This article was downloaded by: [DUT Library]On: 06 October 2014, At: 11:33Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Sociology ofEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbse20

Navigating a treacherous game:conceptualising parental engagementin contemporary Queensland schoolingKym Macfarlane aa School of Human Services , Griffith University , Logan Campus,University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland 4131, AustraliaPublished online: 25 Aug 2009.

To cite this article: Kym Macfarlane (2009) Navigating a treacherous game: conceptualisingparental engagement in contemporary Queensland schooling, British Journal of Sociology ofEducation, 30:5, 563-576, DOI: 10.1080/01425690903101056

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01425690903101056

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

British Journal of Sociology of EducationVol. 30, No. 5, September 2009, 563–576

ISSN 0142-5692 print/ISSN 1465-3346 online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/01425690903101056http://www.informaworld.com

Navigating a treacherous game: conceptualising parental engagement in contemporary Queensland schooling

Kym Macfarlane*

School of Human Services, Griffith University, Logan Campus, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland 4131, AustraliaTaylor and FrancisCBSE_A_410278.sgm(Received 2 September 2008; final version received 1 January 2009)

10.1080/01425690903101056British Journal of Sociology of Education0142-5692 (print)/1465-3346 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis305000000September 2009Dr KymMacfarlanek.macfarlane@griffith.edu.auParent engagement in schooling has long been held as a vital component of thesuccessful navigation of the schooling process and, consequently, governmentsoften invite such engagement via policy implementation. However, at times,contestation arises about parent engagement, with some parents seemingly‘crossing the line’ when attempting to be involved in their children’s schooling.This paper investigates the possibility of parent engagement in schooling inQueensland, Australia, conceptualising it as a game of social and systemicpractice. The author examines this notion using an example of contestationbetween parents at a regional government school and the education authority.Policy directives about parent engagement are explored, with the rhetoric of suchpolicy applied to the example in question. The work of Bourdieu and Foucault isused to argue that the invitation to parents to engage is framed and thus oftenmisrecognised, resulting in unintended conflictual relationships between parentsand governing authorities.

Keywords: engagement; disengagement; performativity; propriety;responsibilisation; fatigue

Introduction

The role of parents in the process of schooling in Australia has undergone some signif-icant changes since the establishment of government schools in the late nineteenthcentury. Whilst parent involvement in schooling in the early twentieth century tendedto be that of ‘assistant’ or ‘helper’ (Johnston 1981; Kirner 1976; Queensland Councilof Parents’ and Citizens’ Association 1997), more recently parents have been invitedto be involved in the schooling process in a more concrete way (Department of Educa-tion 1990, 1997; Nine Network 2004; Norrie and Doherty 2005). In Queensland, anorthern state in Australia, policy has been more ‘parent-friendly’ over the past fourdecades (Karmel 1973; Department of Education 1997; Education Queensland 1999)with both state and federal governments increasingly devolving decision-makingpower to school communities (Cranston, Dwyer, and Limerick 2000; Lingard andRizvi 1992; Meadmore 2000). This devolutionary process has included invitingparents to become more involved in their children’s schooling at the level of schoolleadership and governance. Australian federal government rhetoric has had a particu-lar focus on the importance of parent choice in the marketplace as a means of meeting

*Email: k.macfarlane@griffith.edu.au

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

564 K. Macfarlane

diverse needs of the community and determining quality in schooling. This notion ofparent choice in schooling has also been highlighted in countries such as the UnitedKingdom,1 where policy has called on parents to engage actively in making decisionsabout schooling and schooling alternatives for their children (Gewirtz, Ball, and Bowe1995; Marginson 1996, 1997). In Australia, these trends culminated in 1996 in anexplicit government invitation to parents to establish new non-government schools ifexisting schools did not meet their children’s needs (Australia, Parliament 1996).

In an apparent contradiction of the emergent agenda of devolution, choice andengagement, an application for planning approval2 for a particular community second-ary school was refused by the Queensland Department of Education (Office of Non-State Schooling) in 1997. The parent community involved in this application was partof Sunnyvale State School (a pseudonym) that had been in existence since 1985. Thisschool had a strong reputation in the community for successfully engaging students inschooling via a particular non-traditional pedagogical approach. The school’s‘progressive’ reputation was well known and reasonably widespread, and many of theparents at the school whose children had experienced successful engagement were verycommitted to the type of curriculum that was conducted there. This commitment byparents culminated in their application to establish Sunnyvale College as a secondaryschool extension of Sunnyvale primary school in order to further continue this school’spedagogical approach under the same principal.

In 1991 the parents of Sunnyvale State School established ‘The Multi-Age HighSchool Lobby Group’, and this group was given the responsibility to lobby the Stategovernment to establish a multi-age high school in their region. After five years ofnegotiations with the State Government, the parents of this community re-establishedthe ‘Sunnyvale College Steering Committee’, a body that pursued the establishmentof the school via the non-government system. Finally, in July 1997 application wasmade to the Office of Non-State Schooling to set up Sunnyvale College. However, on9 December 1997 the secretary of Sunnyvale College Limited received correspondencestating that the committee’s application had been refused.

This decision was apparently at odds with the stated policy direction invitingcommunities to engage more closely with schools and to exercise choice in the 1990s,as the following quote from Hon. David Kemp MP (Shadow Minister for Educationprior to 1996 and Minister for Education in 1996/97), indicates:

Parent Choice in schooling is increasingly recognised not only as a basic human right,but also as essential to implement an effective parent market in education. A strongparent market is essential to provide parents with genuine influence over the characterand quality of schooling in Australia…Parent choice implies school systems, which havethe flexibility to provide the diversity, which parents seek and the independence torespond to parental values as they are reflected in the marketplace. (Kemp 1991, 22)

Additionally, the logic of the Sunnyvale decision appeared to contradict prevailingideas for schooling in terms of parent choice and engagement made explicit in a pleth-ora of policy documents from the Queensland Department of Education promotingchoice, diversity and devolution (Department of Education 1990, 1997; EducationQueensland 1999). Coupled with this above-mentioned federal government advocacyfor parent choice, such policy moves had created a climate in which this group ofhighly engaged parents came to see themselves as deciding, at least in part, how theirchildren were to be educated. Moreover, as a federal government statement of policydirection, the above statement is an explicit message to parents that they can and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 565

should ‘choose’ the character and quality of schooling for their children. What is inter-esting, indeed remarkable, in the Sunnyvale case, is that a highly engaged group ofparents who were attuned to this sort of rhetoric did not achieve their goals of leadingthe establishment of the kind of school they wanted for their children. The failure ofthe Sunnyvale application appeared almost unprecedented or even bizarre, in theparticular climate of 1997. It is clear that, in the main, governments were, and still are,encouraging parents to engage in choice-making regarding schools (Nine Network2004; Norrie and Doherty 2005; Department of Education, Science and Training2004). However, when applied to Sunnyvale, such a notion caused a ‘breakdown’ inboth relationships and in systemic and social practice. Thus, the Sunnyvale case servesas a key site for learning about the limits of parent choice and participation in theprocess of schooling, particularly in relation to understanding choice.

Out of this contradiction arose the questions that prompted the research in thepresent study. How was it possible that the Sunnyvale College application wasrefused, given the high degree of parent involvement and the prevailing policyclimate? How can this event increase understanding of the relationship betweenschool policy and schooling practices that pertain to parent engagement?

Understanding Sunnyvale

Sunnyvale State School was, from the outset, a fully multi-age school that engaged inteaching children by means of an integrated, thematic curriculum. The principal of theschool was experienced in this type of teaching and had argued strongly in correspon-dence with parents3 that children learn best in a cooperative environment, free fromacademic competition. Students from Sunnyvale school, unlike their counterparts inthe Queensland Government school system, were not subjected to formal locksteptesting but were encouraged to learn at their own developmental level. Even thoughthe children at this school were in grades that corresponded to their age, they were notrestricted to working only at that level but could move above and below the standardof their grade. The purpose here, as was advocated by the principal at the time, was toensure that children felt less threatened by an inability to do the work and were lesslikely to become bored doing work they already knew.

Anecdotal data4 indicated that the children from this school, by and large, appearedto enjoy the learning environment and were relatively happy to come to the school.This was borne out by the children’s seemingly close relationship with their teachers,the absence of complaints about bullying, and a very low incidence of damage toschool property. There was also a wide range of further curricular activities that theycould undertake, and children of all levels of ability were encouraged to participate.5

Parents were important to the schooling process as far as this principal of Sunny-vale was concerned. There was an open-door policy at Sunnyvale State School(School Prospectus 1995) and parents were able to take concerns to the principal orhis deputies, and, where appropriate, teachers were expected to respond positively toparent requests (personal communications between principal, teachers and parents,1991–1997; Parents and Citizens [P&C] minutes taken in conjunction with a P&Cmonthly meeting, 1991–1997). In fact, in most instances in the early stages of theschool, parents’ requests were privileged over those of teachers (personal communi-cations between principal, teachers and parents, 1991–1996).

Consequently, from 1991 to 1997 the P&C executive of Sunnyvale State Schoolstrongly supported the principal and his administrative team in the schooling process.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

566 K. Macfarlane

This was evidenced by the activities of this group, which included raising $120,000 ayear during this time6 to balance the budget. In addition to this fundraising, this groupbecame very politically active. Support was given to the principal and his administra-tive team on numerous occasions in his ‘battles’ with the Department of Education(P&C correspondence, 1991–1997; P&C minutes, 1991–1997), with parents from theP&C writing letters to government and visiting officials from this department wherenecessary.

The political action of the Sunnyvale parents was ‘unusual’ for P&C groups inQueensland and largely in Australia, where the focus of such groups was traditionallyrelated to ‘helping’ rather than major decision-making (Macfarlane 2006). In contrast,the Sunnyvale parents were highly political and relentlessly supported their principal.One example of such support was at a rally parents organised in support of SunnyvaleCollege. As previously mentioned, the parents had worked for many years to set upthe College with the principal at its helm. They were very upset when their applicationwas refused, and vowed to fight on.

In this example, the parents brought busloads of children into Brisbane city to meetwith the Minister for Education. The intention was that the children, accompanied bya group of parents, would hand a letter of protest about the application’s failure to theMinister of Education. Other children were positioned in the street and asked to handout leaflets to passers-by. These leaflets included statements from the children,documenting their feelings about the establishment of the College. Along with therally came a media campaign. In one newspaper the following appeared:

[The P & C President] said parents were concerned the department was against their styleof education and was being obstructionist. ‘There appears to be a history of the depart-ment getting in our way, even at a primary school level, and what we’re concerned aboutis the Director-General appears to be involved in some way’. (O’Chee 1997, 10)

This prompted such responses from the government as:

Sunnyvale College has attempted to interfere by pushing for a fast tracking of their ownapplication over and above other applications. They are using the public meeting tonightto push this purpose. (O’Chee 1997, 10)

While parent behaviour was unruly and the principal’s style in some ways idiosyn-cratic, it is insufficient to explain away the failure of the Sunnyvale application forthese reasons alone. Both federal and state governments were asking that parents beactively involved in their children’s schooling and encouraging parents to makechoices that would determine market share. In one sense, the Sunnyvale parents weredoing just that. These parents were active and engaged – partnering with the schooladministration to support them wherever they could. Therefore, from one perspective,the parents were only doing what was being asked of them by government. Thus, tounderstand the failure of this application more fully, the present study required anapproach that allowed for the examination of multiple perspectives, rather thanseeking to understand this parent/school relationship via long-held assumptions andexplanations that might be considered more traditional.

Methodology

In this instance, the bricolage approach was used to address the fact that multipleperspectives and understandings were necessary in order to provide new understanding

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 567

about the parent/school/community nexus. Bricolage (Levi-Strauss 1966) is under-stood as a ‘pieced together set of representations that are fitted to the specifics of acomplex situation’7 where ‘the choice of research practices depends on the questionsthat are asked, and the questions depend on their context’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2003,6). Such a process allowed for an ‘emergent construction’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2003,5; Weinstein and Weinstein 1991) to be produced that added ‘rigour, breadth,complexity, richness and depth’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2003, 8) to the theory buildingand re-theorising that followed. Furthermore, to enhance this rigour and richness,while bricolage was used as the overarching methodological approach in the study,other data collection methods were also employed to attend to particular tasks. Thus,the overall study included three methodological components:

● Historicising parent/school relationships – situating the case, its nature andsetting and its historical background (Stake 1998).

● Using this historical account to conduct a macro and micro analysis (Foucault1983) into roles, processes and procedures in the Sunnyvale case – the consid-eration of textural factors and informants (Stake 1998); that is, who, what, how,when (Yin 1994).

● Re-theorising parent/school relationships – by the use of multiple perspectives.

According to Foucault (1984a, 1984c, 1991), schooling is historically constitutedthrough discourse. Historicising parent/school relationships in both government andnon-government contexts is fundamental to any discursive analysis that tries toexplain the ‘success’ or ‘failure’ of these relationships. Undertaking this research asbricoleur involved the use of information acquired from the Sunnyvale case study toapply new theorising to Queensland parent/school relationships since 1997. This partof the investigation built a theoretical understanding of how parents now engage in theschooling process framed in terms that counted as ‘the right thing to do’ and what itmeant to conduct oneself as a ‘parent doing the right thing’. Thus, the investigationfocused on a ‘normalising’ discourse that produced understanding and logic in termsof what might be deemed ‘normal’ in relation to parent engagement in schooling.

Such an approach provides an alternative response to traditional explanations,some of which might include policy slippage, an accident of timing and spatial loca-tion, federal/state relations and ‘state’ theory. While it is not within the scope of thispaper to unpack such explanations and their relationship to this situation completely,there is a plethora of research to suggest that these explanations are traditionally usedto explain away cases of problematic engagements of the type the parents of Sunnyvaleexperienced. For example, Australia’s reasonably unique federal/state interactions andpolicy strategies certainly indicate that these two levels of government are often at odds(Lunn 1984), and so it is possible that one level of government might refuse anapplication to make ‘trouble’ for the other. Moreover, the neo-Marxist approach tounderstanding community/government relations often provides explanations thatsuggest that the promise of democratic localisation is necessarily flawed (Althusser1971; Macfarlane 2006). Similarly, aspects of timing and spatial location adequatelyaddress some instances of controversy in this respect.

In this study, however, a different explanation was sought, as the traditional expla-nations left too many questions unanswered and also provided simplistic answers tomore complex questions. In terms of the research questions in this study, the datasuggested that new schools in Queensland were established when certain understandings

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

568 K. Macfarlane

of ‘choice’ were not fulfilled. At this particular historical time in the 1990s, choice wasdiscursively framed in terms of ‘effective’ or ‘quality’ social and systemic schoolingpractice and not in terms of what parents believed appropriate. Certain ‘truths’ aboutthese practices produced notions of ‘effective’ or ‘proper’ choice. Thus, it could notbe sufficient to state that the invitation to ‘choose’ was not genuine. Rather, it was framedto exist as ‘proper’. The investigation of the Sunnyvale case has shown that it waspossible for certain types of choice to be de-legitimised and then denied as a result.

Such notions were established as a result of the specific choices about methodologyand conceptual frameworks. Because the approach to the Sunnyvale case study is notbased on any assumption that the ‘failure’ was the outcome of a pernicious state, theinvestigation acknowledges the discontinuous nature of such educational relationshipsand thus refuses notions of linearity and continuity. The case-study approach drawson poststructuralist scholarship, in particular the work of Michel Foucault (1979–1984), and his theories relating to truth, power and governmentality, which are ofparticular interest and were used as a basis for argument and analysis.

The main arguments and findings in the case study were used to re-theorise parent/school relationships in post-millennial Queensland, particularly in relation to policyreform. Various interpretive and theoretical perspectives were used in this process ofre-theorising, including notions of performativity (Ball 2003, 2004), responsibilisation(Rose 1990, 1999, 2000) and pedagogicalisation (Popkewitz 2003).8 Such notionswere employed to build on the lines of inquiry that develop as a consequence of theuse of Foucauldian theory in the earlier part of the study. These concepts were alsoused to develop new epistemological understanding of parent/school relationships incontemporary contexts. The bricolage methodology also enabled the extensive use ofwork of Pierre Bourdieu (1984, 2001) in the latter part of the study, via the conceptu-alisation of parent engagement in schooling as a game played on the field of schooling.This notion of the ‘game of engagement’ on the field of schooling became the majormeans of re-theorising the parent/school/community nexus for contemporary contextsin the latter part of the study and was also the means by which the findings of the casestudy could be applied more generally.9

Understanding the game

The results of the study were comprehensive with respect to developing new under-standing of particular aspects of parent engagement in schooling. Epistemologicallycoherent lines of enquiry and application of theoretical frameworks enabled aspects ofparent engagement such as parent choice, ethical citizenry, idiosyncratic behaviour,performance, propriety and misrecognition to be re-theorised. Each of these aspects ofengagement is unpacked below.

Choice

The investigation of the notion of choice in this context established the contested fram-ing and de-legitimisation of choice as one characteristic of the failure of the Sunnyvaleapplication. What was found in this investigation was that the role of parents in theprocess of schooling changed across the decade of the 1990s and how that role was to‘play out’ also changed. The role of parents in schooling encompassed the emergenceof a narrative of ‘engagement’ as ‘participation’, in the sense that engagement becamethe ‘responsibility’ of ethical ‘players’, rather than the ‘right’ of interested and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 569

involved individuals. Thus, although not in terms of linearity, involvement becameparticipation, which became engagement, not as ‘grass roots’ participation or socialdemocratic rights but as corporatising management and microeconomic reform.Therefore, ‘effective or proper’ engagement was framed with the expectation thatparents would behave as ‘proper’ managers of their children’s schooling. Here,‘proper’ represented adherence to particular ethical stances and community ‘rules’.

Such understandings of this notion of choice proved particularly problematic forthe Sunnyvale parents. While these parents were strong advocates for their school andefficient partners for the school administration, they also acted as activists in ways thatwere not aligned with the actions of other P&C groups in Queensland at the time.Indeed, Garry Cislowski, President of the State P&C body during that period, hadstated:

In other states [in Australia] they have quite adversarial relationships between the depart-ment, the minister and the organisation, which doesn’t go well for achieving your goals.Because we’re fairly co-operative with the government and the department, we’ve beenable to achieve many of the goals without having the adversarial process of mediacampaigns. (Dullroy 2003, 10)

Therefore, the Sunnyvale parents were activists for their school at a time when thesocial space for such activism was shrinking (Macfarlane 2006), creating strongerpossibilities for success for the corporate citizen and the pedagogicalised parent. TheSunnyvale parents did not recognise this shift, and so this activist mentality was prob-lematic, particularly when it overlapped with notions of idiosyncrasy, propriety andperformativity.

Ethical citizenry/idiosyncrasy

What this study also demonstrated was that particular types of behaviour can be deter-minant on how aspects of social and systemic practice ‘play out’. As the Sunnyvaleparents did not behave in the ‘right’ way, this ‘unruly’ behaviour worked to positionthese parents as deviant, not only in terms of unruliness but also in terms of non-adher-ence to particular important ethical principles. Here, discourses of ‘proper’ parentingintersected with those of ethical citizenry and responsible game-playing, to producethis notion of unruliness that worked against these parents and their application. Theinvestigation of this behaviour in this study has found that ‘unruly practice’ (Fraser1989) in terms of behaviour, citizenry and reasonableness, caused the Sunnyvaleparents to be perceived as ‘ineffective players’ in the engagement game.10

The study showed that the parents’ understanding of their role in the process ofschooling and in the establishment of the new school was flawed, causing them to beunable to recognise how their understanding of ‘proper’ schooling for their childrencould not be realised in 1997. The illustrations of the behaviour of the parents showedthat there is an affirmation of the Foucauldian notion that it is often local and idiosyn-cratic initiatives rather than cataclysmic events that shape history and its consequentprogression. Clearly, in this instance, personalities played an important role in theeventual failure of the application. What this study demonstrated was that the behav-iour, personalities and interactions of particular local individuals in this caseimpacted, at a systemic level, on the failure of the application, as well as on its even-tual progression to success.11 Here, idiosyncratic personality, flawed understanding,mis-recognition and local identity worked together in combination discontinuously,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

570 K. Macfarlane

locally and in non-linearity, to both constrain and enable both the principal and theparents. Each aspect worked to inscribe and produce the other.

Propriety and performativity

This study and the subsequent re-theorising found that the conditions of possibility thatnow produce success and failure in relation to engagement in schooling are framedlargely in terms of performance and propriety. In this re-theorising, Ball’s (2003, 2004)work on performativity of teachers and Bourdieu’s (1984, 2001) theories of habitusand capital were applied to parents with respect to their engagement in schooling. Itwas found that particular measurements of appraisal, accountability and performanceapply to parents in terms of fulfilling their role within the school community. It wasargued that parents’ engagement must be measured as ‘properly pedagogicalised’; thatis, by categorisation, as active, engaged, partnering, inexpert and unleaderly. While theSunnyvale parents were active and engaged, their approach to activism and engage-ment was to act as ‘expert and leaderly’ in deciding what was best for their childrenin relation to schooling. It was, therefore, their moves into professional rather thanquasi-professional status that situated the Sunnyvale parents outside normalisedperformance as properly pedagogicalised parents.

Notions of success and failure in the engagement game are understood in terms ofhow actors/individuals participate as players on the field of schooling. Here, particular‘games of truth and error’ (Foucault 1985, 6) produce understanding of how the gameis played, the rules of the game, success and failure in the game and the particulardispositions (Bourdieu 1984) players require, to participate successfully in the game.It was argued that these understandings and dispositions intersect with and produceparticular discursively produced value positions, which also impact on how parentsmay become perceived as players in the game. Such value positions both produce andare produced by the relevant discourses that constitute the ‘successful’ performanceof parents, both as parents and as school community members.

Policy reform reflects these value positions, so that notions of performance,appraisal, management and values and ethics of market theory and microeconomicreform all work to privilege particular values as aligned with ethical citizenry andresponsibility and, in turn, limit our ability to ‘think otherwise’ (Foucault 1984d) aboutwhat propriety is, and, as a consequence, of the nature of success and failure in theengagement game. Neo-liberal understandings were highlighted in this study asintegral but not wholly determinant to the production of these value positions and,subsequently, to the performance of parents. What should be understood here,however, is that it is not only neo-liberal principles that produce our understanding ofsuccess or failure in the engagement game. These understandings are produced by theintersection and further constitution of particular discourses. These discourses act asa palimpsest that produces our notions of what it means to be a successful player inthe game and of what it means to be a failure. Thus, in terms of the conditions of possi-bility that now produce success and failure in the engagement game, this investigationhas found that ‘proper performance’ or play in the game – that is, success – is consti-tuted as a consequence of a palimpsest of discourses. This palimpsest produces parentsas responsibilised and pedagogicalised to exist in harmony with the values and ethicsthat constitute effective membership of the school community. Failure is constitutedby an inability to adhere to these values and ethics for whatever reason; for example,lack of particular capital or unruly practice.12

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 571

The understanding of engagement as a game of social and systemic practiceenables the notion of engagement to be understood, not as part of a binary with disen-gagement but as a game of participation, where parents may be seen as ‘proper’engagers according to certain categories of participation at particular points in time.In such understanding, disengagement is ‘not an option’ as it only exists as anotherform of engagement. In Foucault’s (1984b, 295) terms, when individuals seek toescape the obsession with validity – that is, with ‘truth’ – they will attempt to ‘playthe same game differently’. In terms of the engagement game, when individuals find‘successful’ categories impossible to attain, they will try to continue to participate inthe game but in another way. This analogy of the game has used this understanding ofFoucault’s to develop the notion of engagement-as-resistance as a means of explainingthe relationship between engagement and disengagement. Thus, the study concludedthat individuals engage or resist engagement at particular points in the game. Boththese engagement behaviours will constrain and enable them and work to categorisethem as ‘effective’ or ‘ineffective’ players in the game; that is, as succeeding or asfailing.

Bourdieu’s work is used to support such a stance in relation to levels of social,cultural and economic context. Here, the complexity of meeting ‘all needs’ was high-lighted. There is a contention in this work that understanding the constitution of ‘all’is problematic. What this study has ascertained by an examination of the Sunnyvalecase is that in each instance the ‘all’ is not ‘all encompassing’ and therefore, asPopkewitz (2003) attests, there will always be issues and consequences for those whodo not fit a discursively produced ‘all’ at particular times throughout history. Thus,there is an argument in this study that socio-cultural context needs to be accounted formore fully, in order to improve relationships within the parent/school/communitynexus. What is evident is that while there is contestation of what constitutes the ‘all’,there will be contestation about how notions of engagement, leadership, integrationand the schooling market play out ‘in the real’ (Foucault 1981, 13). Thus, what isevident from the study is that events like Sunnyvale remain repeatable (see Macfarlane2008) and, to some extent, contribute to how social and systemic practices areconstituted in particular contexts.

Re-theorising parent engagement

Foucauldian theory adds a different dimension to this work, as it enables a questioningof what appears reasonable, thereby allowing new understanding to develop. TheFoucauldian notions of truth, power and governmentality (Foucault 1978, 1980, 1985)were integral to this study by enabling a new reading of how power is exercised insocial and systemic contexts. Key theorising in this investigation was undertaken byexploring particular regimes of truth (Foucault 1980) that were produced in 1997when the Sunnyvale application was made. This examination of regimes of truth(Foucault 1980) and systems of power relations (Foucault 1981, 1991) allowed forincreased understanding of how individuals in the Sunnyvale case were both enabledand constrained in relation to engaging in the process of schooling for their childrenin 1997 and beyond.

Another key element of the study was the alignment of Rose’s notion of responsi-bilisation, with Popkewitz’s notion of pedagogicalisation. Rose’s (1999, 2000) termresponsibilisation refers to the production and regulation of ethical citizens by consti-tuting them as responsible for the success or otherwise of particular processes and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

572 K. Macfarlane

practices. According to Rose (2000), it is this notion by which governments promoteparticular values and ethics as desirable qualities. Rose (2000) bases this idea on thepremise that individuals need a framework of belief and this framework works togovern the way in which individuals respond and behave. Thus, the soul or reason ofthe individual is governed by knowledge and understanding that produces particularvalues and ethics as proper (Rose 1990). Similarly, Popkewitz’s (2003) term, peda-gogicalisation, refers to the formation of like-minded partnerships, which work tocreate harmony between partners and to determine common educational and socialgoals. Individuals are enlisted in the stated aims and strategies of the school or thegovernment, to ensure that the ‘correct’ values are instilled in children and in thecommunity. The alignment of these theories then leads to the point that desiredmembership of particular communities acts as a means of regulating behaviour anddispositions, so that individuals seek to exist in harmony with the values and ethicsespoused there (Popkewitz 2003; Rose 2000). Thus, pedagogicalisation and responsi-bilisation both underpin the notion of ‘governing the soul’ (Popkewitz 2003; Rose1990), not in an evangelical sense but ontologically in terms of governing the reasonof the individual to ensure self-regulatory behaviour.

Further information, however, was also forthcoming through the notion of mis-recognition (Hunter 1998). Examination of this notion has produced understandingthat the Sunnyvale parent group both read and did not read the invitation to engage inchoice. Additionally, the parents of Sunnyvale understood the ‘failure’ of their appli-cation as failure of the government to fulfil a promise causing conflict, dissatisfactionand cynicism (Ball 1990, 1994; Riley 1992). However, as governments want parentsto engage in the schooling of their children, at the moment, even to the point ofmanagement, then it is insufficient to suggest that systemic conspiracy is at play. Theidentification of this mis-recognition in the Sunnyvale case highlights it as more likelythan systemic conspiracy.

It was not intended that the Sunnyvale case study would eventually provide a‘truthful’ explanation for what occurred for the Sunnyvale community in 1997 or itseffects on contemporary parent/school relationships. Rather, this case study sought tomap discursive shifts in education and schooling that constituted a ‘failure’ of intent.Neither was it intended to blame particular individuals, groups or institutions or toadvocate for others, for to do so implies that particular individuals or groups hold‘truthful explanations’ within their experience. Rather, in this study, the challengewas to explore the conditions of possibility in 1997, which allowed for the productionof one comprehensive story as an explanation to this particular event. This story couldthen be used to inform other more general policy issues relating to parent/school rela-tionships – as a lens for viewing events and their impacts on parents, children andschools in contemporary contexts.

Inducing parent fatigue

If, as has been argued in this study, parent engagement in schooling is becomingmore necessary but treacherous, then a notion such as parent fatigue becomes animportant factor for research consideration. Increased responsibilisation and peda-gogicalisation of individuals such as parents ensures that issues of propriety becomemore prominent. Thus, it is likely that the ‘bar has been raised’ in relation to the cate-gory of ‘proper parent’ within social and systemic practices and, possibly, by parentsthemselves.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 573

While there has been extensive research in the area of parent engagement inschooling (Ball and Vincent 2001; Coldron and Bolton 1999; David 1998; Todd andHiggins 1998; Vincent 1996, 2000, 2001; Vincent and Martin 2000), particularly inrelation to social class, notions of fatigue have not yet gained prominence. Fatigue andanxiety will affect performance and so, while increased performance may be required,fatigue and anxiety may actually work to lessen such performance, thereby ensuringmore resistance and confusion by parents, with respect to roles in the engagementprocess. ‘Effective’ or aligned engagement then may not result from increased expec-tations and responsibilisation of parents – in fact, the reverse could well be true. Thus,aspects of parent engagement in the schooling process, critical to its success, could beundermined.

Conclusion

This study has been underpinned by the notion that there are multiple ways of gener-ating accounts of social and systemic practice. The main aims of the work were toinvestigate the failure of Sunnyvale College as a new schooling initiative in Queen-sland in 1997 and to use that investigation to re-theorise parent/school engagement incontemporary Queensland. The Sunnyvale investigation was undertaken as a casestudy analysed using a genealogical approach. This particular analytic approachallowed for an examination of previously disqualified or marginalised perspectives,highlighting such understandings as integral to the story. Consequently, the approachenabled an argument that multiple perspectives are in play and, thus, multiple truthsare possible.

The Sunnyvale investigation also made possible theory-building around the nego-tiation of the parent/school/community nexus. This theory-building opened up newpossibilities to how history might be conceptualised, and enabled new ways of ‘think-ing’ parent/school relationships. The findings in the study indicate that the increasedlevels of performance and accountability that had been substantially researched in rela-tion to teachers, also apply to parents. Notions such as parent fatigue and anxiety andengagement-as-resistance were presented as consequences of increased performativity,enabling new epistemological understanding relating to the parent/school/communitynexus to be possible.

Notes1. Miriam David’s (1998, 256) early work in the United Kingdom has cited the centrality and

‘critical importance of home school relations’ as integral to educational policy in thiscountry for at least 30 years.

2. Planning approval was the precursor to any school obtaining non-state school status inQueensland in 1997, immediately following the introduction of the States Grants [Primaryand Secondary Assistance] Bill, 1996 (Australia, Parliament 1996).

3. The researcher was for an extended period of time an active member of parent groupswithin the school.

4. Six years as President of the Parents & Citizens Association gave the researcher access tostrongly held opinion in that association, as well as that of the principal and other staff.

5. An example of this is the school’s participation in the ‘Tournament of Minds’ competition,where up to 20 teams from the school participated, which, at that time, was a record for thiscompetition.

6. This amount was raised each year, over a period of three to four years during this time, asthe P&C were adamant that this was a way to balance the budget and maintain thestandards set at the school.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

574 K. Macfarlane

7. The researcher, as bricoleur, utilises whatever resources – cultural objects, signs, texts,practices, theoretical perspectives – that are available in addressing the task at hand(Levi-Strauss 1966).

8. To ensure rigour when using bricolage it is important to endeavour to seek epistemologicalcoherence when choosing literature to justify arguments. In this case, Ball’s work onperformativity and propriety, Rose’s work on responsibilisation and ethical citizenry andPopkewitz’s work on pedagogicalisation have been chosen in order to seek coherence withthe work of Foucault and Bourdieu. The author acknowledges that other important texts areavailable; however, those chosen represent the most suitable applications in this case.

9. Using the analogy of a game of social and systemic practice to unpack the Sunnyvale caseallowed the case to be used as a generalisable vehicle. While some aspects of the study areonly applicable to this special case in Queensland, the game analogy situates rules, playersand referees as general rather than specific participants.

10. Activities that the Sunnyvale parents engaged in included public meetings to present theirpoint of view of the application failure as a conspiracy, parents and children picketingEducation Queensland offices in the city, the parents and citizens association of the primaryschool writing letters of complaint to Education Queensland implying conspiratorialintervention, and television and radio appearances to present their case.

11. Additionally, the Principal of Sunnyvale State School was vocal in his opposition toEducation Queensland policy in similar public forums.

12. In fact, the parents who were part of the Sunnyvale Steering Committee were all middle-class professionals. However, their ideas about schooling worked against them to such apoint that their own cultural and economic capital was insufficient to overcome obstaclesto their goals for their children in this instance. Such a notion both builds on and contradictsReay, David, and Ball (2001), who argue that habitus confines possibilities. The Sunnyvalegroup, although essentially middle class, shared understandings and dispositions that wereproduced in an era that privileged child-centred approaches and practices. These notionsmarginalised these parents in the 1990s, where school performance and market forces wereof greater importance than the interests of the child.

ReferencesAlthusser, L. 1971. Ideology and the ideological state apparatuses. In Lenin and philosophy

and other essays, ed. L. Althusser, 127–89. New York: Monthly Review Press.Australia, Parliament. 1996. States Grants (Primary and Secondary Assistance) Bill, 1996.

Canberra: Department of Employment, Education Training and Youth Affairs.Ball, S.J. 1990. Politics and policy-making in education: Explorations in policy sociology.

London: Routledge.Ball, S.J. 1994. Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham:

Open University Press.Ball, S.J. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Educational

Policy 18, no. 2: 215–28.Ball, S.J. 2004. Performativity, privatisation and the post-welfare state. Finnish Journal of

Education 35, no. 1: 6–20.Ball, S.J., and C. Vincent. 2001. New class relations in education: The strategies of the ‘fear-

ful’ middle classes. In Sociology of education today, ed. J. Demaine, 180–95. Basing-stoke, UK: Palgrave Press.

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Bourdieu, P. 2001. The forms of capital. In The sociology of economic life, ed. M. Granovetterand R. Swedberg, 96–111. 2nd ed. Oxford: Westview Press.

Coldron, J., and P. Bolton. 1999. A case study of parents’ educational practice. InternationalStudies in Sociology of Education 9, no. 1: 77–93.

Cranston, N., J. Dwyer, and B. Limerick. 2000. Making a difference: School and communitypractices. In Practising education: Social and cultural perspectives, ed. D. Meadmore, G.Tait, and B. Burnett, 99–113. NSW: Prentice Hall.

David, M. 1998. Home–school relations or families, parents and education. British Journal ofSociology of Education 19, no. 2: 255–61.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

British Journal of Sociology of Education 575

Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2003. The discipline and practice of qualitative research. InHandbook of qualitative research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 1–45. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Education. 1990. Focus on schools. Brisbane: Queensland Department ofEducation.

Department of Education. 1997. Leading schools, partnerships for excellence: The pilotprogram. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education.

Department of Education, Science and Training. 2004. Taking schools to the next level: Thenational education framework for schools. Australian Government, Department of Educa-tion, Science and Training. http://nefs.dest.gov.au/values.htm (accessed May 15, 2004).

Dullroy, J. 2003. State P&C chief aims to add voice to national debate. Courier Mail, August28, p. 10.

Education Queensland. 1999. Queensland State Education 2010 document. Brisbane:Queensland Government.

Foucault, M. 1978. Governmentality. In The Foucault effect, ed. G. Burchell, C. Gordon, andP. Miller, 87–104, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Foucault, M. 1980. Truth and power. In Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and otherwritings, 1972–77, ed. C. Gordon, 109–33. New York: Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. 1981. Questions of method: An interview with Michel Foucault. Ideology andconsciousness 8: 3–14.

Foucault, M. 1983. On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In MichelFoucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics, ed. H. Dreyfus, and P. Rabinow,229–52. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Foucault, M. 1984a. Nietzsche, genealogy and history. In The Foucault reader, ed. P.Rabinow, 76–100. London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1984b. The ethics of the concern of the self as a practice of freedom. In MichelFoucault, ethics: Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 volume 1, ed. P. Rabinow,281–301. London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1984c. Technologies of the self. In Michel Foucault, ethics: Essential works ofFoucault 1954–1984 volume 1, ed. P. Rabinow, 223–51. London: Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1984d. Polemics, politics and problematisations. In Michel Foucault, ethics:Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984 volume 1, ed. P. Rabinow, 111–19. London:Penguin.

Foucault, M. 1985. The use of pleasure: Volume 2 of the history of sexuality. New York:Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. 1991. The politics and the study of discourse. In The Foucault effect, ed. G.Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller, 53–72. London: Wheatsheaf.

Fraser, N. 1989. Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary socialtheory. Cambridge: Polity.

Gewirtz, S., S.J., Ball, and R. Bowe. 1995. Markets, choice and equality. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press.

Hunter, I. 1998. Uncivil society: Liberal government and the deconfessionalisation of politics.In Governing Australia: Studies in contemporary rationalities of government, ed. M.Dean and B. Hindess, 242–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Johnston, K. 1981. Ambiguities in the school and community debate: An analysis of thepast, a new hope for the future. New Directions in School and Community Studies 2:73–90.

Karmel, P., Chair. 1973. Schools in Australia; Report of the Interim Committee of the Austra-lian Schools Commission (Karmel Report). Canberra: Australian Government PublishingService.

Kemp, D. 1991. Fightback! It’s your Australia!: Supplementary paper no. 4, world classschools, universities and training. Canberra: Liberal Party of Australia.

Kirner, J. 1976. Parents and the curriculum. The Educational Magazine 33, no. 3: 81–4.Levi-Strauss, C. 1966. The savage mind. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Lingard, R., and F. Rivzi. 1992. Theorising ambiguities of devolution. Discourse 13, no. 1,

111–23.Lunn, H. 1984. Johannes Bjelke-Petersen: A political biography. St. Lucia, Queensland:

University of Queensland Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4

576 K. Macfarlane

Macfarlane, K. 2006. An analysis of parental engagement in contemporary Queenslandschooling. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology.

Macfarlane, K. 2008. Playing the game: Examining parental engagement in schooling in post-millennial Queensland. Journal of Education Policy 23, no. 6: 701–14.

Marginson, S. 1996. Marketisation in Australian schooling. Oxford Studies in ComparativeEducation 6, no. 1: 111–27.

Marginson, S. 1997. Markets in education. St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Meadmore, P. 2000. Managing state education: Devolving practices. In Practising education:

Social and cultural perspectives, ed. D. Meadmore, G. Tait, and B. Burnett, 85–97.Riverwood, NSW: Prentice Hall.

Nine Network. 2004. Sixty minutes. ‘Electoral debate’ featuring the Honourable John Howard,Prime Minister, 12 September, with reporter Ray Martin.

Norrie, J., and L. Doherty. 2005. Plea for parents to run schools. The Age, September 29, p. 1.O’Chee, A. 1997. Award winning school in rally for higher education. Courier Mail, October

31, p. 10.Popkewitz, T. 2003. Governing the child and the pedagogicalisation of the parent: A historical

excursus into the present. In Governing children, families and education: Restructuringthe welfare state, ed. M. Bloch, K. Holmund, I. Moqvist, and T. Popkewitz, 35–61. NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.

Queensland Council of Parents’ and Citizens’ Association. 1997. School Talk magazine, 50thAnniversary, 1947–1997. Kelvin Grove, Brisbane, Queensland.

Reay, D., M. David, and S. Ball. 2001. Making a difference: Institutional habituses and highereducation choice. Sociological Research Online 5, no. 4. http://www.socres online.org.uk/5/4/reay.html.

Riley, M. 1992. If it looks like manure … Phi Delta Kappan 74, no. 3: 239–41.Rose, N. 1990. Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Routledge.Rose, N. 1999. Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Rose, N. 2000. Community, citizenship and the third way. American Behavioural Scientist 43,

no. 9: 1395–411.Stake, R. 1998. Case studies. In Strategies in qualitative inquiry, ed. N. Denzin and Y.

Lincoln, 86–109. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Todd, E.S., and S. Higgins. 1998. Powerlessness in professional and parent partnerships.

British Journal of Sociology of Education 19, no. 2: 227–37.Vincent, C. 1996. Parents and teachers: Power and participation. London: Falmer Press.Vincent, C. 2000. Including parents?: Education, citizenship and parental agency. Philadelphia:

Open University Press.Vincent, C. 2001. Social class and parental agency. Journal of Education Policy 16, no. 4:

347–64.Vincent, C., and J. Martin. 2000 School-based parents’ groups – A politics of voice and

representation? Journal of Education Policy 15, no. 5: 459–80.Weinstein, D., and M.A. Weinstein. 1991. Georg Simmel: Sociological flaneur bricoleur.

Theory, Culture and Society 8, 151–68.Yin, R.K. 1994. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

DU

T L

ibra

ry]

at 1

1:33

06

Oct

ober

201

4