Christine Edwards-Groves  Peter Grootenboer · Jane Wilkinson Editors Education in an Era of Schooling Critical perspectives of Educational Practice and Action Research. A Festschrift for Stephen Kemmis Education in an Era of Schooling Christine Edwards-Groves Peter Grootenboer Jane Wilkinson (cid:129) Editors Education in an Era of Schooling Critical perspectives of Educational Practice and Action Research. A Festschrift for Stephen Kemmis 123 Editors Christine Edwards-Groves JaneWilkinson CharlesSturt University MonashUniversity WaggaWagga,NSW, Australia Clayton, VIC,Australia PeterGrootenboer GriffithUniversity Southport, QLD,Australia ISBN978-981-13-2052-1 ISBN978-981-13-2053-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2053-8 LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018950918 Foreword:©BobStake,underexclusivelicensetoSpringerNatureSingapore ©SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2018 Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations. ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd. Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:152BeachRoad,#21-01/04GatewayEast,Singapore189721, Singapore Foreword And What, Stephen, Have You Wrought? When Samuel F. B. Morse opened thefirst telegraph line, heclick-clacked,“What hath God wrought?” Here, as you move toward completing your telegraphy, Stephen, in some amazement we ponder, “What indeed have you wrought?” In these pages, we examine the magma you have brought forth, so helpful as we worked out our own. What all have you wrought? Of course, it is impossible to say. Words fail to come close to saying what all. We face the reality of every teacher, researcher, evaluator: What all? For none of us is it an answerable question. Even “What is it hereandnow?”isnotananswerablequestion.In2007,underthetitle,“Here,”you wrote: Wearenotjustthinkingandsaying.Wearenotjustdoing.Wearealwaysrelating,always connectedtotheearthandothers.Wearealways,whereverweare,partofearth’sflows, andtheearthandwhatisinitaremadepartoftheflowsofourrestlessbeingbyourbeing here.Thoughwemayresist,resentorrejoiceinit,wearepartofacommonhumanity.Our lives make and leave marks on a shared earth, shared fates. (Kemmis 2007, as cited in Stake,2010,p.59) To repeat, “always relating, always connected.” You have written it. You have taught it. You have shown great faith, Stephen, in sharing, in relating, in com- municative action. Many of ourfellow writerson educational matters have pushed for impersonal, objective indications of quality, but you have pushed the oppor- tunity for enhancing professional collaboration. You and Hannele Niemi (1999) said: Wedefine[evaluation]asaprocessofcreatingandsustainingcommunicativeactionori- entedtowardsmutualunderstandingandunforcedconsensusinandaroundaprogramor setting. You may remember that I found that too constraining. I went along with such a conceptualization in action research. And I was happy to support internal v vi Foreword evaluation, which requires a half deaf ear. But I wanted evaluation to maintain a priorityonidentifyingprogramgoodnessthatcouldbeseenandsupportedbyarun of stakeholders, plus program badness that was both obstacle and disaffection. Gradually, I have come to realize that for most circumstances, you had correctly grasped the priority. While you were at the Center for Instructional Research and Curriculum Evaluation [CIRCE] back in the early 70s, we could count on finding a few evaluation clients, sponsors, and students who supported not only formative eval- uation (finding ways to make teaching better), but held the optimistic view that experience, that is, teaching and student experience, was worthy of the sustained, criticaleye.Butitdidn’tlast.Now:“Justthefacts,ma’am.”Almosteveryaudience or board today wants an evaluation contract promising “what works,” something leveraging, that is, useful in getting more funding. Back then and lately still, we are taken with MacDonald’s (1976) idea of three types of educational evaluation, reflecting different kinds of power relationships (bureaucratic, autocratic, and democratic), with democratic evaluation being: …an information service to the whole community about the characteristics of an educa- tionalprogramme…[withits]keyjustificatoryconcept[being]a“righttoknow”thedoings ofthecurriculumthatthepeoplefundandprotect… And how to tell? In a chapter “Telling it like it is: The problem of making a portrayal of an educational program” (1977), you muscled aside the engineering model(onesizefitsall)tomakeportrayal-makingcentraltosocialcommunication. You drafted: An educational program is a complex whole: it involves people, things, places, events, activities,administration.Portrayalcannothopetocapturethatenormouslycomplexworld and fix it in some rigid, final form. But it can hope to communicate something of the complexity,andsomethingofthedynamic,flowingpatternofexperiencesitcreatesandof whichitisconstituted.(p.3) Vision counts. You drew our attention to the words of theoretical physicist David Bohm (1974): …scienceisprimarilyanactivityofextendingperceptionintonewcontextsandintonew forms,andonlysecondarilyameansofobtainingwhatmaybecalledreliableknowledge …scienceresearchdoesnotconsistfirstoflookingatsomethingandthencommunicating it. Rather,theveryact ofperception isshapedandformed bytheintentionto communi- cate…(p.374) Fittingly, that moved you to concentrate more than other evaluation theorists on evaluation as perception-communication. With Hannele (1999), you wrote: Suchanemphasisoncommunication,andindeeddialogue,broughtyouintoconfrontation withmatters ofequityandrace.Thepeopleareadifferentiated population,withamulti- plicity of cultural values and life styles. How can an evaluation mechanism that seeks a singlebestrepresentationofvaluesdojusticetoadiversesociety? WithyourEastAngliacolleagues,DavidJenkins,BarryMacDonald,andGajendra Verma, you wrote that the engineering model is Foreword vii highlyappropriateforsomedevelopmentpurposes.Butitmaybecrudeanddangerousin theevaluationofrace-relatededucationalprovisionandinmulti-racialcontexts.Itspointof departure is a consensus about aims and objectives; in multi-ethnic and multi-cultural settings,diversityratherthanconsensusmustbeassumed.(1979,p.30) Together with your colleagues at the Centre for Applied Research in Education [CARE], you established the position that results of evaluation studies are to be negotiated, neither imposed by evaluator nor sponsor. Nor by funder. Ah,yes.HadyoubeennominatedforaNobelPrize,Iwouldhavelikedtowrite the tribute. I particularly would emphasize your recognition of the lack of docu- mented connection between assessment of student achievement (classroom and international) and assessment of educators’ success in educating (Kemmis, 1977). Yourecognizedthatinthesetimesneitherareeffectivelyassessed—andthatalmost noonecares.Hadyoubeenheeded,thestateofeducationalassessmentmighthave avoided its present state of gross misinformation (see Rose, 2016). Yourecognizedthatstudentachievementtesting,asnowcarriedout,providesa measureofstudentperformance,andthusstudentstateofmind,whenfacedwitha battery of test items. A student response indicates what is available in her intellect and disposition, certainly nota measure only of learning associated with particular teaching.Testresultscanbeusedtoindicatestudentreadinessforfurtherteaching, giventeachingeffectiveness,schoolquality,andappropriatenessofnationalpolicy. Teachers are properly cautioned not to consider standardized test scores as an indication of individual student achievement. Many teachers have come to consider national assessment as far removed from classroom practice. You dreaded this future in 1992. Before there were blogs, you blogged: Itseemedasthoughnationalassessmentwasanideawhosetimehadpassed.Ithoughtit had gone to its death more or less gracefully, no longer suited for the parts it once was expectedtoplay.Ithoughtthat,likeadinosaurconfrontingtheiceage,itwasalumbering, archaisticancestorofnewersocialpracticesofprogramevaluation,studentassessmentand school improvement better fitted for an era of greater professionalism among teachers, greater participation by school communities in the life and work of schools, and more decentralized and democratic curriculum decision making. But these metaphors of anachronisticsurvivalmissadeeper,moredisturbingdynamic:likethecicadasthatflyfree inopenaironlyforafewfleetingweeksafterseveralyearsofslow,subterraneandevel- opmentfromeggtolarva,crownedbythemetamorphosiswhichdrivesthemineluctablyto matureadulthoodandthetwinclimaxesofreproductionanddeath,nationalassessmenthas returned.Whatwormhasbeenfeedinginthedeepdecayofourfearsandnowcomesto takeitstolloftheharvestwhichisourchildren?(1992) From Wilhelm Windelband (1894) and others, you borrowed the nomenclature of nomothetic and idiographic measurement, noting the distinction between mea- surement for scientific generalization and that for the study of individuals. You pointed out that achievement scores provide a small picture of each examinee’s mindatapointintimebutthatthesumoraverageoftheseisnotapictureofwhat the group learned of the total intended to be learned. A measure of individual learning as well as group learning needs context, especially specifying an extent of instruction time, or “pathways” as Rose (2016) viii Foreword recently put it. In your endeavors of 1977, in the British context of computer-assisted learning in higher education, you observed that the diversity of coursesandcampusesneededanalysisofpathwayportrayalsofindividuallearning beforecompilationandgeneralizationofwhatwaslearned.Psychometricprecision couldnotcompensatefortestingforthewrongconstruct.Thatlessonhasstilltobe learned across the education system. Indicator variables are a stretch. In that work and beyond, you found special initiative and direction in the writings of Jurgen Habermas, Paulo Friere, Barry MacDonald, and Ernie House. Although without a unified view of democratic evaluation, they held common penchant for being of service to the public. You yourself said (1983): Educational researchers canmeasurethevalueof theirwork bytheextent towhichedu- cation becomes, in practice, more rational, just, humane and socially-integrative as a consequenceoftheircollaborativeeffortswithotherstoimproveit. You found that people could not effectively arouse themselves unless they had placesandideasfortalkingabouthowtoprotectandadvancetheirlives.Optimistic about communicative action, you saw the obligation of scholars and teachers to provide background and support for deliberation, for exploration of education, especially the curriculum. Drawing from Miloraad Pavic’s Dictionary of the Khazars (1988), you wrote: Iwanttoargue,however,thatcurriculaarenotjustlikemaps,norevenjustlikethecarpet in[MarcoPolo’scityof]Eudoxia;theyarealsopumasheldontheropebetweenteachers and students. … [The many] ropes symbolize the dynamic tension of being in social relationships.(1993,p.4) You noted that Habermas (1987) spoke of three types of overarching social trav- elings, those of organizational systems, those of people’s lifeworlds, and those of the “colonisation of lifeworlds by the functional imperatives of organizations.” The traffic is such that “people of modern times have difficulty establishing com- monframeworksofunderstandingacrosssettingsandgenerations.”Forthepeople, taking collective social and political action becomes more needed and yet more difficult in highly bureaucratized cultures, thus the call for mechanisms of com- munication to invent and perpetuate such frameworks for collaboration. Such, I understand, was the ground for your ideas of “communicative evalua- tion.” The prime findings, you and Hannele have said (1999), should be whatever information about educational programs that best facilitates public exercise of control. You may remember that I have not been enthusiastic about that aim. I see little market for it. Today, the public has little appetite for those findings we are capable of delivering, and small trust in what we do. From any point of view, and countertoourself-promotion,smallisthemarketforinformationthatfeedsdeeper understanding. Rather than for knowledge, the funders and managers pay to advance their own protection (Foucault, 1972). But evaluation has no single role, no unchanging design. Just as teachers simultaneously teach multiple messages, so do we. We are at once attentive to multiple stakeholders, multiple issues, multiple uses. However primary the Foreword ix orientation to outcomes, economy or equity, evaluators keep multiple values in mind. There is always good room for attention to public interests. Publicinterestsareservedbyin-depthtellingofpersonalstories(Kushner,2013; Stake, 2010). The problem is less the time available than the will to make com- prehensible. And there you have made your plea. You have urged that we all include communicative evaluation in our quivers (1980). You have urged we contributeevenalittletobettercommunicationamongstakeholders,towardmutual understanding. Amen. Did we argue about which kind of program evaluation is worth more (both in anticipation and in retrospect), external non-participatory evaluation or participa- tory evaluation? Yes, seldom have we the opportunity to choose. Well, we always havesomeopportunityforcriticalactionresearch,but,howeverwellresourced,that choice seldom satisfies institutional demands for independent outsider evaluation. Participatory inquiry lacks protection from self-service. Of course, we want eval- uation to be self-serving, but not to overlook key faults. Iamconfidentthatmoneyputoncriticalparticipatoryevaluationisbetterspent. ButonlytoafewclientshaveImadethatrecommendation.Itsooftenwasapparent tomethatthepoliticalsituationcallsforindependentstudy.AndIhaveconfidence thatasanoutsider,Iwoulddigdeepertofindissuestostudy.Iadmittheymaynot be as relevant and useful to insiders. I should more often have sent them to talk to you. Over the years, your click-clacks have been thought-provoking. However, unpersuaded by your and Robin McTaggart’s (2000) and Susan Noffke’s urgings for advocacy, I told Sue one time that I thought I should write my own book on action research. She asked what had I to say? With thought, I realized I had no chance of saying it better than you had. Perhaps an accumulation of so many epistemologies led you to give the twenty-first-century special attention to “practice,” particularly teaching practice. You devoted concern to professional work, that for which the worker is centrally responsible for the definition and quality of her work. You pleaded: Inarangeofprofessions,professionalpracticetodayisunderthreat.Itisendangered,for example, by pressures of bureaucratic control, commodification, marketization, and stan- dardisation . . . In these times, there is a need for deeper understandings of professional practiceandhowitdevelopsthroughprofessionalcareers. Itwasnottobejustasurveyofactionandlanguage,butaprobingofwhatitmeans to be “a professional” (2006). You developed a comprehensive overview of research on practice. You urged thinking in dialectical terms, moving from ‘either-or’ thinking to ‘never either, always both’ thinking. You drew from both objective and subjective perspectives with a focus on both the individual and the social, to encompass practiceassociallyandhistoricallyconstituted,andasreconstitutedbyhumanagencyand socialaction:criticaltheory,criticalsocialscience(2006,p.3). x Foreword ThelasthalfoftheseFestschriftchaptersisprimarilyexaminingthisKemmisinthe twenty-first century. Festschrift or not, indeed, Stephen, what have you wrought? While teacher and learner yourself over half a century, for half the life of teaching and learning as fieldsofstudy,youhaveprobedthemeaningsofeducation.Youhaveshunnedrote andritual,despairedofmerepreparationforarmy,vicarage,andfactory.Youhave turned the mirror on countenance and practice, the microscope on assessment and privilege, the telescope on aspiration and policy, and the telegraph to distant cul- tures. Little has escaped your watch. Allthisansweringbacktowhathaveyouwrought:thescaleofbenevolencefor a vast spread of children, youth, and doctoral candidates (1998, 2006, 2012), reminders that they already are part-professionals, azimuths of destiny, caretakers, historians.Atthebottomofthebox,Ifoundasinglesheet,nodate,onlyidentified by the hand of Stephen Kemmis, saying: …youandImakehistory,butnotundercircumstancesofourownchoosing.Stilleachof us makes choices and all of us share in the consequences. It is our common fate, our commondestiny.Eachday,eachmoment,bychoosingwhattodonow,youaremaking yourownmemories,andmakingahistoryallofuswillshare.Youarechoosingwhatyou willknow,whatconversationsyouwillhave,whatourideasandmemorieswillbe,how youwillthinkwithothersnowandintothefuture.Youarechoosingwhatyouwillmake, whatyouwillproduceandconsume,whatyouwillbeabletodointhefuture,howyouwill fitintheproductivelifeofsociety.Youarechoosingwhoyouwillknow,whatrelation- ships you will have with them, what you will do with, for and against others, and how you’ll connect with others and they with you. You are choosing whether to be, and the extenttowhichyoucanbe,theprimarycauseinyourownlife—aproducerofexperience —or a consumer of experiences produced by others. You are choosing what will be the conditionsoflifeforallourchildren. Bob Stake References Bohm, D. (1974). Science as perception-communication. In F. Suppe (Eds.), The structure of scientifictheories.UniversityofIllinois,USA:IllinoisPress Foucault, M.(1972).Archaeologyofknowledge.NewYork,USA:HarperandRow Habermas, J. (1987). Theory of communicative action, Volume 2: Lifeworld and system: A cri- tiqueoffunctionalistreason(ThomasMcCarthy,Trans.).Boston:Beacon. Jenkins, D. R., Kemmis, S., MacDonald, B. & Verma, G.K. (1979). Racism and educational evaluation. In G. K. Verma & C. Bagley (eds.), Race, education and identity. London: Heinemann. Kemmis, S. 1977. Telling it like it is: The problem of making a portrayal of an educational program.InRubin,L.J.(ed.),HandbookofCurriculum1977.Boston:Allyn&Bacon. Kemmis, S. (1977). Nomothetic and idiographic approaches to the evaluation of computer assistedlearning.JournalofCurriculumStudies(inpress).