From the panopticon to the playground : disciplinary practices

It is easy to take many of the practices that constitute the contemporary school for granted. Timetables, academic records, rows of desks, playgrounds, guidance counsellors now all seem a natural and inevitable part of an optimal learning environment. However, the evidence suggests that they did not appear by chance. Instead, they were put in place, albeit often in a piecemeal and haphazard way, as part of the process by which a new type of institution was constructed. By understanding the school as a disciplinary society, constituted through a variety of diverse practices, it becomes possible to re-interpret the way we have come to educate ourselves. No longer is the modern school some kind of pedagogic inevitability—simply the best and most obvious way to educate, the end result of two thousand years of trying to finally get it right. Rather, mass schooling, as we know it, is an historical by-product of changes in the way society was organised. It is a contingent collection of particular forms of government, deployed at different historical moments, often for quite different administrative and educational reasons.

Setting limits to teacher responsibility

The purpose of this article is to raise some concerns over ongoing changes to the nature and scope of the teaching profession. Teaching is a responsible profession, and teachers have always been charged with the job of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The question is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just what should schools be responsible for? This article proposes some limits to teacher responsibility.

Too great expectations?

Teachers have always been charged with the task of turning out the next generation of citizens—educated, healthy in mind, and healthy in body. The central question here is: how far should this responsibility extend? Just how much can we reasonably expect teachers to be responsible for? And just what should schools be responsible for? Obviously, teachers ought to be responsible for the fundamentals of learning, but should they be held accountable for what the children eat, or how they choose to behave, or for every single risk, direct or indirect, that could conceivably occur within the school grounds? These are precisely the kinds of expectation that have become part of educational life. Bit by bit, new forms of responsibility are being added to the site of the school and, more specifically, to the professional life of the teacher. The intention here is not necessarily to challenge any of these diverse changes, but rather to express concern about their cumulative effect on the ability of the school to do its primary job effectively.

Behaviour disorders and the negligent teacher

The purpose of this paper is to examine the legal implications of the continuing rise in the number of school children diagnosed with behaviour disorders. Not only are teachers now subject to a dense grid of legal regulation, they are also increasingly vulnerable to actions in tort. It will be argued here that as more and more children are labelled ‘disordered’, then the concomitant duty of care requirements for teachers becomes more onerous. As a consequence, teachers are less likely to be able to defend themselves against claims of negligence. It is concluded that while the schooling system needs to retain a healthy scepticism about each new pathologising disorder that seeks special status for its sufferers, it also needs to provide greater training and resources for teachers regarding disorder management. It is also concluded that recent changes to negligence law regarding the issue of ‘reasonable foreseeability’ within breach of duty of care, may not be as significant as might have been hoped by the teaching community. Indeed, the elevated standard of care, as required by increasing numbers of disordered pupils, place teachers in an ever more difficult legal position.

Whither culture? Australian horror films and the limitations of cultural policy

Cultural policy that attempts to foster the Australian film industry’s growth and development in an era of globalisation is coming under increasing pressure. Throughout the 2000s, there has been a substantial boom in Australian horror films led by ‘runaway’ horror film Saw (2004), Wolf Creek (2005), and Undead (2003), achieving varying levels of popularity and commercial success worldwide. However, emerging within a national cinema driven by public subsidy and valuing ‘quality’ and ‘cultural content’ over ‘entertainment’ and ‘commercialism’, horror films have generally been antithetical to these objectives. Consequently, the recent boom in horror films has occurred largely outside the purview and subvention of cultural policy. This paper argues that global forces and emerging production and distribution models are challenging the ‘narrowness’ of cultural policy – a narrowness that mandates a particular film culture, circumscribes certain notions of value and limits the variety of films produced domestically. Despite their low-culture status, horror films have been well suited to the Australian film industry’s financial limitations, they are a growth strategy for producers, and a training ground for emerging filmmakers.

Rethinking the notion of culture in the national history curriculum

Major global changes are placing new demands on the Australian education system. Recent statements by the Prime Minister, together with current education policy and national curriculum documents available in the public domain, look to education’s role in promoting economic prosperity and social cohesion. Collectively, they emphasise the need to equip young Australians with the knowledge, understandings and skills required to compete in the global economy and participate as engaged citizens in a culturally diverse world. However, the decision to prioritise discipline-based learning in the forthcoming Australian history curriculum without specifically encompassing culture as a referent, raises the following question. How will students acquire the cultural knowledge, understandings and skills necessary for this process? This paper addresses this question by situating the current push for a national history curriculum, with specific reference to the study of Indigenous history and the study of Asia in Australia.

How current pedagogy methods in games teaching in the UK, Australia and the US have been shaped by historical, socio cultural, environmental and political constraints

Crucial to enhancing the status and quality of games teaching in schools is a developed understanding of the teaching strategies adopted by practitioners. In this paper, we will demonstrate that contemporary games‟ teaching is a product of individual, task and environmental constraints (Newell, 1986). More specifically, we will show that current pedagogy in the U.K., Australia and the United States is strongly influenced by historical, socio-cultural environmental and political constraints. In summary, we will aim to answer the question „why do teachers teach games the way they do.‟ In answering this question, we conclude that teacher educators, who are trying to influence pedagogical practice, must understand these potential constraints and provide appropriate pre-service experiences to give future physical education teachers the knowledge, confidence and ability to adopt a range of teaching styles when they become fully fledged teachers. Essential to this process is the need to enable future practitioners to base their pedagogical practice on a sound understanding of contemporary learning theories of skill acquisition.

Contradictions : Genre, causal layered analysis and analysis of institutional change

In what follows, I put forward an argument for an analytical method for social science that operates at the level of genre. I argue that generic convergence, generic hybridity, and generic instability provide us with a powerful perspectives on changes in political, cultural, and economic relationships, most specifically at the level of institutions. Such a perspective can help us identify the transitional elements, relationships, and trajectories that define the place of our current system in history, thereby grounding our understanding of possible futures.1 In historically contextualising our present with this method, my concern is to indicate possibilities for the future. Systemic contradictions indicate possibility spaces within which systemic change must and will emerge. We live in a system currently dominated by many fully-expressed contradictions, and so in the presence of many possible futures. The contradictions of the current age are expressed most overtly in the public genres of power politics. Contemporary public policy—indeed politics in general-is an excellent focus for any investigation of possible futures, precisely because of its future-oriented function. It is overtly hortatory; it is designed ‘to get people to do things’ (Muntigl in press: 147). There is no point in trying to get people to do things in the past. Consequently, policy discourse is inherently oriented towards creating some future state of affairs (Graham in press), along with concomitant ways of being, knowing, representing, and acting (Fairclough 2000).

Art, popular culture and cultural policy: variations on a theme of John Carey

The article presents a criticism of the accounts of John Carey in his book entitled "The Intellectuals and the Masses." The author focuses on Carey's argument that the art is not an eternal category but an invention of the late eighteenth century and it no longer has any intellectual legitimacy other than that of provoking feelings which are no more and no less valuable than those provoked by any other form of entertainment or physical activity

The Clubcultures Reader: Readings in Popular Cultural Studies

This reader in popular cultural studies meets the need for an up-to-date collection of readings on contemporary youth cultures and youth music. Table of Content: Introduction: Reading Pop(ular) Cult(ural) Stud(ie)s: Steve Redhead. Part I: Theory I:. 1. Pearls and Swine: Intellectuals and the Mass Media: Simon Frith and Jon Savage. 2. Over-the-Counter Culture: Retheorising Resistance in Popular Culture: Beverly Best. Part II: Commentaries. 3. Organised Disorder: The Changing Space of the Record Shop: Will Straw. 4. Spatial Politics: A Gendered Sense of Place: Cressida Miles. 5. Let's All Have a Disco? Football, Popular Music and Democratisation: Adam Brown. 6. Rave Culture: Living Dream or Living Death?: Simon Reynolds. 7. Fear and Lothing in Wisconsin: Sarah Champion. 8. The House Sound of Chicago: Hillegonda Rietveld. 9. Cocaine Girls: Marek Kohn. 10. In the Supermarket of Style: Ted Polhemus. 11. Love Factory: The Sites, Practices and Media Relationships of Northern Soul: Kate Milestone. 12. DJ Culture: Dave Haslam. Plates: Patrick Henry. Part III: Theory II: . 13. The Post-Subculturalist: David Muggleton. 14. Reading Pop: The Press, the Scholar and the Consequences of Popular Cultural Studies: Steve Jones. 15. Re-placing Popular Culture: Lawrence Grossberg. Index.