Democratic parent engagement: relational and dissensual

In opposition to the discourse of silent compliance and the neoliberal colonisation of voice, this article shares research with parents in an English primary school. Drawing on the work of Jacques Rancière and John Macmurray I argue that there is a need for a more relational but dissensual approach to parental engagement and voice, instead of parents being positioned by schools as support acts. Parent engagement, increasingly commodified over recent years within English school policy, has been relegated to responding to questionnaires, dutiful attendance of parents’ evenings and choosing the correct school. Meanwhile the social mobility agenda demands that parents inculcate aspirations in their children unquestioningly. Policies and pronouncement seek to ‘close the gap’ in attainment between the poorest children and their peers in England, Australia, the United States and other neoliberalised countries. Hence, in a context where parent engagement is now an exercise in creating ‘good’ pupils who will become successful economic beings. This article considers how parents have been rendered objects rather than agentic subjects within neoliberal education systems and have lost their democratic voice. It concludes that there needs to be a reanimation of Dewey’s (2013) vision of “education politics” (Moutsios, 2010: 124)

Unpicking the neoliberal noose: working towards democratic parent engagement in a primary school

This research study was driven by a personal frustration at the lack of democratic parent engagement in English primary schools. Charting the framing of parents as ineptitudes and unworthy of political involvement since state schooling began for all children in 1870, I have demonstrated and problematised how parents are expected to carry out individualised, compliant, performative parent engagement in terms of ensuring their child is brought up to be a successful economic being. I then conceptualised the problem as a neoliberal noose comprising three strands, that strangle democratic parent engagement: 1) Lack of agency regarding parents within education. 2) Lack of space for parents to debate within schools, or nationally, education and education policy. 3) Lack of collective parent engagement due to the pervasive individualisation within the education system. I aimed to unpick this noose by seeking new understandings: establishing the conditions needed for democratic parent engagement and trialling a democratic parent engagement project. As part of a participatory action research study, I set up a Community Philosophy group with a small group of parents in a primary school on the Yorkshire Coast. The initial attempt to forge harmonious relationships between participants and the school became problematic and I had to reframe the research; the reframing process took a poststructural turn and entailed developing a new conceptualisation of action research to help me further unpick the noose and splice the comprising strands. Unpicking the noose afforded a much deeper understanding of how the three strands both twisted together and also held each other in tension, forming a ligature. Moreover, with careful problematising, diffractive analysis and ‘plugging in of theory’ (Jackson and Mazzei, 2012), and a coreflexion process with participants (Cho and Trent 2009), I have re-laid the strands of the rope, and offer a possible lifeline for democratic parent engagement

Democratic Parent Engagement

Within the literature regarding parental engagement I have identified three problematic strands that effectively twist together as rope to strangle democratic parental engagement. These strands are: lack of agency, lack of space (physical and mental) and individualisation. The neoliberalisation of education has led to a responsibilisation of parents which colonises voice, demands consensus and producing economically successful adults. There is little space for questioning the status quo and viewing education from a more community orientated viewpoint. This poster will communicate these strands and how my research has led to a re-visioning of these strands; a relaying of the rope. The strands of agency, space and relationships hold each other in tension to provide a lifeline to democratic parental engagement

Parent Engagement: Beyond Instrumentalisation

The neoliberalisation of education policy has led to the valorisation of particular parents and the consequential demonisation of others. Whether it is through apparent grading of parents (Ough T 2016), or encouraging northern parents to become as pushy as their southern counterparts (Saner 2016), it can be seen that the current educational discourse has individualised, responsibilised and residualised parents. This has had the effect of sidelining parents’ voices; voices are only heard with regard to their child’s progress, rather than the wider educational public sphere. My doctoral research, a Participatory Action Research project, with elements of discourse analysis, has involved working with parents in a Yorkshire primary school to co-deconstruct concepts of parental engagement. The project particularly addressed the role of parents promulgated by OFSTED (2013) and the Government in closing the attainment gap between the poorest children and their peers. For example, participants deconstructed what it meant to support their child’s education and the notion of ‘disadvantaged’ parents. Through this deconstruction, it was found that ‘knowing’ staff and the consequent relationships are more important to parents than more traditional instrumentalist parental engagement initiatives. Furthermore, far from the initial aim to maintain harmonious relationships, dissensus became widely valued by the participants and the headteacher. The culmination of the project was an articulation of parental engagement that is both relational and dissensual; a counter to the current instrumentalist, individualist discourse. This paper will explore how these conclusions were drawn and then argue that it is vital not to reduce parental engagement to an instrument for children’s attainment, or indeed social mobility. Rather, a relational, dissensual approach to parent engagement is essential to the democratic life of the school. References OFSTED (2013a) Unseen Children, HMCIs Speech 20 June 2013, London, Department for Education OFSTED (2013b) Unseen Children: Access and Achievement 20 years on Evidence Report, London, Department for Education. Ough T. (2016) School grades its parents on their support of children's education. [Internet] available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2016/12/02/school-grades-parents-support-childrenseducation/ [accessed 11/12/2016] Saner E. (2016) Want to help your northern child? Become a pushy southern parent. [Internet] available from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2016/dec/05/want-help-northern-childbecome- pushy-southern-parent [accessed 16/12/2016

Beyond the sage on the stage: PubMethods as radical research practice

Colleagues are invited to join an innovative, presentation event by our Research Into Professional Practice in Learning and Education (RIPPLE) network. RIPPLE meets monthly, in a pub, to discuss approaches to researching professional practice. Our PubMethods meetings have fostered a creative, collaborative, inter-disciplinary, participatory, and radical community; one that could be described as typified by thick democracy (Fielding and Moss, 2011), where ‘…a range of voices … [are] heard, not only through the narratives of learning [about our research practices], but also through the leveller of laughter and the eagerness of exploration’ (ibid: 158). We will explore how for us PubMethods enables a distinct opportunity, one which we have come to reflect upon as radical because we ‘“re-see” each other as persons rather than role occupants’ within our university setting (ibid: 79). Our event begins with an invitation to conference colleagues to join a live PubMethods meeting between the final session on Day One of the Conference and the Conference dinner. We continue on Day Two with a symposium-style session, ‘in the round’, beginning in the style of a PubMethods meeting. We will reflect on our personal meaning-making from PubMethods through a range of lenses including: democracy, expertise, and identity/positionality. We invite colleagues to join us in open-discussion of the powerful possibilities of our practice

Cultures wars in education: a war within or on education?

There is a culture war between educators who identify as either traditionalists or progressives, which has become increasingly bitter. This war continues to play out with vitriol on Twitter fuelled by key names in education. We make a plea for a more relational way of working to protect education from becoming collateral damage in this war

Connecting Rights and Reality in Educational Research with Children and Young People: Democratising Research Ethics Processes

In 2022, the European Year of Youth, and in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, it is more important than ever to reconsider the processes that we, in the field of educational research with children and young people, adopt in our research. The new EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child and the European Child Guarantee (European Commission, 2021 a and b) are key European Commission policies aimed to “better protect all children, to help them fulfil their rights and to place them right at the centre of EU policy making”. Participation in political and democratic life is the first thematic area of the Strategy, emphasising the need for Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989) to be taken seriously, with children and young people (CYP) able to act as agents of change in policy making and legislative decision-making processes that affect them. It is the ability of children and young people to act as agents of change within research that we are particularly addressing in this paper. The decision to foreground the right of CYP to participate in and change EU policymaking is welcome, particularly for those working on more participatory approaches to research with CYP. However, this paper suggests that, whilst our own research methodologies may set out to work more democratically with CYP as partners, co-researchers and co-authors, there is a tension between the rights we wish to support and the reality of protectionist research ethics policies and processes in educational research. The European Year of Youth 2022 explicitly recognises the challenges that children and young people have faced during the pandemic. However, children and young people are not passive victims. Recently, it has been impossible to ignore the ways in which so many children and young people have emerged as powerful educators. Our youngest citizens have been at the forefront of protests regarding Black Lives Matter and systemic racism, climate change, and gender violence. They have led to a variety of policy changes at local and national levels and have generated conversations across the generations about desirable futures and the importance of making change happen. CYP have thus shown us that it is vital that educational research enables CYP to have more than ‘a voice’ and to recognise and support children’s and young people’s power to initiate, develop and lead change that can create more inclusive, socially just futures for us all . Yet, in spite of EU policy decisions, without the democratisation of educational research ethics processes, we are left with an unresolved “wicked problem” (Cuevas-Parras, 2020) where ethics processes are still based on notions of research that “does to” (Ferlazzo, 2011) rather than “does with” CYP, making it difficult to develop models of democratic research with CYP as co-producers, researchers and authors on matters of research that affect them. Using examples from our research and practice, this paper uses relational (Holland et al, 1998) and democratic (Rancière, 2010, 2014) theories to highlight the need to connect rights and reality in educational research with CYP. We argue for the adoption of more democratic, inclusive and equitable ethics processes that can explicitly support CYP to recognise and exercise their fundamental right to participate in matters that affect them (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989). Educational research ethics processes should reflect CYP’s position in this type of research as “front and centre as subjects of rights, subjects of learning, and competent social actors, able to shape their educational environments” ((Cuevas-Parras, 2020). However, such an approach is disruptive to institutional behaviour and power relationships. Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources Used We will analyse two case studies through the theoretical lenses of relational and democratic theory. The first case study is a participatory research project working with pupils to explore, challenge and change toilet policy and practice in an English secondary school. The second example is an international comparative study that explores place conscious education initiatives in Barcelona, Berlin, New York and Rio de Janeiro. The research examines policy and practice in education that actively encourages CYP’s engagement with the locality. In the latter stages of the project, CYP are supported to develop an exhibition or event where they give their own ideas and opinions on how education can help make their city a fairer place – and what they would like policymakers to do. The two research case studies involve qualitative research projects with CYP where researchers wanted to foreground the experiences and expertise of CYP and to work with CYP as co-researchers and co-producers of research outputs on issues that affect them. We wished to work with children in an act of “knowledge creation rather than knowledge extraction” (Clarke, 2018, p18). Co-creating knowledge is vital if we are to further democracy and the ability of CYP to further democracy by shaping the world. This requires a move away from extracting and colonising voice in a move to uphold the status quo to affording more agentic disruptive methodologies (Tuck and Yang, 2014). Research projects giving voice to children and specifically democratic in nature, often run into trouble at the ethics committee stage. Children are commonly seen as vulnerable, unreliable witnesses who need protecting from adults and also themselves, often rendering the unable to take part in research. As Kate Brown (2017) argues, CYP have been vulnerabilised through a move towards protection and governance, and away from relating and human agency. In a bid to maintain the innocence of the child (albeit an unreliable child) the concept of the political child is forbidden. To unpick these thorny tensions between apparent common-sense safeguarding of CYP, and diminishing democratic agency, it is necessary to consider ontologies and epistemologies. How do we consider our research subjects and their abilities and rights to change the world? How do we value co-created knowledge and the resulting challenges such work might present? As we address these questions, we are then able to look to the implications for institutional ethical guidelines and practices. Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or Findings Our research demonstrates that, whilst ethical approval processes were straightforward with our research involving adults, they proved challenging when seeking permission for CYP to be explicitly acknowledged as co-researchers and agents of change. Ethics committee definitions of research with CYP were based on interventionist, scientific and individualistic approaches that sought to “do to’ CYP, rather than the relational, democratic and participatory approaches that inform this research. We wish to make the case that reflecting upon the issues that arise during “ethics in practice” (Guillemin and Gillam, 2004, p. 269) is essential in connecting rights and reality in educational research with CYP. More needs to be done to theorise research ethics differently, relationally and democratically. Using relational theory (Holland et al, 1998) can be used to help better understand CYP and researcher participant identities in research ethics contexts and to what extent the research relationships are being constituted to generate ‘relational goods’, such as interpersonal trust, emotional support, care and social influence, (Cordelli, 2015) that are required for a more reciprocal relationship between the researcher and CYP. In addition, Rancière’s (2010; 2014) thinking around dissensus reminds us that disruption to the common sense is necessary if we are to further democracy. Our findings show that connecting rights and reality in educational research with CYP requires theoretical approaches that challenge notions of the child or young person as “the not yet” (Biesta, 2011, p543 ) positioning children and young people as ‘citizens of now’, who need to be actively engaged in emancipatory discussions and debates on research ethical processes that affect them. References Bell, N. (2008) Ethics in child research: rights, reason and responsibilities, Children's Geographies, 6:1, 7-20, Biesta, G. and Säfström, C.A. (2011) A manifesto for education. Policy Futures in Education 9(5):540–547. Brown. K. 2017. Vulnerability and young people: care and social control in policy and practice. Bristol. Policy Press. Clarke. A. 2017. Listening to young children: a guide to understanding and using the mosaic approach. 3rd Edition. London. Jessica Kingsley. Cordelli, C, (2015),'Justice as Fairness and Relational Resources', Journal of Political Philosophy 23, 86-110 Cuevas-Parra, D. (2020, October 28). The rights of children in education. EERA Blog. https://blog.eera-ecer.de/rights-children-education/ European Commission (2021 a) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: EU strategy on the rights of the child Brussels, 24.3.2021 COM(2021) 142. Available online here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0142 European Commission (2021 b) Council Recommendation establishing a European Child Guarantee. Brussels, 14.06.2021 EU 2021/1004. Available online here: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2021.223.01.0014.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2021%3A223%3ATOC Ferlazzo, L. (2011) Involvement or engagement? Educational Leadership, 68(8), 10-14. Guillemin, M. and Gillam, L., 2004. Ethics, Reflexivity, and “Ethically Important Moments” in Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), pp.261-280. Holland D., Lachicotte W. Jr., Skinner D., & Cain C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rancière, J. 2010. Dissensus on politics and aesthetics, London, Continuum. Rancière, J. 2014. Hatred of democracy, London, Verso Tuck, E. and Yang, K.W. (2014) R-words: refusing research. In: Paris, D. and Winn, M.T. eds. Humanizing research: decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities. London, Sage, pp. 223–248. United Nations Children’s Fund UK. (1989). The United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Available at: https://downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_PRESS200910web.pdf?_ga=2.78590034.795419542.1582474737-1972578648.158247473