indifference to low achievement standards  the schools of the poor.  in  Educational researchers in England and  in the US, wondered, in l i g h t of the existence of e f f e c t i v e schools already serving low SES populations, whether or not  those  working within the school system might not be simply f a i l i n g to do the job with which they had been charged and of which they were capable. They may  have, as one of these researchers, Ronald  Edmonds, has suggested, been blinded by the "pernicious s o c i a l  98  science notion that family background i s the p r i n c i p a l cause of pupil a c q u i s i t i o n of basic school s k i l l s . "  (Edmonds, 1979, p. 16)  Working on just such an assumption, Weber, in his 1971 study of inner c i t y schools, e x p l i c i t l y sought to counter the work of Coleman and Jensen, who, according to Edmonds, "had s a t i s f i e d themselves that low achievement by poor children derived p r i n c i p a l l y from inherent d i s a b i l i t i e s characterizing the poor." (p. 16)  Edmonds' uncharitable view of teachers can be summed up  by his often asserted charge that "schools teach those they think they must and when they think they needn't, they don't." (Edmonds, 1979, p. 16)  Since i t i s the people who work i n  schools who do the teaching and not the schools themselves, i t was clear from Edmonds' remark that he thought the low levels of achievement among black students were a t t r i b u t a b l e to those teachers whose thinking had become muddled by "pernicious s o c i a l science notions" and who as a r e s u l t f e l t themselves to be o f f the hook with respect to low income students. With school personnel blinded i n t h i s way, i t seemed that educators had relieved themselves of their r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to be i n s t r u c t i o n a l l y e f f e c t i v e , and had concluded  that the children of the poor were  more or less ineducable. Jean Anyon discovered just such an attitude from a teacher i n an inner c i t y school who bemoaned the fact that "you can't teach these kids anything". p. 36)  (Anyon, 1979,  With such low levels of expectation i t seemed clear to  t h i s new generation of researchers why poor c h i l d r e n f a i l at school: teachers aren't t r y i n g to teach these children because they don't believe i n their a b i l i t y to learn. In turn, children come to believe that they cannot learn and a vicious c i r c l e i s 99  completed. Instead of. taking r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for teaching basic s k i l l s , teachers, following the advice of educational  researchers  or the lessons learned in teachers' college, engage their students  in t r i v i a l  "vocational" a c t i v i t i e s or i l l - a d v i s e d  therapeutic e f f o r t s at enhancing s e l f esteem. "Playing in the sand becomes science, and games become mathematics...[Teachers] p h y s i c a l l y touch l i t t l e c h i l d r e n and display great p o s i t i v e a f f e c t toward p o t e n t i a l l y dissident bigger ones." (Meyer, p.  1980,  55)  In an attempt to e s t a b l i s h a sound empirical basis for the b e l i e f that schools do make a d i f f e r e n c e , e f f e c t i v e schools researchers, since the early 1970's, have re-examined the issue of school e f f e c t s on student outcomes in the hope of i d e n t i f y i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of schools that are e f f e c t i v e . Since then t h i s research t r a d i t i o n has grown in influence to the point where i t is sometimes recognized as the school effectiveness movement, a t t r a c t i v e not only because i t reaffirms for teachers the b e l i e f that they r e a l l y do have more than a custodial r o l e , but also because i t seems from the research that to have an e f f e c t i v e school is within everyone's grasp, given the r i g h t a t t i t u d e s .  Perhaps the best known summary of the l i t e r a t u r e is that by Edmonds (1981). Based on his work and that of others, Averch et al.{1972>, Brophy and Good {1970}, Brookover, Beady, Flood, Schweitzer,  and Wisenbaker 11979}, Mayeske, Wisler, Beaton,  Weinfeld, Cohen, Okada, Proshek, and Tabler {1972}, and Weber  100  {1971}, Edmonds l i s t s  five ingredients of an e f f e c t i v e school:  strong administrative leadership, high expectations  for  children's achievement, an orderly atmosphere conducive to learning, an emphasis on basic s k i l l a c q u i s i t i o n , and monitoring of pupil progress.  frequent  (Purkey and Smith, 1983,p.429)  Other reviewers of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e (Murnane,1981; Clark, Lotto and McCarthy,1980; Bridge, Judd and Moock, 1979;  Rutter,1983}  have concluded along with Edmonds that schools do make a difference and that we now  know what we must do to e s t a b l i s h  e f f e c t i v e schools. F i r s t , we need good  teachers.  Children learn more when they are taught.by talented, highly motivated teachers who believe that their pupils can learn and who structure the school day so that pupils spend large amounts of time "on task", working at basic s k i l l development. (Murnane,1981,p.27)  Second, as Coleman found, the research  indicates that  pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds perform better in schools with a s i g n i f i c a n t number of children from advantaged backgrounds {Brookover et a l . , 1979; 1979,  Reynolds et a l . , 1980,  Rutter et a l . ,  Willms, 1983}.  Third, even though class s i z e , school s i z e , i n s t r u c t i o n a l strategies, and school expenditure do not appear to have d i r e c t links with cognitive achievement, they may  have i n d i r e c t e f f e c t s  by providing the sort of conditions that f a c i l i t a t e e f f e c t i v e teaching and the smooth operation of the school. Meyer (1977) and Meyer and Rowan (1977) have considered at  factors beyond those found  the classroom, school, or d i s t r i c t l e v e l . They see 101  education  as consisting of. "a network of rules creating public c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of persons and knowledge" (Meyer,1977,p.55). More recently, researchers examined within-school processes in an attempt to link pupil inputs to schooling outcomes rather than concentrate as they have in the past on aggregated  data. At the  school and classroom l e v e l , researchers are examining the s o c i a l organization of classrooms and schools, and the types of learning environments to be found there (McLaughlin,1978; Rutter et a l . , 1979). They are also examining detailed teacher behaviours  and  teaching s t y l e s (Brophy,1980,1982; Evertson et al.,1980). Some are considering the e f f e c t of school climate (Anderson,1982), while others focus even more c l o s e l y on the interactions between teachers and pupils (Moos,1979).  In sum,  one can say the school effectiveness research  l i t e r a t u r e rests on  two assumptions. One,  that there exist  exemplary schools which serve low income students. Two,  there are  s p e c i f i a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of these e f f e c t i v e schools which account for their success in teaching poor, urban minority children.  However, as Ralph and Fennessy (1983) note of the  reviews of the research l i t e r a t u r e , "these reviews give the impression that the two empirical propositions mentioned above are established f a c t s . That i s , they imply that there are highperforming schools which serve the urban poor, and that some five to seven c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s t i n g u i s h these e f f e c t i v e schools from the r e s t . " (p.690) Ralph and Fennessy, along with Purkey and Smith (1983), accuse school effectiveness researchers of having  102  what they c a l l "an unusual disregard for what constitutes evidence." (p.69 0) They claim i t i s common practice for reviewers to make baseless or inadequately  supported empirical claims and  to refer to e a r l i e r reviews as i f they were evidence. Moreover, they claim, most reviewers " f a i l to d i s t i n g u i s h between those studies that are conducted on representative data bases, using s p e c i f i c measurement tools and incorporating control variables, from others that are l a r g e l y impressionistic and employ no s t a t i s t i c a l controls." (p.690)  Rowan, Bossert, and Dwyer (1983) have noted three main sorts of weaknesses i n research on e f f e c t i v e schools: those to do with the measures of effectiveness, those r e l a t i n g to research design, and the inherent weaknesses i n global comparisons. In their view, research has been narrowly on a single dimension of school effectiveness — a c q u i s i t i o n . They c i t e studies by Tikunoff  focussed  basic s k i l l s  (1981) and F r e c h t l i n g  (1982) that point to the fact that school personnel and their constituencies assess school effectiveness not simply on the basis of test scores, but by reference to the sort of administrative, s o c i a l , and cognitive goals these schools are working toward, and the programs that have been i n s t i t u t e d to reach them. Frechtling's study (1982) of schools  i n Montgomery,  Alabama found that when quantitative measures assessing i n s t r u c t i o n a l effectiveness were used to evaluate  schools the  measures correlated negatively to the assessments made by district  personnel.  103  Rowan et a l . (1983) argue that there are enormous problems with the four main ways school effectiveness researchers have assessed  i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes. They note four types of  assessment:  1. Absolute measures of i n s t r u c t i o n a l outcomes such as the proportion of students within the school who are at or above the national median i n achievement, (e.g. Weber,1971)  2. An analysis of trends in test scores at a p a r t i c u l a r grade l e v e l . Such an analysis might reveal r i s i n g or f a l l i n g test scores in grade four over the last few years.(e.g. Phi Delta Kappan, 1980)  3. An analysis of gain scores for pupils in a p a r t i c u l a r age group throughout the year compared (e.g. Wellisch et a l . ,  to the rest of the nation,  1978)  4. Various regression-based techniques that are used to generate residuals.  In general, Rowan et a l . f a u l t school effectiveness research on methodological  grounds. They argue, as others have,  that studies of e f f e c t i v e schools seldom measure the i n s t r u c t i o n a l performance of an entire school. Usually schools were i d e n t i f i e d as e f f e c t i v e on the basis of assessments of test scores at only one or two grade l e v e l s , in only one or two  104  curriculum areas, (p.27) However, Rowan et a l . ' s main focus is on the contradictory nature of the research. The four approaches employed in the research tended to have low c o r r e l a t i o n s with another, and  one  i d e n t i f i e d d i f f e r e n t schools as e f f e c t i v e . As well,  r e l i a b i l i t y studies have revealed that the measures are unstable over time. (Forsythe, 1973;  extremely  Jencks et a l . , 1972,  Rowan & Denk,1982). Approaches which compare an absolute l i k e national norms against school means (approach which use trends in achievement (approach as they prevent  p.124; standard  #1) or those  1*2) are biased insofar  low SES schools from being l a b e l l e d e f f e c t i v e .  Bossert and Dwyer's study of 405 C a l i f o r n i a schools (using approaches 2 & 4) during the period 1975-1977 showed that increases/decreases  in scores from year to year were  s i g n i f i c a n t l y correlated to changes in the composition  socioeconomic  of a school's population, thus casting doubt on the  v a l i d i t y of approach #2. Moreover t h i s apporach lacked s t a b i l i t y . The c o r r e l a t i o n between gains made from 1975 1976  to 1977  was  to 1976,  and from  -.45. Measures using approach #4 were  unreliable; the c o r r e l a t i o n of residuals for the period between 1975-1976 was  .24 and for 1976-1977 was  .19. Following standard  practice in e f f e c t i v e schools research, Bossert & Dwyer c l a s s i f i e d as e f f e c t i v e schools in the top q u a r t i l e  of the  residuals d i s t r i b u t i o n . Those in the bottom q u a r t i l e were c l a s s i f i e d as i n e f f e c t i v e . By t h i s system only 10% of the schools in the sample of 405 were e f f e c t i v e for two consecutive years and only 5% were e f f e c t i v e for three years. This finding was marginally better than what could be expected  only  from chance alone.  Bossert and Dwyer estimate from their study that school l e v e l 105  characteristics  account  individual  student  very close  to  Jencks  study  variables finding  the  for  roughly  achievement. figure  a r r i v e d at  family  as  we r e v i e w e d f a i l e d  that  trivial  "many o f  school  result  difficult  t o d e t e r m i n e whether  between s c h o o l quantitative  organization  studies  are  and s c h o o l  unbiased  s p e c i f i c a t i o n e r r o r and t h u s  Lawrence effectiveness six  most  strong  teacher  discipline, notes,  however,  looking  for  these  surprisingly did  not  use  upon t h e schools of  the  that  f o u n d what systematic  impressions  of  six  factor  an e m p h a s i s and  what  found  inflated  the  procedures observers,  to  observe  who knew,  schools "Many  schools,  were  106  matters, order  on t a s k .  and He  went  and  not  researchers but  in advance,  inevitable."  the  effectiveness.  skills,  i n e f f e c t i v e . Findings  by  he s a y s a r e  researchers  for.  in  school  i n c r e a s e d time  looking  a  (p.29)  instructional  to  As  relationships  on b a s i c  visits  the  analyses.  spurious."  in  from  school  they are  many c a s e s ,  in t h e i r  formulation  of  connected with school  t h e y were  were e f f e c t i v e and  if  leadership  i n a good  the  to  results  in their  identifies  evaluation,  factors  the  c r i t i c a l r e v i e w of  factors  expectations,  or  The  This  effectiveness  largely  (1985),  principal  systematic  are  in his  literature  commonly c i t e d  These a r e : high  stedman,  achievement  is  (1972)  class.  to a d e q u a t e l y c o n t r o l  and p r i o r  is  figure  may be s p u r i o u s . . . M o s t  demographics it  this  in  in comparison  and s o c i a l  to c o n c l u d e  r e s e a r c h on e f f e c t i v e s c h o o l s  the v a r i a n c e  by J e n c k s e t a l .  background  l e a d Rowan e t a l .  studies  They note  termed such v a r i a n c e  s u c h as  4.5% o f  relied which  biased  in  favor  (p.306)  in  the  preface to the Phi Delta Kappan report on school effectiveness research i t i s admitted  that Wilbur  Brookover and other outside  presenters were asked to prepare the observers before data c o l l e c t i o n was  begun. Their job was  in the  study  to "stimulate and  inform" the observers. The danger of systematic observer seems obvious.  bias  Indeed, Ralph and Fennessy (1983) note that  "the subsequent emphasis on certain aspects of educational practice [in the study] should come as no surprise; i t is roughly the recipe that Edmonds and Brookover have advocated for making schools e f f e c t i v e . " (p.691)  Subsequent studies which have used  a "blind" design in which observers and  interviewers didn't know  which schools were the e f f e c t i v e ones came up with findings that challenge the s i x factor  formulation. One  such study in New  York  found that in both high achieving and low achieving schools the p r i n c i p a l was  not the schools' i n s t r u c t i o n a l leader. As well,  the emphasis on basic s k i l l s was  greater in the  ineffective  schools.(p.306)  Another study in Massachusetts found that 6 out of 10 e f f e c t i v e schools were low on leadership, atmosphere, and  reading  emphasis, whereas 5 of the 8 i n e f f e c t i v e schools rated highly on these f a c t o r s . ( E l l i s , 1975,  p. 306)  Lezotte (1981) reported  that i n e f f e c t i v e schools in Lansing, Michigan p r i n c i p a l s who principals  were more involved in monitoring  tended to have instruction than  in the e f f e c t i v e schools. As well he found that  teachers in the i n e f f e c t i v e schools had higher expectations for grade l e v e l achievement than did t h e i r counterparts e f f e c t i v e schools, (p.306) 107  in the  In addition to researchers  appearing to " f i n d " what they  were looking for, Stedman noticed also that in several of the more prominent reviews of school effectiveness l i t e r a t u r e  studies  were c i t e d that don't support the s i x factor formulation.  In a  frequently c i t e d study conducted by the Maryland state Department of Education (1978) there were no clear differences in the amount of time p r i n c i p a l s devoted to i n s t r u c t i o n a l supervision between e f f e c t i v e and  i n e f f e c t i v e schools. There were no differences in  teacher expectations  between these two  The emphasis on basic s k i l l s was schools, and  types of schools e i t h e r .  roughly the same for a l l the  no s i g n i f i c a n t difference in amount of time on  distinguished the more e f f e c t i v e schools  task  from the least  effective.  Rutter et a l . ' s  very i n f l u e n t i a l study from 1979 also  f a i l s to support the s i x factor formulation.  They found that the  head teacher's emphasis on i n s t r u c t i o n or the lack of i t was unrelated  to academic outcomes. They also found that teacher  expectation  was  only weakly related to achievement and that  only  half of the variables associated with academic emphasis related to achievement. Among these was  the displaying of student work on  classroom walls. In addition, only one variables and one  out of s i x punishment  out of five reward variables were associated  with achievement. Total teaching  time and staying on the topic  were not related to achievement.(p.308)  108  Part of the problem of f i t t i n g Rutter's findings with the six  factor formulation is that his study was  not designed  with  the s i x factors in mind. Insofar as teaching time and staying on topic may  pick out the same thing as time on task, or as much as  the punishment and reward variables correspond  to the order and  d i s c i p l i n e factor, i t seems f a i r to compare Rutter's work with i t s American counterparts. When we do, we find l i t t l e support in Rutter's study for the six factor formula held to be the recipe for  effectiveness in the United States.  A t h i r d problem with this formulation is that many of the schools which displayed these factors were i n e f f e c t i v e schools, wellisch et a l . (1978) concluded school-wide  that Instructional leadership,  coordination of the curriculum, and, an academic  emphasis, produced e f f e c t i v e schools. Yet none of the schools in - the study ranked above the 30th percentile in  reading and only  one did in mathematics. Phi Delta Kappa (1980) stated that p r i n c i p a l leadership, high expectations, d i s c i p l i n e , and an emphasis on basic s k i l l s characterized the eight e f f e c t i v e schools studied. In one school, 75% of the students were below grade l e v e l ; in another,  the students were over two years  behind  grade l e v e l . New  York researchers (New  York Department of  Education, 1974)  claimed that strong i n s t r u c t i o n a l leadership was  responsible for i t s e f f e c t i v e schools, yet two-thirds of i t s 6th graders were 2 or more years behind grade l e v e l .  Lastly, most reviewers of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , and some i n f l u e n t i a l ones (Austin,1981; 109  especially  Edmonds,1979; Glenn,1981)  ignored a number of studies that were unable to link effectiveness to school c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Philadelphia's  "Successful Schools Study" (1979), for example, could not i d e n t i f y any c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that distinguished 15 e f f e c t i v e schools from other schools. Talmage and Rippey (1974) in their case studies of four Chicago elementary schools were unable to determine why  two  were among the best and two among the worst in Chicago. Echternacht  (1977) could not explain the differences in  achievement between high schools with stable SAT scores and  those  which had had d r a s t i c declines. He found that in both types of school truancy, d i s c i p l i n e problems, and teacher had increased along the same l i n e s . There was  permissiveness  only a s l i g h t  difference in the number of academic courses taken by students in both types of school; in some cases schools with d e c l i n i n g  SAT  scores had a higher proportion of students taking academic courses. Moreover, the schools with decreasing scores had increased homework and expanded basic s k i l l  i n s t r u c t i o n , but  seemingly to l i t t l e or no a v a i l .  More s t r i k i n g s t i l l are the doubts raised by the manner in which the data on leadership and teacher expectation were gathered.  In a number of cases the data on p r i n c i p a l leadership  and teacher expectation were s e l f - r e p o r t e d ; that i s , p r i n c i p a l s answered questionnaires which required them to estimate what amount of their o v e r a l l time they devoted to i n s t r u c t i o n a l matters, while teachers s i m i l a r l y answered questionaires regarding the l i k e l i h o o d of their students reaching grade levels  110  of achievement throughout the year. Needless to say, such questionaires are a flimsy basis on which to erect a theory o£ e f f e c t i v e schools. Discussions of research into the pygmalion e f f e c t and psychological explanations of motivation based on this research are i n many f a c u l t i e s of education a staple of preservice teacher t r a i n i n g . It seems u n l i k e l y that teachers would not r e a l i z e that having f a i t h i n the a b i l i t y of one's students i s considered part of being a good teacher. Likewise,  principals  cannot help but know that t r a d i t i o n a l l y one of their main r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i s i n s t r u c t i o n a l leadership. The weakness of these self-reported findings i s simply that i n the case of teachers and p r i n c i p a l s we cannot know how many respondents were merely paying l i p service to ideas that are a major part of educational orthodoxy, but which are often neglected for one reason or another.  Taken together, the research does not support the idea that the s i x factor formulation, i f introduced into schools, w i l l lead to school effectiveness. Nor does i t support the idea that the e f f e c t i v e schools i d e n t i f i e d i n these studies are e f f e c t i v e because of these factors, at least f i v e of them. The one factor that d i d repeatedly relate to effectiveness was systematic evaluation, e s p e c i a l l y where t h i s meant focussing on objectives and teaching to the t e s t .  In the Brookover and Lezotte study  (1977), school G used  statewide c r i t e r i o n referenced tests to inform discussion of what, and, how to teach. Teachers r e l i e d on dittoed assessment 111  questions based on the tests and d r i l l e d the students i n the use of these tests u n t i l the test content was mastered. A study by Glenn (1981) of e f f e c t i v e schools for poor black children i n Massechusetts notes that teachers at one of the e f f e c t i v e schools gave their regular classroom quizzes i n standardized test format and made an e f f o r t to coach their students i n test taking techniques. The p r i n c i p a l was reported as administering practice tests on a regular basis and as time went by r a i s i n g the passing grade. Four times a year, students i n t h i s elementary school sat formal exams based on city-wide tests and standardized test b a t t e r i e s . Those who passed the test at the end of the year were rewarded with p o p s i c l e s . ( c i t e d i n Stedman, 1985, p.310)  A similar s i t u a t i o n obtained i n a number of e f f e c t i v e high schools investigated i n a study by Thomson and DeLeonibus in 1978.  The focus in these schools was i n keeping their SAT scores  high. Over half the p r i n c i p a l s of their schools admitted English c u r r i c u l a focused on areas that would prepare  their  students  for the SAT: t r a d i t i o n a l grammar and vocabulary exercises, (p.7 10, 18-20, 37) The superintendent  of the Richmond school system  set a system-wide goal of gaining the equivalent of one month's achievement measured on standardized achievement tests for each month of school.  Test results by classroom and teacher were made  available to the superintendent. Teacher job security and student promotion were d i r e c t l y t i e d to performance on these standardized t e s t s . Students who were assessed as being behind two grade levels were automatically retained, and placed i n remedial  112  programs whose main emphasis was preparing pupils to pass tests that came with the k i t s such students were required to work on. The progress of these students was monitored  by a central testing  department. To ensure a greater degree of uniformity the reading curriculum was standardized d i s t r i c t - w i d e by the adoption of a single reading s e r i e s , (cited in Stedman, p.310)  A teaching manual associated with teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s / Teachers Do Make A Difference recommends an Instructional approach known as "active p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . This approach i s one which, in e f f e c t , transforms teaching into an almost form of t e s t i n g . Teachers who  continuous  employ "active p a r t i c i p a t i o n " are  encouraged to teach d i d a c t i c a l l y , but at the same time they are to check for understanding by asking questions frequently and in a manner that enables them to see who  has the correct answer to  questions. Teachers are to ask their questions in such a way that a l l students w i l l be able to signal an answer. For example, in mathematics lessons students w i l l be expected to write their answers on individual slates and hold them up for the teacher to see. Questions which would otherwise involve written responses can be phrased as multiple choice questions. Thus students can respond by writing the correspondingly correct number on their slates or by holding up one or more fingers.  In t h i s way  the  teacher at a glance can t e l l who was successful in getting the correct answer. (Cummings,  1980)  There i s some reason to believe that teachers may  resort to  such forms of teaching simply to protect themselves. According to 113  Allan Ornstein, 40 states in the US have begun to administer standardized tests for the purpose of making decisions about student promotion or graduation. In Michigan there are plans to withhold up to 5% of funding from elementary schools which do not meet state norms in reading and mathematics. In New York state, students must pass examinations i n reading math, and writing in order to graduate. New York c i t y has introduced "promotional gates" at the end of the 4th and 7th grades. Students must pass achievement tests to pass on. The standard for fourth graders has been fixed at the 3.7 grade l e v e l and at the 6.2 grade l e v e l for seventh graders. Twenty five per cent f a i l each year. (Ornstein, 1984, p.96) Discussions regarding the city-wide implementation of a promotion p o l i c y in Philadelphia which would require a l l elementary students to pass grade l e v e l s k i l l s tests floundered when the committee proposing t h i s move learned more than 40,000 pupils were expected to f a i l or need special remediation classes. (Toch, 1884, p.174) the  in C a l i f o r n i a , the S t u l l Act requires that  competence of c e r t i f i e d personnel be measured i n part by  reference to student performance, i n Texas HB 72 c a l l s for a ban on s o c i a l promotion, and links promotion from grade to grade, as well as the right of students to participate in extra c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s , on their achieving course grades of at least 70%. In 1984 the states of Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina and Texas introduced education reform b i l l s which would allow state governments  to take over the control of l o c a l school systems i f  their test scores drop below c e r t a i n levels.(Anderson & Pipho, 1984, p.211)  As Darling-Hammond has said of circumstances l i k e  114  these: If there i s one thing s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s have discovered that has not yet been disproved, i t i s that i f bureaucrats are evaluated by a performance measure, they w i l l seek to maximize that metric at the expense of other areas of performance that are not measured, (p.5)  As one might guess there i s some concern oyer what might be the negative, unintended  consequences of t h i s emphasis on testing  and supervision. The c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of school governance i s a major concern of those opposed to the emphasis on standardization, as i s the suspicion that teachers w i l l  respond  to t h i s c e n t r a l i z a t i o n and control in ways not intended by the advocates  of teacher accountability. Madaus and Greaney (1985)  reported that one e f f e c t of I n s t a l l i n g competency tests for grade to grade promotion in Ireland between the 1940's and the 1960's was a phenomenon they c a l l e d "the t r a d i t i o n of past exams". Once the exams were set and teachers, parents, and students became familiar with them, a number of things began to happen. Teachers predictably enough began to teach to the t e s t , and so ignored other subjects or topics not l i k e l y to appear on the test that the Department of Education became concerned. A department report stated that "some of the inspectors of the opinion that i t would be appropriate to include History and Geography in the examination  as well, since these subjects are neglected in some  of the schools in the term after Easter." (cited in Madaus and Greaney, 1985,  p.284) As well publishers saw the opportunity to  prepare books of questions similar to those found in the exams. Most of these, according to Madaus and Greaney, were sold to  115  teachers to help them coach their students for the exam. Senior o f f i c i a l s in the Department of Education f i n a l l y admitted  they  could not a l t e r the exam in any major way since the "inspectors setting them f e e l they must adhere to the expected  pattern which  they have helped to create." (p.283)  Meier (1981) has noted the deleterious e f f e c t s on reading a b i l i t y that stem from an over-reliance on t e s t i n g , or more t y p i c a l l y from the use of standardized reading k i t s which in her estimation are no more than "disguised reading t e s t s " . Such k i t s , she observes, usually consist of "hundreds of unrelated paragraphs followed by multiple-choice questions and reams of d i t t o sheets... We are being pushed into programs aimed at ever narrower and more t r i v i a l s u b s k i l l s that...show up quickly on paper and pencil  tests."(p.460)  As part of a Minneapolis school system improvement program in mathematics, d i s t r i c t o f f i c i a l s mandated an emphasis on the teaching of fractions when they discovered from standardized test results that their junior high students were below national norms.  It was  pointed out at the time by the d i s t r i c t ' s math  supervisor that given the widespread use of c a l c u l a t o r s and  the  prevalence of the metric system such an emphasis on fractions could only be j u s t i f i e d on the grounds that test scores were important  in themselves.(Tyler and White, 1979,  Stedman, 1985,  p.313)  p.8; cited in  S i m i l a r l y , Brookover has given t h i s advice  to teachers regarding t e s t s :  116  It Is important that teachers cover the material in class in the same form i t Is to be used for t e s t i n g . . . If the test uses a horizontal format for addition, students must be taught in t h i s format. There should be no surprises in test format. This has been found to cause unexpectedly poor results on the part of students, even those who the teacher knows have mastered the material. (1982,p.256)  We have here a clear example of how tests begin to influence teaching. There i s also e x p l i c i t in Brookover's remarks the recognition that tests often f a i l to assess students as well as teachers can, yet there is a complete acceptance of the legitimacy of t e s t s . It i s teachers and how they teach that must change.  The E l l i s study (1975) of e f f e c t i v e Massechusetts schools found these schools had "a very strong orientation to d r i l l  and  p r a c t i c e . Much of class time i s spent having the entire group go over worksheets, (p.19) In 1983,  or generally d r i l l i n g  students on basic  skills."  Darling-Hammond and Wise studied three school  d i s t r i c t s whose c u r r i c u l a were t i e d to testing programs. In their interviews with teachers in these d i s t r i c t s they found that  two  thirds of the teachers had changed what they taught and one-third admitted that they were either teaching to the test or t r a i n i n g their students in test taking techniques, (p.5-6) Teachers  who  were interviewed admitted to abandoning essay assignments since the curriculum was geared toward multiple choice exercises and t e s t s . One teacher reported she was  forbidden to use creative  writing as part of her reading program, while another described how teachers in her school were required by the p r i n c i p a l to 117  rewrite standardized t e s t s , teach these to her students so they would score well when the real test was administered. She reported that two teachers who  refused to do t h i s were threatened  with d i s c i p l i n a r y action, (p.5-6) In this survey nearly one  half  of the teachers in these d i s t r i c t s reported they were considering leaving teaching as a result of the emphasis on standardization and t e s t i n g ,  (p.11)  Resistance to t h i s trend has taken other forms as well. Several commentators have noted a- dramatic r i s e in cheating and f a l s i f i c a t i o n of test r e s u l t s . The New  York State Education  Department study of e f f e c t i v e schools noted in i t s conclusion that " i n at least one school -- the school whose scores were r i s i n g dramatically -- at least half a dozen teachers indicated that objective test administration was violated, making reading achievement scores probably higher than expected." David Armour and his colleagues in a study of 20  (1974,p.9)  elementary  schools spanning four years found that in s i x of the ten high scoring classrooms students had been coached for the t e s t . In the other four classrooms the results suggest tampering  as well: data  from previous and subsequent years deviated sharply from that which was gathered during the study. (Ralph & Fennessy,  1983,  p.692) As a r e s u l t Armour et a l . divided t h e i r data into three categories. One category i s made up of data for which there i s no reason to doubt the v a l i d i t y of the data. The second  category  consists of data which the research team had strong suspicions about. The t h i r d data set contained c l e a r l y fraudulent data. In  118  the view of Ralph and Fennessy, only i f one accepts the f i r s t sets of data can one say the study gave any evidence being exceptionally high achieving schools. (Ralph Fennessy, 1983,  two  of there  and  p. 693; Meier, 1981.)  It also seems to these c r i t i c s that one of the chief e f f e c t s of increased supervision w i l l be the standardization of what i s taught and the manner in which i t i s taught. Cuban speaks of the "strong i r r e s i s t i b l e tug" toward a standard curriculum and the system-wide use of the same textbooks, over the fact that "adopting  and expresses  concern  the school effectiveness research  w i l l drive the curriculum and school management toward uniformity". (Cuban,1984,p.148) The question a r i s e s , then, in l i g h t of t h i s pointed c r i t i c i s m , of why  i t i s that school  effectiveness research has taken such a hold, and why  i t is able  to exert a "strong, i r r e s i s t i b l e tug" that draws people to adopt its prescriptions.  The answers to t h i s question are many, some of them having to do with the purported  low cost of t h i s sort of school  others to do with the genuine enthusiasm of teachers administrators who  reform,  and  see in school effectiveness research a degree  of c e r t a i n t y and s i m p l i c i t y concerning what should be done to improve schools. There i s also the sense that this research is s c i e n t i f i c and therefore r e l i a b l e . Ralph and Fennessy reject t h i s idea that school effectiveness studies have been conducted scientifically.  In their view school effectiveness research is  i n f l u e n t i a l because " i t lends the mantle of science to what 119  educators are already committed to believing about schools... In the guise of positive science, what we find i s a set of normative p r i n c i p l e s . " (p.693)  There are surely p o l i t i c a l  reasons as well, reasons that  have to do with the nature of power/knowledge.  Cuban speaks of  the pressure for results that "pinches" school boards and superintendents. He notes also the "boosterism surrounding d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods [which! ...presses teachers toward these practices" and of school boards and superintendents being "driven by the inexorable l o g i c of the research findings on e f f e c t i v e schools", (p. 142) The knowledge produced  and c i r c u l a t e d by this  research has, in a Foucauldian sense, produced  and c i r c u l a t e d the  e f f e c t s of power as well. These e f f e c t s need not always act on individuals in a coercive way,  at least not completely.  Superintendents, p r i n c i p a l s and teachers are empowered to take a more overtly supervisory role as the research findings act to legitimate closer supervision of students, teachers and p r i n c i p a l s . And they may  f r e e l y want to do so, for any number of  reasons that have nothing to do with their being coerced.  Yet  everyone can become caught  There  in t h i s " f i e l d of v i s i b i l i t y " .  is in the research on e f f e c t i v e schools a heavy emphasis placed on the importance  of the "educational leader", an emphasis no  doubt enjoyed by many current p r i n c i p a l s and superintendents  who  have had to l i v e with the suspicion that, as their subordinates might confirm, they do l i t t l e more than shuffle papers and get in the way of teachers doing their jobs. But as Cuban has noted,  120  "buried in the language of p r i n c i p a l s as i n s t r u c t i o n a l leaders and e f f e c t i v e teachers... i s a c r i s p a c c o u n t a b i l i t y for student performance - a s t e e l f i s t encased  in velvet". (Cuban,  p.137) State departments of education may  1984,  find themselves  same bind their I r i s h counterparts found themselves t r a d i t i o n of past exams". Local school boards may  with "the  come to r e a l i z e  there are enormous p o l i t i c a l and f i n a n c i a l costs connected retaining students who  in the  with  f a i l competency t e s t s .  Linked together in a l l t h i s are the people in the schools -- children, youths, teachers, and supervisors. They are linked by more than a common purpose and an overlapping set of obligations, however. They are linked together in a d i s c i p l i n a r y grid of v i s i b i l i t y made possible by t e s t s . Students are brought into the domain of power by means of examination, broadly defined. Teachers r e l y on teaching methods which turn teaching into a process of uninterrupted examination. A major part of t h i s process consists of the sort of teaching practices emphasized by Brophy, Good, and Rosenshine,  and c r i t i c i z e d by Meier and Cuban.  Reading k i t s , workbooks, and classroom tests which allow for more or  less continuous testing form the basis of i n s t r u c t i o n .  Teachers are encouraged to organize t h e i r classrooms and teach in a way that maximizes their capacity for supervisng their students. The use of standardized norm-referenced multiple comparisons:  tests permit  student to student, teacher to teacher,  school to school, p r i n c i p a l to p r i n c i p a l and so on. Schools and school systems come to be organized along p r i n c i p l e s of supervision with teachers and p r i n c i p a l s being judged on the 121  basis of such panoptic relays as test scores and other forms of inspection. S t i l l another part of t h i s process involves the creation of new norms. Foucault observes that each i n d i v i d u a l test score i n d i v i d u a l i z e s .  It refers i n d i v i d u a l actions to a whole that i s at once a f i e l d of comparison, a space of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , and the p r i n c i p l e of a rule to be followed. It d i f f e r e n t i a t e s individuals from one another, i n terms of the following o v e r a l l r u l e : that the rule be respected, or as an optimum toward which one must move. It measures in quantitative terms and hierarchizes i n terms of value the a b i l i t i e s , the l e v e l , the nature of i n d i v i d u a l s . (1984, p.195)  At some point a r b i t r a r y l i m i t s are imposed on t h i s hierarchy, and stigmatizatlon and exclusion can be j u s t i f i e d on the grounds that students with d e f i c i e n c i e s need remedial help, retention, etc., while fear of f a i l u r e w i l l encourage students to do their best. Madaus (1985) provides some t e l l i n g examples of the form t h i s process may take: the student who has done average work for 11 years f a i l s the state mandated functional l i t e r a c y test by a point or two and i s told she can't graduate u n t i l she scores above the cutoff; the c h i l d who i s pulled out of a regular classroom i s assigned to a remedial class following a poor showing on a statewide test; the high school athlete with the SAT score of 690 who as a r e s u l t of t h i s score i s i n e l i g i b l e to play in his freshman year.(p.612)  When i t appears that evaluation i s  biased i n an a r b i t r a r y way: that i t favours one group over another because of one group's f a m i l i a r i t y with a p a r t i c u l a r manner of speaking or of their acquaintance with facts seldom  122  encountered  in school, we usually object. Moreover, i f i t can be  shown that standards are a product of mapping a normal or b e l l curve which w i l l always ensure a certain percentage of f a i l u r e s , we are again concerned.  Madaus et a l . (1980) point out the manner in which standardized tests of achievement  are devised; i t i s clear  from  his account that because of the way tests are constructed i t may be that they are measuring  l i t t l e more than the s o c i a l  background  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students.  Test constructors, when they go about constructing t e s t s , have no clear national objectives to refer to, so they must e s t a b l i s h their own.  They do t h i s by reading curriculum guides  and textbooks, and by t a l k i n g to teachers. Because of the constraints on time and money, test designers seldom can afford to do more than t h i s . Madaus et a l . note that  evidence based on d i r e c t observation of i n s t r u c t i o n i s never provided to demonstrate that the goals and standards which are embodied in a test r e f l e c t the actual goals or standards emphasized in schools. Further there i s no independent check on the congruence between common objectives inferred from an examination of leading textbooks and c u r r i c u l a and what, when, and how the subject matter Is a c t u a l l y taught in classrooms throughout the country, (p.135)  The next step in test building i s to develop a table of specifications  in which the content to be covered in the test and  the s k i l l s needed to answer questions c o r r e c t l y are arranged in a g r i d . Each c e l l in the grid i s given a weighting. Then, test 123  items are developed with the table of s p e c i f i c a t i o n s being used to determine how many questions of a p a r t i c u l a r sort are included in the t e s t . Panels of teachers and subject area s p e c i a l i s t s are subsequently  consulted to see which items are most appropriate.  From t h i s point on a number assumptions made by makers of standardized tests determine the procedure of test b u i l d i n g . F i r s t , i t i s assumed that the purpose of standardized tests w i l l be to measure i n t e r - i n d i v i d u a l differences i n student achievement. The tests are devised so as to maximize the differences between i n d i v i d u a l s . Second, i t i s assumed that achievement i s normally d i s t r i b u t e d i n the population about to be tested. The tests are accordingly designed  to d i s t r i b u t e  students  on a normal curve. Madaus et a l . observe that "one consequence of building standardized achievement tests on the assumption that achievement i s normally d i s t r i b u t e d i s that the test results derive their meaning from the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the scores of the population who take the t e s t , or more l i k e l y from the representative reference population on which the test was normed'."(p.138) An i n d i v i d u a l ' s score t e l l s us nothing  directly  %  about what the student has a c t u a l l y learned, only that i n r e l a t i o n to others he has learned more or less than they have. When the pool of test items has been developed, the items themselves are f i e l d tested. In order to get a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n of scores, test designers screen items according to their d i f f i c u l t y and what i s c a l l e d their discrimination index. Since i t i s important  to discriminate between students,  124  items  that are either too easy or too d i f f i c u l t are thrown out. Madaus et a l . note that items which most or a l l students answer c o r r e c t l y or i n c o r r e c t l y are discarded or revised, since d i f f i c u l t i e s of near 0 or 100 percent provide no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between students... As early as 1936, Hawkes, Lindquist, and Mann pointed out that one consequence of discarding easy items i s that i f i n s t r u c t i o n has been adequate, very important or very fundamental items may have been so thoroughly taught that they have been mastered by a l l pupils. Such items would be eliminated in item-screening procedures used in the construction of standardized tests. (p.143)  It bears emphasizing that the "easy" items In these tests are  those which most students answer c o r r e c t l y . In t h i s way the  manner of test construction leads to the exclusion of those items which r e f l e c t the i n s t r u c t i o n a l emphasis of schools. Yet these sorts of instruments are p r e c i s e l y those which are most commonly used to assess the adequacy of school programs.  An additional feature of the test item s e l e c t i o n process i s that because  items of intermediate d i f f i c u l t y are those that end  up on the t e s t s , changes in the achievement  levels of weak  students are not l i k e l y to show up in test r e s u l t s . Most tests have items clustered around the 60% l e v e l of d i f f i c u l t y , while fewer than 5% of the items are at the d i f f i c u l t y l e v e l which w i l l permit weak students to make correct responses.(Madaus  et a l . ,  p.145) Madaus et a l . conclude  As the result of psychometric screening procedures there is such a small sample of items of suitable d i f f i c u l t y for disadvantaged children Cwho tend to score lowest on such tests] that r e l i a b l e estimates of changes in the 125  children's performance cannot be obtained, unless the compensatory program e f f e c t s an enormous improvement in the children's responses. T r a d i t i o n a l standardized tests simply were not designed to provide r e l i a b l e measures of change at the extremes of the d i s t r i b u t i o n , (p.145)  I r o n i c a l l y , i t was  tests designed in t h i s way that provided  the basic evidence for the claim that compensatory education programs weren't working. Moreover these tests f a i l to guide educators who  are primarily interested in improving, not just  special programs for the poor, but entire schools whose students come from predominantly same point in 1984  low-income f a m i l i e s . Edmonds made t h i s  when he argued that  norm-referenced, standardized achievement testing constitutes a formidable obstacle to resolution of the issues associated with greater achievement for lowincome students. F i r s t , the tests measure students in r e l a t i o n to each other and, therefore, do not produce results that e s t a b l i s h confidently whether or not i n d i v i d u a l minimum academic mastery has occurred. Second, mean or average aggregate school scores obscure whether and to what extent a l l students are progressing as they ought or might, (p.38)  Not only are tests of t h i s sort i n s e n s i t i v e to improvements and declines at the extreme ends of the tested population, they can very e a s i l y f a i l to d i s t i n g u i s h between e f f e c t i v e and i n e f f e c t i v e schools in general. I f , during f i e l d testing of test items, most students in one school answer a p a r t i c u l a r item c o r r e c t l y , while most of the students in another school answer i n c o r r e c t l y , the test designer w i l l l i k e l y throw the item out since i t w i l l be considered too d i f f i c u l t . Conversely we would have the same r e s u l t i f a l l the students in one school answered  126  i n c o r r e c t l y , while most students in four other schools answered c o r r e c t l y . Because the item would appear too easy i t would be discarded. Yet standardized tests have been the usual basis for d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between e f f e c t i v e and i n e f f e c t i v e schools, despite the l i k e l i h o o d that the test items which would be most useful in d i s t i n g u i s h i n g between schools are those which never appear on the f i n a l t e s t .  Test publishers are only too aware of the l i m i t s of their measures, and according to Coffman (1974), Dyer (1972), and Fitzgibbon (1975) they t r a d i t i o n a l l y point out these l i m i t s to their customers. Yet, despite these cautions, 29 states which e n r o l l two-thirds of school-age children in the US already use or are considering the use of these tests to determine mastery of basic school objectives. (Madaus et a l . , 1980,  p.166)  It i s not clear what t r a i t is being measured by these t e s t s . There i s reason, as we have seen, to doubt that a close f i t exists between what i s taught in schools and what i s measured in standardized t e s t s . Madaus concludes that "the general constructs these tests a c t u a l l y measure are so heavily loaded on and confounded with home background and general a b i l i t y as to render impossible a verdict about the d i f f e r e n t i a l effectiveness of d i f f e r e n t kinds of schools and school resources on pupil learning." (p.166)  It i s also i r o n i c that these t e s t s , which are now  being  c r i t i c i z e d on the grounds they deny low income students equal 127  opportunities to education, were in the 1960s, the main weapon used by l i b e r a l s i n the fight for compensatory education programs. Standardized tests and test scores were used in Congressional battles to push through l i b e r a l reform measures: T i t l e IV of the C i v i l Rights Act 1964, and T i t l e I & T i t l e III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. These programs were i n i t i a l l y j u s t i f i e d on the grounds that "an achievement gap", defined in terms of standard test  performance  l e v e l s , existed between disadvantaged and other c h i l d r e n . Celebrezze, Secretary of Health, Education, and  Anthony  Welfare i n 1965,  argued that  You w i l l find that by the end of the t h i r d year t h i s student [ i n central Harlem i n New York City] i s approximately 1.2 grades behind the national average and 1.1 grades behind the New York C i t y average. By the time he gets to the s i x t h grade, he i s 2.1 grades below the national average and two grades below the New York average. And by the time he gets to the eighth grade, he is [two and a half] grades below the national average and approximately 2 grades below the New York average.... The students continue to get further and further behind i n terms of standarized test norms... (cited i n Madaus et a l . , 1980, p.117)  in t h i s way i t was possible to supply what appeared to be  solid  documentation for the view that groups which were recognized as being economically deprived were also those who seemed to benefit least from regular educational programs. Over a short period of time test scores became accepted as the outward standard of school performance and encouraged the view that school effectiveness should be judged on the basis of outputs and not inputs. Madaus adds 128  Paradoxically, many individuals and groups who accepted standardized test r e s u l t s as indicative of a pressing need for remedial programs became c r i t i c s of these tests when they were used in studies which revealed l i t t l e improvement in pupil performance r e s u l t i n g from compensatory programs. (p.118)  Since the mid 1970's when Patrick Moynihan informed President Nixon that compensatory programs weren't working, that Dr. Jensen's thesis was p o l i t i c a l l y unacceptable, and that income d i s t r i b u t i o n might be necessary, standardized test scores have come to be the foundation for the view that /American education is c r i s i s and that the solution to t h i s c r i s i s rests with a greater reliance on testing and inspection. Under these  circumstances  even the p o s s i b i l i t y that standardized tests measure a t r a i t or t r a i t s which have more to do with s o c i a l class than student achievement should prevent us from placing our f a i t h in such tests, and should lead us to view with suspicion t h i s general trend toward an even greater reliance on test scores. If we do not proceed cautiously in this area, we risk deepening the gulf that already separates the s o c i a l l y disavantaged  from the rest of  American society. By permitting a school system to determine i t s successes and guide i t s i n s t r u c t i o n on the basis of standardized test scores, Americans risk i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z i n g a system for evaluating students, teachers, and schools that w i l l not only redefine c u r r i c u l a , and c e n t r a l i z e control of education, but w i l l promote further c r i s e s over i l l i t e r a c y , teacher competence, and the capacities of the poor to benefit from education.  129  CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION and FURTHER RESEARCH  The research l i t e r a t u r e dealing with teacher effectiveness and school effectiveness has been c r i t i c i z e d  on a number of  grounds.  1. The teaching-learning r e l a t i o n s h i p i s conceived to be a mechanical  process acting on an object. Students are  seen as being l i t t l e more than conduits into which flow teacher behaviours and from which emerge evidence of learning. (Tom,  1984;  Murnane, 1981; Meyer,  1977)  2. A severe narrowing of the curriculum w i l l r e s u l t from the adoption of teacher and school effectiveness research. (Cuban, 1984;  Stedman, 1985;  Hammond & Wise,  Stedman & Smith, 1983; Darling-  1985)  3. Teacher effectiveness research i s characterized by weak to moderate correlations and limited g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y . 1984;  Garrison & Macmillan,  (Tom,  1984)  4. School effectiveness research i s characterized by flawed research design, and contradictory findings. (Purkey & smith, 1983;  Ralph & Fennessy, 1983;  Stedman, 1985;  Rowan, Bossert, &  Dwyer, 19 84)  A l l of these c r i t i c s object to the excessive reliance in this body of research on outcome measures as indicators of 130  effectiveness. The foregoing i s meant to be more than a catalogue of mistakes and muddled thinking, however. It has been demonstrated  that the conceptual weaknesses, the methodological  shortcomings, and general willingness of advocates to overlook these weaknesses and overstate the a p p l i c a b l i t y of the research combine to produce certain e f f e c t s .  Foucault i s useful in that  he provides a theory which makes i t possible to see that a l l the shortcomings  in t h i s l i t e r a t u r e amount to something,  lead to a  p a r t i c u l a r state of a f f a i r s ; namely, d i s c i p l i n e d bodies.  Without the many mistakes that can be seen as c o n s t i t u t i n g a "systematic blindness", i t would not be possible for the d i s c i p l i n a r y mechanisms which have been discussed in these pages to be introduced into classrooms or refined and extended,  in some  cases, no doubt, these mistakes are simply the product of human error. But that these lapses of judgement should be so systematic, that the findings of t h i s research should be so e n t h u s i a t i c a l l y received, even by some of i t s harshest c r i t i c s , and that they should form the basis for so many of the recent changes in educational policy, suggests a widespread  suspension  of c r i t i c a l acuity.  As we have seen, these errors and oversights lead to a number of problems. F i r s t l y , i f these mistakes go u n r e c t i f i e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y those related to the inadequacies of t e s t s , we  may  expect a severe narrowing of the curriculum and an emphasis in i n s t r u c t i o n that i s not l i k e l y to develop capacities for c r i t i c a l  131  thinking, l e t alone promote basic l i t e r a c y and numeracy.  Nine reports on the state of American education were published in 1983,  an event which provoked the editors of the  Harvard Educational Review to term 1983  "the year of the  reports." (1984, p.l) Four of these reports were either commissioned by l e g i s l a t i v e bodies or spoke to the contribution federal and state governments could make to school improvement.  1.  A NATION AT RISK: THE  IMPERATIVE FOR  EDUCATIONAL REFORM  The report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education. This commission was appointed by the Secretary of Education Terrel H. B e l l to examine the educational system and recommend reforms.  2.  ACTION FOR  EXCELLENCE  The report of the Education Commission of the States' Task Force on Education for Economic Growth. This report was designed to help inform state governors of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between education and economic growth and the sort of educational reforms needed to promote such growth.  3.  MAKING THE GRADE The report of the Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on federal elementary and secondary education p o l i c y .  4.  EDUCATING AMERICANS FOR  THE  21ST CENTURY  A report, commissioned by the National Science Board, which i s s o l e l y concerned with the state of science and mathematics learning in American schools.  While these reports vary in their p a r t i c u l a r s and  the  stridency with which they condemn American schools, they share a 132  common perspective derived from human c a p i t a l theory. They see the Ainerlean economy, or more p r e c i s e l y American dominance in international trade, as being l a r g e l y dependent on the q u a l i t y of i t s educational system and the q u a l i t y of the s c i e n t i s t s , technicians, engineers, etc., i t i s capable of producing. According to t h i s view one can explain the decline of American dominance i n applied science, trade and industry i n terms of the d e c l i n i n g q u a l i t y of education and the erosion of standards in schools. A Nation at Risk begins with the following:  Our nation i s at r i s k . Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science,and technological innovation i s being overtaken by competitors throughout the world... If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed i t as an act of war. (p.12)  A Nation at Risk points to the absence of high standards in schools and the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of easy e l e c t i v e courses which permit ignorant, i l l i t e r a t e students to graduate as being among the chief reasons for the decline i n achievement. I t f a i l s to recognize, however, that the shortcomings  in student achievement  might be attributable to factors other than the indulgence of the school system toward  i t s c l i e n t s . Despite high levels of  unemployment, i t claims that " A l l children, by virtue of their own efforts...can hope to a t t a i n the mature and informed judgement needed to secure gainful employment." (p.12) That such employment has eluded so many must, by implication, be due i n large part to a school system that f a i l s to develop the potential  133  of Its c l i e n t s . to succeed  Students a l l along, i t seems, have had the a b i l i t y  in school; they have simply been too lazy to take  challenging courses or their teachers have either been too lazy as well, or too incompetent to teach them properly. The task force responsible for Making the Grade begins i t s report with the statement  that "the nation's public schools are in trouble. By  almost every measure —  the commitment and competency of  teachers, student test scores, truancy and dropout rates, crimes of violence —  the performance of our schools f a l l s far short of  expectation." (1983, p.3) Action for Excellence notes that individuals planning to be teachers score well below the national average on the Scholastic Aptitude Test. The members of the Task Force find t h i s "a disturbing fact. But i t i s probably what we should expect, given the low levels of pay and esteem that we accord teachers in America." (p.27) Educating Americans states that :  the q u a l i t y and s t y l e of elemenatary and secondary teaching constitute the most obvious and immediate source of the problems facing mathematics and science education...A substantial number of our Nation's 1.17 m i l l i o n elementary school f a c u l t y members lack s u f f i c i e n t knowledge, t r a i n i n g and, in many cases, interest to teach mathematics and science e f f e c t i v e l y , (p.29)  More and more students are turning their backs on algebra, French and other respected academic subjects, and are instead:  e n r o l l i n g in physical and health education, work experience outside the school, remedial English and mathematics, and personal-service and development courses, such as t r a i n i n g for adulthood and marriage... 134  Given this freedom to choose the substance of half or more of t h e i r education, many students opt for less demanding personal-services courses, such as bachelor living. (National Commission, 1983, p. 14)  Not only are teachers "drawn from the bottom quarter of graduating high school and college students", they are, once in college, required to take "courses the expense of courses Commission, p.14)  in "educational methods" at  in subjects to be taught."  (National  Making the Grade also points to the "trade  union mentality" that is responsible for transforming  "what had  been a noble though poorly compensated profession into a c r a f t led by c o l l e c t i v e bargaining orgnaizations with a focus on bread and butter issues —  wages, working conditions, and job  (for which read s e n i o r i t y ) . " (Making the Grade, 1983,  security  p.5)  Action  for Excellence implies that because there are no f i n a n c i a l incentives for superior teaching, the result i s an alarmingly high number of "unmotivated teachers".(p.26) It adds that "40% of secondary school science teachers have not attended a course or workshop in their subject area since they began teaching."(p.26) The message from these reports seem clear enough: l i f e has been too easy for students. Given the opportunity to take the easy  way  out they are doing so. Teachers are not l i k e l y to be competent given they are drawn from the least academically students  promising  in the system and spend a large proportion of their time  in courses that do l i t t l e  to give them a s o l i d grounding in their  subject areas.  It  is interesting to notice the s i m i l a r i t i e s between these  135  sentiments and those o£ the I r i s h prime minister who,  over forty  years ago, c a l l e d for a system of nation-wide competency testing in I r i s h primary schools. He insisted in 1941  that students  and  teachers be subject to standardized tests on the grounds that human beings are fundamentally  lazy, and therefore need to be  held in check by regular inspection.  Human tendency would be to make things easy i f we were not a l l the time kept up to concert p i t c h . The same is true of teachers... I know they are an excellent body, but I say that they are not more than human. Inspection, therefore, i s necessary and, more than inspection, the most important things of a l l are the tests at the end. (Madaus & Greaney, 1985, p. 274)  If we assume that the recent commissioned reports on the state of education  in the US give us a sense of the d i r e c t i o n in  which public schooling is moving, an examination of these reports can provide a glimpse of the future. It might prove worthwhile to explore, within a similar Foucauldian which define a c r i s i s in education  framework, these reports  in terms of declines in  American economic performance. Since i t is beyond the scope of t h i s thesis to explore these reports f u l l y , the following analysis w i l l only sketch the general outlines of what could be the basis for further research. We s h a l l consider the s i m i l a r i t i e s between the recommendations contained  in these  four reports and those found in teacher and school effectiveness research. As well, we s h a l l examine the way  in which a  "systematic blindness" has once again led to conclusions which make regulation and coercion seem a reasonable to Improve American education. 136  and promising  way  The reports provide considerable s t a t i s t i c a l data, mostly in the form of mean test scores at the national l e v e l , to support the assertion that the United States i s at r i s k because of the decline of i t s educational system. As previously mentioned, 23 m i l l i o n American adults are f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e , . . . 13% of a l l 17-year olds in the US can be considered f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e , . . . and Scholastic Aptitude Test scores have been s t e a d i l y d e c l i n i n g since 1963 - a decline of 50 points on average for  verbal a b i l i t y scores and one of 40 points i n mathematics.  (The National Commission, 1983, p.12)  Teachers  fare no better. Action for Excellence notes that  "in 1982 SAT scores for students preparing to be teachers were 80 points below the national average".(p.27) Educating Amerleans for the 21st Century states that " s h o r t f a l l s i n math and science education at the pre-collegiate l e v e l exist primarily because of a shortage of competent and dedicated  teachers".(p.33)  To counteract the e f f e c t s of years of poor schooling A Nation at Risk recommends that more academic courses,  conducted  with more r i g o r , be required for graduation from high school; that more time be spent on learning, f i r s t by better use of the school day, then by either lengthening the school day or school year; that better teachers be produced by the t r a i n i n g i n s t i t u t i o n s (poor teachers should be f i r e d , while good teachers be given incentives); and l a s t l y that c i t i z e n s provide more  137  f i s c a l support for education while holding educators and p o l i t i c i a n s responsible for the e f f e c t i v e leadership of education. In general the other reports frame the problem or less the same way.  in more  Low standards and easy graduation  requirements have combined with an i n d i f f e r e n t and  incompetent  teaching profession to produce a serious shortage of s k i l l e d manpower and i n t e l l e c t u a l t a l e n t s .  This emphasis on standards has led some commentators to worry about the possible negative e f f e c t s of r a i s i n g standards. It seems to some that the e f f e c t of higher standards, p a r t i c u l a r l y as they are enforced through standardized testing, w i l l be to exclude the new breed of " f a i l u r e s " from f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the school system, while at the same time making i t appear as i f the q u a l i t y of education has r i s e n . Deborah Meier comments:  The focus of normative t e s t i n g has played a major role in the trend toward defining a l l those in the bottom portion of any p a r t i c u l a r curve as "deviant", in need of "special education", thus j u s t i f y i n g the systematic removal of ever larger groups of children who are not "making i t " on the normative scales. As they are removed from the r o l l s of "regular" schools we have an i l l u s o r y f e e l i n g that standards have gone up... But the losers do not disappear, except from our immediate view. The p r o l i f e r a t i o n of "special education" enrollments i s p a r t l y a triumph. Some kids do need to be provided with special services. But i t has also become a way of trying to look more successful by merely redefining our population. (Meier, 1984,p.70)  The workings of power/knowledge and d i s c i p l i n e seem evident in these reports. By means of s t a t i s t i c a l methods and enormous  138  and sophisticated testing apparatuses, students and teachers have been brought into a " f i e l d of v i s i b i l i t y " . Once in view, as It were, they are, by means of these tests and other measures d i s t r i b u t e d in r e l a t i o n to a norm. The talk of f i r i n g s for incompetent teachers, merit pay for the good ones, and v a r i e t i e s of exclusion for students who another reveal the extent  f a i l to meet one standard  or  to which these reports c a l l for the  adoption of d i v i d i n g p r a c t i c e s . It seems equally clear that the t a c t i c of legitimating educational of s t a t i s t i c a l  p o l i c y changes through the  use  research data has been adopted by a quite  d i f f e r e n t group from that of the i n f l u e n t i a l investigators of the Coleman - Jencks era, a group, i t seems whose goal appears to be improving the material well-being supervision and regulation. Now,  of the s o c i a l body by means of as d i s t i n c t from 1966,  the  target has changed. Paradoxically, regulation is being advocated at a time when deregulation  i s generally most favoured, and  freedom from bureaucratic supervision most highly  valued.  Of course the v i s i b i l i t y which increasingly characterizes the s i t u a t i o n of students and teachers statistical  surveys and standardized  the data are interpreted, how The  is not due  simply  to  t e s t s ; i t is due to the  way  and to whom the issue i s reported.  interpretations of the data, and the reports, newspaper and  magazine a r t i c l e s which reach a large audience are also characterized by the sort of "systematic t y p i c a l of teacher Risk  blindness" that i s so  and school effectiveness research. A Nation at  is addressed to "the American people", Action for Excellence  is printed on glossy paper in a four colour format. Sidebars 139  with  c o l o r f u l l y bold and provocative quotations from the main text are scattered throughout  i t s pages. The t i t l e page of Educating  Americans promises that Americans w i l l be the best educated people i n the world by 1999 i f i t s recommendations are adopted. These are more the techniques of advertising journalism and demogogery than those which characterize sober and responsible scholarship.  Stedman and Smith (1983) i n their response to these reports note that "these reports are p o l i t i c a l documents; the case they make takes the form of a polemic, not a reasoned  treatise."  (p.87) They furthermore observe that the authors of these reports, rather than presenting c a r e f u l l y reasoned arguments in support of their position, "present a l i t a n y of charges without examining the v e r a c i t y of their evidence or i t s sources." (p.87)  A Nation at Risk provides 13 indicators of a disastrous decline i n educational standards i n American schools. One Indicator contrasts achievement i n the us with other nations; five other indicators describe contemporary achievement, while seven others contrast past achievement with that of the present.  Two of the five generalizations given concerning contemporary achievement point to high levels of i l l i t e r a c y . The f i r s t stated that 23 m i l l i o n adults are f u n c t i o n a l l y i l l i t e r a t e (A Nation at Risk, 1983,p.8), while the other referred to an i l l i t e r a c y rate among teenagers of 13%. (p.8) Though the reports  140  suggest they are giving a view of the current s i t u a t i o n , the data are nearly 10 years old, c o l l e c t e d by the National Assessment of" Educational Progress (NAEP) in 1974 and 1975. Many of the same items used by NAEP to assess l i t e r a c y in those two years were also used in 1971. The findings from t h i s e a r l i e r study raise some interesting questions. (1975)  Fisher (1981) and Gadway & Wilson  found that the 1974 and 1975 cohorts scored higher than  the 1971 cohort, yet there i s no mention in these reports of progress, only of decline.  The t h i r d generalization concerning the current s i t u a t i o n states that "over half the population of g i f t e d students do not match their tested a b i l i t y with comparable achievement in school." (p.8) This i s taken as evidence that bright students go unchallenged  in school since their scores on standardized tests  of a b i l i t y indicate higher levels of a b i l i t y than i s suggested  by  their school grades. It i s assumed that standards, as they are r e f l e c t e d by grades, have f a l l e n so badly that the top students f a i l to maximize their p o t e n t i a l . Because they are not challenged by demanding coursework bright students lose interest and become so apathetic their grades in school drop below what one would expect. It i s also assumed that in cases where there i s a difference in reported a b i l i t i e s , a standardized test i s a more r e l i a b l e indicator than a teacher's assessment.  In making the case for a decline in standards, the reports draw on data provided by SAT scores. Three of the seven indicators of a decline come from these scores. One 141  indicator  cited a drop i n SAT scores over the last 20 years. The second indicator found "consistent achievement test declines i n recent years i n such subjects as physics and English", (p.9) A t h i r d indicator drawn from SAT data found the number and percentage of very high test scores had dropped considerably over the l a s t 20 years. However, there are very good reasons to doubt that SAT scores can be used to judge the effectiveness of the school system. F i r s t of a l l , SATs are not designed to test school achievement. Secondly, there i s reason to believe SATs do l i t t l e more than measure f a m i l i a r i t y with upper middle class culture, and predict degree of success i n the f i r s t year of college. (Schrader, 1971, p.119)  W i l l i e (1985) asserts that  research has shown that SAT scores are v a l i d predictors of academic performance for only the f i r s t year of college, that these scores explain less than half of the variance i n f i r s t year college grades, and that academic performance during the f i r s t year of college does not predict performance during the fourth year of college for minority students, many of whom must make s i g n i f i c a n t adjustments to adapt to the college environment, (p.626)  Slack and Porter (1980) demonstrate how SAT scores are not s i g n i f i c a n t l y better at predicting college grades than are high school grades alone. A study by Nairn and Nader (1980) concludes that the SAT i s a poor predictor of college performance.  The Educational Testing Service (ETS), the designers and administrators of the SAT since 1929, have been i n s i s t i n g that the SAT i s not and never was intended to be a measure of student  142  achievement. I t i s designed to be a scholastic aptitude t e s t . It is meant to measure a student's capacity to learn i n the future, not what he has previously learned. To demonstrate t h i s point the ETS has, over the years, commissioned numerous studies to demonstrate the SAT i s not measuring the extent of students' success i n school. In fact the ETS i n s i s t s that "the previous experience or t r a i n i n g on the part of the individual i s assumed either to be lacking or to be constant for a l l individuals comprising the population considered." To ensure that school experiences do not account for variations i n test scores the ETS has i n t e n t i o n a l l y excluded test items that would correspond to what i s t y p i c a l l y learned in school, several Independent analyses confirm that the ETS has succeeded  i n i t s ambition of ridding the  SAT of questions which might relate to school c u r r i c u l a . According to such reports, SAT test items emphasize " l i t t l e  used  vocabulary and algorithms that are r a r e l y presented i n high school courses." (p.163) For example, consider the folowing t y p i c a l questions taken from the sample test published by the College Board  i n 1978.  25. In h i s , Parton reprints two comments upon her written by society people, one a man, the other a woman. These are not the putrescence later vomited upon her name by ordinary p o l i t i c a l buzzards of the newapaper press. These are of a d i f f e r e n t order -- comments presumably r e a l i s t i c by people of education professing friendship for her. They do not slander. They only sneer. Through every paragraph there runs under the main theme as sort of a contrapuntal melody the s p i t t i n g of a cat. Every line i s the mark of f e l i n e claws. It can be inferred that newspaper a r t i c l e s written about Rachel were (A) perfunctory and apathetic 143  (B) (C) (D) (E)  r e a l i s t i c and detailed i n s i p i d and ambiguous amusing and flippant v i l e and abusive  17. If p, q, and r are integers and q/p and r/q are both integers greater than 1, which of the following is NOT integer? (A) (B) (C) (D) (E)  p/r r/p rp/q rq/p qr/rp  (quoted in Slack & Porter, 1980,  an  p.163)  It is not that the test is measuring what should have been taught in schools, i t is. measuring exactly what the ETS  expects  w i l l not have been taught in school and which i t believes cannot be transmitted  by "intensive l a s t - d i t c h tutoring", (p.164) And  yet  the reports use the decline in SAT scores over the last 20 years as evidence that schools aren't doing their  jobs.  As for the idea that the SAT measures a b i l i t y or capacity for learning rather than prior learning, other studies have shown that intensive tutoring does indeed raise test scores. In one case, short-term  tutoring produced a mean gain of 98 points,  in another case, of 109 points, both considerably greater than the 50 point over 20 year national decline so widely p u b l i c i z e d . (Slack & Porter, p.158-159)  Fallows (1980) has noted of  SAT  preparation programs: " i f courses can be designed for the s p e c i f i c purpose of increasing scores on the t e s t s , does that not suggest that the tests reveal, rather than "aptitude" or "achievement," only mastery of an unusual or s p e c i a l i z e d system of thought." (p.45) Not only does a l l t h i s raise doubts about 144  what  i s being  whether  or  measured  not  In t h e  i t i s even  SAT,  s e n s i b l e to t a l k  c a p a c i t i e s ' or a p t i t u d e s w h i c h a r e experience  t o be  f r e e of  i t introduces  the  the  about  sufficiently  question  of  innate  independent  i n f l u e n c e o f c u l t u r e and  of  family  background.  Among t h o s e familiar and  with  Slack  families  and  vocabulary  and  Data  scored  tricky  on  and  the  who  SAT  do  are  "students  800,  i n the  suggests  that  c u l t u r e --  class  of t h e  r e l e a s e d by  i t s data  test  are  the  those  from  with  they  are  Porter  poor  language,  from those  l e a r n the  to  of  the  little  test  used  unlikely  to  ETS  range tests  coast." the  show t h e  do  relationship  p e r f o r m a n c e . Those s t u d e n t s s e c t i o n , those  same s t u d e n t s  with  perhaps even  on  the  verbal a b i l i t y  middle  east  to  SAT,  least  (p.163)  "what t h e  class  to d i f f e r  opportunity  those  well. According  p o o r l y are  math of t h e  the  families;  families  test  do  likely  income and  highest  some of  "  f o r 1974  family  wealthiest  those  who  little  test.  between 750  of  math a r e  With  and  the  between  world  p o o r l y on  m i n o r i t y g r o u p s whose e x p e r i e n c e  designers...  on  do  (1980) t h o s e  literature,  well  the  who  middling  of  the  (p.47)  so  The  relationship  come  on.  College  the  from  Fallows  i s exposure to  c u l t u r e of  scores  come f r o m  scores  income and  measure  who  with  upper  Board  has  between e c o n o m i c  MEAN FAMILY  145  middle  the p r o f e s s i o n a l published  standing  performance. STUDENT SCORE  who  INCOME  and  750-800 700-749 650-699 600-649 550-559 500-549 450-499 400-459 350-399  $24,124 21,980 21,292 20,320 19,481 18,824 18,122 17,387 16,182  He also points out how and the procedures  the manner of test construction  used by the test-makers  to ensure the test's  v a l i d i t y ensure that i t i s the same sort of people who  year after  year do well on the SAT. On each test there are a number of questions that have not appeared on other versions of the SAT  and  are there for the purpose of testing their r e l i a b i l i t y . Those who  evaluate the new  test items look at the number of times  high scoring students chose the right answer. If high scoring students give the wrong answer, the test item is revised or abandoned. By means of t h i s process, i t seems plausible to maintain that new versions of the SAT are made up of the questions which were answered c o r r e c t l y by members of a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l and economic stratum. As the table above suggests, students who  happen to come from the wealthiest  families have the most Influence in determining the sort of questions which appear on the t e s t . Fallows concludes that " i f talents are diverse, i f d i f f e r e n t groups d i s p l a y their in d i f f e r e n t ways, t h i s process  abilities  [of testing] w i l l never reveal  i t , because the standard set in the beginning i s the standard i t r e t a i n s . " (p.42)  An important e f f e c t of devising tests in t h i s manner i s the 146  way  in which the results from these tests can serve to enshrine a  kind of p r i v i l e g e . Insofar as access to the best colleges i s regulated by reference to SAT scores, those who do well on these tests are given an important advantage over those who do less well. Harvard Business School produces far and away more successful and i n f l u e n t i a l CEOs than do any of the colleges which would accept applicants with mediocre SAT scores. (Gifford, 1984,p.40)  Future members of the upper middle c l a s s , i t seems,  are assisted in their pursuit of the most prestigious and highest paying jobs by means of a device which favours the upper middle class and which l i m i t s the extent education can provide s o c i a l mobility to the less fortunate. It appears i t Is mainly the r i c h who  are smart; i t may  from SAT results that be, however, that  SATs simply define the r i c h as smart, while at the same time providing, as Fallows suggests "a s c i e n t i f i c basis for the order of  lords, vassals, and s e r f s . " (p.48)  Another indicator of a decline in standards c i t e d in A Nation at Risk rests on data taken from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. According to A Nation at Risk there has been a "steady decline in science achievement scores of U.S. year-olds as measured by the NAEP in 1969,  1973,  17-  1977." (p.9)  The  Commission f a i l s to mention, however, that the decline is very small, as i t i s in other areas such as math and writing. (Stedman and Smith, 1983,p.89) As well, the Commission f a i l s to mention that reading performance improved for young students, and remained more or less the same for teenagers during t h i s period.  147  (p.89) In fact, the Commission suggests these findings: that teenagers  the very opposite from  are less l i t e r a t e than they used  to be and that the trend toward i l l i t e r a c y i s only getting worse.  The reports, e s p e c i a l l y the National Commission's, emphasis that standards are down because of a lack of academic emphasis in high school programs. Too many students take too many easy e l e c t i v e courses. There has been "a c a f e t e r i a - s t y l e curriculum in which the appetizers and desserts can be mistaken for the main course."  (A Nation at Risk, p.14)  The main evidence  for this  charge comes from a study by Adelman (1983) which analyzed changes in high school t r a n s c r i p t s of two samples, one from 1969  and another  from 1975-1981. (Stedman and Smith, 1983,  The f i r s t sample was  1964p.89)  of only 27 high schools. Very few of these  were from the South and none of them were in c i t i e s with populations over 1 m i l l i o n . The second sample was a national survey of households. These are not comparable populations.  The Commission concludes, on the basis of data which show an increase in the number of general track and academic students e l e c t i n g to take driver t r a i n i n g and the l i k e , that there i s therefore a de-emphasis of academics in American high schools. The same data, however, make i t clear that there has not been a s i g n i f i c a n t decline in the number or proportion of academic courses students take in high school. In some of the areas the Commission i s most interested -- in math, science and foreign languages —  the differences are miniscule for academic  students and represent an increase for general track students. 148  (Stedman and  Smith, 1983,  p.89)  The Commission i d e n t i f i e s other  indicators of a lack of  academic focus: d e c l i n i n g amounts of homework, lax d i s c i p l i n e , grade i n f l a t i o n . No attempt is made to demonstrate a link between the mainly anecdotal  evidence for declines in amount of  homework etc. and declines in achievement; the link is merely assumed. The strongest evidence they do provide consists of work by Coleman, Kilgore, and Hoffer  (1981) that shows private  schools, which as a group tended to "produce" higher also assigned  test  scores,  more homework than public schools. The Coleman  study raises the p o s s i b i l i t y that homework contributes to achievement gains.  However, i t can hardly be said on the basis  of this study that declines in the amount of assigned homework account for a drop in achievement l e v e l s , or that increasing the amount of homework w i l l contribute to achievement gains. Indeed, a study on e f f e c t i v e schools by Echternacht (1977), c i t e d e a r l i e r , found that many i n e f f e c t i v e schools assigned homework, stressed d i s c i p l i n e and emphasized academic subjects, while e f f e c t i v e schools did not.  The point i s not so much that one study i s better than the next, but that the authors of the reports either f a i l to notice or choose not to report the f u l l implications of the data. It  may  well be that there have been serious declines in standards and achievement. What seems undeniable i s that some people have been w i l l i n g to abandon, or for one reason or another have f a i l e d to  149  employ, ordinary standards of judgement  in drawing conclusions  from the data. Peterson (1983), in the position paper on the state of  American education that accompanied  Making the Grade,  concluded that "nothing i n these data permits the conclusion that educational i n s t i t u t i o n s have deteriorated badly." (p.59) Yet as Stedman and smith point out, the authors of Making the Grade argue as i f the data do permit such a conclusion,  (p.90)  There are similar problems with the way i n which the reports make international comparisons. The reason for making these comparisons in the f i r s t  place i s to reinforce the idea  that America's declining economic performance i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to i t s comparatively weak school system. The reports suggest that students i n Europe and Japan are better educated and that i f Americans are to be competitive the American school system should be modelled on the Japanese and western European systems. This would mean increasing the time schools devote to academic subjects by increasing the length of the school day and academic year, and emphasizing c e r t a i n subjects such as mathematics, science, English, and foreign languages. The bald assertion that current levels of achievement i n the  US are uniformly lower than i n Europe and Japan i s simply  unsupportable. I t is. defensible to assert that achievement levels expressed as national averages show American students ranked lower than their European and Japanese counterparts during the years 1964 to 1971. The only available data t e l l us t h i s much, and i t t h i s data, collected by the International Assessment of Educational Achievement  (IEA), that the reports r e l y on. It does 150  not follow from the data, however, that t h i s difference accounts in any way for variations in international levels of i n d u s t r i a l productivity, or that i t supports the view that American youths are less well educated than their foreign F i r s t of a l l , the data are  age-mates.  15 to 20 years o l d . Secondly,  very small, select groups of students in foreign countries are being compared  to a more comprehensive group of American  students. Husen (1979) argues There i s no point in comparing the standard achieved i n mathematics among upper secondary school students in a system with p r a c t i c a l l y universal upper secondary schooling with that in a system where a small select f r a c t i o n of the relevant age group proceeds to that l e v e l . The achievement standard i n , say, mathematics of high school seniors in the United States i s far below that of their age-mates in England who s i t for the GCE or of the Oberprimaner in the Federal Republic. The pointlessness of such a comparison stands out when we find that 75 % of the relevant age group in the United States i s compared with only 15-25% in England or Germany, (p.95)  A more useful comparison, one between e l i t e students, has shown that "the e l i t e among US high school seniors did not d i f f e r considerably in their performance from their age-mates i n France, England, or Germany." (Husen, 1983, p. 456) According to Stedman and Smith's analysis of more recent (1970-1971) IEA data the top 9% of US students do better than their foreign counterparts. It does not appear, then, that the matter of comparative l e v e l s of achievement i s quite as simple as the reports make i t sound.  As we have already noted, i t i s assumed i n the reports that the low levels of achievement in American schools can be 151  attributed in large part to the poor q u a l i t y of teaching. The to  improve the q u a l i t y of teaching, the reports suggest,  way  is to  improve the q u a l i t y of teachers. The c r i t i c i s m of teachers rests on a number of claims: their low test scores compared to other professional groups reveal an i n t e l l e c t u a l l y mediocre profession; teacher preparation programs emphasize pedagogy and  ignore  subject matter; low s a l a r i e s f a l l to a t t r a c t competent people to teaching; shortages of q u a l i f i e d math and science teachers have led to the use of unqualified teachers.  There are several problems with these claims. Given that education majors t r a d i t i o n a l l y have had lower test scores than other majors, one would expect uniformly low levels of achievement among schoolchildren rather than the alleged sharp decline.  Since t h i s factor appears to have been constant  throughout the years of the so-called decline in educational attainments, was  i t cannot account for i t . Furthermore, Jencks (1972)  unable to find any s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between teachers'  scores on standardized tests and the achievement of their students, (p.96,127)  The comparatively  low SAT scores teachers are said to have  earned in their high school days is taken as evidence that teachers as a group are l i k e l y to be incompetent. However, at best, SAT scores are evidence  that prospective teachers are  l i k e l y to have d i f f i c u l t y with u n i v e r s i t y coursework in their f i r s t year of college. Beyond that there is very l i t t l e  152  that SATs  can predict about the future. Therefore, the inference that those who  once did poorly on an aptitude test w i l l turn out to be  incompetent teachers five or ten years later i s not v a l i d .  The reports imply that teachers, as a group, have low  SAT  scores. In fact, the low SAT scores belong to individuals who  at  17 or 18 thought they might l i k e to be teachers and said so on the forms provided with the t e s t . Even i f one c a v a l i e r l y assumes that those who  indicated they would major in education did so,  one could not assume that most teachers are represented  in the  SAT r e s u l t s of would-be education majors. The bulk of secondary school teachers, with the exception of physical education s p e c i a l i s t s , do not major in education, they major in t h e i r subject s p e c i a l i t i e s of English, math, science and the (Clark & Marker, 1983, Smith, 1983,  p.  pp.55-56; Hacker, 1984;  like.  Stedman &  101)  There i s recent evidence, a l s o , that the majority of those who  report their intention to become teachers do not end up as  teachers. Lyson and Falk (1984) using data from the National Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972  found that  "seven years after high school graduation over three-fourths of the high school seniors who  reported teaching plans were not  teaching." (p.191) of s p e c i a l interest was  t h e i r further finding  that "for high school students, the teaching option appears most feasible and attainable for white women, from r u r a l areas,  who  performed well in high school. Nonwhites, those less g i f t e d academically, and those from lower s o c i a l class backgrounds are 153  more l i k e l y to abandon their o r i g i n a l teaching plans in favor of some a l t e r n a t i v e employment." (p.191) The study i d e n t i f i e d s i x groups among those who  reported their occupational plans as  seniors: achievers, defectors, dropouts, climbers, converts, and professionals. Achievers reported plans to teach when they were seniors and were teaching seven years l a t e r . Defectors had planned to teach but instead entered professional or  managerial  positions seven years l a t e r . Lyson and Falk used the US census codes 001 -196  to determine which jobs were professional, and  codes 201-246 to determine managerial  jobs. Dropouts expected to  become teachers but later came to hold nonprofessional jobs (census codes 260-995). Those who managerial  aspired to professional and  jobs in high school but later came to hold teaching  jobs were termed converts. Professionals were those who  as  seniors intended to become professionals and did so. Lyson and Falk found that among these groups SAT scores were highest for the defectors and professionals and lowest for the dropouts. Those who  followed up their plans to become teachers, the  achievers, were "more l i k e l y to be white and female, to have performed well in,high school, but not to have scored high on the SAT."  (p.190) This study by Lyson and Falk raises some important  questions about the assumed r e l a t i o n s h i p between SAT scores and academic a b i l i t y , and c l e a r l y casts doubt on the assumption that those who  say they want to be teachers do in fact end up in the  classrooms.  Unfortunately the complicated question of the SAT's  154  usefulness goes largely ignored in these reports. They are more intent in laying out the c r i s i s in education and presenting recommendations for reform. A Nation at Risk reminds us that "History i s not kind to idlers".(p.13) Educating Americans likewise warns us that "human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe."  (p.3) If the American  standard of l i v i n g and way of l i f e are to survive the schools w i l l have to improve. If the recommendations of these reports are acted upon, Improvement  w i l l mean d i f f e r e n t things to d i f f e r e n t  people. For students i t w i l l mean tougher grading and courses; no longer w i l l students be allowed to have "a c a f e t e r i a style curriculum." Instead students w i l l be required to take more academic courses, e s p e c i a l l y In math, science and foreign languages. They can expect more homework, more time i n school and more t e s t s , e s p e c i a l l y standardized t e s t s . A Nation at Risk recommends a national system of standardized tests-of achievement be implemented to guide c e r t i f i c a t i o n and i d e n t i f y needs. Those who excel at school, the top 2%, w i l l be e l i g i b l e  for the 2000  proposed magnet schools that would s p e c i a l i z e in math and science. (Educating Americans,1983) Those students_who f a i l to meet the new demands are to be placed in special programs designed to give them "basic employment  and economic  competencies". (Action for Excellence, 1983, p.50)  The recommendations of the reports mean something else for teachers. They w i l l be subject to the same longer days and longer years their students face. They w i l l need to assign more homework and grade i t . But most of a l l they w i l l be subject to a degree of 155  examination and inspection unlike anything seen to date i n the schools. Their effectiveness and that of the school as a whole w i l l be judged by the results of standardized t e s t s . P r i n c i p a l s w i l l be expected to increase the number of inspections and w i l l be held accountable  for the performance of teachers. Teacher  s a l a r i e s and those for p r i n c i p a l s w i l l be t i e d to measures of their effectiveness. With a clearer idea of who i s " e f f e c t i v e " and who i s not, teachers and p r i n c i p a l s can be ranked and f i t t e d into the expanded career ladders a l l the reports c a l l e d f o r . Preservice teachers w i l l be required to pass a standardized test in order to become c e r t i f i e d ; not a new circumstance, authors  but one the  of the reports think should be u n i v e r s a l .  The r e s u l t of the sort of reforms recommended by Educating Amerleans w i l l be "education  for a l l American elementary and  secondary students so that their achievement i s the best i n the world by 1995." ( t i t l e page)  Having the best educated c h i l d r e n  w i l l , i t i s argued, bring many rewards: "improved p r o d u c t i v i t y ; sustained economic growth; job and career opportunities for a l l people; the economic wherewithal to provide adequate public services; a secure defense."  (p. 16)  One of the chief concerns expressed  by c r i t i c s of these  reports i s that a l i k e l y consequence of these measures i s that many students w i l l drop out of school. Unless the assumption made in the reports that students are not being challenged  i s correct,  students already struggling with school w i l l face even greater  156  d i f f i c u l t i e s . John Lawson commenting in the Boston Globe said in response to c a l l s for higher standards: " i f a kid can't clear four feet, i t doesn't do much good to raise the bar to four feet, s i x inches." (cited in Duckworth, 1983, p.15)  More of the  same schooling i s not l i k e l y to do more for children who are already struggling in school than convince them to drop out. Boston schools in 1983 had a dropout rate of 50% according to Rosemarie Rosen, deputy superintendent for finance and adminstration for Boston Public Schools. (Rosen, 1983,  p.28)  Higher standards w i l l not l i k e l y reduce the reasons these students had for dropping out, though paradoxically, they may ultimately reduce the drop-out rate in c i t i e s l i k e Boston simply by means of a t t r i t i o n .  McDill, N a t r i e l l o , and Pallas (1986) indicate that the drop-out problem i s a serious one. Their summary of the l i t e r a t u r e on dropouts indicates there are three main factors which are associated with teenagers dropping out of school. Poor academic performance  i s the most commonly given reason  students have for dropping out.  The second most powerful predictor of dropping out i s "family formation"; more simply, teenage pregnancy marriage. According to N e i l l  and/or  (1979) "about one m i l l i o n  adoslescent g i r l s -- nearly one in ten  -- conceive each year,  and 600,000 young women carry their pregnancies to f u l l  term....  An estimated 400,000 pregnant teens are under 17 years of age." (p.32) Eight out of ten of these mothers under age 17 never 157  f i n i s h high school. For these students, keeping up with school becomes impossible, and many female dropouts report pregnancy as a reason for dropping out. Since approximately 60% of a l l teenage mothers end up on welfare, i t seems reasonable to assume many of them come from poor families, (cited in McDill et a l . , p.141, 171)  The t h i r d category of conditions associated with dropping out i s economic factors. According to Peng et a l . (1983) more than 1/4  of a l l male drop-outs report they l e f t school for a job.  Roughly 1/5 of minority male dropouts and 1/10  of a l l other  dropouts report leaving school because they had to support a family.  A 1983 study by Michael and Tuma revealed that 25% of  a l l 14 year olds and 50% of a l l 17 year olds held part time jobs while attending school. D'Amico (1984) indicates that working 12th graders average 15 to 18 hours of work per week. It seems reasonable to assume that those who  l e f t school for a job, or to  support or raise a family are, in a great many cases, those with the least amount of money to begin with. Likewise many of those teenagers who  hold part time jobs surely do so out of necessity.  Longer school days, a longer academic year, and more hours of homework w i l l make i t increasingly d i f f i c u l t  for students in poor  families to continue in school.  Meier  (1983) has already pointed out that one way of making  schools look more e f f e c t i v e i s to redefine the population of students in schools. While her remarks were directed to the  158  p r o l i f e r a t i o n of "special education" programs which remove students from regular programs, they could just as e a s i l y be applied to those e f f o r t s to raise standards which are predicated on the assumption that teachers and students are working well below capacity. Several c r i t i c s of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e have noted this tendency already, e s p e c i a l l y where tests w i l l be used to determine promotion to higher levels of education, or when they govern the awarding of valued diplomas.  Madaus and Greaney (1985) in their analysis of the e f f e c t s of competency testing in Ireland between 1943 and 1967 note that one of the chief e f f e c t s of the testing program was a widespread attempt by teachers to l i m i t the number of students who wrote the tests,  or to slow down the rate of progress of the weaker  students. The most important test students faced in I r i s h schools during t h i s period was the Examination for Primary School C e r t i f i c a t e , set at the end of grade s i x when students were 12 or 13. The c e r t i f i c a t e was valued by students in much the same way high school diplomas are today. They provided a q u a l i f i c a t i o n for those who would continue into postprimary schooling, and were very useful in helping students obtain jobs once they l e f t school. Madaus notes:  The evidence suggests that when the primary c e r t i f i c a t e became compulsory, I r i s h teachers adopted a number of strategies to control the f a i l u r e rate. There was an overall decrease in promotion rate, with a pronounced decrease in promotion rate from t h i r d to fourth grade and, more important, from f i f t h to s i x t h grade.  159  S i m i l a r l y , Steelman and Powell (1985) express concern over the way  in which states which have few students write the SAT  appear to have higher standards In i t s schools, an impression at least one state governor has c a p i t a l i z e d on in an attempt to draw investors to his state. South Dakota t r i e d , in a 1982  national  advertising campaign, to a t t r a c t business investment by p u b l i c i z i n g i t s r e l a t i v e l y high SAT scores. It didn't announce, however, that only 2% of i t s students write the test compared to 69% in Connecticut or 59% in New York, two states which scored lower. When considerations such as percentage of students who write the SAT are taken into account, New  York's ranking among  a l l the states goes from 35th to 5th, while Utah's went from 8th to 46th, and North Dakota's  from 3rd to 30th.(1982 data)  Steelman and Powell are concerned that given the p o l i t i c a l reasons for keeping SAT scores high or having them improve, educators may discourage some students from writing the SAT. Indiana, which ranked 46th in former Secretary of Education Terrel B e l l ' s state "school scoreboard", t r i e d unsuccessfully to reduce the number of students taking the SAT. Georgia, which ranked 49th, has discussed plans to eliminate the SAT as an entrance requirement for state colleges. Alabama, between 1972 and 1983, enjoyed an average increase i n SAT scores of 114 points. At the same time the proportion of students in Alabama who wrote the test declined by one t h i r d , (pp. 603-607) There i s . a danger, which these s t a t i s t i c s only hint at, that the appearance  of success w i l l be bought at the expense of the least  able. 160  Even though Educating Americans i n s i s t s that "academic e x c e l l e n c e . d o e s not mean the provision of high q u a l i t y education to only a small group of highly talented youth" and that A Nation at Risk declares "that a l l children by virtue of their own efforts...can hope to a t t a i n the mature and informed judgement needed to secure gainful employment", there i s l i t t l e evidence i n these reports to suggest we should not fear that the stage i s being set for "once again abandoning the disadvantaged in the name of "excellence".(Meier,1983,p.63)  Former US  Commissioner of Education Harold Howe i s s i m i l a r l y  concerned  about the manner i n which equity i s ignored i n these reports:  Fairness to both students and taxpayers in the funding of education, along with continued attention to issues of discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and national o r i g i n , constitute a continuing equity agenda that i s i l l attended i n the reports and studies or responses to them.(cited i n McDill et a l . , 1986,p.139)  Teacher effectivenss and school effectiveness research, along with the p o l i c y implications of the commissioned reports represent a far-reaching, though p a r t i a l l y developed system for c o n t r o l l i n g teachers and students. The school system i s , as Meyers has noted, a nested system, with classrooms nested in schools, schools nested i n d i s t r i c t s and so on. These three bodies of research have produced  e f f e c t s throughout  the various  nested layers, connecting them together i n what Foucault would term a d i s c i p l i n a r y matrix. One might wonder what the school system would look l i k e i f such a matrix were to operate  161  unopposed. The stage for h i e r a r c h i c a l observation,  normalizing  judgement, and examination has already been set. It is a simple matter to predict what the school system would look l i k e in an imaginary world where domination was  complete, and accountability  procedures f u l l y determined the actions of teachers and Teachers would be pressured to test and rank students,  students. standardized  t e s t s , teaching materials and methods of teaching which amount to the same thing as testing would represent the foundation of i n s t r u c t i o n . P r i n c i p a l s would be expected to ensure teachers teach the standardized c u r r i c u l a in a standard way.  The  performance of teachers and their supervisors would be  evaluated  by scores on city-wide, d i s t r i c t - w i d e or state wide normreferenced exams. Promotion and s a l a r y increases for both teachers and school administrators would be t i e d to r a i s i n g test scores. The a b i l i t y of states to ensure acceptable would be judged by means of measures l i k e the SAT,  standards or regulated  through a reliance on minimum competency t e s t i n g . Overall educational effectiveness would be judged by i n t e r n a t i o n a l comparisons and continuing assessments. As we have seen, to varying degrees, and  in a piecemeal fashion, t h i s i s already  being done.  If we could be confident that Foucault i s correct in thinking d i s c i p l i n a r y power produces d o c i l e , useful and productive bodies, we might only object to these practices on the ground they represent a form of power that i s "counterlaw" and which operates  largely unrecognized  and beyond the reach of  ordinary people. And many of us would l i k e l y be very 162  uncomfortable with any coercive s o c i a l or p o l i t i c a l arrangements, regardless of how e f f e c t i v e they might make our school system, we would surely also want to object to the way d i s c i p l i n a r y power tends only to operate alongside the production of f a i l u r e s , anomalies, problems to be solved. As Foucault has demonstrated in D i s c i p l i n e and Punish, people c l a s s i f i e d i n t h i s way have tended to act as s i t e s for the further operation of power and knowledge.  P o l i t i c a l technologies advance by taking what i s e s s e n t i a l l y a p o l i t i c a l problem, removing i t from the realm of p o l i t i c a l discourse, and recasting It i n the neutral language of science... The language of reform is...an e s s e n t i a l component of these p o l i t i c a l technologies. Bio-power spread under the banner of making people healthy and protecting them. When there was resistance, or f a i l u r e to achieve i t s stated aims, t h i s was construed as further proof of the need to reinforce and extend the power of the experts.(Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1983, p.196)  Foucault noted i n The History of Sexuality that the the r e s t r i c t e d s o c i a l role for women, and the ensemble of coercive practices which were associated with the control and regulation of sexual urges, drives, etc., during the V i c t o r i a n era were both j u s t i f i e d  on the grounds that the health of the  nation and i t s future welfare were at stake. In a s i m i l a r , i f less dramatic, fashion, the commissioned reports on education justify  increased supervision and regulation of teachers and  students  on the grounds that the nation i s at r i s k . It i s  p a r t i c u l a r l y disturbing that the means of regulation and control in schools are l i k e l y to lead to circumstances that w i l l be  163  "construed as further proof of the need to reinforce and  extend  the power of the experts", and w i l l serve to j u s t i f y the imposition of ever finer forms of supervision and inspection.  Be that as i t may,  a factor which Foucault tends to  downplay i s the human capacity for escaping or otherwise r e s i s t i n g coercion. Resistance i s l i k e l y to have i t s own deleterious e f f e c t s . We have seen that a t - r i s k students are l i k e l y to drop out of school, as are teachers who,  f e e l i n g they  have lost a good deal of their autonomy, resent being managed by remote c o n t r o l . Teachers and administrators are encouraged by the emphasis on t e s t i n g to teach to the t e s t , to tamper with test r e s u l t s , or to redefine the population of test-takers in order to appear successful. We have also seen that children are l i k e l y to be given fewer and fewer opportunities for sustained reading and c r i t i c a l discussion, and to be subject to hours of r e p e t i t i v e d r i l l and practice at s u b s k i l l s . The " t r a d i t i o n of past exams" w i l l come to define the curriculum. And as Madaus has warned, educators w i l l be encouraged to "hand over c r u c i a l decision, making to a surrogate teacher [the test] with a narrow range of multiple choice questions, measuring an equally narrow range of a b i l i t i e s , with the f i n a l mechanical  decision based on a s t i l l  narrower point on a numerical scale..." He further adds: "the agency that controls test content through the t r a d i t i o n of past exams... controls what i s taught and how (1985,p.615-616) Those who  i t i s taught."  do not find themselves stigmatized and  excluded, those not i d e n t i f i e d as " i n e f f e c t i v e " teachers, "problem" students, or " s p e c i a l " students, w i l l find themselves 164  in classrooms where established norms of teaching pressure teachers to teach in ways that do l i t t l e r a t i o n a l judgement, and which may  to encourage  independent  in fact i n h i b i t youngsters'  e f f o r t s to learn to read. Students w i l l find themselves in classrooms where norms of achievement  defined by standardized  tests determine the content of education. And where, in time, normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s of grades are the only ones which appear to be normal. In t h i s way a c e r t a i n percentage of f a i l u r e s is inevitable, as i t i s now.  There i s every reason to believe that those who  f a l l below  acceptable levels of competence w i l l , in the majority of cases, be poor whites and v i s i b l e minorities. Since their exclusion w i l l not appear to have come at the hands of the p o l i t i c a l l y motivated, they w i l l appear to deserve the l i m i t a t i o n s on their freedom that must surely result from this narrowing of their opportunities. Paradoxically, Edmonds, in his advocacy of teacher effectiveness research w i l l have contributed to the adoption of practices which w i l l further disenfranchise blacks and the disadvantaged. By their reliance on quantitative measures in the struggle to secure equal opportunities for the disadvantaged, the l i b e r a l reformers of the Coleman-Jencks era w i l l have secured just the opposite. It was the Coleman and Jencks studies that did so much to legitimate the use of s o c i a l research in educational p o l i c y formation, and which revealed to successive generations of s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s the p o s s i b i l i t i e s such research possessed.  165  Taken together, these three bodies of educational discourse exemplify the workings of bio-power. Teacher effectiveness and school effectivness research provide the means of d i s c i p l i n i n g individual bodies; students are increasingly pushed to exhibit a narrow range of competencies i n the same ways, while teachers are pressured to standardize their teaching practices. The targets of power in the l i t e r a t u r e of effectiveness are individual teachers and students. The research on the state of education at the national level provides the j u s t i f i c a t i o n for the regulation of the s o c i a l body i n the interests of i t s preservation and well-being. Yet, this research, i f implemented and accepted by educators, w i l l l i k e l y contribute to declines i n l i t e r a c y and numeracy so long as the tests which drive the curriculum and teaching practices i n general remain  inadequate.  While they serve the purpose of monitoring i n s t r u c t i o n and ensure a degree of accountability, they do not represent the goals we have i n mind when we speak of education as the i n i t i a t i o n of the young into worthwhile forms of knowledge and understanding. These tests are not l i k e l y to lead us any closer to a t t a i n i n g those goals.  Since i t i s evident that teachers w i l l r e s i s t -- they are doing so now —  their resistance w i l l l i k e l y have a deleterious  impact on students. Whether teachers accept or reject the system of schooling that i s beginning to emerge, the system w i l l have the capacity to produce f a i l u r e s i n record numbers, which of course w i l l be the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the school system, or at least some body of learned individuals, to correct. 166  The picture needn't be as gloomy as t h i s , however. It may be granted that whether or not we accept Foucault, the d i r e c t i o n in which the American school system appears to be d r i f t i n g i s one which we should view with grave concern.  This picture, however,  is only t r u l y bleak i f we accept with Foucault the supremacy of d i s c i p l i n a r y power over democratically constituted power. As Michael Walzer has noted, Foucault very often speaks as i f there is no center of power to which we have recourse, no way  in which  we can d i r e c t l y influence the course of events. Yet his own work would be pointless i f this were the case. The service that Foucault has done for us i s to bring to l i g h t the operation of d i s c i p l i n e in i n s t i t u t i o n s that "appear to be both neutral and independent:  to c r i t i c i z e them in such a manner that the  p o l i t i c a l violence which has always exercized i t s e l f obscurely through them w i l l be unmasked, so that we may underestimates  fight them." But he  the effectiveness of democratic forms of  resistance in modern society and t h i s society's "universal juridicism  ...[which] seems to f i x l i m i t s on the exercise of  power." In the end, for Foucault, society's "universally widespread  panopticism enables  [ d i s c i p l i n e ] to operate, on the  underside of the law, a machinery that i s both immense and minute, which supports, reinforces, multiplies the asymmetry of power and undermines the l i m i t s that are traced around the  law."  It i s fortunate that he has warned us in the way he has. But i f Foucault t r u l y f e l t d i s c i p l i n a r y power was as i r r e s i s t i b l e as he sometimes makes i t seem, there would have been l i t t l e point in  167  his trying to "unmask" the way i t operates. C l e a r l y there i s some point to illuminating the ways i n which the American school system i s being transformed. The purpose of t h i s thesis has been to provide just t h i s sort of Illumination,  just the sort of  "analytics of power" that might unmask the potential for p o l i t i c a l violence which the l i t e r a t u r e on e f f e c t i v e school reform holds.  168  REFERENCES Adelman, C. Devaluation, d i f f u s i o n , and the college connection: A study of high school t r a n s c r i p t s , 1964-1981. Paper prepared for the National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983. (Available from the U.S. Department of Education, 1200 19th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20208) Adelson, J . Inventing Adolescence: The p o l i t i c a l psychology of everyday schooling. New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1986. Anderson, C. The search for school climate: A review of the research, Review of Educational Research, 52, (3), 1982, 368-420. Aronowitz, S. & Giroux, H.A. Bergin & Garvey, 1985.  Education under seige. South Hadley:  Averch, H., C a r r o l l , S., Donaldson, T., K l e s l i n g , H., & Pincus, J. How e f f e c t i v e is schooling? A c r i t i c a l review and synthesis of research findings. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation, 1972 Bidwell, C.E. & Kasarda, J.D. Conceptualizing and measuring the e f f e c t s of school and schooling. American Journal of Education, 1980,8_8, 401-439. Bowles, S. & G l n t i s , H. Schooling in c a p i t a l i s t America. York: Basic Books, 1976.  New  Bridge, R.G., Judd, CM., & Moock, P.R. The determinants of educational outcomes. Cambridge: B a l l i n g e r , 1979. Brookover, W.C., Beady, C , Flood, J . , Schweitzer, J . & Wisenbaker, J . School s o c i a l systems and student achievement: Schools can make a d i f f e r e n c e . New York: Praeger, 1979. Brophy, J . Recent research on teaching. Institute for Research on Teaching. Michigan State University, (monograph), 1980. Clark, D.L., Lotto, L.S., & McCarthy, M.N. Factors associated with success in urban elementary schools, Phi Delta Kappan, 61, (7), 1980, 467-476. Coleman, J.S. The structure of society and the nature of s o c i a l research, in Knowledege: Creation, d i f f u s i o n , u t i l i z a t i o n , 1980, 1, (3), 333-350. Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.F., McPartland, J . , Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., & York, R.L., Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, O f f i c e of Education, US Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1966. 169  Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, s. Public and private schools. Report to the National Center for Education S t a t i s t i c s . Chicago: National opinion research center, 1981. Cuban, L. Transforming the frog into a prince: E f f e c t i v e schools research, p o l i c y , and practice at the d i s t r i c t l e v e l . Harvard Educational Review, 1984, 54., 129-151. Daniels, L.B., What i s the language of the p r a c t i c a l . theory network, 1975, 4., ( 4 ), 237-261.  Curriculum  Darling-Hammond, L. & Wise, A.E. Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. The Elementary School Journal, 1985,85, (3), 315-336. Dews, P. Foucault's theory of s u b j e c t i v i t y . 1984, 144, 72-95.  New l e f t  review,  Dreyfus, H.L. & Rabinow, P. Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutlcs. Brighton: Harvester Press, (1982). Echternacht, G.J. A comparative study of secondary schools with d i f f e r e n t score patterns. (Appendix to College Entrance Examination Board, On further examination). New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1977. Edmonds, R. E f f e c t i v e schools for the urban poor. Leadership, 1979, 15-24. Edmonds, 1984,  Educational  R. School e f f e c t s and teacher e f f e c t s . Social Pol icy. 15, (2), 37-39.  Evertson, CM., Anderson, C.W., Anderson, L.M. & Brophy, J . Relationship between classroom behaviours and student outcomes i n junior high mathematics and English classes, American Eduational Research Journal, 17, (1), 19 80, 4360 . Fallows, J . The tests and the "brightest": How f a i r are the College Boards?. A t l a n t i c Monthly, 1980, Foucault, M. The archaeology 1972.  of knowledge. London: Tavistock,  Foucault, M. D i s c i p l i n e and punish: The b i r t h of the prison. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1977. Foucault, M. The history of s e x u a l i t y . Vo1.1: An introduction, London: Allen Lane, Penguin Press, 1979. Foucault,  M. Language, counter-memory, p r a c t i c e : Selected essays 170  and Interviews. D.F. Bouchard (ed.), Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977. Foucault, M. Orders of discourse. Social science information, • 1971, 10, 7-30. Foucault, M. Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972-1977 by_ Michel Foucault. C. Gordon (ed.), Brighton: Harvester Press, 1980. Gage, N.L. Handbook of research on teaching.Chicago; McNally, 1963.  Rand  Gay, P. The bourgeois experience: V i c t o r i a to Freud. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1984. G i f f o r d , B. Good schools of education : The prestige b a r r i e r . Social Policy , 1984,14., (2), 40-43. Glasman, W.S. and Biniaminov, I. Input-output analysis of schools. Review of educational research, 1981,51, 509-539. Hodgson, G. Do schools make a difference? March 1973, 35-56.  Atlantic  monthly,  Howe, Harold. Let's have another SAT score decline. Phi Delta Kappan, 1985, 66_, (9 ), 599-603. Holllngdale, R. 1985.  Nietzsche.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul,  Husen, T. The school i n question: A comparative study of the school and i t s future i n western s o c i e t i e s . London: Oxford University Press, 1979. James, T. & Tyack, D. Learning from past e f f o r t s to reform the high school. Phi Delta Kappan, Feb. 1983. Jencks, C.S., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M.J., Cohen, D., G i n t i s , H., Heyns, B., & Michelson, S. Inequality: a reassessment of the e f f e c t of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972. Karabel,J. & Halsey, A.H., Power and Ideology i n education. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Karier, C. Testing for order and control i n the corporate l i b e r a l state. In R. Dale, G. Esland & M. MacDonald (Eds.), Schooling and capitalism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976. Lemert, C. & G i l l a n , G. Michel Foucault: Social theory and transgression. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.  171  McDill, E., N a t r i e l l o , G., & P a l l a s , A. A population at r i s k : Potential consequences of tougher school standards for student dropouts. American Journal of Education, 1986,9_4, (2), 135-181. McLaughlin, M.W. Implication as mutual adaptation: Change i n classroom organization, i n Mann, D. (Ed.) Making change happen. New York: Teachers College Press, 1978. Madaus, G.F. Test scores as administrative mechanisms i n educational p o l i c y . Phi Delta Kappan, 1985,66., (9 ), 611618 . Madaus, G.F., A i r a s i a n , P.W., & Kellaghan, T. School effectiveness: A reassessment of the evidence. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980. Madaus, G. F. & Greaney, V., The I r i s h experience i n competency t e s t i n g : Implications for American. The American Journal of Education, 1985, 268-295. Major-Poetzl, P. Michel Foucault's archeology of western culture: Toward a new science of h i s t o r y . Chapel H i l l : University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Meier, D. Getting tough in the schools. Dissent, 1984, 31., 6170. Meier, D. Why reading tests don't test reading. Dissent, 1981, 457-466. Meyer, J . W. The e f f e c t s of education as an i n s t i t u t i o n . The American Journal of Sociology, 1977, 83., (1), 55-77. Meyer, J.W. Levels of the educational system and schooling e f f e c t s . In C. Bidwell and D. Windham (eds.), The Analysis of educational productivity, 11, Cambridge: B a l l i n g e r , 1980. Meyer, J.W. & Rowan, B. I n s t i t u t i o n a l organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony, Amerlean Journal of Sociology,83, 1977, 340-363. Moos, R.H. Evaluating educational environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979. Mosteller, F. & Moynihan, D.P.(eds.) On equality of educational opportunity. New York: Random House, 1972. Murnane, R.M. Interpreting the evidence on school effectiveness. Teachers' College Record, 1981, 83., 19-35 . The National Commission on Excellence i n Education. The nation at r i s k : The imperative for educational reform. Washington: US Dept. of Education, 1983. 172  The National Science Board Commission on Pre-College Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. Educating Americans for the 21st century. 2 vols. Washington: National Science Foundation, 1983. Nietzsche, F. On the genealogy of morals. New House, 1969.  York: Random  Purkey, S.C. & Smith, M.S. E f f e c t i v e schools: A review.The Elementary School Journal, 1983,1, 427-452. Rabinow, P. (ed.), The Foucault reader. New Books, 1984.  York: Pantheon  Racevskis, K. Michel Foucault and the subversion of Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.  intellect.  Rajchman, J . Michel Foucault: The freedom of philosophy. York: Columbia University Press, 1985.  New  Ralph, J.H. & Fennessey, J. Science or reform: some questions about the e f f e c t i v e schools model. Phi Delta Kappan, 1983, 6_4_, 689-694. Reynolds, D, Jones, D., St. Leger, S. & Murgatroyd, S. School factors and truancy, in Hersov, L. & Berg, I. (Eds.) Out of school: Modern perspectives in truancy and school r e f u s a l . Chichester: Wiley, 1980. Rosenholtz, S.J., E f f e c t i v e schools: interpreting the evidence. Amer ican Journal of Education, 9 3, (3), May, 1985, 352-388. Rosenshine, B. Content, time, and d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n . In P.L. Peterson & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications. Berkeley: Mccutchan,1979 Rowan, B., Bossert, S.T. & Dwyer, D.C. Research on e f f e c t i v e schools : a cautionary note. Educational Researcher, 1983, April,24-31. Rutter, M. School e f f e c t s on pupil progress: Research findings and p o l i c y implications.Child Development, 5_4, (1), 1-29.  1983,  Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. & Ouston,J. F i f t e e n thousand hours. London: Open Books, 1979. Sheridan, A. Michel Foucault: The w i l l to truth . London: Tavistock, (1980). Simon, B. Can education change society?. In J. Donald Wilson (ed.), An imperfect past: Education and society in Canadian 173  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055737/manifest

Comment

Related Items