724573

research-article2017
EER0010.1177/1474904117724573European Educational Research JournalRobertson and Sorensen

Special Issue

European Educational Research Journal

Global transformations of the state,

119
The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
governance and teachers labour: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1474904117724573
https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904117724573
Putting Bernsteins conceptual journals.sagepub.com/home/eerj

grammar to work

Susan L Robertson
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Tore Sorensen
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Abstract
This paper presents and engages with Basil Bernsteins rich conceptual grammar in order to
generate a sociological account of the outcomes for teachers work, identity and social class, of
strategic shifts in governance to the global scale. Our aim is to develop a two-way conversation
between Bernsteins conceptual grammar and how best to theorise the nature of the social
regulation of teachers as a result of the dominance of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) in setting the rules for pedagogic governance of teachers through
its Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). We show that important functions for
symbolic agents have been relocated to the economic arena away from the state, as well as being
rescaled to sit within the governing ambit of the OECD. We also reflect on the prominence of
constructivism in TALIS as a preferred pedagogy and the eschewing of disciplinary knowledge
as the basis of expertise. We ask what this new market identity means for teacher knowledge,
consciousness, identity, the division of labour, and the social base.

Keywords
Bernstein, labour teachers, OECD, pedagogic device, pedagogic identities, TALIS

Introduction
This paper engages with Basil Bernsteins (1990, 2001; Bernstein and Solomon, 1999) rich con-
ceptual grammar in order to generate a sociological account of the outcomes for teachers work,
identity and social class as a result of strategic shifts in governance to the global scale. In doing so

Corresponding author:
Susan L Robertson, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge, CB2 8PQ, UK.
Email: slr69@cam.ac.uk
2 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

it builds on earlier published work (Robertson, 2012, 2013; Sorensen and Robertson, 2017) on the
global governance of teachers, where we drew upon aspects of Bernsteins rich corpus of work on
pedagogic governance to examine transformations in teachers work over time. However, the lines
of argument in our previous papers were suggestive rather than systematic, and in need of fleshing
out and filling in.
This Special Issue of European Education Research Journal, on regenerating the sociology of
Bernstein through a focus on international policies and local affects, has provided us with the
opportunity to meet that need. Our main purpose here will be on developing a two-way conversa-
tion between Bernsteins conceptual grammar and how best to theorise the nature of the social
regulation of teachers at play in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Developments
(OECD) Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). The OECD is, of course, an inter-
governmental organisation which operates globally and which has also been engaged in interna-
tional policy framing aimed at student learning via its Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA). Bernsteins theoretical work, and that of his students, was largely derived
from a detailed analysis of education in national education settings (see, for example, Sadovnik,
1995; Moore and Muller, 2002; Frandji and Vitale, 2011). The questions we seek to address in this
paper are how useful Bernsteins theoretical tools are for examining global policies, and what new
insights this engagement with contemporary social life generates for Bernsteins theories. As such
we also hope to put Bernsteins theories to work in ways that are true to his own project of generat-
ing theoretical tools having greater levels of explanatory power as they encounter new phenomena
(Bernstein and Solomon, 1999; Bernstein, 2000).
We begin our paper with some general remarks on Bernstein and his conceptual grammar,
before turning to describe the emergence of the OECDs TALIS as an international policy.We draw
substantively on a particular family of Bernsteins conceptual tools aimed at understanding peda-
gogic governance, and argue that the OECD can be understood as a global actor that has come to
dominate the field of symbolic control over what counts as the good teacher and quality educa-
tion. In this context, TALIS itself can be understood as a pedagogical device acting as a symbolic
regulator of consciousness.
We reflect on the prominence of constructivism in TALIS as a preferred pedagogy and the
eschewing of disciplinary knowledge as the basis of expertise, and ask: what does this mean for
teacher knowledge, consciousness, identity, the division of labour, and the social base (Bernstein,
1996: 45)? Understanding the significance of this ideological shift in the discourse contained in
TALIS as a pedagogic device is particularly relevant to examining whether, as Bernstein observed
in one of his last texts, a new kind of pedagogic identity is emerging from a market-oriented ideol-
ogy shaping many societies around the globe. We conclude by reflecting on our account in two
ways. First, what are the challenges facing the OECD, as an intergovernmental institution with a
global horizon of action, in realising its imagined teacher for the 21st century when it attempts to
govern over a number of scales reaching down into the classroom? Second, what does our analysis
mean for Bernsteins theories, which have been characterised by a focus on the state as regulator,
by a methodological nationalist lens on the states education sectors (see Robertson and Dale,
2009), and assumptions of the penetrability of boundaries (Archer, 1995)? All of these elements are
at issue in offering a robust account of international policies and local effects in education and how
the pedagogical work some policies are engaged in actually happens.

Encountering Bernstein
Bernstein had a long and enduring interest in the production of knowledge, the structuring of intel-
lectual fields (Moore, 2004: 120), and education as a crucial instrument of symbolic control
Robertson and Sorensen 3

through which horizontal solidarities of nationalism and identity were constructed, and vertical
cleavages of class were reproduced (Bernstein, 2001: 22). However, it is his determination to
develop a conceptual grammar that links transmission, agencies and the social base to the produc-
tion of consciousness, dispositions and desire which helps us to establish the link between the
what, who and how of knowledge acquisition and processes of cultural reproduction.
To make more visible the epistemic gains to be had using Bernsteins conceptual grammar in ana-
lysing discursive and material shifts in governance, it is helpful to look at alternative accounts of the
global governance of teachers work using theorists interested in the relationship between discourses,
knowledge and power. Foucaults (1988) work is perhaps an obvious starting point in that he focuses
attention on the discursive positioning of the subject in our case the teacher by globally-located
agencies such as the OECD. Discourses, of course, are socially-produced and are a particular kind of
social practice, and would go some way toward helping us build an account that is sociological. Much
of the work on the OECDs governance tools, mostly centred on PISA, has tended towards this kind
of analysis (e.g. Grek, 2009; Ozga, 2009). However these accounts tend to focus attention on num-
bers themselves as a means of governing. Whilst insightful, we feel this kind of theoretical account
has a limited vocabulary to talk about power, the range of actors on the terrain who might mediate
processes of transmission, and how new kinds of identities might be produced as a result.
A second approach might be to map out the different actors who coalesce around the OECD and
the creation of TALIS, much as Ball did when he mapped out the different actors and their connec-
tions in what he called network governance (Ball, 2007; 2012). Here, it is now possible to describe
different agencies and actors on the education landscape from financiers to accounting firms,
global education providers and private companies all attached to, or replacing, public institutions.
However, what we do not see in this approach are which networks matter (Goodwin, 2009), who
gets to make what kinds of decisions over what aspects of teachers work and identity, quite how
power and control are exercised, how this set of rules of the game is established, what kinds of
specialised agents these actors are in relation to each other, and how the network itself as some
kind of transmission device works pedagogically.
The major issue regarding these first two approaches, both broadly Foucauldian, is, as Bernstein
puts it, that

there is no substantive analysis of the complex of agencies, agents and social relations through which
power, knowledge and discourse are brought into play as regulative devices. What is absent from Foucault
is a theory of transmission, its agencies, and its social base. Nor is there any analysis, or study, of different
modalities of control. (Bernstein, 2001: 23)

Bernstein was insistent on the need for theory to evolve as it sought to generate greater powers
of description and explanation and as descriptions of the empirical world enrich theories. This
explicit move of putting Bernsteins theories to work on making sense of education governance,
and in a globalising world is important in that in many respects it is also a very different world to
the one that Bernstein sought to describe and theorise. These transformations have included (but
are not limited to) the rescaling of key aspects of the governance of education to the global level
(Robertson etal., 2012), horizontal shifts in governance to include many new (including for-profit)
actors (Ball, 2007, 2012), and pressure on teachers to use their knowledge and skills to ensure
higher student learning outcomes and competitive knowledge economies (Robertson, 2005).
Understanding and explaining these developments using Bernsteins sociological tools demands
movement backward and forward between description, our empirical observations of the contem-
porary world, and re-description/theory development, in order to understand the mechanisms of
cultural production and transformation.
4 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

We will therefore be arguing that, ontologically, epistemologically, methodologically and politi-

cally, Bernsteins tools have the necessary rigour and purpose, yet flexibility, with which to study
the social worlds of teachers and international agencies, and abstract the structuring rules.
Moreover, this conversation potentially allows us to bring something back to Bernsteins concep-
tual grammar. Ontologically he is asking about how our social worlds, dispositions, identities and
desires are constituted, as well as how they are disturbed, challenged and transformed, and through
what mechanisms with what outcomes. Epistemologically he guides us to theory-informed descrip-
tion that then moves to levels of abstraction, to determine the links between the real (or social base)
and the structuring mechanisms at work, and the relations within and between. Methodologically,
he asks us to be attentive to emergences, or announcements; in other words, to refuse to regard
categories as fixed and frozen, and the social world as unchanging. How does the voice of the
category called good teacher alter as a result of the role of the OECD in shaping teacher policy?
In addition, if theory should do political work in some way or should disturb (Bernstein and
Solomon, 1999: 275) it can also help make visible those processes and social relations, such as
power and control, privilege and marginality, to help us challenge and change the transmission
processes that leads to these unequal outcomes.

Bernsteins conceptual grammar on pedagogic governing

Here we introduce a family of concepts from Bernstein in order to explore shifts in the global peda-
gogic governing of teachers work: these include the field of symbolic control, the pedagogic
device, classification and framing, and pedagogic identities.
Bernstein (1990: 134135) developed the concept of the field of symbolic control to refer to
those agents and agencies that specialise in discursive codes which they dominate and thus act as
regulators of consciousness (Bernstein, 2001: 22). Such control can be normalising or disturb-
ing, reproductive or productive; consensual or conflicting (Bernstein, 2001: 23). In his early
works, Bernstein distinguished between agents who are functionally similar but operate in differ-
ent fields of activity; for example, psychologists who operate in the economic/private field com-
pared with those who operate in the symbolic/public/government field. Similar occupational
functions but in different fields, he suggests, may well produce different interests, different
dispositions, different motivations and different ideologies (Bernstein, 2001: 25). Given the extent
to which important functions in the education sector in countries like England and the United
States from school inspection to textbook production and school management have been real-
located to the economic/private field, or some combination of public/private, what does this blur-
ring or collapsing of the boundary between the public and the private mean for symbolic agents?
Following Bernstein, we might expect that combinations of symbolic agents in the economic field,
with their dispositions, motivations, interests and ideologies different to those of the state/symbolic
field, are in turn constitutive of different social and class factions. What, however, are the implica-
tions of rescaling important aspects of national state powers to global agencies, such as the OECD,
as we see with education policies, for how we understand the field of symbolic control?
Bernstein also goes on to describe different categories of agents of symbolic control (Bernstein,
2001: 2526) engaged in different kinds of work: from (i) regulators (e.g. religious/legal), to (ii)
repairers (e.g. medicine, psychiatry, social work), (iii) reproducers (e.g. school system/teachers),
(iv) diffusersrecontextualisers (e.g. mass and specialised media, including arts), (v) shapers (e.g.
universities and cognate agencies, research centres), and (vi) executors (e.g. administrators in the
civil service). He noted that from (ii) downward, all are regulated directly or indirectly by the
State and closely subject to its policies (Bernstein, 2001: 26). Again, there is considerable evi-
dence that the hold of the national state over these various specialist activities has changed
Robertson and Sorensen 5

dramatically as a result also of the vertical and horizontal rescaling of the functional division of the
labour of education (Robertson and Dale, 2006; Ball, 2007; DiMartino and Scott, 2012).
If important aspects of the work of the reproducers, diffusersrecontextualisers, shapers and
executors, are not regulated by the national state but, rather, through new combinations of agents
operating at the global level as a new nodal point of power, what does this mean for new modes of
social control/governance, class interests and projects? Concretely, what does the close alignment
between the OECD and transnational capital (see Woodward, 2009) mean for the nature of the
symbolic control over codes and the production of interests, dispositions and identities? To what
extent do these different categories of symbolic agents continue as a result of transformations in
governance, or are new factions visible?
Bernstein (2000) also introduced the idea of the pedagogic device which, we will argue, is
particularly powerful for understanding TALIS. By pedagogic device Bernstein means the relay
itself, as well as what is relayed. The relay itself has rules that regulate what can be relayed, and
these rules are ideological (Bernstein, 2000: 28) in that they carry within them ideas about how the
world could, and should, work. As a relay itself, TALIS uses hierarchy (from best country to worst
on a particular question, such as teachers feeling prepared to teach) with limited capacity to carry
complex information on teachers and their local contexts. It also represents education systems as
national because it is the national (and not sub-national) level that usually engages with and funds
the OECD as an intergovernmental organisation. However, not all education systems are organised
and governed nationally, with the result that this adds further spatial scales or levels of governing
to be penetrated by the relay in order to have effects. In terms of what is relayed, the specific
areas of focus of the TALIS survey carry ideas about what and how teachers should teach, and how
they might be helped to overcome their limitations through a repair function offered by the OECD.
Bernstein describes three rules and associated fields of pedagogic governance (1) distributive,
(2) recontextualising, and (3) evaluative which, in combination, make up the pedagogic device
(Bernstein, 2000: 37). In essence the pedagogic device acts as a symbolic regulator of con-
sciousness, on the one hand, and the production, reproduction and transformation of culture, on the
other (Bernstein, 2000: 38). These rules are organised hierarchically, in that the first frames the
second, which in turn frames the third, linking power at the moment of production to transmission
and then to the moment of practice.
By using distributive rules and its associated field, Bernstein is describing the rules and pro-
cesses involved in the formation of pedagogic agencies, agents and discourses responsible for
determining and encoding what constitutes valid knowledge. In our case, the questions then are,
what is it that 21st century teachers should know and do; and, if this is different from how teachers
have tended to act in the past, what space is opened and filled by a new set of ideas or ideologies
concerning what counts as the good teacher? Bernstein insisted the recontextualising rules in the
pedagogic device are connected upward to the distributive rules. Thus he is describing the peda-
gogic rules of recontextualisation which involve governing particular agents using particular func-
tions (by whom/for whom, and so on), and this in turn gives rise to recontextualising fields.
However, if as we have argued above the state and its governing functions are being trans-
formed vertically and horizontally, do the recontextualising rules create new recontextualising
fields, enabling new sets of actors to be active in recontextualising processes?
Finally, by evaluative Bernstein means processes of acquisition where evaluation condenses
the meaning of the whole device (Bernstein, 2000: 36), this condensing resulting in a moment of
acquisition (Bernstein, 2001: 37) or practice. Bernsteins pedagogic device is thus useful for link-
ing together those creation, transmission and acquisition processes necessary to give rise to peda-
gogic identities in this case, the possibilities (or not) for the OECD of using TALIS as the device
for disrupting an old teacher identity and inserting a new one.
6 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

We also draw on our earlier engagement with Bernsteins concepts of classification and fram-
ing (see Robertson, 2012) on understanding the dynamics of power and control over the global
governance of teachers work over time. Classification refers to principles that establish the social
division of labour such as teacher, teaching assistant, social worker, head teacher, school consult-
ant, and so on (Bernstein, 2000: 6). Dominant power relations establish and maintain the bounda-
ries that give rise to these divisions. Strong classifications have strong insulation between
categories; weak classification means the insulation is broken and one or both categories are in
danger of losing their identities or having it redefined. Framing is concerned with who controls
what or the forms of realisation of the discourse; that is, the voice of the category and the pro-
jected message.

Where framing is strong, the transmitter has explicit control over selection, sequence, pacing, criteria and
the social base. Where framing is weak, the acquirer has more control over the communication and its
social base. (Bernstein, 2000: 13)

For example, weak framing of the good teacher by the international agencies up until the
emergence of TALIS gives the acquirer (in this case the teacher) more control over the discourse,
its rules of realisation, and therefore practices and forms of consciousness. This raises the question
of the extent to which TALIS, as a global pedagogical device, suggests a stronger set of rules for
framing, in turn placing limits on teachers autonomy in local settings over pedagogy, curriculum
and forms of assessment.
In concluding this section we dwell on an observation made by Bernstein in one of his final texts
regarding the rise of neoliberalism and market-based logics in education. Bernstein was aware of
major changes taking place in what might be accepted as official knowledge in national education
systems, though in his view these developments were still fragmentary and waiting announcement.
In a prescient chapter in Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (Bernstein, 2000) he sketched
out figures described as barely recognised, but which might be; in the future (Bernstein,
2000: 65). These figures represent distinct groups in the official arena as resources for different
modalities of reform; these positions differ in their bias and thus the pedagogic identities they pro-
ject. His De-Centred (market) identity is contrasted with three other possibilities regarding dis-
course and identity: De-Centred Therapeutic (professional); Retrospective (old conservative);
and Prospective (neo-conservative). Reminding us that we were not, at that time, likely to recog-
nise this neoliberal De-Centred Market (DCM) identity (Bernstein, 2000: 6669), he nevertheless
pointed to the various resources which might contribute to its emergence, including pedagogical
practices contingent on the market such as efficiency, effectiveness and accountability. He wrote:

We have a culture and context to facilitate the survival of the fittest as judged by market demands. The
focus is on the short term rather than the long term, on the extrinsic rather than the intrinsic, on the
exploration of vocational applications rather than applications of vocational knowledge. The transmission
here views knowledge as money. And like money, it should flow easily to where demand calls. There must
be no impediment to this flow. Personal commitments, inner dedications, not only are not encouraged, but
also are regarded as equivalent to monopolies in the market, and all such monopolies should be dissolved.
The DCM position constructs an outwardly responsive identity rather than one driven by inner dedication.
Contract replaces covenant. (Bernstein, 2000: 69; emphasis added)

What is quite remarkable about this sketch of a barely visible identity is the extent to which this
would appear to have become a dominant identity in many education landscapes. Important ques-
tions emerge for us, however. Are the OECD and TALIS respectively a mobilising agency and
specialised device generating this new identity with its distinct dispositions, forms of consciousness
Robertson and Sorensen 7

and desires oriented toward producing a knowledge economy rather than a knowledge society?
and, if so, what are the implications for teachers if covenant is replaced by contract?

Putting Bernstein into conversation with the OECDs TALIS

programme
In this section we put Bernsteins theoretical tools into conversation with the OECD and TALIS.
We will suggest that the OECD is not only a nodal agent of symbolic control that has acquired for
itself state-like functions at the global level, but also one seeking to use programmes like TALIS
strategically as a pedagogical device to transform teachers contemporary identities toward being
a part of, and producing, competitive knowledge economies. We draw on empirical work, some of
which has been reported more generally (see Robertson, 2012; Sorensen and Robertson, 2017;
Sorensen, 2017), to develop our analysis below.

Refashioning the teaching profession for a competitive economy

The teaching profession has been the subject of international political debates for decades, though
until more recently this was largely with regard to teachers conditions of work in sub-national and
national settings and in relation to those agencies which might ensure their claim to teacher profes-
sionalism (ILOUNESCO, 2008; Papadopoulos, 1994). Over the past fifteen years, however, this
has changed dramatically, and teachers have been placed under what might be broadly called the
quality spotlight concerning the nature of their knowledge-base, their pedagogical practices, and
whether or not they add value to their students learning (Connell, 2009; MacBeath, 2012;
Robertson, 2012; Sorensen and Robertson, 2017; Tatto, 2007).
A central concern of these global agencies is how national education systems can contribute to
global economic competitiveness, directly through education trade and indirectly through reorient-
ing students and teachers to (realising) the demands of (globally-competitive) capitalist economies.
The argument put by international organisations such as the World Bank (WB) (2012), the OECD,
and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is that teach-
ers can, and should, play a key role in developing (in students) the requisite human capital for the
global knowledge economy. However, they argue that the current organisation of teachers work
and their workplace militates against this. The OECD proposes that what is needed is a different
understanding of what represents a good teacher, of what a country profile should look like
regarding the criteria for determining teacher quality, and what strategies should be deployed to
move a country in the right direction (Schleicher, 2015). These arguments carry an ideationally-
anchored discourse which is intended to challenge, and disrupt, the dominance of what Bernstein
calls the De-Centred Therapeutic, or professional, teacher identity. In Bernsteins terms this
amounts to a challenge by a symbolic agent at the global scale regarding the existing rules dealing
with the classification and framing of the professional teacher.
Elsewhere, using Bernsteins classification and framing tools, we have shown that it is possible
to identify important shifts over longer periods of time of the role of global agencies in shaping the
rules around the teacher category, and the conditions under which this might be realised (e.g.
Robertson, 2012, 2013). Specifically, we showed that between the 1960s and 1990s those domi-
nant global agencies shaping teachers work the International Labor Organization (ILO) and
UNESCO classified teaching as a profession; and it is a form of public service which requires
of teachers expert knowledge and specialized skills, acquired and maintained through rigorous and
continuous study (ILOUNESCO, 2008: 8) and that teachers should enjoy academic freedom in
the discharge of professional duties to include the choice and adaption of teaching material
8 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

(ILOUNESCO, 2008: 9) and that their salaries shouldreflect the importance to society of the
teaching function. We pointed out (see Robertson, 2012: 590) that these guidelines were to be the
basis of a national dialogue between teachers and national education authorities and unions, in turn
shaping national laws and practice. In this case the good teacher was strongly classified, but weakly
framed, and this resulted in considerable diversity of practice, and thus of identities and voices,
across different national education settings, because teachers, their unions and national govern-
ments had degrees of autonomy as to how to implement the good teacher. What we might now
add to this reflection is that neither UNESCO nor the ILO, as global agencies, dominated the field
of symbolic control regarding the good teacher during this period, leading us to describe it as a
period of thin globalisation (Sorensen and Robertson, 2017); governing rested essentially with
sub-national and national scales which were the nodal points in regulating teachers work. Using
Bernsteins insights, what is at issue, however, is that teachers also have some autonomy over the
resources that shape their pedagogic identities (the therapeutic/professional) in turn limiting the
intrusion of the official states control in this arena.
Since the early 2000s, the OECD widely referred to, anecdotally, as the club of mostly rich
countries has played an increasingly prominent role in advancing discourses aimed at challeng-
ing the ways schools are governed and at what scale, and what might count as the good teacher,
in order to bring education into line with the needs of what it described at the time as a post-indus-
trial society (OECD, 2000, 2005). It is important to reiterate that the OECD is an economic devel-
opment think-tank the fundamental interests of which are in ensuring long-term capitalism for the
club through the expansion of world trade (OECD, 1960). In taking on the role of problem-framer
for national governments, and the role of master encoder in the field of symbolic control, it has
increasingly come to dominate the field of symbolic control at the global level; indeed, this global
scale is, as a result, an increasingly powerful vantage point from which to determine the rules con-
cerning governing education sectors. In relation to schools more generally, the OECD has devel-
oped a range of pedagogical devices, such as Education at a Glance (annual statistical reports on
the state of education amongst all OECD countries), together with PISA and Country Reviews
all with their own pedagogic rules regarding what counts as quality education.
In relation specifically to teachers, a significant investment has now been made in a series of
pedagogical devices aimed at giving rise to a new kind of teacher for the 21st century. In 2000 the
OECD launched the Schooling for Tomorrow Toolkit as an entre into re-imagining future
schools. A series of scenarios, including a bureaucratic, stay-as-you-are, teacher melt-down sce-
nario, was produced to stimulate conversations amongst influential actors in national education
systems about how schools could be modernized. These scenarios have, of course, their own dis-
tributional rules in that they place limits on what can be imagined and materialized and what counts
as a fit for purpose 21st century school. At this point, however, teachers were viewed both as
resistant to developing a more explicit, visible and scientific evidence base underpinning their cur-
ricula, and as a major stumbling block to the realisation of knowledge-based economies (Robertson,
2005). But, as Dale and Trevitt Smith (1977) pointed out, teachers claims to professional expertise
have historically been secured through mystique rather than technique (see also Robertson, 2005),
in turn providing them with significant control in the field of pedagogic recontextualising and thus
the resources to shape their pedagogic identities. This, in turn, enabled their claim to the lower end
of the professional middle class; any loss of control over their labour would have social class
consequences.
In 2002 the OECD began a major project reviewing teacher policy, drawing in 25 Member
States which committed substantial resources to the work. A final report, Teachers Matter, was
published in 2005, placing teachers work and policy high on global and national agendas (OECD,
2005). Most importantly, the report provided the necessary legitimacy for the OECD to act on
Robertson and Sorensen 9

behalf of its member states (hence ceding to itself state authority) to play a pivotal role globally in
the ongoing discursive framing and development of those pedagogical devices and in this case
TALIS aimed at advancing a new kind of economy, cognitive orientation and teacher identity.

Teachers and the field of symbolic control

The OECD has, since around the year 2000, strategised and been increasingly successful in acquir-
ing for itself a pivotal role in the field of symbolic control over national education systems through
its expert advice and comparative country data. It has done this in three ways. First, it has limited
the influence of previously dominant global agencies (UNESCO and ILO) by offering an alterna-
tive set of discursive codes concerning quality education and the good teacher. Second, it has had
ceded to itself important power and authority (especially legitimation) from national governments,
enabling it to take on functions once the exclusive powers of the national Official State. (Note that
in many cases education systems are not national but, rather, sub-national so that the impetus of
ceding power to the OECD could well have come from the economic bureaus of national states.)
Third, it has bought in a new set of more globally-oriented actors to flank its governing activity in
the field of symbolic control from the European Commission to transnational education compa-
nies, global academics and global consultancies. In combination these developments have also
begun to expand the circuits of pedagogic power in an increasingly globalised education world
(Singh, 2017).
In relation to an alternative set of codes regarding what might count as the good teacher, the
OECD drew on its indicator work on knowledge economies, especially what and how to measure
them (Robertson, 2009), to provide a frame for the good student (measured through PISA) and the
good teacher (TALIS); and, in turn, linking these pedagogical projects to the realization of com-
petitive knowledge and service economies (Robertson, 2005). PISA also enabled the OECD
(2014c) to demonstrate its power through the visible effects on sub-national and national govern-
ments education, and thus to be enrolled as a model of pedagogic governance of other populations,
such as teachers.
Within the OECD, the TALIS Board of Participating Countries (from January 2016 called the
TALIS Governing Board, as a result of the status of the programme in the OECD being raised)
stands out as the most important body for multilateral decision-making on TALIS. The TALIS
Governing Board meets approximately a dozen times in each round of TALIS. Major issues for the
first two rounds of TALIS were to be approved by the OECD Education Policy Committee and, in
some cases, the OECD Council. However, it is in the TALIS Governing Board where decisions
concerning policy objectives for the survey are established, and where the standards for data col-
lection and reporting are determined (Sorensen and Robertson, 2017). The TALIS Governing
Board is thus at the very core of the field of symbolic control because of its important executive
position, akin to Bernsteins executors identified above, but this time with a global orientation.
The TALIS Governing Board consists of government representatives from each participating polit-
ical entity, and from a number of organizations. In accordance with the distinctive historical rela-
tionship and formal status given to the European Commission (EC) by the OECD (as another
global actor), the EC is represented by policy officers from the EC Directorate General for
Education and Culture (DGEAC). The Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) and
the Trade Union Advisory Committee to the OECD (TUAC, the OECD formal mechanism for
social dialogue with trade unions) have also participated in the negotiations (Sorensen and
Robertson, 2017; Sorensen, 2017).
It can be argued that the EC plays an important flanking role for the OECD in the field of sym-
bolic control. This is because the EC also seeks to guide national governments across Europe
10 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

toward the development of competitive knowledge-based economies; but, because of subsidiarity

rules, the EC has limited or no authority to govern the education systems of its member states. The
separate needs of these global or regional actors for legitimacy and a political mandate to govern
national states are revealed in our interviews with personnel from the OECD and DGEAC.
Interviewees emphasised that their organisations were, first of all, bottom-up intergovernmental
fora for cooperation. By funding the OECDs first round of TALIS in 2008, DGEAC was able to
get the OECD to collect data on European teachers, giving it, DGEAC, access to quite detailed
accounts of teacher work and how it might move the teachers Member States in the direction
outlined in the TALIS pedagogical device.
Education International (EI), the global federation of teachers unions, has in its capacity as the
primary organisation working for teachers interests in TALIS also been provided with a broad
mandate by its affiliates to negotiate in the TALIS Governing Board. 2 Our fieldwork revealed that
EI had taken part in TALIS Governing Board meetings since they were initiated in 2006, and was
granted permanent observer status in 2009. Attaining this status, EI has been consulted on draft
chapters and enjoyed enhanced opportunities for submitting comments and ideas. However, EI
does not have the opportunity to decide on the encodings of what a good teacher is, only to react
and comment on them. The TUAC representatives participating at TALIS Governing Board meet-
ings report to a sub-group of EI affiliate member organisations set up by EI through the TUAC
Education, Training and Employment Policy Working Group. Accordingly, EI affiliates are encour-
aged to mobilise support for TALIS amongst their members (Education International, 2012), and
thus can be seen to diffuse and recontextualise TALIS in their different national contexts. This is a
less powerful role because they are some distance from the work of producing the rules and encod-
ing them in the TALIS survey.
The OECD has also used its authoritative power to mobilise a range of agents and agencies,
some from the recontextualising fields in national education systems, to come together for a series
of high visibility events. The most notable of these is the series of annual International Summits
on the Teaching Profession, the first of which was convened in New York in 2011 by the United
States Department of Education, the OECD and EI. Thereafter a Summit has been held each year,
with the seventh taking place in March 2017.3 The aim is to promote learning amongst ministers,
union leaders, government officials, teaching professionals and education experts on teacher policy
(Gomendio, 2017). The link can now be seen here between the distributional and the recontextual-
ising rules and fields at work.
These new symbolic agents are also visible in the events that have surrounded the launch of
TALIS results. A global live webinar Education Fast Forward 10: Better Teaching for Better
Learning, hosted by edu-tech firm Promethean Planet, connected studios in Atlanta, Boston,
London, Paris, Tokyo and elsewhere to provide for a debate on TALIS results and teacher quality
(Education Fast Forward, 2014). The debate took place between what was labeled global educa-
tion experts, dominated by consultancies and foundations based in North America and England
including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, TSL Education (now TES Global), Innovation
Unit, and Promethean. The OECD and UNESCO were represented, together with renowned aca-
demics, including Michael Fullan and Pasi Sahlberg, who are simultaneously entrepreneurs and
legitimators of the TALIS process and product (Education Fast Forward, 2014). In this sense, pri-
vate consultants, consultancy firms, corporate philanthropists and entrepreneurial academics act as
diffusing and shaping symbolic agents. In national settings there are also new kinds of agents
involved in the recontextualising field. For example, in England, the Education Policy Institute, an
independent evidence-based research body with specialisms in accountability and inspection,
school performance and leadership, interprets and discusses TALIS data and results and in doing
so has the potential to influence the evaluative rules and thus practices (see Sellen, 2016).
Robertson and Sorensen 11

These globally- and nationally-oriented private sector actors are located in Bernsteins eco-
nomic field as cultural agents. As a result, they have different orientations, values, dispositions and
identities to those in the public symbolic field. In terms of policy preferences, strategies, capacities
and horizons of action (Ball, 2012; Robertson and Verger, 2012) they share the feature that their
activities, whether for-profit business or venture philanthropy, produce policy recommendations,
on the basis of TALIS data, which feed into new products and services. In other words, they help
to profile and hence sell TALIS whilst also selling their own expertise and services at the annual
Education Summits (OECD, 2014d, 2015).

TALIS as a pedagogical device

We have argued above that TALIS is a pedagogical device that acts as the symbolic regulator of
consciousness. The device itself, as well as what is relayed, carries within it the pedagogic rules
about the good teacher for the 21st century. The questions then are how, specifically, do these rules
work; and what comprises what is relayed.
Broadly, TALIS is a device that promotes learning through comparing, development and com-
petition with other countries. Being the best, and learning to be better, are the outcomes of such
rules. The main objective of TALIS is stated as follows:

The overall objective of TALIS is to provide robust international indicators and policy-relevant analysis
on teachers and teaching in a timely and cost-effective manner. These indicators help countries review and
develop policies in their efforts to promote conditions for high-quality teaching and learning. Cross-
country analyses provide the opportunity to compare countries facing similar challenges to learn about
different policy approaches and their impact on the learning environment in schools. (OECD, 2014a: 27;
nearly identical to OECD, 2009: 19)

The TALIS programme involves two questionnaires, to be completed by teachers and principals.
The primary sample group consists of those working in ISCED level 2 schools (lower secondary
school); but participating countries or regions have also been given the international options to
include ISCED levels 1 and 3.4 Twenty-four countries or regions took part in the first round of
TALIS; 34 took part in the second round. The European Union is well represented, with 16 and 19
member states or regions taking part in the two rounds, respectively. Participants in TALIS 2013
from outside the European Union included, for example, Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates),
Alberta (Canada), Brazil, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mexico and the USA. Like PISA, TALIS
has succeeded in attracting non-OECD members as participants and thus ten non-OECD members
took part in TALIS 2013.
Broadly, in terms of what is relayed, TALIS 2008 and TALIS 2013 both collected data on:

(1) The role and functioning of the head teacher;

(2) How teachers work was appraised and the feedback they received;
(3) Teacher professional development; and
(4) Teachers beliefs and attitudes about teaching.

The main focus is on what kind of teacher learning teachers were engaged with in their schools,
such as professional learning, self-reflection, feedback, and so on. This focus on learning parallels
the OECDs interest in students and learning to learn, and reflects its specific understanding of
what a knowledge-based economy means, and what is needed to achieve this, influenced by New
Growth economic thinking (Robertson, 2005; 2009). The pedagogical element here is the idea of
12 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

learning how to learn as a form of self-repair interiorising some of the repair function that had
once been located with repair symbolic agents in the Keynesian welfare state: see Jessop, 1999).
The content of what is relayed becomes visible in the discussion of the survey indices in the
Annexes of the main OECD TALIS reports (OECD, 2009: 268275; OECD, 2014a: 214255). In
TALIS 2008 teachers were asked to respond to a series of questions, for instance concerning teach-
ers beliefs, indicating how strongly or otherwise they agreed with a particular statement (answers
were coded 1 for strongly disagree up to 4 for strongly agree). In relation to teacher beliefs,
there were two opposing indices: direct transmission (construed as a backward-looking and bad
teacher) or constructivism (modern and good teacher). Here, the OECD stated that,

In short, constructivist beliefs are characterised by a view of the teacher as a facilitator of learning with
more autonomy given to students whereas a direct transmission view sees the teacher as the instructor,
providing information and demonstrating solutions. (OECD, 2009: 269)

In other words, the good teacher facilitates the learning of the pupil through making knowl-
edge, whilst direct transmission approaches to learning are conceptualised as taking knowledge.
The pedagogic device of TALIS is hence aimed at bringing about a very different kind of teacher
learner relationship and identity. Encoded into TALIS, then, is a teacher who is very different to
those of the past; this new teacher is a facilitator of learning where cognitive functions of thinking
and reasoning are more important than specific curriculum content.
TALIS as a pedagogic device has repair instructions built into its evaluative framing, suggesting
that some repair functions have shifted away from specialist agencies such as the Education
Policy Institute in England, referred to above, and individuals to the device itself. Within the
device, there is a one-way direction of travel for teachers and nations in terms of becoming and
developing good teachers. This operates in two modes. First, through the use of scales, for instance
those dealing with various teacher practices (e.g. never or hardly ever to almost always), with
the direction of improvement clearly signalled; and, second, with the vertical ranking of countries
in relation to each other providing a further cue on to how to improve (do what the countries above
you do). In short, those countries at the top are ahead and winning the knowledge economy game,
and are to be emulated.
We noted earlier that the pedagogical device has distributional, recontextualising and evaluative
rules and fields that are hierarchically nested inside each other, and involve distinct fields and pro-
cesses. How might these work in the context of our claim that TALIS can be regarded as a peda-
gogical device? In relation to distributive rules, it is clear from the evidence we have to date that
the OECD and its global flanking agents have managed to dominate what is thinkable in relation
to teachers and their work and, thus, the distributional rules in the pedagogic device. By pointing
to the gap between the socio-economic order that was (the industrial base) and the new socio-
economic world that is arriving (a knowledge based economy) the OECD has used this temporal
rupture to prise open the space for its entry into encoding the yet to be thought (Bernstein, 2001:
31) together with the new rules concerning who should have access to education sectors in order to
generate efficiencies, effectiveness and innovation. This framing and encoding is strategically
selective of private actors and private sector management techniques through privatisation or
publicprivate partnership initiatives, see Ball (2007) and Robertson etal. (2012) giving rise to
dramatic transformations in all of the fields of the pedagogic device.
It will require more ongoing research to determine the diverse and complex ways in which the
recontextualising rules and fields of the pedagogic device are at work in TALIS across spaces and
over time. We have some clues from fieldwork (Sorensen, 2017) in national contexts (England,
Finland and Australia). Because of the controversial nature of TALIS as a regulator of teachers
Robertson and Sorensen 13

work in national contexts, the nationally-located teacher unions have been undecided about its
potential benefits, while trying to make the most of the survey findings to further their policy pref-
erences. In the case of England, the teacher unions have encouraged teachers to participate in
providing data, and the unions in turn have used the TALIS 2008 and 2013 data to argue that teach-
ers in England worked longer hours (19% more) than the TALIS average; English teachers had
limited access to professional development; teachers perform non-teaching tasks such as manage-
ment; and there is a high turnover in the profession (Sellen, 2016). This has led the National Union
of Teachers in England to press for a review of its members working conditions, to bring these into
line with other TALIS countries. This is a good example here of the link between the hierarchical
relation between the distributional and recontextualising rules and fields. The OECD has also
sought to direct pedagogic resources to teachers in the TALIS countries with A Teachers Guide to
TALIS 2013 (OECD, 2014b). This was a highly unusual move for the OECD; it is one of the first
times that the Organisation has sought to bypass the national scale in an attempt to reach into the
classroom and speak to teachers directly. In doing so, the OECD is seeking to shape the pedagogic
recontextualising field in quite a direct way and achieve buy-in from teachers in order to increase
participation in future waves of OECD assessments and surveys. The success or otherwise of this
effort will require further empirical investigation, but fieldwork in Australia, England and Finland
suggests that the guide is little used in schools, perhaps due to the general nature of the themes and
data presented in it (Sorensen, 2017).
With regard to the evaluative rules and fields, if TALIS as a pedagogical device is able to alter
teachers practices in classrooms, in a manner similar to what it was able to do using the PISA data
to create shocks in education systems in countries like Germany and Japan (Takayama, 2008),
then its pedagogical project will have been successful. The OECD is also seeking to link the TALIS
data sets on teachers to the pupil data sets from PISA where the teachers who taught the students
in PISA are the TALIS subjects. This TALISPISA link raises several methodological issues and
has an international option in the TALIS programme which, up to 2013, had not been very suc-
cessful in attracting participating countries (eight countries signed up for the TALISPISA link in
TALIS 2013) or producing results (OECD has not published any official reports on the data).
However, the TALISPISA link could in the future give the OECD considerable power to govern
pedagogically if countries find the option robust and relevant enough to sign up, and pay, for it.
Our position here is to not take a determinist line on these developments but, rather, to see these as
strategic moves by powerful actors in the symbolic field whose reach and grasp is also likely to be
limited by the challenges of governing over multiple scales, vertically and horizontally, and whose
legitimacy is dependent on its expertise and not authority derived from state sovereignty. How it
manages these challenges in locales will also be a pedagogical challenge, perhaps giving rise to
new kinds of specialist agencies at multiple scales to undertake this symbolic work.

Teachers in the knowledge economy from covenant to contract?

In this final part we turn to the knowledge conundrum posed by the TALIS encodings (to limit
disciplinary knowledge; and promote constructivism), and explore what this might mean for the
resources available in those arenas which are influential in shaping teachers identity, teachers
own claims to expertise, location in the social division of labour, and for pupil learning. Here, we
have found Bernsteins insights on the history of knowledge structures (Bernstein, 1990: 148152),
and Mullers (2009) and Becks (2009; see also Beck and Young, 2005) engagement with this
work, particularly insightful. As Muller (2009: 206) noted, the disciplines which emerged in the
18th and 19th centuries continued with an older set of distinctions to be found in the medieval
university between liberal arts knowledge and practical knowledge.5
14 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

This has relevance to our analysis of the OECDs use of TALIS in its efforts to reshape teachers
pedagogic identities. The encoding of constructivism, and the weakening of discipline-based
knowledge and the formal grammar of knowledge privileges local or mundane experiences that are
also increasingly shaped by the market. It also reflects the move in what Bernstein noted to be a
reorientation, from the inner to the outer, or from covenant to contract (Bernstein, 2000).
Knowledge has direct commercial value in the new economy. It is not inner but outer, not use but
exchange value. We pointed earlier to Bernsteins sketching out of what he called a faint figure in
the landscape. This figure is now far from faint. A constructivist pedagogy, coupled with market-
oriented agency and social knowledge as opposed to disciplinary or scientific knowledge
(Rata, 2011: 2), creates a very different knowledge base for the teacher (and, by implication, learn-
ing processes and the learner), with its emerging social base of production.
Most importantly, with the OECD-orchestrated filling-in what teachers should know and do, to
the extent that the OECD is able to control teachers pedagogic identity, teachers might well lose
their claim to expertise and thus their place in the professions. Without any inner, sacred knowl-
edge as the basis for professional judgment, the knowledge basis for teachers is of a practical
nature with an emphasis on the how of learning and not the what of the learned. In essence the
encoded figure of the 21st century teacher identity pursued by the OECD is that of frontline work-
ers (OECD, 2014a: 32) in the competitive knowledge economy, with an erased inner-vocation-
identity (covenant/word); they are left with an outer-market-identity (contract/world).
However, we also see an important countering of this De-Centred Market identity; for instance
in England, where the teachers union has sought to use the TALIS 2013 data (longer hours than
other TALIS countries; more administration than the TALIS average; not sufficient time given to
professional development) to promote a case for a mild version of the De-Centred Therapeutic
teacher identity. For Bernstein, this identity draws on complex theories of personal, cognitive and
social development (Bernstein, 2000: 68) to make a claim about professional autonomy and pupil
learning. The overall outcome, however, is to create a basis having a split identity out of a
De-Centred Therapeutic identity bolted onto a De-Centred Market Identity.

Conclusions
There is a great deal to be gained from engaging with Bernstein on international policies and local
contexts. In our view there are genuine insights to be gleaned from the who, what how, and
so what of contemporary forms of governing in a globalising education world when putting
Bernsteins conceptual to work in the world. We hope that in our endeavours we have stayed true
to the spirit of intellectual enquiry that Bernstein championed. Of one thing we are sure: were
Bernstein to enter the research field now, his accounts of the world of education would be very
different from that of the world which gave rise to descriptions that breathed life into his concep-
tual grammar. In Jessops (1999) terms, the Keynesian National Welfare State has given ground to
a Schumpeterian Post-National Workfare Regime, with huge implications for the world of educa-
tion and the pedagogical work that is then set in motion to produce new social orders, identities,
relations and base. For this reason we have tried to address the contemporary world of education
and its social role in making pedagogical identities with many questions, to which we have only
the traces of answers.
Our focus specifically on teachers as workers in the 21st century is particularly revealing,
because they are the symbolic agents whose work it is to make the new 21st century citizen and
worker. In focusing on the role of the OECD and devices such as TALIS we are able to show how
the very work of governing is now different. So, what tentative conclusions do we draw from the
TALIS case?
Robertson and Sorensen 15

First, we find that the OECD has emerged as a dominant actor in the field of symbolic control,
encoding a very specific understanding of the good teacher and developing TALIS as a means for
controlling both the distributional rules as well as some of the key repair functions, through the
ways it suggests what is to be done.
Second, the OECD has expanded the global governance of teachers through partner agreements,
event cooperation and contracting out to scores of flanking agents, from the European Commission
to global commercial firms, and entrepreneurial scholars, whose alignments are much closer to the
economic sphere and particularly that of global capital. However, this alignment also brings risks,
especially with regard to the rules and fields for recontextualisation. It is still thinkable that educa-
tion can be organised differently, that there are actors out there who believe that the dominance of
global symbolic agents located in the borderlands of the economic and public/state fields is illegiti-
mate and thus without authority, and that teachers should have autonomy over their work. This
dissident voice, at least viewed from the point of the OECD, is also a voice that will need to be
governed, now and into the future. Perhaps the time will come when the unthinkable becomes
thinkable, and when the OECD will have won the day as a regulator of consciousness; but there is
a great deal of distance to go with TALIS before this is the case.
Third, viewing TALIS as a pedagogical device is valuable in that it enables us to see the what
and the how of the relay, and that we are able to link form, framing and ideational content, and the
work that the different recontextualising and evaluative fields need to do across a greater space
vertically across scales and horizontally across countries. However, this multiplicity of spaces
and scales also creates new challenges in that each has its own recontextualising rules and fields,
as well as the points of entry of TALIS into national settings which do not articulate with the
organization of the sector, and generates new frictions and places new limits on the fidelity of the
idea of the pedagogic identity for teachers that is being relayed. This then compels us to enquire
about the questions with which Bernstein did not engage to a sufficient extent, which in Archers
terms (1995: 212223) include the wider structure of education systems (in our case a very multi-
scalar structure with a distinct power geometry), questions about the ease of permeability, of
competing resources for identities which now operate across scales, and of differences across
systems. All of these issues are at play in the OECDs TALIS programme, demanding some new
insights into how power is projected over space, the multi-scalar nature of symbolic agents and
fields and how these are navigated and governed, what makes one system more permeable than
another, and what the incremental relocation of the symbolic work to the economic field means
more generally for governing.
In raising these questions we do not intend to underplay the significance of what Bernsteins
conceptual tools have helped reveal. It is possible to trace out and see the developing shape of an
emerging governing project aimed at teachers for 21st century capitalist economies and societies.
However, there are political questions now thrown to the fore regarding the prominence of a mar-
ket identity and what this might mean for knowledge itself. Will the decentred market identity
replace inner dedication and covenant with contract; or what might a more hybrid identity begin
to look like if market-mediated therapeutic identity emerges out of the arena of resources? In which
ways do such hybrid identities emerge as distinctive and tension-laden outcomes potentially
constituting divided-self pedagogic positions (Bernstein, 2000: 7778) of multi-scalar govern-
ance, and how do they play out in specific fields of recontextualisation? It is too early to tell.
Indeed, these are questions that must be explored empirically, and not claimed as a truth in a
game of academic guesswork. Will the OECD continue to play a central role, as a global nodal
point, in the face of tightening national boundaries, populist political projects and a growing sense
that neoliberalism has delivered to the ruling class but not the middle and working classes of
which teachers are an important class faction? The only thing we can be certain of for the moment
16 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

is that the social world is not fixed and static. It is full of struggles over meanings and what
becomes thinkable: in the process of controlling the unthinkable it makes the possibility of the
unthinkable available (Bernstein, 2001: 38). By attempting to think of teachers in a particular way,
perhaps what has also really happened is that teachers taken-for-granted worlds shaped by spe-
cific and very different social and material contexts are now suddenly revealed to them as
thinkable.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Parlo Singh and Gabriele Ivinson not only for the opportunity to engage with
Bernsteinian scholars on this important project but also for a close and engaged reading of different versions
of our text. They have generated wonderful conversations in the margins and in our text. We have also ben-
efitted from the insightful comments from our two anonymous reviewers; these helped us sharpen our argu-
ments and also ensured that we understood the limitations of our claims. Any errors are ours.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes
1. On the OECDs website this repair function is called the EducationGPS a one-stop-shop as to whom to
compare to, what to do to resolve performance shortfalls, and how to link TALIS findings to other OECD
data sets on students, adults and so on: see Robertson (2016).
2. In this capacity, Education International currently represents 30 million education workers located in 176
countries and 401 national and sub-national organisations.
3. Subsequent summits have since taken place in New York (2012); Amsterdam, the Netherlands (2013);
Wellington, New Zealand (2014); Banff, Canada (2015); Berlin, Germany (2016); and Edinburgh,
Scotland (2017).
4. The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) was launched by UNESCO in 1976 to
facilitate comparisons of education statistics and indicators across countries on the basis of uniform and
internationally agreed definitions. The ISCED has since been revised twice.
5. With liberal arts knowledge, two further divisions can be identified; between the Trivium (gram-
mar, logic and rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, astronomy, geometry and music). In the
medieval university a distinction emerged between liberal and mechanical knowledge, with the latter
viewed with disdain as practical, and where the Trivium had unquestioned priority (Bernstein, 1990:
149). The Trivium emerged out of an earlier effort to fuse Christianity with abstract Greek thought;
the word with the world. The Trivium, governed by Christianity, was concerned with inner disci-
pline, and a means for grasping the outer world. One without the other, Muller (2009: 206) noted,
such as the sciences without the humanities, means science is in danger of becoming a technicist
Frankenstein. Muller argued that these two fault lines have reared their heads in ongoing struggles
between the inner and the outer; as two cultures (Snow, 1998 [1959/1964]). Most recently Brown
picked up a similar line of debate about market knowledge versus knowledge for the Demos think-
tank (Brown, 2016).

References
Archer M (1995) The neglect of the educational system by Bernstein. In: Sadovnik A (ed.) Knowledge and
Pedagogy: The Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Robertson and Sorensen 17

Ball S (2007) Education PLC: Understanding Private Sector Participation in Public Sector Education.
London: Routledge.
Ball S (2012) Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. London: Routledge.
Beck J (2009) Appropriating professionalism: Restructuring the official knowledge base of Englands mod-
ernised teaching profession. British Journal of Sociology of Education 30(1): 314.
Beck J and Young M (2005) The assault on the professions and the restructuring of academic and professional
identities: A Bernsteinian analysis, British Journal of Sociology of Education 22(2): 183197.
Bernstein B (1990) The Structuring of Pedagogic Discourse, Volume IV: Class, Codes, Control. London and
New York: Routledge.
Bernstein B (1996) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (1st edition). Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield.
Bernstein B (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity (2nd edition). Oxford: Rowan and Littlefield.
Bernstein B (2001) Symbolic control: Issue of empirical description of agencies and agents, in International
Journal of Social Research Methodology 4(1): 2133.
Bernstein B and Solomon J (1999) Pedagogy, identity and the construction of a theory of symbolic con-
trol: Basil Bernstein questioned by Joseph Solomon. British Journal of Sociology of Education 20(2):
265279.
Brown W (2016) Undoing the Demos. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Connell R (2009) Good teachers on dangerous ground: Toward a new view of teacher quality and profession-
alism. Critical Studies in Education 50(3): 213229.
Dale R and Trevitt Smith J (1977) From mystique to technique: Completing the bourgeois revolution in edu-
cation. Unpublished paper, Milton Keynes: Open University.
DiMartino C and Scott J (2012) Private sector contracting and democratic accountability. Educational Policy
27(2): 307333.
Education Fast Forward (2014) EFF10: Better Teaching for Better Learning. Available at: http://www.effde-
bate.org/debates/previous-debates/eff10-better-teaching-for-better-learning/ (accessed 31 July 2017).
Education International (2012) TALIS: EI ensures that teachers concerns are considered. Retrieved from
http://www.ei-ie.org/en/news/news_details/2241 (accessed 31 July 2017).
Foucault M (1988) Technologies of the self. In: L Martin, H Gutman and P Hutton (eds) Technologies of
the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 1649.
Frandji D and Vitale P (2011) Knowledge theory and praxis: on the Anglo-French debate on reproduction. In:
G Ivinson, B Davies and J Fitz (eds) Knowledge and Identity: Concepts and Applications in Bernsteins
Sociology. London: Routledge, pp. 5466.
Gomendio M (2017) Empowering and enabling teachers to improve equity and outcomes for all (International
Summit on the Teaching Profession). Paris: OECD.
Goodwin M ( 2009) Which networks matter in education governance: A reply to Balls new philanthropy,
new networks, new governance. Political Studies 57(3): 6887.
Grek S (2009) Governing by numbers: The PISA effect in Europe. Journal of Education Policy 24(1):
2337.
ILOUNESCO (2008) The ILOUNESCO Recommendation Concerning the Status of Teachers (1966);
and The UNESCO Recommendations Concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel
(1997), with a Users Handbook. Paris: UNESCO.
Jessop B (1999) The changing governance of welfare: Recent trends in its primary functions, scale and modes
of coordination Social Policy and Administration 343(4): 348359.
MacBeath J (2012) The Future of Teaching Profession. Brussels: Education International.
Moore R (2004) Education and Society: Issues and Expanations in the Sociology of Education. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Moore R and Muller J (2002) The growth of knowledge and the discursive gap. British Journal of Sociology
of Education 23(4): 627637.
Muller J (2009) Forms of knowledge and curriculum coherence. Journal and Education and Work 22(3):
205226.
OECD (1960) Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Available at:
http://www.oecd.org/general/conventionontheorganisationforeconomicco-operationanddevelopment.
htm (accessed 07 June 2017).
18 European Educational Research Journal 00(0)

OECD (2000) Schooling for Tomorrow: OECD Scenarios. Paris: OECD.

OECD (2005) Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers. Paris: OECD.
OECD (2009) Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS. OECD:
Paris.
OECD (2014a) TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Available at:
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/education/talis-2013-results_9789264196261-en (accessed 31 July 2017).
OECD (2014b) A Teachers Guide to TALIS 2013. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-
Teachers-Guide.pdf (accessed 31 July 2017).
OECD (2014c) PISA-Based Test for Schools: FAQ. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/aboutpisa/pisa-
based-test-for-schools-faq.htm (accessed 31 July 2017).
OECD (2014d) Proposal for an annual summit of the global education industry. EDU/CERI/CD (2014)19.
Presented to the CERI Governing Board, Paris: OECD, 3031 October 2014.
OECD (2015) Global Education Industry Summit, Helsinki, 1920 October 2015. Available at: http://www.
oecd.org/education-industry-summit/ (accessed 31 July 2017).
Ozga J (2009) Governing education through data in England: From regulation to self-evaluation. Journal of
Education Policy 24(2): 149162.
Papadopoulos GS (1994) Education 19601990: The OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD.
Rata E (2011) The politics of knowledge in education. British Educational Research Journal 38(1): 103124.
Robertson SL (2005) Reimagining and rescripting the future of education. Comparative Education 41(2):
151170.
Robertson SL (2009) Producing the global knowledge economy: The World Bank, the Knowledge Assessment
Methodology and education. In: Simons M, Olssen M and Peters MA (eds) Re-Reading Education Policies:
A Handbook Studying the Policy Agenda of the 21st Century. Rotterdam: Sense, pp. 235256.
Robertson SL (2012) Placing teachers in global governance agendas. Comparative Education Review 56(4):
584607.
Robertson SL (2013) Teachers work, denationalisation, and transformations in the field of symbolic control:
A comparative account. In: Seddon T and Levin J (eds) World Yearbook of Education 2013: Educators,
Professionalism and Politics Global Transitions, National Spaces and Professional Projects.
Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 7796.
Robertson S (2016) Governing teachers globally. In: Mundy K, Green A, Lingard R, et al. (eds) The
Globalization of Education Policy: Key Approaches and Debates. New York, NY: Wiley.
Robertson S and Dale R (2006) Changing geographies of power in education: The politics of rescaling and
its contradictions. In: Kassem D, Mulfti E and Robinson J (eds) Education Studies: Issues and Critical
Perspectives. Berkshire: Open University Press.
Robertson SL and Dale R (2009) Researching education in a global era. In: Resnik J (ed.) The Production of
Educational Knowledge in the Global Era. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Robertson SL and Verger A (2012) Governing education through public private partnerships. In: Robertson
SL, Mundy K, Verger A and Menashy F (eds) Public Private Partnerships in Education: New Actors
and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Robertson SL, Mundy K, Verger A and Menashy F (eds) (2012) Public Private Partnerships in Education:
New Actors and Modes of Governance in a Globalizing World. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Sadovnik A (ed.) (1995) Knowledge and Pedagogy: The Sociology of Basil Bernstein. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Schleicher A (2015) Schools for 21st-Century Learners: Strong Leaders, Confident Teachers, Innovative
Approaches, International Summit on the Teaching Profession. Paris: OECD Publishing. Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264231191-en (accessed 31 July 2017).
Sellen P (2016) Teacher Workload and Professional Development in Englands Secondary Schools: Insights
from TALIS. London: Education Policy Institute.
Singh P (2017) Pedagogic governance: Theorising with/after Bernstein. British Journal of Sociology of
Education 38(2): 144163. DOI: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1081052.
Snow CP (1998 [1959/1964]) The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Robertson and Sorensen 19

Sorensen TB (2017) Work in progress: The political construction of the OECD programme Teaching And
Learning International Survey. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Bristol, UK.
Sorensen TB and Robertson SL (2017) The OECD programme TALIS and framing measuring and selling
Quality Teacher. In: Akiba M and LeTendre GK (eds) Routledge International Handbook of Teacher
Quality and Policy. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 117130.
Takayama K (2008) The politics of international league tables: PISA in Japans achievement crisis debate.
Comparative Education 44(4): 387407.
Tatto MM (ed.) (2007) Reforming Teaching Globally. Oxford: Symposium.
Woodward R (2009) The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Global Institutions
Series. London and New York: Routledge.
World Bank (2012) What Matters Most in Teacher Policies? A Framework for Building a More
Effective Teaching Profession. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/
Resources/278200-1290520949227/SABER-Teachers-Framework-Updated_June14.2012.pdf
(accessed 31 July 2017).

Author biographies
Susan L Robertson is a professor of Sociology of Education, University of Cambridge. Susan has a long-
standing interest in actors, projects and outcomes in the globalising of education, with an interest in teachers
work and other governance mechanisms. She is founding editor of the journal Globalisation, Societies and
Education. Susans recent publications include edited books on Global Regionalisms and Higher Education,
Public Private Partnerships in Education, and Education, Privatisation and Social Justice.
Tore Sorensen completed his doctorate at the Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK, with
the dissertation Work in progress: The political construction of the OECD programme Teaching And
Learning International Survey. Tores research centres on comparative studies of education governance in a
global context. Tore has a background as a teacher and teacher trainer in Denmark. Before starting his doctor-
ate, he worked in the Analysis and Studies Unit of the European Commissions Directorate-General for
Education and Culture.