Without foundation: the EYFS framework and its creation of needs

This chapter examines the language and underpinning ideas of the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and its supporting documents. It explores how notions of diversity and difference emerge, in particular the construction of special educational needs and disability. It considers the underlying contradictions which arise, including links to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The chapter examines the claims that the framework is not about a staged notion of development, and relates this to its vision of what education is for and how parents should be involved. As well as challenging the norm based notions of development and assessment underpinning the EYFS, the chapter questions why difference is not threaded through the document but emerges as an occasional add on. It also highlights the challenges which emerge in relation to equitable access to support at a time when there is a shift away from centralised systems towards an increasing diversification of provision. It questions whether the processes the framework encourages practitioners to undertake will result in more effective practice which is genuinely responsive to the learning needs of children and relevant to practitioners

Ongoing exclusion within universal education: why education for all is not inclusive

In this chapter we acknowledge that the marketisation of education has impacted on both the Education for all and Inclusive education for all agendas but we also recognize that the specific cultural context within different nations and localities will also shape how universal education is interpreted and developed (Miles and Singal 2010). We will therefore look at three countries in order to consider not only the wider constraints imposed by neo-liberal educational ideology but also the particular legacy of previous policies, practices and provision within each state. In doing so we hope to explore recurrent trends, contradictions and tensions in their development of inclusion within an Education for all agenda and discuss how widening participation in established education systems often simply reconstitutes the exclusion of those who are perpetually marginalised. Our discussions will underline why, despite the declaration at Jomtien, meeting at Salamanca was a necessity to provide a blueprint to reconstitute traditional education systems and how following that blueprint encounters frequent obstructions and diversions

The EPSRC's policy of responsible innovation from a trading zones perspective

Responsible innovation (RI) is gathering momentum as an academic and policy debate linking science and society. Advocates of RI in research policy argue that scientific research should be opened up at an early stage so that many actors and issues can steer innovation trajectories. If this is done, they suggest, new technologies will be more responsible in different ways, better aligned with what society wants, and mistakes of the past will be avoided. This paper analyses the dynamics of RI in policy and practice and makes recommendations for future development. More specifically, we draw on the theory of ‘trading zones’ developed by Peter Galison and use it to analyse two related processes: (i) the development and inclusion of RI in research policy at the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC); (ii) the implementation of RI in relation to the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. Our analysis reveals an RI trading zone comprised of three quasi-autonomous traditions of the research domain – applied science, social science and research policy. It also shows how language and expertise are linking and coordinating these traditions in ways shaped by local conditions and the wider context of research. Building on such insights, we argue that a sensible goal for RI policy and practice at this stage is better local coordination of those involved and we suggest ways how this might be achieved

Terrorism and the New Criminal Process

Executive and legislative actions after 9/11 demonstrate a shift in the way the federal government combats terrorism. Traditional law enforcement entities have been given new powers, and military and intelligence personnel have taken on a new prominence. Criminal prosecutions are still being brought against persons suspected of terrorist activity, but the government seems less willing to accord criminal trials a central role in anti-terror efforts. In short, we are seeing the creation of a “new criminal process” for terrorism, a process that in many cases bypasses federal courts and operates wholly outside the territorial boundaries of the United States. All of these actions, moreover, react to the perceived emergency created by the 9/11 attacks. Government officials have argued that a state of emergency exists and – critically – that it is unclear when the emergency will end. Other public figures and the media have largely agreed. “Everything has changed” has become the common theme, and the new criminal process provides a legal ratification of that change – a legal structure for a state of emergency. This essay considers the new criminal process and the perception of emergency out of which it grows from a variety of angles. Although I think the federal government has shifted too far in favor of military and other solutions to terrorism at the expense of traditional criminal processes, my position rest upon a chain of reasoning and a baseline that the new criminal process contests. That deeper contest and its implications are the focus of this essay. To that end, I describe the attributes for the new criminal process, and provide the arguments for and against the traditional and new criminal processes. I also consider the legality of the new criminal process and conclude that it comports with constitutional norms (which may say more about the malleability of constitutional norms than anything else). The underlying assertion of this essay is that the new criminal process may not be so new. Rather, it may be the latest step in a broad shift in our approach to governing, where pervasive authority is increasingly valued over the constraints of law. This change brings with it modification and dilution of rights, but also the possibility of their expansion within the context of also-expanded state power. Nor is this change occurring without justification. Terrorism is a real policy issue, and rational, liberal-minded people support increased state power to counter the threat. Be that as it may, the critical point is that we are experiencing the modification of the processes by which our government investigates and imposes punishment on people, and the fact that some of these processes arise in the context of the war on terror means, not that those processes are about fighting terrorism, but rather that those processes – the new criminal process – inevitably will and have already begun to generalize

Community management of small town water supplies

Community management of small town water supplie