Arts curriculum implementation: Adopt and adapt as policy translation

This paper examines macro, meso and micro understandings of policy enactment within Western Australian primary school arts education where a new national arts curriculum is being revised and implemented through a process colloquially known as ‘adopt and adapt’. This paper focuses on how a government led implementation policy has influenced arts teaching and learning in unintended ways. It Includes a theoretical reflection and a consideration of the effects of such policies. Using policy enactment theory as the enquiry lens, four contextual variables are highlighted for their impact on teachers and schools. The variables include situated contexts, material contexts, professional cultures and external factors. Effects are discussed through the perspectives of eleven arts curriculum leaders drawn from in-depth semi-structured interviews. Marginalisation of the arts, the disconnection of schools and teachers to the arts and professional learning impacts are discussed as results of this policy translation

Content without context is noise : Looking for curriculum harmony in primary arts education in Western Australia

Arts education in Western Australian primary schools consist of learning opportunities outlined by mandated curriculum. However, assumptions underlying this curriculum involving access, resources and support impact schools’ capacity to implement the curriculum without them being adequately addressed by the written curriculum. Drawing on the policy enactment theory of Ball, Maguire, and Braun (2012), four contextual variables (situated contexts, professional cultures, material contexts and external factors) are used to highlight the differences between the written published curriculum and the implemented, practised curriculum. Drawing on interviews with 24 participants across four schools issues of geographic location, use of arts specialists, appropriate learning spaces and the stresses associated with mandated literacy and numeracy testing are reported as contextual pressures by this study. This paper details the disruptive interference of these contextual pressures that we describe as ‘noise’. The provision of a better understanding of this contextual landscape brings schools and teachers away from the ‘noise’ of disruption and closer to curriculum harmony

Contextualised policy enactment in regional, rural and remote schools: a grounded theory study

Alice Herbert developed a grounded theory that explained the process by which regional, rural and remote secondary schools in Far North Queensland adapt education policies to suit their unique context. Contextualised Policy Enactment Theory posits that policies should be enacted with people, enacted in place and enacted with purpose. The theory is being shared with the Department of Education in Queensland to aid policy enactment processes in schools

Discourse in curriculum policy enactment: a focus on leadership practices

This article focuses on the prevailing discourse in the enactment of governmental curriculum policy via the leadership practices of school management teams (SMTs). Based on qualitative research in three selected working class schools, the article explores how the working class context positions schools in distinct ways to enact curriculum policy. Stephen Ball and colleagues’ policy enactment theory is employed as a lens to investigate the enactment of curriculum policy via the four core leadership practices of setting direction, developing people, redesigning the organisation and managing teaching and learning. It is argued that these working class schools are regulated by the incoming discourse of the curriculum policy and they respond to this incoming discourse in an almost robotic way. The article highlights the two-folded nature of discourse, i.e. the incoming discourse of the curriculum policy, and the schools’ discursive responses. The results indicate that the SMT’s leadership practices are fundamentally impacted and determined by the schools’ materiality and discursive constructions

How Schools Enact Equity Policies: A Case Study of Social Justice Leadership

In 2009, the Ontario Ministry of Education mandated that all school boards in Ontario develop and implement equity education policies, as specified in Policy/Program Memorandum No. 119: Developing and Implementing Equity and Inclusive Education Policies in Ontario Schools (2009). This dissertation documents the enactment of Ontario’s Equity Strategy in one district school board and three schools in Ontario. Analysis of education policy in local contexts must account for the influence of globalized policy discourses including performativity, accountability, and marketization. Policy sociology and policy enactment theory served as a conceptual framework from which to understand the everyday actions of school board staff and school leaders engaged in equity policy work. Through a qualitative, case study approach, interviews were conducted with six staff members at the school board and four school leaders to document their work enacting the equity policy. Findings revealed that a historical commitment to social justice and an organizational unit devoted to equity work facilitated the enactment of the equity policy at the board. The tenacious commitments of social justice-oriented school leaders made equity work possible at the school level. The analysis of policy documents and the case study at the school board and within schools illustrated an instrumental framing of equity, intrinsically tied to educational outcomes, embedded in student performance indicators. Ontario’s Equity Strategy is a symbolic policy that lacked accountability mechanisms and adequate resources necessary for systemic enactment. These policy barriers drastically narrowed the possibility for equity work

‘What was required above all else was collaboration’: keeping the momentum for SEND partnership working in the wake of Covid‐19

Introduction In March 2020 and January 2021, schools in England were closed to help control the spread of Covid-19 (Gov.UK, 2020). Children and young people whose parents/carers were key workers and those with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) were allowed and later encouraged to attend schools (DfE & Williamson, 2020). The parents/carers of these children and young people did, however, have the right to keep their children at home should they so choose (Gov.UK, 2020). Local authorities and school leaders, including SENCos, were ‘left with responsibility for maintaining the systems of special educational “offers” … developed for their schools’ (Wedell, 2020) in a constantly evolving and unpredictable policy environment as the Department for Education (DfE) responded to the situation. Concerns about meeting deadlines led to the Government’s relaxation of the legislation about timescales for statutory assessments and for annual reviews, much to the concern of parents and others (Children’s Commissioner, 2020). Previously published findings from an online questionnaire (n = 100) undertaken by the Special Educational Needs Policy Research Forum (SENPRF, 2021) provided insight into how school staff were supported in the teaching of pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) during school closures, what lessons had been learned, and the conditions required to enable these lessons to be harnessed in schools. This present article aims to ask, ‘What else?’ (Singh et al., 2014) and offers a thematic analysis of the optional narrative responses provided within the survey, which focus on partnership working across the local SEND system and the role occupied by policy actors (Ball et al., 2011) within this system. The contributing authors share a common interest in SEND. As members of the lead group for the SENPRF, we were part of the team involved in developing the questionnaire. One of us has worked as SENCo and SEND inspector in a local authority and is a university course leader for the National Award for SEN Coordination; another works as SEND advisor, and as a teacher and lecturer has previously interrogated the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015) and its implications for professionalism, partnership working and ethical concerns; the third contributor has a disabled daughter and is undertaking doctoral research approaching the subjectivity of parents of disabled children and how it relates to inclusion. Accordingly, we each handled the analysis of the survey findings from different personal and professional perspectives. In the spirit of partnership, we have respected each other’s expertise and lived experience, and worked together with an open © 2022 NASEN British Journal of Special Education � Volume 0 � Number 0 � 2022 3 mind, engaging in the nuances and tensions that exist within partnership working, to embrace divergent understandings. In what follows, we will briefly review the literature on multi-agency working and inter-professional collaboration and how this is conceptualized within SEND literature, before considering the role of parents/carers in these partnerships. A methodology section then leads into a discussion of six key statements that can be understood as some of the lessons learned from the pandemic, drawing on our data and reflecting the experiences of parents/carers, school staff and advising professionals working in local authorities

‘What was required above all else was collaboration’: keeping the momentum for SEND partnership working in the wake of Covid‐19.

Introduction In March 2020 and January 2021, schools in England were closed to help control the spread of Covid-19 (Gov.UK, 2020). Children and young people whose parents/carers were key workers and those with education, health and care plans (EHCPs) were allowed and later encouraged to attend schools (DfE & Williamson, 2020). The parents/carers of these children and young people did, however, have the right to keep their children at home should they so choose (Gov.UK, 2020). Local authorities and school leaders, including SENCos, were ‘left with responsibility for maintaining the systems of special educational “offers” … developed for their schools’ (Wedell, 2020) in a constantly evolving and unpredictable policy environment as the Department for Education (DfE) responded to the situation. Concerns about meeting deadlines led to the Government’s relaxation of the legislation about timescales for statutory assessments and for annual reviews, much to the concern of parents and others (Children’s Commissioner, 2020). Previously published findings from an online questionnaire (n = 100) undertaken by the Special Educational Needs Policy Research Forum (SENPRF, 2021) provided insight into how school staff were supported in the teaching of pupils with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND) during school closures, what lessons had been learned, and the conditions required to enable these lessons to be harnessed in schools. This present article aims to ask, ‘What else?’ (Singh et al., 2014) and offers a thematic analysis of the optional narrative responses provided within the survey, which focus on partnership working across the local SEND system and the role occupied by policy actors (Ball et al., 2011) within this system. The contributing authors share a common interest in SEND. As members of the lead group for the SENPRF, we were part of the team involved in developing the questionnaire. One of us has worked as SENCo and SEND inspector in a local authority and is a university course leader for the National Award for SEN Coordination; another works as SEND advisor, and as a teacher and lecturer has previously interrogated the SEND Code of Practice (DfE & DoH, 2015) and its implications for professionalism, partnership working and ethical concerns; the third contributor has a disabled daughter and is undertaking doctoral research approaching the subjectivity of parents of disabled children and how it relates to inclusion. Accordingly, we each handled the analysis of the survey findings from different personal and professional perspectives. In the spirit of partnership, we have respected each other’s expertise and lived experience, and worked together with an open © 2022 NASEN British Journal of Special Education � Volume 0 � Number 0 � 2022 3 mind, engaging in the nuances and tensions that exist within partnership working, to embrace divergent understandings. In what follows, we will briefly review the literature on multi-agency working and inter-professional collaboration and how this is conceptualized within SEND literature, before considering the role of parents/carers in these partnerships. A methodology section then leads into a discussion of six key statements that can be understood as some of the lessons learned from the pandemic, drawing on our data and reflecting the experiences of parents/carers, school staff and advising professionals working in local authorities