Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBenade, L
dc.contributor.editorWebster, S
dc.contributor.editorStolz, S
dc.date.accessioned2013-12-13T00:54:57Z
dc.date.available2013-12-13T00:54:57Z
dc.date.copyright2013-12-09
dc.date.issued2013-12-13
dc.identifier.citationPhilosophy of Education Society of Australasia (PESA) held at Melbourne Graduate School of Education, Melbourne, Australia, 2013-12-06 to 2013-12-09, published in: Measuring up in Education: Edited Proceedings of the 43rd PESA Conference, pp.13 - 21 (9)
dc.identifier.isbn978-0-646-90419-1
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/6233
dc.description.abstractEducational evaluation in New Zealand schools harmonises with the reformist agenda of public choice theory that applies dispassionate reviews of schools conducted by non–captive ex–teachers and school leaders, who work in the Education Review Office. They are ‘non–captive’ in the sense of being beholden to State Services, rather than the Ministry of Education. Variously accused of engaging in politics of blame or teacher bashing, ERO has attempted to present itself as supporting schools in a cycle of ‘complementary’ review, which synthesises external accountability with internal learning from review. This paper will examine the underpinning epistemology of the Education Review Office approach to review and reflect on its particular research method, arguing that it is motivated by a commitment to ‘evidence–led’ teaching, a problematic concept. Questions are raised regarding the ‘complementary’ nature of the review process to establish whether there is commitment to democratic participation by schools in the review process, as implied in the concept of complementariness. With reference to Foucauldian concepts, of disciplinary subjection, it will be argued that the so–called ‘complementary’ dimension of the Education Review Office process is characterised by the administration of technologies of self–discipline and self–punishment, and that ‘learning’ in this context is deeply punitive in nature.
dc.relation.isreplacedby10292/6401
dc.relation.isreplacedbyhttp://hdl.handle.net/10292/6401
dc.relation.urihttp://education.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/910394/PESA_2013_Edited_Conference_Proceedings.pdf
dc.rightsNOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in (see Citation). The original publication is available at (see Publisher's Version)
dc.subjectEvaluation
dc.subjectEvidence–led teaching
dc.subjectComplementary review
dc.subjectAccountability
dc.titleSchool evaluation or disciplinary subjection? A consideration of the ‘complementary’ evaluation of New Zealand’s Education Review Office
dc.typeConference Contribution
dc.rights.accessrightsOpenAccess
aut.conference.typePaper Published in Proceedings
aut.relation.endpage21
aut.relation.pages9
aut.relation.startpage13
pubs.elements-id159273


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record