James G. Ladwig

“Ability” is one of the most common concepts underpinning education. Generally, “ability” is central to notions of a meritocratic society. More specifically, schools are allocated the right to define, categorise and label students according to their ability. While there has been ample discussion of the role of ability in the creation of curricula, teachers’ concepts of “ability” have remained relatively unstudied. Using semi-structured interviews with 236 primary and secondary school teachers, we examined how teachers use concepts of “ability”, identify its conceptual components in their discourses (its anatomy), and show how the internal structure of the concept relates to specific institutional functions. Teachers’ uses of “ability” prompted us to recount a too-often forgotten perspective – the reframing of our understanding of schools as institutions. Recognising the internal anatomy of ability, as it is used in schooling, helps us better understand its capacity to survive within a broader ecology of schooling, and the degree to which schools are designed to limit learning and legitimise consequent social exclusion.

We examine how students’ perspectives of their learning environments vary between private and public schools in Australia. Previous research has shown that educational outcomes do not vary by school sector in most countries after controlling for student social background. Little is known, however, about the ways in which different students’ educational experiences vary across sectors. Australia is a good case study for examining this question, because it has one of the largest private school sectors in the world. We used a large and nationally representative dataset to compare sector differences across five measures of learning environments while accounting for the average socioeconomic composition of the school. Very few differences large enough to be considered educationally substantive were found between sectors. On two measures, however, student perspectives varied substantially within sectors and across school socioeconomic contexts. Overall, classroom disciplinary climate varied the most across school sectors and socioeconomic contexts, and teacher scaffolding and structuring strategies varied the least.

Te Kotahitanga is a research and professional development project that seeks to reduce educational disparities between indigenous Māori students and their non-Māori peers in New Zealand secondary schools. While evidence of the impact of the project on teachers’ practice and the associated gains made by Māori students has been published previously, in order for the work of Te Kotahitanga to contribute to the broader educational research community, its pedagogical premises require empirical verification. To do so, we must first establish the validity of the pedagogical data by addressing two questions: (a) To what degree can the data gathered in the collaborative processes of Te Kotahitanga be used as a measure of pedagogical quality? and (b) Do these data support the foundational hypothesis of the project, that “extended family” relationships, as understood by Māori people when using the Māori term, whanaungatanga, are a central necessary component of overall pedagogical quality? This article provides an account of the context of this work then presents an analysis directed to these questions in turn. First, our analysis of the observational data gathered during the Te Kotahitanga professional development process is presented, followed by the measures that were developed for each of the main dimensions of pedagogy addressed in this work. Second, using these measures we present our analysis of the inter-relation among these dimensions of pedagogy to test the Whanaungatanga pedagogical thesis.

Nearly two decades ago, Ladwig outlined the theoretical and methodological implications of Bourdieu’s concept of the social field for sociological analyses of educational policy and school reform. The current analysis extends this work to consider the sociological import of one of the most ubiquitous forms of educational reform found around the planet: school reform networks. On the one hand, this analysis highlights the extent to which schooling is composed of multiple, co-existing social fields, which offer school reform networks ample leverage points for change. On the other hand, the degree to which reform networks hope to realise their ambitions fundamentally depends on their capacity to leverage the transferability of capitals among those social fields that govern the daily practices of schooling.