Governing through parents: a genealogical enquiry of education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England

In this paper we explore the various spaces and sites through which the figure of the parent is summoned and activated to inhabit and perform market norms and practices in the field of education in England. Since the late 1970s successive governments have called on parents to enact certain duties and obligations in relation to the state. These duties include adopting and internalizing responsibility for all kinds of risks, liabilities and inequities formerly managed by the Keynesian welfare state. Rather than characterize this situation in terms of the ‘hollowing of the state’, we argue that the role of the state includes enabling the functioning of the parent as a neoliberal subject so that they may successfully harness the power of the market to their own advantage and (hopefully) minimize the kinds of risk and inequity generated through a market-based, deregulated education system. In this paper we examine how parents in England are differently, yet similarly, compelled to embody certain market norms and practices as they navigate the field of education. Adopting genealogical enquiry and policy discourse analysis as our methodology, we explore how parents across three policy sites or spaces are constructed as objects and purveyors of utility and ancillaries to marketisation. This includes a focus on how parents are summoned as 1) consumers or choosers of education services; 2) governors and overseers of schools; and 3) producers and founders of schools.

Gobernar la educación a través de los padrespolítica educativa y construcción de subjetividades neoliberales en Inglaterra. (Governing education through parents: education policy and the construction of neoliberal subjectivities in England)

In this paper we explore the relationship between market norms and practices and the development of the figure of the parent within British education policy. Since the 1970s parents in England have been called upon to perform certain duties and obligations in their relation to the state. These duties include internalizing responsibility for risks, liabilities, inequities and the spectre of crises formerly managed by the state. Rather than characterize this situation in terms of the ‘hollowing of the state’, we argue that the role of the state includes enabling the functioning of the parent as a neoliberal subject, so that they may successfully harness the power of the market to their own advantage and (hopefully) minimize the kinds of risk generated through a deregulated education system. In this paper we examine how parents are compelled to embody certain market norms and practices as they navigate the field of education. In particular we focus on how parents are 1) summoned as consumers or choosers of education services, and thus encouraged to embody through their behaviour a competitive orientation; 2) summoned as governors and custodians of schools, with a focus on assessing financial and educational performance; and 3) summoned as producers and founders of schools, with a focus on entrepreneurial and innovative activity.

Preparing for disaster: a comparative analysis of education for critical infrastructure collapse

This article explores policy approaches to educating populations for potential critical infrastructure collapse in five different countries: the UK, the US, Germany, Japan and New Zealand. ‘Critical infrastructure’ is not always easy to define, and indeed is defined slightly differently across countries – it includes entities vital to life, such as utilities (water, energy), transportation systems and communications, and may also include social and cultural infrastructure. The article is a mapping exercise of different approaches to critical infrastructure protection and preparedness education by the five countries. The exercise facilitates a comparison of the countries and enables us to identify distinctive characteristics of each country’s approach. We argue that contrary to what most scholars of security have argued, these national approaches diverge greatly, suggesting that they are shaped more by internal politics and culture than by global approaches.