Reconfiguring the Public Sphere: Implications for Analyses of Educational Policy Author(s): Sue Thomas Reviewed work(s): Source:

British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 52, No. 3 (Sep., 2004), pp. 228-248 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of the Society for Educational Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556054 . Accessed: 09/11/2011 00:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and Society for Educational Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal of Educational Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

VOL.52, No. 3, SEPTEMBER2004, PP 228-248

BRITISHJOURNALOF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, ISSN 0007-1005

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE: IMPLICATIONSFOR ANALYSESOF EDUCATIONALPOLICY

by SUE THOMAS, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

ABSTRACT:Thispaperoutlinesa casefor the reconfiguration the of public sphereas discursive space, arguing that such a reconfiguration on better enablesinvestigations publicdebates education.Thepaper into on onesuch investigation, whichstudiedonenewspaper's focuses reporting of a reviewof the school curriculumin Queensland,Australia. It employs CriticalDiscourse Analysis to analysethe interrelationships about the reviewthat were between discourses and the discourses policy in constructed theprint media.Thepapershowshowthedynamic structureof thepublicsphere enabled discursive connections bemadeacross to sites in order privilegea shared to on public discourse education policy, In schools teachers. so doing it demonstrates capacity thepublic and the of to sphere defineeducationalissuesand identitiesin particularways. educationpolicy,publicsphere,discourse, media Keywords:
1. INTRODUCTION

Several writers (cf. Barton, 2001; Fairclough, 2001; Harvey, 1996; Luke, 2002; Smith, 1990) have pointed to changes in the nature of contemporary societies. For example, Barton (2001) and Smith (1990) note that people act within a textually-mediated social world. In this textually-mediatedworld, semiosis, or 'the process of meaningmaking through language, body language, visual images, or any other way of signifying, has become an irreducible part of social life' (Fairclough, 2001, p. 229). That is, the new technologies that characterise a textually-mediated world have transformed the significance of semiosis in relation to other elements that constitute social life (Fairclough, 2001). Indeed, Luke (2002, p. 98) argues that advanced capitalist societies are characterised by new forms of social life that turn on text and discourse. Such societies are enabled by
discourse saturated environments,
228
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

or semiotic

economies,

where

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

'text, language and discourse have become the principal modes of social relations, civic and political life, economic behaviour and activity, where means of production and modes of information become intertwined in analytically complex ways'. This is not to argue that the social has become the discursive. Indeed, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) join with Harvey (1996) in identifying the discursive as but one of several moments, or 'basic markers' (Harvey, 1996, p. 78), that constitute the network of social practices that make up contemporary social life. In addition to the discursive, other moments of social life include material activity, social relations and processes, and mental phenomena. Each moment is constituted as an internal, dialectical relation of the others. However, discursive effects saturate all other moments in the social process, 'internalis[ing] in some sense everything that occurs as other moments' (Harvey, 1996, p. 80). Thus, while it is important not to privilege the discursive over other moments in social life, it is necessary to recognise that an analysis of the discursive moment is essential to the furthering of our understandings of social life, in this case of the public sphere. This paper outlines a case for the reconfiguration of the public sphere as discursive space. It argues that such a conceptualisation enables investigations into the interrelationships, or conjunctures, between discourses in the public sphere. One such investigation is the focus of this paper, which presents a case study of the conjuncture of discourses on education in public media debates on education policy. The case study analyses one such debate by mapping the discursive field of a particular educational policy initiative. It shows how the fluid, dynamic structure of a reconfigured public sphere enabled discursive connections to be made across three local sites of discursive practices, a curriculum review that led to the introduction of new education policies, the government and the print media, in order to privilege a shared public discourse on education. This shared discourse projected an official, privileged voice on education policy that worked both to construct and to reinforce commonsensical understandings of the curriculum, of schools and of teachers. The paper begins by outlining a case for the reconfiguration of the public sphere as local sites of discursive practice, noting the potential of such sites for the constitution of issues and identities through discursive negotiation and contestation. Next, the potential inherent in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) for investigating the internal processes of these public discourses is discussed. This potential is demonstrated through a case study that maps the discursive
field of one particular education
229
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

policy initiative. The mapping

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

investigates the ways in which discourses in the public sphere represent schools and the curriculum as well as the ways these discourses position different social groups, particularly teachers. Next, the paper outlines the shared public discourse on education constructed through discursive connections in the public sphere. Finally, the paper concludes with comments on the ideological nature of public discourses. It shows how such discourses work within the public sphere to define educational issues and identities in particular ways. 2.
RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE AS DISCURSIVE SPACE

The public sphere was conceptualised originally by Habermas (1989/ 1962) as that realm of social life where issues of common concern can be freely and openly addressed by citizens. It was 'the domain of our social life in which such a thing as public opinion can be formed' (Habermas, 1996b, p. 55) in a rational, dialogic process (Dahlgren, 2001). While the Habermasian (1989/1962, 1996b) concept of a public sphere as an arena in which public opinion is formed was a useful concept, it has been criticised for ignoring difference in its treatment of culture and identity (Calhoun, 1992). In addition, Habermas's (1989/1962) emphasis on a unitary, bourgeois public sphere is perceived to have led to a neglect of nationalism (Eley, 1992); of the unequal access of different groups to debates in the public sphere (cf. Fraser, 1992; Kulynych, 2001); and of social movements and power relations (Calhoun, 1992). Consequently, contemporary work (cf. McLaughlin, 1994) has reconceived the notion of the public sphere in order to overcome the limitations noted above. This reconceptualisation recognises the public sphere as a site for the production and circulation of discourses (Helmers, 2001), as an arena of discursive relations (Corner, 1999; Fraser, 1992) or a 'field of discursive connections' (Calhoun, 1992, p. 37). Such a conception of the public sphere acknowledges the importance both of its potential as the discursive mode of social integration and of its world-disclosing role where issues and identities are redefined and interests clarified and constituted (Calhoun, 1992; Reddy, 1992). In recent work Habermas (1996a) has recognised the discursive nature of the public sphere also but his work continues to describe it in universalistic terms (Hunter, 2001) and fails to address the plurality and fragmentation of contemporary social life. However, several theorists (cf. Calhoun, 1992; Fraser, 1992; Gimmler, 2001; Hunter, 2001; Reddy, 1992) have recognised the inherent pluralism of the public sphere. They have reconceptualised
the public sphere as an arena for the formation of discursive opinion
230
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

and, therefore, for the formation and enactment of social identities, Thus, the notion of a reconfigured public sphere is employed, not to describe the discursive arrangements of intellectual and economic superiors within a public domain, but to lay the groundwork for a representative space that can accommodate the diverse interests and needs of all people, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, class or sexual orientation. (McLaughlin, 1994, p. 5) Indeed, Fraser (1992, p. 126) has noted 'an egalitarian, multicultural society only makes sense if we presuppose a plurality of public arenas in which groups with diverse values and rhetorics participate. By definition, such a society must contain a multiplicity of publics'. In recognising such a pluralityof publics, Fraserproposes a number of subaltern counterpublics, or alternative publics that are 'parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated social groups invent and circulate counterdiscourses to formulate oppositional interpretations of their identities, interests and needs' (Fraser, 1992, p. 123). That is, the public sphere is 'the structured setting where cultural or ideological contest or negotiation among a variety of publics takes place' (Eley, 1992, p. 306). It is conceived as a fluid structure, changing over time in response to many influences including politics and public policy, and always constituted by conflict, which in turn shapes social relations (Falk, 1994; Marginson, 1993). Thus, the reconfigured public sphere is conceptualised as being made up of local sites of discourse that carry the 'public debate over whose and which versions of history, morality and ethics should count, in whose interests, and to what ends' (Luke, 1997, p. 343). In addition, as several writers (cf. Calabrese and Burke, 1994; Kulynych, 2001; McLaughlin, 1994; Sholar, 1994) have pointed out, the public sphere works as a social and political category for unity and coherence excluding oppositional voices and practices. Such a conceptualisation of the public sphere emphasises 'the status and power of public texts in the civic spaces for discourse' (Luke, 1997, p. 345) and highlights the need for a greater understanding of the internal processes of public discourses (Calhoun, 1992; Chouliarakiand Fairclough, 1999). 3.
INVESTIGATING DISCOURSES IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) presents a framework for analysis through which such an understanding of public discourses can be gained. CDA questions the relationships between the power relations evidenced in social structures and that of local everyday practices. In particular, CDA focuses on the discursive strategies that
231 ? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

legitimise control, or otherwise naturalise the ways in which the world is represented, social identities are set up, and relationships constructed between these identities (Fairclough, 1995). The emphasis on power relations leads to a concern with 'the destabilisation of "authoritative" discourse' (Apple, 1996, p. 131) and CDA is the means by which such a discourse is foregrounded, interrupted and reframed (Luke, 1997). It provides an 'analytical and political tool for talking of power and agency' (Luke, 1997, p. 365) in discursive struggles over educational policy in the public sphere. Fairclough (1999) identifies three contributions CDA can make to an understanding of the discursive processes of the public sphere. Two are relevant to this paper. First, CDA 'describe[s] the dynamic structuring of social orders of discourse in ways which locate diverse discursive practices of the public sphere in relation to other discursive practices and to each other' (Fairclough, 1999, p. 65). This paper describes one such order of discourse, on education policy, that was constructed in the public sphere. It does so by mapping the discursive field of a particular education policy initiative, identifying the interrelationships between policy, media and government discourses constructed on that policy. The particular policy under investigation was a review of the Queensland' school curriculum that was conducted by a three-member Review panel. That review became known as the Wiltshire Review, and resulted in a report, Shaping theFuture (Wiltshire et al., 1994b), which became known as the Wiltshire Report.2 Second, CDA contributes to further understandings of the discursive processes of the public sphere by highlighting 'properties germane to their [discursive practices] functioning within the public sphere' (Fairclough, 1999, p. 65). That is, a critical discourse analysis of the discursive processes of the public sphere can reveal much about the nature of public discourses. For example, the mapping of the Wiltshire discursive field outlined below illustrates the ideological nature of public discourses. Thus, critical discourse analysis provides a useful tool for furthering understandings of the internal processes of hegemonic struggles on education policy that are played out in discourses in the public sphere. 4.
MAPPING PUBLIC DISCOURSES ON EDUCATIONAL THE WILTSHIRE DISCURSIVE FIELD POLICY:

back to public discourse ... and [for] questioning

its constructions

The mapping of the Wiltshire discursive field focused on three sites

of discursive practice, defined as 'the discourse moments of different
232
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

practices' (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999, p. 27). The three sites were the Wiltshire Review itself, the government and the print media. In each of these sites, a preferred discourse, both on the Wiltshire Review and on schools and education was constructed. Each discourse positioned different groups in particular ways, granting various groups the authoritative voice on education in Queensland. The discussion that follows outlines these preferred discourses and shows how the congruences found within them worked to construct a shared discourse on Queensland schools across the three sites of discursive practice. Sites of DiscursivePractice:the Wiltshire Review The Wiltshire Review,as evidenced in the Wiltshire Report (Wiltshire et al., 1994b) and its associated overview (Wiltshire et al., 1994a) constructed a preferred discourse on schools and the curriculum that represented schools as being in need of reform. The discourse placed a heavy emphasis on standards and responsibility. This emphasis led to the Report focusing on two issues, both of which became key elements of the Report's preferred discourse on Queensland schools. The first issue was standards of literacy and numeracy, which were described as being 'basic to the personal, social and intellectual development of all persons' (Wiltshire et al., 1994a, p. 6) and essential to the wellbeing of society. High levels of literacy and numeracy were deemed to be 'undoubtedly the highest priority of schooling' (Wiltshire et al., 1994b, p. 114). The second issue was control of curriculum decision-making. The Report's preferred discourse presented contradictory positions on both these issues. The Report's position on standards of literacy and numeracy was one of concern, describing Queensland schools as having serious problems. It noted that 'many students are proceeding through, and graduating from the education system with inadequate levels in such key skills [of literacy and numeracy] ... it is obvious that education still has some way to go' (Wiltshire et al., 1994b, p. 146). The Report defined literacy in two ways, revealing contradictory positions on the issue. The first, narrow, definition referred to 'being able to read and write at some (often low) criterion level of proficiency' (ibid., p. 147). From this perspective, the problems with literacy found in Queensland schools required the introduction of formal testing and reporting, including 'the Year 2 diagnostic net, the Year 6 Literacy, Numeracy and Basic Skills Test, the new Student Reporting Framework, the Year 10 light sampling' (ibid., p. 183). These tests and the
233
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

reporting framework were introduced to regulate the activities of teachers and schools and so force up standards. Indeed, one member of the Wiltshire Review Panel noted that 'the Queensland system until we reported has had hardly any external accountability. There were no exams. There are still no external exams in Queensland, and the only time a school ever got externally accountable was in Year 12. So right through that period there was none. ... we had 22 or 23 years where the teachers had not one element of external accountability.' That same member went on to note that 'the fundamental accountability of it in our recommendations, was that there was to be a student reporting framework from schools to parents' (Interview, member of Wiltshire Review Panel). In contrast, the second broader definition of literacy and numeracy in the Report depicted literacy as the development of communicative ability that entailed both the skills needed to communicate effectively and the mechanical skills of grammar and spelling. That is: simple 'reading, riting and rithmetic' are no longer adequate: literacy levels, for example, must be sufficiently high to enable the individual to access information over the full range of human and natural phenomena, including science, technology, humanities, creative and expressive arts, and, indeed, all domains of knowledge. (ibid., p. 150) In this definition, both effective communication and structural accuracy were desirable. While literacy levels, in this broadest sense, had risen, the Report recognised the need to ensure that current standards were adequate for the changing demands of schools and society. Defined in this broad way, the problem with literacy in Queensland schools became one of insufficient resources, especially funding, being available for literacy and numeracy programmes. Rather than needing increased regulation, teachers were depicted both as playing a critical role in this process and as a group that needed, and deserved, increased support. Similarly, teachers were depicted as playing a significant role in the proposed new system for curriculum decision-making, especially in the development of professional partnerships between parents and the community at the school level. As the following extract shows, the notion of partnerships was critical to the Report's definition of curriculum decision-making, which was seen to be the collaborative responsibility of teachers, community and government. A new curriculum for Queensland will provide the foundation for the future direction of schooling; but, no matter how well
234
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

developed and designed that curriculum becomes, the vital ingredients in its effect will be the school environment that needs to occur in the classroom between teacher and student. The only way that this can be effective is for curriculum delivery to have as its centrepiece the school as a professional partnership between students, teachers, administration, parents and the community. That partnership remains the key element in ensuring that we are able to shape the future. (ibid., p. viii) However, at the same time, the Report expressed concerns about teachers' judgements and called for increased measures of accountability of teachers and schools. The following extract outlines the perceived limitations on teachers' ability to make judgements as the Review Panel elaborates on the new Student Reporting Framework, which was described as one such measure of accountability. A feature which could be regarded simultaneously as a strength and weakness of the Student Reporting Framework is that it relies not do is to rapidly provide a valid and reliable comparison of the levels of student achievement in her/his classroom with the levels of achievement at other locations throughout the state. In order for a whole system to engage in self-monitoring and accountability to the public, it is necessary to introduce a form of moderation, external assessment, or some other monitoring mechanism. (ibid., p. 105) The Wiltshire Report recommended the establishment of a central, intersystemic, statutory authority to be responsible for the development of a core compulsory curriculum for all levels of schooling. Such a body would oversee the writing of comprehensive, prescriptive syllabuses in order to ensure a common understanding of curriculum and to reinforce the coherence and stability of curriculum experiences. That is, the curriculum authority would centralise control of curriculum development and implementation. In addition, the recommendation for such a body created a distinction between curriculum development, which was the responsibility of the central authority, and curriculum delivery. Schools were identified as 'the prime agents of curriculum delivery' (ibid., p. 185), which was to be monitored by 'qualityassurance bodies in the government and non-government sectors' (ibid., p. 186). Consequently, teachers' curriculum decision-making was limited to issues of curriculum delivery only, that is, to the preparation of 'programs
of work which are capable of gaining accreditation with appropriate
235
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

on teacher judgment.

... What individual teacher assessment can

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

bodies' (ibid., p. 206). Schools were expected 'to act collaboratively ... ratherthan adversarially [emphasis added]' (ibid., p. 206) with such bodies. Decision-making on these issues was further restricted by the prescriptive nature of the proposed syllabuses. In this way, teachers were positioned ambiguously by the Report's discourse. On one hand, they were altruistic, caring professionals who were significant to the success of the proposed reforms. On the other hand, they were depicted as intransigent workers who required increased accountability measures. This positioning in the comments of a member of the Review Panel who noted that 'the teachers are bitching and carrying on about this [the Student Reporting Framework]. It's absolutely disgraceful what they're saying. I can't believe it that the teachers don't believe they ought to be accountable to parents or students. That's very, very odd' (interview, member of Wiltshire Review Panel). In addition, their professional knowledge and expertise was questioned as community beliefs about the current situation in schools were privileged over that of the assessment of education groups. This discourse positioned the Report itself as the authoritative voice on Queensland schools. While the Report's preferred discourse featured elements of accountability and of support, the accountability measures were to have the most dramatic impact on teachers and schools. Ultimately, the Report's preferred discourse was one of regulation and control. It was a characteristic shared by the discourses both of the government and of the print media, discourses that also emphasised problems with literacy and numeracy. Sites of DiscursivePractice:Government The preferred discourse within the political arena defined the situation in Queensland schools in a negative way. Like that of the Wiltshire Report, this discourse endorsed the perceived community, that is electorate, concerns 'that students were finishing school illprepared for an increasingly technological and sophisticated job market and society' (Department of Education, 1994, p. 33). The government was depicted as actively addressing those concerns by initiating the Review. Because the Queensland Government believes that the success of our state measured against any economic, social and cultural yardsticks depends on schools successfully preparing students for tomorrow's world, this comprehensive review was undertaken as a
matter of top priority. (Department of Education, 1994, p. 33)
236
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

The preferred government discourse portrayed schools as needing major reform, and as failing society, that is the state of Queensland, by not producing students with adequate literacy and numeracy skills. Literacy and numeracy were defined narrowly as the 3Rs, the basic skills driving the curriculum. What was wanted was 'a curriculum which ensure[d] that the basics - including fundamental literacy and numeracy skills - [was] the driving force of education' (Office of the Minister for Education, 1994, p. 3). There was a need to get 'back to basics'. A return to basics was to be found in a major overhaul of the curriculum. Such an overhaul would introduce a mandated core curriculum, new systems of testing and reporting, and 'a range of quality assurance measures intended to improve the quality and comparability of curriculum, teaching and assessment standards in Queensland schools' (Office of the Minister for Education, 1994, p. 2). The government's preferred discourse identified the second, and principal, factor behind school failure as the need for greater accountability in school education. Hence, there was support for the Wiltshire recommendations that introduced accountability measures leading to the increased, centralised regulation of teaching practices, especially of teacher decision-making. However, some of the Wiltshire Report's recommendations were changed. For example, curriculum development, management, assessment and accreditation were identified as being the responsibility of government, not of a statutory authority. The Minister of Education, as the representative of the government, was positioned as the final authority in curriculum matters. Indeed, the Education Act was modified to read: The Minister is authorised to do all things considered by the Minister to be necessary to develop, review, maintain and implement curricula taught or to be taught in State educational institutions. (State of Queensland, 1998, p. 20) This positioning worked to reassert the authority of the government on curriculum decision-making, enabling the government to override several of the Wiltshire Report's recommendations. The government legislated also for new curriculum management processes that would not only regulate decisions on what was to be included in the curriculum but also decisions on who would make those decisions. Consequently, central curriculum bodies to develop new, comprehensive syllabuses were introduced. These bodies continued the distinction between curriculum development and
curriculum delivery outlined in the Wiltshire Report. In this way,
237 ? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

the government's preferred discourse supported the limitation of teacher curriculum decision-making to matters of curriculum delivery only. While some acknowledgment was made within the government's preferred discourse of teachers' significance in the curriculum development process, the main emphasis was on their perceived failure to meet community standards on literacy and numeracy and, therefore, on the need to introduce greater accountability measures. Thus, teachers were positioned within the government discourse as being irresponsible and not to be trusted. In addition, there was a gradual diminishing of the Review Panel's authority throughout the Review as is evidenced in the changes the government made to its recommendations on curriculum decision-making. Sites of DiscursivePractice:thePrint Media A similar diminishing of the authority of the Review Panel was also traced through the media's preferred discourse during the course of the Review. This discourse was constructed through news reports, guest columns and editorials. Initially, several congruences were to be found between the media's position on the curriculum review and that of the Report. In the latter stages of the review process, these positions began to diverge on the three key issues that characterised the media's preferred discourse. They were the issues of school failure, the basics and teachers. Whilst the media's position diverged from that of the Report, the congruences with the government's position grew stronger. These convergences and divergences will be highlighted in the following discussion. Like the Report, the media's preferred discourse defined the situation in Queensland schools as being problematic, a definition clearly illustrated by headlines such as 'The Trouble with Our Schools' (Giles, 1993) and 'Schools have Failed Students, Society' (Goodman, 1992). As the latter headline indicates, the media, unlike the Report but like the government, presented the problem as school failure. That is, state schools were depicted as failing students. They were described as a valuable community resource that needed to be used more effectively. Consequently, an inquiry into 'the efficacy of the education system' (Laidlaw, 1993a, p. 8) was required in order to introduce the significant, necessary changes that would reform schools. Indeed, one editorial proposed that the Terms of Reference of the Review be widened to include investigations into 'how our schools are run' and the 'extent of the value of their [schools'] output' (Laidlaw, 1993a, p. 8).
238
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

The preferred media discourse identified two areas needing major reform. The first area was the area of literacy and numeracy, the 'Basics'. The media's preferred discourse defined schools as having serious problems because standards of literacy and numeracy were falling, resulting in students leaving school with inadequate skills. This position is illustrated in the strong editorial endorsement of a reader's response to a survey,which claimed that 'a basic education is being able to read, write, spell, add and subtract, and multiply. Half the kids today cannot do that. The new system is ridiculous. Let's go back to the old ways' (Pascoe, 1993, p. 60). Like the government, the media used the narrow definition of literacy and numeracy traced in the Report's preferred discourse. Specifically, literacy and numeracy were defined as the basic skills of grammar, spelling and comprehension; as basic rules. Teaching inappropriate curriculum, including school-based subjects, and using inappropriate teaching methods were believed to be the causes of problems with literacy. For example, one editorial claimed that there was 'universal disapproval [among respondents to a survey] of the literacy and numeracy skills displayed by youngsters and many urged a return to rote learning of spelling and times tables' (Pascoe, 1993, p. 60). Consequently, there was a need to return to a golden past where standards in literacy and numeracy had been high. Such a return was described in one editorial as 'the drive back to basics in education - the basics in terms of the three Rs ... a boon to the future of Queensland' (Laidlaw, 1994a, p. 8). This drive back to the basics was seen to require the introduction of a core curriculum with compulsory subjects;formal testing; and traditionalteaching methods, including rote learning. The second area identified as requiring reform by the preferred media discourse was the teaching profession, which was seen to be the source of the problems in schools. Not only were teachers the practitioners of inappropriate methods, they also failed to identify students with problems. The knowledge base of teachers was undermined repeatedly during the review process. For example, they were described as 'moonshine theorists' (Laidlaw, 1994a, p. 8) who used inappropriatejargon, 'schoolspeak' (Field, 1994, p. 23), that resulted in 'fuzzy and wobbly directives ... [that] have been part of the problem' (Laidlaw, 1994b, p. 8). In addition, teachers were believed to hold unrealistic expectations of governments and schools, to lack common sense, and to allow their personal views to override their social obligations. Subsequently teachers were positioned as having lost the confidence of students, parents and the community. Indeed, one letter to the editor claimed that 'many students have no respect
239 ? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

for their teachers, whom they see as having failed to "make it" into more lucrative professions' (Orr, 1994, p. 8). Further, the profession was deemed to need outside regulation if teacher quality was to be improved. For example, one columnist claimed that 'real quality assurance means spotting outstanding teachers, identified by external assessors, who have themselves been identified as outstanding teachers' (Field, 1994, p. 23). However, it was believed that teachers would resist such measures and so obstruct proposed reforms to schools. 'Whatwill the Teachers Union say to this?' (ibid.) asked one columnist repeatedly. Throughout the review process, teachers were denied an authoritative voice both on the review, and on educational matters in general. Initially, the Review Panel was positioned by this discourse as the authoritative voice on schools. However, as the Review progressed, the positions of the media and of the Review Panel diverged. The Report was derided as being 'overwritten. It only infrequently says anything in a sentence or two, when it can use five pages of educational jargon' (ibid.). The effectiveness of the Panel's recommendations was questioned as 'the proposals do not lead as firmly in the direction of a true return to solid fundamentals as their authors like to think they do' (Laidlaw, 1994a, p. 8). Subsequently, the Panel's authority on education matters was diminished. In addition, the preferred discourse of the print media acknowledged, but frequently qualified, the authority of the government to act on educational matters. The government was depicted as the instigator of the proposed changes and charged with making the changes work. However, the government was believed to be motivated by the need for electoral popularity and to lack the political courage to ensure teachers implemented the required reforms as the following extract from an editorial demonstrates. Politicians will tell you privately they are not game enough to take on teachers over the reintroduction of an external examination component. What a pity our children have to suffer because political courage is in such short supply. (Pascoe, 1993, p. 60) Subsequently, the government was viewed with mistrust and its authority was also undermined. That is, its claims to the final authoritative voice on Queensland schools were denied. The community, which consisted of both parents and the employment sector, was the group recognised consistently as the authorityon educational matters. However, their voice was not heard directly but relayed through newspaper editors who were represented as the voice of the people.
As such, they could speak for parents and voice community concerns,
240 ? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

the concerns 'of any reasonable person' (Laidlaw, 1993b, p. 8), as they constructed a commonsensical view of Queensland schools. Significantly, throughout the review process, the media's position placed little emphasis on the impact the proposed changes would make on teachers' workloads. A similar omission was noted in the government's preferred discourse. Congruences between the two discourses were noted also in the areas of literacy and numeracy and curriculum decision-making. Both discourses emphasised low standards of literacy and numeracy, which were defined narrowly, and both called for the introduction of a core curriculum. In addition, both discourses emphasised the need for increased control over curriculum decisions and over teachers. Elementsof a SharedDiscourse The congruences found between the preferred discourses of the print media and the government, together with elements traced in the preferred discourse of the Wiltshire Report, combined to construct a shared discourse on Queensland schools. This discourse unquestioningly defined the situation in Queensland as one of school failure where many students experienced serious literacy and numeracy problems. Literacy and numeracy were defined narrowly as the basic skills (that is, spelling and grammar) of reading and writing required for achieving a set level of proficiency. The emphasis on literacy and numeracy, defined in this way,was relentless in all three sites of discursive practice. The discourse was distinguished also by an emphasis on a perceived golden past where all students achieved full literacy. It called for a return to traditional teaching (that is, rote) methods to ensure that this would be the case once again. Returning to the old ways required increased measures of regulation and accountability such as the introduction of formal, standardised testing. Teachers, especially, required increased regulation as they were uncaring, lazy and intransigent workers who would otherwise obstruct the processes of reform. In this way,teachers were positioned consistently as both the cause of, and the obstruction to the resolution of, the problem. Consequently, the shared discourse on Queensland schools worked to undermine the professional authority of teachers to speak on educational matters but no one group was granted the authoritative voice in their place. Rather at various stages of the review and at each of the sites of discursive practice, different groups were privileged as
the authoritative voice on both the Wiltshire Report and on Queensland schools. At the end of the Review process, three groups were
241 ? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

positioned consistently as the authoritative voice on education in Queensland. The three groups were the newspaper editors, the government and the community. Significantly, both the government and the editors claimed to speak for, and in the case of the government, to act for, the community. While these elements of a shared discourse were traced at the three sites of discursive practice, each site also contained evidence of alternative discourses. Elements of alternative positions were found in the ambiguities that characterised each of the preferred discourses outlined. They were also to be found in the preferred discourse of most educators and of some community groups. The following section will outline these alternative positions in more detail. Discourses Alternative As noted above, each of the preferred discourses that together constructed a shared discourse on Queensland schools contained ambiguities that pointed to spaces for contestations over meanings. That is, elements of alternative discourses were traced in each of the three sites of discursive practice. These elements outlined a very different position both on the Wiltshire Review and on education in Queensland schools. While valuing literacy and numeracy highly, alternative discourses diverged from the shared discourse in terms of the way literacy and numeracy was defined and in the way this definition subsequently informed and explained the relevant recommendations of the Wiltshire Report. The alternative definition of literacy and numeracy echoed the broader definition outlined by the Report. This definition was not the privileged definition in the Report's preferred discourse and contested that found in the preferred discourses of the government and of the print media. As noted earlier in this paper, such a definition acknowledged the importance not only of the structural accuracies gained from the knowledge of spelling and grammar but also of the skills that led to effective communication in the diverse communicative contexts of the future. In addition, a broad definition of literacy stressed the interrelatedness of such communication skills with the skills of grammar and spelling emphasised in the shared discourse. Given this broad definition, the issue of standards of literacy and numeracy focused on whether or not the current standards were adequate for the demands placed upon students by schools and the wider society. Problems with standards of literacy and numeracy were
not conceptualised in terms of teachers' failure to detect students
242
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING THE PUBLIC SPHERE

with unacceptably low levels of literacy and numeracy but in terms of the provision of additional resources in the form of personnel and funding to assist students in need. Consequently, the need for the introduction of formal, standardised testing was queried both in terms of the nature of the proposed tests and in terms of the ability of such tests to raise literacy levels. The introduction of such testing wasjustified only as a means for identifying the direction of resources. Alternative discourses on Queensland schools positioned particular groups as the authoritative voices on educational matters. Specifically, these discourses positioned teachers as the authoritative voice on Queensland schools. Teachers were depicted as altruistic, caring professionals who were well educated, highly skilled committed to work in professional partnershipswith other members of the education community. They were seen to be crucial to any proposed reforms to the Queensland school system. In so doing, these discourses affirmed the professional competence of teachers and defined funding as the source of problems in Queensland schools. This position is evidenced in statements such as 'teachers already knew which children needed help and extra resources should be spent in that area, not on testing' (Ketchell, 1994, p. 23). However, the emphasis on funding received little support in the print media where, the unions' focus on money was described as being short sighted and the Queensland Teachers' Union leadership was derided. The above analysis of the Wiltshire discursive field described the internal processes of public discourses on education that were constructed in the public sphere. It located three sites of discursivepractice and investigated the interrelationships between discourses on the Wiltshire Review that were constructed at each site. In so doing, the analysis identified what discursive practices were available for public debates on the Review itself, and on the schools and teachers of the Queensland education system in general. The analysis showed how discursive practices naturalised versions of schools, teachers and the curriculum in a process of contestation and negotiation at each site. That is, it revealed how ideological power was exercised across the three sites. Thus, this mapping of the Wiltshire discursive field reveals much about the ideological nature of public discourses and, in particular, about the construction of authoritative voices in the public sphere.
5.
THE NATURE OF PUBLIC DISCOURSES

The above analysis of media and policy discourses as discourses

in the public sphere has illustrated key properties of the nature of
243
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURINGTHE PUBLIC SPHERE

public discourses and their internal processes. In particular, it supports the reconfiguration of the public sphere as a complex arena of discursive relations. That is, the preceding analysis has shown how the fluid, dynamic structure of the public sphere enabled discursive connections to be made across local sites. It demonstrated how the parallel discursive sites of the print media, of the government and of the Wiltshire Report privileged a shared public discourse on education, schools and teachers. This shared discourse relied on congruences between the elements of the preferred discourse constructed at each site and worked to establish the existence of poor standards of literacy and numeracy as the unquestioned, common sense definition of the situation in schools. Also irrevocably established through this discourse was the narrow definition of literacy and numeracy as basic skills. Of significance here, is the interdiscursivity of these public discourses. That is, the discursive field was constituted by many discourses that formed discursive chains or threads in overlapping clusters. The shared discourse of the Report, the government and the print media is one such cluster that projected the official, privileged voice on the Wiltshire Review. This official voice worked both to construct and to reinforce the commonsensical understandings of schools and curriculum that informed the Wiltshire Review. The mapping of the discursive field of the Wiltshire Review outlined in this paper has illustrated how the formation of discursive clusters works to naturalise, or reify, common sense understandings of issues in public debates. It has demonstrated the capacity of the public sphere to act as a vehicle for social unity, defining educational issues and identities in particular ways. As such it has demonstrated the ideological nature of public discourses. However, the mapping of the Wiltshire discursive field outlined in this paper confirmed that these common sense understandings are negotiated through hegemonic struggles over meaning. In each of the three sites of discursive practice described above, the preferred discourses contained ambiguities and contradictions that offered spaces for contestations over meanings. For example, the Wiltshire Report's preferred discourse presented two competing positions on literacy and numeracy. The first echoed that found in the print media and in the most powerful voices in government. As noted above, this position defined literacy as basic skills neglected by teachers in schools while the second broader position defined the situation more positively. It was the congruences that the first position held with the preferred discourses constructed in the other two sites
of discursive practice that led to it becoming the privileged position
244
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

THE RECONFIGURING PUBLIC SPHERE

on literacy and numeracy. The above example points to the importance of the creation of discursive links in the exercise of ideological power. In addition, it demonstrates the reliance of public discourses on shifting alliances among unequally-weighted discursive threads constructed in parallel local sites. Together these threads construct a privileged discourse on the issue under debate. Intrinsic to the construction of a privileged public discourse is the positioning of particular groups in differential positions of power. For example, teachers were positioned as intransigent workers who needed increased regulation and control. However, as alliances among discourses shift, the positionings of groups may change. Such a change was apparent in the positioning of the WiltshireReviewPanel through the review policy process. Initially, the Panel was positioned as the authoritative voice on the Queensland school curriculum. As the review progressed and it became clear that some recommendations would not be palatable to either the Government or to the print media, the Report's authority was diminished. Thus, the mapping of the Wiltshire discursive field outlined in this paper has illustrated the process of hegemonic struggles both over contested definitions of educational policy and over the granting of an authorial voice to speak on that policy. This paper began by outlining a case for the reconfiguration of the public sphere as discursive space. That is, it recognised the public sphere as being made up of a diversity of parallel sites of discursive practice. It noted that such sites are characterised by the production and circulation of discourses and counter discourses in a process of hegemonic struggle. The paper illustrated the nature of such hegemonic struggles by mapping the discursive field of one educational policy initiative. In so doing, it described how discursive connections across three sites of discursive practice, specifically the Review, the government and the print media, worked to construct a shared public discourse on Queensland schools. Further, it showed how that shared public discourse worked both to privilege particular definitions of school failure, literacy and numeracy and curriculum decision-making and to marginalise teachers throughout the policy process. Thus, the analysis outlined in this paper has pointed to the need to take a reconfigured public sphere as a central, organising principle in the study of hegemonic struggles over educational policy. 6. NOTES
1

of the Commonwealth Australia.Under the Australianconstitution,each State

245
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

Queensland is one of the six states which, together with two territories, make up

RECONFIGURING PUBLIC THE SPHERE Government has responsibility for the provision of school education in that state. This paper refers to the school system in the state of Queensland. Space prohibits a fuller discussion of the Review Process in this paper. A more detailed account of this process can be found in Thomas (2000). This account drawson interviewswith key policymakersin additionto a CriticalDiscourse Analysis of media and policy texts in orderto capturethe fluid, contested natureof the review process.

7.

REFERENCES

APPLE, M.W. (1996) Power, meaning and identity: critical sociology of education in the United States, British of Journal of Sociology Education,17 (2), 125-144. BARTON, D. (2001) Directions for literacy research: analysing language and social practices in a textually mediated world, Language and Education,15 (2&3), 92104. CALABRESE, A. and BURKE, B. R. (1994) American identities: nationalism, the media, and the public sphere, Journal of CommunicationInquiry, 18 (2), 52-73. CALHOUN, C. (Ed.) (1992) Habermasand the Public Sphere(Cambridge MA, The MIT Press). CHOULIARAKI,L. (1999) Media discourse and national identity: death and myth in a news broadcast. In R. WODAK and C. LUDWIG (Eds) Challenges a Changin Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis (Vienna, Passagen Verlag). ing World: CHOULIARAKI, L. and FAIRCLOUGH, N. (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Discourse Analysis (Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). RethinkingCritical Studies(Oxford, Clarendon Press). CORNER,J. (1999) CriticalIdeas in Television DAHLGREN, P. (2001) The public sphere and the net: structure, space, and communication. In W.L. BENNETT and R.M. ENTMAN (Eds) MediatedPolitics Communicationin the Future of Democracy(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press). DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION (1994, April 23) Back To Basics?,TheCourier Mail, 33. ELEY,G. (1992) Nations, publics, and political cultures: placing Habermas in the nineteenth century. In C. CALHOUN (Ed.) Habermas and thePublicSphere (Cambridge MA, The MIT Press). FAIRCLOUGH,N. (1995) MediaDiscourse(London, Arnold). FAIRCLOUGH,N. (1999) Democracy and the public sphere in critical research on discourse In R. WODAK and C. LUDWIG (Eds) Challenges a ChangingWorld: in Issues in Critical Discourse Analysis (Vienna, Passagen Verlag). FAIRCLOUGH,N. (2001) The discourse of New Labour: critical discourse analysis. In M. WETHERELL, S. TAYLOR and S.J. YATES (Eds) Discourse as Data (London, Sage Publications). FALK, I. (1994) The making of policy: media discourse conversations, Discourse: Studiesin the CulturalPoliticsof Education,15 (2), 1-12. FIELD, A. (1994) Review Path Tangled In Schoolspeak, The Courier Mail, March 30, 23-24. FRASER,N. (1992) Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. In C. CALHOUN (Ed.) Habermasand the Public Sphere(Cambridge MA, The MIT Press). GILES,D. (1993) The trouble with our schools, TheSundayMail, September 12, 1819. 246
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

THE SPHERE RECONFIGURING PUBLIC GIMMLER,A. (2001) Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet, and Social Criticism, (4), 21-39. 27 Philosophy GOODMAN, R. (1992) Schools have failed students, society, The CourierMail, December 1, 8. HABERMAS,J. (1989/1962) The Structural Transformation the Public Sphere:an of Inquiryinto a Category Bourgeoise of Society(Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). to Facts and Norms:Contributions a DiscourseTheory HABERMAS, (1996a) Between of J. Law and Democracy (Cambridge, MA, MIT Press). HABERMAS,J. (1996b) The public sphere. In P. Marris and S. Thornham (Eds) Media Studies:a Reader(Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press). D. HARVEY, (1996) Justice,Nature and the Geography Difference (Oxford, Blackwell of Publishers). HELMERS,M. (2001) Media, discourse, and the public sphere: electronic memorials to Diana, Princess Of Wales, College English,63 (4), 437-456. HUNTER, N.D. (2001) Accommodating the public sphere: beyond the market 85 model, MinnesotaLaw Review, (6), 1591-1637. KETCHELL,M. (1994) Kids under pressure, The Courier Mail, March 30, 23. KULYNYCH, (2001) No playing in the public sphere: democratic theory and the J. exclusion of children, Social Theory and Practice,27 (2), 231-270. R. Mail, LAIDLAW, (1993a) Look deeper. Broaden the education probe, The Courier August 24, 8. Mail, LAIDLAW,R. (1993b) Turn it up! These cuts aren't worth a riot, The Courier July 17, 30. R. Mail, November 29, 8. LAIDLAW, (1994a) Basic Instinct, The Courier R. Mail, March 31, 8. LAIDLAW, (1994b) Curriculum, The Courier LUKE, A. (1997) The material effects of the word: apologies, 'stolen children' and Studiesin the CulturalPoliticsofEducation,18 (3), 343public discourse, Discourse: 368. LUKE, A. (2002) Beyond science and ideology critique: developments in critical discourse analysis, Annual Reviewof AppliedLinguistics,22, 96-110. MARGINSON, S. (1993) Educationand PublicPolicyin Australia(Sydney, Cambridge University Press). McLAUGHLIN, L. (1994) Introduction: critical media pedagogy and the public Inquiry,18 (2), 5-7. sphere, Journal of Communication OFFICEOF THE MINISTERFOR EDUCATION (1994) ShapingtheFutureSummary (Brisbane, Minister For Education). of Recommendations Mail, April 12, 8. ORR, D. (1994) Teaching needs best, The Courier PASCOE, B. (1993) Restore Three Rs, TheSundayMail, September 12, 60. REDDY,W.M. (1992) Postmodernism and the public sphere: implications for an 7 historical ethnography, CulturalAnthropology (2), 135-168. SHOLAR, S.E. (1994) Habermas, Marx and Gramsci: investigating the public sphere in organisational communication and public relations courses, Journal of Communication Inquiry,18 (2), 77-92. SMITH, D.E. (1990) Texts,Facts, and Femininity(London, Routledge). Act STATEOF QUEENSLAND (1998) Education(General Provisions) 1989 (Brisbane, Government Printer). a between Media THOMAS, S. (2000) Mapping Wiltshire: Study of the Interrelationships on Discourses Educationin thePublicSphere and Policy (The Universityof Queensland, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis). WILTSHIRE, K. et al. (1994a) OverviewReview of the QueenslandSchool Curriculum Shaping theFuture(Brisbane: The State Of Queensland).
247
? Blackwell Publishing Ltd. and SES 2004

RECONFIGURING PUBLIC THE SPHERE WILTSHIRE,K. et al. (1994b) Shaping theFutureReviewof the QueenslandSchoolCurriculum(Brisbane, Government Printer). Correspondence Dr Sue Thomas School of Cognition, Language and Special Education Faculty of Education Griffith University Nathan 4111 Brisbane Australia E-mail: s.thomas@griffith.edu.au

248
Ltd. and SES2004 Publishing ? Blackwell